Beyond stereo?

[semente]

1 minute ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Binaural is just the term used to describe two eared listening, nothing to do with earphones or speakers.  If you deliver, in a recording and reproducing system, all the two eared localization cues that one normally experiences in everyday hearing, then it does not matter, what mics, what speakers, what media, or what earphones one uses.  This is now actually becoming possible and cost effective.  The nice thing about paying attention to the binaural psychoacoustic rules is that non binaural localization cue items like extreme frequency response, and extreme flat frequency response become minor factors.

 

Is this because people are focusing their attention on spatial reproduction instead of sound reproduction?

[AJ Soundfield]

21 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Binaural is just the term used to describe two eared listening, nothing to do with earphones or speakers. 

In the context you quoted me it means exactly what I was referring to, which is a recording and playback method for both headphones and for some, loudspeakers.

 

Quote

If you deliver, in a recording and reproducing system, all the two eared localization cues that one normally experiences in everyday hearing, then it does not matter, what mics, what speakers, what media, or what earphones one uses.  This is now actually becoming possible and cost effective. 

For one person in a tight area, yes.

 

Quote

The nice thing about paying attention to the binaural psychoacoustic rules is that non binaural localization cue items like extreme frequency response, and extreme flat frequency response become minor factors. 

"Extreme" measured or perceived? Please provide some data where timbre distortion produced by stereo is extreme.

I think you exaggerating this issue, especially in the context of things like orchestral works, which has large amounts of source(s) combing in the far field.

 

Quote

Also it is now possible to make earphones sound like binaural speakers but it is not easy.

Yes, Smyth et al. But headphones still lack any visceral impact like loudspeakers (and reality)..and we again have the issue of that lonesome solo listener...

[mav52]

33 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

the issue of that lonesome solo listener...

AJ you sure are hung up on people that like to listen alone.  So I take it all of your listening is NOT alone,

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, mav52 said:

AJ you sure are hung up on people that like to listen alone.

Nope, it's the opposite. Folks who like to listen all alone are hung up in this "Beyond Stereo" MCH thread, about those who don't.

I actually created a dedicated thread for those solo listener folks...yet here they are.

It's like that with the gospel I suppose.

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 9:43 AM, AJ Soundfield said:

That is possible to varying degrees using a controlled directivity speaker, equilateral-ish stereo triangle cross-fired (toed in to point just in front of nose). The smaller the speaker, generally, smaller width sweet spot. But it can and is done, based on the figure I posted, where at varying angles, the intensity from one side drops as the other rises, so that the image doesn't collapse to the nearest side as soon as one moves off center a bit.

With a variety of speaker types, The stereo listening area is relatively small.  If you move forward you get a hole in the middle, if you move back, you get a narrow stage or mono.  If you move to the side you normally localize to one speaker more or less.  Now for the commercial.  In an Ambiophonic system, if you move forward you get normal stereo, if you move back not much happens, the stage stays nice and wide.  If you move too far sideways, you hear both channels equally as in old fashioned mono. You can nod, rotate your head, stand up, lie down, lean. etc. In general with almost any speaker type and ordinary recordings, I can demo to five or six people at a time.  Also a center speaker in 5.1 is never necessary even for offside viewers.  No head tracking required although you can always add this if you tend to wander a lot.  If you wear a necklacespeaker like the Soundmatters  DASH you can carry a great stage around with you and have multiple listeners. 

[AJ Soundfield]

6 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

With a variety of speaker types, The stereo listening area is relatively small.  If you move forward you get a hole in the middle, if you move back, you get a narrow stage or mono.  If you move to the side you normally localize to one speaker more or less.

This is correct Ralph. However, there is a certain way to design speakers that have a much wider sweet spot as I've linked several times now:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Links/Optimized-listening-area-Davies.pdf

This is also my preferred method, since while I do use a center channel for video, I find them visually distracting for music. This is purely a subjective choice. I do not claim it is better than 3 discrete front channels, but the frontal soundstage/phantom central images are rendered to my satisfaction based on my experiences with live classical, jazz etc.

