Jump to content
IGNORED

What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Currently we haven't it in single point with speakers.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "single point with speakers"  - but if you mean that the sense of part of the sound is coming from a particular place with the soundfield, no matter where you are in the area - that's perfectly possible. If a particular element in the picture is five feet behind the left speaker, and a foot to the left of that speaker, that's where it will always appear to be located, no matter where you happen to move within the room.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "single point with speakers"  - but if you mean that the sense of part of the sound is coming from a particular place with the soundfield, no matter where you are in the area - that's perfectly possible. If a particular element in the picture is five feet behind the left speaker, and a foot to the left of that speaker, that's where it will always appear to be located, no matter where you happen to move within the room.

 

"Single point" is "single point of listener's position".

 

Sound field (sound hologram) in the point should repeat sound field in some point of concert hall.

The sound field in some point of concert hall is result of interferention of acoustic rays of source there.

 

Speakers is sources that spread acoustic rays in all directions. I.e. captured and played back sound field of concert hall radiated not as single ray directly to ear (for each ear), but the single ray transformed to several rays, that interfere in listening room. It distort captured sound field of concert hall.

 

To correct reproducing concert-hall sound field, need deliver it directly to ears without multiplication to rays.

Easiest way now it is headphones.

 

Otherwise speakers should follow listener and keep creation point of the concert-hall sound field into listener ears, to avoid multiplication to rays in listening room with reflection and re-reflection.

 

Anechoic room can't solve the issue, because speaker is omnidirectional sound source and we have non-concentrated direct waves.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
1 minute ago, audiventory said:

 

"Single point" is "single point of listener's position".

 

Sound field (sound hologram) in the point should repeat sound field in some point of concert hall.

The sound field in some point of concert hall is result of interferention of acoustic rays of source there.

 

Speakers is sources that spread acoustic rays in all directions. I.e. captured and played back sound field of concert hall radiated not as single ray directly to ear (for each ear), but the single ray transformed to several rays, that interfere in listening room. It distort captured sound field of concert hall.

 

To correct reproducing concert-hall sound field, need deliver it direct to ears without multiplication to rays.

Easiest way now it is headphones.

 

Otherwise speakers should follow listener and keep creation point of the concert-hall sound field into listener ears, to avoid multiplication to rays in listening room with reflection and re-reflection.

 

 

My experience is that the soundfield as captured by the recording can dominate that of the listening room. Think of there being two, competing sound fields in the listening room at any one time while replaying a recording: firstly, that of the recording itself, the sound picture that has been encoded in that; and secondly, the speakers projecting sound into the room, which then interacts with the surfaces and furnishings of the room. Most audio playback has these two disparate "scenes" of sound in conflict with each other, subjectively, and hence the huge efforts to resolve those conflicts. The reason they conflict is because there is no clearly dominant soundfield.

 

However, the dilemma can be resolved by ensuring dominance of the encoded recording soundfield; the ear/brain then rejects the speaker/room soundfield, it becomes a sideshow - in one sense, this is exactly equivalent to using headphones to attenuate, dramatically, the room contribution.

 

So, the goal is to get the subjective isolation of the headphones, without the claustophobic environment that headphones present - this is certainly possible with speakers, and IME is far superior to the headphones experience.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My experience is that the soundfield as captured by the recording can dominate that of the listening room. Think of there being two, competing sound fields in the listening room at any one time while replaying a recording: firstly, that of the recording itself, the sound picture that has been encoded in that; and secondly, the speakers projecting sound into the room, which then interacts with the surfaces and furnishings of the room. Most audio playback has these two disparate "scenes" of sound in conflict with each other, subjectively, and hence the huge efforts to resolve those conflicts. The reason they conflict is because there is no clearly dominant soundfield.

 

However, the dilemma can be resolved by ensuring dominance of the encoded recording soundfield; the ear/brain then rejects the speaker/room soundfield, it becomes a sideshow - in one sense, this is exactly equivalent to using headphones to attenuate, dramatically, the room contribution.

 

So, the goal is to get the subjective isolation of the headphones, without the claustophobic environment that headphones present - this is certainly possible with speakers, and IME is far superior to the headphones experience.

 

I want add information to full clarity. I mean "sound field" in wave theory meaning: sound source radiate infinite number of rays. These rays interfere in all points of concert hall. "Sound field" is result of the interference in a point of the hall.

Listener ears is 2 capturing points. I.e. 2 sound fields are captured.

 

At listener first ear point of listening room, "sound field" should be produce 1:1 like concert hall.

Same thing to second ear.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I have had systems on which I spend time optimising slip between the the two states constantly, depending upon, well, everything! I don't use the the directional metric, though; the divider is whether the drivers are audibly invisible or not - same result, easier way of assessing status.

