Beyond stereo?

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

There is nothing to like or dislike.

Sure there is. One can have a preference for solo locked in center sweet spot and an iso-ward room, or one can prefer a much wider sweet spot, say entire sofa and a "living" room.

 

Quote

You gave the  impression that the chart is related to some existing speakers.

It is. As it says in  bottom text Geddes. Specific model was NS-15 iirc.

 

Quote

That paper was about some processor that meant to do what you described above. 

No, it was about the specific type polar patterns required, including lots of polar patters illustrated!

How one gets those is variable. Can be done  passively with waveguides, etc, actively with dsp and direct radiators, etc

Quote

Btw, head tracking is not even in the picture unless you are using BACCH and I don't. 

The picture did not show what you allege.

Right, I went by the Audiostream descriptions and this:

Quote

If you move away from the sweet spot ( in a non realtime headtracking BACCH) , you will hear the normal stereo sound that will sound like any stereo when you moved away from the stereo's sweet spot

So I shouldn't believe you either??

My experience with binaural/crosstalk cancel with speakers mirrors you both...

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, mav52 said:

What a perfect product for our times - $54k and it will work for exactly one person at a time.

Don't be a hater.

At least it does something. Now a $42k disc transport....

[mav52]

4 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Don't be a hater.

At least it does something. Now a $42k disc transport....

Not a hater, at least somebody is willing to try something to obtain better sound.  Sounds like a Bob Carver project, C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator many years ago.   ,. Now a $90 dac....

[lucretius]

41 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course, if one is an audiophile who prefers to be constrained in a tight sweet spot by oneself in an iso-ward room, this approach would be unnecessary. YMMV.

 

I'm all for widening the sweet spot -- for my main system (which is very modest), I do not sit in the centre.

[AJ Soundfield]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

How can a speaker produce the room cues? Speakers suppose to output what's in the recording. 

This is interesting. Here is what the BACCH site says:

Quote

 

BACCH™ 3D Sound has nothing to do with surround sound. Surround sound, which was originally conceived to make the sound of movies more spectacular, does not (and cannot) attempt to reproduce a 3D soundfield. What 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound aims to do is provide some degree of sound envelopment for the listener by surrounding the listener with five or seven loudspeakers. For serious music listening of music recorded in real acoustic spaces, audio played through a surround sound system can at best give a sense of simulated hall ambiance but cannot offer an accurate 3D representation of the soundfield.

In contrast, BACCH™ 3D Sound’s primary goal is accurate 3D soundfield reproduction. It gives the listener the same 3D audio perspective as that of the ideal listener in the original recording venue².

 

Hmmm, what? Ok, lets find (2)

Quote

²By the “ideal listener in the recoding venue” we mean the actual main stereo recording microphones, or the left and right channels of the stereo master recording, which represent the left and right ear of the ideal listener in the original soundfield.

Ummm, NO. The only instance that is true is a binaural dummy head recording.

Sorry STC, the BACCH system makes zero attempt to perceptually recreate the original soundfield in 99.999% of stereo recordings.

It falls into the exact same category as upmixers. Again, I have no doubt it can sound spectacular with select recordings for one centered listener. But that's it.

It's incomparable to PSR, WFS, etc

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I'm all for widening the sweet spot -- for my main system (which is very modest), I do not sit in the centre.

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.

[semente]

22 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So you don't understand how it's possible to encode each separately and then render using different driver compliments separately with each signal. Nor apparently comprehend the research about 4ch minimum for envelopment and the separate encoding already linked.

Ok then.

 

Not OK.

You didn't read my waterdrop analogy.

 

It's OK to call it immersive or enveloping but it is not a reproduction of the original Soundfield.

 

[STC]

20 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

This is interesting. Here is what the BACCH site says:

Hmmm, what? Ok, lets find (2)

Ummm, NO. The only instance that is true is a binaural dummy head recording.

