Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[Kal Rubinson]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Have you ever been up close at a live concert where the singer walks back and forth on the stage with a microphone?

Undoubtedly, I have but I am also certain that, under those circumstances. it is unlikely I would have been paying attention to the soundstaging.

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

t's certainly captured, because the microphone was on - in a fully synthesized piece, the reverb is added via software, say ... but IME this takes nothing away from the impact of the piece.

 

No. Close mic'ing only captures direct sound, not room ambience cues. And added reverb is definitely not captured spatial information. This is a fact (unless your name is Donald).

 

It may or may not "take away from from the impact of the piece" depending on the recording as well as the listener but that is a whole nother matter (of opinion and taste)...

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

No. Close mic'ing only captures direct sound, not room ambience cues. And added reverb is definitely not captured spatial information. This is a fact (unless your name is Donald).

 

There is this idea that microphones do what they're told ... 😁. Luckily, they're not that obedient, and actually capture whatever impinges on their diaphragm - unless you record in an anechoic chamber, there is always echo information, which 'fills out' the sound. If reverb is added, then that will dominate the acoustic picture, normally - every recording will be different.

 

Quote

 

It may or may not "take away from from the impact of the piece" depending on the recording as well as the listener but that is a whole nother matter (of opinion and taste)...

 

I haven't come across a recording yet where the reverb information, one way or another, doesn't add desirable texture to the piece - if you're a purist then you may disagree, strongly - and that's fine.

[semente]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

There is this idea that microphones do what they're told ... 😁. Luckily, they're not that obedient, and actually capture whatever impinges on their diaphragm - unless you record in an anechoic chamber, there is always echo information, which 'fills out' the sound. If reverb is added, then that will dominate the acoustic picture, normally - every recording will be different.

 

You're making stuff up.

Call any of your friends. Ask him to talk or better still sing into the phone mic at close distance (10-20cm) then do the same with the phone a couple of meters away. The effect will be more obvious in the bathroom.

 

You may have not realised but people have been taking nearfield measurements of speakers and drivers since the '70s precisely to avoid capturing room effects or the need for an anechoic chamber.

 

[semente]

Close-mic'ing is useful because it allows the isolated pick up of a single instrument of vocal which will go into its own track for easier mixing (pan-potting, EQ, levelling, effects, etc.). It removes the room sound and the sound of the other instruments/vocals.

[semente]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

I haven't come across a recording yet where the reverb information, one way or another, doesn't add desirable texture to the piece - if you're a purist then you may disagree, strongly - and that's fine.

 

Reverb is mandatory with close-mic'ing. There are youtube live performances of rock/pop where too little was used and it doesn't sound good at all. Too much sounds just as bad.

[jabbr]

16 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Undoubtedly, I have but I am also certain that, under those circumstances. it is unlikely I would have been paying attention to the soundstaging.

Pre covid, I have had the opportunity to attend many such events, and I have no qualms about supporting the artists up front and person. I also pay close attention to the differences between live and reproduction. 
 

Soundstage is something our brain can create and modulate given visual cues

[Kal Rubinson]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Pre covid, I have had the opportunity to attend many such events, and I have no qualms about supporting the artists up front and person. I also pay close attention to the differences between live and reproduction. 

I am sure that you do but I cannot think that I have attended such a concert in the past decade or so.  The live events that I attend are concerts in which the performers are in fixed positions and there is no one walking "back and forth on the stage with a microphone".   I do pay attention to the differences between live and reproduction but in that context.

 

[pkane2001]

30 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I am sure that you do but I cannot think that I have attended such a concert in the past decade or so.  The live events that I attend are concerts in which the performers are in fixed positions and there is no one walking "back and forth on the stage with a microphone".   I do pay attention to the differences between live and reproduction but in that context.

 

Eyes provide a very strong input into the audio perception of position. Ears have a very coarse sense of direction, and we usually use them to help look in the generally right direction to pinpoint the source of sound. Once sighted, the ‘audible’ position becomes much more precise in our mind. Without sighted position, soundstage and instrument locations are much more vague.

[botrytis]

Ears are actually the strongest for input. Just realize that people have more audio hallucinations than they do visual.

 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

You're making stuff up.

