Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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.

 

With many recordings it's easier. In live venues the acoustics can confuse the sound - it becomes a wall of sound energy that one swims in, the echos are too confusing. But in recordings the separation is often clearcut, because of individual mic'ing of the sound elements - you literally can focus on what each mic is picking up, as a separate event in front of one.

 

If the recording is made in the "ideal fashion" that people talk about here, with just the stereo capture, then the rendered soundscape will correlate strongly with how people would hear it live. More 'artificially' recorded, then the individual parts will be more clearly distinct - which may be a good thing or not, depending upon what one wants to be aware of. The Phantom of the Opera recording is clearly assembled, but it comes across so well that I can't imagine too many being upset by this, .

 

With true mono there is always depth layering, from reflections. I find that the mind still does an admirable job of picking out the various parts - a good example are the classic swing orchestra recordings of the 30's; high quality rendering allows the sections of the band, and solos to be well demarked, and the sense of hearing particular players is very strong.

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

If this is about me not getting back to you about your XXhiend.

 

WHAT ?

You now pose it so that I am being nasty to you. Well, yes, that started right now. But I did not start it this game.

 

7 minutes ago, STC said:

Rao even suggested that you wrote a thesis on your claims.

 

What about reading better. He wrote that HE better do that first because he agreed with me.

 

You are being ridiculous now. And you have a very nasty mood. Go take a break.

 

And read instead of finding answers too long.

[PeterSt]

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

it is impossible to hear stereo sound going outside the speakers outer boundary. Thoughts? 

 

No.

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

This is important but...

 

The violin like all real sound is in mono as there is no stereo sound in nature. This mono sound goes into our ears. ONLY ONE signal to each ear. 

 

With speakers, ideally it should be only ONE signal for each side but we also hear the opposite speaker. So each ear now receives TWO signals for what supposed to be only two signals from a single source. 

Yes, that could get quite confusing and would be a pain the neck for our stereo systems, except for one thing. Human hearing operates using the Precedence Effect or Law of First Waveform. Essentially any complex sound arriving within 40ms of the initial waveform is fused with the original waveform additively (volume increases) and the original sound source preserved. 

It why playing music is a small, very reflective/diffusive room can sound really good and highly immersive.   Interestingly this only happens with complex waveforms like speech and music. 

 

Its worth bearing in mind that we don’t always ‘hear’ what our ears ‘hear’. What we ‘hear’ is what our brain has processed using the nerve impulses from our 2 ears.  This is incredibly complex and extremely rapid processing that makes sense of what are in essence pressure waves and nerve impulses.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No.

The question to you is. 

 

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?

[semente]

36 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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.

 

Almost. Stereo is like a pair of 2D photographs framing the same view and taken from a slighly different position.

 

36 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. 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. 

 

 

Indeed. Spaciousness or perhaps envelopment/immersion.

[semente]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

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 ?

 

I keep saying this all the time. Visual differences / shortcomings are easier to perceive than audible ones (which is why subjectivity reigns).

 

I use this example whenever I am discussing the importance of a flat frequency response:

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Yes, that could get quite confusing and would be a pain the neck for our stereo systems, except for one thing. Human hearing operates using the Precedence Effect or Law of First Waveform. Essentially any complex sound arriving within 40ms of the initial waveform is fused with the original waveform additively (volume increases) and the original sound source preserved. 

It why playing music is a small, very reflective/diffusive room can sound really good and highly immersive.   Interestingly this only happens with complex waveforms like speech and music. 

 

Its worth bearing in mind that we don’t always ‘hear’ what our ears ‘hear’. What we ‘hear’ is what our brain has processed using the nerve impulses from our 2 ears.  This is incredibly complex and extremely rapid processing that makes sense of what are in essence pressure waves and nerve impulses.

 

I play regularly with precedent effect and the 40ms is frequency and duration dependent. However there is a image shift with reflection. I think Ralf posted the diagram in this thread. 

