Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[STC]

32 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Ignoring the fact that you say yourself that you can't explain all, I say that you are in the right direction now.  So please continue.

 

Yesterday when I announced to stop typing, my post started out with this :

 

-----

 

Yes, antennas receive from any direction. But it is not important (and not detrimental).

Keep in mind it is about TWO antennas. OK ?

And it is not about a time difference between the two. Indirectly maybe.

 

Just thinking 2D.

We have the two antennas. Let's observe the middle between them. 2 meters longitudinal to them, springing from the middle there's a frequency radiating source.

What will be the phase angle at each of the both antennas ?

Answer : we don't know because the frequency was not given.

But is the angle the same ?

 

No the angle is not the same. Think about this. Only if the antennas were at the same position, the angle would be the same. But now it is not. They are 10cm apart.

Do we know where the radiating object is ?

Well, looking at the almost equal phase angles *and* knowing its distance (that assumed for now), we can tell that it is at these 2m dead ahead, but it can also be at about 45 degree angle still at 2m distance, assumed the frequency is dividable on to 200cm. It can be at 90 degrees as well. It can be 135 degrees (which is 45 degrees behind), 180 degrees (dead behind) and 225 degrees or 270, etc. Distance is always 2m - this was a given for now.

 

Apart from that it can be at 8 locations (only in the 2D plane) and which we can calculate because each of these locations has a relative phase angle to the both antennas ... (meaning : the relationship in radials remains the same) we can of course do this for any minute angle. We can do it for the complete circle. Still, for each relation (which is one pair of (thus 2) numbers, it can be at 8 positions. This is not unique(ly identifying) ...

-----

 

And there I stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 2000Hz frequency wavelength is about 17.171cm. Let's say your pinnae and the OTRF is also spaced exactly 17.171cm. A source from 171.71cm to the left and right receivers will be exactly at the centre. Since this is 10 wavelengths of 2000Hz frequency the phase will be the same for left and right receiver (pinna or microphone).

 

Now if there is another source at about 0 degrees towards the left of the right receiver at a distance of 137.368cm, the distance to the left receiver is 120.197cm. 120.197cm is 7 times the wavelength of a 2000Hz frequency and 137.368cm is 8 times of the wavelength. The phase is exactly the same reaching at both receivers yet we localize both at two different locations. The only difference between the two is the amplitude of the phase reaching the ears (receivers) which is the level; and timing. That is the time taken to reach each ear. I can explain localization with these two but phase is not providing the answer.

 

So how do you explain this with phase difference?

[Summit]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It isn't stereo because you want it to (well, also because you're not Trump).

 

We are discussing why real (2-channel) stereo only positions images of sources between speakers. Any other "stereo" is off-topic (and not real stereo).

 

You are not an authority on what real stereo is and how it is recorded. Show me where real stereo is limed to mean only captured by 2 mics.

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

To be clear, I don't use any of this, never mind I referred to the sugar cubes (also from him).

Over at 6Moons here in Holland they have a room full with them (they extensively reviewed them).

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

To be clear, I don't use any of this, never mind I referred to the sugar cubes (also from him).

Over at 6Moons here in Holland they have a room full with them (they extensively reviewed them).

 

They're referred to as the 6Loons for a reason...

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

6Loons

 

non comprendo

[semente]

5 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

You are not an authority on what real stereo is and how it is recorded. Show me where real stereo is limed to mean only captured by 2 mics.

 

I agree, I am not an authority on what real stereo is nor on anything else.

 

Still, a stereo mix is not real stereo (and it's not too difficult to understand why). @gmgraves may have a link to a more authoritative paper.

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

non comprendo

 

 

[STC]

There are a few companies still dedicated with true stereo. Chesky,  clarity recordings (now defunct). I am not sure about WaterLily Acoustics and Linn, 2L sounds real stereo to me and so too Blue Coast labels.  Btw, looks like Clarity is back http://swineshead.com/subsidiary/clarity.htm. 

[semente]

12 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

You are not an authority on what real stereo is and how it is recorded. Show me where real stereo is limed to mean only captured by 2 mics.

 

I remembered writing about this before:

 

True Stereo consists in making a sonic (or visual) snapshot of a soundscape using two mics (or lenses) slightly offset from one another then reproducing the recorded signal in a way that will produce, in the brain, the illusion of spatial depth, sound-source relief and the ambience of the venue.

 

  – stereoscopy

 

 

When you use more mics than channels (multi-track) then you're no longer performing a documental register or snapshot but something more akin to a collage or a composite image. Ambience mics will provide the scenic soundscape and spots mics for each section and soloist instruments will provide a closer-than-natural/real perspective of each of them which is then superimposed to the spatial information.
This is what Channel Classics, Pentatone or RR are doing in their orchestral music recordings.

