Blue or red pill?

[psjug]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 No, I won't accept any further A/D conversions.

 I have been readily able to hear the differences of copying a ripped file to a different location on another internal HDD , or as Cookie Marenco says .(below)

What if it proved what you wanted to show?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, psjug said:

What if it proved what you wanted to show?

 

 It is far more unlikely to show what we wanted, and I simply don't need any more people jumping to negative conclusions in this area, based on failures using this methodology to show differences confirmed previously under non sighted or DBT conditions.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

If these recordings are now clients’ property than only the clients could distribute or share them and not the maker without the consent of the owner. 

That is correct.

[gmgraves]

Never mind.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is correct, and although in this case it was only a single sample track from a very old recording , George shouldn't have let me hear it.

I guess that George is fed up with the constant snide remarks about his expertise in this area, and just wanted someone else to know that he does has proven expertise in this area. 

 

Sorry George, I should have kept my big mouth shut  in this case.

Don't worry about it, Alex. As long as you don't identify the musical entity involved, and, needless to say that I trust you to not spread the piece of music around. In fact, I want to thank you for coming to my defense in this thread. I really do appreciate it.

[STC]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I know other people who exhibit your attitude and it's a damn cinch certainty, that such attitudes guarantee that you will refuse to hear the 3D palpability even before you play the recording as you have already decided that these characteristics don't exist

 

I am one of those people. I would love to hear them but you do not have one that you own to share. And it is just matter of policy that I don't make use of someone property without their knowledge or consent. I prefer to pay for it and acquire them legally.  I am not doubting your expertise in making finest stereo recordings and from your various write up on this subject it looks like you know what your doing.

 

Our differences boils down to only one issue. The description of 3D sound heard by stereo loudspeakers setup. It is my contention that no matter how well a stereo recording made the hidden cues cannot be retrieved with stereo setup. 

 

Put it in another way. Using a headphones, I could describe the sound as having depth, width and 3D feel. That's a genuine subjective opinion and I have described plain stereo setup similarly before. However, if I were to listen with headphones  to the same performance recorded with a binaural recordings than my description of 3D is entirely different then the one described by a person who have never heard them in a binaural recording. It is no small difference. It is not a small change like your experience with speakers, cables, DAC, hirez or amplifiers upgrade. The difference is huge that you don't need measurements or blind test to prove. The realism level is different with the binaural recordings compared to your dedicated stereo recordings. That's a fact and that should not even be a contention point in our discussion.

 

This is where you and I could not see point to point. I am describing your recording heard from the binaural perspective. Yes! your recordings have all the 3D cues buried inside them. All well made stereo recordings do have this hidden cues that can be retrieved.  It is the next level realism of your very own recording. You have not heard them nor want to understand the principles but vehemently defending 3D palpability according to an archaic standard. That's where we differ.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Can you name one commercially available recording (something I can buy on disc or download today) that meets your criteria for "real stereo"?

Just off the top of my head, there's an album wind music called "The Quest" with the University of Las Vegas Wind Orchestra  with T.G. Leslie  (Klavier K11169) and "Evolution"  with the United States Air Force Band Conducted by  Col. Lowell E. Graham (Klavier KEG93S). Both of these CDs were recorded and mastered By Bruce Leek, one of the few independent producer/engineers working today who shares my sense of aesthetics when it comes to recording. Also There's Arron Copland, Billy The Kid - Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Donald Johanos conducting. (Vox Turnabout E6XAKAW). All of these recordings are available on Amazon (I checked) The two Bruce Leak recordings are available to hear as MP3s on Amazon. There are more , of course, but those will give you great stereo soundstage.

Quote

 

I see. Only those you're certain will hear what you tell them to hear are allowed to listen. Reminds me of Alex's magical test files.

 

Well, Mansr, do you think that's a fair way of trying to "win" a debate? By putting words in my pen accusing me of colluding with others on here to shore up a bunch of lies? How do you know that's what I've done? For all you know I sent those files to the people I sent them to without a word of pre-preparation other than those which everyone on this forum has had the ability to read for themselves, including you! I would have thought you more honest than that! Very sorry to see that you're not. 

