ringing: minimum vs linear phase

Bob Cain wrote:
> 
> 
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> Oh? The delays at all frequencies are matched. What do you mean by 
>> timing?
> 
> 
> Energy begins to emerge from a drum before it is hit.
> 
> 
> Bob

But the dominant rise is exactly delayed. The price one pays for 
avoiding preringing is time ambiguity of the dominant rise. A large bell 
and a triangle struck simultaneously might sound as if that had been 
struck sequentially.

It's east to know what to do when the goal is fidelity. When the aim is 
distorting something, you have to pick your poison.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Bob Cain wrote:
...
> That possibility is exactly why I suggested DBT.  Why are
> you being antagonistic?

Bob,

I'm just not happy in the way the linear vs. minimum phase issue is
discussed. This is why I like to post a reference to that article of
Michael Gerzon, because he is one of the very few that starts from
audible effects (the colouredness of high Q mimimum phase filters) and
tries to connect them to certain technical features.

I find general statements like "bass equalisation with linear phase
filters sounds bad because of pre-ringing" are not warranted by the
current state of knowledge about the human auditory system. Neither are
statements like "linear phase equalisation sounds better because it
delays all frequency components by an equal amount independent of
magnitude response".

Really, I don't know why we argue. We both agree that scientific
listening tests should be conducted. However, until such results are
published, I try to refrain from general statements as the above.

Regards,
Andor

Andor wrote:

> Really, I don't know why we argue. We both agree that scientific
> listening tests should be conducted. However, until such results are
> published, I try to refrain from general statements as the above.

We are mostly in agreement.  My statements were with respect 
to my own testing and my own impressions and interpretation. 
  Sorry if that was not clear.


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no 
simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:14:45 -0800, "Fred Marshall"
<fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:

>  It certainly preserves *something* 
>better but what should that be called?

One thing conserved is the condition of the natural world
to which we have four billion years of adaptation.

Thanks for a fascinating discussion,

Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42