Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Nil wrote:
In this case, the recently appeared "true stereo" Love Me Do is the work of a guy who has spent a lot of time separating the elements of the only existing recording (mono) of the song using software tools. https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro The is fascinating! It's sort of blind source separation, but done by hand by a human being rather than by a machine. It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with the room acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is kind of weird. You can hear Paul along with the room reverb specific to Paul, panned to one point. The effect is really very disconcerting and the individual room sounds in mono coming from the individual parts is very unnatural. But as an intellectual exercise this is very impressive and must have taken forever. I think it actually sounds pretty dang good, considering how it was done. Certainly a lot better than those horrid Rock Band game extractions from a few years ago. There are some audible phase-y and gate-y artifacts which seem to be more obvious when listening with headphones but I think it sounds better over speakers. I bet adding just a touch of reverb would hide a lot of that stuff. At this point I look at it as more of a techno demonstration or parlor trick rather than an artistic thing, but it shows that the technology is getting a lot closer than it was even a couple of years ago. The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a cover band like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles did. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
JackA wrote: And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-) Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound. Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? -- *Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 9/4/2015 8:46 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yes. Good mono beats average stereo every time. And excellent stereo may not make for good mono. So why bother with stereo when 99.9% of your audience is listening in mono? It all depends on the material, of course, but I think that today a high percentage of listening is done with earphones that are wired for two channels, one for each ear. But with that kind of left-right separation, you want to have a strong center in your mix. That's likely to result in a mix that, when listened to on speakers in a less than ideal environment, sounds mostly mono. And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. Ideal, stereo-wise (earphones) but that's not ideal when listened to properly recorded stereo. It's ideal for listening to properly recorded binaural, however, the kind of thing you get with a dummy head with omni mics in the "ears." Not much rock music is recorded that way. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:32:52 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , JackA wrote: And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-) Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound. Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!! If a song sounds foul/ill, it should remain the way regardless of speakers or headphones. Maybe you can provide a sample or just tell me what song(s)to purchase so I can judge this theory. Jack -- *Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:06:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2015 8:46 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Yes. Good mono beats average stereo every time. And excellent stereo may not make for good mono. So why bother with stereo when 99.9% of your audience is listening in mono? It all depends on the material, of course, but I think that today a high percentage of listening is done with earphones that are wired for two channels, one for each ear. But with that kind of left-right separation, you want to have a strong center in your mix. That's likely to result in a mix that, when listened to on speakers in a less than ideal environment, sounds mostly mono. And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. Ideal, stereo-wise (earphones) but that's not ideal when listened to properly recorded stereo. It's ideal for listening to properly recorded binaural, however, the kind of thing you get with a dummy head with omni mics in the "ears." Not much rock music is recorded that way. Mike, I was told by a group member of Bubble Puppy, their HOT SMOKE & SASAFRASS hit song was mixed using car stereo speakers. Not sure it made a bit of difference, but maybe someone felt most music gets listened to in a car, so create the environment to mix. During the '70's, less stereophonic sound was marketed. Even a participant here mentioned it was common to fix the centered and vary only one stereo channel. Some songs, though I enjoy wider stereo, when mixed wide (via RockBand multi-tracks) can't compete with a narrow stereo rendition. I blame that all on the recording engineer(s). Jack -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
JackA wrote: Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!! You've not been around much, then. -- *If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:38:45 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , JackA wrote: Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!! You've not been around much, then. Yeah, I'm just a novice!!!! Jack -- *If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 2:11:09 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 04 Sep 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in rec.audio.pro: https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro The is fascinating! It's sort of blind source separation, but done by hand by a human being rather than by a machine. It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with the room acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is kind of weird. You can hear Paul along with the room reverb specific to Paul, panned to one point. The effect is really very disconcerting and the individual room sounds in mono