Blue or red pill?

[semente]

20 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

The word binaural has somehow been preempted in recent years by the earphone world.  Actually normal  every day, two eared hearing is termed binaural as opposed to monaural where only one ear is exposed to sound.  Blumlein called stereo binaural in his original patent.  it is indeed possible to have loudspeaker binaural.  Examples include Ambisonics, Wavefield Synthesis, Ambiophonics, BACCH, and more appearing now every month.  Basically, if what reaches the ear by any means has the same wavefield as one hears every day then it is a normal binaural soundfield.  I would add that earphone/headphone binaural is not truly normal binaural since the phones interfere with the soundfield hitting the pinna.  So like stereo via loudspeakers, binaural via phones is not realistic binaural. 

 

I guess I should have written binaural playback.

 

I don't agree that DSP processing (ambio, etc.) is able to realistically reproduce the original soundfield. This is why I wrote that because both DSP and stereo have different qualities and defects opting for one or the other is a matter of taste.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I guess I should have written binaural playback.

 

I don't agree that DSP processing (ambio, etc.) is able to realistically reproduce the original soundfield. This is why I wrote that because both DSP and stereo have different qualities and defects opting for one or the other is a matter of taste.

 

Yes, the original soundfield can never be realised. Or it can only be done by using completely OTT processing. Which is why the smart way is to switch on the most powerful sound processing engine of all, the brain. All the standard DSP processes don't address the underlying problem, which is that playback quality is too degraded by the time it emerges from the speakers - so, it always sounds 'fake'.

 

It takes quite a bit of effort to eliminate all the disturbing anomalies that inhibit the mind's 'DSP' capability. But it's worth going there, because it's so extremely capable - the ear/brain handles everything thrown at it, and keeps the illusion rock solid under all circumstances.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Sorry, not hearing it. Left/right positioning is great, but I'm not getting a sense of depth or height. Maybe if I had a pre-conceived idea of where things should be, I could will myself into hearing them that way.

 

Well, the website that George pointed to is a disaster - for me, at least ... trying to hear some of the samples only achieved something like an old time short wave radio quality - so I tried YouTube . Came up with this clip, which may or may not be done by the man,

 

 

In any case, the quality shows up all the good things - would do very nicely on a full blown rig ...

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Well, the website that George pointed to is a disaster - for me, at least ... trying to hear some of the samples only achieved something like an old time short wave radio quality

I don't know which website you're referring to, but I bought the CD quality download from Qobuz. It's a nice recording. I'm just not hearing any depth or height.

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't know which website you're referring to, but I bought the CD quality download from Qobuz. It's a nice recording. I'm just not hearing any depth or height.

 

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/united-states-air-force-band-evolution-gustav-holst-peter-mennin-howard-hanson/0019688116125 - I tried listening to the samples available on that site to get an idea, but wasn't successful.

 

I'm sure there are many people whose brains are hardwired so that they can never perceive the illusion I speak of - but I can certainly pick up the clues from that YouTube clip; on very good playback there would be an enormous sense of depth and space, for people who hear in a similar way to how I do.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, the website that George pointed to is a disaster - for me, at least ... trying to hear some of the samples only achieved something like an old time short wave radio quality - so I tried YouTube . Came up with this clip, which may or may not be done by the man,

 

 

In any case, the quality shows up all the good things - would do very nicely on a full blown rig ...

 There is a small amount of depth information from this example in a couple of places, but your brain would need to work very hard filling in the blanks to get much more from it.

 Very few YouTube clips have much depth anyway, let alone height,  due to the max. 187Kilobits .aac used.

[Ralph Glasgal]

7 hours ago, adamdea said:

I don;t understand why you say that: If I turn sideways to an orchestra I can tell the difference from a sound at 1 o'clock and a sound at 5 o'clock. Obviously the angular resolution is probably not as good as if I were facing becasue I am mainly relying on one channel hrtf spectral cues, but I still can tell the difference from a sound in front and to the right and one behind and to the right. 

