Blue or red pill?

[STC]

11 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

and one person with a binaural headset cannot get anywhere near that.  Nobody would pay money to hear the binaural crud I capture

 

 

I think you get very good sounding binaural recording with loudspeakers playback such as this

 

 

[dalethorn]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

I think you get very good sounding binaural recording with loudspeakers playback such as this

 

 

 

Blue Coast has done some great work.  I wish they'd expand into more genres.

[STC]

4 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Blue Coast has done some great work.  I wish they'd expand into more genres.

 

Both make great recordings but using different technique. Blue Coast recording is mixed while Chesky binaural is filter applied for loudspeakers playback.

[esldude]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, having made literally hundreds of recordings of symphony orchestras, and many more recordings of smaller ensembles, I can tell you with some authority that you are wrong. In a real stereo recording, those cues are recorded and any stereo playback system can "reconstruct" them in your listening room. There are caveats here, though. Room acoustics can mess up those imaging cues (although the room would have to be pretty bad to do that) and, of course, small, more "point source" speakers tend to image more precisely than do many large speakers, but even big speakers can image well too - it depends on how they were designed. 

@gmgraves

 

Unless I missed it, did you make any samples available for download.  Easiest thing in the world is supply us with recordings with these cues and let us hear them.  If you are at liberty to share those with us. 

[esldude]

49 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Both make great recordings but using different technique. Blue Coast recording is mixed while Chesky binaural is filter applied for loudspeakers playback.

I loved Chesky recordings.  I loath that they went binaural only.  Binaural doesn't work for me over headphones.  And I find their current recordings much less good over speakers.  

[STC]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Binaural doesn't work for me over headphones. 

 

 

Since you mentioned this a couple of months ago I have been trying to find another person who is having a similar problem. There are significant percentage of the population cannot perceive 3D image from movies . It is possible some may have similar problem with binaural recordings that is yet to be discussed or researched..

 

 Anyway, here is a quote from Wiki

 

"The point raised by DR Mason in this interview is that even if a successful reproduction of audio in a more realistic 3D space is achieved, the effect could be damaged by the end users choice of headphones. Cheaper headphones, and indeed more expensive headphones with EQ colouration, will have an influence on how the audio is heard by the end user. Having headphones that add colouration to the audio heard will undoubtedly make disruptive changes. This can disrupt any chances of experiencing an improved spatial soundtrack."

 

maybe, you also want to try with different headphones.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

 

Since you mentioned this a couple of months ago I have been trying to find another person who is having a similar problem. There are significant percentage of the population cannot perceive 3D image from movies . It is possible some may have similar problem with binaural recordings that is yet to be discussed or researched..

 

 Anyway, here is a quote from Wiki

 

"The point raised by DR Mason in this interview is that even if a successful reproduction of audio in a more realistic 3D space is achieved, the effect could be damaged by the end users choice of headphones. Cheaper headphones, and indeed more expensive headphones with EQ colouration, will have an influence on how the audio is heard by the end user. Having headphones that add colouration to the audio heard will undoubtedly make disruptive changes. This can disrupt any chances of experiencing an improved spatial soundtrack."

 

maybe, you also want to try with different headphones.

Thanks for looking into this.  I've tried several different headphones over the years. My current preference Sony mdr 7510 or is it 7610 phones come closest to working.

 

I've tried or owned stax lambdas, koss esp 9, akg 240, Beyer dt 880, some discontinued creative iems, couple different grados and couple Sennheisers. So maybe I've an unusual htrf.

 

At best the binaural works ok for things directly to the sides and not much else.

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've tried several different headphones over the years. My current preference Sony mdr 7510 or is it 7610 phones come closest to working.

 

Interesting that you feel the Sony came closest. Just checked the in ear responses and looks like you prefer headphones that significantly slice a couple 10 dbs after 2kHz. I used AKG 600 something ( cant remember the model) and currently a cheap Superlux model which sounded similar to the AKG. I only use them to evaluate sound and do not really listened to them for leisure.

 

Anyway,

 

Sony MDR-7510

 

Grado,

 

Sennheiser

 

 

And my preference - AKG

 

 

Maybe that's something worth looking at.  I never liked Sony and Sennheiser's headphones I tried. Although, one of the Sony noise cancelling earphones sounded very good  and I liked it very much. We obviously have difference preference.

[semente]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Offhand, I don't see how. Perhaps if you were to explain your theory a bit more completely, I could see where you're coming from. 