[gmgraves]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

Our differences boils down to only one issue. The description of 3D sound heard by stereo loudspeakers setup. It is my contention that no matter how well a stereo recording made the hidden cues cannot be retrieved with stereo setup. 

Well, you just need to listen to some more real 2-channel  stereo recordings. If you actually heard what's possible with proper stereo microphone technique, then you too would hear what got people like Alan Blumlein, Harry Olsen (of RCA Labs), Bert Whyte, and others so excited about the promise of stereophonic sound. 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, you just need to listen to some more real 2-channel  stereo recordings. If you actually heard what's possible with proper stereo microphone technique, then you too would hear what got people like Alan Blumlein, Harry Olsen (of RCA Labs), Bert Whyte, and others so excited about the promise of stereophonic sound. 

 

Ok. One last try  because it seems I am unable to put across the point clearly.

 

Your recordings, among others, are perfect. It can be better when the information already contained there retrieved correctly. That will be another level of experience which sadly you the maker never got a chance yet to appreciate the true potential of your very own recordings. I am just showing the true potential of your recordings which is much more than what you are hearing now.

[Ralph Glasgal]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Let's see if I understood this correctly.

The impulse response gives you reverb and reflection characteristics of a hall which you then use to "process" the sound. With a 2.0 file both channels have direct sound; does this mean that you don't use side speakers with 2.0 recordings?

I also don't understand why one wouldn't listen to direct sound from the back speakers from a 2.0 recording.

 

Thanks,

Ricardo

Good question.  The impulse responses are just lists of reflections from particular walls in the hall.  The ones that are most important to the brain are those from the sides, the rear and the ceiling in that order.  Ceiling reverb is mostly mono so the brain cannot do much with it.  So you take a left channel front signal and convolve (process) it with an impulse response from say 120 degrees on the left side and send that signal to a speaker at that location. and repeat for as many IRs and speakers that make a difference to your ear.  I use 24 at the moment but that is really a waste of money.  So there are some speakers at the sides but they are not emitting any direct sound just reverb that an IR says should come from there.  You can do this for any recording including 1.0, 2.0, 4.0. 5.1 etc.  Putting a mono LP or 78 in a hall is a revelation for solo voices or piano or violin sonatas or old jazz combos.

 

If you put direct sound at the rear willy nilly, you can get comb filtering, front to back inversions, and no logical change in the sense of space.  But you can put 2.0 direct sound into two rear speakers at a narrow angle behind the listening area using a miniambio or computer app to get a sense of envelopment, great front stage width and depth, but not a sense of being in a hall.  You can read the Envelophonics tutorial to see how easy it is to do this if you are willing to use two small speakers in the rear.

 

Ralph

[Ralph Glasgal]

22 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, you just need to listen to some more real 2-channel  stereo recordings. If you actually heard what's possible with proper stereo microphone technique, then you too would hear what got people like Alan Blumlein, Harry Olsen (of RCA Labs), Bert Whyte, and others so excited about the promise of stereophonic sound. 

I should probably not get into this, but there are some real technical psychoacoustic issues here, not just myths, which STC has so ably hinted at.  Remember however that stereo is also an art form and thus does not have to be realistic in the concert hall sense.  So here I will discuss only the realism issues.

 

In a concert hall if a trumpet is at stage left you will hear a time difference at the ears of about 700 microseconds and a level difference of maybe 7 dB  So let us assume a perfect mic and recording media have captured these values exactly including perfect frequency response, perfect resolution, and exact sound level.  Now we play this back without error through perfect amplifiers and two perfect speakers set 60 degrees apart.  Well, apart from the fact that there is no proof in physics or psychoacoustics that this angle is correct, we can easily prove that it has a lot of real defects and distortions.  First the 700 microsecond time difference recorded is reduced to about 220 microseconds so that side trumpet is now in the middle of the violins.  The original level difference is likewise reduced at the ears by half since both ears easily hear both speakers.  No matter where a sound was originally located, the pinna see only the pattern produced by sound sources at 30 degrees, not the almost 90 that the trumpet produced in the hall.  I could go on about all reverb now being frontal, the peaks and dips in the frequency response, central bass doubling, but enough.