coming from the individual parts is very unnatural. That's what I meant by the "gate-y" artifacts - the ambiance kind of clamps out when Paul isn't singing. Once you hear it, you can't un-hear it, and the effect becomes irritating. You're right that a little artificial reverb might help disguise that, but the guy who did it mentioned that it was a self-imposed limitation - he didn't want to add anything like that to the existing recording. It ain't perfect, but it's an interesting intellectual-technical exercise. Excuse me gentlemen, but maybe you can tell me how it was created. I'd hate to think some novice has greater abilities thann you pros. Thank you. Jack The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a cover band like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles did. Aw, but what's the fun in that?? |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:29:07 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nil wrote: In this case, the recently appeared "true stereo" Love Me Do is the work of a guy who has spent a lot of time separating the elements of the only existing recording (mono) of the song using software tools. https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro The is fascinating! Actually, the other two stereo mixes he created gained one comment each. The Beatles one, however, gained a lot of positive comments. Who knows, maybe The Beatles mono mixes are superior to create stereo mixes from. Since he claims "extraction", he should have created a karaoke version, that would have been nice. Jack It's sort of blind source separation, but done by hand by a human being rather than by a machine. It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with the room acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is kind of weird. You can hear Paul along with the room reverb specific to Paul, panned to one point. The effect is really very disconcerting and the individual room sounds in mono coming from the individual parts is very unnatural. But as an intellectual exercise this is very impressive and must have taken forever. I think it actually sounds pretty dang good, considering how it was done. Certainly a lot better than those horrid Rock Band game extractions from a few years ago. There are some audible phase-y and gate-y artifacts which seem to be more obvious when listening with headphones but I think it sounds better over speakers. I bet adding just a touch of reverb would hide a lot of that stuff. At this point I look at it as more of a techno demonstration or parlor trick rather than an artistic thing, but it shows that the technology is getting a lot closer than it was even a couple of years ago. The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a cover band like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles did. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
JackA wrote:
Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!! ** Nor have I, it is grossly exaggerated nonsense. Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly. Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers. ..... Phil |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Phil Allison wrote: JackA wrote: Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this? Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!! ** Nor have I, it is grossly exaggerated nonsense. How do you exaggerate nonsense? Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly. Yes - it's ideal having the drummer bashing your frontal lobes directly. Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers. Most tend to listen to live music from a stage or whatever in front of them. Stereo via speakers in a decent listening room is sort of designed to replicate this - which at best it does very well. But if you are happy with headphones and think them so much better, your choice. .... Phil -- *He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 9/5/2015 4:14 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly. Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers. I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about it, but didn't try to keep up with it either. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about it, but didn't try to keep up with it either. Oh, yeah. Here it is: http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html (URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department) Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the sound he's "looking at" is in front of him. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Phil Allison wrote: Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly. It's not really a stereo image, though. Partly because it is in one's head, and there is a hole in the middle, but also because the sense of depth is radically altered. For pop music this might not be a problem, but for classical music that has been very specifically miked to try and recreate the room sound, something miked for headphones won't sound very good on speakers and vice-versa. The "solid" sense of space that makes it "stereo" doesn't work. Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers. This is absolutely true, and this is the number one huge argument in favor of using binaural methods instead of stereo. With more and more younger listeners using headphones, I am surprised more of this isn't happening. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Phil Allison wrote:
Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers. On 9/5/2015 7:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: This is absolutely true, and this is the number one huge argument in favor of using binaural methods instead of stereo. With more and more younger listeners using headphones, I am surprised more of this isn't happening. Is there a converter between "conventional stereo" and "headphone binaural?" Seems like there's a lot to do in order to change one to the other. The Focusrite VRM Box (and their interfaces that have the processor built in) emulates speakers when listening on headphones, but that assumes that the source was mixed on speakers. These days, everybody checks a mix on headphones, but it's usually to make sure that all of the important sound elements can be heard rather than how the space is expressed. And if you're mixing panpot stereo with your primary monitoring being headphones, there's only so much you can do with it space-wise that won't be flattering when heard on speakers. Two mixes? There are usually a few alternate mixes of commercial music releases because they have the need and the money, so for an extra 59 cents a download they could make a "headphone optimized" mix. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