Sorry STC, the BACCH system makes zero attempt to perceptually recreate the original soundfield in 99.999% of stereo recordings.

It falls into the exact same category as upmixers. Again, I have no doubt it can sound spectacular with select recordings for one centered listener. But that's it.

It's incomparable to PSR, WFS, etc

 

I guess it must be right coming from someone who is yet to listen to one.  

[AJ Soundfield]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

You didn't read my waterdrop analogy.

Right

[semente]

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right

Yes

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I guess it must be right coming from someone who is yet to listen to one.  

That is irrelevant. It might sound like the bees-knees to you and I, but it is still a "enhanced" stereo field.

Nothing wrong with that, but not PSR or any such.

I have heard many binaural systems, but not the BACCH. They can sound spectacular on some stereo recordings, terrible on others. Are you saying the BACCH circumvents this, regardless of how many mics and methods used for stereo production?

Btw, again, from the horses mouth: https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/PureStereo/Pure_Stereose7.html

Quote

The BACCH™ 3D Sound sweet spot is large and robust enough so that a listener sitting in it perceives a high-fidelity 3D image without having to strain to keep his head in a fixed po sition. It does not require any more precision in sitting then standard stereo requires for serious listening. In fact, BACCH™ 3D Sound imaging is so robust that more than one listener can experience most features of the 3D image as long as they sit near the sweet spot, ideally in front or behind it. Moving a few feet to the side of the sweet spot, however, will cause the 3D image to collapse and the sound to be perceived to emanate from the loudspeakers. Therefore, listeners sitting well outside the sweet spot, will hear the sound clearly but it will lack the 3D imaging and sound equalization that the BACCH™ 3D Sound system produces.

Again, IMO, this is a fatal flaw for me. Possibly others too, who would desire a much wider sweet spot.

[AJ Soundfield]

15 minutes ago, semente said:

It's OK to call it immersive or enveloping but it is not a reproduction of the original Soundfield.

 

Correct, which is why if one can read and comprehend word meanings, it's called Perceptual soundfield reconstruction. Not "A fools errand".

[STC]

20 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That is irrelevant. It might sound like the bees-knees to you and I, but it is still a "enhanced" stereo field.

Nothing wrong with that, but not PSR or any such.

I have heard many binaural systems, but not the BACCH. They can sound spectacular on some stereo recordings, terrible on others. Are you saying the BACCH circumvents this, regardless of how many mics and methods used for stereo production?

Btw, again, from the horses mouth: https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/PureStereo/Pure_Stereose7.html

Again, IMO, this is a fatal flaw for me. Possibly others too, who would desire a much wider sweet spot.

 The fatal flaw is comparing 3D sound with stereo. 

[AJ Soundfield]

24 minutes ago, STC said:

 The fatal flaw is comparing 3D sound with stereo. 

Or a super narrow one person sweet spot, great or terrible sound varying by stereo recording, etc, for $54k.

YMMV

Btw, thanks, your evasion/non-answer on the stereo recording wild variability thing that plagues binaural, did in fact provide an answer 

[STC]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Or a super narrow one person sweet spot, great or terrible sound varying by stereo recording, etc, for $54k.

YMMV

Btw, thanks, your evasion/non-answer on the stereo recording wild variability thing that plagues binaural, did in fact provide an answer 

 

Do you always take things literally? If you have read all the links I provided earlier you would have also read that you can move, nod, or turn your head and the 3D image would remain intact. I can demonstrate this anytime and that's what surprises visitors most that the image remain stable even when moving the head unlike stereo. That's the fact. If you got any friends in AES who will be making the technical visit to the institute, they can confirm that for you since it is so difficult to experiment it for yourself. I am sure you can nod, shake, move or turn your head with BACCH. There is no reason why it couldn't. No sane person would developed a product and expect listeners to sit still like a dummy head. It even more insane where one actually believed that's the scenario with BACCH.

