Blue or red pill?

[semente]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

  The owner of another forum once commented that with my UL of " Queen-Another One Bites the Dust" that he could hear the saliva in Freddy Mercury's throat. Yes, sometimes things like this may be a little off putting.

 

Even lip noises of some show demo music from the usual female singers such as Krell ir Barbie puts me off...

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

Yes, J-J Johnston has noted regular small movements of your head are important in localization.  I myself for some reason find binaural recordings to mostly not work. 

The Smyth Realizer works by detected and compensating for head movement.  I haven't used one, but reports are it helps greatly with sound realism. 

Would that be the a 8 or the a16. I only ask because I was under the impression that the a16 was not yet in the wild. 

[fas42]

Highly 'artificial' recordings are vastly better than 'natural' ones at pointing out deficiencies in the playback - one's hearing can "fill in the gaps" with sound combinations that one's hearing has learned to deal with; when the recording is unusual there is nowhere to hide for the reproduction chain; the ear/brain has to rely completely on the audible information at that moment.

 

Which means, "good" classical recordings are trivially easy to have sounding well - as one pursues greater competence, "awkward", "artificial", pop creations are pulled out, to see if the rig is up to it.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

A couple of mics recording live acoustic instruments and vocals in a room can only capture horizontal position, width and depth, and even that depends on the mics, the technique and the mic distance. Anything beyond that requires processing or manipulation and in my experience tampering with the signal affects quality.

This has been tested as far back as the late 1920's.  Has been repeated a few times. 

 

In one instance a chamber music group and jazz trio were recorded different ways and listeners heard replay in the same space as the recording over quality gear. Asked to fill out a diagram as to where musicians and instruments were.  Same sort of thing has been done with 5 channel surround. 

 

There was some correlation between actual position and that heard by listeners with stereo.  The positioning wasn't highly accurate on depth.  Addition of a center channel improved this by a large amount.  Same as was found in the experiments in the late 1920's early 1930's.  The perceived position of depth still wasn't fully accurate, but much improved over two channels.

 

EDIT to add:  These tests indicate listeners do hear depth with stereo.  However what they hear vs what was really recorded is only loosely connected.  Of course the listener can't know what was the case usually.  They'll accept the depth they perceive not knowing it is usually very inaccurate. 

[semente]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Highly 'artificial' recordings are vastly better than 'natural' ones at pointing out deficiencies in the playback - one's hearing can "fill in the gaps" with sound combinations that one's hearing has learned to deal with; when the recording is unusual there is nowhere to hide for the reproduction chain; the ear/brain has to rely completely on the audible information at that moment.

 

Which means, "good" classical recordings are trivially easy to have sounding well - as one pursues greater competence, "awkward", "artificial", pop creations are pulled out, to see if the rig is up to it.

 

I agree, but only at a very primitive level of reproduction.

The difference is that whilst I can listen for realism with classical I have no idea what the producer was looking for with a pop or rock track.

 

And I my experience a lot of pop music sounds even worse with a higher-fidelity stereo.

[esldude]

50 minutes ago, mansr said:

Jazz at the Pawnshop is a good recording of good music. However, any spatiality you perceive has to be an illusion. It was recorded with multiple microphones and subsequently mixed. There's no way actual spatial information could have been captured and preserved.

Yes, this is a good point.  I could name others.  This being maybe the most famous audiophile recording of note. 

 

Minimalist two channel recordings are rare, rare, and exceptionally rare.  Many who think they are hearing two channel recordings are hearing at least 4 channels mixed to two.  And those are also very, very rare.  Next you'll have reputed minimalist recordings using several microphones.  Those too are rather rare.  

 

99% of available recordings use lots of microphones, channels, mixing and processing. 

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Would that be the a 8 or the a16. I only ask because I was under the impression that the a16 was not yet in the wild. 

A8 was what I had in mind.  Again I haven't used either model.  Were it less pricey I would. 

http://www.smyth-research.com/products.html

 

The listeners head position is updated every 5 milliseconds.  

[semente]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes, this is a good point.  I could name others.  This being maybe the most famous audiophile recording of note. 

 

Minimalist two channel recordings are rare, rare, and exceptionally rare.  Many who think they are hearing two channel recordings are hearing at least 4 channels mixed to two.  And those are also very, very rare.  Next you'll have reputed minimalist recordings using several microphones.  Those too are rather rare.  

 

99% of available recordings use lots of microphones, channels, mixing and processing. 

 

I agree; I should have written including 4 to 2 but I did say minimalist

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I myself for some reason find binaural recordings to mostly not work. 

