Bits is bits?

[Blackmorec]

40 minutes ago, STC said:

Sound from any source-be it a trumpet or speaker, the spot where they come from will be localized.  A sound is still a sound to the ears. It does not interpret them differently because they are stereo recordings.

 

[No, it interprets them the same way...Its the stereo signals that are different. That’s the whole point]. 

 

In stereo recordings, the left and right channel is captured separately 

 

[Not that i’m aware of. As far as I know a mixing desk performs that function]  

 

There is no way during playback that the reproduction from the speakers will produce identical phase as the ones originally reached the stereo microphones

 

[They don’t have to be the same as the microphones...there only has to be a phase relationship  (match) between the 2 loudspeaker outputs in order to indicate to the brain that the signals are related and have the same source]. 

 

The only cue now perceived by us is the level difference. Although, it is does contain some timing difference but they can be anything from 0 to several tens of microseconds depending on the microphones configuration    

 

[you’re mixing up the recorded information with the information you get in playback. They are 2 separate processes]. 

 

For an example, XY will not contain any timing difference but AB configuration can have 100microseconds difference.

 

[no idea what you’re talking about here]

 

In stereo reproduction, a speaker at 30 degrees to the left will still be localised by the ear/brain. 

[Then why can’t i hear it?]

 

However, when another signal is reproduced by the right speaker, that too will be localized by us to be coming from the right. However, now both signals will have level difference which now will produce a phantom image between the speakers. The brain will still register the original sound location but at the same time it will also perceive the level difference by the two speakers.

 

[The brain only knows about the signals reaching our 2 ears. Its default assumption is that both signals come from the same source and that the difference in level is down to the sound travelling around the head (which it knows) and the position of the sound source relative to the ears (which it ‘calculates’ based on differences between the 2 ears.)]

 

And lastly, the role of pinna which will localize the original sound from the respective speaker which cannot be eliminated. 

 

[There’s a lot of research on this too complex to summarise in one sentence. The pinna basically serves to help differentiate and localise the signals reaching both ears]. 

 

This may not make sense to modern man but if you started you music listening with single speakers  and when you first listen to stereo you would feel that stereo to be unnatural and lacked intensity. (You can get some reference from recording engineers in the early 50s when migration from mono to stereo took place). But as we have familiarized with stereo sound, we somehow now do not recognize the confusion caused by the 3 conflicting cues produced by the stereo playback. 

 

[There is no confusion....a single signal reaches each ear and the combination of the 2 create the perception, which is what we hear, exactly as in nature. No confusion]

 

An easier way to understand this, is to arrange 6 or more speakers on the stage and each producing a mono signal of one instrument. Now convert the all the mono signals and convert them to stereo and play them with two speakers. A quick AB would reveal how fake the stereo sound when compared to each sound coming out from one speakers. With the 6 (or more speakers), the cues produced by the speakers are correct where the ILD, ITD and pinna all would be localizing them correctly unlike in stereo.

 

[Essentially what you are saying is that 6 sounds produced by 6 point sources will sound different to the effect created by 2 point sources with appropriate signal balancing. I’m sure that’s true. The problem is that all 6 sounds become location fixed, can only originate from a speaker and each sound must be recorded discreetly. Not ideal for recording and selling music, so not a viable solution to the problem, rather just a different way of producing a different sound]

 

There is also visual aid involved here but that can be eliminated by closing the eyes.

 

[Visual is not an aid, its a contradiction that should be eliminated by closing the eyes]

 

 

Wow, that’s a complex reply, a lot of which I would argue

My replies are in [square brackets]. I hope its comprehensible. If anyone can be bothered, is there an easy way to divide up a message like this into lots of quotes. Remember I said easy!

 

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Where we disagree is your assertion that the same effect is available anywhere in the room and outside of the room. If this is true for you then  I can categorically state that you’ve yet to achieve anywhere near the pinnacle of what’s available and possible when the sources of stereo signals are carefully controlled to match exactly what is on the recording. Remember, the 2 stereo signals are different and its that difference that creates the effect you’re looking for. Change your position and you change those differences and the effect they create.....that’s just schoolboy physics. 