 

 I do not use BACCH although the inventor was one of the early contributor to Ambiophonics XTC. XTC is free or available for a nominal sum of not more than $125 for the hardware. Ralph who has contributed AES papers admits ( unlike you and me who only cite advertisementS and others' papers) BaCCH is superior where it could do better than RACE but it is more suitable for effects in movies or games. With music, I doubt it would make a difference as the required XTC is only need to be not less than 5 dB, which RACE can do better.

 

Whatever interpretation you imagine with super narrow which is no different from stereo is in reference to the 3D effect only.  Be clear about that.  

 

One thing that bad about binaural is; it is bad for loudspeaker business. There are already headphones technology out there that exceed BACCH or Ambiophonics. A developer who was comparing many 3D application was very impressed with the Smyth Realizer which I think is the future. 

 

Btw, there is no binaural system. Kindly state the systems.  Binaural recording is meant to listen with headphones, although Chesky is attempting binaural for speakers but I am not impressed.

 

That's all. 

 

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, mav52 said:

What a perfect product for our times - $54k and it will work for exactly one person at a time.

 

That's misleading. The 54k system meant for many listeners in the room.  

 

[AJ Soundfield]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

Do you always take things literally?

Like my links/quotes from BACCH website? Absolutely! Why wouldn't I?

Same for all the AES papers I linked too.

 

Quote

If you have read all the links I provided earlier you would have also read that you can move, nod, or turn your head and the 3D image would remain intact. I can demonstrate this anytime

Ahh, so the FAS42 HTIB thing and audio show suggestions doesn't apply to you 

Me neither. But you also said 

Quote

 I do not use BACCH

So your 20+ speaker system is quite different vs those 2 speaker BACCHs, no?

I'm not sure how scalable the BACCH processor is, but it is clearly promoted as 2ch 3D, as in from 2 speakers.

 

Quote

Whatever interpretation you imagine with super narrow which is no different from stereo is in reference to the 3D effect only.  Be clear about that.  

You keep repeating this fallacy, but the fact is "wide" sweet spot stereo doesn't collapse to one spoeaker side like this. Yes, in the sweet spot, binaural/cross cancel like BACCH certainly beats plain stereo in terms of 3D...but you keep evading this varies considerably from recording to recording depending on mic techniques, etc, from spectacular to horrible weird phasiness that plagues all binaural attempts from non-binaural stereo recordings.

That does not happen with "normal" or "wide" stereo.

 

Quote

One thing that bad about binaural is; it is bad for loudspeaker business. There are already headphones technology out there that exceed BACCH or Ambiophonics.

Sure, but the good news is that 99.99% of music recording is stereo, while near zero is binaural. I think speakers have a bit of life left. 

 

[STC]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Like my links/quotes from BACCH website? Absolutely! Why wouldn't I?

Same for all the AES papers I linked too.

 

Ahh, so the FAS42 HTIB thing and audio show suggestions doesn't apply to you 

Me neither. But you also said 

So your 20+ speaker system is quite different vs those 2 speaker BACCHs, no?

I'm not sure how scalable the BACCH processor is, but it is clearly promoted as 2ch 3D, as in from 2 speakers.

 

You keep repeating this fallacy, but the fact is "wide" sweet spot stereo doesn't collapse to one spoeaker side like this. Yes, in the sweet spot, binaural/cross cancel like BACCH certainly beats plain stereo in terms of 3D...but you keep evading this varies considerably from recording to recording, from spectacular to horrible weird phasiness that plagues all binaural attempts from non-binaural stereo recordings.

That does not happen with "normal" or "wide" stereo.

 

Sure, but the good news is that 99.99% of music recording is stereo, while near zero is binaural. I think speakers have a bit of life left. 