 

It would be interesting to understand why. I've recently started listening to binaural recordings, and they work amazingly well. Even the test tracks sound very realistic to me (Chesky). As I said on another thread, one thing I had to do was to turn off crossfeed processing that I normally apply to cure the 'inside-your-head' sound. Crossfeed appears to mess with binaural but not with standard stereo recordings.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, esldude said:

A test was done on this in a sense. 

 

Volunteers were tested for spatial acuity including height.   They agreed to wear implants inside the pinna to reshape it.  Restested and performed very poorly on directional and height acuity.   They were retested periodically after that. 

 

In a few days (may have been one week), the processing in the brain had adapted and their directional acuity matched their natural pinna results.  I seem to recall they volunteered to do this for one month or some few weeks anyway. 

 

A surprising result was found when implants were removed.  Acuity with their natural pinna shape returned in minutes not days.  This prompted them to replace the implants. Directional acuity with those too returned within minutes.   Not the days needed initially.  Almost as if the brain keeps a pattern to match, and once it has developed two of them it can quickly detect one or the other and make the switch.  This is not out of line with other activities the brain relies upon pattern matching to perform (like reading).  

 

Thanks Dennis, I seem to remember now you citing this years ago. The brains ability to adapt and process incoming (neuro) signals in different ways is amazing.

 

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes, J-J Johnston has noted regular small movements of your head are important in localization.

 

Again IIRC Art Noxin pointed this out many years ago when observing blind people listening to music and started to adopt the practice when listening to music, advocating it to others.

 

27 minutes ago, adamdea said:

It’s not clear here whether you are referring to people’s ability to discern spatial information in real life, or peoples claimed ability to decode it in stereo reproduction. The former is not a mystery. 

 

These are people who have never listened before to a high-end system and for which i play various musical tracks. I ask them to close their eyes and 'look into the music'. With eyes closed I ask them to point to various instruments. Some have a natural talent for it and when opening their eyes look stunned at where they are pointing.As said,recently a friend of my son actually volunteered, with a look of astonishment, "Oh my god i can hear stuff from all over the place" and when asked easily pointed to instruments.  I am not pushing any barrow here trying to prove why, just that is an easy reproducible phenomenon.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Many who think they are hearing two channel recordings are hearing at least 4 channels mixed to two.  And those are also very, very rare. 

 

Actually, I have located several Quad to Reel recordings from DVD-A that still sound very interesting when Downmixed to Stereo using DVD Audio Explorer. e.g. " The Carpenters-Now and Then" , and " Carly Simon -Hotcakes" etc.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, semente said:

J@theP was multi-close-mic'ed and probably had some ambience mics too.

That's what the notes say, and it's the only reasonable way to record such a performance.

 

[fas42]

59 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I agree, but only at a very primitive level of reproduction.

The difference is that whilst I can listen for realism with classical I have no idea what the producer was looking for with a pop or rock track.

 

And I my experience a lot of pop music sounds even worse with a higher-fidelity stereo.

 

A lot better than primitive ...

 

What one looks for is that the sound elements in the pop recording become completely individual - think of the recording being a montage of musical sounds, overlaid upon each other, but still retaining their distinctive attributes, qualities. Poor reproduction will yield a blurred amalgam of those musical entities; but competent playback of the same will allow one to easily mentally focus on a particular strand, and just "watch" what it's doing, in the middle of everything else. As an example, the vocal line will become a completely natural, human voice in the middle of synthesizer carry on - with the same clarity and realism as, say, as one gets on an audiophile girl and guitar combo cliche.

 

Typical progression with just OK pop recordings, as the rig is optimised: firstly, reasonable, pleasant "memory lane" sound; then, sounding messy, overcooked, too "obvious"; next, almost impossible to listen to, too much shrieky detail, "why did I buy this?" sound; final step, it snaps into focus, the complexity all makes sense, and it becomes a joy to listen to, "there is so much going on ...".

[STC]

47 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I like to distinguish between imaging, soundstage and ambience.

The first one results from adequate mic'ing and speaker setup, the second is due to speaker/room interaction and possibly some phase and harmonic distortion or manipulation during editing and mixing of studio recordings, the last one exists only if the recording took place in a venue with natural acoustic reverberation (i.e. church, jazz club or music hall).

 

I listen to live unamplified music on a weekly basis. Soundstage doesn't exist in those events; there is a visual aspect to the performance but if I close my eyes I don't perceive a soundstage such as the stuff you get with some heavily processed multi-, close-mic'ed Audiophile recordings. It doesn't sound natural and it doesn't sound real to me.