Quote

 Now for the commercial.  In an Ambiophonic system, if you move forward you get normal stereo, if you move back not much happens, the stage stays nice and wide.  If you move too far sideways, you hear both channels equally as in old fashioned mono. You can nod, rotate your head, stand up, lie down, lean. etc. In general with almost any speaker type and ordinary recordings, I can demo to five or six people at a time.  Also a center speaker in 5.1 is never necessary even for offside viewers.  No head tracking required although you can always add this if you tend to wander a lot.  If you wear a necklacespeaker like the Soundmatters  DASH you can carry a great stage around with you and have multiple listeners. 

I've answered this here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32987-bacch-ambiophonics-etc/

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 0:37 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

 

So the 2ch sound quality using crosstalk cancellation is invariant to stereo recording/mics technique?

By definition, crosstalk cancelation just delivers the left speaker signal to the left ear only and without change and the right speaker signal to only the right ear without change.  If you don't cancel all the crosstalk you have some stereo left.  If you cancel crosstalk that is not there, you get out of phase stereo.  These rules apply no matter how a recording was made.  However, a recording made with strange localization cues or bands of reverse polarity may sound strange without crosstalk  But I have listened to thousands of LPs and CD (admittedly all classical) and have found that it is always a good idea to hear precisely at each ear what is really on the disc one is playing.  

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 0:52 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

Right, aka head tracking, mentioned numerous times previously. Is that something you would desire?

You listen only solo?

In the more advanced Ambiophonic fully recursive systems no head tracking is required.  If you rotate your head nothing happens, you can nod, lean a lot, stand up, lie down, move back and forth and nothing happens that would not happen in a concert hall.  The secret is in keeping the speakers at less than one third the stereo spacing, not trying to have surround sound with just two speakers and not having to rely on binaural head recordings. 

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

They are nice, but you really need to get out more if that's the best you've heard 

Odd that they would use them for rears too, since one wants only ambiance around you, as provided by good discrete MCH and upmixing. Those old fist gen MCH SACDs with the sax player behind you were IMO largely why such gimmickry failed.

If you attend live classical, you know violinists don't walk off stage and start playing behind you.

Luckily, I started a separate Ambiosonics thread, where I'm sure the fervent fanboys will be all over it posting, instead of stalking this one about all forms of MCH, i.e more than just 2 speakers.

 

There are lots of good speakers available nowadays: the top model  Radialsthallers (SP?), The Martin Logan Neoliths (and the CLXs - with subwoofers, of course) The Maggie MG-20.7i, the top model Magicos, and on and on and on. But the essential truth is that no one speaker does everything correctly, and I'm a dipole kind of guy. Any speaker that I lust over just has to be either an electrostatic or an isodynamic design. I would be as happy as a puppy with two peters if I had a pair of MG-20.7i's or a pair of Neoliths, but since I'm retired, I have to make do with my Martin Logan Vantages in system #1 and my Maggie MG-0.7s in system #2!

 

Your frustrations with gimmicky surround recordings are a large part of my general disdain for the formats. I rarely heard well recorded surround performances that used the rear channels only for ambience. Don't misunderstand, those type of recordings exist, I'm just not interested enough to seek them out. As I've said before, I spent most of the 1970's chasing "Quadraphonic" sound. At the end of that chase, I was completely disgusted. Later, when Dolby 5.1 and DTS came along, I gave it a brief re-trial. I thought that 5.1 (and 7.1 or 10.1 or whatever) was an even bigger gimmick than quad and while it's probably fine for home cinema (for which it was developed) I find it totally wrong for music on several levels. So, I stick to 2 channel stereo.  

[Ralph Glasgal]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

That's because at home direct sound is far more predominant than reflected sound.