 

The internalisation effect of headphones is down to the absence of direction cues beyond ITD and IHD. On their own they do not tell you where a sound comes from. See cone of confusion. The link is not inconsistent with this but merely ascribes it to the absence of hrtf which amounts to the same thing.

 

Consider also a sound reinforcement system without a time delay. At the back of the hall where does the sound appear to come from?

 

btw this thread has been going on for ages and I have been trying hard to push the suggestion that people consider how hearing works first before considering how they think stereo works. Actual direction of sound does matter although it can be overriden 

Sorry, wrong example.  I did forget about the pinna localization mechanism which does let you localize for high frequencies with just one ear facing a stage.  So standing sideways you could still get some idea of where the instruments are on the stage.  Yes the pinna function is the spectral part of the HRTF as opposed to the interaural head shadow part which is what stereo relies on entirely.

 

But in the case of stereo speakers this sideways pinna sense does not work since there are only two pinna cues, one at 30 degrees to the front of you and one at 30 degrees toward the back of you.  Not a great way to localize without any ITD or ILD.  When you are sideways to stereo speakers the brain gets two fixed loud pinna patterns from one ear and another lower level pair from the shadowed ear.  I doubt any two humans will hear the same thing under these circumstances but mostly you just localize tor the two speakers with nothing in between.

 

The internalization effect of headphones/earphones is indeed due to the absence of localization cues that are not the interaural ones of level and delay.  The only other significant part of the HRTF left then is the pinna functionality which is impaired by any type of earphone.

You can test this yourself.  Hiss  out of your mouth and bring a finger into both of your ears close to the entrance to the ear canal and see what happens.   Do it again with just one ear and let us know what you hear.

 

If the speaker at the back of hall has no delay and is loud you will localize to it in most cases.  If sideways the source will vary from left to right with slight motion if the levels are the same where you are standing.

 

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, semente said:

I don't agree that DSP processing (ambio, etc.) is able to realistically reproduce the original soundfield.

 

Correction. You don't need DSP for Ambio. Thanks and no thanks to the audiophile indoctrination, I only even bothered to try out Ambio because the original concept involves no DSP. I cannot comment on the second part on realistic soundfield as you are still unable to grasp that the original concept involves no whatsoever crosstalk and therefore it is unlikely you are getting the second part of ambience surround correct. Perhaps, I have to put in the brackets for every sentence that"(Ambio can be reproduced without any DSPs". 

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 There is a small amount of depth information from this example in a couple of places, but your brain would need to work very hard filling in the blanks to get much more from it.

 Very few YouTube clips have much depth anyway, let alone height,  due to the max. 187Kilobits .aac used.

 

It's always about the playback quality - I've 'learned' to pick the clues from poorer quality renditions of a piece, to be able to extrapolate how it would sound in prime playback. Sometimes, a YouTube clip will come across better than I've heard the CD on ambitious systems, because key parts of the content are not blurred as much as they are on the "big rig".

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Sometimes, a YouTube clip will come across better than I've heard the CD on ambitious systems, because key parts of the content are not blurred as much as they are on the "big rig".

 

 A YouTube clip with a Static visual display should NEVER come across better than a well recorded CD on a decent system !

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 A YouTube clip should NEVER come across better than a well recorded CD on a decent system !

 

Amusingly, the audio friend I have down the road went to some effort to optimise the direct replay of YouTube clips over his "big rig" - I was impressed! Remarkable was the impact of some pieces - way better than a lot of audiophile setups I've heard over the years ...

[Ralph Glasgal]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

I don't agree that DSP processing (ambio, etc.) is able to realistically reproduce the original soundfield. This is why I wrote that because both DSP and stereo have different qualities and defects opting for one or the other is a matter of taste.

I thought this was a group interested in computer/DSP audiophile techniques.  

 

Nothing is perfect.  But with modern processors it is easily possible to come up with a reproduction method that sounds a lot more like live music than does the 60 degree loudspeaker triangle even when playing the existing library of LPs and CDs.  If you also use more modern surround microphone techniques (See my paper on the design of the Ambiophone) then you can leave stereo in the dust as far as sonic realism is concerned.  But color digital photography is not going to replace oil painting either if it is a matter of taste and they are deemed equivalent except for a few minor defects. 

