Blue or red pill?

[esldude]

About height info and comb filtering etc.  Probably upon reflection the chances spurious conditions accidentally show height in a recording are smaller than I previously believed.  The research where they put inserts into people's outer ears corrupted their height and directional perception for quite awhile.  They would have still had comb filtering, just different spectra of filtering going on.  Yet it ruined perception for a period of time. 

 

So the chances accidental comb filtering would make one hear height are probably down near the zero chance end of probabilities with recordings.  Again, the best evidence to the contrary would be simple recordings that had height perception with minimal processing.  Does anybody have some they can point to for us to listen to and decide?

[Ralf11]

You should explain comb filtering to beer

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You should explain comb filtering to beer

I'll need to imbibe a few beers first.  A few nice Belgian Tripels should do it for a start. 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'll need to imbibe a few beers first.  A few nice Belgian Tripels should do it for a start. 

 

 

Yes, Tripels.  If you drink Dubels, you will be limited to two-D, so cannot hear the third dimension, height.  And, stay away from Quadrupels.

[gmgraves]

Thanks, Semente,  for the Linkwitz information on recording. It was a very interesting read!

[fas42]

13 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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

 

 I'm the hardest "person to please" that I know - which is why I find most high end playback just a version of listening to a louder, transistor radio. And the reason is simple - I have no difficulty hearing giveaway flaws in the sound, no matter how impressive aspects of the reproduction may be to some.

 

Convincing means exactly that - that you are unable to determine whether the sound is from, say a live individual singing, or a recording. People may want to think that what they're hearing is somewhere near that goal, but put on a different recording and it often fails, badly. There are plenty of other benefits to this standard, such as completely immersive, overwhelming, "big" sound from just left and right, and competely invisible speakers, no matter where you are in the room.

 

If you don't undestand the concept I'm describing, then you have never experienced it, from audio playback.

[Ralf11]

34 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, Tripels.  If you drink Dubels, you will be limited to two-D, so cannot hear the third dimension, height.  And, stay away from Quadrupels.

 

 

it will be easier to make a comb filter out of the Tripels

[pkane2001]

On 2/16/2018 at 7:23 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

Apropos nothing, I just tried listening to the same binaural recordings through speakers. That's probably some of the most detailed position and soundstage information I've heard from my system... except when using headphones with the same binaural recordings.

 

The sound through the speakers appears to be extend to in front and to the sides of the speakers and has a very easy and natural feel to it, how should I put it.... very realistic and coherent comes to mind  The same depth cue information that was noticeable with headphones in the reverberant spaces is easily noticed with speakers, as well.

 

I understand the addition of room reflections, modes, etc. and, the additional cross-bleed between channels, and yet it sounds great! Perhaps this is just due to the simplicity of two microphone recording and no mixing? Or due to better preserving phase information between left and right channels? Or Chesky's recording equipment, or post-processing or lack thereof? Don't know. Will need to investigate and listen more, but I can definitely recommend others try it.

[STC]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Apropos nothing, I just tried listening to the same binaural recordings through speakers. That's probably some of the most detailed position and soundstage information I've heard from my system... except when using headphones with the same binaural recordings.

 

The sound through the speakers appears to be extend to in front and to the sides of the speakers and has a very easy and natural feel to it, how should I put it.... very realistic and coherent comes to mind  The same depth cue information that was noticeable with headphones in the reverberant spaces is easily noticed with speakers, as well.

 

I understand the addition of room reflections, modes, etc. and, the additional cross-bleed between channels, and yet it sounds great! Perhaps this is just due to the simplicity of two microphone recording and no mixing? Or due to better preserving phase information between left and right channels? Or Chesky's recording equipment, or post-processing or lack thereof? Don't know. Will need to investigate and listen more, but I can definitely recommend others try it.

 

To understand better why Chesky binaural recording works with speakers, you need to understand what filter they are using. 

 

Thanks for the the positive feedback. 

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

 

To understand better why Chesky binaural recording works with speakers, you need to understand what filter they are using. 

 

Thanks for the the positive feedback. 

 

Don't have all the details, but the intro track on this CD claims no equalization, compression or other (usual) processing.

BTW, has some nice test tracks for detecting position, depth, and even height. And no, they don't all sound perfect. For example, right front right/rear voices seemed to match the description, but left front/rear seemed reversed to me. Should have my left ear checked  Height changes were obvious as a slight pitch and volume changes, but required thinking hard to imagine the actual vertical position.

 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Don't have all the details, but the intro track on this CD claims no equalization, compression or other (usual) processing.

