Home » Guest Moderator Archives » Dan Lavry » What do you think about shaped tone burst test signal?
| What do you think about shaped tone burst test signal? [message #91421] |
Mon, 19 September 2005 19:39  |
 |
 boggy
Messages: 28
Registered: September 2005 |
Member |
|
|
Shaped Tone Burst
Some background can be founded at Siegfried Linkwitz site:
-Description about their Toneburst CD with some wav examples
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/burst-cd.htm
time and frequency response
Some AES publications:
- Siegfried Linkwitz, Shaped Tone-Burst Testing, JAES, Vol. 28, No. 4, April 1980.
- Siegfried Linkwitz, Narrow Band Impulse Testing of Acoustical Systems, 60th AES Convention, Los Angeles 1978.
What do you think, is it possible to use that shaped signal without instruments and oscilloscopes, for testing your monitoring systems (amplifiers, speakers and room acoustics) only with your ears?
Thanks in advance for all replies.
Best regards
-boggy
BoZo Electronics
|
|
| |
| Re: What do you think about shaped tone burst test signal? [message #91568 is a reply to message #91529 ] |
Tue, 20 September 2005 12:43  |
|
boggy
Messages: 28
Registered: September 2005 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Bob,
Thank you for reply
| bobkatz wrote on Tue, 20 September 2005 17:24 |
| boggy wrote on Mon, 19 September 2005 20:39 |
What do you think, is it possible to use that shaped signal without instruments and oscilloscopes, for testing your monitoring systems (amplifiers, speakers and room acoustics) only with your ears?
|
You can learn a lot with just your ears! Shaped tone bursts are extremely useful because they minimize psychoacoustic masking effects and you can hear the resonances of the environment, the cabinet and the distortions of the medium or processors with little interference from masking sources. But you still need instruments to quantify. All you can do with your ears is say, "this sounds worse than something else" but you cannot say "by how much" numerically.
|
I agree with you about instruments, but, do you think that instruments can find where problems are? On which frequencies...
When you listen shaped tone bursts with great number of different frequencies you can hear where your worse problems are... when you solve this problems, you then hear other not that worse problems... etc... this isn't endless story, because you must stop to solve problems because even best monitoring systems cannot reproduce shaped tone burst for all frequencies in range, without annomalies that we can hear.
for all:
Question is, at end, do you think that instruments can decide what is your worse problem in your monitoring system?
| Quote: |
You can also hear distortions with tone bursts that don't appear to be there with the music. Does this mean that psychoacoustically there is no problem with the system? We could go round and round with that argument. But I remember tuning a bias oscillator for minimum "rocks" in an analog tape recorder and satisfying my ears and then the question comes as to how subtle that adjustment really turns out to be when hearing the music. We make small advances by fine tuning things that in situ have very subtle effects. I'm fine with that.
BK
|
I dont tend to tell that we must do fine tunings at single frequencies, I think that wide range of shaped tone burst frequencies can introduce us worse problems in range.
for all:
What do you think about listening tone bursts like any other music material?
Do you like a sound of shaped tone burst or we (engineers) must make some better sounding audio test tones  ?
Look, we have only sweeps and MLS. Any of this test signals human ear and brain cannot easily analyze, because all of it have too much informations and mask some problems also...
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
-boggy
BoZo Electronics
|
|
|
| Re: What do you think about shaped tone burst test signal? [message #91908 is a reply to message #91568 ] |
Wed, 21 September 2005 18:16 |
 |
bobkatz
Messages: 2926
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| boggy wrote on Tue, 20 September 2005 13:43 |
I agree with you about instruments, but, do you think that instruments can find where problems are? On which frequencies...
|
This thread can go nowhere fast because it is too general. A skilled and experienced acoustician knows when to use instruments, when to use ears and how much to depend on both. You're lost without both the instruments and the ears. Usually the problem from the instrumentation is "too much information", you can't separate out the important problems from the unimportant ones. But the experienced and well-trained acoustician can learn from the instrumentation in many cases what is important. But likely it started with an engineer saying "OUCH, I heard a resonance at some frequency and I need to cure it."
Listen, measure, change, re-measure, listen, change. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I am less than skilled with the instruments, especially the time-based measurements, so I start with the ears with lots of music first, then and only then some shaped signals, including tone bursts and pink noise and sweeps, as most of us do. The more practice I get with the waterfall chart, the more I know, I guess
BK
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 17 11:54:56 CDT 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12531 seconds |
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
