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

[JediJoker]

On 5/26/2019 at 10:29 PM, gmgraves said:

The “truth” is real music played in a real space. Anything else is mere artifice.

 

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.

[sandyk]

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/

 

Quote

"What, to you, is the pleasure in listening to a properly executed binaural recording? Explain it to someone who may never have experienced it.
Here’s the thing: most young people now are listening on headphones. Binaural is very cool, because this pinna [points to his ears] tells you everything – you don’t need 20 mics. When you record with the binaural mic in a pinna, it records all the location cues properly: height, depth, 20 locations around.

Think of 5.1 as a hula hoop around your head. But binaural is a sphere – it’s bigger bigger bigger. It’s a density. It’s really 3-D.

 

[accwai]

22 hours ago, semente said:

I think that you are missing the point.

How much have you invested in your system and why?

Surely if you're content with "serviceable" then any Bose Wave system would do.

 

Serviceable as in serving the purpose of the photos. I am perfectly fine with merely serviceable as I don't have the level of knowledge and discriminating taste as the experts here on AS. How could I aspire to more? In any case, my amp is being fixed at the factory so I'm listening via 2+1 computer speakers now. Bose Wave would be a big step up

 

22 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Warning: this post probably won't make much sense.

 

This one is for fun, for @accwai, also taken from the web. 

[...] Also :

Once you are used to what sharpening does, you can't avoid the painstaking "too much sparkle" of it.

I am not 100% sure that you did this to your orchids as well, but it seems so.

 

You mean like like these?

 

 

Apparently these are focus stacks rather than sharpening. A computer controlled focusing rail lets you measure the depth of your scene. You then control the focus transition at the end of the stack by numeric aperture. Punch all the numbers into a spreadsheet and out come the required number of steps, which you in turn punch into the rail controller. Then you put all the resulting frames through the stacking software, which finds the focused details in the individual layers and put them back into a single frame. I understand that as magnification increases beyond certain point (0.75x?), at no point in the process would you be able to see anything close to the final result. So it's all in your head, kind of like soundstage depth perception in the audiophile world. But then again I could be totally wrong as I just siphon things off the web. I'm actually not smart enough to understand any of these complicated stuff.

[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.  

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, HIFI said:

Remember that Frank, and only Frank , the all knowing Frank, the one Frank, the only Frank , is the judge of everything you including you, me, everyone in this forum, every speaker, all electronics. I’m sure I’m missing something. I know Frank will complete the list.  

 

So so don’t feel bad Paul . . .  You are not alone. We all suck and fall short of the glory of Frank. 

 

Well lets see Stereophile, The Absolute Sound or Frank? I'll take Frank.

[JanRSmit]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

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.

Ever tried to listen with eyes closed? I do, as visual info distracts my listening.

Also going to a concert, or in a park etc, tryvto listen with eyes closed. Can be a nice experience.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, Paul R said:

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, from the perspective of a not-American, you look mighty much like an American. 

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, Paul R said:

and I would be interested in popular explanations

 

I wrote a same post something like 8 hours ago, but I did not post it. About elaboration and such.

It is useless for someone who is right in the first place.

 

I hope you see my previous post as positive. I would not be able to make it that ...

 

Btw, playing Atom Heart Mother Suite right now. Man, is this beautiful. I knew this, but it is a year ago I played it. And it gets better and better. Maybe no height, but highs, yes.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, JanRSmit said:

Ever tried to listen with eyes closed?

 

I don't, as it allows for illegal imagination.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, HIFI said:

Remember that Frank, and only Frank , the all knowing Frank, the one Frank, the only Frank , is the judge of everything you including you, me, everyone in this forum, every speaker, all electronics. I’m sure I’m missing something. I know Frank will complete the list.  

 

So so don’t feel bad Paul . . .  You are not alone. We all suck and fall short of the glory of Frank. 

 

Awww - that’s a little bit harsh perhaps. I don’t sense any malice from Frank,  even if he can be very — strident — and stubbornly annoying in his views. My dad would say he has “the courage of his convictions.” 

[gmgraves]

6 hours 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.

That’s like saying that if you don’t like brussels sprouts that it’s “your loss, and I pity you”. No, it’s not my loss. If I don’t like something, I don’t like it and I am missing nothing. 

On the other hand, you have taken my comments out of context. I was discussing “Fi” in absolute terms in response to Frank’s insistence that Fi is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. I was merely pointing out that since Hi-Fi means a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound, there must be an original sound to compare. Now, it doesn’t matter whether we’re discussing a full symphony orchestra on stage, or the Grateful Dead on stage, that’s the real sound to which I was referring. IOW, if a system is accurate to the real sound of live music (whatever that sound will be) then everything will sound right through it. OTOH, if a Stradivarius sounds like an Guarneri violin and a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a Gibson, then, even though they both might sound very good to some ears, you can’t rightly call such a system High-Fidelity, because it isn’t “faithful” to anything. 

[Paul R]

18 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, from the perspective of a not-American, you look mighty much like an American. 

 

Dazed and confused? Yep. 🤪

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Dazed and confused? Yep. 🤪

 

No. May would be that.

