step response is a important part to show speed of speaker that is good enough for ITD. See measures

[dominikz]

I mean the step response of JBL 305 look near same between the room measure and the anechic measure and . the bass frequency of your room measure that reach microphone is much lower as your anechoic measure. so i come to conclusion your screesnhots confirm too that influence of the frequency is not much.

I'm sad to say you're unfortunately making the wrong conclusion here. The frequency response has everything to do with how the step response looks - it is just that reflections impact how the frequency response looks as well, and you should learn to understand how to separate which is which.

what db /octave the JBL 305 use ?. the kali use 48 db/ octave it looks. this slowdown step response too. maybe should ignore the decay time and only look at the raise time. the raise rime is much slower as from your JBL 305. the few hz higher crossover does not explain this large slowerdown

Are you sure about this?
As per the manufacturer specification, JBL LSR305 uses a LR4 (24dB/oct) low-pass filter at 1725Hz. If your Kali really uses 48dB/oct filter slope at the specified 1500Hz crossover frequency lets see now how that looks in time and frequency domains. To simulate this I used both types of low-pass filters to band-filter the ideal impulse response (high-pass in both cases is set at 47Hz):

Of course that both the low-pass filter frequency and slope determine the shape of the step response - the steeper the slope and lower the filter's frequency, the more high frequencies are removed. And the more high frequencies are removed, the longer the 'rise time' of the step response.
So completely in line with my previous posts, see e.g.:

which should tell you that the low/high frequency extension (and respective slopes) of a loudspeaker driver define the bulk of the basic shape of the corresponding step response, including its 'rise time' and 'decay time' (or its "speed", as you like to say).

And:

Notice how, the more high frequencies you take away with a low-pass filter, the more time it takes for the step to reach full amplitude (and also there is more ringing before it stabilizes).

I think there's really not much more I can add to this discussion at this point - but I do hope you will revisit the information provided and find it useful as you continue your investigation into audio science.

Ok, than explain. I realy dont like if people tell, i know and he is stupid.
Explain man, if you not see it the same way. Explain where he is wrong?

Explanations provided.

 

[dominikz]

In your other measure of a revel i ask for step response of it. because it have a 6.5 inch woofer /mid. this can better compare with kali

Here you go:

Regardless of the fact that both Kali LP-6 and Revel M16 both use a 6,5" diameter woofer there are significant differences in frequency extension and slope between these two loudspeakers, manufacturer's specs say:

Revel M16:

• Crossover Frequency: 2100 Hz
• Low Frequency Extension (-10 dB): 45 Hz
• Low Frequency Extension (-3 dB): 55 Hz

Kali LP-6:

• Crossover Frequency: 1500 Hz
• Low Frequency Extension (-10 dB): 39 Hz
• Low Frequency Extension (-3 dB): 47 Hz

On-axis anechoic frequency response comparison (source):

 

[dominikz]

EDIT: i have add the REW measure file to kali loopback zip and jbl 104 so you can overlay the kali or jbl 104 stepresponse with your JBL or your other speakers.

Here's the plot of my Revel M16 compared to your Kali LP-2:

Note that your measurement seems to be tainted by a lot of early reflections so is not really an ideal source to compare in this way.
However, it seems the basic differences in shape correspond to the difference in crossover frequency/slope and low frequency extension specified in my previous post. I.e. the fact that M16 goes lower (due to slow bass roll-off) means the step response 'decay' is longer vs Kali, and the fact it has a higher crossover frequency (and being passive certainly lower slope) means that its step response 'rise time' is shorter (faster? ) vs Kali - and regardless of the fact that it is also a 6,5" woofer.

Hope that you see that this all completely in line with everything else I've shown so far.

 

[bennybbbx]

I'm sad to say you're unfortunately making the wrong conclusion here. The frequency response has everything to do with how the step response looks - it is just that reflections impact how the frequency response looks as well, and you should learn to understand how to separate which is which.

in this measure you can see the kali 1.5 cm measure without smoothing. you see from 1.5 khz to 2.1 it fall very fast as 48 db/oct. or what do you think what filter it is ?.

if the driver is slow or the LP filter is slow or do too much phase changes nothing change on the fact that the kali sound worse in stereo what i hear . I have speakerrecords do of speakers. did you hear ITD and hear that they sound diffrent in stereo width also on headphones ?

