Beyond stereo?

[AJ Soundfield]

25 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

AJ, from your picture, I'd venture to say that I've been doing live, location recording of classical music and jazz longer than you've been alive.

That's George Clooney not me. Regardless, that's a long time to have not picked up anything regarding basic perception of soundwaves.

Quote

You are entitled to your opinion, but my experiences tell me otherwise. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. 

I'm not posting opinions. All those links are scientific facts, not opinions, such as you are posting.

If yours aren't, please post the files or links to your 2ch recordings that correctly capture the soundfield so that they can be rendered and perceptually reconstruct the original, TIA.

It is impossible to sample combined direct and diffuse with 2 mics that can then be rendered separately, because they are no longer separate. The leading edges of the planar waves cannot be simultaneously played back from the same speaker producing an unlocalizable diffuse field. If you don't understand any of this, no shame in saying so.

A bare minimum of 4 loudspeakers is required for envelopment as one would have in a live soundfield. Again, scientifically established fact, not fictional opinion.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

2 ears

2 mics

2 speakers

 

that ol' time religion is good enuff fer me

That of course, is a preference, Most audiophiles would agree.

How many PSR, WFS, higher order ambisonics, etc systems have you compared vs 2ch? TIA

[STC]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

In holographic or auralized two-channel presentation, a presumed human head-related transfer function (HRTF) is used to create an impression of sound arising from other than the front of the listener. This works well in headphones or with interaural cancellation for one listener facing directly ahead and on the central axis between the loudspeakers.

 

Again, two channels is good enough. And the part about fixed head was not true. Did you read all the other links?

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That's George Clooney not me. Regardless, that's a long time to have not picked up anything regarding basic perception of soundwaves.

I'm not posting opinions. All those links are scientific facts, not opinions, such as you are posting.

If yours aren't, please post the files or links to your 2ch recordings that correctly capture the soundfield so that they can be rendered and perceptually reconstruct the original, TIA.

It is impossible to sample combined direct and diffuse with 2 mics that can then be rendered separately, because they are no longer separate. The leading edges of the planar waves cannot be simultaneously played back from the same speaker producing an unlocalizable diffuse field. If you don't understand any of this, no shame in saying so.

A bare minimum of 4 loudspeakers is required for envelopment as one would have in a live soundfield. Again, scientifically established fact, not fictional opinion.

 

Theoretical "fact" your posting may be, but the reality of the situation is that a very accurate sound field can be captured by two mikes. Now, I certainly agree that you can't capture a complete sound field in such a way that the ambience cues come at the listener from all directions, as in a multi-channel system. That should be obvious to even the most casual of observers of this debate, but the ambience can be captured with two microphones; it just emerges from the two stereo speakers along with the actual sound stage, that's all.

[STC]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

2 ears

2 mics

2 speakers

 

that ol' time religion is good enuff fer me

 

2 ears = 2 microphones. Capturing sound from anywhere around us which is not the same as sound being produced by two speakers. I am not saying you need more that 2 channels although that will be more realistic for non headphones reproduction but 2 speakers reproduction is certainly insufficient even for 2 channels recordings. 

[semente]

32 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That's George Clooney not me. Regardless, that's a long time to have not picked up anything regarding basic perception of soundwaves.

I'm not posting opinions. All those links are scientific facts, not opinions, such as you are posting.

If yours aren't, please post the files or links to your 2ch recordings that correctly capture the soundfield so that they can be rendered and perceptually reconstruct the original, TIA.

It is impossible to sample combined direct and diffuse with 2 mics that can then be rendered separately, because they are no longer separate. The leading edges of the planar waves cannot be simultaneously played back from the same speaker producing an unlocalizable diffuse field. If you don't understand any of this, no shame in saying so.

A bare minimum of 4 loudspeakers is required for envelopment as one would have in a live soundfield. Again, scientifically established fact, not fictional opinion.

 

All (2 channel or processed multi-channel) are approximations, which is why you very well wrote "perceptually reconstruct the original".

More mics/channels/speakers may* confer a more "realistic" soundfield but will also add complexity, problems, and cost.

 

The link about some reviewer describing JA wetting his pants is not a fact.

 

* - depending on who you ask...subjective

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Theoretical "fact" your posting may be

Not "theory", along established science facts. Direct field. Plane waves. Diffuse field. Perceived very differently by 2 ears.

Quote

but the reality of the situation is that a very accurate sound field can be captured by two mikes.

Science fiction.

 

Quote

Now, I certainly agree that you can't capture a complete sound field in such a way that the ambience cues come at the listener from all directions, as in a multi-channel system. That should be obvious to even the most casual of observers of this debate

Bingo!

