My humble apologies...

BerylliumDust

BerylliumDust

WATCH OUT!!!
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Nowhere you can find me.
I must apologize to the forum, especially to Michael... I'm sorry Michael, for the tremendous inaccuracy of my statements regarding speech frequency range and telephony bandwith which I said to be 300Hz-4kHz.

Speech frequency can extend from 100Hz to 10kHz!

Telephony bandwith is limited to 300Hz-3.4kHz (3.1kHz bandwith)!

I also want to say to you Michael, that I don't agree with your policy of closing threads without at least a warning, otherwise a new thread wouldn't be necessary to give you my apologies.

I reckon that the telephony example was a mistake in trying to prove that limited (flat) frequency response, although not desirable in high-quality sound reproduction, is not as critical as time related distortions are for improved reality. However, it is now accepted that reproduction of frequencies down to 20Hz improves reality and ambience...

The best system I've ever heard, and most definitely the majoraty of systems, doesn't go so low...

I will try to come up with a better reasoning to prove my point.
 
BerylliumDust said:
I also want to say to you Michael, that I don't agree with your policy of closing threads without at least a warning, otherwise a new thread wouldn't be necessary to give you my apologies.
Click to expand...

well i saw the warnings, was it your selective reading again?

BerylliumDust said:
I will try to come up with a better reasoning to prove my point.
Click to expand...

Please dont.
 
I gave you warnings BD and you weren't listening. You refused to accept you were wrong and just carried on with an argument that no one's really interested in. It's a pretty well established fact (there is no credible evidence to the contrary) that frequency response is by far the most important factor in accurate sound reproduction. You won't come up with any better reasoning to prove your point because it's impossible to prove something that's not true.

Take a look at this article and you'll see that phase distortion/rotation (what you probably mean by time distortion) is in fact completely inaudible.

Michael.
 
michael,

1=2!

see:

Let a=b.
Then a^2 = ab,
a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.
This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b),
and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.

:D
cheers


julian
 
Without looking I can tell that you've divided by zero. Invoke the infinite and choose whichever single answer you prefer seems to be the way of the mystic approach to hifi.

I prefer to leave the mystic in the music.

Paul
 
penance said:
Please dont.
Click to expand...

You see penance, I just did PART I...

Voice is composed by a series of harmonically related sine waves, starting with a fundamental frequency of about 100 Hz for males and about 200 Hz for females.

As you can see from above telephony frequency range, the fundamental is not passed by the telephone circuit. However, we can actually hear the fundamental frequency. This happens because the human ear fills in the fundamental frequency by listening to the harmonics.

Now, an even more interesting thing... In the time domain voice varies in amplitude with time, but even in active conversation the GAPS between words on average occupy MORE THAN 50% of the conversation time.

Most of the information is carried on the ENVELOPE of voice alone. A whisper is composed of random noise, shaped in amplitude by the voice mechanism. But a whisper is still understandable. This is because most voice information is NOT carried in the harmonically related frequencies, but in the ENVELOPE of voice itself. In fact, most voice information is carried in the fricative, sharp sounds (although most of the voice power is in the lower frequency vowel sounds).

PART II...

Transform theory teaches that the higher the frequency resolution of a transform, the worse the time accuracy. In the presence of a complex spectrum, the FINITE width of the vibration ENVELOPE within the basilar membrane (responsible for the ear frequency discrimination mechanism) means that the ear fails to register energy in some bands when there is more energy in a nearby band. Some frequencies are thus machanically excluded because their amplitude is insufficient to dominate the local vibration of the membrane. This is the principle behind audio compression.

As the basilar membrane is resonant, it follows that it takes TIME to START and STOP vibrating in response to a stimulus. When a shorter TIME is available, the frequency descrimination of the transform falls and the bands in which energy is detected become broader.

The ear has evolved to offer intelligibility even in reverberant environments. This is done by averaging all received energy over a period of about 30ms. Reflected sound which arrives within this TIME is integrated to produce a louder sensation, whereas reflected sound which arrives after that TIME can be discriminated and is perceived as an echo.
 
we dont care
FFS read what people are saying.
You are boring
you are wrong
you are repetative
you are pointless
you are making the forum unenjoyable for other users.

I would say exactly what i feel, but a public forum is not the place.
Just please, get a life or get lost:mad:
 
BerylliumDust said:
You see penance, I just did PART I...

Voice is composed by a series of harmonically related sine waves, starting with a fundamental frequency of about 100 Hz for males and about 200 Hz for females.

As you can see from above telephony frequency range, the fundamental is not passed by the telephone circuit. However, we can actually hear the fundamental frequency. This happens because the human ear fills in the fundamental frequency by listening to the harmonics.

