Blue or red pill?

[STC]

37 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

We are in this predicament because initially the inventor himself wrongly called it binaural. It is understandable for the confusion since stereo is non existent prior to the invention . 

 

 

[fas42]

15 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I just have never heard or believe any system can ever be engineered that will convincingly sound like live...

 

And it's easy to understand why you would think that - very few people achieve it, because it requires everything to be in place; just plugging together a set of components, no matter how "brilliant" they are, is almost guaranteed to not be good enough. I got there by accident - if I had happened to not have been as enthusastic and focused as I was at the time, and the combo wasn't intrinsically good enough to deliver, I would believe as you do, also.

 

Th main consideration is not that the components are superbly engineered, but that the system has no significant weaknesses - the latter cause audible anomalies, all the little telltale signs that immediately flag the sound as being 'fake' - your mind has zero chance of being convinced, . The only solution, at the moment, is to diligently work through the issues, and 'fix' them all - convincing sound then pops out, automatically.

 

The mind is quite happy to be fooled, but it requires a certain standard of quality to accept the illusion; something which is completely out of one's conscious control - I know precisely how a recording should sound, but if I do something which I believe is enough to get me there; but it isn't the answer - then, no cigar. IOW, expectation bias does not help one iota; at least for me, the SQ has to be right - anything less won't be convincing.

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

They could have gone easier on the reverb. Then again, with such bland music, I suppose they had to do something.

 

It is a good album for testing purposes ,as lesser systems highlight the sibilance on her voice, possibly due to hard limiting with the voice track?

[STC]

41 minutes ago, mansr said:

They could have gone easier on the reverb. Then again, with such bland music, I suppose they had to do something.

 

I thought the reverb is just the right amount. Anyway, I use this album to ‘show off’ the second singer who sings along Norah that not often audible clearly and distinctively in other setups.  

[fas42]

11 hours ago, adamdea said:

Now in this respect a purist stereo recording is good. The chances of making something of the information mess are improved from a bad multi mic affair because the very limited spatial information should at least be consistent. But what is recorded and what comes back to the listener is only vaguely like what their ears would have received if they were sittign at the same spot as the mic (and this is assuming a perfect stereo playback system and room).

 

That is the starting point for trying to work out what we experience when listening to the stereo recording and how that may or may not map to the real recorded space.

 

 

The conventional understanding of why "good stereo" works is only part of the story - the other aspect is that the internal digesting of the sound information can throw up a powerfully impressive version of the "real recorded space"(s) - so long as there are not too many contradictions in the sound information!

 

The fact that real world systems nearly always add too much distortion is never mentioned in these theoretical expalantions for "how it works" - An Inconvenient Truth ... but unfortunately, at the heart of the matter ...

[sandyk]

22 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

 I have yet to hear these recordings via my main system due to family considerations, but going by what I am currently hearing via headphones, I would be most surprised if some of these tracks didn't sound exactly as you have described.

 It's a shame that there isn't more mainstream material like this available from Chesky.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

I too know of no native Latin speakers who can confirm the original meaning of the word "stereophonic". Why should they? It's GREEK, not Latin.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Are you aware that the so called stereo microphones are nothing more than but a pair of mono microphones placed in different configurations?  

 

I quoted Come away with me because it won best engineering Grammy award and thought it maybe an album of interest in recording field. 

 

 

You're joking, right? Everybody knows that. Even people who don't even know what a microphone is, knows that when someone says "Stereo Mike" they are referring to either a single mike with two capsules arranged in a stereo configuration, or two separate mikes mounted as a stereo pair.  I can't believe that anyone would ask such an asinine question. I only have about 10 stereo pairs or single point stereo mikes.

 

I really don't have any use for studio produced pop music. Therefore, I wouldn't know  "Come Away With Me" or some performer named Norah Jones. Sorry.

[esldude]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 I have yet to hear these recordings via my main system due to family considerations, but going by what I am currently hearing via headphones, I would be most surprised if some of these tracks didn't sound exactly as you have described.

 It's a shame that there isn't more mainstream material like this available from Chesky.

I've mentioned elsewhere I don't seem to hear binaural like others.  I actually am not happy Chesky went pure binaural.  These are still nice recordings over headphones.  They are actually better over speakers to my listening of them.  I think they aren't quite up to par with earlier work in some ways.  They remind me of the sound when I record using a Jecklin disk.  Almost a hole in the middle and too much far right and far left.  The soundstage seems to get ghostly in the middle third.  