 

Comparing a 90 year old technology which is subjective, rather than mathematical or based on psychoacoustic rules, to a modern physics based technology by simply stating that the differences are so minor as to just be matters of taste is, I guess, also matter of taste.  The prejudice among audiophiles regarding DSP does not make much sense since every new recording or download they listen to is DSP processed.     

[STC]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 A YouTube clip with a Static visual display should NEVER come across better than a well recorded CD on a decent system !

 

Some partners of Youtube content ID can have higher resolution at 24/44.1 format. For rest of us, we are stuck with 194kbs at best.

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

Could this be because you know that's how the instruments are usually arranged?

 

I've never seen even a picture of that ensemble, but generally, there is a standard classic arrangement of orchestra and symphonic bands, so, yes, I suspect I have a vision in my mind's eye of how a wind ensemble is arranged, but I suspect that most classical music aficionados have a similar mental image. I would be denying the obvious if I said that this mental image doesn't take the place of my sight when listening to a symphony orchestra or a wind ensemble (symphonic band). How much this affects my placing of instruments in the sound field, I have no idea. All I can say is they certainly sound to me that they are coming from where I hear them.

10 hours ago, mansr said:

 

What, you're not going to say I need a more expensive audio system?

I'm neither GUTB nor STC. I think anyone with a half-way decent stereo system where the speakers have been placed to sound at their best advantage, rather than to fit some decor, should get decent imaging from a real stereophonic recording.  Like I said before, I strongly suspect that you don't hear any depth or height for the very reason that you have decided beforehand that you're not going to hear it. That's the reason I didn't send you a sample of my work. I get challenged enough on this point by you and several others without feeding the fire. 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I'm neither GUTB nor STC.

 

What's wrong with you? You have been without failing pestering me but when I responded to your posts you accused me of pestering you. Show me one post that I advocate expensive system? Just one post. Except for my speakers and the Mytek DAC which also is a preamp, all others are just few hundred dollar speakers. Even the additional ten DACs cost about $10 each. Except for two which costs about $30. And the additionals amps costs about $60 each. You really imagine things a lot. It is not my fault if all of your recordings sounded bad except for the soundstage.

 

The additional speakers (all used micro speakers), DAC and Amps cost me about $600.

[gmgraves]

20 minutes ago, STC said:

 

What's wrong with you? You have been without failing pestering me but when I responded to your posts you accused me of pestering you. Show me one post that I advocate expensive system? Just one post. Except for my speakers and the Mytek DAC which also is a preamp, all others are just few hundred dollar speakers. Even the additional ten DACs cost about $10 each. Except for two which costs about $30. And the additionals amps costs about $60 each. You really imagine things a lot. It is not my fault if all of your recordings sounded bad except for the soundstage.

 

The additional speakers (all used micro speakers), DAC and Amps cost me about $600.

Forgive me. I conflated you with FAS42. IT was he that I meant when I wrote your name. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Forgive me. I conflated you with FAS42. IT was he that I meant when I wrote your name. 

 

???. Now FAS24 is going to get upset. He is using some Philips HT box setup. 

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 Like I said before, I strongly suspect that you don't hear any depth or height for the very reason that you have decided beforehand that you're not going to hear it.

 

That appears to be a general problem with many from the Objective side, and why he is highly unlikely to hear any differences that Mani hears when they meet up.

[adamdea]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Amusingly, the audio friend I have down the road went to some effort to optimise the direct replay of YouTube clips over his "big rig" - I was impressed! Remarkable was the impact of some pieces - way better than a lot of audiophile setups I've heard over the years ...

Yes, it’s almost as though perceptual codecs were designed by real scientists based on properly conducted tests enabling them to draw firm well-supported conclusions about transparency. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

???. Now FAS24 is going to get upset. He is using some Philips HT box setup. 

 

...

 

Was using Philips HT box ... it died, and then I tried other things. Latest toys are NAD CDP and amp, Sharp speakers - not yet competent, but usable.

