Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

My emphasis added ... and in fact the "should" turns into a "does" - when a playback system is sufficiently competent. This is when the "magic" switches on - as far as the brain is concerned, it's now, "natural listening".

 

Does or should only applicable to binaural loudspeakers audio and stereo is NOT a binaural sound reproduction. Maybe, you should read the para 2 first before reading the conclusion. 

 

The obvious and unavoidable flaw is, and I quote “It is clear that the auditory system is unable to separately identify the two sources, and assigns a best guess location to the auditory event in the presence of conflict- ing cues.”  The shortfall of stereo was discussed there. This simply falls under how the sound physically reaches our ears. The best stereo system cannot change the law of physics. The flaws mentioned there cannot be rectified by a competent system.

 

The thesis doesn't support your magic. 

 

[STC]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

And something else found, "3-D Audio Using Loudspeakers", a thesis from 1997: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/29134/38271570-MIT.pdf?sequence=2

 

A quick glance through, this is full of "old school" thinking, on what is required ... but, at the end, in the discussion section, this caught my eye:

 

 

My emphasis added ... and in fact the "should" turns into a "does" - when a playback system is sufficiently competent. This is when the "magic" switches on - as far as the brain is concerned, it's now, "natural listening".

 

Natural listening is not stereo. This thesis was about attempt to reproduce 3D sound with loudspeakers. The closest what this thesis was describing is BACCH of Princeton University, that is, with head tracking. 

 

What you quoted ( produced below) was a reference to binaural reproduction with loudspeakers with XTC and head tracking. Unless, your magic have both of them incorporated then it is still stereo that largely dependant on intensity difference for the creation of the phantom image that is limited between the two speakers. 

 

They are not the same. The thesis is about binaural sound with loudspeakers. Your magic is about stereo sound. They are not the same. 

 

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Err, I read that as a simple confirmation of what I'm stating. The prior section of that paragraph reads,

 

 

Those two sources are the two speakers, and here the author is describing the classic "phantom image" behaviour.

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

What I would call "natural listening" is when one's hearing reacts to auditory stimuli in the same way as it does to live sounds - which is what the part I quoted was referring to, as I read it.

 

 

The term "natural listening" is defined clearly in your reference.  You are taking another definition used in the thesis and giving a different meaning.  Natural listening is listening with our ears with all the HRTF intact. 

 

Quote

 

By contrast, nearly all audio playback is immediately identifiable as such; it doesn't "fool you" - it always sounds 'unnatural'; it may sound impressive, may do some things brilliantly - but if the sound was coming from behind a curtain, and you insisted that the source was a live performance, all the others listening would look at you as if you had a screw loose - "it's obviously a hifi, for pete's sake!".

2

 

The thesis explained why you could always tell why something is not natural when listened to stereo. The brain is confused all the time in fixing the correct localization cue.

 

I am confining to the frontal stage sound only. Formats, such as 5.1, are not really natural sound despite the ability to render surround from 360 degrees. 

 

Quote

 

The "magic" is in getting a setup to create that illusion - and if it does it correctly, then the illusion remains no matter where you are, say, in the house.

 

That's true. The thesis was addressing the errors caused by stereo (among others) and how to solve them.  An error that is so great in stereo that the natural time difference cue is discarded for localization.  Stereo causes a different location to the brain which renders it to be unnatural, and you could always tell that is not real.

 

Please read the full thesis or at least part where it talks about the flaws in stereo which makes it impossible to reproduce 3D sound with stereophonic.

[STC]

On 11/18/2018 at 12:22 PM, fas42 said:

IOW, a tracking system, akin to the Symth Realiser headphone setup - so that the ears receive the 'right' information as one moves around, to perceive spacious sound - if one accepts that crosstalk cancellation is necessary for this type of 3D effect.

 

You are not alone with this misconception as I find that even those with acoutics field  background and 3D research confused with object based surround and plain binaural hearing. 

 

Symth is headphones sound that feel like listening to multispeakers setup. You do not feel the inside the head and fixed stage with headphone listening with Smyth. 

 

Surround sound and 3D sound are not the same but surround can bring a reasoable realism conpared to plain stereo. 

[STC]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Having just been made aware of the "precedence effect", I found this update of Blauert's work, "The precedence effect", by Litovsky et al: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45002474/The_precedence_effect20160422-32310-1o1mj6c.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1542601798&Signature=IxpbFiW1JUtxyWM994qv2RJOaa4%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DThe_precedence_effect.pdf.

 

I particularly note in the conclusion:

 

 

IOW, to be continued ...

 

This paper was an attempt to distinguish other effect to explain the precedence effect better. Bluaert referred to this paper but nowhere the conclusion aboit the research about discovering an unknown. 