Test Kali LP6 with step response and audio record example

The LP6 have a 6,5 inch speaker. the step resonse show it is very slow and i hear before i notice that it is the step response that transient sound worse and muddy and it have less stereo width. But test with other peoples show that there are people that did not hear less or more stereo width...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Test presonus Eris 3.5 with step response and audio record examples

it have a 3,5 inch small bass and mid so step response is very good and i hear lots more realistic stereo wide as on Kali 6.5 . It have a hifi FR with the hifi magic gap at 300- 700 hz. the gap at 10 khz have both speakers so it seem not a defect of the speaker or wrong measure. I verify many...

www.audiosciencereview.com

there can see in this post the step response of same FR but linear phase and minimum phase. the step response in linear phase have smaller time at 90% or higher. look much diffrent but FR is same wy ?.

step response is a important part to show speed of speaker that is good enough for ITD. See measures

when the reason for good stereo wide is not a fast step response, what reason do you think it is and with which measure value can see a good stereo width. what do you think ? You can correct the step response of a speaker with DSP (phase-correction of the input signal) so that is is perfect...

www.audiosciencereview.com

and in this post

you can see much EQ change in the bass but the decay time does not change much. so influence of FR is not so much

step response is a important part to show speed of speaker that is good enough for ITD. See measures

when the reason for good stereo wide is not a fast step response, what reason do you think it is and with which measure value can see a good stereo width. what do you think ? You can correct the step response of a speaker with DSP (phase-correction of the input signal) so that is is perfect...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[bennybbbx]

Here's the plot of my Revel M16 compared to your Kali LP-2:
View attachment 170474
Note that your measurement seems to be tainted by a lot of early reflections so is not really an ideal source to compare in this way.
However, it seems the basic differences in shape correspond to the difference in crossover frequency/slope and low frequency extension specified in my previous post. I.e. the fact that M16 goes lower (due to slow bass roll-off) means the step response 'decay' is longer vs Kali, and the fact it has a higher crossover frequency (and being passive certainly lower slope) means that its step response 'rise time' is shorter (faster? ) vs Kali - and regardless of the fact that it is also a 6,5" woofer.

Hope that you see that this all completely in line with everything else I've shown so far.

and about this: the revel reach 200 µsec faster the peak of woofer/mid. the decay time of the kali is much faster strange. see my prevous post with link that lots bass boost change not so much. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-itd-see-measures.28585/page-2#post-998308

but to avoid low bass influence just look at the time the step response go from 20% to 100% back to 80%. i think when look at this low freq influence is gone. so step response look usefull or not ?. or do you think a speaker with the woofer 200 microseconds later can sound same good as a speaker that is faster ?

The revel reach the 80% in fall time in around 580 µmsec. my jbl 104 with or without EQ at 600 µsec. so i guess your revel have good stereo image too.

 

[dominikz]

in this measure you can see the kali 1.5 cm measure without smoothing. you see from 1.5 khz to 2.1 it fall very fast as 48 db/oct. or what do you think what filter it is ?.

It might be - seems pretty steep to me as well.

if the driver is slow or the LP filter is slow or do too much phase changes nothing change on the fact that the kali sound worse in stereo what i hear .

