Concert Hall sound

[fas42]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

Of course I was. Unlike Frank's equipment, my components are subject to the laws of physics.

 

Yes, the laws of physics are ruthless -- every time. So what I find rather perplexing is that it seems so difficult for many audiophiles to accept that the quality they hear will be highly dependent on the worst link in their playback chain - the rules of physics dictate that the strength of chain can only be as strong as that weakest item.

 

Where I 'win' is that I focus on locating those poor links - the fact that they are very mundane, zero bling areas, may upset many enthusiasts, but that's unfortunately at the heart of why so much "hifi" sounds so awful, far too often.

[GeneZ]

On the other hand....

 

While watching certain videos I discovered that some have points that sound like something fell or was dropped behind me in my room, about twelve feet behind.  When it first happened it was a bit eerie because I was the only one there.   It was repeatable. Also while watching a concert I plainly heard what I thought were footsteps coming from above me from the people upstairs.  Scary part was?  I could play that part again and it will sound like someone is doing something upstairs.  

 

If what ever was being done to make the audio, could be harnessed?   It could lead to a new experience in listening enjoyment.

[fas42]

Just heard this track as background on TV this morning - I have it as a bog standard, cheap release of the original mastering. This can sound everywhere from AM radio fodder, to a huge, immersive sound vista expanding as far as the senses want to reach - which makes it Yet Another great evaluation tool ...

 

 

 

[STC]

Sensible sound advice. https://usabilitygeek.com/improve-sound-understanding-room-acoustics/

[STC]

5 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

I don't consider speakers. It's only tool to form wave rays. Number of speakers depend on speaker kind and room configuration and materials.

 

Anechoic room, like in the video by @semente makes task significantly easier. Main problem here, that each speaker radiate infinite number of rays in all directions. We can't capture and reproduce each ray. We can capture and radiate group of rays.

 

It is like monitor resolution.  If the sperical microphone will have infinite number of sub-microphones and speaker sphere will have infinite number of sub-speakers, we solve the sound hologram task almost ideal way.

Almost because radiated rays will re-bounced from speakers and listener. So speakers and listener should be unechoic. The spere in this case will closed/solid.

 

To solve the sound hologram creation task, we should not pay attention to channel number. I think, the task will solved other way on other physical bases.

 

 

 

 

 

The rays is one of bases to traditional wave theory of physics. It is universal for different wave kinds: electromagnetic, acoustical. I think, that wave theory get new development further, after new discoveries.

 

For sound capturing and reproduction we can consider acoustical oscillation spreading as the traditional rays.

 

Wave length define wave phase spread along the rays. Lesser frequency = longer length of oscillation period along ray.

 

Unfortunatelly I can't recommend good (easy for understanding) sources by wave theory, because I learn it so long time ago. Keywords "wave theory physics", may be "wave spreading".

 

Now I'm don't know how to implement acoustic hologram accuratelly. Even with professional manufacturing equipment.

 

It is subject of serious invention.

 

Closest task here is optical hologram. I'd recommend to learn it too.

 

I only asked have you listened to Amused to Death?  Whatever explanation you have written can be used with this CD and see if it holds true. 

[GeneZ]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

Sensible sound advice. https://usabilitygeek.com/improve-sound-understanding-room-acoustics/

 

One point mentioned on that page seen here is essential:  

Suggestion 2: Move those Speakers a Bit

I’m always amazed at how little people will do their own adjusting of speakers to achieve a better sound. Most simply set them up and never again touch them. Sound varies greatly with speaker positioning.

 

I discovered that exacting speaker placement is essential for creating the illusion stereo was invented for. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

The extraordinary power of DSP Room EQ - Audyssey then, Dirac Live now - was built into my HT prepro, another absolutely indispensable discovery of huge significance.

 

Somehow, room EQ never worked well for me. It was useful for my HT. 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I have heard many audiophiles extol some miraculous experience from upgrading their audio, but never completely credibly.  But, it did not take 30 seconds to realize I was hearing by far the greatest sonic improvement I have ever heard in my life, and by a huge margin.  I was so excited and almost speechless for days. All of a sudden, that missing element, an incredibly good replica of that ever elusive concert hall realism was there for me to enjoy.

 

My life changed dramatically as a result.  ...

 

Very amusing ... I could have written those very lines, word for word - about what happened to me now over 30 years ago.

