And of course it presupposes you listen with your head held in a clamp, so it can't move. ;)
Printable View
And of course it presupposes you listen with your head held in a clamp, so it can't move. ;)
Even if you multiply by ten, it’s still a very small amount. If one can hear a speaker moved 20mm that’s still significant.
Russell
Two interesting articles on Sound on Sound:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/digital-myth
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniq...-audio-quality
Generally information on the SOS website can be considered reliable, although some might argue that the second is some disguised marketing.
One thing that I did find of particular interest was the idea that although our brains can process timing information very well to the point where we may not be able to perceive these “timing errors” if our brains are required to work less in this regard then quite possibly extended or critical listening may well be more satisfying.
I find it depends on the speakers. My OBs much more sensitive to fore and aft placement than box speakers, presumably due to the sound emitting in both directions so there's a more complex relationship between direct and reflected sound. I do indeed fine tune the speakers to a very small number of cms, could well be around 2 cms, but not 2mm!
More generally yes 2mm is going too far in reality. On the one side we have sampling at 22.7uS being thought of as easily good enough. On the other side we have suggestions that 5 to 10uS may only just be enough to allow us to be relaxed and sense the best timing.
Has either suggestion been fully put to scientific trials? And no I don't mean DBT because if we are talking about relaxed listening and sensing timing I don't believe that typical DBT tests are any use whatsoever. We'd need a clever scientist to come us with a good test or do we end up needing to rely on a large number of subjective tests - long term listening in a controlled environment?
Interesting point. What we know about dyslexics gives us some clues. Many dyslexics suffer overload in terms of information processing of the auditory. The brain cannot process sounds fast enough so words may not be fully broken down eg marmite could be heard as mumit, often it's the middle of the work that's an issue but it does vary. Bear mind that about 10% of us exhibit some dyslexia. Maybe dyslexics need a higher sampling rate to allow them to register timing well - but maybe that's presents more information making things worse....so many questions!
If only audio engineers and psychologists got together!
The blind usually have sharper hearing so may be the best subjects.
Up and down a few mm will make a difference. Doubt if it would back to front distance tho
I feel we need a spectrum of people. What's best for one is unlikely to be best for another. I'm sure we've all experienced people having very different musical presentations preferences to own preference. It's a bit like dieting, not all metabolisms are the same. People with excellent hearing and the best phonological processing - ability to distinguish the sounds efficiently - will I suspect have differing requirements to the dyslexics I've described. Maybe there isn't a gold standard perfect system, just one that suits specific individuals and we could do with understanding what characteristics suit certain type of people.
Interesting point. I feel that most double blind tests are of no use, because the test group is of an average audience. The test subjects range from the super golden ears, to the next to deaf, and all in between. Why would we want to test high end stereo using near deaf testers? Hearing tests should be performed on all those considered for the test, and only those of the highest results used in the test. Otherwise, we are always going to come to the same conclusion. That results are no better than chance.
. We aren’t testing to see if the average person can hear it, we are testing to tell if there is a difference! I see it time and again that these lax tests are said to prove that there is no audible difference, and perhaps marketers of mass production equipment are only interested in what the average person hears? But those who design high end gear are not concerned about what average people hear, they are concerned with what the few who are willing to pay top dollar for sound quality can hear.
Russell