[STC]

45 minutes ago, esldude said:

I've mentioned elsewhere I don't seem to hear binaural like others.  I actually am not happy Chesky went pure binaural.  These are still nice recordings over headphones.  They are actually better over speakers to my listening of them.  I think they aren't quite up to par with earlier work in some ways.  They remind me of the sound when I record using a Jecklin disk.  Almost a hole in the middle and too much far right and far left.  The soundstage seems to get ghostly in the middle third.  

 

What’s your speakers spread? 

[STC]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You're joking, right? Everybody knows that. Even people who don't even know what a microphone is, knows that when someone says "Stereo Mike" they are referring to either a single mike with two capsules arranged in a stereo configuration, or two separate mikes mounted as a stereo pair.  I can't believe that anyone would ask such an asinine question. I only have about 10 stereo pairs or single point stereo mikes.

 

I really don't have any use for studio produced pop music. Therefore, I wouldn't know  "Come Away With Me" or some performer named Norah Jones. Sorry.

 

I thought you were pulling my leg with your definition of stereo.

 

Guess, we have to agree to disagree again.  

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

What’s your speakers spread? 

My video system is about 45 degrees each direction.  My stereo with Soundlabs is about 45 degrees total. I hear similar softness in the middle third either way.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've mentioned elsewhere I don't seem to hear binaural like others.  I actually am not happy Chesky went pure binaural.  These are still nice recordings over headphones.  They are actually better over speakers to my listening of them.  I think they aren't quite up to par with earlier work in some ways.  They remind me of the sound when I record using a Jecklin disk.  Almost a hole in the middle and too much far right and far left.  The soundstage seems to get ghostly in the middle third.  

Dennis

 I have previously found that you are able to hear similar things to me in other areas.

Are you sure that this isn't due to the quite marked HF roll- off of your headphones as posted in the graphs previously ?

 

Alex

P.S.

 Did you see the photos and info about the Sony 100KHZ tweeters that we discussed previously, that I posted several hours ago ?

[esldude]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

Dennis

 I have previously found that you are able to hear similar things to me in other areas.

Are you sure that this isn't due to the quite marked HF roll- off of your headphones as posted in the graphs previously ?

 

Alex

It's possible though I hear the same effect on some DT880s. The effect is more pronounced on some AKG 240s a friend has. The AKGs have always seemed to emphasize far left and right on recordings to me.  

[STC]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

My video system is about 45 degrees each direction.  My stereo with Soundlabs is about 45 degrees total. I hear similar softness in the middle third either way.

 

So one is 90 degrees and the other at 45 degrees? 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

It's possible though I hear the same effect on some DT880s. The effect is more pronounced on some AKG 240s a friend has. The AKGs have always seemed to emphasize far left and right on recordings to me.  

 Dennis

 I just edited my previous reply to you

Alex

[esldude]

Just now, STC said:

 

So one is 90 degrees and the other at 45 degrees? 

Yes sorry about the ambiguity in my post.

[STC]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes sorry about the ambiguity in my post.

 

Perhaps, you should try with the standard 60 degrees angle. 

 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/interview-david-chesky

 

They are using Choueiri’s filter and not RACE. 

[esldude]

48 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Dennis

 I just edited my previous reply to you

Alex

Yes I've not disputed the tweeters from Sony.  Only that tweeters damaged by SACD was ever a thing.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes I've not disputed the tweeters from Sony.  Only that tweeters damaged by SACD was ever a thing.

 Dennis

 My memory was shown to be very good at a fairly recent medical check up. (30 out of 30).

 However, it may not have been the Sony SACD players that had this reported problem.

As you have stated, some other players use quite different filtering, and have quite different measured  bandwidths.

 

Alex

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Perhaps, you should try with the standard 60 degrees angle. 

 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/interview-david-chesky

 

They are using Choueiri’s filter and not RACE. 

Maybe.

 

I tried some iems.  Far right and left just outside my head. However a line right thru the middle for everything else.  Still the outer edges seem emphasized.