 

I was thinking that by bringing an instrument down in level, reduce its dynamic range, roll-off the top a little and then add a bit of reverb it might sound as it were playing in the back of a large room.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Interesting that you feel the Sony came closest. Just checked the in ear responses and looks like you prefer headphones that significantly slice a couple 10 dbs after 2kHz. I used AKG 600 something ( cant remember the model) and currently a cheap Superlux model which sounded similar to the AKG. I only use them to evaluate sound and do not really listened to them for leisure.

 

Anyway,

 

Sony MDR-7510

 

Grado,

 

Sennheiser

 

 

And my preference - AKG

 

 

Maybe that's something worth looking at.  I never liked Sony and Sennheiser's headphones I tried. Although, one of the Sony noise cancelling earphones sounded very good  and I liked it very much. We obviously have difference preference.

Yes FR of phones seems a puzzle vs how they sound to me. I don't find that to be the case in speakers.

 

Don't hear why anyone likes the Sennheisers. Grados seem detailed fast and a bit harsh to me.  AKG would be my second choice of those I've used.

 

The ESL phones were very different. The Koss was smooth, warm and sweet. Stax like the Grado without the harshness.  

 

I really don't like to use headphones anyway.  Only when necessary or when checking recordings I've made.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Correct, and that is exactly why a recording can't convey the necessary height cues. On playback, the HRTF responds to the location of the speakers, not the location of the instruments during recording.

 

Mans you appear to place a great deal of importance on HRTF subserving spatial location, Okay. Your supposition is that without HRTF in the recording, spatial cues for height cannot be conveyed. It cannot possibly be in the recording because HRTF is listener specific, literally only realized in the ear of each beholder, hence it is not in the recording, not conveyed and there is no spatial cues conveyed.. This is logic akin to The ground is wet when it rains, the ground isnt wet, therefore it hasn't rained.No HRTF coming out of the speakers therefore no height cues.

 

This is rather bizarre IMO. To reduce this to the extreme it would be like saying, height perception is realized only in the brain, the recording cannot record the brain functions or neurological cues, so therefore there can be no height perception conveyed.

 

As others have put to you but you don't respond, the physical cues necessary to excite spatial location are in the recording be they phase,volume ,frequency or whatever.It is these cues reproduced by the speakers that the end listener responds to. It is these cues that the end listener wraps around his head and 'samples' and modulating with HRTF, in more or less similar way that they would have wrapped around the head at the live event, just obviously not 100% concordant with that event.

[adamdea]

15 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Mans you appear to place a great deal of importance on HRTF subserving spatial location, Okay. Your supposition is that without HRTF in the recording, spatial cues for height cannot be conveyed. It cannot possibly be in the recording because HRTF is listener specific, literally only realized in the ear of each beholder, hence it is not in the recording, not conveyed and there is no spatial cues conveyed.. This is logic akin to The ground is wet when it rains, the ground isnt wet, therefore it hasn't rained.No HRTF coming out of the speakers therefore no height cues.

 

This is rather bizarre IMO. To reduce this to the extreme it would be like saying, height perception is realized only in the brain, the recording cannot record the brain functions or neurological cues, so therefore there can be no height perception conveyed.

 

As others have put to you but you don't respond, the physical cues necessary to excite spatial location are in the recording be they phase,volume ,frequency or whatever.It is these cues reproduced by the speakers that the end listener responds to. It is these cues that the end listener wraps around his head and 'samples' and modulating with HRTF, in more or less similar way that they would have wrapped around the head at the live event, just obviously not 100% concordant with that event.

I think you are being obtuse here. When it comes to height, starting with how human beings perceive height, explain how that information is encoded in a stereo recording. 

Find a reference to the ability to locate sounds accurately using this method. 

The point is that we can only locate the height of sound sources using info not in a two channel stereo recording. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, adamdea said:

The point is that we can only locate the height of sound sources using info not in a two channel stereo recording. 

 

That is a theory yes, the height of sound sources cannot be conveyed using info in a two channel stereo recording because there is no HRTF cues. So, there is also a theory that unless you can record neurological impulses arriving at the brain then we cant convey height perception. I submit that both theories are equally silly for the same reasons, they are just nonsense defying common sense and evidence.

 

[beerandmusic]

50 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That is a theory yes, the height of sound sources cannot be conveyed using info in a two channel stereo recording because there is no HRTF cues. So, there is also a theory that unless you can record neurological impulses arriving at the brain then we cant convey height perception. I submit that both theories are equally silly for the same reasons, they are just nonsense defying common sense and evidence.

 

 

I agree that height cannot be accurately captured in stereo...I am however curious how our two ears are able to capture height in the live?

It can't be about frequency because you can have a high frequency at your feet and a low frequency above your head...

