Tweeter's inverted phase.

[Soandso]

… I like it much more than with the correct connection … would very much like to understand the nature of this phenomenon.

I have not been closely following every comment in this thread and may be off base about what you're confused about. None-the-less I'll summarize and screen shot what I recently wrote in another thread.

Phase "…has more to do with sound aligning in terms of time…." Acoustic polarity "needs to be understood as … determined by any initial wavefront…"; it is an event.

So called "positive" polarity (technically termed "compression") is when a wavefront moves toward our ear (or microphone). Like when a woofer speaker would bulge outward when generating a sound frequency. Our ear cilia "hairs" react by bending in a way that relatively maximal sound gets pasts them. This maximizes any audio frequencies' amplitude for whatever the sound pressure level that propagated it might be.

So called "inverted/negative" polarity (technically termed "rarefaction") sound waves would be like when a woofer speaker bulges inward when generating a sound frequency. Rather than a fully compressed wavefront first arriving at our ear we would get less of that frequency's wave (a so-called "half-wave") and it bend's the ear cilia in a different way. Evolution has made it so that "inverted" sound waves hyper-polarize sound receptors in our ears and therefore, irregardless of cilia orientation, we still can hear it. Just that any "inverted" polarity acoustic wave will have less amplitude than otherwise "compression polarity" would.

What is harder to understand is that acoustic polarity as an event out of time (unlike phase). It (polarity) happened once for any single frequency and in doing so that event also establishes pattens for all the harmonics associated with any one frequency note's own fundamental. Here then is where I'll leave screen shots with my ASR discussion of comparative diagrams to illustrate that "inverted" polarity, and hence phase in time, have non-linear impact on harmonics.

[In synopsis for this thread's context I propose that listening to "inverted" phase tweeters reduces lower frequency fundamental notes' harmonics bleeding into higher frequencies. While having normal (non-inverted polarity) phase lower frequency transducers these frequencies' amplitude comes through comparatively more than the "inverted" high frequencies. Thus listeners won't be turning up the volume to a manufacture's speakers (not talking about headphones) past it's technical limits introducing distortions.]

 

[Heinrich]

In the attachment there are ...

As you say, utterly incorrect. My tip of the day: maybe you are into something. Test your assumptions w/ other speaker(s). Systematize your observations, e/ what if the dip (from inverting) was equalized so far x, y, z.

I would never dismiss personal experience in this field by principle, as other might do. I'm not exactly coming from the engineering field. But--or because of that, I'm aware that new theories won't come from technical rigor. To the contary. Also I've learned that nobody would make sense out of an isolated "just then" anecdote. Repeat, repeat again w/ slightly changed parameters, set boundaries how far it goes, stabilize and not the least connect to established ideas. (To ask for wild speculations, while not revealing the brand, make and type of the sole speaker under observation isn't exacly attractive for the community. I assume. It's too easy to get it plain wrong. Well earned and rightfully granted reputation to be lost is a real thing.)

As I said before Wilson Audio seems to deliberately design x/overs in an unconventional fashion, to say the least. How was it called, tune tott or so, and it calls for a mediocre fortune to dive into ownership. A few customers keep the strange business running lukewarm, so ... your turn. Spin the new old new story.

[In synopsis for this thread's context I propose that ... introducing distortions.]

You may not have read it, but inverting the tweeter in certain topologies does exactly that: restoring the waveform AND keeping the ampl/ response curve straighout flat. If you come from the perspective of a perfect waveform, the inverting is the thing to do sometimes IN ORDER TO keep frequency response smooth WHILE restoring waveform. Revert it back again : both, waveform and frequency response suffer. Don't know what you kow, but so it is, just fundamental filter theory. (Called a theory NOT because it was uncertain, but because it is a set of descriptive methods that prove outright practical because they are reliable up to GPS and other contemporary wonders, doubt it? Your turn.)

This all morphs into outlandish speculation, once the processing in the studio is considered. Most audio concerned pubs/ ignore it, and that leaves me w/ a sigh. It's your choice, accept that there is no problem and enjoy, or treat yourself casting doubt an everything, actually, and don't. It's as bad as it is by its fundamental basics, but still good enough, ain't it?

