What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[semente]

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, completely false.

Loudspeakers generate polar patterns that create frequency dependent reflections from every angle possible.

 

But do they all reach our ears at the same time? 

[AJ Soundfield]

Who claimed they did?

[STC]

59 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, completely false.

Loudspeakers generate polar patterns that create frequency dependent reflections from every angle possible.

 

But unlike live performance loudspeakers are located at those  locations or there about. So whatever reflection reaches your ears are coming from sound originated from there. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Yet crosstalk from speakers with conventional stereo recordings is part and parcel to how stereo playback works.  The spacing between your ears helps create a time delay-like level difference proportional to the resulting level of sound from both speakers.  If you remove that some center images become vague. 

 

 

 

Crosstalk is the unintended flaw of stereo. 

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

But unlike live performance loudspeakers are located at those  locations or there about. So whatever reflection reaches your ears are coming from sound originated from there. 

I've posted the links numerous time explaining in specific details, the limitations of stereophonic vs real soundfields

[STC]

7 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I've posted the links numerous time explaining in specific details, the limitations of stereophonic vs real soundfields

 

Ralph too presented AES papers about that. Can you post the links again?

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Ralph too presented AES papers about that. Can you post the links again?

Who is Ralph?

 

See if this works https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32061-in-search-of-accurate-sound-reproduction-the-final-word/?page=6#comment-676344

[fas42]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 

The purpose of the video is to show how to use convolution to enhance the music and never meant to represent the actual sound in my room. Listen again to another new Youtube of the same song without convolution. Can you guess what changes I have made.

 

@ Semente, I have added a Sonata for Violin and Piano. For this I have added convolution. 

 

Okay, this is where I come from a completely different angle. Number one priority is for the 'tone' to be right - every sound has to sound like what it would be in the flesh - and then my brain does the rest; you might say the convolution is happening in my mind.

 

Just playing with the sound, within getting it totally accurate first, will never work for me - if the sound's 'right' then I can wind up the volume to any level of intensity, and it always gives me a satisfying kick.

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I've posted the links numerous time explaining in specific details, the limitations of stereophonic vs real soundfields

 

Where this explanation doesn't fly is that the brain is more adaptive, clever than given credit for by the audio crowd. You see, I can hear the tricks being played by all the speaker and room fiddling efforts on ordinary playback, as everyone else does, which then fall apart when you move out of the "sweet spot" - but when you push playback quality to a higher level then those speaker and room tricks are no longer needed; the brain does it all for you, totally unconsciously - it has enough material from the better integrity of the soundfield to work out what it's supposed to mean, and the illusion falls into place - in fact, it's impossible to make the illusion evaporate.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, semente said:

Has any of you read Linkwitz' thoughts on loudspeakers and domestic reproduction?

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm

 

A few clippings which I concur with:

 

• ...

 

He doesn't think too much about the Toole conducted double-blind listening tests either...as I had mentioned before, they are about "taste" not accuracy.

 

Yes, I'm impressed by the progress being made by Linkwitz recently - he's starting to "get" it. In particular, he's getting quite excited by the potential being shown by his latest hardware changes - he's on the road to "invisible speakers" in the sense that I talk about it.

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Where this explanation doesn't fly

Frank, what I listed is physical reality AES et al science, not someones daydream fantasies expressed in recursive looping flowery prose "reality".

The last link isn't an "explanation", it's a demo of all the physical reality facts presented in the papers, something you have zero of either

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Frank, what I listed is physical reality AES et al science, not someones daydream fantasies expressed in recursive looping flowery prose "reality".

The last link isn't an "explanation", it's a demo of all the physical reality facts presented in the papers, something you have zero of either

 

AJ, I don't wish to irritate the people here with another round with you - suffice it to say that the AES mob don't have full understanding of what's going on, irrespective of their credentials and the number of papers they push out ...

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

But unlike live performance loudspeakers are located at those  locations or there about. So whatever reflection reaches your ears are coming from sound originated from there. 

Speaking of convolution  should be possible at least in principle to deliver to the ear, the same phase & amplitude i.e. sound, that is delivered live -- at least for a fixed head position -- or with sensors the convolution could be adjusted in realtime  This approach will see increased use now that high powered CPU/GPU are becoming ubiquitous.  

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

AJ, I don't wish to irritate the people here with another round with you - suffice it to say that the AES mob don't have full understanding of what's going on, irrespective of their credentials and the number of papers they push out ...

Oh please there is no unitary AES mob -- they are individuals & groups each with their own understanding -- are you at least a member?

[STC]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Who is Ralph?