 

We could avoid some of confusions if we use proper terminology. 

 

From the stereophiles audio glossary.

 

 imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."

 

localization In stereo reproduction, the placement of phantom images in specific lateral positions across the soundstage. Also, the specificity of those images.

 

phantom image The re-creation by a stereo system of an apparent sound source at a location other than that of either loudspeaker.

 

pinpoint imaging Stereo imaging that is precise, stable, and focused.

 

depth The illusion of acoustical distance receding behind the loudspeaker plane, giving the impression of listening through the loudspeakers into the original performing space, rather than to them.

 

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

 

spatiality The quality of spaciousness.

 

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander."

 

stereo spread The apparent width of the soundstage and the placement of phantom images within it. Generally, a group of instruments or voices should uniformly occupy the space between the loudspeakers. Compare "beyond-the-speakers imaging," "bunching," "hole-in-the-middle."

 

stereo stage The area between and behind the loudspeakers, from which most phantom images are heard. ( how about in front of the speakers?)

 

End of quote. 

 

 

In live unamplified sound, the soundstage exists. It is the size of the ensemble. Localization too exists but the accuracy decreases as you move far away. While a conductor could easily identify out of synch violinist from the stage, such feat often impossible to perform by listeners sitting at row 20.

That’s because once you move away from the first two or three row, the sound that you are hearing consist of almost 90% of indirect sound. 

 

ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment

 

This is a separate event and happens due to the Hall surrounding. This gives you the feel of large hall or small hall based on the first reflection arrival time within from the side. Too long the arrival time then you will hear echoic like sound. This reflection gives the sense of spacioness and make the sound large ( Not loud). This event is environment dependent and never intended to be captured in the recording in full as this is a separate reproduction that depends where the live or recorded music is going to be played. There will be some ambience captured by the recording of the frontal stage to give you a sense of space and location of the instrument within the soundstage. The reproduction is intended to come from the frontal stage although a live end where the speakers located often screw up the accuracy as the room is now adding its own acoustics information. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Many who think they are hearing two channel recordings are hearing at least 4 channels mixed to two

 

We could avoid some confusion if we identified the recording of many channels as tracks. So in studio recording we can have many mono and some stereo tracks mixed together to give two channels stereo recordings. 

[fas42]

54 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

These are people who have never listened before to a high-end system and for which i play various musical tracks. I ask them to close their eyes and 'look into the music'. With eyes closed I ask them to point to various instruments. Some have a natural talent for it and when opening their eyes look stunned at where they are pointing.As said,recently a friend of my son actually volunteered, with a look of astonishment, "Oh my god i can hear stuff from all over the place" and when asked easily pointed to instruments.  I am not pushing any barrow here trying to prove why, just that is an easy reproducible phenomenon.

 

"Looking into the music" is a good phrase to use - there is no on/off switch in this regard, that some recordings have this ability to throw up "an illusion", and not others. Like most things in life there is a continuum, and the better the system the easier it is to "see deeper" in particular recordings; to unscramble the many layers in complex recordings; and to make spatial sense of what's going on in "poor" recordings.

 

The why, to me, is pretty simple - the ear/brain needs enough clues to "build the illusion"; and lower quality reproduction blurs this critical data to being unusable - the mind rejects the illusion as being possible, no mirage can form. This has been demonstrated to me endless times over the years, when I play a recording that has shown its "true colours" - when played on a setup below par I can't see the illusion, at all, irrespective of knowing what should be there  - the "wanting" it to present well helps not one iota ...

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

stereo stage The area between and behind the loudspeakers, from which most phantom images are heard. ( how about in front of the speakers?)

 

 

I have never heard "in front of the speakers" imaging, from good playback - the stage always starts at the line  of the speakers, and extends back from that. To me, anything in front would be an artifact from manipulation of sound from multiple sources, or deliberate echoing by the room configuration

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I have never heard "in front of the speakers" imaging, from good playback - the stage always starts at the line  of the speakers, and extends back from that. To me, anything in front would be an artifact from manipulation of sound from multiple sources, or deliberate echoing by the room configuration

 

Cover all your front and side with thick rock wool and leave the rear reverbrant, we can have the conversation again whether sound can emerge in front of the speaker or not. It also depends much on your system itself of how well it could create the depth. 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Cover all your front and side with thick rock wool and leave the rear reverbrant, we can have the conversation again whether sound can emerge in front of the speaker or not. It also depends much on your system itself of how well it could create the depth. 

 

Well, that sounds exactly like "deliberate echoing by the room configuration", as I said - my approach is for the recording to "speak for itself"; if there is spatial projection happening, it should be completely from the recording being played over two speakers, nothing else.