 

It's very simple: when the replay chain produces audible anomalies it's easy for the brain to localise the drivers; the obvious example is the screechy treble driver, especially on 'difficult' recordings - that unpleasantness is clearly heard, and is the sum total of all the 'errors' of the playback; reduce the anomalies, the screechiness disappears, and the treble driver becomes impossible to "hear".

 

The tweeters will always beam at the top of their passband or constantly if you use horns and waveguides.

Move around the room and the whole frequency range, not just the treble will see changes across the spectrum.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The tweeters will always beam at the top of their passband or constantly if you use horns and waveguides.

Move around the room and the whole frequency range, not just the treble will see changes across the spectrum.

 

That's the key difference with my version of "convincing" sound: of course the FR will vary greatly as you move around - but, subjectively, you won't hear that! Again, go back to live, acoustic sound :) - the experience will match wandering around while a performer is in that space - there is no magic about live, "real" sound; it's just that most replay is just not good enough to match it, it fails to get subtle but key elements right - and the brain knows it!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

That's the key difference with my version of "convincing" sound: of course the FR will vary greatly as you move around - but, subjectively, you won't hear that! Again, go back to live, acoustic sound :) - the experience will match wandering around while a performer is in that space - there is no magic about live, "real" sound; it's just that most replay is just not good enough to match it, it fails to get subtle but key elements right - and the brain knows it!

 

You mean you won't hear that.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
6 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

And you can do that with your PhilipsHT box, right? 

 

Maybe a bunch of these spread around the room?

 

13551560_321621151511497_866819427_n.jpg

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
9 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

If I did then I made a mistake, as far as I know I only made one or two with stereo and ambiophonics speakers configuration which only meant to show the difference. That videos were made long time ago and never posted here. I do not have any ambio processed files because no conversion is required. The files remain unchanged.

 

The samples were in a website that you linked to in one of the immersive sound threads.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

When it was firing, I could - note past tense; no longer operational ...

 

In convincing sound mode the performance lay in a soundfield of very large size, corresponding to the recorded cues, beyond the speakers - the "room attached to the stage" effect. If you moved around anywhere in the house the subjective impression remained that: that is, that the house just happened to have been plonked next to this stage while you weren't paying attention, and directly exposed to that sound in the system's room.

 

Part of your description of "convincing" sound looks to me to be a psychological state.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The samples were in a website that you linked to in one of the immersive sound threads.

 

I don't think there is one. Unless your are mistaken the Youtube guide on How to setup Ambiophonics. In all my videos I insist to listen using headphones and Ambiophonics effect with headphones will be similar to stereo. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Part of your description of "convincing" sound looks to me to be a psychological state.

 

Well, it's an illusion, so I guess it's psychological! Ordinary hifi to me sounds just like it does for everyone else - it's obviously "fake", and you have to be in the "right spot" to make it seem like something special - when I first achieved convincing, purely accidentally, many decades ago the setup used would constantly degrade from special to ordinary in a short period of time - I would have to "reset" it to restore the convincing quality, each time. So, I gained an acute awareness of the difference between the two modes - part of my journey was to determine what needed to be done for each system at hand, attermpting to push it into convincing mode.

Link to comment

Keep in mind, in the conversations within this thread so far, you're assuming the live music referenced is acoustic.  With live electric music you will always have speakers.  Of course there's also the acoustic electric source as well, but let's just call that electric since the acoustic sound is amplified.  A similar dynamic is in effect with live electric music as with a home stereo system.  Typically the soundboard is located in the middle about 30 rows back in the audience as the listener's sweet spot for the point of reference.  This is where mics are usually placed for electric live music recording.  In studio electric recording the instruments typically have a direct feed to the board.  There also may be a mic in front of a speaker as another source.

 

With acoustic live music recording, at least what I see at the CSO and Berliner, the mics are placed above and around the instruments.  Acoustic studio recording may be different as I have no knowledge of mic placement there.

 

When trying to reproduce live music in the home one needs to consider the manner in which it was recorded as that will vary.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Keep in mind, in the conversations within this thread so far, you're assuming the live music referenced is acoustic.  With live electric music you will always have speakers.  Of course there's also the acoustic electric source as well, but let's just call that electric since the acoustic sound is amplified.  A similar dynamic is in effect with live electric music as with a home stereo system.  Typically the soundboard is located in the middle about 30 rows back in the audience as the listener's sweet spot for the point of reference.  This is where mics are usually placed for electric live music recording.  In studio electric recording the instruments typically have a direct feed to the board.  There also may be a mic in front of a speaker as another source.

 

With acoustic live music recording, at least what I see at the CSO and Berliner, the mics are placed above and around the instruments.  Acoustic studio recording may be different as I have no knowledge of mic placement there.

 

When trying to reproduce live music in the home one needs to consider the manner in which it was recorded as that will vary.

