With each post we are entreated to yet more sources of amusement. It’s a shame that they are dominated with bouts of laughing at the confusion of our maker of book reports rater than laughing with him. So…he searches out references reflecting his obsessive preoccupation with, and confusion by, the OBVIOUS fact the ”ETC doesn't tell you what to do with” reflections, points of incidence or of what acoustical response one desires? Oh geesh, and this is the current dilemma discovered by word searches? You mean that the ETC does not TELL you what to do with the reflections and points of incidence, and that what to do is dependent upon one’s awareness, understanding and consideration of a great many more factors – including THOUGHT? I am absolutely Shocked!!! And more than amused as well as scared that anyone would expect anything else! Oh gee, and my tape measure does not tell me how to build the house! Oh No!!! Ah well, another manufactured dilemma by our cut and paste book report boy still expecting data to TELL one what to do.
Meanwhile Toole’s tool is more than prepared to advocate, nay DICTATE, a one trick pony one size fits all solution to any listening environment that is DICTATED to satisfy everyone – well, except for professionals who may seek a more tightly defined precise image with more accurate localization, which they may PREFER – as per Toole himself.
And the we are treated to incoherent babble such as the following:
Originally Posted by amirm
So what are you saying? Dr. D'Antonio is incompetent too because you keep having to quote him here? How about poor Geroge and his Blackbird room? He needs you defending his work too?
which, aside from the fact that you indeed have no
understanding of that to which I refer, you laughably still can't figure out the proper role of Peter D'Antonio or George Massenburg ...or Schroeder, or Heyser, or Davis, or Peutz, or Berger or Keele, or Patronis or any of of plethora of folks about whom you SHOULD be intimate.
So, our psycho acoustical expert has again discovered and scared himself with binaural measurements – of which he conveniently excuses himself and his mentor from employing except when he trots out the same tired incomplete frequency response accurate for one ear and one angle as he demands that others employ them who, unlike himself, do not require reading a book report to discover the relationship and already understand such relationships. Yawn.
So, our book report friend so thoroughly versed in psycho-acoustics still lacks a sufficient understanding of fundamental acoustical physics that he can’t figure out how a single mic measurement can still be useful in addition to binaural measurements? Or how each is easily established as a function of the other….
We could couch this in the third person, but let’s face facts, there seems to be only ONE person here so oblivious to facts that we are not really referencing others…
So let’s see, you continually post graphs and charts such as the “Relative Level versus Signal Delay” that cite only a SINGLE source! Aren’t you aware that such a graph cannot possibly account for how we hear, as there is someone here who does not understand the relationship between the process of localization – a very easily performed function and the vector identification of a source?
The fact is that we KNOW the relationship of the left to right and right to left ear responses for an off axis signal. Once we know that, we can take any direct signal, and after determining the directional vector, determine the lateral fraction at work! And ANY of the major 2 channel tools can easily provide binaural measurements if one such as yourself is unable to fathom the relationship. I am sorry that you lack the ability to understand the correlation between the signal arrivals at each ear given any lateral offset and continue to demand that OTHERS provide binaural measurements when you have never even made a measurement, lack the understanding of what the tools can even do, let alone what the tools are; and while ALL of your charts and graphs are ALL reduced to single channel measurements!
Amazing isn’t it, that YOU are allowed to do this, while at the same time YOU do NOT understand how such charts and graphs can correctly be generated!
The rest of us understand the process of localization, even if you do not. And while you continually amaze yourself with the fact that the two ears do indeed hear differing signals, HRTF is a simple function dependent essentially on angle that can be applied to any arriving direct signal given the determination of its vector orientation.
And for the record, since YOU are the one demanding ACCURACY, the measurements you cite are incomplete.
What mics did YOU use to obtain such binaural measurements (given that all you have read the result of a word search for the topic as you trot out the SAME MONO chart)? Did you even use something as rudimentary as a SASS mic? For someone so well versed in psycho-acoustics who has NEVER been personally involved in ANY acoustical measurements nor ANY psycho-acoustical correlation testing or investigation it is readily apparent that while you can only post a FREQUENCY response deviation chart showing the modification by FREQUENCY only between ears for an off axis signal, you STILL have yet to figure out that the relationship between the responses is a simple function.