[fas42]

50 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Yes, it’s almost as though perceptual codecs were designed by real scientists based on properly conducted tests enabling them to draw firm well-supported conclusions about transparency. 

 

I've never had any issues with the ability of data compression codecs to do their job well ... the very first time I heard anything that had gone through the MP3 mill was via a burnt audio CD, that had originated from compressed files. I didn't know this at the time, and picked nothing wrong with the sound, at all - what's all this fuss about MP3 sounding 'orrible? I asked myself, when I found out ...

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

That appears to be a general problem with many from the Objective side, and why he is highly unlikely to hear any differences that Mani hears when they meet up.

 

If Mans doesn't hear a difference (for whatever reason), he'll still taste the 'red pill' if both the following two things happen:

 

1. I prove to Mans' satisfaction that I can hear a difference. At this moment, it seems that only an A/B/X will achieve this. I have a concern* about this, but will do it nevertheless.

 

2. After analysing the digital outputs of the audio PC (that we'll capture in real time as I undertake the A/B/X), Mans is satisfied that the files were played back bit-identically.

 

If these two things happen, then the game's afoot. We can replay the files and capture the analogue outputs of the DAC to try to figure out what's going on. Personally, I don't think the analogue captures will show any differences, within an accepted error. We'll also play back some test signals that might prove more insightful. But as @Audiophile Neuroscience pointed out earlier in this thread, Mans will have to show that whatever differences might show up in the test signals are also present in the analogue captures. Otherwise any conclusion is going to be speculative.

 

No matter what happens, it's going to be an interesting day. And I'm very much looking forward to meeting Mans in person.

 

* My feeling is that an A/B/X is very much a 'left-brain' test, and that the audible differences I and others hear are more easily discerned by taking a 'right-brain' perspective. How do you do the latter? Well, that's not easy to say. It's almost like asking someone to focus on being natural - the more you consciously focus on it, the further away from you goal you'll get.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I've never seen even a picture of that ensemble, but generally, there is a standard classic arrangement of orchestra and symphonic bands, so, yes, I suspect I have a vision in my mind's eye of how a wind ensemble is arranged, but I suspect that most classical music aficionados have a similar mental image. I would be denying the obvious if I said that this mental image doesn't take the place of my sight when listening to a symphony orchestra or a wind ensemble (symphonic band). How much this affects my placing of instruments in the sound field, I have no idea. All I can say is they certainly sound to me that they are coming from where I hear them.

What I hear is compatible with the instrument placement you listed. As has been discussed here, when what we see agrees with what we hear, the perception of direction is reinforced. Perhaps it works the same way even if we are only seeing a mental picture.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I'm neither GUTB nor STC. I think anyone with a half-way decent stereo system where the speakers have been placed to sound at their best advantage, rather than to fit some decor, should get decent imaging from a real stereophonic recording. Like I said before, I strongly suspect that you don't hear any depth or height for the very reason that you have decided beforehand that you're not going to hear it.

If the effect can be heard or not depending on whether one wants to, can it really be said to exist? It certainly must be rather weak. Left/right positioning, on the other hand, is impossible not to hear no matter how hard you try.

[adamdea]

56 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

* My feeling is that an A/B/X is very much a 'left-brain' test, and that the audible differences I and others hear are more easily discerned by taking a 'right-brain' perspective. How do you do the latter? Well, that's not easy to say. It's almost like asking someone to focus on being natural - the more you consciously focus on it, the further away from you goal you'll get.

 

Mani.

Maybe you could try a simple A/B in which your preference is recorded against a randomised (but noted) selection. Not quite so rigorous, but worth finding out as all you have to do in those circs is decide which one you prefer not which is x. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

Maybe you could try a simple A/B in which your preference is recorded against a randomised (but noted) selection. Not quite so rigorous, but worth finding out as all you have to do in those circs is decide which one you prefer not which is x. 

I don't like the idea of involving preference. That said, if someone consistently prefers A over B, that should count for something. Then again, if they can do this, why is it necessary to state a preference in the first place?