Originally Posted by speco2003
Bob you are talking to a guy in John who thinks he knows it all and engineers know nothing. Yet he will not present any of his awesome work for peer review because he says no one can understand it. He it seems is the only one who can according to him.
I have presented the equations, the analysis, the results, the test methods, the predictions which come out of the model....everything. The fact that you cannot understand it is more a testament to your abilities (or lack thereof). Sorry to bear this bad news to you. And lets' be honest for a change, shall we?? I stated that I have not found a member of the AES who has understood what I speak of, so do not believe it worth publishing in an AES venue. That would be akin to publishing quantum mechanics at a taxidriver convention, eh? (not that there's anything wrong with taxidrivers..) Yet, most of my peers understand...Certainly a conundrum for me, eh? Where to publish, where to publish...
Originally Posted by speco2003
Rest safe Bob in knowing that those of us who subscribe to real world audio and science know that guys like you are the ones with the brains not this nut job.
Hmmm...running wires made by others, from mikes made by others, to a sound board made by others, to amps and signal processors made by others, through more wires made by others, to speakers made by others...please explain to us exactly what value you add???? Is it boring, turning on the same equipment day to day, not using any engineering skills for the most part, even though you profess to be one? Granted, putting the system together initially must have been a real challenge, and something to be proud of....but once it's up and running, what next?? Tweak knobs? Where's the challenge?
Please, provide us an example of your own origional work, as opposed to simply parroting and using the work of others... I've presented my origional work, but yet you fail to understand it..
Originally Posted by QQQ
Do you also go by the name KBK?
For the 2 uSec number??? Are you kidding? That's not my number.. I backed off the actual number..perhaps you should look up some research, here's the earliest I have..
Binaural Time Discrimination, Jan O. Nordmark, J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol 60, No 4, October 1976, pages 870 to 879. (please accept my apologies for not providing the reference in the correct format)
Specifically, Figure 6 on page 875...it shows MEASURED discrimination thresholds for interaural delays from 100 hz to 4 Khz, and provides MEASURED human abilities down to 1.5 uSec at 2Khz and zero degrees.
There are certainly more studies available if your interested. (David Griesinger comes to mind, but his is not complete either..)
I will be honest...I was absolutely shocked when I first read of it, but after further analysis of localization theory, I understood it better. It does seem ridiculous, as the 1/T bandwidth implied is roughly 500 Khz...clearly we can't hear that high, but apparently we have the ability to localize at that level..
Originally Posted by Dizzman
Is this information being presented in an incredibly detailed fashion that very well goes beyond what is needed in cable selection? i think so.
I'm not so sure. See the above info on binaural hearing discrimination thresholds to realize what level of timing we are sensitive to. Honestly, I'm not sure how we'd measure the interchannel timing to that level, especially with music... But we do hear stuff to that level regardless of our measuring capability.
Originally Posted by Kevin Graf
Would this not be about the same as moving both super tweeters about 1/4 inch farther away?
Or on second thought, is it the same as moving the entire speaker about 1/4 inch father away?
Um, I think it's less. Scarily, the numbers based on speed of sound, fall well into the Xmax limits for most drivers. So the research indicates that for a single driver speaker, the bass signal will indeed jitter the hf stuff. From Nordmark's research, that would indicate that the presence of the bass content will HELP focus our ability to localize an image in space.
Originally Posted by dlarsen
In dry air @ 21C, I calculate 0.027" (1/37") in 2uSec...
And we're sensitive to that level of interaural delay...boggles the imagination, don't it??
Gents: (yah even speco)...I'm not making this audio stuff up, I'm just the messenger.
Don't you guys ever wonder how we image a soundstage???? The math is rather easy to do.
Why, oh why, would anybody confuse the accurate reproduction of sound in a large venue where the concerns of audience perception does NOT include the creation of an artificial soundstage
???? Accurate reproduction on the stage has several VERY DIFFERENT concerns, but interchannel delays in the 1 to 2 uSec regime is certainly not one of them
..but it is at home..
ps...I knew I had one of Nordmarks graphs somewhere, here it is...sorry it's figure 3 and not 6, but you get the gist...