 

[Keith_W]

In the attachment there are two files. Each file contains measurements with MTW enabled and without it. My listening position (with the equalizer enabled) and one channel at a distance of 1 m (with the equalizer enabled and disabled).

Your post MTW graph looks a bit funny. TBH I don't like the way REW implements its MTW in terms of time (I prefer to think in terms of cycles) so I have translated your MTW settings to cycles with a quick spreadsheet:

See how REW's default MTW means you have more cycles at the bottom and top end of the frequency range, with fewer cycles in between?

So I rejigged the spreadsheet to tell me what MTW to apply if I want a certain number of cycles. You should use more cycles for bass (since you want the speaker + room response) and fewer cycles for treble (since you want the quasi-anechoic response). I typed these into REW's MTW.

This is the result. Green is REW's default MTW, blue is with my recalculated MTW. See how that huge dip at 70Hz almost disappears? That dip that you saw was an artefact caused by improper windowing. But the huge phase cancellation between 2kHz - 5kHz remains.

Anyway, I don't see how this could sound better to you. I think most people would prefer the sound without the tweeter polarity inverted. But if it's your preference ...

 

[Soandso]

…Your turn…

We may be taking past each other wherein you highlight wave forms. I am discussing how polarity phase regulates the amplitude and frequency harmonics which if inverted shifts their amplitude in non-linear ways. Let me refer to my general theme as "psycho-physical" which was a descriptive term in research cited below and I'll elaborate upon here.

The experiments were using sound and added noise, both in normal ("compression") phase and inverted ("rarefaction") phase. I'm using this research of 2 potentially different sound signals as proxy for the OP's inverted phase tweeter being a different sound signal (and not noise signals). The report(s) thus talk about things like sound/inverted sound/noise/inverted noise and whether for one ear or both, but for reading ease all their abbreviations and permutations aren't going to be used by me.

On to the relevant discussion of cited research. It is our brain's inferior colliculus neurons (elsewhere on ASR I've discussed this) inside the brain where sound waveforms interact with neurons for neural discharges processing sound. When frequencies arrive with "compression" polarity (normal or positive phase) about 55% of inferior colliculus neurons' discharge (undergo activation). While in about another 36% of inferior colliculus neurons there is activation (discharge) reactions to both normal phase and inverted phase frequencies, however the rate of activation is less for inverted phase frequencies than for normal phase frequencies. An additional 2% of inferior colliculus neurons had decreased activation in response to normal phase frequencies while at the same time having an increase in discharge (activation) in response to inverted phase frequencies.

When the volume of sound is increased this can at first involve different sub-sets of inferior colliculus neurons. And depending on whether it is normal phase or inverted phase the activity level of any suite of neurons may be to a more or to a lesser degree. As regards those neurons which respond to both normal and inverted phase with increased activity the level of discharge (hence amplitude) is greater for normal phase than when the same frequency is arriving as inverted phase.

Which is to say inverted phase sound frequencies are comparatively milder instigators of inferior colliculus neurons firing and since normal phase generally elicits increased neural discharges their amplitude at the same sound pressure (SPL) will sound psycho-physically louder (ex: invert tweeter and bass will seem louder because tweeter frequencies' amplitude is less). And as the cited 2000 research mentions: "At the same S/N ratio [inverted] sound produces larger decrease in the peak amplitude. … [R]eduction in the activity caused by [inverted] sound signal is consistent with a de-synchronizing effect of that signal on the response to [normal phase] noise." The authors mentioned that within each "neural bandwidth" frequency neurons of the inferior colliculus the effective signal to noise ratio varies. Therefore the level of comparative alteration for inverted phase frequencies in comparison to normal phase frequencies is going to vary in a room with speakers.

I want to acknowledge these researchers dealt with 500Hz, the research design had limitations as might this extrapolation of mine to inverted phase tweeters. Unedited comment so pardon any errors.

 

[Heinrich]

We may be taking past each other wherein you highlight wave forms.