 

 

You missed to response to this 

 

If you got any friends in AES who will be making the technical visit to the institute, they can confirm that for you since it is so difficult to experiment it for yourself. I am sure you can nod, shake, move or turn your head with BACCH. There is no reason why it couldn't. No sane person would developed a product and expect listeners to sit still like a dummy head. It even more insane where one actually believed that's the scenario with BACCH.

 

And my system is meant for 2.0, 4.0 or 5.1,.  You took it upon yourself to bring up the 29 speakers where I have clearly stated that they act as the wall to reproduce the preferred choice of impulse response. The use of convolution is not limited to Ambiophonics but it can be used for plain stereo or multi channel. Read about convolution. 

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

I am sure you can nod, shake, move or turn your head with BACCH. There is no reason why it couldn't. No sane person would developed a product and expect listeners to sit still like a dummy head. It even more insane where one actually believed that's the scenario with BACCH.

 

Quote

 

 https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/PureStereo/Pure_Stereose7.html

  Quote

The BACCH™ 3D Sound sweet spot is large and robust enough so that a listener sitting in it perceives a high-fidelity 3D image without having to strain to keep his head in a fixed po sition. It does not require any more precision in sitting then standard stereo requires for serious listening. In fact, BACCH™ 3D Sound imaging is so robust that more than one listener can experience most features of the 3D image as long as they sit near the sweet spot, ideally in front or behind it. Moving a few feet to the side of the sweet spot, however, will cause the 3D image to collapse and the sound to be perceived to emanate from the loudspeakers. Therefore, listeners sitting well outside the sweet spot, will hear the sound clearly but it will lack the 3D imaging and sound equalization that the BACCH™ 3D Sound system produces.

 

 

The BACCH website itself is not to be taken literally?

 

Quote

And my system is meant for 2.0, 4.0 or 5.1,.  You took it upon yourself to bring up the 29 speakers where I have clearly stated that they act as the wall to reproduce the preferred choice of impulse response. The use of convolution is not limited to Ambiophonics but it can be used for plain stereo or multi channel.

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

[mav52]

11 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

 

The BACCH website itself is not to be taken literally?

 

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

In the Stereophile interview " the system can be calibrated for a range of listener positions, the Bacch-SP system uses an infrared camera to track the listener's head position and make real-time adjustments to compensate for the change in the listening sweet spot "

[STC]

12 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

 

The BACCH website itself is not to be taken literally?

 

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

 

Unless you are a giraffe your head will not move as far as few feet. 

 

Yes, it is meant for all sound that emanates from the front LCR. It doesn't care whether they are binaural or plain stereo or multi channel. It only addresses one weakness in the front channels, i.e crosstalk cancellation. 

 

No friends visiting?  Most of the your argument is like someone who refuses to use 3D glasses and yet argue about 3D TV based on what's written somewhere. 

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, mav52 said:

In the Stereophile interview " the system can be calibrated for a range of listener positions, the Bacch-SP system uses an infrared camera to track the listener's head position and make real-time adjustments to compensate for the change in the listening sweet spot "

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

You listen only solo?

[STC]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

You listen only solo?

 

OMG! It means that many listeners can sit and enjoy full 3D sound without any compromise. You will only do that the first time to calibrate. 

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

Unless you are a giraffe your head will not move as far as few feet. 

Or you don't always sit dead center alone in an iso-ward, like an audiophile.

 

Quote

Yes, it is meant for all sound that emanates from the front LCR. It doesn't care whether they are binaural or plain stereo. 

Cool, yet another evasion about stereo recording SQ using crosstalk cancel binaural.

Well, that provides an answer too.

 

Quote

No friends visiting?  Most of the your argument is like someone who refuses to use 3D glasses and yet argue about 3D TV based on what's written somewhere. 

Nope. But heard plenty binaural, good and bad.

How many wide stereo + diffuse decorrelated independent driven indirect radiation fronts + 2 Logic7 rears have you heard?

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

OMG! It means that many listeners can sit and enjoy full 3D sound without any compromise.

From 99.99% of recordings? BS