What are you listening to?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

What are you listening to?

http://www.chesky.com/album/ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc-jd361

 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Don't have all the details, but the intro track on this CD claims no equalization, compression or other (usual) processing.

BTW, has some nice test tracks for detecting position, depth, and even height. And no, they don't all sound perfect. For example, right front right/rear voices seemed to match the description, but left front/rear seemed reversed to me. Should have my left ear checked  Height changes were obvious as a slight pitch and volume changes, but required thinking hard to imagine the actual vertical position.

 

 

There is a reason why binaural recordings will not work well or more correctly to its true potential with loudspeakers. It is law of physics.  Chesky uses filter for their binaural recordings for loudspeaker playback.  Otherwise, it will sound just like ordinary stereo recordings.  In any case, the  true potential of the binaural recordings of Chesky cannot be heard with conventional setup.

 

“Because loudspeaker-crosstalk of conventional stereo interferes with binaural reproduction, either headphones are required, or crosstalk cancellation of signals intended for loudspeakers such as Ambiophonics is required.”

 

from Wiki. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

There is reason why binaural recordings will not work well or more correctly to its true potential with loudspeakers. It is law of physics.  Chesky uses filter for their binaural recordings for loudspeaker playback.  Otherwise, it will sound just like ordinary stereo recordings.  In any case, the  true potential of the binaural recordings of Chesky cannot be heard with conventional setup.

 

“Because loudspeaker-crosstalk of conventional stereo interferes with binaural reproduction, either headphones are required, or crosstalk cancellation of signals intended for loudspeakers such as Ambiophonics is required.”

 

from Wiki. 

 

 

 

Sure, as I said, cross-bleed is a factor, and yet, binaural recordings sound extremely good through speakers. Maybe better than most other 'stereo' material I've heard. This recording is not filtered for speaker playback, I just wanted to see how binaural recording would sound through the speakers, and was pleasantly surprised.

 

Remember, the recording is nothing more than two microphones that are closely spaced around a fake head. If done well, there's no reason why this can't be as good as most stereo or multi-mic/mixed recordings, and may be better due to lack of heavy post-processing and mixing.

 

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Don't have all the details, but the intro track on this CD claims no equalization, compression or other (usual) processing.

 

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

http://www.chesky.com/album/ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc-jd361

 

Is that track from the Wycliffe Gordon, Dreams of New Orleans album?

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

 

Is that track from the Wycliffe Gordon, Dreams of New Orleans album?

That is the first track, the intro track is track 14 with a bunch of test sounds, voices, etc. following.

 

You can actually listen to the start of each track online on HDTracks:

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/the-ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc-168671

 

[pkane2001]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure, as I said, cross-bleed is a factor, and yet, binaural recordings sound extremely good through speakers. Maybe better than most other 'stereo' material I've heard. This recording is not filtered for speaker playback, I just wanted to see how binaural recording would sound through the speakers, and was pleasantly surprised.

 

Remember, the recording is nothing more than two microphones that are closely spaced around a fake head. If done well, there's no reason why this can't be as good as most stereo or multi-mic/mixed recordings, and may be better due to lack of heavy post-processing and mixing.

 

 

My guess is that what I'm hearing has little to do with binaural (fake head) recording and everything to do with minimal processing and an unmixed, un-EQ'ed, uncompressed two-mic recording.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

That is the first track, the intro track is track 14 with a bunch of test sounds, voices, etc. following.

I have the Wycliffe Gordon album. It's a good recording. Played on speakers, the left/right positioning of instruments is great. Can't say I hear any depth worth mentioning and certainly no height. Of the music tracks, I believe I also have track 8, Whip-poor-will, assuming that's from the Alexis Cole album. That too is a good recording, but no depth or height to be heard. Not that I'm complaining.

 

I'm not going to pay full album price for a bunch of test sounds. Certainly not now that the Cheskys have embraced MQA.

[STC]

26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure, as I said, cross-bleed is a factor, and yet, binaural recordings sound extremely good through speakers. Maybe better than most other 'stereo' material I've heard. This recording is not filtered for speaker playback, I just wanted to see how binaural recording would sound through the speakers, and was pleasantly surprised.

 

Remember, the recording is nothing more than two microphones that are closely spaced around a fake head. If done well, there's no reason why this can't be as good as most stereo or multi-mic/mixed recordings, and may be better due to lack of heavy post-processing and mixing.

 

 

Digital XTC is always known as filter.  Search for Chesky videos and look for how binaural+ recordings for speakers made. 

