[analogsurviver]

What the hell are you talking about and what does any of this have to do with home audio? Is there a reason why you have trouble communicating clearly or are you deliberately obfuscating?

I am talking about he fact that evcolution taught us - the hard way - to be able to locate the sound within 2 degrees or so - in 3D, not just 360 degree plane. Regardless of what any paper might say, with better precision, peer reviews, etc.

What part of this you do not understand ? And what does this have to do with audio ? - after finding binaural does not work for you.

In your shoes, I would try at least to follow what others have said about the binaural - it is perfectly OK to say that it is too complicated or costly to you, but dismissing it on the grounds that you failed at the first hurdle is simply not fair. Getting the surround right is even far more costly - you need decent ROOM to begin with ...

 

[Zapp_Fan]

It would depend on the frequency. That’s not a real audio signal though.

Not a wrong statement, but the wrong set of conditions. The comparison is between the hazard of a clipping amplifier and a non-clipping amplifier with the same gain. The clipping amplifier does not, and cannot provide higher RMS or peak energy than the unclipped higher power amp.

I don't have data on tweeter over-excursion, that's more of speculation tbqh. I think the tweeter would probably have to be designed wrong for that to happen.

As far as the conditions - the original post was about digital clipping, not a clipping amp, but I acknowledge the conversation has moved on.

However, I would point out that clipped signals at 0 dBFS and pure square waves are certainly signals that music producers would encounter with some regularity. Most music listeners won't encounter these very often, but on the other side of the mixing desk it would be relatively common.

 

[KeithEmo]

This is a pointless argument... your theoretical conditions do NOT encompass all the permutations commonly encountered in the real world.

I've owned plenty of analog preamps which had 20+ dB of "excess gain"... and so were able to deliver a fair approximation of a square wave with high-level inputs.

Also note that, while I don't know the conditions others were assuming, I never said that we should assume "the same amount of gain".
In real life, what we frequently encounter is that, when someone has an underpowered amplifier, they turn it up until it clips.
Then, when it still fails to play loudly enough, they turn it up FURTHER.
The result is a solidly clipped signal which is also loudness compressed (the peak level was limited by the amp but, by continuing to boost the gain, they're also significantly raised the average level).
As a result, the signal has both a much higher than normal average level, and, thanks to the clipping, a disproportionate amount of high frequency energy.

If you talk to anyone who has processed or repaired a significant number of damaged speaker...
You will find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common...
You will also find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common among users who have low-powered amplifiers.

I leave it to you to figure out how much of this is due to the facts I've described...
And how much is simply due to the possibility that the sort of people who buy underpowered amplifiers are also the sort who are more prone to turning them all the way up, ignoring obvious signs of distress with their speakers, and waiting for smoke to appear.

I should also note, however, that I can easily produce a very similar effect by deliberately causing excessive clipping on a digital audio editor, or by using "a brick wall limiter".
(That effect being to raise the average level, sometimes by as much as eight or ten TIMES, while the peak level remains the same.)
In fact, the theoretical ultimate result of applying massive amounts of gain, combined with hard limiting, would be to turn music into a series of full amplitude sine waves at various frequencies.... and I haven't seen many tweeters that could tolerate a 100 watt 5 kHz sine wave for very long.
(And, no, I wouldn't want to be in the room with one if it could.)

If you really require a "graphic example" of this...
Take any music file you like (choose one that is normalized so the peaks are at about -1 dB but are NOT clipped).
Analyze the average power level.
Now, boost the level of the entire file by 20 dB (ignoring any clipping that may occur).
Analyze the average power level again.
You will obviously find that the average power level is now significantly higher.
(And, if there is a lot of clipping, you will find that the average power level at higher frequencies is increased disproportionately.)

Show me real data. Ive looked,it’s just not there. What you’re looking for is hard evidence that a clipping amp blows a tweeter but a non clipping amp at the same gain does not. POST if you find it.
Clearly you have not actually tried this. It takes 40+ dB if gain past clipping to eve approximate a pseudo-square wave. Not possible in the real world.
Quite incorrect. A 100W amp driven past clipping will output more than 100W rms. Look at the first graph which shows exactly that.
But that mid range and tweeter energy is insignificant compared to the music content there. Look at the graph that shows the spectrum change with clipping. These are actual measurements.


You’re clinging to the myth! It’s like you never read my post or looked at the pictures! All your objections have already been addressed.

With 40dB of gain past clipping you still don’t get square waves. You might just try it instead of posting more errors.

If you drive your 100W amp 10dB past clipping you get more than 100W! But not more than the unclipped amp at the same gain. Look st the first graph again.

Now, I’ve post a graphic proof of what I’m saying. You’ve posted nothing but opinion. If you like to post some actual proof, I’d be happy to look at it.