Not really. I was talking about the tech/ of crossovers and filter theory that you do not relate to. But I acknowledged you talking about phase. In one word, phase (aka waveform) of summed output woofer/tweet is maintained w/ some filter topologies when tweeter is connected phase A, while in other topologies phase is maintaned when tweeter connected B = -A.

Regarding the papers you display as excerpts - they do not relate to audio. They do not connect to the topic in discussion. I feel you should not quote those. Audio is way more simple.

And not the least: what about the studio doing all the best to press reality into a recording, so that it can be played back at peoples' homes? Some audio enthusiats are deliberately ignorant, only to groome their everlasting doubt and hesitation. No fun, not for me--from a scientific standpoint.

 

[Heinrich]

I'm using this research of 2 potentially different sound signals as proxy for the OP's inverted phase tweeter ... It is our brain's inferior colliculus neurons ... inside the brain where sound waveforms interact with neurons for neural discharges... frequencies arrive ...

People listen w/ their mind, not their brains.

55% of inferior colliculus neurons' ... 36% of inferior colliculus neurons ... inverted phase frequencies ... 2% of inferior colliculus neurons ...

Just numbers, no meaning.

... sub-sets of inferior colliculus neurons. .... normal phase or inverted phase ... comparatively milder instigators of inferior colliculus neurons ... will sound psycho-physically louder ...

No, that's speculation of yours.

And as the cited 2000 research mentions: "At the same S/N ratio [inverted] sound produces larger decrease in the peak amplitude. … [R]eduction in the activity caused by [inverted] sound signal is consistent with a de-synchronizing effect of that signal on the response to [normal phase] noise."

See the problem? What is "de-synchronizing effect"?!

The authors mentioned that within each "neural bandwidth" frequency neurons of the inferior colliculus the effective signal to noise ratio varies ...

Oh yeah, the target of the research was NOT an investigation of tweeter phase (That is maintained w/ respective non/inverted connetion anyways! See filter theory.).
The target of the research was to understand the interaction of presumably dis-conected bandwitdth, and where that dis-connection occurs. NOT speakers.

... in a room with speakers.

A Black Fury of a speculation. No passable bridge from neuronal research to speakers, confirmation bias, cargo cult science. The in-room reference tells it in your face: in-room phase is never maintained.

I'm a bit sensitive to that. Waving papers ...

Look: we've got telling experiments that address the "problem" directly. Please aknowledge that. There were experiments, that related to speaker tech/. Namely the famous test of the effect of allpass filters. Introducing extra, in the frequency range localized, group delay. Exactly like an x/over would do, no more no less.j just that.

Result: there's a limit how far one can go, it's there, but it ain't too tight. Easy avoided to pass the limits with every but pathological designs.

For all audioenthisistas who cannot enjoy the precious stereo of theirs: case closed, finally. Your problem is something else.

 

[Arindal]

flipping a signal 180 degrees can be audible, if the waveform is asymmetric. Been demonstrated in several ABX on this site.

´Flipping by 180deg´ you mean inverted polarity?

I am aware only of experiments with headphones, proving the audibility of overall polarity which includes the full spectrum. Such asymmetric waveforms are typically found with lower frequencies, as such transient sound events do exist in nature, and these are expected to be audible.

In this case it was about tweeters (or inverted midrange drivers). Is there any hint of asymmetric waveforms above 250hz existing in recordings and showing audibility in AB testing with loudspeakers? I doubt that.

 

[Thomas_A]

´Flipping by 180deg´ you mean inverted polarity?

I am aware only of experiments with headphones, proving the audibility of overall polarity which includes the full spectrum. Such asymmetric waveforms are typically found with lower frequencies, as such transient sound events do exist in nature, and these are expected to be audible.

In this case it was about tweeters (or inverted midrange drivers). Is there any hint of asymmetric waveforms above 250hz existing in recordings and showing audibility in AB testing with loudspeakers? I doubt that.

Agree about all that. Except it is also audible not only using headphones but also with speakers in room. Done that as well ABX. But it is in lower f and with asymmetric waveforms, never been able to hear anything at higher f. It is mostly a shift in timbre, IMO.

 

[dualazmak]

There are certain speaker manufacturers who deliberately invert their tweeters' phase. They consider it worthwhile for how you hear their speakers playing music.

