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

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I do not want to discourage the audience and not everyone has a USB Lush cable with PN ^ 2F configuration 😉

 The BEST cable is still NO USB cable , with wherever possible the USB device plugged directly into a USB adaptor with the +5V and shield not connected through.

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

Or are we creating a mental image based on the relative level of other instruments and knowledge of prior memory of such performance?

 

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.

 

17 minutes ago, Paul R said:

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

 

I thought exactly the same. Hence this post (though Paul was first at posting his). Really.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The BEST

 

Off topic. 

[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.

 

 

[Allan F]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Allan

 Please see my reply 56 on page 3.

 These old  speakers were Transmission Line types, but of course were just general recommendations, and nothing to do with Binaural.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

My last pair speakers - Castle Winchesters - were transmission line speakers and were placed pretty well as above. My post questioned the suggestion that placing speakers at 90 degrees provides most accurate playback. That is contrary to anything I have ever heard on the topic, subject to the qualification regarding room layout that I stated earlier.

Regards,

Allan

[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.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Why is that it so difficult to keep on topic and rebut what I 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 ...

 

3 minutes ago, STC said:

I am talking to someone who never grasped stereo principles correctly in the first place.

 

Any particular reason to claim this ?

[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 ? 

 

[PeterSt]

 

 

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Any particular reason to claim this ?

 

Ah, I already know.

 

What adds to this is the wide sound stage (well beyond the speakers, never mind all those who claim this can't exist)

 

That.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Yes. as you admitted - you are a poor stereo gay.  

 

Oh, it is about the gay. Hmm.

280.

[elcorso]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The BEST cable is still NO USB cable , with wherever possible the USB device plugged directly into a USB adaptor with the +5V and shield not connected through.

 

Maybe there are more effective solutions (albeit a bit risky) like a music brain implant? 😂

 

Best,

 

Roch

[PeterSt]

@STC, let's cut this out. The thread was doing fine (IMO). Now it goes off track.

[Paul R]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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.

 

 

1

 

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. 

 

[fas42]

Talking about hearing depth in mono recordings, old swing orchestra recordings are good for that; in that the drummer, because of the impact of the sounds he can make, is placed waaaay back from the rest of the group; it's quite easy to to pick that he's 10's of feet back from the mic, and you can clearly hear the echos from his kit defining the space the group overall is in.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

@STC, let's cut this out. The thread was doing fine (IMO). Now it goes off track.

 

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

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Happy and Gay was correctly used until the LGBT community corrupted it's meaning.

 

XX

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

30 years ago this was my favourite, along these lines - was regularly played,

 

 

The action is at the end, as the speedway car, announced over the PA, makes a circuit - the final explosive acceleration should subjectively tear your ears out, as it would in real life.

 

 

Kinda cool. Definitely, the cymbal was above the drums in the center.  

 

(ง’̀-‘́)ง

 

 

[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. 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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. 

 

Enough of the lies and unwelcome taking over of this thread, now that your own self serving thread has fizzled out.

 Please take the hint from the other high profile members !

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

What is the basis for your claim that this speaker placement provides the most accurate playback? I know of no speaker manufacturer that recommends such placement, unless the peculiar layout of the listening room makes this the only practical solution.

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/36/index.html

 

You can see Peter Mitchell mention it here.  For coincident X-Y or crossed figure 8 miking the proper place for speakers is also at 90 degree separation.  Has to do with how those work.  Law of sines and how the two signals combine.  You'll need the same angle on the speakers to reproduce them in a way most accurate in regards to imaging and soundstage.  It still works pretty well for 60 degrees separation but 90 degrees is most accurate. 

 

If the placement of the recording microphones vs the sound source wasn't well done you can get some odd effects.  Using 60 degrees on speaker placement can help this for those that were too far away, and won't sound obviously wrong if the microphone was too close.   So it is more forgiving.  

 

Sorry, I can't quickly point you to a more convincing link.  

[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. 

 

 

[STC]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

For coincident X-Y or crossed figure 8 miking the proper place for speakers is also at 90 degree separation.

 

How many speakers are there with flat response off axis at 45 degrees? 

[STC]

10 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

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.

 

It is weird that the stage will always appears within the room where the speakers occupied. Although, I localize sound very accurately compared to others but it is hard for my to hear sound outside the actual space.

 

In those days, the dog howling in Amused to Death said to be like coming from my neighbour garden. An effect that I never perceived despite others perceived so in my own system. A simple Harbeth setup. This was about 10 years ago and that was when I realized I do not have the ability perceive an imaginary stage.

 

 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/36/index.html

 

You can see Peter Mitchell mention it here.  For coincident X-Y or crossed figure 8 miking the proper place for speakers is also at 90 degree separation.  Has to do with how those work.  Law of sines and how the two signals combine.  You'll need the same angle on the speakers to reproduce them in a way most accurate in regards to imaging and soundstage.  It still works pretty well for 60 degrees separation but 90 degrees is most accurate...

 

Sorry, I can't quickly point you to a more convincing link.  

 

No need for a more convincing link. I find it difficult to imagine that any auidiophile, other than perhaps a recording engineer, would base the placement of his/her speakers on the miking used for a recording, assuming that information was even available. It's all too esoteric IMO. I mistakenly thought you were speaking more generally.