A Thread to Continue discussing Tim Gillett's Recollection of Another Discussion

[evm1024]

after Newton came Einstein

EVM,
You're right. I've just seen the light. Your understanding of the entire subject is so much more complex and profound than mine that I simply have to bow down and worship your vast understanding and wisdom.

You must be right because like with all the great geniuses I cannot understand a word you are saying.

Tim G

Tim, you do not have to be wrong for me to be making sense. Newtonian Physics works very well to explain what we observe in the world up to the point that the speed of light is significant. Then comes Einstein with some new math that describes what we see inthe real world quite nicely. And where relitivity fails to be enough we have quantum physics. And (hopefully) string theory for the next step.

Having 2 ears that do left right phase delays to locate is the Newtonian theory of hearing. If it were that simple then Digital would not be distingusable from the original live source (or analog).

But as we listen deeper we are hearing something at least some of us that is persistant. Something is just not there. How to we describe it? We need to look for a deeper understanding of psycoacoustics to get a handle on the real world.

 

[Beck]

...And yet in the real world we do know when a sound is above or below us. we are not just limited to the plane that our ears sit on. Sure it is not as precise as in the horizontal plane but we do resolve up and down.

This is very hard to reproduce in sterio....

It is you who have misunderstood here. I have granted you the phase shifts that happen in electronic equipment. I have granted you that these phase shifts happed at different rates based on their frequency. I have granted you that we do not have 3 ears. I have granted you these things by not objecting to your assertions.

You have limited the actuallity of psycoacustics to those things that we engineers can measure and therefore understand fairly well.

But there is something that we do hear, some processing that happens that is more than just the differiential path between the source and our ears.

Do you hear a point sound source as a point source or as a line source? As a point source of course not as a line. And yet the phase is constant left ear to right ear anywhere along a line. The fact is that your ear does know the verticle angle with some precision based on how it enters your ear as well as many other things that we do not understand very well.

But I say again. Your ears are not your eyes. That point source has a direct path to your ears and an infinite series of reflected paths each with their own phase relationship to the incident path and to each other. Our brain processes all of these and Knows.

The argument between difital and analog is not about first order phenomona.

You made this statement:
------
To talk of the brain processing "other" phase angles is confusing and suggests you dont understand what we just discussed. Sure there ARE "other" phase angles in the sense that we live in 3 dimensional space, BUT WE ONLY HAVE TWO EARS!
------
I had a bit of a problem in deciding how to respond to it. Your confusion by it and failure to understand it could be an indication of my failure in understanding but on the other hand it could just be indicitave of your lack of information and understanding of how we process complex signal groups.

A single ping is reflected off of every surface and each reflection tells us something about both the source and the multitude of reflection points. Our brains process this even with one ear and deduce information about our environment. Our hearing is so good that we can process in realtime complex sounds.


Our recording technologies removes some of the information that our brain expects to hear and puts some in that is not actually there. Analog and digital have differing levels and types of reductions and additions.

It appears that the modifications that analog does is more easily accepted by the brain...

This is perfectly sensible, easy reading for me. Once again, our varied backgrounds, education, culture and language come into play.

Now my wife’s very complicated recipe for tiramisu looks like Greek to me, but I don’t cook, (unless Stovetop stuffing counts). I could survive ok with my food preparation skills, but I would look pretty silly trying to converse with a real chef about the culinary arts… even sillier if she had wardrobe issues.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim, you do not have to be wrong for me to be making sense. Newtonian Physics works very well to explain what we observe in the world up to the point that the speed of light is significant. Then comes Einstein with some new math that describes what we see inthe real world quite nicely. And where relitivity fails to be enough we have quantum physics. And (hopefully) string theory for the next step.

Having 2 ears that do left right phase delays to locate is the Newtonian theory of hearing. If it were that simple then Digital would not be distingusable from the original live source (or analog).

But as we listen deeper we are hearing something at least some of us that is persistant. Something is just not there. How to we describe it? We need to look for a deeper understanding of psycoacoustics to get a handle on the real world.

EVM,
I made a critique of the understanding of Tom Scholz in the interview excerpt cited by Beck. A whole lot of words and even some jpegs have transpired since then. But nobody, not even yourself, has addressed the issues I raised in that post. I'm still waiting!
Tim G

 

[Tim Gillett]

EVM,
However interesting and enlightening is a discussion on the relative abilities of humans to locate the origin of sounds in the vertical plane, in terms of a purely stereophonic source WHICH HAS NO "VERTICAL" INFORMATION COMPONENTS it's totally irrelevent.

Please dont misunderstand my mirth in the earlier post. I understood exactly what you were saying. That is to say I understood its irrelevence.

Equally your last post. Newtonian, Einsteinian physics, quantum, string theory...... But that's the great thing about you analog only guys. You're all so very well versed in that stuff...