Is there a converter between "conventional stereo" and "headphone binaural?" Seems like there's a lot to do in order to change one to the other. The Focusrite VRM Box (and their interfaces that have the processor built in) emulates speakers when listening on headphones, but that assumes that the source was mixed on speakers. Right. And I'd call that a converter. There have long been shuffler gadgets that reduce the hole in the center and contract the soundstage. Headwise seems to be the most popular manufacturer making them today. But that can't actually give you a proper simulation of the stereo image the way the Focusrite box can. These days, everybody checks a mix on headphones, but it's usually to make sure that all of the important sound elements can be heard rather than how the space is expressed. And if you're mixing panpot stereo with your primary monitoring being headphones, there's only so much you can do with it space-wise that won't be flattering when heard on speakers. For the most part, I check on headphones either because I don't trust my monitoring in the field, or because I want to make sure nothing too untoward happens to the mix when people are listening on headphones. Because, as I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of younger listeners are listening on headphones now. Two mixes? There are usually a few alternate mixes of commercial music releases because they have the need and the money, so for an extra 59 cents a download they could make a "headphone optimized" mix. For classical music, I certainly think this sort of thing could have a future, if it could be marketed right. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly. It's not really a stereo image, though. Partly because it is in one's head, and there is a hole in the middle, ** Only times I hear a "hole in the middle" is when L & R are reverse phase or the ground connection is missing - otherwise mono signals appear smack in the middle. but also because the sense of depth is radically altered. ** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion) more than makes up for it in most cases. The biggest drawbacks with headphone listening is how low bass seems wrong and ear discomfort after extended periods. .... Phil |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Phil Allison wrote: but also because the sense of depth is radically altered. ** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion) more than makes up for it in most cases. If you have a poor listening room, then obviously headphones may be better. But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of 'being there' than ever with headphones. I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes for them. ;-) -- *To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of 'being there' than ever with headphones. -WITH- a conventional recording that is tracked and mixed to be listened to on headphones. If you were listening to a binaural recording, for instance, you'd get a far greater sense of being there on headphones, and you'd find the playback on speakers to be distant and lifeless. I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes for them. ;-) I think there is a market for binaural recordings for these people, if you can first figure out how to sell them. On the other hand, there is a long history of gadgetry intended to create a true stereo image for pop music... varying from things like Q-sound used in the mix process to practices like building a mix up from binaural track pairs (as used in Lou Reed's _Streetnoise_), all of which have been total failures in the market. Presumably because people didn't want a real stereo image and weren't willing to sacrifice anything for it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes: We've had parts of this discussion before, and it's still a bit odd, imo. Here's why. For me, headphones do /not/ present a "hole in the middle". In fact, the left-to-right imaging is excellent -- far better than an average room and maybe even just ever so slightly better than my mix room. It _is_ excellent... it's exaggeratedly excellent. That's what's wrong with it. Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit, it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated. I guess this is not really a hole in the middle but two holes on either side of the middle, if you want to get technical. But people call it "the hole in the middle" so we're kind of stuck with that. If you add slight delays to get phase imaging instead of amplitude imaging, the effect is even more pronounced. Stuff moves very quickly to the side as the delay increases, much more quickly than on speakers. And, so too some front-to-back imaging is apparent in the phones, depending on the quality of the recording. Yes, but the front-to-back imaging is different than on speakers. If you mix on speakers and then try to mix to sound similar on headphones, you wind up adding a lot of reverb to the headphone mix to compensate for the room that isn't there. (Or maybe you remove reverb from the speaker mix to compensate for the room that is there, if you'd rather think about it that way.) I don't mix on headphones because things start feeling claustrophobic and there are some spectral issues. But, because of their highly accurate imaging, I always use phones to check panning. Doing field recording work, I sometimes have to work only with headphones and it takes some practice to judge ambient/direct ratios with headphones, because if it sounds good in the phones, it'll be way too distant on speakers. I guess we'll have to leave it at YMMV. Sure. But I think we can agree that if you want a mix to sound good on speakers or headphones, or whatever, you should mix it to sound good on whatever you want it to sound good on. