Jump to content
Blake

EarSpace!!!!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, esldude said:

There is a significant channel imbalance after you've done this.  Any idea how that happened?  The left channel is about 5 db louder than the right. 

 

Looks like SB applied convolution to only one (left) channel. Explains the extra noticeable reverb. Turns out I need to select both channels to apply the effect, otherwise it's applied only to the left channel, even if nothing is selected. Strange.

 

Here's an updated file, hopefully with a better level match between channels. Sounds better to me, almost exactly like your version. Please test it out. Still remains to be seen why HQP doesn't sound the same with convolution.

 

MP3 convolved with F12 IR in Adobe SB v2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, esldude said:

My method was simple.  Put the microphone at the LP.  Play a sweep in REW.  Have the resultant calculated IR from that sweep exported as a wav file.  

 

Didn't seem strange to me the IR would differ as location of the sound source was different.  Location of the listening position was different.  The sound source was a different speaker in these two cases.  After those differences would you expect a near identical IR to result?

 

Exactly what I did to get my IR files. I took multiple sweeps from each speaker -- they were very close to identical for the same speaker, but different between speakers.

 

I also have a separate set of sweeps I captured at the listening position from the speakers using in-ear microphones. It'll be interesting to see if that creates a different IR that sounds different. Theoretically this IR will capture not just the way the speakers sound in my room, but how they sound inside my ears and separated by my personal interaural time delay ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 3:18 PM, esldude said:

Having listened some more these seem to have too long a reverberation time.  Sound too much like sound coming from a tunnel or something like that.  

 

So not sure where to go next.  The aim (at least in my mind) was to see if using convolved IR allowed one to hear someone else's room.  So far it isn't successful.  Which doesn't mean give it up, but I'll have to think about it.  Seems something is being missed listening to the results.  

 

I don’t hear any echoes. In fact , I increased the delay to 150ms and used 2.2s RT. At the end of the video when I paused you could still hear the reverbs trail. Having said that, my brain could be ignoring the obvious echoes. Do you hear echoes here. 

 

BTW, the orginal file was 77 MB but compressed to 4.4MB for this post. Recorded with mobile phone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I don’t hear any echoes. In fact , I increased the delay to 150ms and used 2.2s RT. At the end of the video when I paused you could still hear the reverbs trail. Having said that, my brain could be ignoring the obvious echoes. Do you hear echoes here. 

 

BTW, the orginal file was 77 MB but compressed to 4.4MB for this post. Recorded with mobile phone. 

 

 

Don't hear any echoes on this one 


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at this point, if you get an IR in stereo, it appears you can more or less replicate recording with  pair of mics at the listening position.  Which means you can transfer an IR and someone can play whatever music they wish to hear.  But microphone recordings at the LP played back make heard some of the room reflections not heard the same way if you were really there.  The reproduced reflections become single point sources the direct sound comes from that our hearing won't deal with the same way.  

 

So for capturing remote sound spaces to use as reverb processing with a mixture of wet (reverberated) and dry (direct) sound this works very well.  For letting us hear what someone's speakers and room would sound like if we were there, not so much. An adjustment of wet vs dry levels and a delay on the wet can get closer, but then it is very touchy, every recorded IR would need to treated differently and it becomes mostly a mess for the purpose we had in mind here. 

 

@STC or @pkane2001 do you think I have this right or have I mangled some of it. 


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, esldude said:

So at this point, if you get an IR in stereo, it appears you can more or less replicate recording with  pair of mics at the listening position.  Which means you can transfer an IR and someone can play whatever music they wish to hear.  But microphone recordings at the LP played back make heard some of the room reflections not heard the same way if you were really there.  The reproduced reflections become single point sources the direct sound comes from that our hearing won't deal with the same way.  

 

So for capturing remote sound spaces to use as reverb processing with a mixture of wet (reverberated) and dry (direct) sound this works very well.  For letting us hear what someone's speakers and room would sound like if we were there, not so much. An adjustment of wet vs dry levels and a delay on the wet can get closer, but then it is very touchy, every recorded IR would need to treated differently and it becomes mostly a mess for the purpose we had in mind here. 

 

@STC or @pkane2001 do you think I have this right or have I mangled some of it. 

 

There is two way to use convolution. One is to sweeten the recording which is done at mastering stage. The other one is to recreate the space. Formats such as 5.1 SACDs rear channels usually contains the reflection from 110 degrees. That is enough to create the ambience. 

 

With your method , you are not creating your room’s space but mixing the original sound with your rooms reverb. The same that mixing engineers do with dry recording. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, esldude said:

So at this point, if you get an IR in stereo, it appears you can more or less replicate recording with  pair of mics at the listening position.  Which means you can transfer an IR and someone can play whatever music they wish to hear.  But microphone recordings at the LP played back make heard some of the room reflections not heard the same way if you were really there.  The reproduced reflections become single point sources the direct sound comes from that our hearing won't deal with the same way.  

 

So for capturing remote sound spaces to use as reverb processing with a mixture of wet (reverberated) and dry (direct) sound this works very well.  For letting us hear what someone's speakers and room would sound like if we were there, not so much. An adjustment of wet vs dry levels and a delay on the wet can get closer, but then it is very touchy, every recorded IR would need to treated differently and it becomes mostly a mess for the purpose we had in mind here. 

 

@STC or @pkane2001 do you think I have this right or have I mangled some of it. 

 

Yes, agree. It does point to some questions as to what is missing in the IR that provides a better sense of space.

 

Maybe it’s a problem with headphones not reproducing some components of the sound or maybe our IR capture process  isn’t perfect. Or maybe there is something IR simply can’t capture (like sound direction).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jana posted two more installments:

 

 

 


Home: UltraRendu + LPS 1.2 | Berkeley Alpha USB | Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 | Jeff Rowland Coherence II Series 2 | Blue Circle Audio BC-202 | Raidho XT-1 | 2 x Revel Performa3 B112 subwoofers  

 

Desktop: Iso Regen + LPS 1 | Eitr | Chord Qutest  | Aesthetix Calypso pre | Blue Circle Audio BC-28 amp | Scansonic MK-5 monitors | Elac S10 sub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting ... the horns setup is doing most things right, but as usual complexity with significant treble content shows the shortcomings - but excellent potential, as is.

 

The Harbeth setup is awful, the vocals are unlistenable to; lasted a minute watching this.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...