I've noticed myself that as soon as college majors have finally come to understand the new physics, most of them throw out all their digital audio gear and come back to good old analog tape...

Get a life.

Tim G

 

[Beck]

EVM,
I made a critique of the understanding of Tom Scholz in the interview excerpt cited by Beck. A whole lot of words and even some jpegs have transpired since then. But nobody, not even yourself, has addressed the issues I raised in that post. I'm still waiting!
Tim G

Critique? Are you sure you don't mean croquet?

Hmmm… perhaps the MIT grad and audio engineer/producer/designer is just a chuckle head and doesn’t know that phase relationships can be altered in any audio signal path, and that people (including Scholz) have even built EQ circuits to do it on purpose.

Probably not, so I don’t think he’s talking about time alignment, like the BBE Sonic Maximizer was designed for, or various time-align speakers for the same reason.

I also don’t think 3M would have been talking about a phenomenon that was common to all electrical audio signals. What would be the point? The disclaimer was obviously related to something unique to their digital process.

Ya think you're making it more difficult than it really is. isn't it pretty damning for someone with Tom Scholz’ credentials to say “As far as sound quality goes, digital is always worse.” And he didn’t say it in 1983; he said it in 2003.

 

[Beck]

...Equally your last post. Newtonian, Einsteinian physics, quantum, string theory...... But that's the great thing about you analog only guys. You're all so very well versed in that stuff...

You’ll have to explain that one, Tim G. I don’t get it.

I think it would help us out a lot if you could give us your definition of an "Analog only guy."

Since that’s the crux of your issues since you’ve joined us, we should probably tackle that before we even try to resolve anything else.

 

[evm1024]

not quite

EVM,
However interesting and enlightening is a discussion on the relative abilities of humans to locate the origin of sounds in the vertical plane, in terms of a purely stereophonic source WHICH HAS NO "VERTICAL" INFORMATION COMPONENTS it's totally irrelevent.

Please dont misunderstand my mirth in the earlier post. I understood exactly what you were saying. That is to say I understood its irrelevence.

Equally your last post. Newtonian, Einsteinian physics, quantum, string theory...... But that's the great thing about you analog only guys. You're all so very well versed in that stuff...

I've noticed myself that as soon as college majors have finally come to understand the new physics, most of them throw out all their digital audio gear and come back to good old analog tape...

Get a life.

Tim G

What makes you think that sterio sound has no vertical component? Of course it has. Those phase relationships that I've been talking about happen in nature in specific patterns. Patterns that our brains have evolved understanding of. Those patterns are associated with specific 3D spaces. We can hear the shape of the real world.

Is it precise? Hardly. Does it exist? Absolutely.


You don't know me very well do you....

 

[evm1024]

Quite right

ears aren't left and right, nor top and bottom, nor anything of that nature , they are simply two different ones, that are stationary in relation to each other.

Quite Right. The ears are stationary in relationship to each other. Sometimes one has to question what lies between them.

Both ears hear the sounds that go through your head....

 

[Dr ZEE]

Alien Sound (TM)

...jpegs have transpired since then. But nobody....has addressed the issues I raised ...

YES! JPGs is the way. It works for most third eye-blind individuals.
(That's the best I can do to address what you raise.)
Here's another one:

 

[Dr ZEE]

Sometimes one has to question what lies between them.....

I've got MIGRAINE there.
...and I blame digital technology for it, because..hmmmmm, because what else?

 

[ofajen]

Ya think you're making it more difficult than it really is. isn't it pretty damning for someone with Tom Scholz’ credentials to say “As far as sound quality goes, digital is always worse.” And he didn’t say it in 1983; he said it in 2003.

Tom's not without his quirks. The 3M analog world is now a very small community. For those technical issues that I can't handle on my own, I go to Doug Weeks in Athens, GA. So does Tom, or rather, Doug probably goes to Boston. Anyway, Doug likes to tell stories of how Tom absolutely hates to have old capacitors replaced on audio cards, lest "the sound change", even if that change is almost surely to bring the unit back into factory spec.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Tim Gillett]

What makes you think that sterio sound has no vertical component? Of course it has. Those phase relationships that I've been talking about happen in nature in specific patterns. Patterns that our brains have evolved understanding of. Those patterns are associated with specific 3D spaces. We can hear the shape of the real world.

Is it precise? Hardly. Does it exist? Absolutely.


You don't know me very well do you....

How many times do I have to I say I agree with you before I finally get through to you that on this point I agree with you?
Yes the REAL WORLD is 3D, the last time I checked, but two channel, two speaker or stereo headphone sound isnt, whether analog or digital, and never was meant to be.

In such a context, there is no such information for digital or analog to lose!