Call any of your friends. Ask him to talk or better still sing into the phone mic at close distance (10-20cm) then do the same with the phone a couple of meters away. The effect will be more obvious in the bathroom.

 

You may have not realised but people have been taking nearfield measurements of speakers and drivers since the '70s precisely to avoid capturing room effects or the need for an anechoic chamber.

 

There are obvious effects, and then there are subtle effects - if you want things to be obvious, then do it in such a way that it is impossible to miss. But the real world, of audio, is full of subtleties - we are hearing echo information all the time and processing it, completely unconsciously ... this is why if you listen to almost anything in a truly anechoic room, it is quite disturbing, for most people. Human hearing expects to hear echos, and if it doesn't get them, then it's a signal that "something's wrong". Which, in part, is why much audio reproduction never pushes the "it's real!" button in your brain - the expected echo information is too messed up, and your brain cries "Fake!!"

 

If one has had experience listening to setups at various levels of refinement, then the journey is well known ... replay at a sub-par level makes a complex mix of sounds in various acoustics, on a 'difficult' album, sound a mess; it is truly, unlistenable to. Once the SQ passes a certain point, the subjective experience completely reverses - the complexity, and the intricacy of the sound tapestry all now make sense; it becomes a wondrous experience; there is nothing that you hear that is just 'noise', all sound now belongs to its parent source.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

Ears are actually the strongest for input. Just realize that people have more audio hallucinations than they do visual.

The likelihood of auditory hallucinations is more likely due to the location of primary auditory cortices in the temporal lobe and in proximity to the hippocampus than it has to strength or acuity.  

[Jud]

On 11/27/2020 at 3:02 PM, pkane2001 said:

Is soundstage a physical property of sound or something derived by   the brain, i.e., perceived?

Both.

 

As is any sensory perception.

 

Since it can be manipulated quite reliably, the properties that create it can also be reliably measured. Thus Roger Waters’ engineer will know how to make a sound appear to come from just outside the right speaker or from slightly further outside the right speaker, and does so by adjusting certain properties of the recording.

 

If one has an anomalous room it can mess up the effect, but such a room can mess up all sorts of acoustic information. So I don’t know why people would emphasize soundstage in particular as something unmeasurable.

[Jud]

On 11/28/2020 at 1:53 PM, pkane2001 said:

Eyes provide a very strong input into the audio perception of position. Ears have a very coarse sense of direction, and we usually use them to help look in the generally right direction to pinpoint the source of sound. Once sighted, the ‘audible’ position becomes much more precise in our mind. Without sighted position, soundstage and instrument locations are much more vague.

Maybe you should have my speakers. 😉 (Soundstage - a quite defined and stable one - is something they’re built to emphasize, to the slight detriment of flat frequency response.)

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

Maybe you should have my speakers. 😉 (Soundstage - a quite defined and stable one - is something they’re built to emphasize, to the slight detriment of flat frequency response.)

 

So is mine, but have you done a controlled experiment with sound popping up at random locations and trying to pinpoint them with, say a laser pointer? A test suggested to me at one point by @SoundAndMotion. The result may not be as precise as you might think.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So is mine, but have you done a controlled experiment with sound popping up at random locations and trying to pinpoint them with, say a laser pointer? A test suggested to me at one point by @SoundAndMotion. The result may not be as precise as you might think.

Has this been compared to “live” sound (voices, handclaps, various instruments) in literature you’re aware of? When we speak of precision, it should only be as good as the real thing, not better.

 

(BTW, when you say “so is mine,” can you tell me what the brand is and what the crossover filter design is?)

[pkane2001]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

Has this been compared to “live” sound (voices, handclaps, various instruments) in literature you’re aware of? When we speak of precision, it should only be as good as the real thing, not better.

 

(BTW, when you say “so is mine,” can you tell me what the brand is and what the crossover filter design is?)

 

Thiel 3.6, first-order, 6db/oct

[Jud]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Thiel 3.6, first-order, 6db/oct

Only other manufacturer I’m aware of basing its design on similar principles to Vandersteen. It’s too bad they’re no longer in existence.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So is mine, but have you done a controlled experiment with sound popping up at random locations and trying to pinpoint them with, say a laser pointer? A test suggested to me at one point by @SoundAndMotion. The result may not be as precise as you might think.

