[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Scott wrote:
=20
"Gary, we know what you've been doing. You have told us about it many
times. You like your stereo bounced off the walls of your listening
room. You find it pleasing and that is completely fine. I have heard
the Bose 901s on several occasions including a couple of demos set up
by Bose themselves in custom rooms built just for the 901s. It wasn't
to my liking. Not one bit actually.
=20
Not talking about 901s.

You are talking about the principle on which the 901s work and let's not fo=
rget that they were your long time reference speakers and it was your exper=
ience with them that lead you down the path of advocacy of this idea of bou=
ncing the playback off the walls of the listening room. So my experience wi=
th the 901s is relevant.=20
=20
=20
I already explained what it is you are actually hearing. Temporal
differences between your two ears. If you think you can actually hear
angles without the temporal differences put it to the test. See if
you can still "hear angles" with one ear blocked so your brain does
not receive the temporal differences.
=20
This is some of the crazier statements that you have made Scott. Still no=
t=20
sure which Scott you are - but can't hear angles?

Not what I said. I said our perception of sound from angles is reliant on t=
emporal information. You asserted that we can separate temporal and spacial=
cues. You can't. You won't get spacial cues without the temporal qualities=
of sound. That is one of the reasons we need two ears to perceive spacial =
information of sound.=20

All of a sudden we can't=20
hear in stereo?


Where did that come from? It didn't come from me. I never said anything rem=
otely close to that.=20


What kind of nonsense is this?

It's the kind of nonsense you have arbitrarily brought into the conversatio=
n and wrongly attributed to me. I never said you can't hear angles. I speci=
fically said that hearing/perceiving angles is reliant on temporal content =
of the sound. I certainly never said one can not hear stereo. i said nothin=
g even close to that.

Where did you get it?

Where did you get it? Certainly not from any of my posts.=20

=20
=20
No doubt reflected sound/ hall acoustics has a profound effect on the
sound quality of live acoustic music. But the spaciousness is real.
=20
Yes, and it needs to be real on playback as well.

It can't be. One would have to tear down their listening room, build a repl=
ica of the original hall, toss out the recording and create a new recording=
with a channel for each musician in the original recording with a speaker =
in the same place as the musician occupied and then somehow make each speak=
er have the same exact radiation pattern as the actual instrument played. A=
ND we would need to find a way to record the original instruments in such a=
way that we capture the actual vibration of the instrument itself and not =
the air borne sound. Then we need to find a way to do that for the next rec=
ording we want to play which would likely be a different hall, different mu=
sicians, different instruments etc etc etc. Until we get Star Trek holodeck=
s this simply isn't going to be how stereo recording and playback works.=20

=20
The separation of instruments in a live concert is due to...the
actual separation of instruments in a live concert. Think about it.
There is a whole science behind concert hall design. It's something I
find quite interesting and have done a fair amount of research on. It
does not apply to stereo playback rooms. They are entirely different
beasts and serve very different purposes. On top of that much of what
we perceive as "imaging" and "spaciousness" at a live concert is due
to visual cues. We don't get visual cues in stereo playback. If you
could get the same exact sound in the playback room that you got at a
concert hall the perception of imaging would not sound "right" and
would be deemed inadequate.
=20
No, they are not different. If you don't reproduce, or reconstruct, the=
=20
spatial realism it will sound different.

The function of a playback room and a concert hall are quite different. the=
re is a very good reason why PA systems consistently sound terrible in exce=
llent concert halls. They weren't designed for playback.=20

=20
=20
Reflected sound is recorded along with direct sound with most
traditional stereo recordings. It's already there and is brought out
quite nicely with a well designed stereo system in a stereo room that
is not plagued by a lot of reflectivity. No need to double up on what
was already recorded at the concert hall. It only creates spacial
confusion by presenting spacial cues from two different spaces on top
of each other.
=20
You would be correct if we were talking about binaural systems. Stereo is=
a=20
field-type system. Do you know the difference?

Binaural systems are based on use of headphones and dummy head microphone a=
rrays. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I clearly would *no=
t* be correct if I were talking about binaural recordings since there is no=
issue with playback room reflections when we are dealing with headphones. =
I absolutely am correct when I assert that listening room reflections creat=
e spacial cue confusion when they are present with the playback of stereo r=
ecordings that captured hall ambiance and spacial cues from the original ac=
oustic event recorded. I know it from a great deal of experience.=20


=20
My message is simple: When both ears are free to hear all sound fields in=
=20
front of them, the system is not operating binaurally. Stereo does not wo=
rk=20
by piping the two "signals" to the ears, it works by recreating sound fie=
lds=20
in rooms.

And your message is plainly wrong. Stereo recording and playback is not des=
igned to "recreate soundfields of the original recordings." It is designed =
to create an aural illusion of experiencing the original sound field from o=
ne fixed position in that sound field. =20


Those fields must have the same spatial characteristics as the=20
live sound. The most efficient way to reproduce the early reflected field=
is=20
by reflection.


If you were right, (you aren't) we would be dead in the water since it is p=
retty clear that we cannot create "the same spatial characteristics as the=
=20
live sound." in our listening rooms. You can't cram a concert hall in your=
listening room.


If you do this with the speakers positioned in a certain way=20
and with a certain radiation pattern the imaging will be improved and the=
=20
spaciousness and depth will be reproduced.

You may like the results but the results certainly are not any kind of accu=
rate reconstruction of the original sound field. that is not possible.=20


If you do it by directional=20
speakers with sound killing in the room you will be folding the early=20
refected field onto the direct field,

Please describe this physical phenomenon you call "folding the early reflec=
ted field onto the direct field." never heard of "folding sound." what is t=
hat? Never heard of a "reflected field." what is that? Never heard of a "di=
rect field." what is that?=20

destroying the spaciousness that was=20
recorded. It will sound like double mono.

I can assure you that an excellent playback system played in a well damped =
listening room using well recorded minimalist recordings sounds nothing lik=
e mono (not really sure what "double mono" is) And that such an arrangement=
not only will provide a tremendous sense of imaging and spaciousness but w=
ill actually provide more of it than one would get from the actual sound of=
live aocustic music in a concert hall. And that is a good thing since we n=
eed it to compensate for the lack of visual cues present at a concert and o=
ur inability to move our heads to better perceive aural imaging and spaciou=
sness at an actual concert.

All of this should have been=20
obvious to you after a certain number of years of listening to speakers o=
f=20
various radiation patterns. Can you hear differences among box speakers,=
=20
dipoles, bipoles, omnis? Good. Those differences are caused by difference=
s=20
in the image model, or reflection patterns and strengths, among those=20
speakers. Study that for a while.
=20
After years of listening I would say the opposite has become quite obvious =
to me