|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.84.181.88
In Reply to: Re: Reply to John Curl's suggestion to read Schroeder's "Models of hearing" posted by john curl on May 16, 2007 at 11:05:29:
It's not a matter of terminology. Phase inversion is described, but for the second of two test tones which are then played in combination, such as in chapter "F".I have no doubts at all that polarity inversion is clearly audible with test tones but the question is, how relevant are test tones for music lovers? And Schroeder simply doesn't mention listening tests where music was used.
We know about Greiner's results where "inversion of acoustic polarity is clearly audible for some intruments played in some styles and for some listening situations" and where "polarity inversion is not easily heard with normal complex musical program material, as our lage-scale listening tests showed".
Lipshitz also has performed tests with music, not only test tones, so the results of these tests would be interesting. But since Clark is reluctant to provide that information...
Follow Ups:
Oh, now: 'Absolute polarity exists but it's not important!' Next, you will have invented it.
Re: 'Absolute polarity exists but it's not important!AS a matter of fact, yes, that is essentially the core message. When controlled listening tests show that polarity inversion is audible on some selected signals but not on normal music program material, then I ask you why should those people who do listen to normal music program material worry about polarity?
Or is there something I'm still missing?
Klaus: There are three phases to a new idea.
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It exists, but it is not important.
3. We invented it.
Europeans are especially adept at this, from my experience.
I was only reflecting the 3 times some European engineer took my friendly input and ran with it, without reference to me. It has not happened as much in the USA, percentage wise.
The 3 phases of an idea is in 'Murphy's Laws', and is a standard parable in the engineering world.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed and my questions? Please note that FACTS can convince or good reasoning. So far, I'm not seeing any of those here.Please answer the question, why should anyone bother if polarity inversion is audible only with test signals? And what does the Schroeder paper tell the reader about polarity?
Just read and think about your most recent statements about absolute polarity. The answer is there. If you are so dense that you cannot accept absolute polarity and that it might be important to some people, well, tough nuts! You are ignoring what I have known and worked with for more than 30 years. It is just a waste of time to put any real effort to get you to appreciate this, and I have better things to do and say.
And you still did not answer my questions. What does the Schroeder paper say about polarity inversion on real music, because that's the only issue that matters here.Read after me : I DO ACCEPT ABSOLUTE POLARITY. I also accept that it might be important to some people. However, unless there has been provided solid evidence in controlled listening tests using real music played through appropriate audio systems I think that these people are subject to self-delusion. Self-delusion in the sense that they might use, unawaringly, audio systems which make polarity inversion easily audible by adding e.g. distortion.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: