jgazal

Received. Thank you!

Just in case, dude_500 (https://www.head-fi.org/members/dude_500.99969/) <> dude500.

x2

Argentina and Brazil performances were disappointing. Maybe debut's anxiety? We'll find out soon.

Congratulations to Iceland. Very consistent defense.

RIP. ?

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/nasa-sees-violent-volcanoes-from-space-satellite-space-station/3/ https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-astronaut-hawaii-volcano-kilauea-from-iss-space-station/

Is the SR-L300 sealed or ported?

Interested too.

This was a long time ago, but perhaps it is useful to recollect:

If you were to design a DAC or a phono pre-amp daughter board to be anchored in the line 4 slot, would you need some kind of high voltage dc to low voltage dc converter?

Paid.

How one can differentiate a source always at 45 azimuth but varying from -90 to +90 degree in elevation? I was imagining an algorithm changing the ILD and ITD with a head tracking camera or device input. So I need to rephrase my question. Do you believe binaural stereo recordings with dynamic convolution and no crosstalk playback has the same performance of 16 channel with dynamic convolution playback? My criterion would be the number of errors a listener has comparing the the elevation he believes a source is and the true/original n elevation positions the source was recorded. Premises are HRTF captured at zero reverberation room and head tracking. For instance the 16 channel can be the decoded output of a third order ambisonics.

Thank you for posting that explanation. Suppose you have your own HRTF measured with two stereo speakers in a low reverberation room (anechoic) and a DSP that not only convolves - without the addition of crosstalk - a ".wav" file recorded with a binaural head microphone, but also equalise your headphones to flat frequency response at your ear canal. Do you think the elevation cues - filtered by the binaural head microphone transfer function - only change the listener perception of elevation of a recorded point source (in other words, the listener understand that the source is above or under 0 degree, but the listener doesn't realize the true/original elevation of the recorded point source) or completely ruin the elevation perception (the listener do not hear the source as it were above or under 0 degrees elevation)? Now suppose you have a HRTF measured with an sphere arrangement of sixteen speakers (eight at 0 elevation, 4 at +45 degrees and four at -45 degrees) in a low reverberation room (anechoic) and the same DSP above (now there is no crosstalk between the speakers separated by an sagittal plane and you deal with comb filtering of speakers in the same side of such sagittal plane). Does this second arrangement improve the listener elevation perception compared to the first arrangement? If you think the second arrangement is worst than the first arrangement, how many channels the second arrangement would need in order to achieve the perception performance of the first arrangement? I would like to know your opinion.

Thank you for your advice. The input is a balanced dual fet LSK-389 and as far as I know it accepts a single ended signal as long as the negative one is tied to ground. People are used to insert a neutrik adapter which has (again AFAIK) the rca ground tied to both pin 1 and pin 3 inside the connector. But there is a paper in which Rane advises that option "a", i.e, the negative input fet of the amplifier is tied to the source ground. That's why I am still unsure what to do.