[STC]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

shtf posted a video of his rig in another thread,

 

I don't wish to participate there, so I'll make the one comment that although the dynamics of the recordings are well done, the tonal signature of the rig is still far too prominent; each song, from completely different eras, has a sameness to the presentation - which should not be the case.

 

Sorry about that, shtf ...

 

You can post but just stick to the thread and OP.  

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How big of you !.

That is up to Blackmorec as the OP to decide, NOT you !!!

 You are not able to remove, or request the removal of  dissenting views in this thread like you do in your own heavily censored thread .

 

That was your original message which you censored yourself. 

 

I was referring to my post in my thread which was mentioned here. 

[STC]

@Albrecht , are you the same Robert Albrecht in the Youtube?  

[STC]

Wonder how the higher resolution would fair?

But the apparently the Youtube sound was pristine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[STC]

Just telling you that the YouTube sound was not a live. Obviously, you can’t even tell the difference. But maybe also the laptop sound can only reproduce lofi better than hifi   . 
 

 

[STC]

It has been demonstrated many times that you cannot distinguish them when the sound is produced with all the cues in compliance with natural sound. It doesn’t mean they will sound identical but the difference can be so small that under blindfolded you won’t able to tell. 
 

Even animals can be fooled with recordings. 

[STC]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

 

While no audio system can actually pass the "live music test", people have been "fooled" into believing that a system sounded the same, usually in marketing demonstrations. Why Live-versus-Recorded Listening Tests Don't Work

That is so true. In one of Acoustic Revive demonstration, the sound suppose to create a hole in the middle “ something like splitting the sea” from the biblical narrative. There were people who couldn’t hear them but just refused to state in the presence of others.  
 

 

Btw, Sean’s paper is rather dated as there are scientific studies of the same experience. One of the AS member here did attend the first live vs recording demo in the 50s. So it is not all about marketing. While difference existed ( in 1950s technology) but it would be noticeable without a reference unless you have trained ears. 
 

(IIRC, only 10 or 15% of those attended the demo filled in the questioners. )

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

We do agree on that, Frank. If I go to a live musical event and see sound reinforcement speakers in the venue, I walk out before the music even starts. If I paid for tickets, I loudly and strongly ask for my money back. I do not go to live events to listen to a sound system. I tell the management, in the strongest terms possible, that if I wanted to listen to loudspeakers, I would have stayed at home - where my loudspeakers are much, much better than theirs could ever be! I’m there to hear live instruments played in a real space, which is the ultimate reality.

Unless someone says it is going to be live unamplified sound I don’t see misrepresentation. Anyway, I am there for music and don’t care how they produce them as long as it brings out the best musical experience. 
 

https://www.dbaudio.com/global/en/applications/concert-halls/neutral-sound-reinforcement-preserves-unique-concert-hall-character/

[STC]

And one more here. 
 

https://www.svconline.com/the-wire/music-center-chooses-meyer-sound-leopard-walt-disney-concert-hall-404127

[STC]

He added that even such luminaries as cellist Yo-Yo Ma and violinist and conductor Itzhak Perlman, at first reluctant to have their performances played through the PA, came to agree that a light touch of amplification allows every audience member to experience a performance intimately, offering completely natural sound with the utmost clarity and definition.
 

 

[STC]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Are you not capable of recognising the sound of a family member or friend's voice that you haven't spoken to for some time, despite having spoken to perhaps a few thousand other males and females in that time ?

Recognizing a sound Or a voice is different and cannot be equated to SQ.  You can recognize Queen Elizabeth voice but it doesn’t mean they still sound the same. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[STC]

 If it is real then it can be replicated. 

[STC]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Exactly. Which is what I do with every setup that I start "sorting" ... I'm working towards getting full transparency, which I means I hear zero character from the playback chain, and recordings I've heard for decades end up sounding just like they did, the last time I heard them at their best.

Nope you believe you saw the unicorn and it will appear again. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Okay then, who has heard "magic sound" ... and why do you think it occurred?

It is emotional connection. All of of them happened under unique circumstances. One of that happened when I was camping next to the waterfall. After about 40 years, I went to the same place and tried to recreate the emotional connection. I ended up asking myself how did I even hear the music clearly over the sound of the falling waters. After 40 years the volume of water reduced more than 50 percent. 
 

The other occasion was as 15 year old kid, accompanying my cousin to save a giant tree. I was waken by the radio playing a song which I have heard many times but it was a memorable sound. It was like 3 in the morning, deep in the jungle and on a rescue mission. ( Unfortunately, before we could reach the tree, it was already timbered). I tried playing the same in high end and with players like the radio. Never got the magic sound. 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm talking about the replay of a recording from an audio system. Nothing else. As an example, the quite famous top end Living Voice rig is well regarded in this respect - doesn't always cut the mustard, but definitely can hit a peak of subjective "goodness", at times.

