Blue or red pill?

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

How would you know it existed if you never existed?

 

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. No amount of argument or even a blind test will prove to me that I don't exist  You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... perhaps you're just a figment of my imagination.

 

 

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

But paraphrasing yourself...if you have to explain it,...... I would say this, if I'm "just a figment of your imagination" that you have been discussing this with, would that mean you are having an illusion or delusion?

 

I have an extremely vivid imagination. It encompasses all of reality. And since, as far as I know, I'm the only one who actually exists, it's entirely possible that all of it is a grand delusion

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, the word used is "different" - for me the important word is, "wrong" - does the sound have some quality about it which strikes you as not being how 'natural' sounds are, is the question to ask; is there an "uncomfortable" factor, no matter how tiny, in the listening? Chasing whether something is merely "different" is a huge waste of time, in my world.

 

Frank, in order to be wrong or right, they must first be different. If you can't tell two playback methods apart, then they can't be audibly "wrong" or "right", whatever that means.

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Alternatively, it is in the signal and it hasn't been measured. 

 

This would mean there is an opportunity to discover something new. That's why this particular test is interesting to me. That's the outcome that I would be very interested in seeing, as that would then become a challenge and a puzzle to solve.

 

[pkane2001]

22 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

What, you want me to do an A/B/X with a test signal? No thanks.

 

You suggested capturing the analogue output of the DAC, not me. If the difference in sound that I/we hear is due to increased jitter in one of the replay means over the other, I'm just curious to know how you'd be able to detect this in the captured files.

 

You say it's possible. I ask how. And you come back with "there are numerous ways of analysing the recorded data". So, what are they? Do you have any examples?

 

Why am I insistent? Because playing a file back bit-identically, a difference in jitter is the only mechanism I can think of that could possibly lead to a difference in sound. If this is indeed the case, I'm curious whether the analogue captures are going to be of any use to us.

 

Mani.

 

Would it be possible to do abx testing with music, but also record a pure tone or two for analysis?

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

That's not a proper stereo recording. It's been fabricated in the studio and mixing desk.

 

As have most recordings targeting mass audience. The depth and width of the stereo image is mostly fake.

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Ok, so how do you perceive height with only two ear drums?

 

It's often a simple frequency LP or HP filter. Higher frequencies translate to something located above, while lower frequencies to something below.

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Exactly, ( "this would be an opportunity to discover something new") something in the signal that hasn't been or hitherto cant be measured.

 

 Mani proposed and offered the test. Everything else can be claimed to be manipulation or "bogus" as it changes the "claim". Note, *I am not disagreeing* that test signals specifically made for jitter are best to test jitter, but that's not the claim initially proposed by Mani.

 

 

 

I agree with you and understand that has been agreed upon by Mani and Mans.

 

However, for reasons already stated, and so boldly stated by Mans, if it is in the music signal *it should be measurable* and apparently with great confidence. The "test hypothesis" involves hearing differences in real world music *not test tones*.

 

If you know what you are looking for and go specifically looking for it in test tones, fine. You then MUST also be able to demonstrate that whatever you found in the test tones is *present* in the particular music as heard by Mani.Otherwise scientifically it is far from conclusive. One cannot assume that one specific cohort is fully representative of a totally different cohort (even if the same system/ test environment, NAs vs Local, has been used for the test tones). You have introduced a brand new variable.This holds true no matter how compelling the conclusion appears - any difference/s found must be identified in the actual music signal where audible differences occurred.

 

Neuro, you're interpreting this the wrong way. The test is the same as was agreed to by Mani and Mans: A/B/X blind listening test.

 

Mani will try to prove to Mans that he can tell the difference between A and B, and Mans will also take the test to see if he can hear such a difference. That's the core of the test.

 

Mans asked if he can make additional recordings and measurement recordings that could later be used to determine the source of differences, should the core of the test show that they are audible. Mani agreed. There is no controversy, no change of test parameters, no new variables. The core of the test remains the same. Are you against trying to determine what caused audible change once it's been demonstrated objectively?

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I myself for some reason find binaural recordings to mostly not work. 

 

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.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Indeed. If the refraction in the atmosphere caused a significant apparent size difference when the moon is close to the horizon, the varying refraction due to the varying atmospheric density would make the moon look egg-shaped.

 

Easy to prove this. Take a photo of the moon over the horizon, and another when it's overhead. You'll see that the angular size doesn't change.

[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.

[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.

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

What are you listening to?

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

[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

 

 

 

[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.

[pkane2001]

48 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Sure. No surprise. The interesting thing is that once one steps outside the whole unspoken and confused audiophile model of  hearing based on "common sense" extrapolation from what we know, then it all makes more sense. How often do most of us try and locate objects by sound alone in real life?

 

If you are not blind how do you generally estimate the position and location of objects? How accurately do you think you could estimate the distance and direction of an object you can see

a) by hearing alone

b) by sight alone?

 

If you can see an object then you will "hear" its location more accurately. 

 

If the information conflicts you will generally hear the object where you see it (ventriloquism effect)

 

Even if you can;t see it any more you may hear it where you saw it (ventriloquism after effect.)

 

Even if you think you know where the object is, you are likely to hear its location where you think you know it is (see examples about whispering voice)

 

I listen to a stereo recording and get a vague sense that the timpani are in the position they usually are in when I go to orchestral concerts. 