 

So these realism issues cannot be corrected by any mic technique since the problem is mostly one of reproduction and not predictable since listening angles vary so much as does head size.  However, if you get into the subjective art form realm, then you can tweak recordings to make up for one 60 degree defect or another.  But it is tough to get two human beings to agree on which tweak sounds more realistic or purer or whatever.  See www.ambiophonics.org for endless papers and tutorials on this subject and how to fix the problem if you want binaural (normal hearing) realism.

 

 

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I should probably not get into this, but there are some real technical psychoacoustic issues here, not just myths, which STC has so ably hinted at.  Remember however that stereo is also an art form and thus does not have to be realistic in the concert hall sense.  So here I will discuss only the realism issues.

 

In a concert hall if a trumpet is at stage left you will hear a time difference at the ears of about 700 microseconds and a level difference of maybe 7 dB  So let us assume a perfect mic and recording media have captured these values exactly including perfect frequency response, perfect resolution, and exact sound level.  Now we play this back without error through perfect amplifiers and two perfect speakers set 60 degrees apart.  Well, apart from the fact that there is no proof in physics or psychoacoustics that this angle is correct, we can easily prove that it has a lot of real defects and distortions.  First the 700 microsecond time difference recorded is reduced to about 220 microseconds so that side trumpet is now in the middle of the violins.  The original level difference is likewise reduced at the ears by half since both ears easily hear both speakers.  No matter where a sound was originally located, the pinna see only the pattern produced by sound sources at 30 degrees, not the almost 90 that the trumpet produced in the hall.  I could go on about all reverb now being frontal, the peaks and dips in the frequency response, central bass doubling, but enough.

 

So these realism issues cannot be corrected by any mic technique since the problem is mostly one of reproduction and not predictable since listening angles vary so much as does head size.  However, if you get into the subjective art form realm, then you can tweak recordings to make up for one 60 degree defect or another.  But it is tough to get two human beings to agree on which tweak sounds more realistic or purer or whatever.  See www.ambiophonics.org for endless papers and tutorials on this subject and how to fix the problem if you want binaural (normal hearing) realism.

 

 

 

Which hints at why the arguments that the physical procedure in recording is so important, are not in fact so relevant - when I hear convincing sound from a system it's seems completely impossible that my brain should perceive this illusion, by the usual logic ... yet, it happens. My inner auditory 'smarts' have worked it all out, unconsciously, and compensate beautifully for everything that's "wrong" - the only way I can switch it off is by deliberately lowering the SQ - this very neatly packs the sound back into the speakers, where it belongs ... .

[STC]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

with the United States Air Force Band Conducted by  Col. Lowell E. Graham (Klavier KEG93S). Both of these CDs were recorded and mastered By Bruce Leek, one of the few independent producer/engineers working today who shares my sense of aesthetics when it comes to recording.

 

I believe the same Bruce Leek made the recording in the video below. Now, if he shares your sense of aesthetics, then he must be using just one pair of stereo microphones placed like where you suggested in your previous post. In this video , I see many microphones. Some look like mono recording only to me. And obviously, he will be mixing them which you don't do. So how sure are you those above recorded by Bruce Leek adhered to your principal? Multi miking can give you good soundstage too. He could have panpotted too.

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

I believe the same Bruce Leek made the recording in the video below. Now, if he shares your sense of aesthetics, then he must be using just one pair of stereo microphones placed like where you suggested in your previous post. In this video , I see many microphones. Some look like mono recording only to me. And obviously, he will be mixing them which you don't do. So how sure are you those above recorded by Bruce Leek adhered to your principal? Multi miking can give you good soundstage too. He could have panpotted too.

 

 

you do understand that the video producer calls the shots?  I can't believe you'd bring up something as ridiculous as this!

[STC]

Just now, gmgraves said:

you do understand that the video producer calls the shots?  I can't believe you'd bring up something as ridiculous as this!

 

That's a recording session. Nothing to re-enact. 

