Subject: Re: Group delay variations From: Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi(at)MARVA4.NCSC.MED.VA.GOV> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:55:54 -0700At 02:30 PM 6/29/00 -0400, Jont Allen wrote: > > > > Jont, > > > > Then please explain a little more clearly what you meant by this: > > > > " I would (and have done so in the past actually) measure the > group delay. > > This does a nice job of characterizing the phase in a > meaningful way, and > > avoids the problem of flat delay that does not really effect > perception. > > > > If the group delay variations, either between the two ears, or > across > > frequency in one ear, are too large, then you will hear that > delay." > >This does not say that the threshold delay variations for the two cases >(between >the two ears or across frequency in one ear) is the same. It just says >that there >is a threshold for each case. These two thresholds are not the same. The first >is order 10s of microseconds. The second is 10s of milliseconds. Thus there is >about a factor of 1000 difference between the two cases. Please dont pick >on the accuracy of my numbers here. I am speaking in rough terms. > >Jont > > My exuberant expression of interest in the group delay variation vs. bandwidth issue was only motivated because you, Jont, brought up the group delay issue and Roy Patterson tied it into bandwidth. The actual figures are irrelevant for my argument: I just wanted to point out that the group delay/bandwidth trade-off appears to exist in both the monaural and the localization systems. I hope this clears up at least one of the definition issues. All the best, Pierre **************************************************************************** Pierre Divenyi, Ph.D. Experimental Audiology Research (151) V.A. Medical Center, Martinez, CA 94553, USA Phone: (925) 370-6745 Fax: (925) 228-5738 E-mail : pdivenyi(at)marva4.ebire.org ****************************************************************************