 

Which could be missing the point, that when one listens to sound with meaning, versus that without meaning, that the brain is working very differently. The mind uses patterns learnt over a lifetime, of how to associate perceived sounds with something that has value to it, that it can see in front of it. Random noises, which are nonsense in as far as the human being is concerned, could easily be discarded as not being worth trying to follow; but interesting and engaging music motivates one to fully engage with the sound, and steadily "build up a picture" of its precise location.

 

Whenever I see experiments that use the person as a witless robot, I shrink from taking the results too seriously - the complexity of the human being as a highly evolved organism is left out of the equation - so do the findings really mean what some think they mean?

[semente]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

Only other manufacturer I’m aware of basing its design on similar principles to Vandersteen. It’s too bad they’re no longer in existence.

 

Dutch & Dutch and Kii (DSP), and PSI Audio (analogue) also design speakers which are phase/time-coincident. Probably others that I don't know of.

 

Edit: and Quad ESLs.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, semente said:

 

Dutch & Dutch and Kii (DSP), and PSI Audio (analogue) also design speakers which are phase/time-coincident. Probably others that I don't know of.

 

Edit: and Quad ESLs.

 

Phase coherency is way over given value to, as something that defines quality playback, IME. Years ago, I had two completely speakers for left and right channel, where one was constructed for phase accuracy, and the other wasn't. Couldn't pick it in the listening, and others who heard the strange combo didn't notice anything amiss - both sides of the two types were in the room, so there was no visual cue that it wasn't hooked up as expected.

[pkane2001]

On 11/30/2020 at 5:08 PM, fas42 said:

 

Which could be missing the point, that when one listens to sound with meaning, versus that without meaning, that the brain is working very differently. The mind uses patterns learnt over a lifetime, of how to associate perceived sounds with something that has value to it, that it can see in front of it. Random noises, which are nonsense in as far as the human being is concerned, could easily be discarded as not being worth trying to follow; but interesting and engaging music motivates one to fully engage with the sound, and steadily "build up a picture" of its precise location.

 

Whenever I see experiments that use the person as a witless robot, I shrink from taking the results too seriously - the complexity of the human being as a highly evolved organism is left out of the equation - so do the findings really mean what some think they mean?

 

You missed the point -- the sound is an instrument, e.g., drums, or hands clapping or someone speaking while moving around. The position varies on the recording. Try to hit the positions correctly across multiple such recordings. There's nothing robotic about this, it's exactly what every audiophile claims they can do with a perfect "rig": pinpoint the position of an instrument with great precision. 

 

[pkane2001]

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Phase coherency is way over given value to, as something that defines quality playback, IME. Years ago, I had two completely speakers for left and right channel, where one was constructed for phase accuracy, and the other wasn't. Couldn't pick it in the listening, and others who heard the strange combo didn't notice anything amiss - both sides of the two types were in the room, so there was no visual cue that it wasn't hooked up as expected.

 

Doesn't quite rise to the level of an objective experiment, does it Frank? ;)

 

[Confused]

 

11 hours ago, semente said:

 

Dutch & Dutch and Kii (DSP), and PSI Audio (analogue) also design speakers which are phase/time-coincident. Probably others that I don't know of.

 

Edit: and Quad ESLs.

These too:

 

https://us.kef.com/blog/open-your-soundstage-up-with-ls50w-phase-correction

 

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You missed the point -- the sound is an instrument, e.g., drums, or hands clapping or someone speaking while moving around. The position varies on the recording. Try to hit the positions correctly across multiple such recordings. There's nothing robotic about this, it's exactly what every audiophile claims they can do with a perfect "rig": pinpoint the position of an instrument with great precision. 

 

 

You said,

 

Quote

sound popping up at random locations

 

which implies a meaningless to it, as compared to how people normally experience music sounds. With regard to what's on recordings, my experiences echo those "audiophile claims" - the better the replay, the greater the definition of every sound within the mix; you can tell, with great confidence, "where the sound is coming from".

 

What some would find remarkable, is that this can happen with a 'crude' recording - a swing orchestra, going for it in the 1930's - the positioning of the solo instruments, and the ensemble brass, and the drummer way out the back, are neatly laid out - very little lateral sense, but in depth, a lot can be made out.