Blue or red pill?

[STC]

40 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

How many home Hi-Fi systems do you know that have multiple speakers in their listening room as in a typical sound reinforcement system? Most people have a pair (with maybe some smaller speakers for surround, but I don't know of many of those people. Most people who have surround have for it movies, not music).

 

Tune down the pedanticisim  about 3dB and you'll be fine

 

If you don’t care and obviously would even know how to do it and also never heard one such system then why you thought it was fit to make the below comment. 

 

You do not know! So don’t say things you have not a slightest idea what’s that about. Comparing that to Dolby sound is laughable because this is not even about multi channel. It is simply about psychoacoustic and how music to be reproduced .  I didn’t say these things. There are numerous research about this. Even Toole did an experiment with about this principle in anechoic chamber. So George if you don’t care and obviously do not know anything why you even want to ask me to shut up?

 

 

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don't care what people do in their own listening room. Why should I? Have a thousand speakers if you (or anybody else) wants, or, just one. It makes no difference to me. 

 

[gmgraves]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

The way you are saying that ONLY YOU are capable of mastering something and the rest are just incapable of perfecting or proving otherwise. 

There you go again, reading between the lines for things that simply aren't there!

Where have I said that I'm  the only one who can do this? There are lots of recording engineers who have, over the years learned their craft and I know of at least two location recordists who are better than me and I'm sure there are many more. It's a big world. I will go so far as to say this. Very few novices can pick up a couple of microphones and a recorder and get it right the first or second or even the third time (that included me, by the way). It takes experience, knowing your equipment and being able to visualize, in your mind's eye what the microphones are seeing and what would be an impediment to getting a good capture. 

 

[STC]

Just now, gmgraves said:

 

 

Too bad not a single recording out there for us to judge. Are they better than Chesky’s or Linn’s. Or 2L or some of the good recordings that from DECCA?  

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

If you don’t care and obviously would even know how to do it and also never heard one such system then why you thought it was fit to make the below comment. 

 

I felt fit to make that below comment because I was defending myself from your false characterization of me as someone who looks down on people who have "a few extra speakers for ambience". I was merely stating that once again you have gotten things bolixed up if you think that I hold against someone the fact that they might have speakers for surround. my point is that It doesn't matter to me. If someone is interested in ambience retrieval, that's fine. Just because it's not my area of interest doesn't mean that it shouldn't be someone else's! 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Too bad not a single recording out there for us to judge. Are they better than Chesky’s or Linn’s. Or 2L or some of the good recordings that from DECCA?  

 

 

Of course, I think they sound better than those you mention, but then, that's just me.

I have heard some early Chesky's (before they went Binaural) that I thought sounded really good and imaged halfway decently. Decca's early stereo recordings were actually very good before they, like everybody else, started multi-track and multi-miking. 2L is a Scandinavian company that does mostly Blu-Ray surround stuff do they not? I have a couple of their recordings but I have not listened to their surround tracks, just their 2.1 tracks. They sound pretty good at least they image halfway decently. 

Several people on this forum have samples of my work. Why don't you ask them what they think? 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

you think that I hold against someone the fact that they might have speakers for surround

 

This is why I say you are confused. Surround speakers are NOT ambience speakers. They are based on convolution engine to create reverbs  and reflection that are critical to realism.  Don’t confuse Surround with ambience. 

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, they are deficient - all of them. Every mike sounds different. That means that at the very least, most of them are wrong and in reality, they all are! If they were all correct and perfect, they'd all sound the same. They sound different for pretty much the same reason that speakers and phonograph cartridges all sound different: They are not perfect transducers - none of them are! It's not possible to make a perfect transducer - the laws of physics see to that. 

Perhaps you don't know this but the reason why most recording studios have lots of different brands and models and vintages of microphones around is simply because they all sound different. You'll hear an engineer say, "I'm going to put the U87 on the vocalist because it makes her voice sound less chesty." or "I'm going to use the Schoeps on the piano, because it's a good mike for bringing out the character of the Steinway." In other words, they take advantage of the different characteristics of the different microphones. If all microphones were perfect, and thus sounded the same, they could use the same mikes on everything. 

 

Okay, they all sound different - but that doesn't mean they can't capture the qualities that live sound impresses us with. Violins of different ages, by different makers, all vary in their tonality - but they all still sound like "real" violins - the sound changes, but is not degraded so that it no longer sounds "real".