 

"USAF Band with Col Lowell Graham in a recording session for Russian Expressions and the end of the Firebird Suite arranged by CMSgt (ret) Larry Odom (playing harp on this recording). Engineered by Bruce Leek"

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

Ok. One last try  because it seems I am unable to put across the point clearly.

 

Your recordings, among others, are perfect. It can be better when the information already contained there retrieved correctly. That will be another level of experience which sadly you the maker never got a chance yet to appreciate the true potential of your very own recordings. I am just showing the true potential of your recordings which is much more than what you are hearing now.

But my recordings are NOT perfect. None are. I am a soundstage freak. I got into recording because I got tired of buying commercial recordings where the symphony orchestra is lined-up in a straight line across the "stage" between the right and the left speaker and popped in and out of existance as their levels were raised and lowered according to when they played. I don't like that, and I make the recordings the way I make them to please me, so that *I* have something that *I* want to listen to. My way of recording gives me the realistic soundstage that I am looking for, and  that's what interests ME! If I satisfy my customers along the way, that's icing on the cake!

 

You want to highlight different aspects of a performance, then make your own goddamn recordings, but I'm through with arguing endlessly with you about minutiae about which I care nothing. So please, go pester somebody else about this crap!

[STC]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

But my recordings are NOT perfect. None are. I am a soundstage freak. I got into recording because I got tired of buying commercial recordings where the symphony orchestra is lined-up in a straight line across the "stage" between the right and the left speaker and popped in and out of existance as their levels were raised and lowered according to when they played. I don't like that, and I make the recordings the way I make them to please me, so that *I* have something that *I* want to listen to. My way of recording gives me the realistic soundstage that I am looking for, and  that's what interests ME! If I satisfy my customers along the way, that's icing on the cake!

 

You want to highlight different aspects of a performance, then make your own goddamn recordings, but I'm through with arguing endlessly with you about minutiae about which I care nothing. So please, go pester somebody else about this crap!

 

Finally....

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Finally....

Now, will you just go away and leave me in peace? If that's all you wanted from me, why didn't you accept it the last time I stated it, some 45 pages ago?

Now I know how Jean Valjean felt. 

[STC]

8 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I should probably not get into this, but there are some real technical psychoacoustic issues here, not just myths, which STC has so ably hinted at.  Remember however that stereo is also an art form and thus does not have to be realistic in the concert hall sense.  So here I will discuss only the realism issues.

 

In a concert hall if a trumpet is at stage left you will hear a time difference at the ears of about 700 microseconds and a level difference of maybe 7 dB  So let us assume a perfect mic and recording media have captured these values exactly including perfect frequency response, perfect resolution, and exact sound level.  Now we play this back without error through perfect amplifiers and two perfect speakers set 60 degrees apart.  Well, apart from the fact that there is no proof in physics or psychoacoustics that this angle is correct, we can easily prove that it has a lot of real defects and distortions.  First the 700 microsecond time difference recorded is reduced to about 220 microseconds so that side trumpet is now in the middle of the violins.  The original level difference is likewise reduced at the ears by half since both ears easily hear both speakers.  No matter where a sound was originally located, the pinna see only the pattern produced by sound sources at 30 degrees, not the almost 90 that the trumpet produced in the hall.  I could go on about all reverb now being frontal, the peaks and dips in the frequency response, central bass doubling, but enough.

 

So these realism issues cannot be corrected by any mic technique since the problem is mostly one of reproduction and not predictable since listening angles vary so much as does head size.  However, if you get into the subjective art form realm, then you can tweak recordings to make up for one 60 degree defect or another.  But it is tough to get two human beings to agree on which tweak sounds more realistic or purer or whatever.  See www.ambiophonics.org for endless papers and tutorials on this subject and how to fix the problem if you want binaural (normal hearing) realism.

 

 

 

There is another aspect of human perception of sound that was not explained by the various literatures that I came across so far. 

 

This is is my observation and I could be wrong. 

