Audio Blind Testing

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Remember, I'm always talking about an illusion - the ear/brain is taking the raw data as heard coming from the speakers, and reconstitutes a believable sound field. And it turns out that there is enough depth information caught, or added via sound manipulation for the listening mind to make sense of it - with a rig that I'm happy with I never hear a single plane from left to right - there is a stage behind the speakers, always behind; which can be small, or gigantic; in pop productions, or heavy manipulation of the instruments, there are multiple stages, of various sizes and positions, overlaid, one on top of the other - you can move one's focus to each of these layers, and see it as having full integrity, in its own right.

 

The imaging is on the recording, but there are often many layers of such, all still having their own identity. Optimised playback allows all this information to be unraveled, in one's mind - and it is a delight to see clearly the details of the "montage".

Sounds like a messed up rig creating ersatz space, bloom and dimension whether any is on the recording or not.  Then you just imagine something more is there. 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Remember, I'm always talking about an illusion - the ear/brain is taking the raw data as heard coming from the speakers, and reconstitutes a believable sound field. And it turns out that there is enough depth information caught, or added via sound manipulation for the listening mind to make sense of it - with a rig that I'm happy with I never hear a single plane from left to right - there is a stage behind the speakers, always behind; which can be small, or gigantic; in pop productions, or heavy manipulation of the instruments, there are multiple stages, of various sizes and positions, overlaid, one on top of the other - you can move one's focus to each of these layers, and see it as having full integrity, in its own right.

 

The imaging is on the recording, but there are often many layers of such, one on top of the other. Optimised playback allows all this information to be unraveled, in one's mind - and it is a delight to see clearly the details of the "montage"

 

But poorly miked recordings do NOT present an illusion. They stick-out like sore thumbs, and even though I seem to not have your exalted position above the angels with the world's most perfect audio system, I can tell a poorly recorded performance instantly and I reject such recordings just as quickly. Once, at an AES Convention in NYC, I got into a knock-down drag out argument (almost came to blows and would have, had John Eargle not stepped in and broken it up!) with then RCA Red Seal producer J. David Sacks over his insistence in using a separate microphone and a separate track for each instrument in his recordings of the Philadelphia Orchestra. He said that in his opinion, multi-mike and multi-track recordings made symphony orchestras sound "better than real" , and I assert that a recording of a symphony orchestra should sound like the listener is there in the hall listening as if at a concert. I had a similar problem with Mark Waldrep of AIX records for putting microphones INSIDE of grand pianos, and close miking every other instrument in the ensemble. These types of productions do NOT sound anything  like real music and are therefore, IMHO, wrong! Who wants to listen to a 12 ft wide grand piano stretching from wall to wall? Not me!

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sounds like a messed up rig creating ersatz space, bloom and dimension whether any is on the recording or not.  Then you just imagine something more is there. 

 

Not really. Imagine you were in the studio, listening to the master tape, or console, with all the individual tracks that were combined in the final mix at your disposal - playing through a high quality monitoring speaker setup. You can solo any one of those tracks, and hear exactly what was captured on that "stage", with the added effects - with the listening, on a competent rig, that's the subjective impact: all the individual elements can be soloed, or you just let the whole flow over one. Just like being in the middle of a group of musicians fooling around; you can listen to one, and ignore the other fiddlings - the cocktail party effect ...

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

But poorly miked recordings do NOT present an illusion. They stick-out like sore thumbs, and even though I seem to not have your exalted position above the angels with the world's most perfect audio system, I can tell a poorly recorded performance instantly and I reject such recordings just as quickly. Once, at an AES Convention in NYC, I got into a knock-down drag out argument (almost came to blows and would have, had John Eargle not stepped in and broken it up!) with then RCA Red Seal producer J. David Sacks over his insistence in using a separate microphone and a separate track for each instrument in his recordings of the Philadelphia Orchestra. He said that in his opinion, multi-mike and multi-track recordings made symphony orchestras sound "better than real" , and I assert that a recording of a symphony orchestra should sound like the listener is there in the hall listening as if at a concert. I had a similar problem with Mark Waldrep of AIX records for putting microphones INSIDE of grand pianos, and close miking every other instrument in the ensemble. These types of productions do NOT sound anything  like real music and are therefore, IMHO, wrong! Who wants to listen to a 12 ft wide grand piano stretching from wall to wall? Not me!