 

Same thing with recordings - the better the system, the more the character of how it was made, the equipment used, is clearly evident in the presentation - if one chooses to focus on that. But that does not interfere with the sense of what you are hearing as being 'live music' - an analogy in the visual field might be watching a stage production, where every night a different set of hands, and decisions were being made as to how the lighting was done, what 'colours' were used to emphasise the stage action; at no point would anyone in the audience think it was only a bunch of robots on stage, pretending to be human actors .

[STC]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Subjectively, how "loud" something is varies enormously - this is mentioned regularly in audio forums; and I'm certainly aware how much it alters depending upon the quality level of the playback. I normally use the term "intensity" to express the sensation of the sound being like a physical force, impacting upon the body - you could call it, volume with clarity.

 

If you sing at 80db in open field and compared the same sound in bathroom, you will perceive the 80dB is louder in bathroom compared to open field. 

 

Your voice and your position have not changed between those two venue and yet you perceive difference loudness level and most likely would perceive the sound in the bathroom to be more pleasing to you. 

 

The same principle applies in concert hall.  You perceive it being louder because of reverberations and late reflection arriving at your ears from various points which makes it subjectively louder. You cannot include those cues in your recording as it will make the recording muddy.  There are many papers explaning this.  

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 If someone is interested in ambience retrieval, that's fine. Just because it's not my area of interest doesn't mean that it shouldn't be someone else's! 

 

STC deliberately processes the signal to emphasise the ambience content, or actively alters it to create a certain space. Which is perfectly valid as an exercise in getting the most from the listening - I have found that the ambience detail in recordings, as is, is good enough for to maximising listening pleasure, if one goes to the effort of refining the playback as straight stereo.

 

The retrieval of the ambience just automatically follows, the way I go about things - you can't just say, "I don't want any of that ambience nonsense!!" - it's part of the package ... .

[STC]

20 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

have heard some early Chesky's (before they went Binaural) that I thought sounded really good and imaged halfway decently

 

Even Chesky admits that it is impossible to create the 3D sound with their binaural recording  without xtc filters implemented in the playback chain. They know the huge difference between a binaural recordings heard with headphones and over the loudspeakers in stereo setup. The difference is akin to 2D and 3D pictures. There is no comparison no matter how well you made your recordings.  Having said that, you true stereo recordings will sound real and much better then those pan potted and spot miked. I always prefer your type of recordings for demo because you get true 3D soundstage. 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If you sing at 80db in open field and compared the same sound in bathroom, you will perceive the 80dB is louder in bathroom compared to open field. 

 

Your voice and your position have have not changed between those two venue and yet your perceive difference loudness level and most likely would perceive the sound in the bathroom to be more pleasing to you. 

 

The same principle applies in concert hall.  You perceive it being louder because of reverberations late reflection arriving your ears from various points which makes the subjectively louder. There are many papers explaning this.  

 

So where is the 80dB measured? In the open field the fall off in level is very fast; in the bathroom it will be largely uniform, from the echos contributing to the whole.

 

Okay, you have now used the term "subjectively louder" - and I would agree. The sound is 'richer', more immersive in the experience ... and this is what happens with convincing playback: the volume control is not touched, whatsoever, but the sense of what you hear has expanded - you're getting, Big Sound ...

[STC]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So where is the 80dB measured? In the open field the fall off in level is very fast; in the bathroom it will be largely uniform, from the echos contributing to the whole.

 

Okay, you have now used the term "subjectively louder" - and I would agree. The sound is 'richer', more immersive in the experience ... and this is what happens with convincing playback: the volume control is not touched, whatsoever, but the sense of what you hear has expanded - you're getting, Big Sound ...

 

Ok. You are beginning to see the big picture. 

[STC]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

STC deliberately processes the signal to emphasise the ambience content, or actively alters it to create a certain space.

 

Thats not exactly true. The original sound in the playback is not altered in anyway. The front speakers still play the same sound. It is more like having about several more two channels system each playing different reverberation. You need not disturb the existing front speakers setup or signal in anyway. They remain pure. 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Thats not exactly true. The original sound in the playback is not altered in anyway. The front speakers still play the same sound. It is more like having about several more two channels system each playing different reverberation. You need not disturb the existing front speakers setup or signal in anyway. They remain pure. 

 

Yes, the front remains pure, but you have enhanced what the listener hears by adding in extra versions of that signal, into the listening area - from the POV of the audience, the signal has been altered.