[adamdea]

12 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That part is right. But the rest of your post is over-thinking the process. The simple result is that at somewhere between the musician(s) playing on the stage, and the back of the auditorium (or other venue), a pair of stereo microphones intercepts the sound field being projected by the musician(s). Both of the two microphones see the entire sound field (in a stereophonic recording) but they see it from a different perspective. This difference contains three different parameters which mark the difference between the two channels: intensity differences (between the two mikes), time arrival differences, and phase differences. For instance, both mikes pick up the same trumpet on the left side of the stage, but the nearest mike "hears" it first, "hears" it slightly louder, and "hears" it slightly out of phase from how the right microphone "hears" it. If you think about it, that's how humans (and much of the animal kingdom) localizes sounds as well. When one plays that recording back, on speakers, the speakers maintains and projects that same relationship. Those three sound characteristics wash over our heads and ears, and the three characteristics reconstruct that sound field that the microphones intercepted, and we respond to it by being able to localize the component parts of that sound field from those cues within our own brains.  

 

I hope you won’t mind my saying in turn that your views are plainly down to under-thinking and over-investment.

“If you think about it”... the “perspective” of your mikes is not how humans localise sound (beyond ITDs and ILDs). 

Only by that thinking can we look at how far the stereo process resembles real perception. 

Unfortunately you have trapped yourself in a conceptual straight jacket that by definition stereo captures everything.

 

It’s a shame. You don’t need this self-imposed imprisonment. Stereo is quite good and for most systems it’s all we have. Perhaps, all else being equal purist stereo recordings are probably more reliable than manufactured  ones. Obviously this is not an ineluctable conclusion (once you let go of the argument from word-play). But many non-purist recordings are very good. 

 

[adamdea]

11 hours 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.

It might be worth considering that   analytic truths tell us nothing about the world. 

That is why centuries of scholastic philosophy did not bring any scientific progress. 

Stereophonic sound is fundamentally different from stereoscopic vision. This point is obscured by etymology. 

[semente]

On 23/02/2018 at 7:41 AM, beerandmusic said:

I just have never heard or believe any system can ever be engineered that will convincingly sound like live...

 

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

And it's easy to understand why you would think that - very few people achieve it, because it requires everything to be in place

 

And everything includes one's imagination, audiophilia's most underrated component. 

[adamdea]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

 

Height is sensed by comb filtering effects of the pinna primarily causing comb filtering between 6 khz and 11 khz.  

 

My supposition was that some microphone techniques have a vertical displacement of a distance that would create comb filtering in the combined sound wave in that frequency range.  So that might explain why some recordings could have some sense of height upon playback though likely not being accurate in terms of height and reality of the recorded instruments. 

 

I confirmed by quick and dirty experiment that vertical displacement can cause that comb filtering to result.  However those recordings though having a combing type response did not create any height when I listened to them.  Creating simple delays or FR EQ to create that kind of response also failed to create any perception of height upon playback.  

 

Upon considering the experiment where volunteers wore molds that altered the shape of their pinna I reconsidered.  These people still had pinna and would have had comb filtering in the right range, but the subtle changes were enough to destroy their ability to accurately hear height and some other directionality.  It took several weeks of adaptation before their acuity with the new pinna shape returned to normal.  

 

My conclusion from the experiment is that the combing patterns are not simple with real ear shapes.  Very slightly altering them destroys height perception.  There probably are multiple spectral points involved instead of a simple mostly single predominant filter.  So such a single simple filter point created by microphone displacement vertically is likely too simple by far to ever accidentally create height cues for the listener of recordings.  Therefore I deem it unlikely any stereo recordings have genuine substantial height cues created in the listener's brain due to the sound wave.  

 

That doesn't mean such a result of creating height for two channel playback isn't possible.  Q-Sound managed it though I don't know the algorithm they used.  So in principle it is possible.  In practice that resulting from minimal miking techniques is unlikely.  

 

So summarizing, stereo is capable of decent left to right accuracy for the listener.  Cues like loudness, reverb and FR changes allow some sense of depth though depth isn't accurately portrayed.  Nor does stereo contain the information to extract actual accurate depth upon playback.  Stereo likely will not create perception of height.  

Ok I think I follow. I’m not sure whether it helps to call the way we detect elevation comb filtering. I prefer to think of it as head (and pinna) filtering. 

Either way actual comb filtering from a stereo mix or stereo speakers isn’t going to match it accurately although it might resemble it.