My purpose in commenting is to mostly point out that the technical considerations related to such tweeter phase inversions can be searched for on-line and readily found in multiple on-line discussions. I never got around to making my own speakers and my own notes of that inversion tactic got misplaced in my last move.

Yes,,, let me read your point as "There are certain speaker manufacturers who deliberately invert their tweeters' phase polarity."

Just for all of your reference and interest, even though this story has been well known in HiFi audio community world-widely, I assume....

In the passive crossover to SP-drivers connection of the legendary famous and still amazingly excellent YAMAHA NS-1000M and NS-1000, YAMAHA intentionally/deliberately inverted the SP-cable connection to Beryllium-dome-tweeter JA-0513. The XO from 8.8 cm Beryllium-dome-midrange JA-0801 to 3.0 cm Beryllium-dome-tweeter JA-0513 is mild-simple -12 dB/Oct Butterworth LP/HP filters for both the SP-drivers at ca. 6,000 Hz.

Once I intensively discussed with YAMAHA engineer who designed NS-1000M and NS-1000 regarding the reasons for "the inverted connection to tweeter", and he kindly explained as follows;
"Yes, we have done intensive objective measurements in anechoic laboratory and general listening room, and of course we did further intensive subjective listening tests/evaluations. As the result, with the SP cabinet designs of NS-1000 and NS-1000M, the inverted connection to the Beryllium-dome-tweeter gave better smooth-transition from midrange Beryllium-dome midrange JA-0801 to Beryllium-dome-tweeter JA-0513. Furthermore, we have/had better directivity (dispersion) patterns in tweeter-covering high Fq range.

The evaluation model of NS-1000M we brought to Dr. Toole's Laboratory in Canada was of course tweeter-inverted, and Dr. Toole kindly agreed with us for the inverted connection/configuration.

All the NS-1000M (and NS-1000) so far widely used in radio (TV) stations and recording studios in various countries, as well as in home audio system, have exactly the same crossover-connection configuration, and they have been, and they are still, highly rewarded."

Therefore, in my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active (5-way, 10-channel) stereo audio setup using NS-1000 and its SP-drivers in its original heavy-rigid cabinet (with addition of L&R subwoofer YST-SW1000 and L&R super-tweeters FOSTEX T925A) (project thread here, the latest system setup here and here), I have been always "cordially and respectfully following" YAMAHA's inverted connection not only to the Beryllium-dome-tweeter JA-0513 but also to the super-tweeter FOSTEX T925A, as shown in this total signal path diagram in my post here #931;

For your possible further interests, as for the invertedly-connected metal horn super-tweeter FOSTEX T925A (highly efficient but vary narrow directivity), I have been applying the unique wide-3D reflective dispersion using random-surface heavy-glass material.

Spoiler

- A new series of audio experiments on reflective wide-3D dispersion of super-tweeter sound using random-surface hard-heavy material:
Part-1_ Background, experimental settings, initial preliminary listening tests: #912
Part-2_ Comparison of catalogue specifications of metal horn super-tweeter (ST) FOSTEX T925A and YAMAHA Beryllium dome tweeter (TW) JA-0513; start of intensive listening sessions with wide-3D reflective dispersion of ST sound: #921
Part-3_ Listening evaluation of sound stage (sound image) using excellent-recording-quality lute duet tracks: #926
Part-3.1_ Listening evaluation of sound stage (sound image) using excellent-recording-quality jazz trio album: #927
Part-4_Provisional conclusion to use Case-2 reverse reflective dispersion setting in default daily music listening: #929

I believe that the merit (or not) of the inverted connection to tweeter would be highly dependent on;
1. specifications and fundamental characteristics of midrange and tweeter drivers,
2. design of SP cabinet, and physical SP-driver alignments thereof,
3. "nature" of XO between midrange and tweeters drivers,
4. SP alignments in listening room including the distance from SP to listening position,
5. various complex "room mode" of listening environments,
6. directivity characteristics of midrange and tweeter drivers (and cabinet),
7. etc., etc.