 

Not in a position right now to reply to all said since last posting - I will just state now that subjectively what is experienced is precisely what you would hear if the real performance was occurring beyond the speakers, and you moved around in the vicinity of that, including going outside the room. Precision in imaging is a minor element of that, a curiousity; and which is far less interesting than the sense of engagement with the music making.

[STC]

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

[No, it interprets them the same way...Its the stereo signals that are different. That’s the whole point]. 

 

Ears hear sound. Each ear receive one soundwave. When the sound source is off the centre (laterally or horizontally), the signal which reaches the left and right ear is now distinguished by the level, timing and changes in the frequencies content provides the cues of the location. This is actually a learned skill and some are better at localization than others.

 

Stereo signals are just two signals produced to trick the brain to produce the phantom image which in reality does not exist as sound cannot emerge from a space without vibration. There is nothing special about it as you can take one mono signal and reproduce the same on the other channel where you can now arbitrarily place the sound to be coming from anywhere between the two speakers or even outside the two speakers. Just record a mono recording of someone's voice and by playing with level difference you can make as if the person is moving in the stereo recording. Any recording engineer or someone with a DAW could easily doing it and been doing it. Play with phase and you can now move it outside the speakers.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

[Not that i’m aware of. As far as I know a mixing desk performs that function]

 

I meant with a stereo microphone the left and right channel are captured with each unique sound waves. A reproduction of the two signal is required to recreate the sound field. 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

[They don’t have to be the same as the microphones...there only has to be a phase relationship  (match) between the 2 loudspeaker outputs in order to indicate to the brain that the signals are related and have the same source]. 

 

How do you think the phase relationship can exist during playback. A slight shift in your position would have a different phase of the soundwave hitting the respective ear drums. Draw a chart with a 2kHz sinewave and see how much the change by a slight shift in the head or the speakers position. There is nothing you can do to ensure the exact phase relationship can exist during playback as soundwaves travel not linearly. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

[you’re mixing up the recorded information with the information you get in playback. They are 2 separate processes]. 

 

How? Please explain. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

For an example, XY will not contain any timing difference but AB configuration can have 100microseconds difference.

 

[no idea what you’re talking about here]

 

This is important because this will explain my other paragraphs. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

In stereo reproduction, a speaker at 30 degrees to the left will still be localised by the ear/brain. 

[Then why can’t i hear it?]

 

You are hearing it. That's why we always know that a stereo sound despite having a soundstage you still know that not natural.  A sound to be natural, all the cues must correspond to the cues that would occur in nature. The closer you reproduce them the more natural it becomes. However, a mono vocal or instrument with single speaker can be very hard to be distinguished from the original.

 

 

[fas42]

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The initial sound of an instrument, be it piano, drum, guitar, flute or even voice, starts as a pinpoint of intense sound that expands to fill whatever acoustic space the engineer has allowed. In the event that 2 musicians share very similar sonic frequency spectrums (voices for example), this precise location of the start of each note makes identifying and deconvoluting the 2 separate voices very easy and relaxing, requiring no conscious effort on the part of the listener. Its this type of improvement we hear when implementing improvements in power supplies, cables, electronic circuitry etc.  We hear more information, yet the information was always there, just hidden for lack of aural clues to its whereabouts. And when we don’t deconvolute the 2 signals, they actually contaminate each other, leading to a certain mudiness and confusion in the sound. This can come across as harshness, when it comprises a lot of high energy high frequency waves. 

 

Precisely.

 

Quote

But and this is a big BUT, you can’t claim the effect comes from the brain’s ability to detect subtle, related differences in 2 signals, then ignore massive changes to those 2 signals by claiming that the brain somehow ignores those differences. It doesn’t.

 

In my case, it does. And others have noted the same behaviour, when they go to great lengths to optimise the SQ.