 

The fly in the ointment, as far as the present conversation is concerned, is that this was with boring ol' stereo - what people find so difficult to, yes, grok is that one's subconscious, mental capacity is extremely capable of decoding what the sound field is meant to represent - but refuses to be deluded if any audible clues pinpointing that it's 'fake'  are too strong ...

[STC]

2 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

The only way you will experience the sensation of actually being in a concert hall will be to recreate the effects of a concert hall in your room.  

 

Its not about surround sound.  Its about having speakers behind you that will play the same music heard up front with its high frequencies abated, and having the sound reaching your ears at adjustable set delayed time from what you hear in front of you.  

 

Suddenly .. when done well... you will feel engulfed in what feels like one feels in a concert hall, or in a good sounding club room.  Two speakers in front can not produce that sensation.  At best, two speakers can only tell you that you are missing out on the concert hall effect.

 

Audio Pulse review.....   http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_12-1976_time-delay.html

 Where were you the last 12 page of the roller coaster ride? Thank you for the link. This is what I am doing. Technically, this is also the same as with some ambiance speakers rear speakers of 5.1 recordings. 

 

I am am not sure how well this would have worked. I don’t think it was possible with analogue. Anyway, with DAW and actual concert hall’s impulse response such box has become obsolete. 

 

Once again, thank you very much for the link. I didn’t know they have discovered this so long ago. 

[STC]

43 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Just heard this track as background on TV this morning - I have it as a bog standard, cheap release of the original mastering. This can sound everywhere from AM radio fodder, to a huge, immersive sound vista expanding as far as the senses want to reach - which makes it Yet Another great evaluation tool ...

 

 

 

 

I noticed that all your recordings and reference of videos are of typical studio or closed mike recordings. I think now I understand that our POV could be very different as our exposure are very different. 

[gmgraves]

58 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the laws of physics are ruthless -- every time. So what I find rather perplexing is that it seems so difficult for many audiophiles to accept that the quality they hear will be highly dependent on the worst link in their playback chain - the rules of physics dictate that the strength of chain can only be as strong as that weakest item.

 

Where I 'win' is that I focus on locating those poor links - the fact that they are very mundane, zero bling areas, may upset many enthusiasts, but that's unfortunately at the heart of why so much "hifi" sounds so awful, far too often.

Frank, why do you insist on posting with the assumption that everybody else's stereo system sounds inferior to yours? You keep posting over and over and over again, hundreds of posts and in every thread, that only by following your secret and arcane methodology can any audiophile reach your level of audio nirvana. Everybody knows that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, And I'm sure that everybody also knows which links in their systems (if any) are weak and that all they have to do, when budget and time permits, is replace them with stronger links. You can step down from this particular soap box now.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I noticed that all your recordings and reference of videos are of typical studio or closed mike recordings. I think now I understand that our POV could be very different as our exposure are very different. 

 

I only present the type of clips that I do because I've found them extremely telling of the status of a rig - something classical with the normal big acoustic is quite straightforward to get to present well. When I'm working with optimising a setup I never use classical works to unearth deeper problems - these are already throwing up a nice ambience. Typically, you start the track, and "walk into the space" before a single musical note sounds ...

[GeneZ]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 Where were you the last 12 page of the roller coaster ride? Thank you for the link. This is what I am doing. Technically, this is also the same as with some ambiance speakers rear speakers of 5.1 recordings. 

 

I am am not sure how well this would have worked. I don’t think it was possible with analogue. Anyway, with DAW and actual concert hall’s impulse response such box has become obsolete. 

 

Once again, thank you very much for the link. I didn’t know they have discovered this so long ago. 

 

It worked in a way that made you realize the limits of stereo alone.  The amazing part was when it was demonstrated to me the entire room was filled with waves of sound as experienced in a large hall.  We were able to hold a conversation with one another while it sounded like it was at concert level. 

 

Then it happened.  The person who set up the demo shut down the rear ambiance speakers.  The sound shrunk to a small spot in front of us.  The speakers used for up front?   Little Davids. The rear speakers should be the bigger ones with plenty of solid bass and a not needing a lot of high end.  Concert hall walls do not reflect the higher frequencies.

 

. 

 

It sounded like a concert!   I would guess that companies pushing huge speakers do not like this being made known.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 And I'm sure that everybody also knows which links in their systems (if any) are weak and that all they have to do, when budget and time permits, is replace them with stronger links. You can step down from this particular soap box now.