It's fine if you don't like these loudspeakers. However how can you be sure that this is because of your 'slow woofer' theory and not because of some well-understood factors such as e.g. 1) loudspeaker-room interactions, 2) Kali's frequency response peculiarities, 3) Kali's specific dispersion pattern, 4) some combination of the three? IMHO you'd need to eliminate all of these first before it even makes sense to look at alternative explanations.

there can see in this post the step response of same FR but linear phase and minimum phase. the step response in linear phase have smaller time at 90% or higher. look much diffrent but FR is same wy ?.

step response is a important part to show speed of speaker that is good enough for ITD. See measures

when the reason for good stereo wide is not a fast step response, what reason do you think it is and with which measure value can see a good stereo width. what do you think ? You can correct the step response of a speaker with DSP (phase-correction of the input signal) so that is is perfect...

www.audiosciencereview.com

and in this post

you can see much EQ change in the bass but the decay time does not change much. so influence of FR is not so much

step response is a important part to show speed of speaker that is good enough for ITD. See measures

when the reason for good stereo wide is not a fast step response, what reason do you think it is and with which measure value can see a good stereo width. what do you think ? You can correct the step response of a speaker with DSP (phase-correction of the input signal) so that is is perfect...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Because you're showing just the magnitude and not magnitude+phase. Note that I've already explained this in post #29:

In short, the step response of any audio device that can be approximated as a linear, time-invariant (LTI) system, which loudspeakers normally are, is completely described by the frequency magnitude (+phase) response.

And in post #32:

If you change the phase-response of the filter the resulting step responses will look different as well - sure. The magnitude vs frequency response in that case may look the same, but the phase vs frequency response will be changed - this is of course predicted by the theory as well. Note that the 'frequency response' of a system means magnitude + phase response vs frequency, not just magnitude.

And in post #43:

Related - notice that in REW you can import a pure impulse response, and based on that REW will display the corresponding frequency (magnitude+phase) response, as well as the step response.
This is another clue that they all show the same data, just presented differently (and the mathematical process that converts between them is called the Fourier transform) As explained before, from knowing the frequency response (magnitude+phase) you can calculate the step or impulse response (and vice-versa). It also means that two identical frequency responses (magnitude+phase) will have an identical step response.

and about this: the revel reach 200 µsec faster the peak of woofer/mid. the decay time of the kali is much faster strange.

It is not strange - it is actually completely expected if you take the time to understand the previous explanations. See post #67 which once more explains exactly this:

I.e. the fact that M16 goes lower (due to slow bass roll-off) means the step response 'decay' is longer vs Kali

The same principle has been explained several times already, in posts #43, #45, #50 and #59.

but to avoid low bass influence just look at the time the step response go from 20% to 100% back to 80%. i think when look at this low freq influence is gone. so step response look usefull or not ?

The 'rise-time' of a step response is determined by the low-pass filter / high frequency content of the driver and *not* by the low frequency extension / slope (which instead controls the 'decay time' of the step response). This has been explained before in posts #29, #32, #43, #59, #61 and #63.
Step responses can of course be useful in certain cases, but it is important to understand that it is just another view of the same data as the frequency (magnitude+phase) response.

or do you think a speaker with the woofer 200 microseconds later can sound same good as a speaker that is faster ?

As shown above and before, that will, among other things, depend on crossover implementation (frequency and filter type) and driver choice. But yes, I do think a loudspeaker with a lower crossover frequency can sound as good as one with a higher crossover frequency, assuming both are engineered well.

The revel reach the 80% in fall time in around 580 µmsec. my jbl 104 with or without EQ at 600 µsec. so i guess your revel have good stereo image too.

IMO it does, but not because of its step response 'rise time'. It seems more likely it is because of 1) reasonably flat listening window response, 2) very good unit-to-unit response matching, and 3) very even and wide dispersion pattern, which then makes use of side-wall reflections to create a wider and more enveloping soundstage.

Writing this response I realized how many times I had to repeat similar explanations, so I'll take that as a signal to abandon this thread. Good luck and I do hope you found the data and explanations useful.

 

[bennybbbx]

It might be - seems pretty steep to me as well.


It's fine if you don't like these loudspeakers. However how can you be sure that this is because of your 'slow woofer' theory and not because of some well-understood factors such as e.g. 1) loudspeaker-room interactions, 2) Kali's frequency response peculiarities, 3) Kali's specific dispersion pattern, 4) some combination of the three? IMHO you'd need to eliminate all of these first before it even makes sense to look at alternative explanations.