 

Quote

 

What you hear when standing close to the speaker is nothing like what you hear when positioned exactly as the sound engineer who created the recording intended. That huge, deep, wide and high soundstage will be nowhere to be found, because the signals that created it in the first place are no longer present, replaced by something entirely different, with a completely different distribution of amplitudes and phases and utterly different timing clues. By moving you change the characteristics and relationships of the 2 signals that the brain uses to create the effect, thus the effect changes. It may not collapse back into 2 sources, but its absolutely certainly not the same. That would be physically Impossible regardless of any psychoacoustics applied. 

 

I'll use the example of a true mono recording, say a decent version of a 1930's swing orchestra piece. At the bottom of the audio food chain this type of music can be heard accompanying a "Silly Symphonies", old style cartoon - and fits beautifully, there. The sound is comical, and fits the visual, nicely. Progressing far up the quality scale this will be an overwhelming, somewhat harsh, messy sound; that can only be tolerated in small doses. Going beyond that, the soundstage emerges, and all the performers can be separated, the individual players and their instruments become clearly identifiable, and have their own true character - an illusion of depth and space is fully realised.

 

Now, at the peak of the last SQ stage, when standing right next to the speaker that sense of what's happening does not change on iota; if in fact one puts one's head down and stares, head on, into the speaker it's as if the speaker is merely an optical illusion, some gauze with a picture on it, between you and the source of the sound - it's impossible to connect the sound as something just coming from the speaker - it's too close for a start! - the mind refuses to accept what the reality is.

 

Quote

I use a lot of psychoacoustics in the design of my system. A smallish, reflective room with a large area of diffusion, lossy in the bass, utilising the Haas ”Law of first wavefront’ to deal with reflections below the echo threshold, thus adding intensity to the performance. Some recordings literally light up the whole room, with almost perfect imaging and focus and a huge sense of something real happening.  Both the speakers and the room disappear, leaving only musicians playing in their original acoustic.  Its taken a lot of careful set-up and optimisation to reach that point and here again we agree if those same optimisations are focused on even relatively inexpensive equipment it can sound damned good. We also agree that most recording sound good to exceptional, some having the ability to change ‘state of consciousness’ due to their unusual and intense acoustics. 

 

I've acknowledged many times that playing with room acoustics is a shortcut to getting the effect; however, because it happened the first time with zero knowledge of, zero intent on utilising those 'devices', I have no interest in going down that road.

 

Quote

Remember, the 2 stereo signals are different and its that difference that creates the effect you’re looking for. Change your position and you change those differences and the effect they create.....that’s just schoolboy physics. 

 

The level of SQ is good enough that the brain accepts the "reality" of what you're hearing, no matter what your position is - note, I discovered, experienced the behaviour with zero awareness of it being possible, and then explored it; I don't have the 'arrogance of the sciencey person' who decides something can't happen, simply because the "best authorities" have not mentioned it, .

[fas42]

3 hours ago, STC said:

You are hearing it. That's why we always know that a stereo sound despite having a soundstage you still know that not natural.  A sound to be natural, all the cues must correspond to the cues that would occur in nature. The closer you reproduce them the more natural it becomes. However, a mono vocal or instrument with single speaker can be very hard to be distinguished from the original.

 

 

And this again is key ... "all the cues do not have to correspond to the cues that would occur in nature" - at least for a significant number of people a switch flicks over in the brain, and the sounds have all the characteristics of being natural - the essential ingredient is that the brain is very fussy, and the slightest hint of a giveaway anomaly causes the auditory illusion to vanish ... those people like myself who have had a rig that can be pushed to the necessary quality know exactly how the presentation changes; unfortunately, the number of those individuals is very small.

[Ralf11]

one?

[fas42]

Nope ...

 

Actually, anyone who has experienced a very well set up MBL omni system, and finds they can move around without the sound changing appreciates how it comes across. Some will say that this is the magic of that type of speaker dispersion ... ummm, no. I've heard mediocre omni rigs, and they have nothing over systems using other types of speakers.

