Re: MAA and stream separation ("Richard J. Fabbri" )

Subject: Re: MAA and stream separation
From:    "Richard J. Fabbri"  <fabbri(at)NETAXIS.COM>
Date:    Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:57:10 -0400

Brian, >> ... Maybe an absurd example would help to see why. >> >> ... What if our M(inimum)A(udible)A(ngle) were, instead of >> 1-2 spatial degrees, actually much larger ... say, 100 degrees ! >> >> ... i.e., TWO speakers would be perceived as ONE speaker >> unless they were separated by MORE THAN 100 degrees !! > >Let's take another absurd example. You are listening to two talkers >through a *single* loudspeaker. You would almost never think they were >one speaker, even though the angle of separation is zero. ... Let's be a bit more accurate. ... I agree we would not think those two talkers coming from the single LoudSpeaker were ONE talker. ... But, that is NOT the point !!! ... You would NOT be able to separate the TWO talkers 100% of the time, i.e., focus on either - at will - as we do in the Cocktail Party Effect. >Spatial separation is useful, but is far from the defining feature of stream >segregation, for the simple fact that in highly reverberant environment, >the necessary information (time of arrival, phase) can often be ambiguous. ... No. ... In a system that time-locks to Sources (as you will no doubt agree binaural hearing does!) local reflections are actually fused with THOSE Sources as per the Precedence Effect. ... Your concern should be: "How can I do what Hearing does?" Would you like to try a very surprising stereo experiment that will completely UNMIX those TWO talkers played-back thru that single LoudSpeaker ??? Rich McGill is running a new version of LISTSERV (1.8d on Windows NT). Information is available on the WEB at

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University