Regarding the link about light, a) what does that have to do with anything? and b) statements there such as "The exact nature of light is not fully understood, although scientists have been studying the subject for many centuries." are plain wrong. Explaining light was one of the first successes of quantum theory many decades ago. The wave/particle duality is a non-issue, since quanta are neither waves nor particles, but things for which we have no analogues in the macro world we sense, and thus cannot relate to directly. That's what the math is for.
Regarding audio codec listening tests, here's the link I recommend: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/
This guy did the tests by having many people download the setup (an ABC/hidden reference blind test software and sound file set) and perform the tests on their own computers, then send back the results (encryption to prevent cheating).
500+ Member: Building amps and assuring water resistance.
Prune Why the hostility my intent hear is not to take sides or provoke an argument. I just to stimulate thought on this subject regarding the Light theroy as you allready know the human brain process Sight in a similer way to hearing. unless this theroy has changeged in 20 years.
thanks for the alternate link more info is always better
I do not at all agree that the brain processes light and sound in a similar way. An enormous portion of our brain is devoted to vision, far more than to sound. Aural perception is fundamentally different because the information is in the 1D time domain, whereas vision is more in the 2D/3D space domain (motion is just one small part). The relationships between the two sensory modalities and the various types of memory are also very distinct (for example looking at the phonological short-term memory loop vs. the visuo-spatial short-term memory, etc.). And so on.
Regarding music perception specifically, a good site is this one for a music psychology course, with notes accessible from the menu: http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/cours.../172Frames.htm
Though web resources are no substitute for a good book. I've heard good things about Cognitive Neuroscience of Music, but my "to read" queue is long enough as it is...
500+ Member: Building amps and assuring water resistance.
Hi Puune
Thanks for the Link too bad the files are in real audio a player I will never install on any windows computer I want to have working properly.
Anyway human perception is not my field of expertise however the vision part I mentioned was from an old AES report. Its more that 20 or so years old and I am sorry my recall is just not so good after 20 years. Basically true vision occupies more resources in the brain that audio and vision is given precedence. However if I remember correctly the ear can perceive the location of a sound to within 1 degree is this correct?
Real's crap is easy to deal with: once you install, go to the Run sections of the registry and remove all Real related items. This way it will only have its software loaded when you are actually using it, instead of loading parts at startup and running in the background.
Quote:
However if I remember correctly the ear can perceive the location of a sound to within 1 degree is this correct?
Not with the phase distortions of common speaker/room setups.
Over at Audio Asylum's Critic's Corner, there is always a pretty spirited "measured versus perceived" argument going on. Kalman Rubenstein, one of the Stereophile reviewers, posted a link to Stereophile's web site that has a huge number of links to articles within that site covering audio measurements, how they might relate to perceived differences in components and how to interpret measurements (particularly aimed at John Atkinson's measurements). I've only just started wading through them, but what I've read seems pretty balanced with regard to the relevancy of measured data. Even if you just skim over one or two of the articles, you'll probably find something that is interesting and informative.
This article deals mainly with differences between equalizers. But, it touches a very interesting point in the subjective/objective debate: some specific types of very small distortions in the order of 0.1dB and 1/100 radians were proven audible.
__________________
Head-fi tip of the day: never admit your hypothesis was wrong. Once is one time too many.
But what crossover can avoid all such colorations? Does this mean that multiple driver speakers are doomed to be colored unless high-resolution digital crossovers are used, with the given multiplication of DAC-to-speaker paths?
I already have one capacitor in the signal path (DC blocking) in my DAC. This causes some phase non-flatness at the frequency extremes. However, I have read that a) when looking at it graphed as group delay, it's only important to be flat above 100 Hz or so, and b) continuous and smooth curve is important, not just the flatness. Discontinuities are very audible, which tends to fit with the article gaboo found.
I have heard hifizen's (from diyaudio) tube speaker amp, which is not even OTL, and it has an even less flat phase, yet it sounds quite nice. That either means the specific phase non-linearity is not very audible, or that it's the kind of distortion that may be called, er, euphonic coloring. However, I did not get a chance to evaluate it for imaging, where phase is very important (though again, not in the low end). Of course, most recordings already screw up imaging; in the end only binaural recordings with headphones, or complex crosstalk cancellation processing in specific speaker setups can really reproduce it properly, so the playback system's faults will not be apparent.
Linear Mode