 

  – collage

 

 

(...)

 

 

To my understanding and experience, true Stereo will provide the most realistic representation of the acoustics and the most solid imaging of the original event (...).

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/46517-concert-hall-sound/?page=23&tab=comments#comment-860366

 

[STC]

11 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I remembered writing about this before:

 

True Stereo consists in making a sonic (or visual) snapshot of a soundscape using two mics (or lenses) slightly offset from one another then reproducing the recorded signal in a way that will produce, in the brain, the illusion of spatial depth, sound-source relief and the ambience of the venue.

 

  – stereoscopy

 

 

When you use more mics than channels (multi-track) then you're no longer performing a documental register or snapshot but something more akin to a collage or a composite image. Ambience mics will provide the scenic soundscape and spots mics for each section and soloist instruments will provide a closer-than-natural/real perspective of each of them which is then superimposed to the spatial information.
This is what Channel Classics, Pentatone or RR are doing in their orchestral music recordings.

 

  – collage

 

 

(...)

 

 

To my understanding and experience, true Stereo will provide the most realistic representation of the acoustics and the most solid imaging of the original event (...).

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/46517-concert-hall-sound/?page=23&tab=comments#comment-860366

 

 

It is a fallacy to believe that stereo recordings consist all the ambience cues. It will never be the case. Ambience must come from all direction and to do that you need speakers around you. 

[PeterSt]

I am going to be funny now, although it's not intended to be like that.

 

38 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

They sparkle energy ar various places and you can kind of feel that this just emerges in mid air because of the interaction from frequencies (better : waves). The sparkle here is literal. Think firecrackers. So not figurative at all. It really sounds dangerous.

 

 

13 minutes ago, semente said:

  – stereoscopy

 

 

It occurs to me that what really happens with the stereo photo and locking in to it (hey, can you do it or what ?!?), that the actual difference could be about brilliance. The depth is there already in each of the photo's (once you have seen the 3D image of it) but brilliance is the thing which is added.

Would that be very different from the fire cracker thing ? I now wonder.

[semente]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

It is a fallacy to believe that stereo recordings consist all the ambience cues. It will never be the case. Ambience must come from all direction and to do that you need speakers around you. 

 

Yes, just like a photograph that captures only what is in front of you.

[semente]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I am going to be funny now, although it's not intended to be like that.

 

 

 

 

It occurs to me that what really happens with the stereo photo and locking in to it (hey, can you do it or what ?!?), that the actual difference could be about brilliance. The depth is there already in each of the photo's (once you have seen the 3D image of it) but brilliance is the thing which is added.

Would that be very different from the fire cracker thing ? I now wonder.

 

If one's eyes were not distanced (monocular) then your perception of depth and volume/3d-ness would be reduced.

 

 

In biology, binocular vision is a type of vision in which an animal having two eyes is able to perceive a single three-dimensional image of its surroundings. Neurological researcher Manfred Fahle has stated six specific advantages of having two eyes rather than just one:^[1]

1. It gives a creature a spare eye in case one is damaged.
2. It gives a wider field of view. For example, humans have a maximum horizontal field of view of approximately 190 degrees with two eyes, approximately 120 degrees of which makes up the binocular field of view (seen by both eyes) flanked by two uniocular fields (seen by only one eye) of approximately 40 degrees.^[2]
3. It can give stereopsis in which binocular disparity (or parallax) provided by the two eyes' different positions on the head gives precise depth perception. This also allows a creature to break the camouflage of another creature.
4. It allows the angles of the eyes' lines of sight, relative to each other (vergence), and those lines relative to a particular object (gaze angle) to be determined from the images in the two eyes.^[3] These properties are necessary for the third advantage.
5. It allows a creature to see more of, or all of, an object behind an obstacle. This advantage was pointed out by Leonardo da Vinci, who noted that a vertical column closer to the eyes than an object at which a creature is looking might block some of the object from the left eye but that part of the object might be visible to the right eye.
6. It gives binocular summation in which the ability to detect faint objects is enhanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

[fas42]

Note in that visual collage that you have zero problems looking at a particular tiny section of the whole, and noting precisely what is there - you can describe with great precision the fine details of what makes up that tiny part; it has full integrity as a visual construction element. The fact that the whole is a complete mess, as a composition, has nothing to do with your ability to 'analyse' every specific area.

 

And the same occurs with a stereo audio mix, no matter how complex - you can 'look' at each sound element, and understand it. And, usually , it's not designed to be a mess - meaning the whole is also enjoyable ...

[PeterSt]

 

21 minutes ago, semente said:

In biology, binocular vision is a type of vision in which an animal having two eyes is able to perceive a single three-dimensional image of its surroundings.

 

Very nice sum-up.

