[RichD]

Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

--
Rich

[Gerard[_2_]]

RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Why don't you give any information what this is about?

In case someone is interested:

“It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding how the human
ear perceives sound,”

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:53:51 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Why don't you give any information what this is about?

In case someone is interested:

“It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding how the human
ear perceives sound,”


Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

John

[Gerard[_2_]]

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:53:51 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Why don't you give any information what this is about?

In case someone is interested:

“It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding
how the human ear perceives sound,”


Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

John

I just deducted it from the subject line.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:09:38 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:53:51 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Why don't you give any information what this is about?

In case someone is interested:

“It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding
how the human ear perceives sound,”


Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

John

I just deducted it from the subject line.

And what were you left with?

d

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:09:38 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:53:51 +0200, "Gerard"
wrote:

RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Why don't you give any information what this is about?

In case someone is interested:

"It's about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding
how the human ear perceives sound,"


Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

John

I just deducted it from the subject line.

And what were you left with?

d


Drat! You got there ahead of me.

JDW

[[email protected]]

In rec.audio.pro John Larkin wrote:
: Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

I don't make it a habit of clicking links that I know
absolutely nothing about.

[Gerard[_2_]]

wrote:
In rec.audio.pro John Larkin
wrote:
Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

I don't make it a habit of clicking links that I know
absolutely nothing about.

(But it was clear that it pointed to a NY Times article.)
Next to that, "fyi" and "Something interesting" is pure NON-information.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

RichD wrote:

Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

These people must have attended a liberal school:

"But stereo had no real psychoacoustics. It created an artificial sense of
space with a second track, but did so by dealing with only one variable ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
loudness ? and enhanced human perception simply by suggesting that listeners
^^^^^^^^
separate their speakers. "

Apparently, they've never heard of phase or time of arrival of the signal.

Cheers!
Rich

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

wrote:

In rec.audio.pro John Larkin
wrote:
: Hey, I figured that out by clicking on the link.

I don't make it a habit of clicking links that I know
absolutely nothing about.

I've got Linux, which is inherently virus-proof, so it's no problem for
me. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

RichD wrote:

Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Back in my QST days, I read an article about simulating stereo for
CW (Morse Code) operation, where they took a low-pass filter and
sent its output to the left speaker, and a high-pass filter to a
right speaker, and presumably, the effect was to give the illusion
of your radio band spread out in front of you, low to high, and
they said it made it really easy to zero in on a particular
signal.

It sure sounds logical to me. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 9/8/2011 4:46 PM, RichD wrote:
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

--
Rich

Wondering what you found interesting or learned from the article?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm thinking 90+ % of audio
professionals have known that for some time.


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT), RichD
wrote:

Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

Where is the beef ?

Trying to sell as many speakers as possible ?

Trying to cancel out the listening room reflections in order to
simulate an anechoic listening room ? It might be possible to do this
for a single point in the room, but I do not understand, how this
would be possible to cancel out the local reflections in at least two
points about 20 cm from each other (ears) or actual in 5 cm radius
spheres around these points. When a person tries to locate a sound
source he/she will make unconscious head movements and the ears move
accordingly. For exact listening experience, the air molecules should
move in the same way (in 3D) around the listeners ear positions as
they would have been in the original sound stage.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT), RichD
wrote:

Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html


I have kicked out my 5:1 full spatial stereo equipment
and returned to normal 2 channel stereo with 1 center medium tweeter.

It was a bad experience listening to a singer
like sitting in midst of his throat.

No surround sound anymore.


w.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"RichD" wrote in message
...
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html


This article is thinly-disquised PR hype about the Audyssey system is a
self-adjusting equalizer that is commonly
incorporated into mid-fi and higher end receivers.

Example:

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVR2112C...5325640&sr=8-1

Techincally, its equalization and time delay auto-adjusted using a built-in
computer and a cheap but reasonably flat microphone situatied at the
listening postion.

One can find quite a bit of discussion about Audyssey on many HTML-based
home theater forums.

It does seem to get a fair amount of favorable comment from many end-users
and some reviewers based on personal experience. If it turned receivers into
boat anchors, it wouldn't show up in as much equipment as it does.

[Androcles[_5_]]

"Helmut Wabnig" [email protected] --- -.dotat wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT), RichD
| wrote:
|
| Something interesting:
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html
|
|
| I have kicked out my 5:1 full spatial stereo equipment
| and returned to normal 2 channel stereo with 1 center medium tweeter.
|
| It was a bad experience listening to a singer
| like sitting in midst of his throat.
|
| No surround sound anymore.
|
A centre tweeter, wabbie?
Ears detect direction by phase difference as the same signal arrives
in each ear by a longer path for one and a shorter path for the other.
Because bass frequencies have a longer wavelength than higher
frequencies the phase difference is less noticeable, so there is no
advantage to more than one subwoofer and not a lot to two woofers.
Tweeters, on the other hand, are what stereo is all about, that's what
you get directionality from.
Now while I agree that surround sound is just a gimmick, I'm not
playing in the middle of the orchestra when I go to a concert, and I
do want to hear the violins on my left and the cellos on my right
when I'm in the audience. A central tweeter won't do that.
Perhaps you don't listen to music, wabbie. Many don't, all they want
is a beat, a twelve bar melody and poor poetry to sing along with.
"Turn it up, I like this one!"
No, turn it down, it is just an imitated heart beat. Thump, thump,
thump, thump, thump...
Let me hear Brahms' fourth symphony, second movement, but do
NOT turn it up. It is supposed to be soft. The klavier, which in
English is called a pianoforte, is designed to play softly and loud.
Piano is Italian for plan and forte is Italian for strong.
The English clavier is a keyboard, so it is much the same.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 08/09/2011 23:23, Soundhaspriority wrote:


"RichD" wrote in message
...
Something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

--
Rich

I'm sure he did the most scientific job, but he is preceded by Ralph
Glasgal, with his "Ambiophonics" scheme (not to be confused with
Ambisonics).

In crude form, I've tried this, using multiple consumer level ambience
generators. These were once quite popular and sophisticated: the Sony
ESD1000, ESD2000, the Yamaha DSP-A1 and RXV1, et al.

So I tried running two synthesizers simultaneously, with side speakers,
in a narrow room, so that the stereo pair is closer than usual, and it
has been a nice experience. I experienced a greatly enlarged sweet spot,
which becomes a line. The room enlarges. Having never been to Boston
Symphony, I have no idea whether my synthetic space resembles any real
space, but it's fun -- especially with Jean Michel Jarre.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

These also generate a remarkable sound:
http://cyfi.uk.com/cyfi-home-cinema-product-range.php

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - Magick and Technology

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT), RichD
wrote:

Something interesting:

Something crossposted...



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/science/06sound.html

I found this sentente amusing:

"Dr. Kyriakakis, an electrical engineer at U.S.C. and the founder and
chief technical officer of Audyssey Laboratories, a Los Angeles-based
audio firm, could not achieve his results without modern sound filters
and digital microprocessors."

Yeah, those old-fashioned analog micrpoprocssers didn't work worth
crap.