• Coffee House
  • Haas effect and loudmouth dolts on Reddit (p.4)
2016/05/04 18:49:44
sharke
craigb
We used to have two responses to trolls.  One was to actually agree with them and say "It's exactly the same theory as [insert even more ridiculously stupid theory here]!"  
 
The other response was pretty funny.  All of us in one musician forum have "Bert" names (yes, I'm Craigbert there).  When someone would complain that a troll was stomping all over another forum we would "Send in the Berts!" and all join just to mock, harass and, eventually, cause the troll to shut up or leave.  Hehe...  I must admit it was fun!
 

 


How weird. Some time ago I mentioned a book by PG Wodehouse called The Clicking Of Cuthbert to my girlfriend. She proceeded to laugh uncontrollably (quite scarily in fact) and said that she'd never heard the name Cuthbert before. She then proceeded to add "thbert" to everything. "Pass me that spoonthbert" etc. We still do it without thinking about it. Glad to hear we're not the only ones adding Bert to things.
2016/05/04 19:00:21
bapu

2016/05/04 19:13:34
craigb
sharke
craigb
We used to have two responses to trolls.  One was to actually agree with them and say "It's exactly the same theory as [insert even more ridiculously stupid theory here]!"  
 
The other response was pretty funny.  All of us in one musician forum have "Bert" names (yes, I'm Craigbert there).  When someone would complain that a troll was stomping all over another forum we would "Send in the Berts!" and all join just to mock, harass and, eventually, cause the troll to shut up or leave.  Hehe...  I must admit it was fun!
 

 


How weird. Some time ago I mentioned a book by PG Wodehouse called The Clicking Of Cuthbert to my girlfriend. She proceeded to laugh uncontrollably (quite scarily in fact) and said that she'd never heard the name Cuthbert before. She then proceeded to add "thbert" to everything. "Pass me that spoonthbert" etc. We still do it without thinking about it. Glad to hear we're not the only ones adding Bert to things.



That's weird. 
 
 
2016/05/05 02:22:03
quantumeffect

 
My great Grandpappy Haas used to tell me it was all about the panning.
2016/05/05 03:49:40
craigb
quantumeffect

 
My great Grandpappy Haas used to tell me it was all about the panning.




Did he have any gold records? 
2016/05/05 04:32:32
ston
Panning is not particularly critical for the effect; it has a small bearing on the perception of the direction of the fused sound, but the delay is the important factor.
 
> He also claims that the delay time should be calculated as a fraction of the sample rate of the project.
 
That's a big load of billy bollocks.  Time is time.  Only worry about its calculation if the perceiver is travelling at relativistic speeds relative to the timekeeper or sound source.  In fact if that was the case, you've probably got other, much bigger problems to worry about :-)
2016/05/05 04:35:34
craigb
Sounds like the DN is getting what he really wants: Attention! 
2016/05/05 08:03:07
Moshkito
craigb
Sounds like the DN is getting what he really wants: Attention! 




Oh wow ... he gets his 15 minutes to take his poop? How exciting ... we must get one of the Kardashians to help! Should make his day!
2016/05/05 23:37:47
sharke
ston
Panning is not particularly critical for the effect; it has a small bearing on the perception of the direction of the fused sound, but the delay is the important factor.



If both the original and delayed signals are mono and dead center, there is no illusion of width at all. All I hear is the change of tone from the comb filtering. I mean you might perceive some kind of depth from the fact that there's a "reflection" after the initial signal, but you can achieve a small illusion of depth from a mono delay with delay times well over the 40-50ms limit of the Haas effect. 
 
His main point is that no panning is needed to apply the Haas effect a stereo signal - all you need to do is delay one channel. But my argument was that a stereo signal, in terms of what comes out of the speakers (which, after all, is what matters here), is effectively two mono signals panned hard left and right. The left channel goes to the left speaker, the right channel goes to the right speaker. So if you have a stereo signal that's identical on left and right and then you delay one of the channels, you start with a mono sound which then becomes stereo. But this stereo width is only achievable if each signal comes from a different point. And when you have two speakers, that's exactly what you have. You cannot achieve stereo width with one speaker no matter how you slice it. And then he proceeded to write about 20 comments detailing how I probably live in my mom's basement and use a pirated copy of Fruity Loops. Oh and he's a pro who "learned his sh*t" on an expensive audio production course so I should just STFU. So you can imagine what kind of person I'm dealing with. 
2016/05/06 00:42:27
craigb
sharke
But my argument was that a stereo signal, in terms of what comes out of the speakers (which, after all, is what matters here), is effectively two mono signals panned hard left and right. The left channel goes to the left speaker, the right channel goes to the right speaker.



Whoa!!!  I've had that completely wrong all this time!!!
 
()
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account