 

[dualazmak]

In my present PC-DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver mutli-amplifier fully active setup (ref. here #931), I periodically check and confirm "phase inversion" in XO configuration and all the "physical connection polarities" by my eyes on physical settings and also subjectively by my ears and brain at my listening position using "Track-2 Phase (Polarity) Check" and "Track-3 Five Sound Location (Allocation) Check" of "SONY Super Audio Check CD" (ref. here).

I do such check and subjective hearing confirmation on L&R subwoofer only, L&R woofer only, L&R midrange only, L&R tweeter only, and L&R super-tweeter only.
Then, I also do the same check and confirmation on L&R subwoofer+woofer, L&R woofer+midrange, L&R midrange+tweeter, and L&R tweeter+super-tweeter.
Then, of course, I also do the same on all the L&R SP-drivers are singing together.

Even for tweeters (covering ca. 6 kHz - 20 kHz) and super-tweeters (covering ca. 8.8 kHz - 25 kHz in wide-3D reflective dispersion configuration), I can subjectively nicely hear/identify the "Five Sound Location (allocation)" at my listening position using the "Track-3 Five Sound Location (Allocation) Check" of "SONY Super Audio Check CD" when all the settings/configurations are "correct/alright" as I intended.

If you would be interested in having/using all the tracks of "SONY Super Audio Check CD" (ref. here), please simply PM me.

 

[Flaesh]

A child, 3 month old, would view the attached image correctly downside up ... ?

Can caring parents easily hold him upside down by his legs for ease of reading?

 

[Soandso]

People listen w/ their mind, not their brains.

Just numbers, no meaning.


No, that's speculation of yours.


See the problem? What is "de-synchronizing effect"?!


Oh yeah, the target of the research was NOT an investigation of tweeter phase (That is maintained w/ respective non/inverted connetion anyways! See filter theory.).
The target of the research was to understand the interaction of presumably dis-conected bandwitdth, and where that dis-connection occurs. NOT speakers.


A Black Fury of a speculation. No passable bridge from neuronal research to speakers, confirmation bias, cargo cult science. The in-room reference tells it in your face: in-room phase is never maintained.

I'm a bit sensitive to that. Waving papers ...

Look: we've got telling experiments that address the "problem" directly. Please aknowledge that. There were experiments, that related to speaker tech/. Namely the famous test of the effect of allpass filters. Introducing extra, in the frequency range localized, group delay. Exactly like an x/over would do, no more no less.j just that.

Result: there's a limit how far one can go, it's there, but it ain't too tight. Easy avoided to pass the limits with every but pathological designs.

For all audioenthisistas who cannot enjoy the precious stereo of theirs: case closed, finally. Your problem is something else.

Too much here I find purely argumentative.

 

[Soandso]

Not really. I was talking about the tech/ of crossovers and filter theory that you do not relate to. But I acknowledged you talking about phase. In one word, phase (aka waveform) of summed output woofer/tweet is maintained w/ some filter topologies when tweeter is connected phase A, while in other topologies phase is maintaned when tweeter connected B = -A.

Regarding the papers you display as excerpts - they do not relate to audio. They do not connect to the topic in discussion. I feel you should not quote those. Audio is way more simple.

And not the least: what about the studio doing all the best to press reality into a recording, so that it can be played back at peoples' homes? Some audio enthusiats are deliberately ignorant, only to groome their everlasting doubt and hesitation. No fun, not for me--from a scientific standpoint.

You want to talk about what you want to talk about which I have not tried to impede. I think the O.P. will find additional orientation in content which I brought up.

 

[Heinrich]

Too much here I find purely argumentative.

It wasn't meant to be. My simple statement was, that there is no connection between your wild interpretation of real scientific work on what the hearing apparatur is to speaker technology. While you do not relate at all to real speaker technology that uses different topologies to crossover the signal from one driver to the other.
It's a personal thing, admitted. I'm pretty much sensible when it comes to misinterpretation, and 'second use' of science to put it mildly. See also esoterics that is full of 'quantun' and what have you.

As said before, we have direct experiments on whether the typical group delay / phase alteration that crossoves make is objectional. The result is there and it is so far very telling: "No!".