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 9/5/2015 2:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit, it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated. This is why I don't feel comfortable mixing live on headphones. If I set the pan pots visually to about where they'd end up when monitoring on speakers, I'm always tempted to move them back toward the center unless there's something I really want hard panned. So I just go by instinct and imagination. I guess this is not really a hole in the middle but two holes on either side of the middle, if you want to get technical. But people call it "the hole in the middle" so we're kind of stuck with that. Two holes in the head where the sound goes in? And directly in without any diffusion when the source is headphones. Yes, but the front-to-back imaging is different than on speakers. If you mix on speakers and then try to mix to sound similar on headphones, you wind up adding a lot of reverb to the headphone mix to compensate for the room that isn't there. I find that on headphones, a little reverb goes a long way. If I add what seems like the right amount of reverb, I can barely hear that it's there when listening on speakers. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 6/09/2015 3:09 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Phil Allison wrote: but also because the sense of depth is radically altered. ** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion) more than makes up for it in most cases. If you have a poor listening room, then obviously headphones may be better. But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of 'being there' than ever with headphones. I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes for them. ;-) Or two people sharing one set of ear-buds. Must be a laugh on ancient ping-pong 'stereo'. Q. "Did you like the bass on that song ?" A " There was bass on that song ?" geoff |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
[...] Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit, it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated. I wonder if this is somehow related to the "conch resonance" that Head Acoustics equalized for in their software as far back as ~1988 (auditioned it at an AES show in LA that year). -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit, it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated. ** As you well know, turning a pan pot simultaneously cuts the level on one side while boosting the other. The idea being to keep the volume of the sound steady while panning. At a setting of 45 degrees from centre, the level difference is about 6dB, enough to push the apparent source well over to one side even with loudspeakers. At 90 degrees it becomes 12 to 14dB and the job is done, far as ears can tell. .... Phil |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 4/09/2015 10:46 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-) But a *LOT* of listening is now done on headphones/earbuds. Stereo definitely beats mono, where everything is centered inside your head, even if neither are ideal. However like you, I have always said good mono beats bad stereo any day! Trevor. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 4/09/2015 11:30 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , JackA wrote: And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-) Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound. Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was. Trevor. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 5/09/2015 8:25 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote: I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about it, but didn't try to keep up with it either. Oh, yeah. Here it is: http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html (URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department) Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the sound he's "looking at" is in front of him. I can't imagine who the hell thought there would be a large market for that! Trevor. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of 'being there' than ever with headphones. -WITH- a conventional recording that is tracked and mixed to be listened to on headphones. Of course. If you were listening to a binaural recording, for instance, you'd get a far greater sense of being there on headphones, and you'd find the playback on speakers to be distant and lifeless. Quite. However, is true binaural much used for recording the sort of music discussed here? It's certainly very effective for drama - the only real use I've come across in practice. I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes for them. ;-) I think there is a market for binaural recordings for these people, if you can first figure out how to sell them. Given the gimmicks used to re-sell old libraries, you should patent this. ;-) On the other hand, there is a long history of gadgetry intended to create a true stereo image for pop music... varying from things like Q-sound used in the mix process to practices like building a mix up from binaural track pairs (as used in Lou Reed's _Streetnoise_), all of which have been total failures in the market. Presumably because people didn't want a real stereo image and weren't willing to sacrifice anything for it. --scott The vast majority simply don't give a stuff about true stereo. Could well be because they've never experienced it at its best. -- *Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Trevor wrote: On 4/09/2015 11:30 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , JackA wrote: And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-) Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound. Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the reverse. Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was. Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements - or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why. -- *Caution: I drive like you do. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 6/09/2015 10:28 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements - or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why. They are worried that they may miss the announcement and fall down the gap. geoff |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 06/09/2015 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was. Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements - or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why. In at least some cases, the headset has a tiny lump in the wires where they join which holds the phone microphone. They can't be bothered taking the earpiece out when it's not in use. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On 9/6/2015 6:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Quite. However, is true binaural much used for recording the sort of music discussed here? It's certainly very effective for drama - the only real use I've come across in practice. I recall a couple of field collections of Eastern European folk dance music that was recorded in binaural using ones of those headset rigs (with a real head instead of a dummy) but I don't think anyone's used a setup like that for recording pop music. Maybe some of the Grateful Dead tapers did. The vast majority simply don't give a stuff about true stereo. Could well be because they've never experienced it at its best. Or that they just don't spend enough time listening to worry about how true the stereo is. There's a minority who do, and for that we have audiophile recordings and playback systems. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote: I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about it, but didn't try to keep up with it either. Oh, yeah. Here it is: http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html (URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department) Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the sound he's "looking at" is in front of him. Should have proximity sensors for surround sound, you alter the actual mixing as you change locations! Recently changed minutely a Peter & Gordon hit, due to vocals off stereo center. Advanced Right channel to Left. Worked!! Nothing scientific. Tailored Headphones vs Speaker mixes? Spare me. No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so. Jack -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so. Jack Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,, So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question.. What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this? Mark |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so. Jack Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,, So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question.. What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this? Mark, a fine question, probably best handled by lawyers involved in music. Sorry to deviate: It's more or less when people acquire copyrights and you wish to licensed songs from them to publish, what exactly are you allowed to publish. Say a session tape was discovered and when you license the song(s) can you legally publish whatever? As I know, some, like BMG/RCA instructs/provides you with what (even if only Mono) to publish (courtesy Ace Records (UK)). But, gray area labels, like Jasmine Records (also UK) just rips near mint Stereo albums. I'm guessing most wish to hear what will be published beforehand. All I know is, if someone had this talent, I do not think they'd waste it away on YouTube for FREE. My name would be plastered all over this. I'd stick it under George Martin's nose. Mark |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so. Jack Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,, So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question.. What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this? p.s. Outside of US, copyrights on US based music expire after 50 years. Why I see many imported issues popping up. Some take advantage, some feel guilty. (ex: Bear Family probably has no furture use/need for ABKCO, some they issued Herman's Hermits Stereo set). Things I know or question, RCA/BMG was BIG on specifying copyrights on music prior to 1971 or about. This tells me some copyright law changed about then, not sure what though. Also, it became mandatory about 1977-78 to specify who the Producer is. Probably too many legal battles over copyrights. I know something happened, maybe inside a court of law with the Cameo-Parkway label. One Philly producer (part CONTROLLER C-P) accused me or attacked since he felt I made a liable statement. One decent radio host said Allen Klein had to make deal with wife and BUY her half ownership out, maybe before divorce (why it took so long for C-P on CD). The word "Producer" can be as simple as who "Mixed" the song, (courtesy the UK group, Pilot, with Alan Parson = Producer). Jack Mark |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so. Jack Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,, So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question.. What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this? Mark Even though off topic, I care to share what I discover. Everyone tells me the artist MUST approve of recording and mixes, spreads like wildfire. Fine. Then I hear Paul Simon refuses to release S&G single "hit" versions, since he doesn't like them. Same with a soon to be published Buckinghams compilation, and Carl G. of the group does not like the stereo mixes. So, who's telling me fibs? Jack |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereo or Mono audio track when digitizing a mono record in PT? | Pro Audio | |||
Two Mono into One Stereo | Pro Audio | |||
stereo vs mono piano | Pro Audio | |||
mono/stereo/dif.... | Pro Audio | |||
mono/stereo/dif.... | Pro Audio |