Of course i have eleminate this first. I have the kali in near field 1 m, 70 cm away or 50 cm away hear(only mid/woofer at 50 cm). the less stereo width stay same. see measure of JBL 104 and kali. the kali have larger dispersion. I dont notice that dispersion pattern have such a big influence of stereo width and depth of field.

The 'rise-time' of a step response is determined by the low-pass filter / high frequency content of the driver and *not* by the low frequency extension / slope (which instead controls the 'decay time' of the step response). This has been explained before in posts #29, #32, #43, #59, #61 and #63.
Step responses can of course be useful in certain cases, but it is important to understand that it is just another view of the same data as the frequency (magnitude+phase) response.

yes i know. In Fact the speaker driver work too as a HP+Lowpass filter. the LP crossover filter+ driver highpass filtering give the raise time of step response . and a faster speaker is a speaker that have less db/octave Filter and a faster driver. and to see this, a step response is usefull. or wy should buy a speaker with a slow rise time ?.

the phase response is for me not usefull. because many speakers have lots diffrence. I have the iloud mtm this do phase shifts to get better phase. it sound wider as kali of course but the eris 3.5 was a little better and the jbl 104 was even more better. maybe it is because of the 2 woofers the mt have. i did not know.

and wy do you think does a faster LP filter with less phase shift and a faster driver can not sound better when it have faster raise time and decay time to 80 ?

and so the step response can help to find best speakers. so wy step response should not post on a test ?.

is this not real logical ?. I translate from german to english with google translate

A bass / mid driver that manages 5 kHz -3 db takes 200 µsec to reach 70% of the level. if it were faster than 200 µsec, then it would also manage higher frequencies. People who can hear ITD, however, interpret time differences above 20 µsec for the direction of sound and spatial representation of frequencies below about 1.5 khz. 1 khz has a period time for 1 half-wave of 500 µsec.

the left and right speakers output different levels and frequencies in stereo music. it can happen that the level of left channel not change in a time of 1 ms and remains at a peak. the loudspeaker reaches the peak without delay. The right channel has to change its value. this then automatically changes the frequency of the loudspeakers (left right) differently. If you have a full range speaker with a tweeter together or without a tweeter, then it is much faster in the mid range and reaches the levels for the left and right speakers with 3-4 times less delay. Therefore, many people are of the opinion that broadband drivers bring a better stereo image.

In addition, there is the delay of a steep-sided LP filter. Because the left and right channels play with different frequencies, the delay is also shifted between left and right. That's why I think steep-edged LP filters also sound bad. the kali has probably 48 db. Have only BW 24 db LP in the DSP. but already at 500 hz it makes a massive phase shift. Am I calculating correctly? 500 Hz 45 degrees would then be: 500 Hz are 2000 µsec period time / 360 * 45 = 250 µsec. which is too much for good ITD. the JBL 104 only has a 6 db filter. with coax systems this works better with flat LP filters

the left and right channel on stereo signals play on same time diffrent frequency. there is a free VST plugin wave observer light. this can freeze and show left and right channel as overlay. here can see that left and right have diffrent peak and valley positions this result in diffrent frequency. and diffrent frequency give on much db /octave filters lots of phase shift between channels. i notice 24 db filters sound bad in stereo width

very even and wide dispersion pattern, which then makes use of side-wall reflections to create a wider and more enveloping soundstage.

this is maybe true when the speakers are in a concert room or concert hall that sound good. but when speakers put in a a living room(10- 30 qm) reverb sound not good. I hear nearfield 50 cm away my JBL and 80 cm distance between left and right. and it sound wide the kali not. and that a magnapan dipol sound wide fit also in my theory. they sound wide because they have electrostatic and fast Mid system.

have you hear the audio examples of the speakers ?. correct is that you hear 2 guitars 1 left 1 right that come out of speaker. i

If you think the guitars are more in mid as the left and right position of the speaker, then this is worser stereo widt. do you really think a speaker with wider disperson the guitars then hear magically at correct position

and also notice. I talk about good sounding speakers when hear around 70 db volume. when speakers make very loud then of course the kali can sound better. but it is not good for ears.