[Paul R]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I wrote a same post something like 8 hours ago, but I did not post it. About elaboration and such.

It is useless for someone who is right in the first place.

 

I hope you see my previous post as positive. I would not be able to make it that ...

 

Btw, playing Atom Heart Mother Suite right now. Man, is this beautiful. I knew this, but it is a year ago I played it. And it gets better and better. Maybe no height, but highs, yes.

 

I really love that album.  

 

By the way, to me, it seems to me on that whole album that sounds localized in the center are higher than the sounds on the sides. The motorcycle, for instance, seems to run right over one. Probably illusory, but that impression has stuck with me from the first listen. 

[Paul R]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That’s like saying that if you don’t like brussels sprouts that it’s “your loss, and I pity you”. No, it’s not my loss. If I don’t like something, I don’t like it and I am missing nothing. 

On the other hand, you have taken my comments out of context. I was discussing “Fi” in absolute terms in response to Frank’s insistence that Fi is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. I was merely pointing out that since Hi-Fi means a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound, there must be an original sound to compare. Now, it doesn’t matter whether we’re discussing a full symphony orchestra on stage, or the Grateful Dead on stage, that’s the real sound to which I was referring. IOW, if a system is accurate to the real sound of live music (whatever that sound will be) then everything will sound right through it. OTOH, if a Stradivarius sounds like an Guarneri violin and a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a Gibson, then, even though they both might sound very good to some ears, you can’t rightly call such a system High-Fidelity, because it isn’t “faithful” to anything. 

 

Hi George —

 

It is just as reasonable to assume that Fidelity — in this case — means accurate reproduction of the recording.  That would of course, include music created in a studio or computer just as much as an orchestral performance. 

 

 Everyone’s mileage is gonna vary on that one.😁

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

By the way, to me, it seems to me on that whole album that sounds localized in the center are higher than the sounds on the sides.

 

Coincidentally (not) I observed where the highs reside (btw the best), but nothing is higher or lower etc. than at the (my) listening plane (longitudinal). What I noticed this occasion is the sub low at the beginning of the first (Suite) track. Notice that this is the MFSL (not hight passed for LP if all is right).

 

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

The motorcycle, for instance, seems to run right over one

 

Somehow I noticed this too and thought of a Harley. I never noticed it before.

As I said, it's getting better and better (as flat as always in your book - haha).

 

Try the Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie if you don't know it. This was my big fun when I was 12 or so.

[crenca]

6 hours 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.

 

While such music is "real", it is also hard to judge in terms of fidelity, because what is the reference?  Fidelity implies a "real reference".  Studio creations are creations whose reference is the recording, without a reference to live acoustic playing in space.

 

Also, coming back to the OP, how does one judges soundstage and stereo with studio creations since this music was never part of a soundstage in the first place?

 

Obviously, we have had around a 100 years of studio/synthesised/computer based music and not only is it real, it is more popular as a whole than music that has a real acoustic/soundstage analog.  Still, the question of "high fidelity" in relation to it is a legitimate and difficult one.

[HIFI]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Awww - that’s a little bit harsh perhaps. I don’t sense any malice from Frank,  even if he can be very — strident — and stubbornly annoying in his views. My dad would say he has “the courage of his convictions.” 

You are correct. I apologize for my rant. 

 

I have reported my post and asked it to be removed 

 

Sorry

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, HIFI said:

You are correct. I apologize for my rant. 

 

I have reported my post and asked it to be removed 

 

Sorry

 

Now you are being waaayyy too hard on yourself mate!  Frank has very thick skin. 🤪

 

Here, have a virtual beer on me!  And one for Frank too... 

(Slides cold foamy mugs of delicious beer down virtual counter...)

 

 

 

[Allan F]

8 hours 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.

 

The type of music that you may enjoy and high fidelity are two entirely separate concepts. As has been pointed out by others, there is normally no way for a listener to compare what is reproduced to what was recorded when dealing with electronically altered music. OTOH, one can become very familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments and use them as a standard for evaluating the fidelity of a recording or the capability of an audio system to reproduce sound with high fidelity. While George could or, perhaps, should have used the term acoustic music rather than "real" music, his point regarding high fidelity is nevertheless valid.

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Coincidentally (not) I observed where the highs reside (btw the best), but nothing is higher or lower etc. than at the (my) listening plane (longitudinal). What I noticed this occasion is the sub low at the beginning of the first (Suite) track. Notice that this is the MFSL (not hight passed for LP if all is right).

 

 

Somehow I noticed this too and thought of a Harley. I never noticed it before.

As I said, it's getting better and better (as flat as always in your book - haha).

 

Try the Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie if you don't know it. This was my big fun when I was 12 or so.

 

Had to go listen to the Motor Cycle Song again - great fun!  

 

[esldude]

 

[esldude]

Most accurate stereo recordings are crossed pairs of figure 8 microphones.  Most accurate playback is over speakers using those recordings with the speakers at 90 degrees from the listening position.  

 

How many recordings are done this way?  Chesky before they went binaural.  Water Lily.  And you can scrape up a few more. 

 

How many audiophiles have their speakers at 90 degrees.  Not too many.