Jump to content

STC

  • Content Count

    2891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About STC

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Klang Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

4379 profile views
  1. Do you remember the measurement method by Toole? IIRC, correctly the measurement was taken at ear level. I have the frequency response of sound from a speaker at 30 degrees to the left have two different frequency response at left and right level by Toole. Was the measurement taken on axis of the speaker or at ear level?
  2. “So, why not just measure the loudspeaker in a room? Because, compared to two ears and a brain, a microphone is a “dumb” device. It accepts sounds from any angle, at any time, and treats them equally. In contrast, a human distinguishes between direct sounds and later arrivals (the precedence effect and forward masking), and between sounds from one direc- tion and those from another (binaural discrimination)”. - F Toole. Now you know why when same sound that perceived by the ear and microphone when reproduce from the same direction it sounds muddy.
  3. 1) if you believe anyone could capture the real live performance in stereo speakers than that is crazy. 2) I am not saying it will sound exactly like how your system sounds. That is not possible. 3) The only issue here is his false logic of the reasons for the muddy sound captured at LP. We have three recordings here. SHTF, Esldude and mine. All three were captured at LP. If all the three, only mine is omnidirectional were it not only captures the direct sound of the speakers but also sound from behind, side and all around me. SFTH recording sounded clear with room acoustics while Esldude sounded muddy. There is a reason for that. If Esldude were to use the same mic configuration as used by Shtf then it will sound very clear. Had shtf used the mic and configuration of Esldude it would probably have more room acoustics since he claimed that his room was not treated. Is this so complicated? Anyway, I have offered to make the recordings and if Esldude is sure of his understanding how hearing and microphones work, he should able to to tell how the recordings going to sound. I have post many videos of Lp recordings of my system in this forum and therefor it would not be so hard for him to recognize my room signature. Note that Omni capture sound at all angles much like human ear although the response at various angles differ.
  4. He knows what it is. He is just not seeing the production of it from same point as the direct sound which make the recording blur. In room or hall, a direct sound is repeated by reflection from different angles arriving much later. It is like having thousands of speakers around you each with its own different response arriving at various time. The ear hears them and uses that cues to determine the space where the sound event occurred. When he records using cardioid at LP he captured good reflection from the side as well. Although, it sound muddy in the recording, the ratio of direct and ambiance is pretty good and in situ listening would have been much clearer and enjoyable. Had he used a dummy head with two cardioid mic and listened through headphones over the ears, it will be a better representation of how the system really sounds as the headphones sound waves goes through similar pinna filtering like hearing live at LP.
  5. Why it is irrelevant? Let me simplify this for you. If believe in what you are saying then it can be demonstrated. I can make recordings using the following setup. 1) H1 XY facing the speakers. 2) H1 XY facing upwards 3) 17cm spaces Omni mic close to the ears. 4) Binaural in ear mic, recording. The objective is to capture the actual sound that reaches my ear. The in ear binaural recording may not sound to have the correct tonality as it has gone through pinna filtering because they were inside my ears. But the objective is to hear the ambiance and direct sound as heard in-situ. My room’s RT is about 0.34s now. I have not measured them recently but without the carpet and the front reflectors that was the figure when I measured about 6 or seven years ago. I understand you have Reaper. And I am sure you can convert two stereo recording to 4.0 format. I’ll use your reference A and B recording and balloon burst in anechoic room ( I hope it is still there). You have heard my sample recording at LP. Contrary to what you said there is hardly any room acoustic signature in my recording despite using omnidirectional microphone. In all my recording I have turned off the 20 surround speakers which create real hall ambiance. Therefore, the ambiance in my room can vary from 0.34s to 3.3s RT. I have an advantage where I can produce the ambiance/reverb alone without direct sound. That is if I mute my main speakers you only hear the bouncing sound that is hitting the surface of the room and the artificial ambiance from the surround speakers. It will sound like you are sitting far away in a school hall. Since you seemed to know how ears work. Make a guess how the 4 setup going to sound in the recording I am going to make? “As the microphone is 'hearing differently" or the names of the various patterns wouldn't have names if they are the same. “ That is precisely the point. The microphone have different pickup patterns but our ears don’t.
  6. It is obvious you never ventured beyond ORTF recording. Sound waves that hit the microphone and your ear drum are the same. None of the stuff you can back up by research. What you are repeating is by quoting certain reference to justify your position. You are still refusing to answer why an Omni mic recorded sound is muddy but a cardioid or super cardioid sound clearer. Is the mic hearing differently now? The sound is the same. Capture the wave reaching your ears.
  7. This exactly what will not give the true picture. It eliminates/minimizes the side reflection which is crucial for the perception of spaciousness. See Toole’s lateral reflection papers. If you look at the polar pattern of the ear, signals from 90 degrees are similar to the waves from front up-to 2000Hz. Loudspeakers sound usually radiates flat up to 30 degrees to either side. Assuming the sound hit the side wall and reflect to the ear, the ear would have picked up the sound but attenuate them above 2000Hz. The above sound reaches your ears and processed by your brain. These are part of the live listening experience. Now you have moved away from cardioid to ms. Pick one so I could explain further. As distance play a role in attenuation of HF which will further affected by the surface of the side wall. In the end, despite a flat response capture of MS microphone the end result what likely to be captured somewhat will be same as what reaches the ear to casual listening. You see, if you are only willing to forget “ mic captures more sound” for a moment and experiment with the ms mic you will understand it is not the recording but the direction of the output. I have explained this every time you bring up this topic but you seemed to have made up your mind and you are not the first one to have the misconception as Even professional recording engineers seemed to have them.
  8. Do you realize that goes through mixer before output? This is the setting that was used in the video.
  9. Amazing. This is you ear picking up the sound. Which means it pick up way more ambiance then a card. Typical card. Although, with Shure it was restricted to 135 degrees. Just tell me from this polar pattern how is the card could pick more ambiance sound than ears?
  10. Tsk.tsk...sound waves are choosy. They just behave differently when traveling from the source to ears with different stimulation.
  11. Perhaps, someone should tell them not to waste time in reconstruction the church to be acoustically correct. Just concentrate on the musicians and their instruments and everything will sound fabulous. When in doubt , consult Frank for fine tuning.
  12. When you make as many recordings like I have of different system and listening them with headphones, you will learn to know what cues in the recordings that worth analyzing and used as reference for correction. In fact, reading Esldude's comment I am now thinking whether everyone literally took it for granted that my own videos were the true representation of system sound? In ear response varies so differently and whoever listen to them might have perceived recessed mid and bright due to pinna filtration. But that is so basic that I thought they would listen for separation, depth and ambiance which now looks like an exercise in futility.
  13. The glare is probably due to the microphone. His room is damped and I hardly picked up any room signature. My guess is listening live in-situ wouldn't be so bright as heard over the iPhone. I also noticed that he toe'd-in the speakers which could have contributed to the excessive HF in the M/S microphone recording. BTW, STC also said other things which would put the word in a proper context when read along other posts in the whole thread.
  14. I have always used standard or natural with slight adjustments. Skin tones are the hardest to reproduce accurately. Photographers can confirm that. Don’t expect the skin color to be natural as all of them would have painted their skin to look good on screen. I mostly watch documentaries relating to nature and that gives a nice reference for accurate adjustment. For movies, my preference is not shared by daughter. My son and wife don’t care. But the adjustments is always going on depending on movies.
×
×
  • Create New...