Show me real data. Ive looked,it’s just not there. What you’re looking for is hard evidence that a clipping amp blows a tweeter but a non clipping amp at the same gain does not. POST if you find it.
Clearly you have not actually tried this. It takes 40+ dB if gain past clipping to eve approximate a pseudo-square wave. Not possible in the real world.
Quite incorrect. A 100W amp driven past clipping will output more than 100W rms. Look at the first graph which shows exactly that.
But that mid range and tweeter energy is insignificant compared to the music content there. Look at the graph that shows the spectrum change with clipping. These are actual measurements.


You’re clinging to the myth! It’s like you never read my post or looked at the pictures! All your objections have already been addressed.

With 40dB of gain past clipping you still don’t get square waves. You might just try it instead of posting more errors.

If you drive your 100W amp 10dB past clipping you get more than 100W! But not more than the unclipped amp at the same gain. Look st the first graph again.

Now, I’ve post a graphic proof of what I’m saying. You’ve posted nothing but opinion. If you like to post some actual proof, I’d be happy to look at it.

 

[pinnahertz]

1. What is the correct ITD?
2. You get rid of one compromise (headphone listening). I do this omnistereophonic sound when making music. I can manage it. Why couldn't others?

Perhaps you might give that just a little more thought?

3. No evidence at all? Really? As if fossilized remains were the only possible evidence. How about DNA?

Foscilized DNA from which we can tell if the owner had acute spatial hearing? You’ve been watching too man movies.

I believe by the time apes emerged evolution had already found the benefits of two ears so that's why one-eared apes don't exist. Skulls do fossilize and they indicate the locations of ears.

Yes, we have the location of two ears . But we know nothing about the shape and size which affects localization. We don’t have a single skull with only one ear. So we have no evidence there was any evolutionary change.

4. Planet Earth. I don't know if aliens have visited here. Probably not.

You lost me. All the physical evidence we have points to the existence of two-eared humans with no change in hearing ability.

 

[bigshot]

I am talking about he fact that evcolution taught us - the hard way - to be able to locate the sound within 2 degrees or so - in 3D, not just 360 degree plane. Regardless of what any paper might say, with better precision, peer reviews, etc.

What peer reviewed papers are you referring to? Is there a specific context to your comment?

And yes, binaural doesn't work for me. Surround does. Atmos would probably be even better. Multichannel playback with object based spatial mixing shows a lot more potential than shoehorning everything into just two channels. With Atmos, you'd be more apt to get that 360 degree sound field you're talking about... the more channels, the more precise the location.

 

[71 dB]

4. If you have 200 different samples, each recorded at a different time and/or place, then you have 200 (multiple) mics worth of samples to mix together and of course, they have indeed all been recorded, not just a vocal and a guitar riff! Surely this isn't too difficult for you to grasp, is it? Why did you make such nonsense assertions in the first place and why on earth are you spending post after post trying to defend it?

G

What are we arguing about here? I agree with that. Now, I leave and do other things in my life.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

What are we arguing about here? I agree with that. Now, I leave and do other things in my life.

Yes! Put this thread out of its misery. I'm sure a lot more was accomplished earlier today on Sentosa Island in Singapore than has been in over 8,750 posts here!

 

[bigshot]

Yes! Put this thread out of its misery.

The reason this thread gets crapped on so much is the first post. It's a smoking gun that disproves a lot of the myths that audiophiles cherish. Idiots with a chip on their shoulder and a hatred for controlled testing come in here and deliberately try to grandstand and spew bologna in the hopes of getting it locked. Others with huge egos and small intellects use it to try to hog the limelight and shift the attention to themselves. Neither of these tactics have worked. This thread is pinned and it's the most important thing in this whole forum in my opinion. If you want to know why this thread *isn't* going to be "put out of its misery", take an hour or two to carefully read the first post and follow the links for the citations. I guarantee you'll learn something. I did when it was first posted. ProgRockMan was kind enough to come back a month or two ago and update it. If you haven't read it since then, set your keyboard aside and read for a bit instead of posting. Send him a PM thanking him for his work. He deserves it.

I sit here and put up with clowns vomiting nonsense all over the comments here because this forum needs that first post. It's concise, well supported and jam packed with useful information. If the comments don't follow that model, it's up to the commenters to do a better job. It isn't the fault of the thread. Go raise the level of your own discourse and encourage others to do the same. If you can't raise the bar, then just step back and let the first post stand on its own. The part of this thread that isn't needed is the thread crapping.That's what should be put out of its misery.

 

[analogsurviver]

What peer reviewed papers are you referring to? Is there a specific context to your comment?

