Can you hear your own ear? no idea what you are getting at there. Yes, the ear is a mechanism, but .. ummm. soooo... what? does your ear have a sound? I mean sure, the conch of everyone is a different shape, so it will impact on the resulting electro-chemical signal in a different and individual way, but it doesnt create a sound.
I did not suggest that we have modelled everything, but we certainly can and maybe we will. To suggest that sound waves in a room are somehow more complicated than any of the other natural phenomena that we can and have modelled very accurately is getting a bit tired. Our hobby is not somehow beyond science's reach. The main bugbear is psychology/subjectivity, not the physical science.
What I did suggest is that if you already had all the information to describe a mechanism, you wouldn't need to measure it, you could model it. If you disagree with this, i'd be interested to know your reasoning. And please dont namedrop Bruno again to lend weight to your words. Use your words.
I did not suggest that we have modelled everything, but we certainly can and maybe we will. To suggest that sound waves in a room are somehow more complicated than any of the other natural phenomena that we can and have modelled very accurately is getting a bit tired. Our hobby is not somehow beyond science's reach. The main bugbear is psychology/subjectivity, not the physical science.
What I did suggest is that if you already had all the information to describe a mechanism, you wouldn't need to measure it, you could model it. If you disagree with this, i'd be interested to know your reasoning. And please dont namedrop Bruno again to lend weight to your words. Use your words.
Last edited:
Jan[/QUOTE]
This is getting a little silly for me, sorry. So I will leave it there.
This is getting a little silly for me, sorry. So I will leave it there.
Do we realize that we infer the intentions and or motivations of other people, and our inferences are strongly influenced by our biases?
I don't infer that Joe's intention was only to provoke a reaction for his amusement, so it was not trolling to me.
What I did infer from what I read here was that Joe was trying to get certain people to realize they are not as objective as they think they are. It wasn't for his amusement, it was an attempt to get people to drop their mental blocks that prevent them from seeing what Joe is trying to explain to them.
The problem now is that Joe's attempt has backfired on him, as its true purpose has been blocked and rejected like everything else he says. At that point the only explanation left in some minds is that trolling must be his purpose.
Last edited:
Disagree. Bruno knows how engineers are trained to think about sound, and trained to think about how humans hear.
If he has been using his ears to help him focus in on the causes of distortions, he probably has come to the (unpopular among many engineers) point of view that hearing isn't as linear, time-invariant, and stationary as engineers generally assume everything is. After all, such assumptions work great for so many engineering purposes there has to be strong justification to abandon them, even in the case of certain complicated problems. Consider how hard engineers will go to avoid Volterra modeling, when in many cases the real world is more complicated than practical Volterra models (aside: such models are sometimes used for DSP of special audio effects processors; they never sound perfectly like the real analog processing device being modeled).
Anyway, if Bruno has been using his ears to track down mechanisms, eventually he will probably figure out most engineers are stuck in the mindset they were trained to have. They can't escape it even when they need to. So, he chooses to explain something in few words and hope that at least some people will get it.
Now, what Bruno and Lars choose to say in public does appear to be driven by commercial motivation. They talk about things they think might give them some competitive advantage in the marketplace. They also don't go into so much depth so as to make it easy for their competitors to benefit from the knowledge. That means simple, scientifically unsupported writeups are likely all we are going to get at least until competitors catch up on their own.
Mark I tend to agree with you on that.
The rest to be done is left to the guru seekers and name droppers.
George
To properly compare the perceived effects of a distortion mechanism from an FFT you need to look not only at amplitude but also the phase response. You also need to compare many different levels. A quite complex waterfall plot.
To improve performance you do not need all that information. Just comparing the worst parameters’ results to the modified unit is faster and probably more useful.
Both magnetic field and excursion distortions obviously vary with level.
To improve performance you do not need all that information. Just comparing the worst parameters’ results to the modified unit is faster and probably more useful.
Both magnetic field and excursion distortions obviously vary with level.
Last edited:
That is not the overriding impression I get.
Can we say that drivers are mechanisms?
Edit: I mean by that, the distortion in drivers are mechanisms?
Surely you are right about that. When I was still publishing Linear Audio, I tried to get Bruno to write an article on his new class D design with the 6th order feedback loop. He politely declined, remarking he had no desire to educate his competition. And so it goes.
Jan
Audio reproduction is about creating the exact same pressure situation at the ears as in a live music situation. If this can be achieved we have reach success as the illusion will be 100% i.e. indistinguishable from the real thing. How the ear and brain works is as I see it, completely irrelevant. At least I see it as the wrong approach to try to understand the ear-brain and do a system out from that.
//
//
I understand your reasoning, but that target is unattainable, as the acoustic situation is completely different to start with. And many more reasons.
So the second best is to reproduce the sound in a way that the listener believes he is at the original performance. And that's where understanding of acoustics and hearing/perception comes in.
jan
So the second best is to reproduce the sound in a way that the listener believes he is at the original performance. And that's where understanding of acoustics and hearing/perception comes in.
jan
@TNT, What can be done is already quite good. Most people just (1) don't know how to do it, and or (2) they can't afford to do it well. The experimental system in the pic extends down to 14Hz, and the convincing stereo illusion extends out wider than the speakers and far beyond the back wall. It is perfect? No. Can most people afford it? No. Is recording quality a limitation for reproduction? Yes. Even the most carefully made audiophile recordings are not perfect.
Attachments
Last edited: