Blue or red pill?

[STC]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

The height cues are created by the HRTF.

 

HRTF is rather general. Are you referring to pinna or other cues too?

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, STC said:

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

 

 Not when they are pointed down at the orchestra and from about 10-15 feet back behind the conductor's head.  

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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.

And what suggestion could be stronger than having made the recording yourself?

 

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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

All of it. The HRTF is the combined effect of the head and outer ear on the sound waves impacting the eardrum. Without a head present, none of that can be recorded.

[STC]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 Not when they are pointed down at the orchestra and from about 10-15 feet back behind the conductor's head.  

 

Actually, I have confused this thread to the Sanity Check thread. I was still thinking about the picture you posted.

 

 

 

Now that you say when you pointed the microphone down but IMO even if you had pointed the microphone straight, the recording would sound weak and far away but the perception of sound coming from bottom of the speakers will not happen.

 

Anyway, in this picture of yours, the microphone is significantly higher than the musicians. AND if a microphone could record elevation information without the aid of pinna(e) then the sound from this recording should sound to be coming closer to the floor than at the ear level.

[STC]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

And what suggestion could be stronger than having made the recording yourself?

 

All of it. The HRTF is the combined effect of the head and outer ear on the sound waves impacting the eardrum. Without a head present, none of that can be recorded.

 

 

If you are referring to only height information, it is only the pinna alone is responsible for elevation cues. IMHO and will be backed up with relevant literature. Head shadow, ILD and ITD are not critical although for lateral location at different heights they are.

[mansr]

Just now, STC said:

If you are referring to only height information, it is only the pinna alone is responsible for elevation. IMHO and will be backed up with relevant literature. Head shadow, ILD and ITD are not critical although for lateral location at different heights they are.

A standard microphone pair can only ever record ILD and ITD as these are present in the sound field and not created by the head. It follows from basic geometry that these factors can only indicate left/right direction, never height or distance.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

No. You can't. And even if you could, who would want to do do so? To what end?

 

Well, the starting point is that the system replay is of a sufficient quality to allow one to hear this - this is a dog chasing its tail scenario; if I have a system that is not of a high enough standard, then I won't hear any more depth than anyone else.

 

It's not a case of "wanting to do this" - it just, is ... it's a by-product of the SQ being of a high standard, which also means that all the sound elements have a quality of "realness" about them.

 

Quote

 

I have a good system and I hear only overproduced, artificial sound, and I don't like it.

 

 

 

 

But not good enough - I have heard scores of "good systems", and they don't make the grade. Just plugging together a bunch of "premium" components is a guarantee of nothing - for me, such an ensemble will have lots of obvious problems; in its raw state it's just a starting point, for evolving to competent sound.

 

Quote

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. Studio pop recordings are different. I don't do those (but I have worked in studios that made them) and I don't care about the artificial processes and the work-arounds that studios use to avoid making honest, real, stereo recordings. 

 

Fair enough being tired of the back and forth - but what you do, with recording, is only half the story. The listener, with his rig, is completely out of your control - and he can make what you, or anywhere else, record sound awful - or brilliant.

 

My personal quest is that every recording sounds as if it's the production of living, breathing people - when the 'natural' musical sounds, whether live voices or acoustic instruments, are complete convincing ... if a system can't do that, then it's not performing as well as is possible.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My personal quest is that every recording sounds as if it's the production of living, breathing people - when the 'natural' musical sounds, whether live voices or acoustic instruments, are complete convincing ... if a system can't do that, then it's not performing as well as is possible.

 

and it will never be done at 44.1k sample rate

[STC]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

A standard microphone pair can only ever record ILD and ITD as these are present in the sound field and not created by the head. It follows from basic geometry that these factors can only indicate left/right direction, never height or distance.

 

I am not disputing that but microphones placed inside your ears do capture sound that already preprocessed by the the pinna. This information can be recorded with binaural microphones BUT it cannot be reproduced by loudspeakers even with headphones the accuracy is not good. This is because height information need to be processed in real time so that it reflects different amount of frequencies above 4khz that reaches your ear canal which gives you the elevation information. When you deprive those cues and feed directly the filtered sound to the loudspeakers or headphones the differential role of pinna taken away and you can no longer perceive height correctly.

 

You were right all along but some confusion on how you expressed them.

 

Cheers.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

I am not disputing that but microphones placed inside your ears do capture sound that already preprocessed by the the pinna. This information can be recorded with binaural microphones BUT it cannot be reproduced by loudspeakers even with headphones the accuracy is not good.

We were not discussing binaural recordings.

[gmgraves]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Actually, I have confused this thread to the Sanity Check thread. I was still thinking about the picture you posted.

 

 

 

Now that you say when you pointed the microphone down but IMO even if you had pointed the microphone straight, the recording would sound weak and far away but the perception of sound coming from bottom of the speakers will not happen.

 

Anyway, in this picture of yours, the microphone is significantly higher than the musicians. AND if a microphone could record elevation information without the aid of pinna(e) then the sound from this recording should sound to be coming closer to the floor than at the ear level.

My word, you are a pedantic little devil aren't you  ?

I would think it should be obvious that when I talk about image height and pointing the mikes down at the orchestra, that I'm talking about a concert symphony recording, not a small jazz ensemble in a club or restaurant. Just as obviously, I would treat each of those situations quite differently with respect to microphone placement. And no, the mikes are not significantly higher than the musicians, here. In fact, they are around chest or, in some cases (for those sitting down) about face level. No, there is no height factor in a small, closely miked ensemble like this. Everybody is at the same level - the floor, and there are no triangles floating above the orchestra because there's no orchestra.OK?

[STC]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

My word, you are a pedantic little devil aren't you  ?

 

You are not the first one to notice that.

 

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No, there is no height factor in a small, closely miked ensemble like this. Everybody is at the same level - the floor, and there are no triangles floating above the orchestra because there's no orchestra.OK?

 

So we are going back to your concept that microphones do not hear like human. I don't see how this is not relevant to small enclosure. Let's agree to disagree on this one.

 

On your other point about microphones in orchestra recordings being tilted towards the orchestra is actually no difference than a person hearing from that location with the head tilted downwards. His visual clue is the one suggesting that the orchestra is below him but as long as the ears are aligned towards the orchestra there is no height so to speak as the sound is coming directly perpendicular to his head at ear level. This is a different subject matter and not height related.

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

and it will never be done at 44.1k sample rate

 

Ummm, wrong ... I've achieved this countless times over 30 years, when I put the effort in - you're confusing your personal experiences with what's possible - which is understandable, because at the moment it's mainly people like myself who have the patience, and the attitude and desire to make it happen, who will succeed. The good news for everyone else is that some recent extremely expensive units that play CD material are now sorted out enough to make good sound happen - if you don't want to hand over the moolah, you'll need to be patient and wait for trickle down to eventually make it commonplace.

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

My personal quest is that every recording sounds as if it's the production of living, breathing people - when the 'natural' musical sounds, whether live voices or acoustic instruments, are complete convincing ... if a system can't do that, then it's not performing as well as is possible.

 

Ummm, wrong ... I've achieved this countless times over 30 years, when I put the effort in - you're confusing your personal experiences with what's possible - which is understandable, because at the moment it's mainly people like myself who have the patience, and the attitude and desire to make it happen, who will succeed. The good news for everyone else is that some recent extremely expensive units that play CD material are now sorted out enough to make good sound happen - if you don't want to hand over the moolah, you'll need to be patient and wait for trickle down to eventually make it commonplace.

 

you are just easier to please or i have a different meaning of "natural live convincing"

[adamdea]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

I am not disputing that but microphones placed inside your ears do capture sound that already preprocessed by the the pinna. This information can be recorded with binaural microphones BUT it cannot be reproduced by loudspeakers even with headphones the accuracy is not good. This is because height information need to be processed in real time so that it reflects different amount of frequencies above 4khz that reaches your ear canal which gives you the elevation information. When you deprive those cues and feed directly the filtered sound to the loudspeakers or headphones the differential role of pinna taken away and you can no longer perceive height correctly.

 

You were right all along but some confusion on how you expressed them.

 

Cheers.

Pages and pages and pages of twaddle on this thread and we have finally got there. There is no height information in ordinary stereo.

 

 

But in fact you can have weird 4Khz effects from comb filtering which might be interpreted by the brain as height information, based on the hrtf, its model of the recorded space , perhaps effects of the listening room.

Is it any wonder that people perceive weird effects in stereo bearing in mind that the recorded space is imperfectly captured and mixed up with the playback space? And you can't see the recorded space like you can in ordinary life, which helps to resolve ambiguities no end.

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, wrong ... I've achieved this countless times over 30 years, when I put the effort in - you're confusing your personal experiences with what's possible - which is understandable, because at the moment it's mainly people like myself who have the patience, and the attitude and desire to make it happen, who will succeed. The good news for everyone else is that some recent extremely expensive units that play CD material are now sorted out enough to make good sound happen - if you don't want to hand over the moolah, you'll need to be patient and wait for trickle down to eventually make it commonplace.