 

It was in fact a premium MBL rig that I came across 15 years ago that triggered my reinterest in audio - it showed that the raw quality of gear had risen sufficiently for a setup to get most things right, without extra fussing.

 

[STC]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Actually, anyone who has experienced a very well set up MBL omni system, and finds they can move around without the sound changing appreciates how it comes across.

 

That’s not possible. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

one?

 

But that too was 35 years ago. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

at least for a significant number of people a switch flicks over in the brain,

 

True. There are many here and there. Life can be stressful. 

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

 

But that too was 35 years ago. 

 

It was one back then, but I tracked down others, on forums, since then.

 

Even if a person doesn't experience the full invisibility of the speakers thing, what is gained is SQ with very low levels of disturbing anomalies - a typical reaction of people listening is that they want the volume to be turned up ever more - I have to disappoint them by saying, "I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain!" .

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It was one back then, but I tracked down others, on forums, since then.

 

In forums you can make all kind of claims. In the early 2000s, I have made claim that I could reliably hear SACD and CD difference. I also could tell the difference with power conditioner and cables. The only problem was, it can only happen listening alone and I could never even able to prove to my wife. 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

In forums you can make all kind of claims. In the early 2000s, I have made claim that I could reliably hear SACD and CD difference. I also could tell the difference with power conditioner and cables. The only problem was, it can only happen listening alone and I could never even able to prove to my wife. 

 

Ahh, but the point is not to hear differences - it's to get to a point where nothing in the SQ disturbs one while listening - my wife can't stand listening to female operatic voices on lesser playback, she despises the distortion that she finds so obvious; so getting the thumbs up here confirms we are in agreement .

[STC]

43 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahh, but the point is not to hear differences - it's to get to a point where nothing in the SQ disturbs one while listening - my wife can't stand listening to female operatic voices on lesser playback, she despises the distortion that she finds so obvious; so getting the thumbs up here confirms we are in agreement .

 

If such thing exists it can be repeated and demonstrated.  You couldn’t and do not know how except repeating something which other couldn’t replicate by relying on what you seemed to be hearing. 

 

Zero information  you have provided so far. Your so called reference recordings were some pop music where there can be hardly any stereo information except for the pan potted ones. 

 

Your so called speaker disappearing act is far too common claim that can be found in forums and magazine. Unless you do not have pinnae and only one ear you cannot make the speakers disappear except occasionally when your brain starts to ignore the the natural cues. Audiophiles seemed to have a knack for this. Others, would also perceive the same with the help of a few drinks too many.  

 

Blindfold a child and ask them to localize where the sound is coming from in your supposedly speakers disappearing performs and they would not have any difficulties in localizing them. I wonder if years of being too engrossed in this hobby, one starts to hear and imagine non existent soundscape.  

 

No matter how hard you try to convince, a speaker is a source of a sound and if you couldn’t localize that than you have some problem with your hearing/brain. 

[Blackmorec]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

Ears hear sound. Each ear receive one soundwave. When the sound source is off the centre (laterally or horizontally), the signal which reaches the left and right ear is now distinguished by the level, timing and changes in the frequencies content provides the cues of the location. This is actually a learned skill and some are better at localization than others.

No, its not a learned skill or something you can teach or train...you can only refine it, like sense of smell or sense of taste. Its an innate survival mechanism. Without it mankind could not have hunted and would have themselves been hunted to extinction. 

7 hours ago, STC said:

Stereo signals are just two signals produced to trick the brain to produce the phantom image which in reality does not exist as sound cannot emerge from a space without vibration.

