A high quality CD Player
- Thread starter naimplayer
- Start date
Whaleblue
Southbound
That might take a little longer.
I don't see why anyone would feel threatened by the idea that a machine could interpret sound. But, I can see why we might feel threatened by the idea that machines could mimic emotional responses.
tonerei
pfm Member
Augusto what are you doing mired in this quicksand
Isn't it so funny the onus is always on you never on them I do admire your style though even swatting aside the treble drooped one so nicely is very impressiveThey will wear you down though as their career revolves around this type of typing
venton
pfm Member
Re soundstage, for me it is part of my enjoyment of music. Kind of Blue, the hihat far right, piano to the left, then in comes Miles dead center and then Coltrane one side and Adderley the other. Pure magic.
I do notice differences between sources in portraying this, and I guess personal preference comes in to play.
I will be convinced that machines are up to our brains when .... a stereo mix is fed into a computer, and a 24 track recording comes out the other end. Now that would be a product, we could remix the whole thing ourselves, each instrument on a different track.
I do notice differences between sources in portraying this, and I guess personal preference comes in to play.
I will be convinced that machines are up to our brains when .... a stereo mix is fed into a computer, and a 24 track recording comes out the other end. Now that would be a product, we could remix the whole thing ourselves, each instrument on a different track.
Whaleblue
Southbound
Cause.
That's the interesting point. What constitutes a parallel to a human reaction?
Are we off topic yet?
Whaleblue
Southbound
Does not compute.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Ian,
I was at a meeting where one of the senior directors farted accidentally. It was all I could do to not laugh.
Interestingly, it was the CFO who let one slip. To this day I've not been able to picture finance for the F in the title.
Joe
I was at a meeting where one of the senior directors farted accidentally. It was all I could do to not laugh.
Interestingly, it was the CFO who let one slip. To this day I've not been able to picture finance for the F in the title.
Joe
Whaleblue
Southbound
Excellent.
When I make my first robot it will be a girl one.
This avoids tricky fart based humour programming.
Suffolk Tony
Aim low, achieve your goals, avoid disappointment.
That was my thought too, but not sure you can pick one of those up for that sort of money yet though.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Sadly it will require other behavioural requirements several orders of magnitude more complex than giggling when methane is detected.
It isn't crazy to recommend somebody buy something cheaper when it sounds the same as another dearer one.
What is crazy - bizarre even - is to suggest that somebody knows one has the best SQ even though they can't tell the difference blind.
Truly weird.
radamel
Music Fiend
You're making the mistake of thinking that not being able to tell the difference blind shows/ proves that it sounds the same.
Whaleblue
Southbound
A yes, but any unpredictable behaviour will make me look like a genius programmer, rather than being reported as a malfunction.
Careful! We're creeping into psychoacoustics territory...
The ears+brain work together in strange ways to recreate a "soundstage" - lateral positioning is mainly decoded from relative left-right emphasis while depth is mainly decoded from phase shift detection. Much of this is from a mix of direct and reflected signal. The key is the way in which the brain "decodes" the complex combination of waveforms received by the ears and passed to brain as electrical impulses.
If we accept this explanation of how we perceive a soundstage then any attempt to construct a "machine" that can both detect and measure "soundstaging" is likely to be one monumental exercise. In order to create such a machine, the creator (not capitalised) would need an accurate and detailed understanding of just how this perception is done and I'm not sure that science has enough information and understanding of the ear:brain functioning to enable such a machine to be built.
The other aspect lies in the relative intensity of some of these spatial cues used by the ear:brain to conjure up these perceptions of depth (particularly) as the intensity levels of some of the depth cues is very low in relation to the "musical information". The audio rig needs to have a very low noise floor to enable the listener's ear:brain to detect enough of these cues to re-create the soundstage and if the noise-floor is too high, these cues will be masked and render the soundstage erratic in its presentation (due to music's continual variations in intensity).
Obviously, if we detect depth from phase shift cues, then the audio rig needs to maintain phase accuracy to allow this perception function.
So, what may be a feasible solution - rather than building a machine that can re-create a soudstage and measure it - is to rather build a machine that can detect and measure the various types of spatial cue "enabling" characteristics (e.g. noise floor, phase accuracy, left:right amplitude accuracy, etc.) and, based on whether or not these measurements fall within some yet-to-be-defined limits, to give a mechanical equivalent of a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the system's potential in this area.
But I'm merely hypothesizing...
Dave
I am not convinced by this hypothesis I'm afraid
I get a pretty effective stereo image from my record player and its noise floor is probably at least 20dB higher than my CD player's.
Also record players are not very good at phase accuracy, particularly if using a pivoting arm as most do.
So whilst I am not very helpful in suggesting an alternative theory, noise floor and phase accuracy, which are excellent in CD players, would only be a feasible reason (to me) for good soundstaging if LPs were noticeably poor, but they are not IME.
Leaving aside the fact that I don't agree that that is a mistake, the point I am making is that if 2 speakers are indistinguishable to somebody listening blind they may as well buy the cheaper/smaller/easier to site model since any SQ differences sighted are obviously either imagined (look the big expensive ones sound better) or at least too small a difference to waste money or space on.
radamel
Music Fiend
That is a weak form of your previous "thesis". Still not grounded on any statistical analysis I'm afraid.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
Strangely Stereophile actually comment that their A and A+ speakers often have very unusual frequency balances and require careful auditioning