On 01/06/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:42:42AM -0700, Ralph Glasgal wrote:
But, the ear is not sensitive to crosstalk below say 100Hz so
Where do you get this from ? Are you seriously saying that a low
frequency signal delivered to one ear sounds natural ? Just try
it.
What this means is that one is not doing much cancellation as
the frequency gets down to say 90Hz which is okay since one
does not localize well or at all at low bass frequencies anyway.
Now *that* is a fallacy if there ever was one. Agreed, if you
play a 40 Hz sine in a small room without any acoustic treatment
you won't be able to tell where it comes from. And if you put
a piece of sandblasted glass on your computer screen then you
won't be able to read this text.
Things change if you allow them to. Apparently you have never
heard a surround system that does reproduce low frequencies as
they should be. Just plain intensity (panned) stereo gets close
if the room doesn't destroy it. Ambisonic reproduction - even
first order - gets this exactly right (under the same conditions).
Ambiophonics makes a mess of it. Unless you use separate widely
spaced speakers for LF (driven by intensity-based stereo), as
some researchers have already recommended.
To be clear: I don't want to denigrate Ambiophonics - it has
is merits. But it would be better advocated using less pseudo
science and by acknowledging its limits rather than by presenting
it as something perfect invented by the gods and blessed by
Alan Blumlein. In fact it's probably the most 'unnatural' way
to reproduce sound - it's ill-conditioned by definition - even
if sometimes it does work.
Ciao,
Computer say " i can give you itd=450us @ 20Hz" off the shelf. That is
very near field, so should be unaffected by the room. I don't know
whether it is true..
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