 

[markus]

Of course i have eleminate this first. I have the kali in near field 1 m, 70 cm away or 50 cm away hear(only mid/woofer at 50 cm). the less stereo width stay same. see measure of JBL 104 and kali. the kali have larger dispersion. I dont notice that dispersion pattern have such a big influence of stereo width and depth of field.

Define "stereo width".
In the near field (look up "critical distance") the quality of the stereo image is largely a function of how good speakers match in frequency and phase response. You can even change stereo perception by simply changing the magnitude response of both stereo channels in the same way. Masking effects contribute to this. Try it using an EQ.

Have you tried the "Keele barrier"? You'll get 180 degree localization at times but as mentioned before this is a binaural effect.
Or, put on some QSound recordings which exploit binaural effects in a standard stereo configuration.
Also look up "Blumlein Shuffler" which can improve the stereo image quite a bit on certain recordings.
All these examples should make you realize that looking at the step response is of no value in regards to what you're really interested in.

many people are of the opinion that broadband drivers bring a better stereo image.

Define "better stereo image". Some people think that pinpoint localization is better (in the case of a full range driver it's largely the high directivity), some like more spaciousness (strong room reflections from wide dispersion speakers). Both are largely mutually exclusive unless you go multichannel. Then there's also the sensation of envelopment...

 

[tifune]

I dont know what you mean. i put text in german google translate and it output Keine Ahnung, er könnte uns alle bedrängen. now i translate it back to english this is the output I don't know, he could harass us all.

I apologize, it's not fair for me to poke fun if you're not a native English speaker. I was sarcastically implying you are posting incorrect information so that others will reply with correct information, thereby saving you the trouble of researching it yourself.

Hustling = Treiben per Google

but when I flip it back, it converts to 'drive' which is wrong in this context. Probably because it's slang; in my OP it basically means "playing a trick for personal gain"

BTW I am learning a lot in this thread, so please continue

 

[bennybbbx]

Define "stereo width".
In the near field (look up "critical distance") the quality of the stereo image is largely a function of how good speakers match in frequency and phase response.

when i measure phase look always bad. maybe measure software work bad when have not damped room or should try burst measures. see here Amir measure kali in compare to JBL. which have better phase ?. and how much degree is the diffrence ?. I see no phases measure

Kali LP-6 Review: Studio Monitor

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Kali Audio LP-6 powered monitor (speaker). I purchased it for testing I think back in February or March. There has been a lot of requests to test it so I thought I do it before the year is over! The LP-6 costs US $149 on Amazon including Prime...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL One Series 104 Powered Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL 104 Powered Monitor (speaker). I purchased this recently for just US $90 including free shipping from Amazon. JBL shows the list price as US $129. These are hefty, egg-shaped speakers: That's the master speaker that houses the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

have you hear the audio examples in this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...or-itd-see-measures.28585/page-4#post-1001309 post ?. did you hear no diffrence ? there help no stereo enhancer. I record this first left channel then right channel and microphone is on same position and speaker too. this way need only 1 microfone and 1 speaker. In DAW it is then phase exact convert to stereo channel so both play at same time . it is not only the stereo width. reverbs on kali sound very unrealistic. it sound as you hear a concert thru the door and not sit in the room. my first speaker was a magnat systems selfmade 3 way speaker. and this sound as i sit in the room too and can hear the reverb around me same as with a surround rear speaker. surround rear speakers i test but i did not like it. A large 3 way speaker i can not put on desktop in nearfield. so need 2 way speaker. also i sell my selfmade 3 way speaker many years ago

Have you tried the Keele barrier? You'll get 180 degree localization at times but as mentioned before this is a binaural effect.

how should i try that ?

Or, put on some QSound recordings which exploit binaural effects in a standard stereo configuration.
Also look up "Blumlein Shuffler" which can improve the stereo image quite a bit.
All these examples should make you realize that looking at the step response is of no value to what you're really interested in.

all virtual surround stuff sound very bad on kali.

