[KH]

On 6/11/2012 6:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/9/2012 2:09 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Yes, that is the problem. The signal presented to the listener, in the
venue, has angular, temporal, and level clues that, in conjunction with
the HRTF of the listener, create a spacial image. That information was
not, however, encoded into the recording except as temporal and level
information. No matter how that information is played back, the signal
reaching the listener cannot be the same as in the venue. Reflecting the
sound cannot, except in the context of listener preference, ameliorate
this constraint.

Keith, I'm not sure what exactly your conceptual problem is,

I'm tempted to believe you. Not convinced, but tempted. I would posit,
however, the conceptual difficulty appears to be yours.

but everyone
knows that stereo operates on temporal and level differences between
channels. You have noticed how those differences can cause the perception of
phantom images between the speakers, right? That spatial information is
encoded into the channels by means of temporal and level differences in the
signals.

Then quit asking questions like "where did the information go?". The
spatial information you are describing is left/right - that's it. That
information *is* encoded in the signal. Up/down, front/back, that
information is not present in two channel recordings. You can create an
illusion of depth and height - not the same thing.


Now, I have observed that reflecting a part of the sound from room surfaces
can cause an image shift toward the reflecting surfaces. This has a twofold
perceptual impact. One, it causes the sound to go outside the speaker boxes
and appear as an aerial image somewhat behind the plane of the speakers,
seeming like the instruments are right there in the room with you, rather
than coming from speakers.

And I have noticed that this sounds contrived, oversized, diffuse, and
not at all realistic. It is, inarguably, inaccurate since the new
spatial distribution of the reproduction cannot possibly be anywhere
close to the actual event.

Secondly, it causes an impression of spaciousness
in recordings that contain such information, such as correctly miked
symphonies in a good hall. Most of us have experienced this very audible
difference between directional speakers and more omni type speakers.

Yes, we have. Some of us think that's realism, some of us don't.


OK, fine, now between those two types of sound, one is likely to sound
closer to live than the other. If you think that is just a preference and
worth no further study, then that is the bed you shall l ie in.

Taking umbrage at a strawman of your construction is hardly helpful.

If I think
this is a significant point and worth further study, and try to get others
to notice these effects and help me out, then please don't tell me it is all
pointless because you are not interested.

Yet another strawman. Please provide a quote that even intimates any
such thought. As I've said, ad nauseum, and as you've ignored rather
perniciously, is that you are ignoring the role of preference, and want
to divorce it from the process. Ignoring preference is as egregious an
error as ignoring the physics or engineering involved.

Audiophiles have been trying to
figure out what causes these effects for decades. They have complained about
boxy sounding speakers and the hole in the middle effect and wondered what
makes some systems sound more realistic than others.

And where are all these audiophiles complaining about "hole in the
middle"? I've counted exactly one...you.

My theories answer some
very basic questions about very audible effects, and should be studied
further.

Yes, more psychoacoustic investigation is called for, to test these effects
of reflected sound w respect to the playback situation. No, I have not and
cannot do it all on my own. But I need some of those who can do it to pay
attention and see if some of my suggestions on speaker placement and
radiation patterns and room treatment could be true, so that it might help
engineer the installation of stereo systems and the development of new
speakers and maybe recording techniques.

So, you have an epiphany that tells you those of use who prefer direct
radiating speakers are nuts, and reflected sound is the only way to have
realism, BUT you need other people to invest time, money, and energy
into exploring *if* you *may* be right about said epiphany?

And, please, explain why you continue to avoid my simple direct question
about whether if you and I disagree about a system being realistic, is
one of us wrong? Could it be that you know full well that either way
you answer requires that you accept that individual preference is a
prime factor? And that, further, there can be no "paradigm" that
explains the whole theory of "correct" stereo reproduction unless you
exclude preference as a variable? Not *the* variable as you attempt to
claim, but a major variable.

Keith