At 8:34 AM -0700 7/17/10, Scott Fraser wrote:
>
>
><<Also, if fewer or no reflections was inherently superior, we'd have
>to rule out the human ear as a good design.>>
>
>The human ear is generally utilized in conjunction with a software
>application which is remarkably powerful & capable of incorporating
>the reflections for the purpose of extremely accurate localization.
>Somehow the software turns a hindrance into an advantage. Current
>model microphones can't quite do that yet.
>
>Scott Fraser
>
Hi Scott-
Yes, our brains are used to organizing complexities and our body
parts are creating some of them.
What I'm suggesting is maybe we should be looking for in an array are
"blends" of traits (relationships) from which our powerful brains can
infer more detail. Here are some examples: the folds of the outer
ears add minute timing differences that vary with direction;
perpendicular to boundary orientation superimposes additional
reflections with timing difference relative to direction; a curved
boundary diffracts sound more like our heads; the small boundaries of
the SASS are cocked more forward perhaps more closely imitating the
net effect of the cups of our ears.
Any item we add to an array has good effects and detracting effects.
The baffle in the SASS appears to add HF division between the sides
without adding reflections back onto the capsules, but maybe if the
same divider also passed off-side sounds between 500 -1100 Hz with
powerful timing difference cues,..?
What we are discussing are mental processes that we are fully aware
of and have trained ourselves to do. My 13 year old son never really
stopped to think about "stereo" having anything to do with physical
space on his own. Even though he grew-up playing on the floor between
speakers and today passes much time wearing headphones, until I
pointed out that the coyote sound was coming mostly from the right
speaker and that the mics portrayed right as the direction of the
neighbor's house, to him it was "just sounds." Rob D.
--
|