And yes, binaural doesn't work for me. Surround does. Atmos would probably be even better. Multichannel playback with object based spatial mixing shows a lot more potential than shoehorning everything into just two channels. With Atmos, you'd be more apt to get that 360 degree sound field you're talking about... the more channels, the more precise the location.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170858/
There is a lot of references in the end of this paper. It merely means that this topic has been scientifically reasearched.

In nature, all we have are 2 ears and whatever sound is surrounding us. I do not say surround does not work, but is potentially available to far lower number of people than binaural - simply because of the requirement of having a big enough listening room. That is why I feel binaural is important and worth pursuing further.

 

[bigshot]

In nature, all we have are 2 ears and whatever sound is surrounding us. I do not say surround does not work, but is potentially available to far lower number of people than binaural - simply because of the requirement of having a big enough listening room. That is why I feel binaural is important and worth pursuing further.

Yes, I know humans have two ears. I don't need a scientific paper to prove that. And I don't need studies about what kind of ears birds or centipedes have.

There are a lot of factors involved in directionality. Binaural recording only addresses a few of them. Actual physical sound surrounding you addresses all of them. Headphones are a compromise. They always will be a compromise. It's fine to try and push the envelope of what headphones might be able to do, but it's still going to sound more realistic if you physically create a sound field than if you synthesize it.

It really isn't that hard to set up a good surround system. A small bedroom is enough to do a pretty good sounding system. An average 5.1 speaker system kicks the pants off the best headphone rig there is. If you're really serious about dimensional sound, I would suggest not wasting your time trying to optimize compromises. Just do it the right way. If you're absolutely stuck with headphones, then you'd probably do better to embrace the things headphones do best, not try to shoehorn them into doing things they aren't as good at.

I do have to say... I'm glad we aren't talking about rhinos and jet pilots any more. It's better to talk about home audio systems.

 

[jgazal]

There are a lot of factors involved in directionality. Binaural recording only addresses a few of them.

Stereo addresses fewer, but I agree that without dsp binaural is not realistic at all.

Actual physical sound surrounding you addresses all of them.

All is a very strong word. I would say surround also address a few of them (factors involved in directionality).

Headphones are a compromise. They always will be a compromise.

"They will always be a compromise" is a very strong statement. I would say "without dsp, headphones will always be a compromise" or "with dsp, headphones may achieve similar performance of speakers".

It's fine to try and push the envelope of what headphones might be able to do, but it's still going to sound more realistic if you physically create a sound field than if you synthesize it.

"Still going to sound more realistic" is a very strong statement.

I don't dare to say synthetic sound fields rendered on the fly might one day sound as good as reality. That is a lot of computing power.

But I wouldn't say surround will always sound more realistic than, for instance, high order ambisonics plus a personalized HRTF (either with headphones or beamforming phased array of transducers).

IMHO those are conclusions (either your or mine) that one would only state after testing all the technologies that are currently under development.

 

[bigshot]

I’ve never experienced headphones that came anywhere near my 5.1 system. Not even in stereo. If there’s something I can listen to to convince me, I’m all ears, but I don’t see anything practical at this point.

 

[jgazal]

I’ve never experienced headphones that came anywhere near my 5.1 system. Not even in stereo. If there’s something I can listen to to convince me, I’m all ears, but I don’t see anything practical at this point.

Now I agree completely.

 

[skwoodwiva]

Stereo addresses fewer, but I agree that without dsp binaural is not realistic at all.



All is a very strong word. I would say surround also address a few of them (factors involved in directionality).



"They will always be a compromise" is a very strong statement. I would say "without dsp, headphones will always be a compromise" or "with dsp, headphones may achieve similar performance of speakers".



"Still going to sound more realistic" is a very strong statement.

I don't dare to say synthetic sound fields rendered on the fly might one day sound as good as reality. That is a lot of computing power.

But I wouldn't say surround will always sound more realistic than, for instance, high order ambisonics plus a personalized HRTF (either with headphones or beamforming phased array of transducers).

IMHO those are conclusions (either your or mine) that one would only state after testing all the technologies that are currently under development.

I
think you on the money about the pitfalls of computing “reality “ yet i have not heard anything as practical as binaural is, that is affordable while being satisfying at the same time

 

[jgazal]

I
think you on the money about the pitfalls of computing “reality “ yet i have not heard anything as practical as binaural is, that is affordable while being satisfying at the same time

Without crosstalk cancellation (for speakers) or personalized BRIR convolution with headtracking (for headphones), I have to agree with @bigshot, @gregorio and @pinnahertz that surround or even stereo are more versatile to satisfy a broader audience.

Free market and the amount of binaural content available prove their point "at this point".

There are other options under development.

My objection to @bigshot opinion was related to the performance of future content chains and playback environments.