 

I think Toole also explained this. Will look it up again and get back to you. 

 

Thanks for bringing up precedent effect as this an interesting area for this OP. 

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

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.

 

 

I like impressionism paintings ... which is just saying that I can enjoy it both ways, .

 

Provided that those elements in the sound which are 'natural' still sound like the real thing, then I will find the result pleasing - no matter how it may be manipulated otherwise. So, if the vocals are not deliberately distorted they should be convincing; if put through an effects unit for artistic purposes then they should strike one as being "something else" - I have a pop recording that is so distinctive in this change in character that I use it for testing.

[semente]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

With true mono there is always depth layering, from reflections.

 

With a single speaker playing a mono track?

 

[semente]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I like impressionism paintings ... which is just saying that I can enjoy it both ways, .

 

Provided that those elements in the sound which are 'natural' still sound like the real thing, then I will find the result pleasing - no matter how it may be manipulated otherwise. So, if the vocals are not deliberately distorted they should be convincing; if put through an effects unit for artistic purposes then they should strike one as being "something else" - I have a pop recording that is so distinctive in this change in character that I use it for testing.

 

The thing is whether or not you value a classical music recording which seeks to recreate what the listener would have experienced if he were sitting in the audience in a concert hall or venue.

 

When Recording Technology Distorts Musical Meaning | The Absolute Sound

 

"Employing a German-made Stagetec Aurus digital mixing console, the production team settled on a total of sixty-six microphones, a formidable mixture of Neumann and Sennheiser digital mics and some Neumann analog devices."

[Blackmorec]

So, that’s enough pure stereo bla-bla for me. Let’s listen to what our stereo systems and ears can really do when we start manipulating those signals. 

• Play sounds outside the triangle defined by our head and 2 speakers?  You betcha
• Project a soundstage bigger than your listening room?  Very likely unless you listen in a ballroom
• Make completely synthetic sound seem real and natural and beautiful?  Absolutely
• Sound completely immersive - Totally
• Produce enormous rhythmical drive and propulsion - ‘Chair Dancing’
• Express why sonic presentation can be a critical element of the music 

Certainly not everyone’s cup of tea but if you want to demonstrate what 2 channel stereo is really capable of.....

 

Shpongle - Tales of the inexpressible 

 

If this sounds anything less than awesome from a 2 channel stereo perspective you need to read Frank’s posts more carefully 

[Blackmorec]

3 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Duplicated 

 

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Shpongle - Tales of the inexpressible 

 

And all of their other albums and tracks. Ahead of times (back then).

And so much more.

[PeterSt]

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

So how do you explain this with phase difference?

 

It can't But this is because of the example is wrong and not realistic.

Did you read my first part of my explanation (this morning) you cut me off from yesterday ?

If so, did you understand that little first part ? Just a normal question, OK ?

 

Somehow I have the feeling that you think that the answer to the cuckoo question is not important. Can I be right ?

[STC]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Yes, that could get quite confusing and would be a pain the neck for our stereo systems, except for one thing. Human hearing operates using the Precedence Effect or Law of First Waveform. Essentially any complex sound arriving within 40ms of the initial waveform is fused with the original waveform additively (volume increases) and the original sound source preserved. 

It why playing music is a small, very reflective/diffusive room can sound really good and highly immersive.   Interestingly this only happens with complex waveforms like speech and music. 

 

Its worth bearing in mind that we don’t always ‘hear’ what our ears ‘hear’. What we ‘hear’ is what our brain has processed using the nerve impulses from our 2 ears.  This is incredibly complex and extremely rapid processing that makes sense of what are in essence pressure waves and nerve impulses.

 

Now I remember, Precedent effect is when there must be sufficient delay of 4 or 6 ms to not cause image shift. It must be in Toole ‘s book. 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

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

 

1 hour ago, semente said:

I keep saying this all the time. Visual differences / shortcomings are easier to perceive than audible ones

 

Mind you, the emphasis above is YOURS.