You asked a question and I answered. Unless what you asked and what was in your mind not the same. 
 

BTW, I remember you saying that Sharp created the magic moment. Wait...I will dig out the post. 

[STC]

Fas42 about Sharp speakers. 
 

1)enough - I intend to get my cheap, Sharp speakers running again, and will record some clips hopefully demonstrating that quality.

 

2) AJ would despair about the current speakers, they're from a Sharp midfi boombox - but so far they've delivered. The drivers can take lots of power, vastly better than those on the Philips - they won't have any trouble deafening me, or giving a mic a hard time. The cabinets are too flimsy, so I will have to stiffen the panels at some stage.

 

3) Plenty of chains used: current is old NAD CD player and integrated amp, and Sharp speakers. 

 

4) Latest toys are NAD CDP and amp, Sharp speakers - not yet competent, but usable.

 

5) Note, yet again, current rig has NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp speakers;

 

6) Case in point is the current rig being tweaked. Electronics are decent, older NAD units; speakers are Sharp boombox items, from the classic 3 equal sized boxes that are available everywhere. So far, the NAD units are the biggest bottleneck, the speakers have barely started to breath in terms of what they're capable of .

 

7) 

There have been a number, over several decades. Parts of the stories of them are spread over a number of audio forums, going back some years now. The story of the current one is listed in a series of posts titled A More Ambitious Upgrade - Part 1 to 18, to be found in the blog linked to in my signature. To summarise, it uses second hand NAD CDP and integrated, and new Sharp speakers; especially note that it has never reached the goal SQ, because I haven't been motivated enough lately to finish the exercise of optimising.

 

A marker for the end goal SQ is that the drivers of the speakers become completely 'invisible' as the source of the sound, even with one's ear only inches away, directly in front of a particular driver; the current system has got close on occasion, but never actually succeeded. So far.

 

8.) The current Sharp boombox speakers show how easy it is these days for big manufacturers to get raw components of decent quality to do the job at low cost. Even from immediate turn on in the morning, a heavy duty solo piano recording comes across very well - as contrasting with the poor standard often heard from audiophile setups.

 

9) George just had a gentle dig at me for using Sharp speakers , but it allows me to again mention that when one achieves convincing sound from a setup, and investigates - that it turns everything on its head. Speakers become the least important part of the rig, and everything before them becomes super critical. ( NOW SPEAKERS NOT IMPORTANT). 
 

10). I was very active some time ago now tweaking a NAD plus Sharp speakers. The source was a NAD CDP - three items, all hardwired together.
 

11) And now have this combo of NAD CDP, amp and Sharp speakers producing a satisfying standard - as it was before I shut it down some time ago .

 

12) Same as before . Old NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp boombox speakers (THAT WAS IN 2019. When did the B&W speakers come into his system?)

 

13). This is via cheap Sharp boombox speakers, through the only partially optimised NAD rig - strangely, it sounds somewhat like the source
 

14)My version of the laughably cheap component is the use of speakers on the bottom rungs - currently, simple Sharp boombox speakers, with drivers that have no trouble handling lots of power, give me all the feedback I need for working on the setup.

 

Just covered 50% of the posts. 

[STC]

oh dear....this was what fas42 said. So looks like neither Philips nor Sharp produced the magic. 

 

“Adele's recordings, say 21, can be 'tamed' ... but it requires a rig operating at the highest levels of competence - the previous main rig system, a Philips HT combo, struggled with this one - the leftover, audible misdemeanours of the hardware were triggered very easily by the mastering of this recording, and it was always on the sharp edge of becoming unpleasant. By contrast, the current NAD rig is quite at ease with 21, it comes over well.“

[STC]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm probably going to regret asking but what is your definition of "magic sound"?

Looks like the Philips nor the Sharp ever produced the magical sound. Then somewhere in between he gave the impression that the laptop speakers was capable of it. 

[STC]

@fas42 Are you Littlematt?

 

 

[STC]

Solved!!!

 

The magic did not happen with Philip HT or Sharp. It stopped there. Is this a case of someone missing a better system. Wonder why you are not persuading the with the same equipment?

——————————

ST, it doesn't help when you get the story completely mucked up - JBC means nothing to me ... the rig 35 years ago was a Yamaha CDP, Perreaux power amp, B&W bookshelfs ... current rig is NAD CDP,  NAD integrated, Sharp speakers ... okay?