I am not sure what you mean by predominant.  But in both the hall and the home the level of indirect sound normally exceeds the energy of the direct sound.  In the home all the reflections have the same localization cues no matter where the phantom frontal image seems to be.  This is sensed as a lack of envelopment or whatever you want to call it.  If you put two speakers behind you and crosstalk cancel them you can correct this error and now the static room reflections are not nearly as bothersome as before.  Mute the rears or make them stereo and the effect is sorely missed.

[semente]

25 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

There are lots of good speakers available nowadays: the top model  Radialsthallers (SP?), The Martin Logan Neoliths (and the CLXs - with subwoofers, of course) The Maggie MG-20.7i, the top model Magicos, and on and on and on. But the essential truth is that no one speaker does everything correctly, and I'm a dipole kind of guy. Any speaker that I lust over just has to be either an electrostatic or an isodynamic design. I would be as happy as a puppy with two peters if I had a pair of MG-20.7i's or a pair of Neoliths, but since I'm retired, I have to make do with my Martin Logan Vantages in system #1 and my Maggie MG-0.7s in system #2!

 

Your frustrations with gimmicky surround recordings are a large part of my general disdain for the formats. I rarely heard well recorded surround performances that used the rear channels only for ambience. Don't misunderstand, those type of recordings exist, I'm just not interested enough to seek them out. As I've said before, I spent most of the 1970's chasing "Quadraphonic" sound. At the end of that chase, I was completely disgusted. Later, when Dolby 5.1 and DTS came along, I gave it a brief re-trial. I thought that 5.1 (and 7.1 or 10.1 or whatever) was an even bigger gimmick than quad and while it's probably fine for home cinema (for which it was developed) I find it totally wrong for music on several levels. So, I stick to 2 channel stereo.  

 

That's the thing, most of my music library does not exist in multichannel.

Some recordings may be acquired in a 3 channel version but even those are a small percentage.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I am not sure what you mean by predominant.  But in both the hall and the home the level of indirect sound normally exceeds the energy of the direct sound.  In the home all the reflections have the same localization cues no matter where the phantom frontal image seems to be.  This is sensed as a lack of envelopment or whatever you want to call it.  If you put two speakers behind you and crosstalk cancel them you can correct this error and now the static room reflections are not nearly as bothersome as before.  Mute the rears or make them stereo and the effect is sorely missed.

 

I meant that if you put a pair of speakers on the stage and listen from row 7 the amount of reflected sound is much more relevant/significant than at home sitting 2 or 3 metres away from the same speakers.

This is probably why the AR demos worked.

[Ralph Glasgal]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

Is this because people are focusing their attention on spatial reproduction instead of sound reproduction?

It is my belief and I believe the listening panel at NYU has now firmly established that there is a perceived quality difference when spatial reproduction is compared to conventional stereo loudspeaker playback.  In other words the panel of listeners overwhelmingly preferred crosstalk cancelled reproduction to SRS or standard stereo using the same recordings.  The measured frequency responses also showed that XTC was a lot flatter at the ears where it counts than stereo and this might account for the preference quite apart from the wider stage, etc.  The thesis and AES paper can be downloaded from the www.ambiophonics.org archive.   

[Ralph Glasgal]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I meant that if you put a pair of speakers on the stage and listen from row 7 the amount of reflected sound is much more relevant/significant than at home sitting 2 or 3 metres away from the same speakers.

This is probably why the AR demos worked.

Correct!  Wharfdale did the same trick in Carnegie Hall with mono speakers.  But the technical reason this worked so well was that in the hall the reflections reached the ears with all the directional cues intact.  At home the reflections are static and of limited delay.  I have a great IR domestic concert hall and so don't need to worry about the room anymore.

[Ralph Glasgal]

You can try crosstalk free audio if you like.  Just remember you must move your speakers a lot closer together

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, semente said:

Is this because people are focusing their attention on spatial reproduction instead of sound reproduction?

They are inseparable so any change would only be a relative matter.  Spatial is, imho, where the new action will be going forward (and this is without reference to any particular technology).