 

 

nvm- i just googled hrtf

[STC]

52 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That is a theory yes, the height of sound sources cannot be conveyed using info in a two channel stereo recording because there is no HRTF cues. So, there is also a theory that unless you can record neurological impulses arriving at the brain then we cant convey height perception. I submit that both theories are equally silly for the same reasons, they are just nonsense defying common sense and evidence.

 

 

What HRTF cues are actually related to localization of sound above your head?  

 

Even a man with with one ear could localize sound from above.  The detection is by pinna and frequencies above 4000hz give cues for sound associated from above. 

 

Could microphone capture that? Can binaural microphone record that? Can loudspeakers without the aid of another pair on top of the loudspeakers reproduce that?

 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That is a theory yes, the height of sound sources cannot be conveyed using info in a two channel stereo recording because there is no HRTF cues. So, there is also a theory that unless you can record neurological impulses arriving at the brain then we cant convey height perception. I submit both theories equally silly.

There are theories and theories 

Given that this is a well understood area it would make more sense to ask what the basis could be for the theory that you can encode height information in a purely stereo recording. AFAIK such a theory does not match what is known about how we perceive height information nor does it match what reason tells us about the nature of the information in the stereo recording.

  

How do we perceive height using auditory information? What is the cone of confusion? Why is it called the cone of confusion? How does our perceptual system resolve the cone of confusion.? You seem to be ignoring all of this? ITDs and ILDs don't help do they?.

 

You can encode height using a 3d vector (which is how the sound reached the point before your head got in the way). or you can encode it using the information which actually reached each ear encoded with the relevant hrtf spectral cues which enable the cone of confusion to be resolved.  

When sound reaches a mic (without a dummy head) it has not been encoded with those spectral cues. That is ok if it is a soundfield mic recording the 3d vector. If it is only recording sound pressure and time then it does not have any height information . ITD and ILD don't record that and the vague depth information you get from comparing direct and indirect sound doesn't distinguish direction. It is easy to see that the difference between direct and indirect sound can vaguely be encoded. But how is the method we use to localise height information encoded in a system which produces the same result for a sound slightly higher as it does for a sound slightly lower? This is a matter of logic and I can't see how you can duck it. If you can answer it then you have a theory.

 

Then you can show some evidence to support it

 

It is possible that some spectral anomalies (such as those referred to by JJ in the powerpoint slide arsing from comb filtering) can mimic height cues such that some people will perceive them as giving rise to height. There may be other mechanisms

 

The fact that some people perceive height sometimes does not mean that height can be encoded. Critically there is nothing to support the idea that that sense is in any way consistent or reliable or that it comes from anything actually picked up by the mic as a result of the height of the object.

 

I really can;t see why you seem to take the fact that some people sometimes perceive some height  as strong evidence of actual localisation. The fact that stereo does not encode height is afaik well understood, theoretically predictable and not as far as I know contradicted by any evidence.  Can you show me a comparable study to those on depth perception showing the ability to localise height information (compared with a measurable control). 

 

I fell that I am getting answers from the audiophile. I am trying to have a conversation with the neuroscientist. It seems to me that reasoning from the fact that we can reasonably reliably detect left-right localisation in stereo does not help here. Neither does reasoning from the fact that we can very vaguely perceive depth sometimes. I do not claim to be an expert. I do however value learning from a real expert.

 

I started out on hifi forums as a punter basing my information on what I was told by salesmen and mags. My awkward little mind stated to realise that a lot of that did not make much sense so I started trying to learn. I had the privilege of being able to meet on forums and discuss matters with some real experts and very intelligent people (some of whom are members of this forum). After a while, including the purchase of a lot of the major texts I acquired a reasonable working knowledge  (for an educated layman)  of digital electronics and basic information theory. 

 

It then became apparent that once you get to a certain point you have to consider what you can and can;t hear and how you hear it in order to assess what engineering can, can't should shouldn't do. I therefore took the same approach to perceptual science. I am always looking out for a real expert to learn from. So go ahead. Please help me to understand what neuroscience tell us about the ability to encode and decode height information in stereo recordings (with particular reference to what is known about our ability to perceive height and ideally with references to experimental verification). I am not beerandmusic- I really mean it.

 

Don't feel the need to dumb it down. I am quite happy to spend as long as it takes to understand what you have to say, and if necessary cross-refer to texts. As I say, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to learn from an expert.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As others have put to you but you don't respond, the physical cues necessary to excite spatial location are in the recording be they phase,volume ,frequency or whatever.It is these cues reproduced by the speakers that the end listener responds to. It is these cues that the end listener wraps around his head and 'samples' and modulating with HRTF, in more or less similar way that they would have wrapped around the head at the live event, just obviously not 100% concordant with that event.