 

[markus]

I apologize, it's not fair for me to poke fun if you're not a native English speaker. I was sarcastically implying you are posting incorrect information so that others will reply with correct information, thereby saving you the trouble of researching it yourself.

Hustling = Treiben per Google

but when I flip it back, it converts to 'drive' which is wrong in this context. Probably because it's slang; in my OP it basically means "playing a trick for personal gain"

BTW I am learning a lot in this thread, so please continue

The German translation would be "verarschen" (negative connotation) or "über's Ohr hauen/veräppeln" (less negative connotation).

 

[markus]

when i measure phase look always bad. maybe measure software work bad when have not damped room or should try burst measures. see here Amir measure kali in compare to JBL. which have better phase ?. and how much degree is the diffrence ?. I see no phases measure

Kali LP-6 Review: Studio Monitor

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Kali Audio LP-6 powered monitor (speaker). I purchased it for testing I think back in February or March. There has been a lot of requests to test it so I thought I do it before the year is over! The LP-6 costs US $149 on Amazon including Prime...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL One Series 104 Powered Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL 104 Powered Monitor (speaker). I purchased this recently for just US $90 including free shipping from Amazon. JBL shows the list price as US $129. These are hefty, egg-shaped speakers: That's the master speaker that houses the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

have you hear the audio examples in this https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...or-itd-see-measures.28585/page-4#post-1001309 post ?. did you hear no diffrence ? there help no stereo enhancer. I record this first left channel then right channel and microphone is on same position and speaker too. in DAW it is then phase exact convert to stereo channel so both play at same time . it is not only the stereo width. reverbs on kali sound very unrealistic. it sound as you hear a concert thru the door and not sit in the room. my first speaker was a magnat systems selfmade 3 way speaker. and this sound as i sit in the room too and can hear the reverb around me same as with a surround rear speaker. surround rear speakers i test but i did not like it. A large 3 way speaker i can not put on desktop in nearfield. so need 2 way speaker. also i sell my selfmade 3 way speaker many years ago




how should i try that ?



all virtual surround stuff sound very bad on kali.

You think that stereo should sound like the real thing? That's not the goal. It can't be. Even the inventor of stereo (Alan Blumlein) knew that.
If you would have taken the time to read though the numerous links and references posted you would know why and also a lot more about the topic in general.

Thinking that you've discovered something in the step response nobody else ever observed over the last 100 years of audio science is "unlikely", to put it mildly. You really need to switch from "output" to "input" as what you're doing right now is a waste of your time.

Good luck on your journey though!

 

[bennybbbx]

You really need to switch from "output" to "input" as what you're doing right now is a waste of your time.

No, it helped me alot to get better sound. that a 19 hz HP filter shift the bassboost phase more to 0 i can clear hear. I always wonder wy the bass have not this clarity as the headphone. now i know. much bassboost when use small speaker reduce clarity too which i can hear. but the good news is a HP of 19 hz enhance clarity. i have blind test and i hear that good. and when i fnd a coaxial 8 inch(because then i need no much Bassboost ) speaker with fast step response measure 20% to 100% to 80% then i can buy it and test. and then can see if i am wrong when this speaker with fast step response sound not wide. but main problem is, here is no step response see

Thinking that you've discovered something in the step response nobody else ever observed over the last 100 years of audio science is "unlikely", to put it mildly.

this is no good argument. who knows if this scientists hear ITD. there is not all known about hearing

From the people who write here, can you get ASMR feelings with transient sounds ?. some people can feel some not
I can feel also on the JBL more , MTM a little, kali nothing. but i like the feeling of music much more and hear no asmr only music on good speakers or sometomes headphones. there is no study how many people that like music can hear ITD or can hear ASMR. I get feeling as i hear real with good speakers also on hifi shop the large speakers.

another point is it is known that many also young people get hear damage or that autism people are more sensitive and hear more. i like music and because i was only 1 time in a concert, never in disco was because it is too loud. over 75 db i do not like, give me no good feelings. So i hear not loud music. when i able to hear loud i maybe have hear damage with 18 too because i hear often music and i make music and have lots fun. and people that study are when they finish over 24. how often they hear loud did not know. In a autism online test need reach 70 points at least to be a autist. i reach 40 points. so i am a few autist but no offical autist.

thats an text about hearing loss and impact on ITD hearing

Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage

Over the last decade, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the physiological role of the cochlea, and the mechanisms of cochlear hearing loss, the most common type of hearing loss in adults. This book is the first book covering this topic and aimed at the student and researcher...

books.google.de

do they mean with this ITD Cells ?. its from 2020.