Now, an even more interesting thing... In the time domain voice varies in amplitude with time, but even in active conversation the GAPS between words on average occupy MORE THAN 50% of the conversation time.

Most of the information is carried on the ENVELOPE of voice alone. A whisper is composed of random noise, shaped in amplitude by the voice mechanism. But a whisper is still understandable. This is because most voice information is NOT carried in the harmonically related frequencies, but in the ENVELOPE of voice itself. In fact, most voice information is carried in the fricative, sharp sounds (although most of the voice power is in the lower frequency vowel sounds).

PART II...

Transform theory teaches that the higher the frequency resolution of a transform, the worse the time accuracy. In the presence of a complex spectrum, the FINITE width of the vibration ENVELOPE within the basilar membrane (responsible for the ear frequency discrimination mechanism) means that the ear fails to register energy in some bands when there is more energy in a nearby band. Some frequencies are thus machanically excluded because their amplitude is insufficient to dominate the local vibration of the membrane. This is the principle behind audio compression.

As the basilar membrane is resonant, it follows that it takes TIME to START and STOP vibrating in response to a stimulus. When a shorter TIME is available, the frequency descrimination of the transform falls and the bands in which energy is detected become broader.

The ear has evolved to offer intelligibility even in reverberant environments. This is done by averaging all received energy over a period of about 30ms. Reflected sound which arrives within this TIME is integrated to produce a louder sensation, whereas reflected sound which arrives after that TIME can be discriminated and is perceived as an echo.
Click to expand...


i found that both informative and educational.
im going to recite it to the missus over dinner.
hopefully she will think ive lost the plot and go out for the evening so i can get my fields of the nephelim album out, dress all in black and drink the blood drained from the defrosting steak in the kitchen whilst sitting in the dark in the cubby hole under the stairs.
nice.
now look at what youve done.
 
BD, you just copied that from some book or a website :rolleyes: . Your English is good, but not that good ;)

It would help if you understood things that you read before posting them. It doesn't contradict anything I said about frequency response. Why don't you explain, in your own words, what you mean by time distortion - do you even know what you're on about?

Michael.
 
michaelab said:
BD, you just copied that from some book or a website :rolleyes: . Your English is good, but not that good ;)

Michael.
Click to expand...

If you cannot understand it in that good English... I don't know how to say it anymore...

You see Michael, I've not invented anything, neither Tube Dude... it is just a question of knowing what is important and what is not. The wheel was invented thousand years ago...

Since you don't want to hear it for yourself in my system... there's nothing more I can do for you.

You are an extremist that won't even listen... talking in purely theoritical terms.

I'm talking about something I've experienced, measured and that can be heard... Would you believe it if I told you that shorten my 1m interconnects in half contributed to a dramatic improvement in sound quality... of course you wouldn't...

Tube Dude has showed me the way... I've tried to show it to you, but as someone else already said, you really don't care...

And I understand you not only as friend but because eventually you would end up changing your equipment... so, you really cannot be arsed.

There's only one thing I quite don't understand... why do you waste so much time trolling in this forum (how many years now?!...) if you already feel where the truth lays...

Oh, I know it is your hobby... trolling!
 
michaelab said:
It would help if you understood things that you read before posting them. It doesn't contradict anything I said about frequency response. Why don't you explain, in your own words, what you mean by time distortion - do you even know what you're on about?

Michael.
Click to expand...

Oedipus,

Maybe you can explain to Michael how two different amplifiers, Rotel RA01 and Rotel RA1062, which have the same FREQUENCY RESPONSE, same Total Harmonic Distortion, same Signal to Noise Ratio, and same Damping Factor can sound so different and have a perfectly distinct null test that just confirms it.
 
BerylliumDust said:
Oedipus,

Maybe you can explain to Michael how two different amplifiers, Rotel RA01 and Rotel RA1062, which have the same FREQUENCY RESPONSE, same Total Harmonic Distortion, same Signal to Noise Ratio, and same Damping Factor can sound so different and have a perfectly distinct null test that just confirms it.
Click to expand...

I'm not Oedipus,but here it goes!

Harmonic Distortion , measured the traditional way with sinusoidal signals don't tell much about amplifier sound quality,but a null test , made with a music signal and the amp driving a real speaker can really show the sound quality of the amp.

By the way , two amps with exactly the some null at all frequencies ,will obviously sound the some... :MILD:
 
By the way , two amps with exactly the some null at all frequencies ,will obviously sound the some...

surely its also down to the two amps using the same cables , speakers , source , same position in the same room driven by the same electricity supply on the same isolation platform etc.

otherwise they are just capable of sounding the same.
although im no expert on this so i may be wrong.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top