If a sound arrives at a listener from up high, it is modified by the HRTF in one way before entering the ears. If the same sound is recorded and played back by speakers at ear level, it will be modified by the HRTF in a different way. Hence, the perceived height will not be the same.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

If a sound arrives at a listener from up high, it is modified by the HRTF in one way before entering the ears. If the same sound is recorded and played back by speakers at ear level, it will be modified by the HRTF in a different way. Hence, the perceived height will not be the same.

 

That's why i said it was not 100% concordant and imperfect, even ambiguous if you like. However your "perceived height will not be the same" is not the same as your original position there cannot be height perception cues at all.Clearly HRTF cues cannot be in the recording but that doesn't mean there are no other precursor cues that can be reproduced and subject to the end listeners modulation by HRTF. This is what you seem to consistently dodge. It has also been pointed out that people do not need pinnae to perceive height ie it is not pre-requiste to height perception in all circumstances.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 

What HRTF cues are actually related to localization of sound above your head?  Even a man with with one ear could localize sound from above.  

 

Even a man with no pinnae (ears) can localize sound from above

[STC]

45 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Even a man with no pinnae (ears) can localize sound from above

 

Reference please.  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Reference please.  

 

Esldude provided it earlier in this thread in response to my observation.

[mansr]

59 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Even a man with no pinnae (ears) can localize sound from above

Does he still have a head?

[STC]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Esldude provided it earlier in this thread in response to my observation.

 

I am not sure where to find. Could you summarize them if you remember.

 

I am confused where is thread heading to. Is it whether height can be captured by microphones? Or is it the captured height could be heard with loudspeakers?

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I am not sure where to find. Could you summarize them if you remember.

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

I am confused where is thread heading to. Is it whether height can be captured by microphones? Or is it the captured height could be heard with loudspeakers?

 

Mans asserted it was impossible to capture height cues in a recording based on conditional logic. He has since modified this to "perceived height will not be the same" .

 

[gmgraves]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

You can't ?? ... if the instruments are recorded separately, as in my post of the jazz trio - and different levels, settings of reverb are added to the individual tracks, then the result is a layering of the depth positions - I hear this behaviour in nearly all pop recordings; it's clearly defined to my ears.
 

No. You can't. And even if you could, who would want to do do so? To what end?

 

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

If the cues are extemely obvious then, yes, the lowest order playback will make the presentation very clear. But if the cues are more subtle, then only better playback will reveal that detail - the cues in the recordings are not on/off switches for our hearing, either present or completely absent - again, everything in audio is a continuum; there are always shades of grey.

 

If the recording is real stereo then the cues are extremely obvious. If the recording is some mishmash of multi-miking techniques, then, who cares? I don't record that way, so I certainly don't care. 

 

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

No, on a good system you will hear the performers overlaid upon each other, in the correct lateral position - with each 'operating' in the space as recorded - there will be a combined sound, and also the sound of each instrument echoing in the space as set up. In the hearing, you will be listening to the mix, and then soloing a particular player - exactly as if you had the controls of the desk under your hands.

 

I have a good system and I hear only overproduced, artificial sound, and I don't like it.

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

The imaging is a function of everything you can hear; the amount of "on-stage" presentation will be a function of where and how it was recorded.

I will agree that on-stage imaging only exists to the extent that the engineers and producers making the recording want it to exist. In pop recording, that's not at all, in most classical recording, it's not a big deal. There are purist recorders to whom it matters, and occasionally, just occasionally, one gets a recording that has been carefully crafted to give you-are-there imaging, but not often. It makes me wonder why the world went to the trouble to develop stereophonic sound in the first place. Very few people ever record it or listen to it, and fewer still, appreciate it. The vast majority of recordings that come out every year, are two or three channel mono. What was wrong with real mono? Neither one gets the listener any closer to the performance than the other.  Were I in a cynical mood, I might say that stereo was invented merely to sell the average audiophile two of everything, and while that might be part of the story, a lot of dedicated music lovers and engineers at both Bell Labs and the BBC in England, in the 1930s, believed that stereophonic sound could bring something of the concert hall to the listener's living room and that doesn't seem cynical to me at all. 

 

Look I'm tired of arguing this minutia back and forth and trying to explain to people who have never recorded in their lives what is and what is not possible to do with stereo. I don't even understand why people are arguing with me. Everything I have said is well known to anyone who has ever made a real stereo recording using tried-and-true stereophonic miking techniques and those who don't know about it can read-up on it. Studio pop recordings are different. I don't do those (but I have worked in studios that made them) and I don't care about the artificial processes and the work-arounds that studios use to avoid making honest, real, stereo recordings.