There are lots of cheap units that play cd material fine too. Shortcomings in properly engineered cd players as any price point pale into insignificance besides many other factors which for some reason no one wants to think about.

The only advantage the expensive cd players have is that they are expensive. And unfortunately that can't trickle down.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Pages and pages and pages of twaddle on this thread and we have finally got there. There is no height information in ordinary stereo.

 

 

But in fact you can have weird 4Khz effects from comb filtering which might be interpreted by the brain asheight information, based on the hrtf, it's model of the recorded space , perhaps effects of the listening room.

Is it any wonder that people perceive weird effects in stereo bearing in mind that the recorded space is imperfectly captured and mixed up with the playback space? And you can't see the recorded space like you can in ordinary life, which helps to resolve ambiguities no end.

 

My interest is just recreating the live experience in concert hall and there is not much height to deal with except for ceiling reflecting which can be produced by additional speakers from above for the reflection only. Accurate height or true 3D image that you hear in the hair cut illusion isn't a requirement for music and most movies.

 

Frankly, I don't perceive height as shown in this video although I sense slight elevation when it crossed over my head. I had better height perception with the Transformer movie (that I used to demo) which could be mainly due to the visual clue.

 

[semente]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

This is what I don't agree with.

 

Imagine a cello in a small music rectangular music room.

 

 

The cello produces sound in a different direction depending on the frequency or notes. This means that the relation between direct and reflected energy changes along the musical programme. And throught the performance the listener will be hearing not just direct sound but reflections from all sides. This is the sound-field that the mic will pick up.

 

 

But loudspeakers are point sources and as such will not be able to reproduce the sound-field because the reflections which should be coming from all sides in your listening room will be coming from the same spot as the direct sound. And to make matters worse the listening room will create it's own reflections of the sound reproduced by the speakers which adds to the confusion.

 

 

 

These write ups by Linkwitz talk a bit about the subject:

 

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Soundfields: Acoustics vs. Human Hearing

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/acoustics-hearing.htm

 

The Magic in 2-Channel Sound Reproduction

Why is it so rarely heard?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

This is what I don't agree with.

 

Imagine a cello in a small music rectangular music room.

 

 

The cello produces sound in a different direction depending on the frequency or notes. This means that the relation between direct and reflected energy changes along the musical programme. And throught the performance the listener will be hearing not just direct sound but reflections from all sides. This is the sound-field that the mic will pick up.

 

 

But loudspeakers are point sources and as such will not be able to reproduce the sound-field because the reflections which should be coming from all sides in your listening room will be coming from the same spot as the direct sound. And to make matters worse the listening room will create it's own reflections of the sound reproduced by the speakers which adds to the confusion.

 

 

 

These write ups by Linkwitz talk a bit about the subject:

 

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Soundfields: Acoustics vs. Human Hearing

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/acoustics-hearing.htm

 

The Magic in 2-Channel Sound Reproduction

Why is it so rarely heard?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm

I agree with you.  The most satisfactory solution to this for me has been discretely recorded multichannel music, most of that on 5.0/.1 SACDs made over the past 15 years or so.  Most all of that is classical, which might not be everyone's cuppa tea.  But, I have never been more satisfied with my sound at home vs. my impressions from the live classical concerts I frequent.

 

Height reproduction is controversial.  I am convinced that a decent semblance of it can be reproduced in the home in stereo or in Mch under some circumstances.  I recall a Chesky test CD in the '80/'90's that had a test sequence of jangling keys moving upwards in the left channel, then across the front by degrees, then down the right channel.  Though not perfectly reproduced at all locations by my tall Martin Logan CLS speakers then, the effect was unmistakeable to me and others.

 

I still have tall, ML 'stat hybrids in my Mch system, now in a new room in a new home.    The sense of greater image height is still noticeable in many recordings.  For example, in orchestral recordings performed on risers, as is common, the woodwinds image slightly higher and further back than the strings, and the brasses and percussion still somewhat higher and more toward the rear of the orchestra.  

 

Others have noticed this on my system, as well as the fact that their systems do not do this noticeably on height, although they do with depth.  Their systems use effectively point source monopoles, including Magico S3, Revel Studio 2 and Wilson Duetta setups. 

 

I do not think ceiling height plays much of a role in this, though it might somewhat.  My old room had a high sloping ceiling, up to 17'.  My current room has an 8' ceiling, with a large cutout on the right where it goes up to 18' and the floor above.  My friends rooms have either 18' ceilings or conventional 8'.  In any case, the ML dipoles do not radiate much energy in the upward direction.