 

Quote

but the ambience can be captured with two microphones; it just emerges from the two stereo speakers along with the actual sound stage, that's all.

Right, what emerges is a tiny, maybe 10% of the original soundfield.

Here https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=9136

Quote

In the usual stereo audio presentation, a partial sound stage consisting primarily of the front elements of the sound stage is created by two channels, either sampled from several microphones set in the original sound field or more often by a mixdown of many microphones placed both in proximity to the performers and out in the hall to capture the ambience. The information presented by the two channels, in either case, is a small fraction of the information in the original sound field. Additionally, this fraction is presented to the front of the listener. The presentation does not create an envelopment experience, where one is immersed in the original sound field, as the information is not present. While some processors mimic the effect, such effects are not based on the actual venue but rather on some hypothetical model of a venue. : In holographic or auralized two-channel presentation, a presumed human head-related transfer function (HRTF) is used to create an impression of sound arising from other than the front of the listener. This works well in headphones or with interaural cancellation for one listener facing directly ahead and on the central axis between the loudspeakers. This method can, with some difficulty, produce an immersive effect for one point in the sound field, assuming that the subject maintains the proper head position, and the subject's head has an HRTF like that of the presumed functions. The ultimate form of this is, of course, binaural recording, where an actual head model is used to capture the information for one head location. : Beyond two-channel presentation, one can think of analytically capturing an original sound field to some degree of accuracy. This would require the use of many channels, perhaps placed in a sphere about the listener's head in the simplest form, requiring very high data rates (1000 to : 10 000 channels, perhaps) and creating a very high probability of influencing the sound field in the space with the microphones and the supporting mechanisms. As a result this technique is currently infeasible, and is likely to remain infeasible, for basic physical reasons as well as data-rate reasons, and actual analytic capture of the spatial aspects of a sound field in this fashion is unlikely.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

All (2 channel or processed multi-channel) are approximations, which is why you very well wrote "perceptually reconstruct the original".

Correct, but >2 does so much better than 2.

It's really only audiophiles stuck on 2 with their rock music. Nice explanation here: https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

Quote

More mics/channels/speakers may confer a more "realistic" soundfield but will also add complexity, problems, and cost.

We all have our excuses 

 

Quote

The link about some reviewer describing JA wetting his pants is not a fact.

How do you know he didn't wet his pants??

[STC]

8 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right, what emerges is a tiny, maybe 10% of the original soundfield.

Here https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=9136

 

That paper was written in 2000. At that time, Ambiophonics was still using physical divider. That was long before BACCH. 

[STC]

Isn't it true that human only hear in mono? One mono channel from the left and right ear. 

[AJ Soundfield]

19 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That paper was written in 2000. At that time, Ambiophonics was still using physical divider. That was long before BACCH. 

 

 

I get a bit claustrophobic with the head vice/limited head movement sweet spot thing 

 

have you heard a BACCH demo?

The fly around head thing was cool, but an orchestra is a different affair.

Would love to hear though...

[gmgraves]

52 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Correct, but >2 does so much better than 2.

It's really only audiophiles stuck on 2 with their rock music. Nice explanation here: https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

We all have our excuses 

 

How do you know he didn't wet his pants??

 

I've yet to hear a surround recording that imaged well. When I use XY, MS, ORTF, or other  "coincident" mike techniques, I get almost holographic soundstage information. I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the ensemble. I can tell, for instance, that the brass instruments are not only behind the wood winds, but above them on risers as well! I'm not saying that surround recordings can't do that, but I am saying that I never have heard one that actually did. Most commercial recordings, whether two channel or more than two channel are generally multi-miked with 16 channels or more and a forest of microphones. Such recordings don't image at all.

 

Gordon Holt was one of my closest friends. Yes, he was intrigued by the promise of surround sound. He was also quite disillusioned with the reality of same. In his later years, Gordon did a lot of recording. It was not surround. However, he was quite correct in his assessment of the industry. The original goal of high-fidelity is long- lost.

[STC]

21 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

 

I get a bit claustrophobic with the head vice/limited head movement sweet spot thing 

 

have you heard a BACCH demo?

The fly around head thing was cool, but an orchestra is a different affair.

Would love to hear though...

 

What limited head movement? Did you listen to BACCH in a proper setup? Did you even listen to classical music with BACCH? did you even read about the level of XTC in BACCH which is more effective to bring bees buzzing in your ears? Do you need that much XTC for ordinary music unless a lost fly circling around you in the concert hall and you want to reproduce that.

