Audio Blind Testing

[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. 

[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. 

[STC]

48 minutes ago, semente said:

This ambience from the concert hall is more accurately reproduced in near anechoic conditions because your own room's acoustic signature.

 

This is a common misconception. Ambience of concert hall arrives your ears from millions of direction. The most important reflection being the side reflection. 

 

To reproduce the live performance of concert hall you need to replicate the sound reflecting from various surface to reach your ears. 

 

Normal recorsing will will have little reverbs adds and rest of the reverbs expected to come from you room. In small rooms, the reflection can be overbearing and uneven. If you can address those then you have a realistic concert hall in your room with multi channel recordings. 

 

 

[STC]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

Even you Ralph G agrees with that

 

Is it necessary for such remark?  

 

I thought of  discussing more about research on emotion when listening to live performance and so forth but nevermind. 

 

I am am not saying it is hundred percent  of X concert hall sound but realistic 3D sound can be achieved in Y concert hall as replicating the ambience is possible. 

 

I am doing this regularly. It took me 5 years to get it right. When was the last time you attempted successfully? You have not listened to a true 3D sound reproduction and your opinion is nothing more than anecdotal. 

 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

I think some people have in mind this idea stereo sound can work like holography.  That two sources might set up an interference pattern replicating the actual sound field recorded.  It doesn't work this way however.  It is using how our hearing works to perceptually trick it,  not recreate an actual sound field.

 

 

Almost all audiophiles are thinking that’s  possible and regularly claiming hearing so. 

 

Stereo binaural is close enough to 3D but since it comes from headphones it is hard to project the main image in front of you like how you witness them in live performance. 

 

 

Imagine the same sound coming from your two speakers. That’s the first step. The next step is to reproduce the ambiance of the concert hall. The more impulse response the more accurate it is. That’s the second stage. 

[STC]

21 minutes ago, esldude said:

I have said before binaural just doesn't work for me.  This one didn't either.  Sounded much better and more dimensional over my speakers actually.  

 

There are about 5% of the population couldnt perceive the 3D TV image. It maybe possible the same thing happening to binaural sound. Perhaps, in another 10 years or so we will hear research on that. 

[STC]

7 hours ago, bhobba said:

There are huge egos involved in it - the winner will reap the rewards - the losers will greatly suffer.  There is nothing really in it for anyone......

 

I agree. People are not interested to experiment for fear of being proven wrong.

[STC]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Everyone here is making it far too hard - it's completely ridiculous trying to capture a perfect version of the original soundfield, then regenerating all of that in some other location - it also mean that all recordings to date are useless ...

 

I am also having dillema about what is the objective. The truth is no two concert hall sound alike. Physically it is near impossible. What we should be striving for is the ability to replay them and to sound like a concert hall sound. 

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Letting our internal processing plant do the work is the answer - it throws up an illusion which is just as satisfying as the "real thing", and often will be far superior, because the soundfield was picked up from better locations. Only one step has to be taken to get there - improving the end to end processing of the captured sound as it's played back, so that all of the information is damaged as little as possible.

 

 

If only I could train my internal processing to reach that level, I could settle for the sound from transistor and let my internal processing to fill in the missing link.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

If you listen in an anechoic chamber without moving your head, using two speakers, the sound is in your head like with headphones. Has nothing to do with deficiencies in the chain.

 

This cannot be correct unless you are playing a mono sound with two speakers where there is no ITD and ILD.

[STC]

Just to refresh the major difference between speakers and headphones.

 

Quote

With speakers at 60 degrees, the speakers may have perfectly flat response, but when two such speakers are operating the response at the ear is anything but flat.  Central low bass is doubled in level and there are a series of sharp peaks and dips starting at about 1500 Hz.  You may not care about stage width or localization, but your brain does.  So when a microphone records say a 700 microsecond difference for a left side instrument, what you get with 60 degree speakers is first an erroneous  220 microsecond difference cue instead of 700 followed by the correct 700 microsecond delay which is now regarded by the brain as just an early reflection, followed by a bogus 220 microsecond signal that is contradicting the recorded time delay signal.  There are similar problems with the recorded level differences delivered at the two ears when both ears hear both speakers at angle.

 

 

Quote

Now for the pinna and headset problems.  The outer ears are direction finders for frequencies above about 1000 Hz.  With speakers all the pinna directional cues are at the same plus and minus 30 degrees no matter where the stereo image seems to be based on the lower frequencies.  This inconsistency sensitizes the brain so that it knows the field is not real and worse makes it overly sensitive to minor things like resolution, LP ticks and pops, harmonic distortion, etc.  Now with headphones, the pinna function is decimated no matter what kind of phones are used.  The frequency response is now flat and the localization cues are correct, but the inconsistency in sound field is still there, so the brain normally internalizes the field so you have a wide stage between the ears inside your head.  If you hum or hiss to yourself while you bring a finger into each outer ear, you can hear this effect.  You can use things like the Smyth Realizer which uses your speaker set up as a model to thereafter avoid internalization with earphones.

 

And about soundfield.

Quote

Now comes the rear soundfield problem.  The brain expects that sounds in front will produce a set of reflections from the sides and rear that vary with the source position in front.  But with speakers the reflection pattern in the room is always the same directionally no matter where the phantom image is in front.  Again this results in a stage without envelopment and a brain that know something is wrong.  With earphones there are only the recorded reflections and they all come from the same direction so again realism is not possible this simple way.  So the use of rear speakers has nothing to do with 5.1 surround.  They are a necessary part of distortion free 2.0 LP, CD, SACD, Download, reproduction.

 

Read more here. 