 

Highly likely your way of hearing differs from mine - you enjoy the sense of the whole, the bloom of the overall sound picture presented, the story being told ... I do too, but I also can relate strongly to the texture of the sound coming from one thing in the whole - if at a live chamber group concert, I might spend some time purely noting the quality, and tone of the string playing, as something in its own right - I'm oblivious about where the music is going during that time, as a composition ... but that's me, .

[semente]

18 hours ago, STC said:

 

Bit that is not answering various demos of live sound vs recorded sound performed in concert hall where the audience couldn’t tell the difference. So what live performance should be the reference?

 

There is a reason for people not being able to tell the difference: direct/reflected sound ratio.

[semente]

18 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

 

Way to implement "ideal system" is re-produce sound hologram of concert hall.

 

The "hologram" term is not abstract.

 

"Sound hologram" is acoustic wave field in given point of concert hall.

 

It is absolutely same to optical hologram. Because both terms are based at common wave theory (physics).

 

To reproduce it you must first be able to capture it.

[semente]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

In short, 2 speakers are not enough for realistic live performance. 

 

One is enough. You need one of these per instrument reproducing an anechoic recording:

 

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, semente said:

 

To reproduce it you must first be able to capture it.

 

So what is it about ‘live’ sound that is missing during the recording? Sound waves are pretty simple, and I assume any two competent microphones coupled with good ADC can capture all the frequencies and phases of the various sound waves hitting the two ears, their reflections, etc. So what’s missing?

[Sonicularity]

Live music is rarely superior to recorded music captured in a studio, in my opinion.  Unless you have the perfect seat at some acoustic music venue that has exquisite room treatment and a super quiet audience, not sure why anyone would strive to recreate a live experience.  

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So what is it about ‘live’ sound that is missing during the recording? Sound waves are pretty simple, and I assume any competent microphone coupled with good ADC can capture all the frequencies and phases of the various sound waves hitting the two ears, their reflections, etc. So what’s missing?

 

Yes, they're pretty simple - and, it's all captured ... I guarantee it!!

 

What's missing? Answer, sufficient quality in the playback chain to be true to what's on the recording, whether it's for the mastering engineer in the studio, or the lowly consumer in his living room ...

 

There are some truly amazing recordings out there; fabulously complex, layer upon layer of sound, all perfectly preserved - but you wouldn't know it, from listening to the album on a rig not up to the job.

[STC]

46 minutes ago, semente said:

 

One is enough. You need one of these per instrument reproducing an anechoic recording:

 

 

In anechoic chamber the only sound that will reach your ears would be the direct sound. The is no reflection to capture and therefore any microphone attempting to capture the non existent sound would be redundant. 

 

Maybe if you give the link to the photograph, we may able to understand what the picture trying to convey. 

 

BTW, I have anechoic recording made by Denon (or was it JVC). It included single instrument and a classical piece. The sound is so dead.

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

There is a reason for people not being able to tell the difference: direct/reflected sound ratio.

 

I don’t understand what you are trying to convey. Please elaborate. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

To reproduce it you must first be able to capture it.

 

We only hear a tiny fraction of sound through two tiny holes in our head. That’s we the capture happens and that’s the point that should be capture. Binaural recording is accurate but the accuracy is dependent on the person hearing them having similar head size. The sound will always be compromised for someone having extraordinary head size due. 

[semente]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

 

In anechoic chamber the only sound that will reach your ears would be the direct sound. The is no reflection to capture and therefore any microphone attempting to capture the non existent sound would be redundant. 

 

Maybe if you give the link to the photograph, we may able to understand what the picture trying to convey. 