As I said before a few times already: the necessary polarity inversion w/ some topologies is done to maintain both, waveform and ampl/ frequency response. You should know that. The o/p should know even better. He inverted the phase relative to what is intended by the designer, and introduced a defect to his speakers by that.

I think the O.P. will find additional orientation in content which I brought up.

I only see random and arkane 'science' misused in order to support an alreaedy lost case on why the recording process is wrong.

See also: https://calsci.com/audio/X-Overs1b.html

 

[Heinrich]

You want to talk about what you want to talk about which I have not tried to impede. I think the O.P. will find additional orientation in content which I brought up.

O/k, you got me upset, really. I finally made it to read the articles fully. They have nothing to do w/ any of what you "qouted" from it - all was just "speculation", to keep it civil.

Science abused, to promote fear and loathing as to prevent enjoyment from stereo playback. 'Nuf said.

 

[Soandso]

…. I finally made it to read the articles …

The cited research is explicitly about auditory neuron activity. It details that inside the brain inverted sound signals which initially reached animal ears have some particular patterns in a non-linear relation to other phased sound input.

I stipulated that since the research contrasted a frequency sound with a sound of noise (an audible event) that it affords the O.P. theme a chance to evaluate both in phase and inverted phase auditory input. The authors explain their limitations of experimental animal which obviously couldn't have been done (at least then) on a living human animal.

The fact is established therein that inside an animal brain the inferior colliculus audio neuronal activity involves different sets of neurons in different activation dynamics with regard to audio input of inverted polarity sound(s) and non-inverted sounds(s). I think this may be something ASR readers might not have imagined was going on inside them and would welcome insight into how this could be playing out.

 

[Soandso]

It wasn't meant to be. My simple statement was, that there is no connection between your wild interpretation of real scientific work on what the hearing apparatur is to speaker technology. While you do not relate at all to real speaker technology that uses different topologies to crossover the signal from one driver to the other.
It's a personal thing, admitted. I'm pretty much sensible when it comes to misinterpretation, and 'second use' of science to put it mildly. See also esoterics that is full of 'quantun' and what have you.

As said before, we have direct experiments on whether the typical group delay / phase alteration that crossoves make is objectional. The result is there and it is so far very telling: "No!".

As I said before a few times already: the necessary polarity inversion w/ some topologies is done to maintain both, waveform and ampl/ frequency response. You should know that. The o/p should know even better. He inverted the phase relative to what is intended by the designer, and introduced a defect to his speakers by that.


I only see random and arkane 'science' misused in order to support an alreaedy lost case on why the recording process is wrong.

See also: https://calsci.com/audio/X-Overs1b.html

This is just more cyber harangue; now widening your polemic to include others insisting (Quote): "The o/p should know even better."

 

[Heinrich]

The cited research is explicitly about auditory neuron activity. It details that inside the brain inverted sound signals which initially reached animal ears have some particular patterns in a non-linear relation ...

Neuron activity is a foundation of hearing. Well, but the processing of physical input is done in several steps, up to when a mind (!) makes sense out of what the brain (the other one!) and specialized sensors did beforehand. "We" as humans have no access to that preprocessing. It just so happens.

Coming back to the research. What is the scientific hypothesis to be tested? Tweeter polarity?! Of course ...

What it actually want's to describe (it's medicine, descriptive) is how data (from the ears) is processed up into the inferior colliculus, which is not the final processing stage--in a very complex, yet not understood system. From that alone any prediction on how the mind (!) would take up the result of the following processing steps is rightout hilarious.

But also, the examination in question used different phases for left and right ear. WTF you ask. Exactly, WTF! It has nothing to do with two speakers having the same phase, inverted or not. Phase inversion is only a tool here to show something else.

I stipulated that since the research ... couldn't have been done (at least then) on a living human animal.
... I think this may be something ASR readers might not have imagined was going on inside them and would welcome insight into how this could be playing out.

As a matter of fact, humans cannot discriminate relative phase as long as the shift is kept wthin bounds. In speaker tech/ only well known pathological designs would trespass the line, like the Klipsch horn for obvious reasons.
The topic is brought up once and again, but only in diploma thesises by non-graders for educational purposes, as a proof of work. The case is settled. No neurology needed, speculations dumped, direct evidence provided, case closed.