 

I am not sure who is in the picture, but if you actually listened to BACCH like that than you have been conned. 

 

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

I've yet to hear a surround recording that imaged well. When I use XY, MS, ORTF, or other  "coincident" mike techniques, I get almost holographic soundstage information. I can close my eyes and point to every instrument in the ensemble. I can tell, for instance, that the brass instruments are not only behind the wood winds, but above them on risers as well! I'm not saying that surround recordings can't do that, but I am saying that I never have heard one that actually did. Most commercial recordings, whether two channel or more than two channel are generally multi-miked with 16 channels or more and a forest of microphones. Such recordings don't image at all.

 

Here is your chance. AES is making a technical visit to Ambiophonics Institute. Or contact Filmmaker.com who would be happy to do the demo. I think BACCH agent is in this forum, maybe he can help. 

[STC]

AJ, I couldn't find the article related to your pictures above but this is what Audiostream wrote:-

 

The reason is simple: Bacch 3D makes music sound like it's originating from different places in space that have nothing to do with your hi-fi but have everything to do with reality. As a matter of fact, Professor Choueiri explained how the speakers, stereo speakers, could be placed next to each other so that are touching and you would still the full 3D experience. Damn applied physics!

BACCH can effectively restore the true immersive nature of stereo by minimizing the corruption of stereo cues due to crosstalk.

What this means, in reality, is that music sounds like it's coming from a real, dimensional space. For binaural recordings, this means that if the trombone player was standing 15' feet from the mics hard left, that's where she'll be when you listen to the recording through your hi-fi. If the drummer was dead center, 5 feet back, that's exactly where she'll be when you listen to the recording through your hi-fi. And so on. The space of the recording takes up residence in your place with pinpoint accuracy.
Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/disruptive-tech-bacch-3d-sound#CRjsU4XoBhHQGWHD.99

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right, what emerges is a tiny, maybe 10% of the original soundfield.

 

A tiny portion and, significantly, in the wrong place.

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, Kal Rubinson said:

A tiny portion and, significantly, in the wrong place.

We're in diehard 2ch audiophile territory here 

Plus with typical speaker, the same drivers are creating the onset response and diffuse field simultaneously...

[STC]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

A tiny portion and, significantly, in the wrong place.

 

+1.  That's reason I say it is impossible reproduce stereo with realistic ambiance with two speakers because only a fraction of the ambiance will be captured for stereo recordings that meant to be played with speakers. You need atleast 4 speakers, 2 to reproduce or recreate the side wall reflection accurately. 

[AJ Soundfield]

31 minutes ago, STC said:

What limited head movement?

As defined by binaural without head tracking. The system photos seem to confirm this.

 

Quote

Did you listen to BACCH in a proper setup? Did you even listen to classical music with BACCH?

No!, not yet, that's why I said I want to.

 

Quote

I am not sure who is in the picture, but if you actually listened to BACCH like that than you have been conned. 

My favorite droog, but that was a tad bit of embellishment to highlight "head in vice" imaging..

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

We're in diehard 2ch audiophile territory here 

Hence, my low profile.

[Ralf11]

it's all about where you want to stop

 

2 speakers can run upwards of $30k not counting the amps

 

while 3 more can be of lesser quality they are not free

 

beyond that, there is the issue of how one weights various factors (ultimate 1812 cannon bass vs. the best image, etc.)

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

We're in diehard 2ch audiophile territory here 

...

 

b/c one is the loneliest number...

[STC]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

As defined by binaural without head tracking. The system photos seem to confirm this

 

I am not going to speculate based on a picture. I can tell you that the speakers were placed far too wide to be effective without head tracking. That what BACCH does. if you do not want the head tracking than move the speakers closer. 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Again, two channels is good enough.

 

My Ambiophonics System

"I have now moved to 2.2.16.1 system. That is 20 speakers and 1 subwoofer.. Except for my main setup the additional ambiance/surround speakers..."

Say what??

[AJ Soundfield]

12 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I am not going to speculate based on a picture. I can tell you that the speakers were placed far too wide to be effective without head tracking. That what BACCH does. if you do not want the head tracking than move the speakers closer. 

Ok, I think we are in agreement.

This is what I found online https://www.google.com/search?q=bacch+3d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_76KInNrUAhWLOCYKHRMZCJgQ_AUIBygC&biw=1517&bih=708#imgrc=OO6WdobEhfysoM:

Speakers waaaay out in a heavily treated room, couple chairs dead center.

Like I said, would love to hear, but nearly the opposite of what I prefer physically, i.e regards to speaker placement and "living" room decor. Nothing on head. YMMV