 

They don't. Every exposure to other people's systems yells from the rooftops that they don't have a handle on what is going on - I can put on one of my more telling recordings, and quite often it sounds like a gawdawful mess; normally, they just fail to reveal what's on the track ... talk about veils ... . And the stare of disdain from the demonstrator, signalling that I've contaminated his listening area, staining it with this terrible recording ...

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

They don't. Every exposure to other people's systems yells from the rooftops that they don't have a handle on what is going on - I can put on one of my more telling recordings, and quite often it sounds like a gawdawful mess; normally, they just fail to reveal what's on the track ... talk about veils ... . And the stare of disdain from the demonstrator, signalling that I've contaminated his listening area, staining it with this terrible recording ...

I've never come across an audiophile who didn't know what the weak link in their system was (if any). I have, OTOH, heard systems belonging to non-audiophiles who didn't know that their amp or their cartridge or their CD player was sub par, but then, they didn't care either. They thought their "hi-fi" sounded just fine.

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

Concert hall walls do not reflect the higher frequencies.

 

Depends on how hard those surfaces are. The reality, generally, is not that the high-frequencies don't get reflected, but rather due to the inverse square law, they don't make it in sufficient quantity to the back of the hall to be reflected, and depending how far you are sitting from the reflected surface, any reflected high-frequency content might not make back to your ears. 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

It worked in a way that made you realize the limits of stereo alone.  The amazing part was when it was demonstrated to me the entire room was filled with waves of sound as experienced in a large hall.  We were able to hold a conversation with one another while it sounded like it was at concert level. 

 

Then it happened.  The person who set up the demo shut down the rear ambiance speakers.  The sound shrunk to a small spot in front of us.  The speakers used for up front?   Little Davids. The rear speakers should be the bigger ones with plenty of solid bass and a not needing a lot of high end.  Concert hall walls do not reflect the higher frequencies.

 

. 

 

It sounded like a concert!   I would guess that companies pushing huge speakers do not like this being made known.

 

You have heard it. That’s why you can know the difference. Would be saying the same thing if you never got a chance to listen to such setup?

 

You only heard from two channels of ambience. Now imagine hearing a 70 odd channels ambiance. With two channels at rear, you have to push the level high enough to feel the envelopment but with more channels, you can play each angles speakers at much lesser volume but the overall effect is more profound than a mere two channels rear ambience sound. I have repeatedly demoed this with 5.1. In fact, the rear surround of 5.1 of my setup is much lower than the recommended setup level because I have the additional ambience speakers doing the same thing. 

 

 

[GeneZ]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Depends on how hard those surfaces are. The reality, generally, is not that the high-frequencies don't get reflected, but rather due to the inverse square law, they don't make it in sufficient quantity to the back of the hall to be reflected, and depending how far you are sitting from the reflected surface, any reflected high-frequency content might not make back to your ears. 

  A "well designed"  concert hall will not sound like Godzilla just hit a 50 foot triangle.     Hard reflective walls are not desirable for music hall reflections.  Otherwise, it will sound like a concert is being given in a YMCA pool room.   

 

The better concert halls that are well made will make the sound relaxing and serene....

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I've never come across an audiophile who didn't know what the weak link in their system was (if any). I have, OTOH, heard systems belonging to non-audiophiles who didn't know that their amp or their cartridge or their CD player was sub par, but then, they didn't care either. They thought their "hi-fi" sounded just fine.

 

They are not aware of the factors that I worry about - I ask, what have you done to make certain that power mains noise is not an issue - and they wave their hands around, and say they have done so and so - with the conviction that having done some standard procedure that such was good enough - never actually thoroughly investigating it any further. And the issues inside their equipment - they "can't do anything about it", or it's done in a "I used this tweak, because so and so reckoned it was the bees knees!" - they can't hear whether there was an improvement, merely that the sound changed.

[GeneZ]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You have heard it. That’s why you can know the difference. Would be saying the same thing if you never got a chance to listen to such setup?

 

You only heard from two channels of ambience. Now imagine hearing a 70 odd channels ambiance. With two channels at rear, you have to push the level high enough to feel the envelopment but with more channels, you can play each angles speakers at much lesser volume but the overall effect is more profound than a mere two channels rear ambience sound. I have repeatedly demoed this with 5.1. In fact, the rear surround of 5.1 of my setup is much lower than the recommended setup level because I have the additional ambience speakers doing the same thing. 

