The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[STC]

Soundstage in stereo depends on speakers placements. The width is subjective and arbitrary depending on the speakers spread. 

[STC]

Room size got nothing to do with the effect. All positional information of instruments is decoded by our brain by HRTF. All sound -be it natural or artificial - is  perceived and decoded the same way. If room size determines the effect, then headphones would not able to produce Newton's Moth of Flame effect. In stereo, height and rear sound are more of imagination than illusion.

[STC]

10 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

To my knowlegde it is an illusion in the sense that, based on the sounds as received by our hearing constructs it into a soundstage in your brain. Our ability to hear left- right is obvious. Our hearing of depth is a bit more difficult as our intrinsic ability to objectivily determine a distance is limited. However with additional info such as real life experiences like visits to a concert hall, our brain is basically performing an additional depth "guestimation" .

 

 

 

 

 

You and your doctor have far better understanding how stereo/hearing work than what you can find in forums. Until one really understand the principles, there will be no real improvement in high fidelity. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, jhwalker said:

I can't see 3D, ...

 

 

You are not alone. That was one of the main reason why 3D TV failed.  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/body-odd/why-some-including-johnny-depp-cant-see-3d-f1C6437360

 

I too cannot visualize sound beyond the walls of my room despite others claiming so. I think it just how we learned localization since young. I suppose those who spend more time in nature localize stereo sound differently.

[STC]

That doesn’t answer how headphones work to reproduce the same effect. Where is the required space for the headphones?

[STC]

Be it headphones or loudspeaker the effect is heard. In small room the effect may not materialize if the reflection from the wall is high enough to alter the intended phase /level for the respective ear. 

[STC]

... without contrasting sound with level and HF difference depth cannot be perceived in a recording.   Depth like height is formed based on prior knowledge. 

 

A good example would be to use a choral made of children and adults. Some might perceive the adults to be forward while others would say the children are in front. 

 

 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Rubbish !

 

Rubbish is when insisting height information in stereo exist when  it is technically impossible.

 

Having said that, we all perceive height information but that is the brain constructing sound based on pre acquired knowledge. 

 

Record a twitting bird or a buzzing bee in the floor and play them over the speakers and you will perceive it to come from up. 

 

And yes. I got ordinary system without extraordinary ability to create the impossibilities. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Bullshit

 

Exactly!  Did I say you don’t perceive height?

 

The snake oil continues because of misinformation from people like you. 

 

Here is is a table of the information encoded in the recording. 

 

[STC]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 STC

 Note also that Paul is saying the same too.

 

I can put few samples of bee buzzing from different heights. Would you dare to guess the height?  

 

Hint- all of them will be heard above your head even if the bee is actually way below your head. 

 

Do some recordings and experiment yourself. 

 

Again in the chart for you. 

 

 

[STC]

How the non existence height information is created. 

 

Height

 

So let’s start with height.

 

It’s a strange and interesting phenomenon that we hear high pitched frequency content as coming from above, and low tones coming from below.

 

Partially this is due to suggestion. We subconsciously equivocated “high” pitch with “high on a vertical scale.” Partially, this is due to common tweeter placement with speaker woofers most often being lower than the tweeter in vertical alignment. Partially, this phenomenon is also caused by the way low frequency tones project. The wider dispersion of low tones allows them to reflect off the nearest surface such as your desk. Higher tones are more directional and will reach your ear without as much near reflection over short distances.

 

For these reasons and probably others, we tend to hear high harmonic content as “up” and low harmonic content as “down.”

 

By creating contrast in the extremes of the frequency spectrum we can make a mix sound “tall.”

 

If just one naturally bright element like a bell or hi-hat is a touch brighter, and one low element like a kick or bass is a touch subby-er, the whole mix will expand.

 

click on the link. 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 In case you haven't got it yet, I have no further interest in anything you care to post on the subject., especially since you aren't even able to appreciate the high res formats such as 24/192 and DSD as many other members do.

  

 

Typical audiophile. When you cannot backup your absurd claims you start to accuse others. There is no height information although we may perceive to hear one. 

 

From Linkwitz. 

 

 Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo, but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height of the AS. The height is perceived at a greater distance than the loudspeakers and not as above the listener, because he "looks" into the AS in front of him.

[STC]

Not difficult to disprove right?  Unfortunately, you can’t because that’s the truth. 

[STC]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Tell that to Chesky !! 