And, as an amusing sidenote: the inversion of tweeter polarity is necessary in some crossover topologies, just in oder to maintain waveform and phase. Because the x/over components invert it first (so called reactive elements), and then it has to be brought back again, right?

Waving papers, calling out keywords, deriving doubt, I've seen it so often ...

What is done here is to claim authority by dropping in irrelevant, arkane reasearch, which is real, but abused. For what purpose, one might ask. In the end it is about a spray of distrust, that pulls people away from enjoying the costly stereo of theirs, wasting not only money but precious time also.

And not the least, I have to say, the research addresses hearing aids. A stereo is no hearing aid. It is a playback device for artificially composed sounds. Even if it was a concert in a concert hall -- it is composed and altered, bent and painted, it is not real. ANd it was never menat to be, regardless of what the ads say.

 

[Soandso]

Neuron activity is a foundation of hearing. Well, but the processing of physical input is done in several steps, up to when a mind (!) makes sense out of what the brain (the other one!) and specialized sensors did beforehand. "We" as humans have no access to that preprocessing. It just so happens.

Coming back to the research. What is the scientific hypothesis to be tested? Tweeter polarity?! Of course ...

What it actually want's to describe (it's medicine, descriptive) is how data (from the ears) is processed up into the inferior colliculus, which is not the final processing stage--in a very complex, yet not understood system. From that alone any prediction on how the mind (!) would take up the result of the following processing steps is rightout hilarious.

But also, the examination in question used different phases for left and right ear. WTF you ask. Exactly, WTF! It has nothing to do with two speakers having the same phase, inverted or not. Phase inversion is only a tool here to show something else.


As a matter of fact, humans cannot discriminate relative phase as long as the shift is kept wthin bounds. In speaker tech/ only well known pathological designs would trespass the line, like the Klipsch horn for obvious reasons.
The topic is brought up once and again, but only in diploma thesises by non-graders for educational purposes, as a proof of work. The case is settled. No neurology needed, speculations dumped, direct evidence provided, case closed.

And, as an amusing sidenote: the inversion of tweeter polarity is necessary in some crossover topologies, just in oder to maintain waveform and phase. Because the x/over components invert it first (so called reactive elements), and then it has to be brought back again, right?

Waving papers, calling out keywords, deriving doubt, I've seen it so often ...

What is done here is to claim authority by dropping in irrelevant, arkane reasearch, which is real, but abused. For what purpose, one might ask. In the end it is about a spray of distrust, that pulls people away from enjoying the costly stereo of theirs, wasting not only money but precious time also.

And not the least, I have to say, the research addresses hearing aids. A stereo is no hearing aid. It is a playback device for artificially composed sounds. Even if it was a concert in a concert hall -- it is composed and altered, bent and painted, it is not real. ANd it was never menat to be, regardless of what the ads say.

Doubling down on the tendentious word count with relentless linguistic flourishes doesn't make any of my earlier comments erroneous or unwelcome. The absence of "likes" for you as flood this thread attempting to brow beat with innuendo and spurious arguments another contributing ASR member to validate you as some self -styled Hierophant of Audio at ASR is evidence you're still hijacking this post.

@Administrator: I can go on if you want to allow this type of cyber-bullying to perpetuate.

 

[Heinrich]

Doubling down on the tendentious word count with relentless linguistic flourishes doesn't make any of my earlier comments erroneous or unwelcome. The absence of "likes" for you as flood this thread attempting to brow beat with innuendo and spurious arguments another contributing ASR member to validate you as some self -styled Hierophant of Audio at ASR is evidence you're still hijacking this post.

@Administrator: I can go on if you want to allow this type of cyber-bullying to perpetuate.

I'm discussing speaker technology, crossovers in particular. We see a contradiction between direct tests of audibility of group delay (aka phase, inverted) and your speculations derived from quite specialized research that was done with a completely different focus in basic neurophysiology. And that research was done with decidedly inverted phase on the two ears, not the same as it would be w/ a stereo speaker setup. Your switch to ad hominem accusations was expected.