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yep. All the standard stuff about how it's supposed to work - and I would to get all of that happening if I chose to deliberately downgrade the playback - but for some strange reason I'm not interested in doing that ...

 

I am not trying to convince you. I was just pointing out the documented reasons for the perception of realism with speakers and headphones. What you can hear is entirely within your domain of realism.

[STC]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

I think it was in Toole's book or referenced someone else's research.  If the listener is equidistant from speakers in an anechoic chamber and their head is held immobile, they hear imaging mostly inside their head much like with headphones.   If their head is not held immobile apparently very small movements of our head are important.  As the imaging then moves outside their head.  That is one of the advantages of the Smyth Realizer.  Head movement is brought into the sound you hear thru the phones. 

 

I am taking the word of others on this not having the chance to try it out in an anechoic chamber for myself. 

 

To localize sound you need ILD and ITD. Your example applies to mono signal because when the head is held steady both signals arrive your ears at same level and at same time thus making localization impossible and you can  place the sound anywhere along the line. However, your visual clue also would play a role and it is possible for you to imagine a location,IMO.

[STC]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

what is achieved is the "You Are There" illusion, for all recordings. Part of the illusion is that it becomes impossible to locate the speakers, no matter where you move - if you can't achieve this, then the rest of the package won't happen, or it will be severely limited, to a small subset of recordings.

 

I have achieved this and regularly have visitors putting their ears on the bass traps looking liking flat electrostatics speakers to hear whther sound is coming from there. Even with stereo, I did a pretty good job making the Harbeth disappear especially with Roger Water's ATD. There is nothing you say here is unique. Many audiophiles capable of making the speakers disappear and create floating phantom image with boombox or stereo. 

[STC]

 

I am still reading the first one but I still cannot find reference for two loudspeakers  playing simulataneously. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

STC, I note that you say you can always hear "the hole in the middle" with a conventional stero setup

 

Did I? Could you please point me where? I may have said some who prefer separating the speakers beyond 60 degrees can experience recessed centre.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I may have misunderstood your intent, here,

 

 

 

Clearly, it was a reference to WIDE stereo vs stereo in the TV settings. 

[STC]

No worries. We all make mistakes.

 

Actually, in the second quote I did say I perceive a hole in the middle. But I was referring to the transition from one speakers to two speakers. Generally, with stereo with two speakers you sense the sound bit hollow in the centre compared to mono sound with one speaker. Sorry for the confusion.

[STC]

My ears are not identical but I have no trouble with localization in real world and very good at it. I think it got to do with your early exposure where localization played a crucial role in my early days.

 

However, I have trouble in perceiving sound extending beyond my room walls despite most of the visitors claiming to hear so. Perhaps, my visual clue plays a bigger role.

 

Generally, we could compensate for hearing differences in our left and right ears. There was a recent publication of a research paper that vocal whispered through right ear is perceived differently from left.

[STC]

Deleted.  ( You just answered)

 

I still don’t think you will hear the sound inside your head. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

That's interesting --- that backs up what you said in the previous post about perceiving a "hollow" in the middle with stereo - your brain works a litle differently from others, and highly likely mine.

 

I think you are interpreting what I said to suit your assertion. I grew up in an era where the mono sound was more common than stereo. Naturally, in mono, everything is concentrated in one channel and there wasn't any soundstage with one speaker. It is natural to perceive thinness when you listen to stereo to perceive the sound being less dense than mono. Vocals or single instruments (mono recordings) will always sound better with a single speaker.

 

This observation may not be agreeable to many as we have also learned to adapt to the stereo sound. Although they may have their own flaws, we learned to accept those flaws as natural and identify the sound as a reproduction of hifi playback. It depends on your preference.

 

When I was obsessed with hif setup, I had visitors with same interest. Now, those visitors stop coming because to them the sound is no longer hifi sound. It sounded large and often associated to the experience in IMAX cinema sound. Admittedly, most of them never heard unamplified sound in the concert hall. Now, I get new kind of visitors who like concert hall sound or musicians who listen to music from different perceptive. It all depends on one's exposure and characteristics they listen for.

[STC]

16 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't think it is in the links I provided.  Those were more to show how under anechoic conditions people have a tendency to hear forward sounds in their head rather than externally if they can't move their head.  Research about such things goes back to at least the 1940s.  

 

Here is the experiment done in anechoic room using two loudspeakers determining directional localisation of the

sound in stereophony (stereo). 

 

Link

 

[STC]

On 1/14/2018 at 9:16 PM, esldude said:

So are you saying because many claim it they are managing to recreate soundfields?  

 

I have said before binaural just doesn't work for me.  This one didn't either.  Sounded much better and more dimensional over my speakers actually.  

 

I found a reference where some users were having difficulties with 3D sound via heaphones which may be relevant to you. If you are using Realtek HD Audio in your pc, try disabling that and use stereo only mode. Please let me if you hear nay difference. Thanx.

[STC]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

I'm with you on this - the "bigness" of the presentation may disturb some; they want to "feel in control" of what they're listening to, that it doesn't overwhelm them, emotionally.

 

This statement maybe true.  A few discerning audiophiles I know usually listens at low volume where they "claim" they hear the separation and low level better. Thanks.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Those are the few remaining ones that still have their hearing intact. The rest of us listen at much higher/dangerous levels

 

 

IMO, an average of 75dB with peaks touching 90dB to 100dB is a comfortable level and worth having hifi system to play them at that level. This guys probably in the 60dB range as the air conditioning noise could be heard. 

 

BTW, Interestingly they also use headphones to rock. 

 

 listening level right now, a pop soundtrack ( non English).  

 

And this is Testament - Candide: Make our garden grow ( Turtle Creek Carol).