Funny, we were involved with MANY binaural testing sessions that used the Meade Killion designed In The Ear (ITE) microphones of which you are clueless. Where the signal was obtained from within the PRESSURE ZONE OF THE EARDRUM MAINTAINING ALL OF TH E PHASE RELATIONHIPS of the factors you say are SO critical but which NONE of your sources account!
So please tell us, if such complete binaural information is so important and necessary for every measurement, WHY DO YOUR SOURCES NOT BOTHER TO OBTAIN THIS? (Especially considering that YOU, the intrepid psycho acoustician, has never even made a measurement!
And he and his mentor who had JUST STARTED in his professional career were conspicuous in their absence over the many workshops and seminars and testing sessions conducted over a 10 year period 20 years ago…. But hey folks, isn’t it amazing what one can discover when performing word searches for a book report! Funny he did not uncover the more substantial definitive research of which so many others have been well aware for over 20 years? But then, should really be amazed at the ignorance of mere voyeurs come late to the party?
Ironic how someone faults others for not employing binaural measurements for EVERY test sample when you are excused from making ANY measurements! You are indeed a PSYCHO acoustician!
So, for the rest of the folks, as it is apparent that YOU have absolutely no clue regarding the subject seeing as how you are still hung up on the most fundamental issues of the subject, still being amazed that each ear hears a slightly modified version of the direct off axis signal – the relationship of each ears response for an off-axis signal has been understood for a long time now. Folks other than our intrepid friend who have done more than simply write a book report and who have actually made binaural measurements utilizing state of the art microphones that go far beyond simply making measurements AT each ear, but have accurately recorded the EXACT magnitude and phase response and time differential from IN the pressure zone of the eardrum of each ear understand the relationship.
So, for any direct mono signal, given the easily determined vector direction that is EASILY determined from a simple ETC measurement, the function can be applied to the direct signal and the relational characteristics between what each ear ‘hears’ is easily obtainable.
And, knowing the relationship for each ear is easily obtainable should we chose to amaze ourselves with the fact that any off axis signal is subject to this relationship, such information is easily obtained should one decide to examine that.
The fact is, by knowing this, and by being aware of the nature of the relationship and knowing how localization occurs, it is a common factor for ALL measurements. Thus for practical reasons it is easy to simplify the data by factoring out the variables that are common to all of the measurements.
And this has been well understood for a good 30 years. Well, at least there are SOME acousticians, unlike our author of book reports, who are well aware and familiar with this relationship, and should it become pertinent to the investigation, such differences in binaural perception can indeed be analyzed. But seeing as how they understand the relationship, they do not run about obsessed like our Chicken Little beating everyone over the head with his new found but little understood discovery. Instead the relationship is understood, and if the detail of such information is required, it is easily obtained. But in general measurements where we are concerned more with the fundamental gain, arrival time, and directional orientation of such source signals that rare in fact only ONE signal and not two as perceived binaurally, we focus on the signal itself, and we can easily determine the relationship between what is perceived at each ear should the need arise.
But it’s cute to observe someone so new at this they cannot fathom the nature of the relationship and see that such a relationship, broadly termed the HRTF, and where in fact there are quite a few degrees of completeness for such measurements, that for all signals, knowledgeable acousticians are, and have been, very aware of the relationship between mono and binaural measurements. And it is a simple relationship. One that, at least for the professional acousticians of whom I am familiar, is quite well understood. And should the need arise, all whom I know utilize multi-channel capable measurement platforms with matched calibrated mics optimized for binaural measurements should the need arise. But if you had actually ever gotten close to one of these, you would know that. But then, who are we kidding…
And we can address the fundamental lack of understanding about which our physics illiterate friend is unaware as he dismisses the LARGER and MUCH more advanced science of imaging as he imagines that it is not a BIT more advanced than he while he struggles to come to grips with the simple relationship between mono and binaural data acquisition in a small acoustical space as illustrated by our friends inability to adjust the presence of noise in the operation of his depth finder.