From David Chesky :  https://sonicscoop.com/2015/06/15/opinionated-audio-david-chesky-on-binaural-recording-the-business-of-specialized-sound/

 

 

 

Chesky is telling what I already told you. And for that reason alone I do binaural loudspeakers. But still there is no real height even with his binaural recording with pinna filter correction for loudspeakers. Occasionally I do sense height like the genie in amused to death or a storm recording. But that ‘s not because of the height but due to brain constructing the sound to have height. 

 

The chart again.

 

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, JediJoker said:

 

Poppycock. Utter elitist nonsense. You're completely disregarding undeniably real music that does not and, in some cases, cannot exist in a real space. Maybe it's wrong to call the best of such recordings "high fidelity," but the history of recorded music is littered with excellent examples thereof. If you choose not to appreciate a great recording because it's not "real music played in a real space," that's your loss and I pity you.

 

I think he meant live performance such as orchestra in concert hall. 

 

And I do agree with you that real space is probably a made up word as there are thousands of recording with artificial reverbs that no one here would able to tell a difference between real acoustics space and a manufactured one. 

 

One of my favorite music composer is A R Rahman. He specializes in mixing pieces from from different musician recorded all over the the world in a single track and there is no way you could identify the acoustics signature of different space. One of my favorite recording of his, is the one contains Fateh Ali Khan’s voice. At that time, Rahman was in London with his orchestra and Fateh was in Pakistan. He was sick and unable to travel to London for the recording session. His singing was recorded in Pakistan and mixed later in London. Anyone who claim they could identify the acoustics space should start with this recording.  

[STC]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, there is a bit of rubbish here for sure. 

 

If you mean height like in Atmos encoding, then of course you are correct. You cannot encode that in stereo. But you certainly can record height in a stereo binaural recording. There is a recording of a helicopter chase that is amazing. 

 

In ordinary stereo, you do get some height, based upon the ambient cues, FR, etc. For example, it is very common for trumpets to appear in the sound field higher than trombones. For obvious reasons. 

 

I do do not think anyone has written up here how depth and dimension is achieved in recordings and mixes. Perhaps you are volunteering?  Depth in a recording,  for instance is a result of the masking effect, the Haas principle, frequency response, phase delays, natural reverb, and a few other “tricks.”  Of course that few other tricks includes knowing what you are doing when you mic the recording, including how to mic for minimalist recordings, and how to mic when you do non-minimalist recordings, like in a reverberant field.  Oh yeah, and of course, it depends upon our binaural hearing. 

 

Since you claim most audiophiles don’t really understand this stuff, why don’t you write up some essays about it explaining it to us? Certainly I am an amateur when it comes to this. I do not get paid for doing recordings, and I would be interested in popular explanations from professionals about the subject, including tips and tricks for say, recording church youth choirs to the best effect.

 

 

 

 

 

Paul a.k.a “ Mr. human speech recognition is inherently binaural”, tell me how “you can certainly capture height in stereo”. How will this cues reproduced by the  speakers?  

 

 

 

 

[STC]

Depth in stereo is perceived when you have other sound to contrast. If you were to snip a short sound of an instrument which you judged further away and reproduced them with speakers at 8 feet away and another pair at 10 feet away, your ability to judge the depth disappear if the pairs speakers at 10 feet away plays at higher volume than the speakers at 8 feet away. I suppose we are still discussing stereo reproduction. 

 

The depth we all perceive in stereo recording is purely based on contrasting the sound of different instruments and arbitrarily assign a distance based on other sound in the particular recording. You may perceive a stage to be further away or near based on reverbs but the relative depth of accurate reproduction in stereo playback is depended on the level more than the actual reverbs cue. 

 

In most  Jazz recordings, you will perceive drums to be slightly forward while in reality they are often placed further at the back than the main performers. However, without visual cues and without relative loudness level of another drum at nearer location, you tend to fix the stereo reproduction depth based on the loudness.  

 

 

 

 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

What is the basis for your statement regarding speaker placement? I know of no speaker manufacturer that recommends such placement, unless the layout of the listening room makes this the only practical solution.

 

There is a reason why in stereo the speakers are placed at equilateral triangle. 90 degrees may sound correct for some speakers like Sound Lab but that doesn’t make it accurate reproduction of soundstage’s width. Nice or preferred is subjective. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

In a studio mix depth can be achieved through level difference when you have two instruments, and incremented with a bit of reverb, realxation of the presence region and maybe a slight roll-off of the treble, which is what you would hear in unamplified conditions.