 

 

 If the rear channels play delayed sound of what comes from up front?  Then you can achieve the concert hall effect.  But when you have a plane flying overhead from front to back?  That is not a concert hall.

 

If I never heard such a thing?  I could not do well to imagine it.  It can make you feel you are in a real concert hall.  But, I also heard it abused, and then it can sound artificial.

[fas42]

Adding rear sound actively is another method of pushing our hearing systems over the hurdle of accepting an illusion - the trouble with this is that every recording is different, and what works for one won't for others. The advantage of using the high integrity of the direct sound method is that it works for each and every recording, no matter how it was engineered.

[GeneZ]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

They are not aware of the factors that I worry about - I ask, what have you done to make certain that power mains noise is not an issue - and they wave their hands around, and say they have done so and so - with the conviction that having done some standard procedure that such was good enough - never actually thoroughly investigating it any further. And the issues inside their equipment - they "can't do anything about it", or it's done in a "I used this tweak, because so and so reckoned it was the bees knees!" - they can't hear whether there was an improvement, merely that the sound changed.

 

If you don't list your system components it leaves us without an ability to get a handle of why and what you are hearing with.  I can hear even slight differences because the speakers I listen with are the most revealing, cohesive speakers I ever heard.   Yet,  I am sure there are others, too.  But why change?

 

Also, keep in mind .  I listen sitting very close to them. 

 

So, I can relate to what you are telling others.

[STC]

29 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

  A "well designed"  concert hall will not sound like Godzilla just hit a 50 foot triangle.     Hard reflective walls are not desirable for music hall reflections.  Otherwise, it will sound like a concert is being given in a YMCA pool room.   

 

The better concert halls that are well made will make the sound relaxing and serene....

 

Certain things cannot be explained by words. Concert hall reverberation is always heard with the direct sound. In nature, I can’t think of a way to reproduce the reverberation alone in nature except with the use of convolution engine. 

 

There is no perfect concert hall. Ideal concert hall with long reverbs suffers from much delayed first reflection that will kill drum attacks of rock music. That’s why rock music never will sound perfect in a concert hall. 

 

And concert hall reverberation too have different frequency response. Some will be bright and some too wet. Some listener will like the bright hall and some the more wet sounding ones. 

 

It it is now possible to recreate a perfect concert halls impulse response by artificially editing the frequency response and other aspect of the IR.  In the end, we want a concert hall and the seat that sounds best to our ears irrespective  of what’s the review says. 

[fas42]

Just now, GeneZ said:

 

If you don't list your system components it leaves us without an ability to get a handle of why and what you are hearing with.  I can hear even slight differences because the speakers I listen with are the most revealing, cohesive speakers I ever heard.   Yet,  I am sure there are others, too.  But why change?

 

Also, keep in mind .  I listen sitting very close to them. 

 

So, I can relate to what you are telling others.

 

I've got a history on forums - it's not what you have, it's how you use it! The actual components are irrelevant; it's whether enough of the weaknesses in how the system was put togther, and the subtle flaws inside nearly all components have been addressed or not - each situation is different; one works steadily to erradicate every issue - and prime sound then pops out, as an automatic result.

[STC]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Adding rear sound actively is another method of pushing our hearing systems over the hurdle of accepting an illusion - the trouble with this is that every recording is different, and what works for one won't for others, The advantage of using the high integrity of the direct sound method is that it works for each and every recording, no matter how it was engineered.

 It is a trouble too to Sir George when he saw two speakers in the monitoring room. He never heard a stereo sound before that. He said something like “ why would they want to do that?”  It was in one of videos of co worker during Beetles recordings era and the transition from mono to stereo. 

 

You have not heard it so give your opinion but also be open minded. As you know, I don’t overly criticize your method but I know whatever things you say about tweaking the stereo that will produce something magical cannot be true as I have the privilege to listen to hundreds of well designed equipment. I know the limits of the magical tweak.  It doesn’t mean I have closed my mind about your magic; I still trying to figure out what are you really listening and what triggers your sense of realism. One thing I can guess from you many posts your are listening more to the indirect sound rather than what’s coming out from the main speakers. Correct me if I am wrong.