[adamdea]

6 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

I still have tall, ML 'stat hybrids in my Mch system, now in a new room in a new home.    The sense of greater image height is still noticeable in many recordings.  For example, in orchestral recordings performed on risers, as is common, the woodwinds image slightly higher and further back than the strings, and the brasses and percussion still somewhat higher and more toward the rear of the orchestra.  

 

Hmmm, you mean just like you would see in an orchestral concert? 

[semente]

7 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I agree with you.  The most satisfactory solution to this for me has been discretely recorded multichannel music, most of that on 5.0/.1 SACDs made over the past 15 years or so.  Most all of that is classical, which might not be everyone's cuppa tea.  But, I have never been more satisfied with my sound at home vs. my impressions from the live classical concerts I frequent.

 

Height reproduction is controversial.  I am convinced that a decent semblance of it can be reproduced in the home in stereo or in Mch under some circumstances.  I recall a Chesky test CD in the '80/'90's that had a test sequence of jangling keys moving upwards in the left channel, then across the front by degrees, then down the right channel.  Though not perfectly reproduced at all locations by my tall Martin Logan CLS speakers then, the effect was unmistakeable to me and others.

 

I still have tall, ML 'stat hybrids in my Mch system, now in a new room in a new home.    The sense of greater image height is still noticeable in many recordings.  For example, in orchestral recordings performed on risers, as is common, the woodwinds image slightly higher and further back than the strings, and the brasses and percussion still somewhat higher and more toward the rear of the orchestra.  

 

Others have noticed this on my system, as well as the fact that their systems do not do this noticeably.  Their systems use effectively point source monopoles, including Magico S3, Revel Studio 2 and Wilson Duetta setups. 

 

I do not think ceiling height plays much of a role in this, though it might somewhat.  My old room had a high sloping ceiling, up to 17'.  My current room has an 8' ceiling, with a large cutout on the right where it goes up to 18' and the floor above.  My friends rooms have either 18' ceilings or conventional 8'.  In any case, the ML dipoles do not radiate much energy in the upward direction.

 

I think that height perception is just one's brain filling in the missing information.

Can you try to describe a mechanism that would make a dual-concentric driver or a three way speaker position part of the signal higher up and another part close to the floor (without manipulating phase)?

As far as I know even tall line-source speakers have all drivers reproduce the same signal.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Hmmm, you mean just like you would see in an orchestral concert? 

Yup, but, it does not happen on all recordings, yet it happens consistently on others.  I would not expect that if it  were just my expectation bias at work.  Also, why does the same perception happen to others, also in comparing their systems to mine on the same recordings?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[adamdea]

Just now, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yup, but, it does not happen on all recordings, yet it happens consistently on others.  I would not expect that if it  were just my expectation bias at work.  Also, why does the same perception happen to others, also in comparing their systems to mine on the same recordings?

 

 

 

 

Don't know but I have heard people claim to perceive some height stuff that I don't myself in records. Equally I quite often shut my eyes and imagine the orchestra. Either way I am not convinced that genuine height or depth perception is that pinpoint. I suspect here are a few tricks for image height. It would be interesting to know how the recordings you are referring to were made.

Now @Fokushas IIRC given an example in the past about a particular famous recording (was it Take 5?) where the height cue people claim is a bit off the reality. Can you remind me?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

39 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I think that height perception is just one's brain filling in the missing information.

Can you try to describe a mechanism that would make a dual-concentric driver or a three way speaker position part of the signal higher up and another part close to the floor (without manipulating phase)?

As far as I know even tall line-source speakers have all drivers reproduce the same signal.

I dunno why, and attempting to explain it is above my pay grade.  I had seen plausible explanations of why in the past, and I have spoken to recording engineers who acknowledge that reproduction of some element of height is possible in stereo or 2D Mch systems.

 

FWIW, there is a review in the current issue of TAS of an ML 'stat dipole.  I know, I know, and I am as skeptical as anyone of that mag, audiophile reviewers or anecdotal claims by audiophiles like me.  However, the review makes a point about the somewhat unusual degree those speakers are able to produce a sense of image height.  And, no, I did not pay the reviewer to say that, nor do I know him.

 

But, if anyone lives near Philly, home of the Super Bowl champs, cheese steaks, etc., send me a PM.  You can listen and decide for yourself.

 

Also, I do not think it is totally unique to ML speakers.  I have also heard it on Sound Labs 'stats.  Never tried Quads, Sanders, Magneplanars, etc. listening specifically for that.  But, I do suspect that tall dipoles may do this to a degree that point source speakers do not.

 

Also, it is not a case of vertically smearing the image.  Trumpets, for example, still sound like the point sources they are.

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I think that height perception is just one's brain filling in the missing information.

...

 

 

Nope.  it is more than that, but that factor is involved.