 

When recording two unamplified instruments in a space with natural decay and one instrument is further back the distance is given by room cues as well as lower level and a slight roll-off of the treble. This is obvious in some two-mic recordings of the tympany in an orchestral piece, sometimes you can even hear an echo.

 

Height cannot be captured and reproduced with real stereo recordings but can be achieved likely through phase manipulation in studio mixes. I would agree that in most cases height perception is down to expectation bias.

 

I have clarified the illusion of depth in subsequent posts. Human spatial hearing determines distance (depth) based on direct sound and reverbs ratio. This ratio changes according to the distance of the instruments. 

 

In recordings, the ratio is fixed. The reverbs in recordings and reverbs in the room do not work the same way as in real performance. Therefore the relative depth cues in recordings is determined by contrasting the two sound. the only constant cue you get in this is the level and HF difference. Is this information is enough to determine the actual distance when heard over the loudspeakers? Or are we creating a mental image based on the relative level of other instruments and knowledge of prior memory of such performance?

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Typical ambiophonics dogma. 

 

Depth is primarily achieved through the masking principle and the Haas effect. That is true even in monophonic recording, though it is a hell of a lot easier to unmask when you expand to two channels. It's control of correlated and uncorrelated reverberation that embeds depth and dimension in a recording. It is reverberation (the ratio of direct versus reverberant sound) and a bit of frequency roll-off that cues our binaural hearing to detect distance.  Yes, there are some other factors, but I will leave it to you to explain them.  

 

I assume you are not quoting from 60 years old pamphlets? 

 

 

 

Just like a kid always start bringing irrelevant matter just to be seen as right or smart or strong. You know s@#$ about Ambiophonics so keep your trap shut.

 

Paul a.k.a “ Mr. human speech recognition is inherently binaural”, please don't spew rubbish on topics which you misunderstood since your submarine days. By rewording what I already explained shows that you are reading just to reply rather than to understand what others are saying. Before you start about masking principle and Haas effect get your human speech recognition is inherently binaural rubbish corrected.

 

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

There is no single brain cell in me (and I have at least 3 of them) that ever thought about such idiocy. And mind you please, I am working continuously on these matters (read: I really try to think about this all and I really try to improve day in day out, without exception).

  

I am afraid that your ambio setup does not allow you to judge straight any more. And especially if you are doing this for say 10 years by now, you are 10 years behind. Not kidding. The whole circles you reside in could be - or should be. This is not bad thinking or blaming or whatever. It *is* about you just not being able to judge because your setup does not allow for that. 

 

 

 

Why is that it so difficult to keep on topic and rebut what I said? Oh I forgot, I am talking to someone who never grasped stereo principles correctly in the first place.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

IMO you have no topic. Yes, yours. But it is incomparable. So now I can;t judge your situation because I'm only a poor stereo gay.

 

Speaking about ...

 

 

Any particular reason to claim this ? 

 

[STC]

29 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

The rubbish here is coming from only from you, as you quite evidently do NOT know what you are talking about.  You are simply misinformed, and too lazy to go get the facts and get up to date. 

 

Also, it seems you know less about recording that even an amateur like me does. 

 

 

Yes Mr. Speech recognition is inherently binaural. You know so much. You can only crow within a misinformed group and supporters and repeat this nonsense ( although I admit at times you are correct) in 3D forum. 

[STC]

31 minutes ago, sandyk said:

His own heavily censored thread has fizzled out, and now he wants to stuff this one up too.

 

How many of your post got deleted there? You have a big audience and I am sure you can continue to hoodwink. Remember, you have contradicted by the very person who made the 192 recording. 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Please take the hint from the other high profile members !

 

LOL! You mean prolific posters. 

 

The ones who repeat what someone else said without being able to prove themselves. They got their audience and they happy with the path they have taken. 

 

Just stick to the point and don’t cry if you are proven wrong by start bringing irrelevant matters. But I guess some members are privileged in this respect and often get away with it. 

 

Unlike you, I try out everything it didn’t matter even something that I know wouldn’t work. That the audiophile in me. I don’t preach in vacuum. I put my claims on the table. You talked about height and I challenged you that I could make recording of bee buzzing at different heights and you decide on the heights. Did you dare to take up the challenge?  Nope. It is always easier to preach and claim you have so and so agree with you.