 

Binaural alone will not give you better depth or soundstage with speakers. Binaural will only work with headphones. Stereo with XTC filter is binaural sound.  

 

“

Now what do we do? I think Chesky has the best answer so far. They capture all of the timing almost perfectly with their binaural dummy head, placed in the best seat in the house. Then they add the R.A.C.E., recursively cancelling out the wrong ear information, including cancelling the correction info as it reaches the wrong ear as well.

In my listening, I found that the Chesky recordings assume that the listener forms an equilateral triangle with the speakers for the correction to have its desired effect, far from Ambiophonics’ recommended 23-degree speaker separation.

These Chesky Binaural+ recordings make the recording space come to life. The speakers cease to exist, and a wealth of timbre and room characteristics is suddenly revealed as never before.

This full revelation can only occur in the sweet spot, but I believe getting rid of all of the artificial techniques makes the recordings more lifelike from any listening angle.”

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Binaural alone will not give you better depth or soundstage with speakers.

 

Better than what? And why do you say that?

 

I'm not saying binaural is better over speakers than it is over headphones. Just the opposite. But I'm surprised (and maybe I shouldn't be) that the speakers play binaural recordings extremely well.

 

Oh, and thanks for the description of the XTC filter Chesky is using. That is interesting all by itself. Do multi-mic'ed recordings do this (I've not heard of it before)? It would seem that there will be some degree of cross-talk between many if not all the different tracks being recorded, not to mention between left and right channels if stereo microphones are used.

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

I have the Wycliffe Gordon album. It's a good recording. Played on speakers, the left/right positioning of instruments is great. Can't say I hear any depth worth mentioning and certainly no height. Of the music tracks, I believe I also have track 8, Whip-poor-will, assuming that's from the Alexis Cole album. That too is a good recording, but no depth or height to be heard. Not that I'm complaining.

 

I'm not going to pay full album price for a bunch of test sounds. Certainly not now that the Cheskys have embraced MQA.

 

No height that I can hear, but depth is apparent to me on different instruments. Drums being located the furthest back on the right.

 

Don't blame you for not paying for test tracks, especially produced by MQA supporters

 

 

 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Better than what? And why do you say that?

 

 

You already answered it.

 

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

That's probably some of the most detailed position and soundstage information I've heard from my system

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Do multi-mic'ed recordings do this (I've not heard of it before)? It would seem that there will be some degree of cross-talk between many if not all the different tracks being recorded, not to mention between left and right channels if stereo microphones are used.

 

That is the defect of stereo. That’s something known from the very beginning.  But after close to 100 years this is no longer an issue to most and readily accept them that it is the standard of stereo playback. It has been discussed before. 

 

Click on each picture for the animation to start that explains how the sound waves from the two speakers arrives at you ears. 

 

http://resource.isvr.soton.ac.uk/FDAG/VAP/html/animations.html

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That is the defect of stereo. That’s something known from the very beginning.  But after close to 100 years this is no longer an issue to most and readily accept them that it is the standard of stereo playback. It has been discussed before. 

 

Click on each picture for the animation to start that explains how the sound waves from the two speakers arrives at you ears. 

 

http://resource.isvr.soton.ac.uk/FDAG/VAP/html/animations.html

 

I understand how cross-feed and cross-bleed work. I actually have and use DSP filters for this for both, speakers and headphones (remove some of it for speakers, add it in for headphones). My question was whether the cross-bleed is something that is being removed in post-processing when doing multi-mic'ed recordings, as that would seem to be an important clean-up step before mixing different tracks.

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

That is the defect of stereo. That’s something known from the very beginning.  But after close to 100 years this is no longer an issue to most and readily accept them that it is the standard of stereo playback. It has been discussed before. 

No, it's not a "defect of stereo". It's a defect of multi-miked, multi--channel monaural sound. Stereo uses TWO microphones, one for each channel and there is no bleed. In stereo, each mike picks up the entire ensemble, just from a different perspective. The term has, over the years been perverted to mean two playback channels, but that has little to do with stereo.

[STC]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I understand how cross-feed and cross-bleed work. I actually have and use DSP filters for this for both, speakers and headphones (remove some of it for speakers, add it in for headphones). My question was whether the cross-bleed is something that is being removed in post-processing when doing multi-mic'ed recordings, as that would seem to be an important clean-up step before mixing different tracks.

 

It can be eliminated in post production but it will not sound much different from stereo. The animation explains why speakers at 60 degrees cannot eliminate inter aural crosstalk completedly. It involves understanding HRTF and delays created by speakers placed at 60 degrees.  Watch the animation, you will understand better.