In Reply to: Acoustic polarity, again posted by KlausR. on May 6, 2007 at 02:36:41:
For some unknown reason you have deleted your post so I post my reply here.I went to the IEEE website and downloaded the paper in pdf-format. I had a look and to be sure I used the Adobe search function:
the term "polarity" is not mentioned. The paper further does not describe listening tests where signals other than artificial or synthesized were used.
What conclusion was I supposed to draw from this paper considering the current context which is consumers/music lovers/audiophiles listening to MUSIC.
Klaus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Reply to John Curl's suggestion to read Schroeder's "Models of hearing" - KlausR. 07:12:49 05/15/07 (12)
- Re: Reply to John Curl's suggestion to read Schroeder's "Models of hearing" - john curl 11:05:29 05/16/07 (9)
- Re: We had not refined the terminology yet. - KlausR. 23:18:46 05/16/07 (7)
- Re: We had not refined the terminology yet. - john curl 21:23:08 05/17/07 (6)
- Had a bad day, John? - KlausR. 23:34:05 05/17/07 (5)
- Re: Had a bad day, John? - john curl 13:38:50 05/18/07 (4)
- Re: Had a bad day, John? - john curl 15:44:03 05/20/07 (0)
- Now it's throwing mud, you're improving by the day,John! - KlausR. 23:03:11 05/18/07 (2)
- Re: Now it's throwing mud, you're improving by the day,John! - john curl 23:11:09 05/18/07 (1)
- Now it's insults, it's getting better by the minute! - KlausR. 00:17:59 05/19/07 (0)
- Re: Reply to John Curl's suggestion to read Schroeder's "Models of hearing" - john curl 11:12:55 05/16/07 (0)
- John's post is still there but for some unknown reasons I did not find it any more (nt) - KlausR. 09:03:52 05/15/07 (0)
- Try listening. nt - markrohr 08:24:20 05/15/07 (0)