Stereo signals are something more special. Its not just 2 signals..its 2 signals with a relationship to one another. A single sound, from a single source is artificially split and played from 2 sources in order to mimic the sound that would other reach each ear from a single source. With a single source, the sound reaching each ear would have a different amplitude and phase based on the different distances travelled. Stereo seeks to mimic that difference by providing the 2 signals with

the correct amplitude differences such that the brain is tricked into thinking its still hearing a single source.  Of course the phantom image does not exist in space...it exists in your brain and is therefore what you hear, because you only hear what the brain produces after its processed the signals....you don’t hear pre-processed and post processed. 

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

There is nothing special about it as you can take one mono signal and reproduce the same on the other channel where you can now arbitrarily place the sound to be coming from anywhere between the two speakers or even outside the two speakers. Just record a mono recording of someone's voice and by playing with level difference you can make as if the person is moving in the stereo recording. Any recording engineer or someone with a DAW could easily doing it and been doing it. Play with phase and you can now move it outside the speakers.

Nothing different to what i’ve been saying. You take a signal, divide it and you can pan its position anywhere between the 2 speakers. However, distort or delay one of the signals just slightly and you’ll hear 2 separate sources....L & R....no phantom image 

7 hours ago, STC said:

I meant with a stereo microphone the left and right channel are captured with each unique sound waves. A reproduction of the two signal is required to recreate the sound field. 

Ah-ha

7 hours ago, STC said:

How do you think the phase relationship can exist during playback. A slight shift in your position would have a different phase of the soundwave hitting the respective ear drums. Draw a chart with a 2kHz sinewave and see how much the change by a slight shift in the head or the speakers position. There is nothing you can do to ensure the exact phase relationship can exist during playback as soundwaves travel not linearly. 

Of course you’d have a different phase reaching each ear, and of course a slight shift of the head would change what you hear. That’s the very point!  In nature when a sound wave is generated its a wave, with 360 degrees of phase. At any point when that wave reaches something like your ear its going to have a phase of X degrees. When reaches your second ear its going to have a different phase, according to the extra distance its had to travel around your head. The shift in phase will vary according to the size of your head and the direction from which the sound came. BUT, BUT the 2 phases are related...in essence its a single wave detected at 2 points so the phase detected will be  a function of the extra distance travelled. Your brains firmware is well aware of your head and pinna shape, so uses the 2 signals with their different phase to calculate the origin of the sound.  

7 hours ago, STC said:

How? Please explain. 

When you listen to a recording you are hearing the sum of 2 things; 1.  What’s on the recording and 2. What the replay mechanism further adds to that sound. The goal is to minimise 2 but a recording must be played in a venue of some sort and that venue has a signature, just like the recording venue  has a signature. In order to hear the recording venue’s signature, the signature of the replay venue needs to be as neutral and benign as possible. You seem to be mixing up characteristics of the recording, with characteristics of the replay mechanism.  

7 hours ago, STC said:

This is important because this will explain my other paragraphs. 

It may be important but i don’t at all understand what you’ve written, so if it really is important please find a way to express it in a way my simple intellect can grasp. Thanks. 

7 hours ago, STC said:

You are hearing it. That's why we always know that a stereo sound despite having a soundstage you still know that not natural.  A sound to be natural, all the cues must correspond to the cues that would occur in nature. The closer you reproduce them the more natural it becomes. However, a mono vocal or instrument with single speaker can be very hard to be distinguished from the original.

The reason a mono sounds very like the original is because the original is a mono sound. All sounds in nature are mono....point sources. But they also have another characteristic. Location and that’s a trick that mono can’t pull off. Its position remains static. It can’t move unless the thing that generates the sound moves. 

 

The fact that the ear receives something doesn’t mean that you hear it. Hearing something is essentially an act of consciousness....if a sound doesn’t make it to the consciousness, you don’t hear it. If the brain takes 2 signals, one from each ear, combines them and makes the result conscious, you hear only the combination and not the original 2 signals. So there’s no 3 signals (original L & R + processed L&R), the brain only makes conscious the processed signal. 

 

In nature, we take the signal reaching each ear, process it and hear a sound with direction. 