It's like saying analog tape is "better" than digital in reproducing the "stereo" components in a mono recording! Come back to reality. We are not talking about Nature that our ears hear every day but 2 channel, recorded music: a specific, limited context. I feel like you are arguing with somebody else but not me.

BTW Tom Scholz wasnt even talking about anything but 2 channel recordings.
On his views about human perception of 3D spatial location I know nothing. How can I have criticised a point of view of his that wasnt even quoted?? You brought in the 3D red herring. We can discuss that subject if you like but it has nothing to do with what either Tom Scholz was quoted as saying or what I critiqued him on. Once more I ask for us to get back to the argument. If you dont want to, for any number of reasons, which reasons you dont have to state, please say so.

Of course I dont know you very well. I barely know you at all. But we are discussing an audio recording issue. Do we have had to grown up together from babies before we can do that? You dont know me either but in this context what the hell difference does it make? This is not a dating agency but an internet forum on audio.

What the flip have I stumbled into here?



Tim G

 

[Beck]

Tom's not without his quirks. The 3M analog world is now a very small community. For those technical issues that I can't handle on my own, I go to Doug Weeks in Athens, GA. So does Tom, or rather, Doug probably goes to Boston. Anyway, Doug likes to tell stories of how Tom absolutely hates to have old capacitors replaced on audio cards, lest "the sound change", even if that change is almost surely to bring the unit back into factory spec.

Tom Scholz has quirks? I think I'd better sit down.

Seriously though, "almost surely" isn't very reassuring, especially considering how critical capacitors are in circuit design at every stage. If you want an entirely different responding EQ section on a board just change out the old caps you’ve grown accustomed to.

Still back to these quirks. I just can’t imagine an artist like scholz having quirks, being misunderstood or behaving strangely like staying up all night and sleeping during the day… stuff like that.

 

[Beck]

...Equally your last post. Newtonian, Einsteinian physics, quantum, string theory...... But that's the great thing about you analog only guys. You're all so very well versed in that stuff...

You’ll have to explain that one, Tim G. I don’t get it.

I think it would help us out a lot if you could give us your definition of an "Analog only guy."

Since that’s the crux of your issues since you’ve joined us, we should probably tackle that before we even try to resolve anything else.

Once again, Tim G... this is THE issue. Lets hear it. I already know the answer. It's you that needs to understand it.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Certainty...

Tim B,

You "already know the answer"... well then nothing I say will make the slightest difference will it?

You "already know the answer".... that has a familiar ring to it actually...

I couldnt have said it of you better myself. You said it.

Tim G

 

[ausrock]

QUOTE..........."Yes the REAL WORLD is 3D, the last time I checked, but two channel, two speaker or stereo headphone sound isnt,........."

Firstly, forget the headphones .

Every sound has to have a source, be it someone clapping, a car driving by or someone stereo in their home and they all exist in a "3D environment"........speakers do not project in a single, narrow, linear plane, horizontal to their axis, where if you move vertically away from that plane, you can't hear them, they project sound all around.........therefore, like everything else, they are subject to "real world 3D" phenonema.

Tim G,

Sorry, but so far, based on the content of your arguments and the manner in which you are presenting those arguments, I have to suspect that, for whatever reason, you are somewhat out of your depth in this discussion.

 

[Tim Gillett]

QUOTE..........."Yes the REAL WORLD is 3D, the last time I checked, but two channel, two speaker or stereo headphone sound isnt,........."

Firstly, forget the headphones .

Every sound has to have a source, be it someone clapping, a car driving by or someone stereo in their home and they all exist in a "3D environment"........speakers do not project in a single, narrow, linear plane, horizontal to their axis, where if you move vertically away from that plane, you can't hear them, they project sound all around.........therefore, like everything else, they are subject to "real world 3D" phenonema.

Tim G,

Sorry, but so far, based on the content of your arguments and the manner in which you are presenting those arguments, I have to suspect that, for whatever reason, you are somewhat out of your depth in this discussion.

Ausrock,
2 channel stereo becomes 3D once it leaves the stereo speakers. Even mono does.
But the discussion was about corruption of a stereo image by the digital recording process. I dont want to insult your intelligence by reminding you that that alleged corruption (if it happens) happens well before the playback even gets down the wire to the speaker(s). It would be a corruption by the record/playback unit..
That's why discussions about 3D space and vertical localisation of sounds by humans is irrelevent to THAT debate.

I have a vague recollection of saying this somewhere earlier...

regards, Tim

 

[evm1024]

you have not rendered any data to support your assertion

Ausrock,
2 channel stereo becomes 3D once it leaves the stereo speakers. Even mono does.
But the discussion was about corruption of a stereo image by the digital recording process. I dont want to insult your intelligence by reminding you that that alleged corruption (if it happens) happens well before the playback even gets down the wire to the speaker(s). It would be a corruption by the record/playback unit..
That's why discussions about 3D space and vertical localisation of sounds by humans is irrelevent to THAT debate.