 

As regards the other confusion in communication, what you call "loudness" I would call "apparent size of the presentation" ...

[STC]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

As regards the other confusion in communication, what you call "loudness" I would call "apparent size of the presentation

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic. The literature on this subject refers to that as loudness so please don’t add more confusion by making up your own terminology. Is there any reason why you refuse to accept the term loudness as referred in various papers on this subject matter?

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic. The literature on this subject refers to that as loudness so please don’t add more confusion by making up your own terminology. Is there any reason why you refuse to accept the term loudness as referred in various papers on this subject matter?

 

No prob's ... if the papers are using that term I'm happy to go with that. The problem arises when some, like me, think that specific dBs are being discussed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness mentions the problem.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

This is why I say you are confused. Surround speakers are NOT ambience speakers. They are based on convolution engine to create reverbs  and reflection that are critical to realism.  Don’t confuse Surround with ambience. 

I'm not confused, I just don't make the distinction. To me "surround" and "ambience" speakers are the same thing because the can be (and often are) used interchangeably.

[STC]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I'm not confused, I just don't make the distinction. To me "surround" and "ambience" speakers are the same thing because the can be (and often are) used interchangeably.

 

Nonsense. What’s your basis for saying so?

 

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Nonsense. What’s your basis for saying so?

 

It's obvious, a guy who has a surround system buys a music-only blu-ray disc and plays the 5.1 track to find that it's hall ambience. So, what do you call that? Chopped liver? Most people who have a surround system have just the one, not two; I. E. Not one for video and one for music. They use the same for both. Duh!

[Ralf11]

[STC]

31 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It's obvious, a guy who has a surround system buys a music-only blu-ray disc and plays the 5.1 track to find that it's hall ambience. So, what do you call that? Chopped liver? Most people who have a surround system have just the one, not two; I. E. one for video and one for music. they use the same for both. Duh!

 There,  you are confused again. Those are not ambient speakers. Those are are discrete channel with distinct sound from the front. 

 

I am now suspecting that you used stereo recordings and reproduced them in 5.1 mode. Did you?  

 

Ambience speakers use independent impulse response that is not part of your recordings. Even if I were to use 5.1 recordings, I still have the ambient speakers turned on. They are not surround speakers. Don’t get confused. The sound coming out from them and the so called ambient sound from surround system are not the same. 

 

Pause and and take a moment to understand the difference. 

 

Ambience speakers are but something you use to alter your rooms RT.  As law of physics dictate the proper room’s RT is subject to the volume, you overcome this by selectively using pre measured impulse response from various angles and substitute them with your room RT. Most small room RT is just around 0.3 to .5 seconds. So by having the ambience speakers, now you can have accurate and perfect RT that is not subject to room’s limitation. I have two different RT level. One is 1.5s suitable for most studio recordings and about 2.5 seconds for full orchestra. That’s the ambience speakers I am referring to or what the pro audio application for. Not surround of Blu Ray or Dolby. 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Exactly!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 There,  you are confused again. Those are not ambient speakers. Those are are discrete channel with distinct sound from the front. 

 

I am now suspecting that you used stereo recordings and reproduced them in 5.1 mode. Did you?  

 

Ambience speakers use independent impulse response that is not part of your recordings. Even if I were to use 5.1 recordings, I still have the ambient speakers turned on. They are not surround speakers. Don’t get confused. The sound coming out from them and the so called ambient sound from surround system are not the same. 

 

Pause and and take a moment to understand the difference. 

 

Ambience speakers are but something you use to alter your rooms RT.  As law of physics dictate the proper room’s RT is subject to the volume, you overcome this by selectively using pre measured impulse response from various angles and substitute them with your room RT. Most small room RT is just around 0.3 to .5 seconds. So by having the ambience speakers, now you can have accurate and perfect RT that is not subject to room’s limitation. I have two different RT level. One is 1.5s suitable for most studio recordings and about 2.5 seconds for full orchestra. That’s the ambience speakers I am referring to or what the pro audio application for. Not surround of Blu Ray or Dolby. 

I don't really care. It's a subject, as I've said before, in which I have no real interest.

[semente]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

As I say, in concert halls, the actual loudness at listeners position is higher than the actual spl of the instrument itself.

 

Can you provide proof of that?

[STC]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Can you provide proof of that?

 

Usually, I will be asked to give citation and this is first time someone asking for proof. What kind of proof you are looking for?