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I meant that if you put a pair of speakers on the stage and listen from row 7 the amount of reflected sound is much more relevant/significant than at home sitting 2 or 3 metres away from the same speakers.

This is probably why the AR demos worked.

 

I head the AR demos in their Broadway showroom many times as a teen. The AR demos worked because most people who heard them couldn't hear the tape hiss. Being 16 - 17 years old, I could. I could tell which was playing even with my back to the stage. I understand that later, AR caught on and left the tape recorder playing with blank spaces on the tape so when the string quartet was playing, there was still tape hiss so as not to give the game away.

[AJ Soundfield]

15 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

The secret is in keeping the speakers at less than one third the stereo spacing, not trying to have surround sound with just two speakers and not having to rely on binaural head recordings. 

Ralph, please respond in this thread I created specifically for Ambio, thanks

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32987-bacch-ambiophonics-etc/

 

[AJ Soundfield]

14 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

They are inseparable so any change would only be a relative matter.  Spatial is, imho, where the new action will be going forward (and this is without reference to any particular technology).

100% agree

[AJ Soundfield]

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 I would be as happy as a puppy with two peters if I had a pair of MG-20.7i's or a pair of Neoliths, but since I'm retired, I have to make do with my Martin Logan Vantages in system #1 and my Maggie MG-0.7s in system #2!

Several folks in my local audio club with MLs (no Neoliths yet, but couple CLS, Impressions, etc) and at least one 20.7 and a dealer that has/sells them. A store in Sarasota has the Neoliths, but I missed the demo. One day.

 

Quote

Your frustrations with gimmicky surround recordings are a large part of my general disdain for the formats. I rarely heard well recorded surround performances that used the rear channels only for ambience. Don't misunderstand, those type of recordings exist, I'm just not interested enough to seek them out.

Well, I also have several 4 & 5ch SACDs that are terrific, without the gimmickry.

There are good size catalogs of these, but they tend to be pricey. The fact remains that the vast majority of my classical collection is 2ch, as are my streaming options (Tidal, etc).

 

Quote

Later, when Dolby 5.1 and DTS came along, I gave it a brief re-trial. I thought that 5.1 (and 7.1 or 10.1 or whatever) was an even bigger gimmick than quad and while it's probably fine for home cinema (for which it was developed) I find it totally wrong for music on several levels. So, I stick to 2 channel stereo.

Yes, I too don't like any of the upmix formats. It seems that this must be near impossible for most to grasp, the "Surround" format I use and have shown here, is not like those at all. The fronts are the same exact 2 ch stereo you use. It's just the rears that are derived. They add an envelopment impossible with only 2 frontal channels...and this effect can be switched on or off with one button.

Here is one gent that actually comprehended, then tried it http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-design-installation/161626-son-off-college-dad-2-channel-room-3.html#post1556714

It is purely an "add on" to 2ch stereo like everyone uses. IMO, a very worthy one.

 

cheers,

 

AJ

 

[Ralf11]

do the Soundlabs sound better than the 20.7i's?

[Ralph Glasgal]

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Ralph, please respond in this thread I created specifically for Ambio, thanks

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32987-bacch-ambiophonics-etc/

 

There is also an Ambiophonics forum on Facebook you can all join.  In general Ambiophonics is too arcane a technology to support forums of followers and the like. 

[Ralph Glasgal]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

do the Soundlabs sound better than the 20.7i's?

What are the 20.7is?  I think on technical grounds that line sources are the best to work if you keep changing things.  But with Ambiophonic systems the differences in speakers are a lot harder to hear.

[Ralf11]

Maggies biggest - I have the 3.7i

[semente]

7 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

What are the 20.7is?  I think on technical grounds that line sources are the best to work if you keep changing things.  But with Ambiophonic systems the differences in speakers are a lot harder to hear.

 

I hope you don't mind the cheekiness but one could say the same of 3D TVs.