I have always heard headphones as mono, unless their is a heavy pan in the mix (some microphone input emphasized to either channel).So, how do we perceive stereo with headphones?
I have always heard headphones as mono, unless their is a heavy pan in the mix (some microphone input emphasized to either channel).So, how do we perceive stereo with headphones?
...as stating that an audio gun-fire detector is not related to audio is plain silly, no? Still, is there a point?
I have always heard headphones as mono, unless their is a heavy pan in the mix (some microphone input emphasized to either channel).
My point is that you assert (as far as I understand you correctly) that the brain processes audio the way our current DSP and related technology does. I see no evidence for this in the reading I have done on hearing and the brain.
If you have a reference that does provide evidence that it does I would love to read it.
Seriously? I'm struggling of late because I hear everything as too split. Odd kind of vacuum feeling when certain frequencies are more towards one cup than the other. Im experimenting with crossfeed to try and remedy.
But I most definitely dont think of most recordings through HP as mono.
No, you aren't. Your experiments with 2 channel soundstage illusions are valid. Q sound exists and is used to create an artificial soundstage with 2 speakers so in fact the knowledge about how to do this exists already - just not here.My apparent mistake was in thinking the same process was applied to audio signals, such that the position of an image could be determined from the signal sent from the speakers (or rather, reaching the ears, which is more difficult to measure). I can (and have) certainly adjust the signals to the speakers to move a source around, including moving it outside the boundaries of the speakers themselves, using an acoustic rather than radar processor. I did that long ago using bucket-brigade devices for a true time delay plus the usual analog circuitry to manipulate amplitude, phase, frequency response, and so forth. It was a fun project, presented for younger kids who were wowed by how we could move the sound around, but apparently inapplicable to this discussion. If the brain (processor) is making decisions based on (unknown to me) data then my basic premise (hypothesis) is wrong. Thus at this point I think my fundamental premise about what this thread is about and how we perceive spatial sound fields is wrong, and I do not want to waste more time (yours or mine). In this I am indeed ignorant, and following to learn.
To be fair, I wear cans if and only if everyone at home is asleep.Seriously? I'm struggling of late because I hear everything as too split. Odd kind of vacuum feeling when certain frequencies are more towards one cup than the other. Im experimenting with crossfeed to try and remedy.
But I most definitely dont think of most recordings through HP as mono.
Many people don't care about measurements and audio science because they like distortion. This is certainly the case with tube enthusiasts. They don't care about replicating the authentic sound and may even find that disagreeable as both an objective and actuality. Additionally, they have an emotional attachment to the esoteric paraphernalia they employ, vintage tubes, tonearms, turntables, cartridges, etc (really a variety of audiophile necrophilia). In short, plenty of people really enjoy distorted sound and couldn't care less about science. They like what they hear, plain and simple, and don't wish to be bothered by graphs, diagrams, Amir, etc. I don't pass judgment on them but do get annoyed when they criticize Class D and all the wonderful advances of modern audio like Purifi that sound amazing (and have a ton of power without weighing 50 lbs.). Some people like bad wine, so who is to judge them if they are enjoying themselves?
Only solution is to read this forum and others, make a synthesis, order on line and return the item if not satisfied.
It is difficult for large and heavy items.
No, you aren't. Your experiments with 2 channel soundstage illusions are valid. Q sound exists and is used to create an artificial soundstage with 2 speakers so in fact the knowledge about how to do this exists already - just not here.
Maybe if you pulse the test speaker with a stimulus signal and quickly snap a mic measurement, catching the direct signal and then cutting the mic before a reflection can reach the it, then measurement repeatability might be achievable.
You need to assign this challenge to the people who invented Q sound. I wish you good luck.I challenge you to quantify these illusions.
Which is exactly how something like REW and other softwares work using sweeps.With speaker measurements, you are often including the room effects in the measurements. Maybe if you pulse the test speaker with a stimulus signal and quickly snap a mic measurement, catching the direct signal and then cutting the mic before a reflection can reach the it, then measurement repeatability might be achievable. Of course, electronics are not affected by the room they are in.
I was never able to accept that many audiophiles believe there's something just mystical about human hearing that simply can't be captured by science. And frankly I don't really think they believe that. But at the same time I don't think I ever heard or read a hypothesis about it, no matter how far-fetched. OK, maybe there is the "typical measurements rely on steady state signals and average certain kinds of distortions" but that's pretty much dismantled. I really don't believe there's a black and white divide between engineering types and the ones that simply trust their hearing without any interest for scientific explanation, that's just an exaggeration of the Internet era, it does a perfect job of making all shades of gray appear black or white as we all know. I'm really hoping for an interesting discussion.
I don't know what "transparency" means. If it means adding nothing to the source, then frequency response and distortion measurements will suffice. For imaging, frequency response (amplitude and phase), and dispersion measurements (e.g. on- and off-axis response) will tell you, along with the in-room response since room reflections contribute greatly. Don't know what "staging" means; to me, setting up for a play or musical, or a sequence of operations in a process. We can't measure how it sounds or feels to you, but if the terms are defined, we can almost always measure them. But taking and interpreting the measurements can take a lot of equipment, experience, and so forth. Probably easier to just listen, and since the effects of he room are so important, probably more logical.
With respect @DonH56 , I don't completely agree.
Imaging is a result of two speakers, not one. Imaging depends on a whole lot of things, not the least of which are the tolerances of the drivers and crossover components from speaker to speaker. An image that suddenly shifts, loses focus or recesses during playback. A vocalist that isn't positionally stable on one pair of speakers but is on another. You know what I mean.
Are you aware of any peer-reviewed research which demonstrates the successful prediction of loudspeaker spatial qualities from measurements? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'd be very interested in reading about it if it has.