In stereo, we manipulate what is essentially a mono signal with no location, by splitting it across 2 sources in order to provide the missing directionality.  In order for the brain not to detect 2 discreet signals we have to ensure that the proper relation exists between the 2 signals to make sure the brain detects what it believes to be a single sound. 

 

Think about this. When a sound is produced in nature it does not include any  positional information. The positional information is added by you and your entire hearing mechanism including head, pinna, ears etc.  What we then hear is the position of the sound source relative to us.  

All stereo does is seek to emulate the natural sound AS IT REACHES OUR EARS, not the sound as its  produced, which has no positional information...but the sound as the signal is divided and enters our ears, which has had positional information added. If you get that you get the whole thing.  

 

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

[STC]

41 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

No, its not a learned skill or something you can teach or train...you can only refine it, like sense of smell or sense of taste. Its an innate survival mechanism. Without it mankind could not have hunted and would have themselves been hunted to extinction.

 

It is a learning skill like walking. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/22/5413

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3912&context=masters_theses

 

 

41 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Stereo signals are something more special. Its not just 2 signals..its 2 signals with a relationship to one another. A single sound, from a single source is artificially split and played from 2 sources in order to mimic the sound that would other reach each ear from a single source. With a single source, the sound reaching each ear would have a different amplitude and phase based on the different distances travelled. Stereo seeks to mimic that difference by providing the 2 signals with

the correct amplitude differences such that the brain is tricked into thinking its still hearing a single source.  Of course the phantom image does not exist in space...it exists in your brain and is therefore what you hear, because you only hear what the brain produces after its processed the signals....you don’t hear pre-processed and post processed. 

 

They are just two signals. A real stereo can be more accurate but as far as stereo reproduction is concerned, you can take a mono recording and duplicate them (exact copy) as two channels. When you reduce the level in one channel the sound moves towards the louder loudspeaker. There is no need to split the signal to create the stereo effect.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Nothing different to what i’ve been saying. You take a signal, divide it and you can pan its position anywhere between the 2 speakers. However, distort or delay one of the signals just slightly and you’ll hear 2 separate sources....L & R....no phantom image 

Ah-ha

 

There is no need to divide to create the phantom image from a mono recording. In fact, most studio recordings are made from mono tracks and artificial placed.

 

Delays one signal also alters the position. That's what I am doing with crosstalk. I can exactly tell how much delay is required to shift the phantom image.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Of course you’d have a different phase reaching each ear, and of course a slight shift of the head would change what you hear. That’s the very point!  In nature when a sound wave is generated its a wave, with 360 degrees of phase. At any point when that wave reaches something like your ear its going to have a phase of X degrees. When reaches your second ear its going to have a different phase, according to the extra distance its had to travel around your head. The shift in phase will vary according to the size of your head and the direction from which the sound came. BUT, BUT the 2 phases are related...in essence its a single wave detected at 2 points so the phase detected will be  a function of the extra distance travelled. Your brains firmware is well aware of your head and pinna shape, so uses the 2 signals with their different phase to calculate the origin of the sound.  

When you listen to a recording you are hearing the sum of 2 things; 1.  What’s on the recording and 2. What the replay mechanism further adds to that sound. The goal is to minimise 2 but a recording must be played in a venue of some sort and that venue has a signature, just like the recording venue  has a signature. In order to hear the recording venue’s signature, the signature of the replay venue needs to be as neutral and benign as possible. You seem to be mixing up characteristics of the recording, with characteristics of the replay mechanism.  

It may be important but i don’t at all understand what you’ve written, so if it really is important please find a way to express it in a way my simple intellect can grasp. Thanks. 

The reason a mono sounds very like the original is because the original is a mono sound. All sounds in nature are mono....point sources. But they also have another characteristic. Location and that’s a trick that mono can’t pull off. Its position remains static. It can’t move unless the thing that generates the sound moves. 