 

See if this works https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32061-in-search-of-accurate-sound-reproduction-the-final-word/?page=6#comment-676344

 

So what is the contradiction? The AES paper is saying the same thing ( I have not read the full paper yet). Didn't look at the other links. 

 

The information presented by the two channels, in either case, is a small fraction of the information in the original sound field. Additionally, this fraction is presented to the front of the listener. The presentation does not create an envelopment experience, where one is immersed in the original sound field, as the information is not present. While some processors mimic the effect, such effects are not based on the actual venue but rather on some hypothetical model of a venue.

 

Ralph is Ralph Glasgal. The same Glasgal shown here. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgal_Island

[fas42]

Just now, jabbr said:

Oh please there is no unitary AES mob -- they are individuals & groups each with their own understanding -- are you at least a member?

 

Fair enough - but there is a general attitude, which comes through strongly in the literature, that "all the important stuff is now known".

 

No, I'm not a member - I see no value in such, in part because when a member puts forth interesting conjectures as to what might worth investigating, a deafening silence then follows ...

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

suffice it to say that the AES mob don't have full understanding of what's going on

Regarding audio they do Frank. Mental heath issues are an entirely different field.

They know whats going on to this point of demonstration of physical reality soundfields http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

 

That is not someone repeating self fantasies purely going on inside their own head, that can't and never will be demonstrated "outside the head"

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Fair enough - but there is a general attitude, which comes through strongly in the literature, that "all the important stuff is now known".

 

No, I'm not a member - I see no value in such, in part because when a member puts forth interesting conjectures as to what might worth investigating, a deafening silence then follows ...

I'm a member purely so I can read the journal  I'm not interested in suggesting to researchers what they ought do -- it's fine to kick around ideas here at the pub  

[fas42]

A

5 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Regarding audio they do Frank. Mental heath issues are an entirely different field.

They know whats going on to this point of demonstration of physical reality soundfields http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

 

That is not someone repeating self fantasies purely going on inside their own head, that can't and never will be demonstrated "outside the head"

 

AJ, this is old material, I've commented on this before ... this is an example where the speaker and room tricks are pushed to a very high level, and the amount of amplifier power is perfectly adequate to do the job - it's part of the "all roads lead to Rome" scenario.

 

Yes, it would deliver what I talk about - but it just one of a number of methods that can make it happen.

[AJ Soundfield]

25 minutes ago, STC said:

 

So what is the contradiction?

None. It appears I misread what he said. Rereading, I know think he means the source of the generated reflections, in a 60 degree setup, are at 30 degrees (source azimuth, rather than the reflections themselves)

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

this is an example where the speaker and room tricks are pushed to a very high level

Making it 100% clear you have zero idea of how it works or what's going on.

 

Where is your similar demo "outside the head" Frank? Exactly.

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

No, I'm not a member

See above

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Making it 100% clear you have zero idea of how it works or what's going on.

 

Where is your similar demo "outside the head" Frank? Exactly.

 

AJ, what's going on in the subjective sense is exactly what the visitor says here,

 

Quote

Then Johnston cued up one of the recordings he had made when we were all out in Northfield, MN recording Cantus a few months ago and I gasped. Not only was this the best sounding recording he'd played us, it had details out the wazoo. In two-channel, it sounded pretty good -- the singers were spread between the speakers and I could clearly hear the hall. But in multichannel mode, I was in the acoustic and I could hear how the singers were arrayed in a semicircle across the stage. I could hear the acoustic "sail" above the stage bouncing the sound back down at us. There was a part of my reptile brain that actually wanted to escape. This was heavy mojo.

 

His brain was being fed enough, and the right sort of information so that his mind totally got what was happening in the musical event - he "was there" - yes, that's what happens when "playback is good enough".

 

You're still not groking that this can happen by various means - in my case, that the amount of low level distortion is sufficiently reduced, when playback is simple two channel.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

AJ, what's going on in the subjective sense is..

..all you know. You have zero clue as to how this was achieved, because it's all science and physical facts, not pure fantasy. Therefore, there are AES papers, full documentation, all on the foundations of 200 years of scientific research (linked previous), something you know zero about and thus cannot reference with anything you claim.

That's the difference Frank. There is zero in common that room and the room you can't show, regardless of excuses.

We're done here.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

..all you know. You have zero clue as to how this was achieved, because it's all science and physical facts, not pure fantasy. Therefore, there are AES papers, full documentation, all on the foundations of 200 years of scientific research (linked previous), something you know zero about and thus cannot reference with anything you claim.

That's the difference Frank. There is zero in common that room and the room you can't show, regardless of excuses.

We're done here.

 

... and here we have AJ in full roar ...