Loud music puts young people at risk of undetected hearing damage

A part of the inner ear which helps in sound detection functioned less efficiently in people exposed to the highest levels of noise in clubs and concerts.

www.sciencefocus.com

A part of the inner ear which helps in sound detection functioned less efficiently in people exposed to the highest levels of noise in clubs and concerts.

They found hair cells in the cochlea, a spiral-shaped tube in the inner ear which helps in sound detection, functioned less efficiently in people who were exposed to the highest levels of recreational noise from venues such as clubs and concerts.


The scientists also speculate that the damage to hair cells can slow down the sound signals from the hearing nerve to the brain.

Dr Couth said: “Most amplified concerts exceed 100 decibels, meaning that people shouldn’t be exposed to that level of noise for more than 15 minutes without proper hearing protection.”

Hearing loss: early signs of damage in young adults who regularly attend loud clubs and concerts

Exposure to loud noise is the biggest preventable cause of hearing loss.

theconversation.com

Our study showed that all participants had clinically normal hearing as measured by pure-tone audiometry. But those with the highest levels of noise exposure had poorer functioning of the minute hair cells in the inner-ear which are integral to hearing. We also found that people with higher levels of noise exposure had poorer conduction of sound signals from the hearing nerve towards the brain, which could negatively affect how the brain processes sounds.

there can find much more. also that 1/4 of young people have hearing damge can read

Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage

Over the last decade, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the physiological role of the cochlea, and the mechanisms of cochlear hearing loss, the most common type of hearing loss in adults. This book is the first book covering this topic and aimed at the student and researcher...

books.google.de

 

[audio2design]

ITD is a function of the differential arrival time of a given signal between two ears, not the rise time of a single speaker/sound. The auditory system uses about 200-1500 Hz for this, so you are already limited by the rise time of what is possible with a bandwidth of that limitation.

Far more important is consistent timing between two speakers. The response of one speaker for ITD really does not mean much. What you need is for both to behave the same.

Pretty much @bennybbbx , all the extensive analysis you have done here can be thrown out. Always best to understand the problem first, before jumping in and trying to solve it.

 

[markus]

No, it helped me alot to get better sound. that a 19 hz HP filter shift the bassboost phase more to 0 i can clear hear. I always wonder wy the bass have not this clarity as the headphone. now i know. much bassboost when use small speaker reduce clarity too which i can hear. but the good news is a HP of 19 hz enhance clarity. i have blind test and i hear that good. and when i fnd a coaxial 8 inch speaker with fast step response measure 20% to 100% to 80% then i can buy it and test. and then can see if i am wrong when this speaker with fast step response sound not wide. but main problem is, here is no step response see



this is no good argument. who knows if this scientists hear ITD. there is not all known about hearing

From the people who write here, can you get ASMR feelings with transient sounds ?. some people can feel some not
I can feel also on the JBL more , MTM a little, kali nothing. but i like the feeling of music much more and hear no asmr only music on good speakers or sometomes headphones. there is no study how many people that like music can hear ITD or can hear ASMR. I get feeling as i hear real with good speakers also on hifi shop the large speakers.

another point is it is known that many also young people get hear damage or that autism people are more sensitive and hear more. i like music and because i was only 1 time in a concert, never in disco was because it is too loud. over 75 db i do not like, give me no good feelings. So i hear not loud music. when i able to hear loud i maybe have hear damage with 18 too because i hear often music and i make music and have lots fun. and people that study are when they finish over 24. how often they hear loud did not know. In a autism online test need reach 70 points at least to be a autist. i reach 40 points. so i am a few autist but no offical autist.

thats an text about hearing loss and impact on ITD hearing

Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage

Over the last decade, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the physiological role of the cochlea, and the mechanisms of cochlear hearing loss, the most common type of hearing loss in adults. This book is the first book covering this topic and aimed at the student and researcher...

books.google.de

do they mean with this ITD Cells ?. its from 2020.