I have a vague recollection of saying this somewhere earlier...

regards, Tim

Tim G,

Lets take the case of 2 speaker sterio. Some people think that the sounds must appear to come between the 2 speakers. Yet in fact by playing games with the phase relationships between the 2 channels we can introduce sounds that appear to come from outside the speakers and in some cases from behind the listener. This enlarged soundstage has had a number of commersial instantiations most notably was the Carver Sonic Hologram.

The point here is that phase relationships are processed by the brain to give results that at first glance are not possable. Granted that this is still in the same plane as the speakers (not suggesting otherwise) but the point remains that the brain does process this.

Now consider that a person is standing in front of you speaking. You have a set of mics going off to your (perfect for this example) recorder. Your eyes see how far the person is away from you and you hear the volume of their voice and you have learned through experience and DNA that a voice this loud is that far away.

The voice in a direct path establishes the base delay. The voice going to the ground and reflected up to you forms a series of delays that also go to your ears and your mics. This series of echos has a specific intensity/delay relationship to each other and to the original incident voice (the direct path). The closer to the ground the voice is the closer the original is to the echos in phase. Thus vertical information is present in the sounds that you hear and that you record. This is the thing that you fail to understand. This is the reason the 3D information is present in sterio recordings.

Of course this is a symplistic overview of what is happening. There is a lot of processing that goes into decoding this information and the brain does fill in a lot of details based on DNA and experience. But our brains are really quite good at doing that.

If the brain is given information that does not follow nature it comes up with "results" that are not natural. An example of that is when the speakers are out of phase 180 degrees. I think that we all know what that sounds like.

There is a realy great exemple of what happens to us when our inputs do not match the real world. Take any "Magic Eye" picture. Do what you need to do to begin to see the encoded 3D image. Once you are comfortable looking at that image very slowly rotate the image. What happens?

Your brain tries to keep the image and yet the encoding of the 3D image is no longer in phase. Your brain struggles to keep the image and you experience increasing eye strain. Almost to a painful level. Just try this.

This is an analog of the encoded phase relationships that our experience and DNA expect to "see" in the sounds that we hear. As those relationships fall outside of the real world domain our brains attempt to make sense of them. In some cases with increasing stress.

Do I say that analog does not do this? No I don't. DO I say that Digital does this? No I don't.

I say that I >suspect< that the distortions that both do to recorded sound are more objectionable to some when recorded in digital. I know that there is something in Digital that some people find objectable.

Do I say that digital will never be good? No I don't. I do say that I think that when the sampling rate is high enough and the bit depth deep enough that the recorded audio playback will execelent. How fast? How deep? I'm guessing that it lies about 192 kHz and possable above 256 kHz with 32 bits.

--

 

[Dr ZEE]

.... vertical localisation of sounds by humans is irrelevent to THAT debate.

Nop. It's irrelevent to any "debate" about physics of sounds and otophysiology, because there's no such thing as "vertical localisation of sounds by humans" in that context, well, there were no such thing before it was "introduced" by Tim G if my vague recollection serves me right
However there is such thing as human ability to identify the location of a sound(s) source(s) (and detect real time variations of its(their) location(s) if such variation(s) occurs(occur) in 3D space (where horizontality, verticality and depth are reletive to a selectable by the "the system" (human being, that is ) point, and thus are truely irrelevant to the actual process of identification of the location of a sound source).
Such obility was justifiably highlighted to demonstrate sophistication of our hearing system. It was also pointed out that using two ears in the process is "an option", but not a requirement.
The link was made between extraodinary obility of human hearing system to detect and process sounds (not to say, that humans' system is the most sophisticated and most capable comparing to other living creatures on the planet ) and apparent dissatisfaction that a person experiences when listening to a digitally recorded sound, while having no such experience when listening to analog recordings. Suggestion was made, that digital audio-recording process corrupts the natural integrety of an audio signal and introduces artificial "additives" to its dynamic structure, which are hard (if possible at all) to detect instrumentally in the lab and are not clearly evident on the surface under non-critical subjective evaluation, but yet can be can be and is being detected by human hearing system - the system, that is developed (was "trained") by continiously processing the perpetual arrays and conglomerates of intaracting with each other natural sound waves as they emerge in their full complexity. It occurs, that the reaction of human brain on such detection is negative and justly being expressed in two words that perefectly relate to each other in a very complimentary manner. Those two words are: "DIGITAL" and "SUCKS".



/respects

 

[evm1024]

Dr Zee......

......extremely well put!

I'd give you rep points if the system would let me.