Next you are keen to avoid the question once again. All it took was putting one sentence from me in bold.

I start to wonder what is wrong with you guys' in between speaker perception.

 

The question once again : Wouldn't you think that what works with two pictures caught by two eyes, that giving a clear perception of depth and 3D all together, works the same with audio ?

 

I am happy to hear a full no. But then with explanation please. And nothing about subjectivity etc (which would be correct btw).

 

Anything with a half-yes or full yes implies that we're seeking why it wouldn't work with audio. That is, if it doesn't.

 

[adamdea]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

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 ?

It is difficult to know where to begin with what a hopelessly misconceived analogy that is. It would be quite a task even once one has recovered from the concussion inevitably following from banging one’s head repeatedly on a table alternating between extreme uncontrolled bursts of mirth and weeping.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

It is difficult to know where to begin with what a hopelessly misconceived analogy that is.

 

Thanks.

You can always try to start a first sentence.

 

Keep in mind that it is about the stereographic photo, you locking into one (middle) picture of it. Not just "a picture".

[Blackmorec]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Now I remember, Precedent effect is when there must be sufficient delay of 4 or 6 ms to not cause image shift. It must be in Toole ‘s book. 

Would be interesting to re-read some of this stuff as confusion tends to creep in over time when you’re not using what you learned many years ago.  I know that precedent effect is very active in suppression of short delay reflections but on reflection I’m not exactly sure how it would deal with one half of a stereo signal reaching both ears....i’m a little foggy on the facts. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Would be interesting to re-read some of this stuff as confusion tends to creep in over time when you’re not using what you learned many years ago.  I know that precedent effect is very active in suppression of short delay reflections but on reflection I’m not exactly sure how it would deal with one half of a stereo signal reaching both ears....i’m a little foggy on the facts. 

 

With two speakers in stereo setup, if you delay the other sound by few microseconds the image shifts slightly. So the precedent effect does not work here. Maybe the answer must be related to this. I am pretty sure the delay must be more than 4ms. 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, STC said:

So how do you explain this with phase difference?

 

So reminder : I can't. Not with this example (but we will make others).

 

I shall be honest with you : If you don't know why the cuckoo is so hard to locate, ... Google won't tell you either (I know the answer but Google won't tell me). But I kind of promised that already yesterday.

 

So ... do we actually agree that the cuckoo is hard to locate, assumed we don't see it ?

[adamdea]

“Isn’t vision with two eyes working the same as hearing with two ears”

No. Not in any way whatsoever. 

Have you met any human beings? Have you ever looked at a single picture? In what way does the spatial information in a single picture compare with the spatial information from a single speaker? If you look at a photo do you become confused by reflections of light from the picture off the ceiling and walls of the room? Can you blink or swivel your ears? Is light reaching your eyes refracted round and spectrally filtered by your head? Are you eyes on the side of your head? Is it difficult to identify where an ambulance is when you look at it?  Is our hearing of objects generally generated by sources of sound bouncing sound off those objects? 

 

 

[STC]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

So reminder : I can't. Not with this example (but we will make others).

 

I shall be honest with you : If you don't know why the cuckoo is so hard to locate, ... Google won't tell you either (I know the answer but Google won't tell me). But I kind of promised that already yesterday.

 

So ... do we actually agree that the cuckoo is hard to locate, assumed we don't see it ?

 

I do not want to go cuckoo to answer something that obviously doesn’t apply to me. I hear cuckoo on daily basis and no trouble localizing them. They are over 20 species of birds where I live. 

 

Maybe, you should ask why it is hard to localize crickets or maybe does duck quakes have echoes. 

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

 

With two speakers in stereo setup, if you delay the other sound by few microseconds the image shifts slightly. So the precedent effect does not work here. Maybe the answer must be related to this. I am pretty sure the delay must be more than 4ms. 

[Binaural Hearing, Sound Localization, and Spatial Hearing. G. C. Stecker and F. J. Gallun]