But not to worry, as I suspect that is not the most significant of his problems considering that he most probably could not find the water if he fell out of the boat. But if his experience with depth finders is as extensive as his experience with acoustical testing, I doubt he has come closer to actually using a depth finder than attempting to use one in his bath tub and being frustrated by his inability to find his rubber ducky. And that is ignoring his fascination with someone like himself and his inability to properly use the device and to identify and eliminate common sources of error - as the machine does not tell him what to do...
And again, we will post a sample 3 space binaural measurement taken at each ear - that are MUCH more complete in detail than your incomplete post...
Oh, and they are available for the vertical plane as well.Oh, and before folks focus on ETC plots, the important information is generated from the central plot that appears like a radar screen filled with discrete 'blips' And these particular plots were only generated 29 years ago. So you'll pardon the rest of us for not being aghast at the amazing 'new' information that at least one among us still hasn't quite grasped. Oh, but wait, all our friend posts from his extensive(sic) collection is a single cut and paste frequency response for one ear at "30 degrees". Of course his resulting objection can easily be countered as SOME of us actually participated in extensive measurement and evaluation sessions over an extended period of time or which the data was distributed among all actual participants. Funny, we didn't see you - and even funnier, i can't say we missed you..
Besides, not many would have been interested in listening to you push the Bose direct reflecting reflection rich environment then
Note that it shows the complete left right forward and back relationships for EACH ear, and not simply a frequency response of ONE ear that fails to account for the various superposition of multiple local reflections and diffraction from the torso and outer ear. Also note that it also accounts for any individual difference in each ear as well (something our learned friend fails to mention at all…) Amazingly enough, Don and Carolyn Davis took in the ear pressure zone measurements of over 15,000 individuals in an attempt to derive an ‘average’ response that could statistically serve as an ‘average’ response reference. But then, our psycho acoustical friend is unaware of that trivia as well.
(And perhaps someone can also explain to our measurement challenged friend how with the polar ETC EACH arrival is automatically resolved into its 3 space X,Y,&Z coordinates providing both direction and gain for each arrival...) Oh, but that's right, in his infinite awareness he has determined that one of the most widespread tools in use is obsolete. Not bad for someone who cannot eliminate the common sources of data corruption in his depth finder and who was never current enough to even use the acoustical tools that he ignorantly thinks are "obsolete"! LOL! Yup, those ideiots at B&K and other world class mathematicians and acousticains are fools compared to our cut and paste guru - and where the very person he mistakenly imagines to have denigrated the tool actively uses it! Laser range finders are nonsense too, as one can construct scenarios to fool them, and where apparently an operator such as our friend is not smart enough to determine the sources of error there as well.)
Funny how one so adamant about such measurements relies on such INCOMPLETE representations and has not once shared with us anything more substantial than claims that such measurements are necessary as they rely on mono charts and graphs except when they trot out their one tired frequency response of ONE ear limited to only one angle. But then again, it’s not surprising at all, when one’s extensive (sic) awareness is limited to the results of a word search 20-30 years after much of said research was conducted.
Sadly, Bigus is correct, You have not varied from simply recycling the SAME few points that have been cut and pasted since you began your dictatorial campaign to tell folks what they MUST prefer.Add to that your understanding of each point is so cursory and lacking that it is truly a parody of the subject - as you imagine your understanding both exhaustive and complete! You are a parody of yourself as you are utterly unaware of that which you do not know, all the while thinking that you have conclusively presented a topic about which you only have anecdotal word searches and cut and paste snippets. And you wonder why the rest here simply enjoy the equivalent of a drive by as we 'ponder' the expression of the Emperor out parading and imagining himself showing off his new set of clothes.
But such conversations would be more fun if they were not dominated by his amazement of OLD data that he has JUST read instead of a discussion predicated on an awareness and understanding of a well established common base of knowledge upon which an actual conversation might result. But hey, our friend has just become aware of psycho-acoustics with the reading of a book and an extensive "several day" 'exposure'! ...While we are merely subjected instead to a psycho acoustician who fails to discuss but instead DICTATES what others MUST prefer...
.Edited by dragonfyr - 7/15/12 at 3:42am