 

Yup.

 

I've not been following the discussion about depth perception in recorded audio, as I generally agree there's usually very little 'real' depth information in most recordings, especially multi-mic, multi-track ones.

 

But, there is certainly something to the depth cues that might help locate a source of sound, while not precisely, but relative to other sources in the same recording. Call it reverb, echo, reflections, comb filters, combined with volume changes, these can all add to the sense of depth on a well made recording (or artificially manufactured depth on recordings where this is done through digital manipulation).

 

As I posted yesterday, I could clearly hear relative depth of instruments on a simple binaural recording when played back through loudspeakers. Some of the recordings I tried placed sound in front of my speakers, and this is the first time I've heard that effect. Again, these do not give a precise position, but relative to other sounds it makes for a nicely layered soundstage -- something we audiophiles love to hear.

 

Of course, I've also heard depth in other recordings, some seem to place sounds well beyond the speakers, others right at the speakers. An example of a manufactured sound stage depth I find amazing is on the Dire Straits On the Night live recording, f.i. The stage is placed so far behind my speakers, that it appears to come from the next room. As I understand it, that's just a post-processing trick, but makes for an impressive listening experience.

 

As far as measuring depth from a recording, I don't think that's possible with complex music, but it should be doable from some test signals, such as a recorded short pulse or a sweep.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I don’t think so. A mono recording is still a mono even if you use stereo mode.  The stereo is the same sound with different level and phase over two speakers.  One mono on the left and another mono on the right can be argued as mono.

 

Don't know why this is even an argument. I have a simple EQ unit that will generate variable phase and level differences between left and right channel, even when fed mono input. Isn't this an example of mono recording to stereo playback?

 

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, adamdea said:

....And there are the keys you find by whistling and listening to the beep. 

 

But you are being tendentious (if perhaps playfully so): what you do when you drop an object is to listen for it so as to be able to have a starting point in finding it. Then you look in the general direction where you think it is from the sound. How often do you try to locate something purely from the sound of it? That is (as you well know) what I meant by "from sound alone".

 

This is different from

• using sound as one of many sources of information to locate something
• the sense of location of a sound object you get when you are able to draw on lots of pieces of information. 

 

Trying to use sound alone is really tricky as anyone who has dropped their keys in the pitch black will attest.

 

 

Trying to understand your argument. Is it that the actual sound produced by an object, in the absence of any reflections, reverb, etc. does not carry positional information? I think most will agree with this, no?

 

But that's not what happens in the real world, and a good recording should be able to capture more than just the primary sound. While the secondary audio cues are not precise, they do provide some direction and depth information that can be interpreted by our ear/brain combination in the absence of any other sensory input. Do you disagree?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, adamdea said:

This has already gone on for pages. If you want to understand my argument you'll have to read the posts.  Boradly there is reasonably accruate left right in a stereo recording, a bit of ambiguous depth and no height

 

You can get a bit of a sense of depth from the sound alone, but the sense you do get can be a lot more than that because of things other than the actual sound. 

 

 

That's what I got from reading the thread, and I agree with this.

[pkane2001]

53 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Not recorded using a stereo mike technique? Not stereo. Stereo means "solid"; three-dimensional as in height, depth, and width as in stereophonic or "three-dimensional sound". It does not mean "two"! 

A multiplicity of mono channels mixed down to two channels can only do width. Therefore, it's not stereo. This is not really debatable. You might as well argue that the word "Democracy" (another Greek -derived word just like "stereophonic") doesn't mean a government where the people vote for leaders and/or laws. It's pretty well proscribed.

 

I don't know of any native Latin speakers that can confirm the original meaning of the word as applied to audio, but quite a few that can confirm the current English usage:

 

Wikipedia: Stereophonic sound or, more commonly, stereo, is a method of sound reproduction that creates an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective

 

Online dictionaries

 

stereo sound

reproduction of sound using two or more separate microphones to feed two or more loudspeakers through separate channels in order to give a spatial effect to the sound

 

stereo

Sound that is directed through two or more speakers so that it seems to surround the listener and to come from more than one source; stereophonic sound.

 

stereophonic

of, relating to, or constituting sound reproduction involving the use of separated microphones and two transmission channels to achieve the sound separation of a live hearing

 

stereo

a way of recording or playing sound so that it is separated into two signals and produces more natural sound

 

[pkane2001]

10 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.

 

 

 

Ralph, sounds like you're knowledgeable on the subject.

 

I fully understand the issues with a 2 speaker playback distorting timing and other phase-related cues when they arrive at the ears of the listener. If one uses headphones with the same set of assumptions you've made above (perfect reproduction of frequency and phase, and say perfect binaural recording) and let's say the playback level is at the same level as it existed at the time of the recording. What is lacking in headphone reproduction that destroys the realism of the original sound field? I've heard a few things:

 

1. HRFT. How much of a factor is it? If it's that important, why not use DSP to correct for it? 

2. The ear is sensitive to the direction of the sound. If this is true, then we should be able to tell direction with one ear covered, no? Are there studies that show that (a single) ear can detect the direction that the sound is coming from? Any references you can point to?

3. Lack of correct audio cues when moving your head -- the sound remains in the center

 

Any others? Are all of these equally harmful or is there one that must be addressed before the others?