[STC]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, that sounds exactly like "deliberate echoing by the room configuration", as I said - my approach is for the recording to "speak for itself"; if there is spatial projection happening, it should be completely from the recording being played over two speakers, nothing else.

 

If that sounds to you as deliberate echoing ( whatever it means) then what you call room a room that is reverbrant everywhere and all around?  

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If that sounds to you as deliberate echoing ( whatever it means) then what you call room a room that is reverbrant everywhere and all around?  

 

Every time you address room behaviour, to make it react to sound in a very specific way, such as only leaving the rear reverberant, i would call "deliberate echoing". Also, a completely anechoic situation. If a room is furnished in a conventional manner, so that it's pleasant to be in, and doesn't sound "weird" when you're talking, then I would see that situation as being normal. I've been in a couple of rooms heavily treated to suit the playback likes of the owners, manufacturers of audio gear - and I didn't like them.

[STC]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Every time you address room behaviour, to make it react to sound in a very specific way, such as only leaving the rear reverberant, i would call "deliberate echoing". Also, a completely anechoic situation. If a room is furnished in a conventional manner, so that it's pleasant to be in, and doesn't sound "weird" when you're talking, then I would see that situation as being normal. I've been in a couple of rooms heavily treated to suit the playback likes of the owners, manufacturers of audio gear - and I didn't like them.

 

You want your room to sound great like to a real performance in Carnigie hall than your need your room RT60 to be at least 1.5s. At best, you room will only have the RT of 0.6 seconds and the ideal RT is also depended on the room size. Too long for a small room then you are going to have bright. Congested and boomy sound. Too little of the recommended window of RT for the room size than it is going to sound dead. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

47 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You want your room to sound great like to a real performance in Carnigie hall than your need your room RT60 to be at least 1.5s. At best, you room will only have the RT of 0.6 seconds and the ideal RT is also depended on the room size. Too long for a small room then you are going to have bright. Congested and boomy sound. Too little of the recommended window of RT for the room size than it is going to sound dead. 

 

 Reverberation time is more important in larger venues but in a small domestic room the early reflections and bass resonances ringing assume greater importance. Whatever the case I would think a RT of 1.5  too bright for a small room. Perhaps 0.2 to 0.5 but I havent directly calculated it. I have sound recordings of rooms for both speech intelligibility and music. I do agree that room acoustics are extremely important.

 

Edit: the goal of room treatment is much the same for me as the gear, make it disappear (room and gear with as least sonic signature possible)

[STC]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 Reverberation time is more important in larger venues but in a small domestic room the early reflections and bass resonances ringing assume greater importance. Whatever the case I would think a RT of 1.5  too bright for a small room. Perhaps 0.2 to 0.5 but I havent directly calculated it. I have sound recordings of rooms for both speech intelligibility and music.

 

True true true. In small rooms that’s the RT window where the reverberation will be the right amount not to make the sound muddy, boomy, ringing and etc. 

 

Best listening experience is when the RT is 1.5 second. This only will work when the room volume is at least 20000 meter cube. Which also means almost everyone who is listening to music in their room have to compromise on the RT value. 

 

So imagine if you have adjustable walls. Playing with them is easy to find out the correctness of the RT value. 

 

Anyone could experiment yourself with JRiver using their convolution DSP. Send the convoluted sound directly to the front speakers and compare another set of sound where the convoluted sound send to extra speakers place at 90 degrees to your left and right. You can find different impulse response so pick your favorite. The idea is always try a way to increase the RT in your room to 1.5seconds without affecting the clarity of the direct sound from the front speakers. Basically, you are playing your speakers in a bigger room. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

So imagine if you have adjustable walls. Playing with them is easy to find out the correctness of the RT value. 

 

Ahh geez, just when I thought I finished with my listening room now I gotta add adjustable walls!

Quote

Anyone could experiment yourself with JRiver using their convolution DSP. Send the convoluted sound directly to the front speakers and compare another set of sound where the convoluted sound send to extra speakers place at 90 degrees to your left and right. You can find different impulse response so pick your favorite. The idea is always try a way to increase the RT in your room to 1.5seconds without affecting the clarity of the direct sound from the front speakers. Basically, you are playing your speakers in a bigger room. 

I am a fan of JRiver but not a fan of DSP,electronic room correction or ...audio convolution. I have never tried the latter so cant really say for sure. presumably you are trying to create a virtual RT1.5, a bit like "concert hall mode" on some of those old Home theatre amps.I am sure JRivers version would be better.