 

Few significant record labels do minimalist mic'ing nowadays, BIS is the only one I can remember.

I find Dorian's old orchestral recordings quite natural-sounding as well.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Johnseye said:

 

Not sure I follow your point, can you expand please?

 

Close-mic'ing affects timbre (tonal balance) and emphasises mechanical noises.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Close-mic'ing affects timbre (tonal balance) and emphasises mechanical noises.

 

Ok, I'm just not sure what point you're making as it relates to my post.  Are you referring to live music performances, studio recordings, acoustic instruments or electric?  It sounds like you're talking about orchestral or acoustic jazz recordings specifically.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Ok, I'm just not sure what point you're making as it relates to my post.  Are you referring to live music performances, studio recordings, acoustic instruments or electric?  It sounds like you're talking about orchestral or acoustic jazz recordings specifically.

 

I am referring to classical music recordings.

Studio recordings are close mic'ed (but pop/rock instruments and vocals aren't generally meant to sound natural anyway), and probably most jazz recordings as well.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I am referring to classical music recordings.

Studio recordings are close mic'ed (but pop/rock instruments and vocals aren't meant to sound natural anyway), and probably most jazz recordings as well.

 

Knowing that you're referring to classical music recordings narrows the consideration regarding mic'ing.  I now think I understand that you were filling the gap in my post where I stated "I have no knowledge of studio acoustic recording".  If that's the case it makes sense now.

 

Considering, as I mentioned previously, that the mics in an orchestral setting are often placed above the orchestra, as well as in front of a particular group of instruments, that mic placement is close in relation to where the audience sits.  In live rock recordings, which I attend frequently, the mics are placed in the audience in front or next to the sound board.  That to me would be a more accurate representation of a concert experience than directly above a group of instruments.  I also referenced that mics are placed in front of both amplifiers and drums to capture a more direct feed of a specific instrument for reamplification.

 

With regard to jazz recordings not being meant to sound natural I'd disagree when it is acoustic.  In fact, when anything is referenced as "natural" I assume it is an acoustic instrument vs an amplified one.  In an orchestra the exact same instruments are present as in an acoustic jazz event.  Although I don't think the sax is common in an orchestra, the trumpet, bass, piano, flute, etc are very common.  Unamplified vocals regardless of genre are as natural as it gets.  Once an amplifier is used for an instrument it may be considered un-natural.  Everything gets engineered so if you refer to "natural" as unmodified, it is very rare to listen to a non-engineered recording.

 

That's another term for qualification.  What exactly is "natural"?

Stereophile's glossary doesn't even have the term.  The closest they get is: naturalness defined as Realism

 

Link to comment

classical meaning orchestral; not classical which includes chamber music (??)

 

2 other points:

 

1. it seems like a trend in cone speakers is to use multiple cones to approximate a line source

 

2. a plane source (or its approximation) also has  numerous benefits - you can erect a 'wall of sound' for a venue (if affordable or moveable); and at home you can buy a giant black monolith (or an electrostatic panel)

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

classical meaning orchestral; not classical which includes chamber music (??)

 

2 other points:

 

1. it seems like a trend in cone speakers is to use multiple cones to approximate a line source

 

2. a plane source (or its approximation) also has  numerous benefits - you can erect a 'wall of sound' for a venue (if affordable or moveable); and at home you can buy a giant black monolith (or an electrostatic panel)

classical, with a small c, means many sub genres of music for everything from solo instruments up to orchestral and choral music, with many possibilities in between.  I listen to all of it and attend concerts including all those possibilities, including also opera, ballet and other performance arts set to classical music.  Classical with a big C usually refers to classical music from the Classical Period, roughly 1750-1820.

 

FWIW, ITU Mch also improves the realism of even solo instruments, because it captures much of the reflected sound of the performance space, which is inseparable from the direct sound and part of what we hear live even with solos.  And, unlike stereo, Mch reproduces that in a more angularly correct way, rather than redirecting all sound at you from just the front.  Like stereo, Mch uses phantom imaging between all the speakers.  And, no, your listening room reflections cannot reconstruct that sense of space at all accurately from two speakers.

 

On 2., I currently use 7 electrostat dipole hybrids plus a subwoofer in a 7.1 configuration, but mostly I listen in 5.1 per the input source.  I do not use any artificially synthesized methods to simulate Mch from stereo or 7.1 from 5.1.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

 

Classical is a period but is commonly used to reference orchestral or symphonic music.  Good point.

 

Classical as a genre goes from single instrument to orchestral and can even include sacred and opera.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Classical as a genre goes from single instrument to orchestral and can even include sacred and opera.

 

My statement is based on what Robert Greenberg taught me :)  My knowledge is limited and I don't claim to be an expert.  The term is bandied about so much it's not even worth the effort.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...