Loud music puts young people at risk of undetected hearing damage

A part of the inner ear which helps in sound detection functioned less efficiently in people exposed to the highest levels of noise in clubs and concerts.

www.sciencefocus.com

Hearing loss: early signs of damage in young adults who regularly attend loud clubs and concerts

Exposure to loud noise is the biggest preventable cause of hearing loss.

theconversation.com

there can find much more. also that 1/4 of young people have hearing damge can read

Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage

Over the last decade, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the physiological role of the cochlea, and the mechanisms of cochlear hearing loss, the most common type of hearing loss in adults. This book is the first book covering this topic and aimed at the student and researcher...

books.google.de

Last post here (hopefully): It is without any question that ITD and ILD are the major mechanisms in human sound localization. That is really no question and nothing you need to ask, question or prove. It is a well known fact.
So again, the signal/sound itself can be "slow" but the interaural time difference can still be very short. Much shorter/"faster" than the signal itself and much shorter than the rate at which the nerves in our ears are capable of firing. That timing information between left and right ear input is the information higher brain processes use to determine image location (in the horizontal plane).
Please read a basic text about psychoacoustics as all of this is just very basic knowledge.

 

[bennybbbx]

ITD is a function of the differential arrival time of a given signal between two ears, not the rise time of a single speaker/sound. The auditory system uses about 200-1500 Hz for this, so you are already limited by the rise time of what is possible with a bandwidth of that limitation.

I know this. and a faster speaker or fast LP Crossover FIlter without much diffrent phase shift over the frequency range give precise peaks and valleys around 40 µsec which is need for ITD.

left and right speaker play often diffrent frequency so they have when the phase change during frequency additional delay which bring bad stereo width. there is free wave observer light plugin, you can see waveforms overlay. see screnshot. is it logical that out of this result diffrent phase shifts per channel when use a high db per octave filter ?. this is the osciloskope output after the 1.5 khz filter of a music piece

 

[audio2design]

I know this. and a faster speaker or fast LP Crossover FIlter without much diffrent phase shift over the frequency range give precise peaks and valleys around 40 µsec which is need for ITD.

left and right speaker play often diffrent frequency so they have when the phase change during frequency additional delay which bring bad stereo width. there is free wave observer light plugin, you can see waveforms overlay. see screnshot. is it logical that out of this result diffrent phase shifts per channel when use a high db per octave filter ?. this is the osciloskope output after the 1.5 khz filter of a music piece

It is obvious from these two statements that you "don't know this" and you don't know what is happening in the underlying signal, that you assume had ITD information but more often than not does not in recorded music.

J_J made a comment on page1 about you not understand linear superposition. That is still evident in the above as well.

There are a lot of holes in your knowledge that are preventing you from understanding this topic, both at the psychoacoustic level and signal processing level. Time to step back and learn more before trying to move forward. You are just going to alienate the people who could help you.

 

[markus]

I know this.

I'm afraid you don't.

 

[tomtoo]

How wide is a mono signal source on stereo speakers? And how wide should it be? And how change the 'spead' of speakers this?

 

[bennybbbx]

It is obvious from these two statements that you "don't know this" and you don't know what is happening in the underlying signal, that you assume had ITD information but more often than not does not in recorded music.

all music stereo records use reverb and the reflections of a room come from diffrent positions at diffrent times. maybe they use more microphone for record or digital reverb processors to create a nice sounding room.

https://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio-webdav/handbook/Binaural_Hearing.html The ear can detect a time difference as slight as 30 microseconds and smaller differences through training. The maximum time lag for sound generated at one side of the head is around 0.6 milliseconds (see diagram below).