Blue or red pill?

[sandyk]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

I really don't like to use headphones anyway.  Only when necessary or when checking recordings I've made.

Dennis

 Compare the top end of your headphones with the Audio Technica W1000 that I use.

 IIRC, they have a claimed usable frequency response from 5HZ to 40kHZ. (no limits specified)

 They also comply with the old IEC directive of using an output impedance of 120 ohms from the H.A.

The ones I used before these were Stax, but I missed the low end performance, despite the very appealing (especially with female voices) top end.

Alex

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Mans asserted it was impossible to capture height cues in a recording based on conditional logic. He has since modified this to "perceived height will not be the same" .

Do you have some kind of fetish for inventing things and attributing them to me? My position on what can be recorded has not changed.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don't even understand why people are arguing with me.

I'm arguing because you are making absurd claims.

[gmgraves]

20 hours ago, esldude said:

@gmgraves

 

Unless I missed it, did you make any samples available for download.  Easiest thing in the world is supply us with recordings with these cues and let us hear them.  If you are at liberty to share those with us. 

 No, I haven't. The reason is that I really don't see the point. Many of the people discussing this topic at this time on this thread, are only here to argue. If I We Transferred a recording to a list here, there would be two groups: One small subset of those to whom I sent the music will say that they hear what I'm talking about, and will be impressed with it, and the other subset will come back and say that I'm full of shit, and that the recordings don't image like I say they do and that they don't sound very good - even though they actually do image like I assert and they do sound very good. So, in the end, what do I get out of it? More pointless argument from people trying to press their untenable assertion that studio multi-miked, multi-tracked recordings can image just as well as real stereo? No thank you. 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Look I'm tired of arguing this minutia back and forth and trying to explain to people who have never recorded in their lives what is and what is not possible to do with stereo. I don't even understand why people are arguing with me. Everything I have said is well known to anyone who has ever made a real stereo recording using tried-and-true stereophonic miking techniques and those who don't know about it can read-up on it.

 

I for one am not arguing against anything you have said. I have heard one of your recordings and confirm I heard depth and height information. Would you be able to briefly explain how this is possible without HRTF cues (as proposed not possible by others).

[gmgraves]

23 hours ago, mansr said:

Correct, and that is exactly why a recording can't convey the necessary height cues. On playback, the HRTF responds to the location of the speakers, not the location of the instruments during recording.

Have it your own way. I'm sure you're more of an expert at this than I am. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

Have it your own way. I'm sure you're more of an expert at this than I am. 

Well, you managed to mislabel several standard microphone setups, so I'm really starting to doubt your competence.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you have some kind of fetish for inventing things and attributing them to me? My position on what can be recorded has not changed.

I directly quoted you thus the " "

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I for one am not arguing against anything you have said. I have heard one of your recordings and confirm I heard depth and height information. Would you be able to briefly explain how this is possible without HRTF cues (as proposed by others).

I think I did that already. HRTF doesn't come into play at the CAPTURE of the sound. How could it? there is no head, no ears there! The microphones pick-up various phase, timing, and intensity cues that when played back on speakers involve the listener's head The speakers reproduce (in as far as they can do so) the sound field captured by the microphones and the head and ears of the listener pick-up that sound field just like they would were they in the venue listening to the performance live. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, you managed to mislabel several standard microphone setups, so I'm really starting to doubt your competence.

Be my guest!

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No, I haven't. The reason is that I really don't see the point. Many of the people discussing this topic at this time on this thread, are only here to argue

 George

 That's a shame.

 Alex

[gmgraves]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm arguing because you are making absurd claims.

Well, you are entitled to your opinions. No matter how wrong or misguided you are

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

I think I did that already. HRTF doesn't come into play at the CAPTURE of the sound. How could it? there is no head, no ears there! The microphones pick-up various phase, timing, and intensity cues that when played back on speakers involve the listener's head The speakers reproduce (in as far as they can do so) the sound field captured by the microphones and the head and ears of the listener pick-up that sound field just like they would were they in the venue listening to the performance live. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

I agree.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I directly quoted you thus the " "

I see. Your fetish is for quoting people out of context.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 George

 That's a shame.

 Alex

I hope you understand my position, Alex. If you want a sample, I'll happily send it to you. E-mail me with your E-mail address and I'll send you a short symphonic work probably the same one I sent Audiophile Neuroscience.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think I did that already. HRTF doesn't come into play at the CAPTURE of the sound. How could it? there is no head, no ears there!

Indeed.

 

Quote

The microphones pick-up various phase, timing, and intensity cues that when played back on speakers involve the listener's head

From the wrong fucking direction! How much wilful ignorance does it take to not see this?

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Indeed.

 

From the wrong fucking direction! How much wilful ignorance does it take to not see this?

 

I'm sorry Mansr. You're wrong! If you can't visualize the model, that's not really my fault. and if it is from the wrong direction as you assert, how come it works so well? HMMMMM?

[mansr]

Just now, gmgraves said:

I'm sorry Mansr. You're wrong!

Show me the maths.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

If a sound arrives at a listener from up high, it is modified by the HRTF in one way before entering the ears. If the same sound is recorded and played back by speakers at ear level, it will be modified by the HRTF in a different way. Hence, the perceived height will not be the same.

 

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

I see. Your fetish is for quoting people out of context.

 

above is the full context.

precursor height cues must be present in the recording in order for them to be "modified by HRTF" in sound that is "recorded and played back by speakers"

 

You choose to defy logic and reason as well as observation evidence to the contrary in order to slavishly adhere to your subjective beliefs, so be it, carry on.

[gmgraves]

Just now, mansr said:

Show me the maths.

I don't know the maths, but I can visualize the model but, I'm not going to draw it out (even though I could) because I'm really not interested in convincing you of anything. You have your belief system, and I have my experience of more than 40 years of making live recordings. If that's not enough for you, then so be it. I don't want to argue with you and generate enmity between us. In many things we discuss here, I agree with you. Just not this!

[STC]

58 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Mans asserted it was impossible to capture height cues in a recording based on conditional logic. He has since modified this to "perceived height will not be the same" .

 

 

Ok, I am not sure why this is relevant.  This experiment did not say that they have taken out pinna from the equation. They only reshaped the pinna. Did they conclude pinnae not required for height localization? I doubt.

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

bove is the full context.

precursor height cues must be present in the recording in order for them to be "modified by HRTF" in sound that is "recorded and played back by speakers"

Your obtusity is mind-boggling. The height cues are created by the HRTF.

 

[mansr]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don't know the maths

Well, that settles that.

[STC]

43 minutes ago, mansr said:

Indeed.

 

From the wrong fucking direction! How much wilful ignorance does it take to not see this?

 

There is another way to ask the same question. Since George placed the microphone way up above the musicians, can we expect the sound to appear to come about 2 or three feet below the speakers?

 

Pinnae's directional cues for height can captured by in-ear binaural microphones because they record sound after passing through the pinnae. However, with standard microphones such pinna directional cues are not possible with and therefore it is impossible to have height information although we can perceive height by associating HF to sound from above. This is just our own figment of imagination and often works better with prior suggestion.

 

The only aspect I still unable to understand that your assertion that microphone cannot record HRTF. Which particle HRTF you are referring to?

[gmgraves]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, that settles that.

Well, thanks the gods for small favors. Have a nice day, mansr. See you in another thread.