 

BTW, I have anechoic recording made by Denon (or was it JVC). It included single instrument and a classical piece. The sound is so dead.

 

It's from Denon. And it should sound like having the instrument playing in your room. But your room is not beautiful acoustically speaking.

[sandyk]

No recording can sound as good as the microphone permits. It must also have a wide frequency response and low noise.

 This is what Barry Diament uses : https://www.performanceaudio.com/media/pdf/71/477_s.pdf

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

It's from Denon. And it should sound like having the instrument playing in your room. But your room is not beautiful acoustically speaking.

 

All recordings add a little reverb to sound natural. Non processed recording such as live concert hall already got huge amount of reverbs in them. 

 

An anechoic recording can can sound accurate provided the room reverbs is at the correct ratio and the sound from the source radiates 360 degrees like in live performance. 

 

Since you you are trying to reproduce the live sound in your room using anechoic recordings, the reverbs need to high and at that level other normal recordings with its own reverb will sound a tad too bright. 

 

Live performance can can be accurately recaptured using binaural microphone and reproduce somewhat accurately with headphones although the very fact that requires you to wear headphones alters the perception of live sound. 

 

What matters to our ears is only the tiny sound arriving at our ears. If you capture them at the spot and replay the at the spot that 100% accurate with accurate headphones. 

 

Having said that, it still lacks other sound that reaches our head through bone conduction and vibration sensation that stimulates the body. 

 

Live performance can can only be recreated with multi channels/ speakers approach for ensemble and for solo instrument which is essentially mono can sound realities with single speaker. 

 

 

[STC]

At 5 row onwards, sound in concert halls consists of 90% of reverberation.

 

And reverberation sound is hardly anywhere near in terms of sound quality of direct sound. 

 

So the obsession of reproducing the direct sound intact is redundant as there are other important parameters that determine what should sound good and natural during playback. 

[Ralf11]

 

A multi-miked recording using a forest of microphones

 

and then a spherical array of boomboxes with you at the center

 

then tuned to create the allusion of reality

 

You have to admire fas's genius

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

One is enough. You need one of these per instrument reproducing an anechoic recording:

 

 

That doesn't work. You want to capture the sound field not the individual instruments. Between the musicians and your ears (and you have only two) the sound melds into a cohesive whole, sure the whole has disparate parts, but they must interact in the air in order to give a palpable performance.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, they're pretty simple - and, it's all captured ... I guarantee it!!

 

 

How much live recording have you done? Because I'm here to tell you that it's not all captured and I will guarantee that!  the power of brass is not captured, ever via any known technology. A recorded orchestra, for instance never has the awesome energy that the actual performance had - can't be done. Recordings, even 32-bit recordings do not have the dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra; It's just impossible.  Even if the digital recording format could register the full dynamic range of the orchestra, the microphones can't and don't! And for you to keep insisting that recordings capture everything and all one needs is a fas42 approved playback system and it will get played back perfectly, is ludicrous and just confuses people. 

[gmgraves]

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

At 5 row onwards, sound in concert halls consists of 90% of reverberation.

 

One of the few advantages of recordings is that they can put you in the best seat in the house. Something we can't always manage at the concert hall!

[audiventory]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

What all this thinking fails to take into account, is that the ear.brain is capable of compensating for a "non-ideal" wave field reproduction to a very great degree.

 

For claiming this need measurable evidences.

[audiventory]

4 hours ago, semente said:

To reproduce it you must first be able to capture it.

 

Exactly. It is also problematic part.

[audiventory]

5 hours ago, semente said:

One is enough. You need one of these per instrument reproducing an anechoic recording:

 

The such speaker design must provide omnidirectional managed (with 1 acoustic wave ray precision) radiation.

Ray is path of acoustic wave. The can consider rays as radiation from infinite small square of the speaker surface.

It is spherical single driver, rather then several drivers.

Because musical instrument have no equal radiation in all directions.

Anechoic room is not customer suitable. So direction manage is need for room adaptation.

[Ralf11]

I say 2 crossed mics and just ride the gain controls...