 

In a concert hall, we are free to move our head towards the source of the sound.  During the live performance the harp or a violinist could be be playing on the left. During such passage, we usually rotate our head towards the instrument of our interest. If there is a opera singer and takes a few steps to the side ways our head/ eyes track towards him. 

 

Our action of turning the head towards the sound (even slightly) will always put the image directly in front of our face and the left and right ears would receive the sound at same time without any delays. In short, our attention is always centered toward the center even when the player is on far right or left more like monophonic sound. 

 

With stereo playback, we can only perceive the soundstage and phantom image if we hold our head steady facing the mid point of the two speakers. If we rotate our head towards the phantom location the phantom image shifts sending a confusing perceptive to our brain of the actual location. 

 

This effect is also similar to the internalization feeling with headphones where the image shifting the opposite direction causes confusion to the brain. 

 

I haven't come across any research on this point with stereo and phantom image. What’s your thoughts on this? How it is possible to avoid the confusion with XTC? 

 

  

[mansr]

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

"Evolution"  with the United States Air Force Band Conducted by  Col. Lowell E. Graham (Klavier KEG93S)

Is this the right one? https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/united-states-air-force-band-evolution-gustav-holst-peter-mennin-howard-hanson/0019688116125

[semente]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There is another aspect of human perception of sound that was not explained by the various literatures that I came across so far. 

 

This is is my observation and I could be wrong. 

 

In a concert hall, we are free to move our head towards the source of the sound.  During the live performance the harp or a violinist could be be playing on the left. During such passage, we usually rotate our head towards the instrument of our interest. If there is a opera singer and takes a few steps to the side ways our head/ eyes track towards him. 

 

Our action of turning the head towards the sound (even slightly) will always put the image directly in front of our face and the left and right ears would receive the sound at same time without any delays. In short, our attention is always centered toward the center even when the player is on far right or left more like monophonic sound. 

 

With stereo playback, we can only perceive the soundstage and phantom image if we hold our head steady facing the mid point of the two speakers. If we rotate our head towards the phantom location the phantom image shifts sending a confusing perceptive to our brain of the actual location. 

 

This effect is also similar to the internalization feeling with headphones where the image shifting the opposite direction causes confusion to the brain. 

 

I haven't come across any research on this point with stereo and phantom image. What’s your thoughts on this? How it is possible to avoid the confusion with XTC? 

 

  

 

I think that when I listen live I look at a particular section or instrument because the visual cues help me focus on what it's doing.

I'd say that the visual aspect is far more important in my perception than the fact that I rotated my head so that the harp is now on-axis. In fact the need to rotate your head is probably necessary only if you're seating in the first three or four rows; further back, moving your eyes is probably enough.

[STC]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

In fact the need to rotate your head is probably necessary only if you're seating in the first three or four rows;

 

I think most of the classical recordings based on those seats’ perspective. Even the IRs usually taken about 11 meters from the direct sound. Once you move away another couple of seats you will be hearing 90% of the hall reverberation vs 10% of direct sound. Which seat you want is entirely individuals preference. 

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, semente said:

In fact the need to rotate your head is probably necessary only if you're seating in the first three or four rows; further back, moving your eyes is probably enough.

Studies have shown that our hearing is physically influenced by the direction our eyes are pointing.

[semente]

31 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I think most of the classical recordings based on those seats’ perspective. Even the IRs usually taken about 11 meters from the direct sound. Once you move away another couple of seats you will be hearing 90% of the hall reverberation vs 10% of direct sound. Which seat you want is entirely individuals preference. 

 

You are probably right in suggesting that the main reason for placing the mics not further than half a dozen metres away from the maestro is to favour direct sound; I would add that this may be due to the fact that a recording is to be reproduced in domestic environments where the listening room will in most cases add an extra amount of reverb and reflections.

 

Seat-to-stage distance is obviously dependent on personal preference but I'd like to suggest that for orchestral music one needs to back off a little if we're to perceive the group of instruments as a whole, to get a better tonal balance; and there's the fact (discussed in several articles on the subject) that orchestral music benefits from reverb and low end gain.

[semente]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

Studies have shown that our hearing is physically influenced by the direction our eyes are pointing.

 

That is interesting.