 

The fact that the ear receives something doesn’t mean that you hear it. Hearing something is essentially an act of consciousness....if a sound doesn’t make it to the consciousness, you don’t hear it. If the brain takes 2 signals, one from each ear, combines them and makes the result conscious, you hear only the combination and not the original 2 signals. So there’s no 3 signals (original L & R + processed L&R), the brain only makes conscious the processed signal. 

 

In nature, we take the signal reaching each ear, process it and hear a sound with direction. 

In stereo, we manipulate what is essentially a mono signal with no location, by splitting it across 2 sources in order to provide the missing directionality.  In order for the brain not to detect 2 discreet signals we have to ensure that the proper relation exists between the 2 signals to make sure the brain detects what it believes to be a single sound. 

 

Think about this. When a sound is produced in nature it does not include any  positional information. The positional information is added by you and your entire hearing mechanism including head, pinna, ears etc.  What we then hear is the position of the sound source relative to us.  

All stereo does is seek to emulate the natural sound AS IT REACHES OUR EARS, not the sound as its  produced, which has no positional information...but the sound as the signal is divided and enters our ears, which has had positional information added. If you get that you get the whole thing.  

 

 

 

Stereo is just a method to trick the brain to reconstruct the positional space. If a stereo recording is all about phase as you alleged then it should also able to produce sound from above and behind you since you are saying the a microphone will capture phase, amplitude accurately. Unfortunately this is not true and fueled by audiophiles and high end manufacturer. 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Not in a position right now to reply to all said since last posting - I will just state now that subjectively what is experienced is precisely what you would hear if the real performance was occurring beyond the speakers, and you moved around in the vicinity of that, including going outside the room. Precision in imaging is a minor element of that, a curiousity; and which is far less interesting than the sense of engagement with the music making.

Let’s for a moment discuss the difference between said live performance and the stereo reproduction. 

In the live performance you’d have sound waves originating from a single point source and impinging on both ears. The difference in the signal reaching each ear would be a function of source position, your position and head and pinna shape and size. 

In stereo, there isn’t a single source of sound, there are 2, so the sound you hear would be a function of source position 1(S1), source position 2 (S2), your position vs S1, your position vs S2 and your head and pinna shape.  In stereo, the sounds are balanced by the recording engineer such that when you are sitting exactly midway between the 2 sources, the 2 sources balance out to equal the same amplitudes as those coming from a single source in its desired position. In any other position, the stereo sounds will lose their relationship and sound different.  

[Blackmorec]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It is a learning skill like walking. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/22/5413

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3912&context=masters_theses

 

Actually what you posted was a scientific paper on how hearing has to be retaught after the ears are lost. That’s like saying that you have to learn to walk because someone with prosthetic limbs needs to learn to walk.  Walking is not a learned skill. Its a natural attribute that every single able bodied human can do without a single minute’s instruction or training. 

Running isn’t a learned skill, despite all the World’s best athletes having running coaches.  Of course every skill, learned or natural can be refined or honed, hence people like perfumers and genuine wine experts have refined their natural abilities. But everything about listening to audio  is based on a natural, intrinsic ability. This, like anything else can be refined but we don’t need be an audiophile to hear the full effect of stereo, since its based on an innate ability that everyone with well functioning hearing has.  

]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

They are just two signals. A real stereo can be more accurate but as far as stereo reproduction is concerned, you can take a mono recording and duplicate them (exact copy) as two channels. When you reduce the level in one channel the sound moves towards the louder loudspeaker. There is no need to split the signal to create the stereo effect.

This is just semantics. Whether you duplicate or split, the resulting 2 copies have a direct relationship to the original, which is the point. 

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There is no need to divide to create the phantom image from a mono recording. In fact, most studio recordings are made from mono tracks and artificial placed.

If you don’t divide (or duplicate) the signal in the second channel, you’ll have a mono signal playing in one channel,  either hard left or hard right. Split, duplicate and adjust amplitude between the 2 signals you can place the signal wherever you want between the 2 speakers.   ‘Artificially placed’ essentially means part of the signal is played from one channel and the rest from the other....in other words a divided signal. 

