Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Well, if this type of phase shift is inaudible, then it's more like a gorilla that's literally invisible unless you wear some special high tech goggles.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Phase shift
- Thread starter maty
- Start date
Well, if this type of phase shift is inaudible, then it's more like a gorilla that's literally invisible unless you wear some special high tech goggles.
When told what to watch for, you will see the gorilla. Tell me what to listen for to hear a phase shift in harmonics.
The burden of proof lies on the one claiming his 'blameless' system is somehow audibly better than one that has a phase shift in the harmonics.
I still would like to know the audible threshold of phase shift at different frequencies. I do believe I’ve seen it here, but I suspect it varies with frequency.
Who on earth cares about a few degrees phase shift well above 20khz? It is rolled off at the transducer and totally inaudible in amplitude, even if it were not well beyond human frequency perception. Are you saying my neighborhood bats won’t get a perfect stereo image?
Who on earth cares about a few degrees phase shift well above 20khz? It is rolled off at the transducer and totally inaudible in amplitude, even if it were not well beyond human frequency perception. Are you saying my neighborhood bats won’t get a perfect stereo image?
OP
maty
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #24
Until 180 - 200 Hz the human ear is less sensitive to distortion and phase variation. That is why many class D amps specify power at 1% and 10% THD, to be used for the subwoofer or woofer, not for the tweeter.
The criterion, whatever it may be, must be the same regardless of technology or design.
The criterion, whatever it may be, must be the same regardless of technology or design.
Last edited:
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Sure, but so far you've only stated your personal criterion. Not very usefull.
People here argue that since the effect is inaudible, the universal criterion can be set so low that it becomes discardable.
People here argue that since the effect is inaudible, the universal criterion can be set so low that it becomes discardable.
OP
maty
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #26
https://www.google.com/search?q=amplifier+how+much+phase+shift+20+khz
-> https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/audio-myth-1/#lightbox/1/
Ctrl+F: phase shift "18 results"
-> https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/audio-myth-1/#lightbox/1/
Ctrl+F: phase shift "18 results"
Which assumes that everything about music, sound, signals can be described in words. If so, why listen to music and not just read a description of it?
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
PS Audio... seriously? No offence to Paul McGowan, but judging from what I've seen so far, hell freezes over before he makes a statement that isn't aimed at pushing snake oil.
What makes this article more trustworthy than anything else?
How does getting hits on Google prove anything?
I thought that since you hadn't started talking about EMOTION yet, you'd be open to sane arguments. Guess I was wrong
Nice straw man. Not biting.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
I don't quite understand the point of the discussion. So phase shift is not audible under most circumstances and, acoustically, a linear phase playback system is utterly wrecked with reflections at the listener position. From the perspective of amplifier design, flat phase response at the output shows technical mastery and a great achievement. Particularly the DIY effort of the designer @maty posted. It's important not to overstate the audibility, sure, but it's also important to consider that phase shift is cumulative throughout the playback chain and even if, with a single component, there is no worry, it makes sense in a more complex chain.
You may hide behind that, but you really have implied (required) that everything in audio and music can be described and communicated in words - "Tell me what to listen for". Can you demonstrate it is true?
No, I haven't.
As an example, "Listen to sounds with a lot of non-harmonic high frequencies" doesn't describe the sound itself in any way. It only provides instructions to the listener.
You have. You've said that although a viewer doesn't notice a man in a gorilla suit, he will when told to look for it. This pre-supposes two things:
(a) The thing to be looked out for can be described in words
(b) Someone has already spotted the gorilla and can tell you to look out for it.
Neither thing may be true.
And wouldn't it be disappointing if they were?
No, I haven't.
No, it doesn't. Here is an old Zen koan for you: "The finger that points to the moon is not the moon. "
You might not be able to describe he thing to be looked out for in words, but often you (the general "you") can describe how to look.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
I'm one of those people who believe that math can describe quite literally anything.
I'm no expert, but in this case the math seems to point at inaudibility. If, on the other hand, it pointed at something audible, it would also give hints at what to listen for. It wouldn't be beyond words.
If it's truly beyond words, then it's supernatural, which means it doesn't exist and that it's a waste of time to be talking about it.
I'm no expert, but in this case the math seems to point at inaudibility. If, on the other hand, it pointed at something audible, it would also give hints at what to listen for. It wouldn't be beyond words.
If it's truly beyond words, then it's supernatural, which means it doesn't exist and that it's a waste of time to be talking about it.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
He actually didn't. Read it again in the original context.
He said it as a clarification of your previous statement/question. His own arguement was completely opposite that.
Without saying anything I show you a film of a beautiful landscape with a swarm of 100 birds wheeling overhead. Then I show you the same film but with three of the birds removed. Will you notice the difference? Highly unlikely.
I tell you to look at the birds. Will you notice the difference now?
Possibly. But even if told to, you still may not see the difference. Does this mean that the difference is not visible? No, because it may be clearly visible if you know exactly where to look.
But even if the difference is never consciously visible, there is, nevertheless a difference: in one scene we have some 'magnificence' derived from the sheer mass of birds and the complexity of their movement. In the next, we have only 97% of that 'magnificence'. You can't put it into words, and you can't see it consciously, but one scene is less 'magnificent' than the other. If we carry on removing birds you will, at some point be able to discern the difference, but long before that point you were being short changed but couldn't put your finger on it.
I tell you to look at the birds. Will you notice the difference now?
Possibly. But even if told to, you still may not see the difference. Does this mean that the difference is not visible? No, because it may be clearly visible if you know exactly where to look.
But even if the difference is never consciously visible, there is, nevertheless a difference: in one scene we have some 'magnificence' derived from the sheer mass of birds and the complexity of their movement. In the next, we have only 97% of that 'magnificence'. You can't put it into words, and you can't see it consciously, but one scene is less 'magnificent' than the other. If we carry on removing birds you will, at some point be able to discern the difference, but long before that point you were being short changed but couldn't put your finger on it.