Is it not time now that you answer my question : Isn't vision with 2 eyes working the same as with hearing with two ears ?

 

Somehow people seem to have difficulty with the "we need one more transmitter than the number of dimensions we try to observe". While this theoretically is true and well accepted, I thus say that for our auditory system this is not necessary.

For vision I obviously say the same. One advantage, we can all see it and easily agree over it.

 

So ?

[STC]

34 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Yes, just like a photograph that captures only what is in front of you.

 

Excellent example. I should have thought of this before. 

 

A mono is is something like 2D photograph and stereo is something like a 3D image. Stereo can somewhat project small stage pretty accurate it cannot project what’s outside the frame. 

 

Our ears perceive sound all around us unlike our eyes which can only perceive what’s within the our field of view. In stereo recording, only the frontal stage is captured because it cannot be produced from other location except from the front with the two speakers. In 5.1 recording the rear and lateral soundfield is captured and produce around 110 degrees which is the most sensitive are that can give a sense of spaciousness. 

[PeterSt]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

And the same occurs with a stereo audio mix, no matter how complex - you can 'look' at each sound element, and understand it. And, usually , it's not designed to be a mess - meaning the whole is also enjoyable ...

 

Hmm. No. To me this seems too much of (your) theory. I think it is mighty difficult for most (also for me, a bit depending on the circumstances)  to hear into each element without any mix etc. Take a large orchestra and give it a go. Of course while knowing in advance it can be done (like in the live venue focus on the cello section with Brahms at full play (making up something because it is not my field at all)). And coincidentally this time a "but my footers etc. etc. etc. can do this" is not going to help.

 

Coincidentally I can make it the same subject (of this thread) because this is all related to separation of sounds and elements and this is not there "as is". That "separation" as such is a phenomenon in audio is clear (who does not about this) but in the end it is again the phase relation ship thing. And just saying : I don't think that any form of separation exists with mono reproduction.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

A mono is is something like 2D photograph and stereo is something like a 3D image.

 

Huh ? Are you now trying to be delusional ?

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

Our ears perceive sound all around us unlike our eyes which can only perceive what’s within the our field of view. In stereo recording, only the frontal stage is captured because it cannot be produced from other location except from the front with the two speakers.

 

I read it 20 times. It does not make sense to me.

[STC]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

I read it 20 times. It does not make sense to me.

 Even if you read 200 times you will not understand. 

[fas42]

Curious about Peter's sparkle, or brilliance ... this is likely what I call intensity - an everyday(?!) item which is capable of this is a Tibetan singing bowl - which we have a example of, . Well 'played', this sends a ringing through your skull which takes over your entire acoustic universe - the type of intense sensation which is usually impossible for an audio rig to get anywhere close to emulating.

 

We have a couple of CDs of this sort of thing - good testing material, .

[PeterSt]

 

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Even if you read 200 times you will not understand. 

 

You seem to be in a nasty mood today. 

You claim a lot and undertake zero to explain.

 

Found the cuckoo already ? or is the question bothering you perhaps.

 

Is the whole ambio clan like this ? it sure starts to look like it.

[PeterSt]

On 10/18/2018 at 10:18 AM, STC said:

Unless, there is phase manipulation it is impossible to hear stereo sound going outside the speakers outer boundary.

 

Yes, you are right.

 

End of sparring mode because nobody is sparring in here. Only claims.

[semente]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Note in that visual collage that you have zero problems looking at a particular tiny section of the whole, and noting precisely what is there - you can describe with great precision the fine details of what makes up that tiny part; it has full integrity as a visual construction element. The fact that the whole is a complete mess, as a composition, has nothing to do with your ability to 'analyse' every specific area.

 

And the same occurs with a stereo audio mix, no matter how complex - you can 'look' at each sound element, and understand it. And, usually , it's not designed to be a mess - meaning the whole is also enjoyable ...

 

Of course it can be enjoyable; and in the case of poprock there's often no other way because most music only exists after it's been mixed.

 

But for classical real 2-channel stereo produces an acoustic perspective that's closer to what you'd listen live.

 

EMI once described "High fidelity" in a paper called "The Pursuit of High Fidelity" as "the creation, in the listener's normal surroundings, of the ILLUSION of the actual performance as it would have been heard under the most favourable conditions."

 

A stereo-mix collage is an unrealistic or impressionist representation of the musical event, whilst a 2-channel documental approach will sound more like the real thing.

 

 

Mario's recordings are a good example. He wrote a bit about it here:

 

 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes, you are right.

 

End of sparring mode because nobody is sparring in here. Only claims.

 

You the making all sort claims. Rao even suggested that you wrote a thesis on your claims. You seemed not interested in providing direct answers or making valid criticisms. If this is about me not getting back to you about your XXhiend. Sorry for that.