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Delays one signal also alters the position. That's what I am doing with crosstalk. I can exactly tell how much delay is required to shift the phantom image.

Of course it does. Sound takes time to travel and phase = time. Time is proportional to distance, therefore phase is proportional to distance (along with wavelength) and distance is what gives anything position relative to something else

13 minutes ago, STC said:

Stereo is just a method to trick the brain to reconstruct the positional space. If a stereo recording is all about phase as you alleged then it should also able to produce sound from above and behind you since you are saying the a microphone will capture phase, amplitude accurately. Unfortunately this is not true and fueled by audiophiles and high end manufacturer. 

Do you live anywhere near the North East of England?  If you do I’d consider inviting you round for a listening session. 

Sit down, close your eyes and listen. What you’ll hear has nothing to do with the room (at least that you can detect) the speaker position, which you will also not be at all able to detect and everything to do with the recording and either it’s recording venue or the sound stage that the recording  engineer created. When asked where certain sounds originate you’ll point to extreme positions way away from the boundaries designated by the speaker/listener triangle. With some recordings, which I’ll happily post, you’ll end up pointing to a spot somewhere beyond the ceiling. 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

5 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Oh and btw, nowhere did I say that microphones capture phase accurately, as that wouldn’t particularly matter. Its the relation of the signal’s phase as it reaches both ears that matters....nothing else

 

[sandyk]

56 minutes ago, STC said:

Stereo is just a method to trick the brain to reconstruct the positional space. If a stereo recording is all about phase as you alleged then it should also able to produce sound from above and behind you

 

 If your system is good enough, yes it will !

The Chesky recording of "The Storm" even when down converted to Stereo can give a frighteningly real illusion of Height.

Olivia Newton John's recording of "Moth to a Flame"  gives a simulated anti clockwise sweep of a Moth from behind both the speakers and the listening position with a better than average system and listening room.

However, to produce sound behind you, it is much easier to achieve that with artificial phase manipulation. e.g. QSound

[opus101]

4 hours ago, STC said:

No matter how hard you try to convince, a speaker is a source of a sound and if you couldn’t localize that than you have some problem with your hearing/brain. 

 

Quite the contrary in my experience - if the speakers (which are the source not only of the 'foreground' sound but also its 'background') are easily located then you're enjoying low quality playback.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Quite the contrary in my experience - if the speakers (which are the source not only of the 'foreground' sound but also its 'background') are easily located then you're enjoying low quality playback.

 

Unless of course it's a recording like some of The Beatles recordings.

[opus101]

Yes, I was assuming that the recording itself did include 'background' (aka 'ambience') to accompany the foreground. 

[Blackmorec]

Yes, of course we you always need to add ‘recording permitting’ as all these capabilities we discuss reside in the recording and are simply revealed by the system. 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Quite the contrary in my experience - if the speakers (which are the source not only of the 'foreground' sound but also its 'background') are easily located then you're enjoying low quality playback.

 

True stereo reproduction when the left and right signal arrives at the ears at the same time the speakers disappear, however in stereo reproduction there will be occasion where the signals are not identical where the phantom images can emerge anywhere between the speakers. During such events, the first arriving signal from the respective speaker will give the cue where the sound is coming from. However, since similar sound also emerges from the other speakers you will be localizing two sources but the eventual level difference would produce a firmer phantom image and we overlook the actual position of the speakers and exact localization can be inaccurate although the general direction will be correct. 

 

During audio shows, you will find speakers placed side by side for demo and often you cannot tell which of the two pairs are playing unless told. The fact, the pinna still locates the speakers was the reason why crosstalk cancellation do not work correctly in a typical 60 degrees setup because the pinna is extremely sensitive to sound coming from that direction. 

 

In a general sense, we may say the speakers disappear but if you focus hard enough and blind folded you can always tell whether the speakers are at 60 or 90 or 120 degrees angle.