Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Mind Stretchers

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
OK, I have been sufficiently worked over for now. I thank you all - or
both - for some great discussion. You have read what I said, and that is
all
I can ask.

NOW, assuming I am all washed up, that my statements that there is no
stereo
theory even at this late date in audio history is wrong, I sit at your
feet
as a student.

How does stereo work?


Strictly speaking Stereo over speakers doesn't work because it can't work.
It's just like a car with 110% thermodynamic efficiency.

It is an acceptable illusion or at least an illusion that many find
acceptable.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Strictly speaking Stereo over speakers doesn't work because it can't work.
It's just like a car with 110% thermodynamic efficiency.

It is an acceptable illusion or at least an illusion that many find
acceptable.


Hi Arn -

For the record (so to speak) - when I use the term "stereo" I am using it as
shorthand for any and all loudspeaker based auditory perspective systems.
This would include 3 channel, DD 5.1 surround sound, or any number of
speakers placed around a room to try and reconstruct a sound field that
mimics the original. I realize that to some, "stereo" means strictly two
channel, but that is not what I mean. But if I use "surround" or
"multichannel" in all discussions, people will think I am limiting the
discussion to more than two channels, which I am not. Stereo can work with
two or more speakers and the general principles apply to all of these.

I hope that most of you are listening in surround sound to all recordings,
even two channel. If so, you are at least partially agreeing with me on the
reconstruction principle. If not, I've got my work cut out for me....

Gary Eickmeier



  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Mind Stretchers

On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:13:04 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Strictly speaking Stereo over speakers doesn't work because it can't work.
It's just like a car with 110% thermodynamic efficiency.

It is an acceptable illusion or at least an illusion that many find
acceptable.


Hi Arn -

For the record (so to speak) - when I use the term "stereo" I am using it as
shorthand for any and all loudspeaker based auditory perspective systems.
This would include 3 channel, DD 5.1 surround sound, or any number of
speakers placed around a room to try and reconstruct a sound field that
mimics the original. I realize that to some, "stereo" means strictly two
channel, but that is not what I mean. But if I use "surround" or
"multichannel" in all discussions, people will think I am limiting the
discussion to more than two channels, which I am not. Stereo can work with
two or more speakers and the general principles apply to all of these.

I hope that most of you are listening in surround sound to all recordings,
even two channel. If so, you are at least partially agreeing with me on the
reconstruction principle. If not, I've got my work cut out for me....

Gary Eickmeier




Frankly, I find that the recording industry has a hard enough time doing two
channel stereo correctly, much less four channels, or five or seven.... Now
for movies where the extra channels have explosions and other sound effects
pan-potted to them, it's fine, but I have yet to hear a music surround
recording where I thought that the surround was any more than a gimmick.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Mind Stretchers

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
For the record (so to speak) - when I use the term "stereo" I am using it as
shorthand for any and all loudspeaker based auditory perspective systems.
This would include 3 channel, DD 5.1 surround sound, or any number of
speakers placed around a room to try and reconstruct a sound field that
mimics the original. I realize that to some, "stereo" means strictly two
channel, but that is not what I mean. But if I use "surround" or
"multichannel" in all discussions, people will think I am limiting the
discussion to more than two channels, which I am not. Stereo can work with
two or more speakers and the general principles apply to all of these.


Mr. Eickmeier, you have a lonn history of taking a term,
redefining it for the purposes of some agenda, without
letting anyone else know about your surreptitious redefinition,
and then proceeding to argue from that point.

For the record, "surround sound" was NEVER designed as a means
of recreating the original sound field. Things like 5.1 surround
and the like were developed as effects systems used in conjunction
with video and the like. James Jophnston has elsewhere described
how completely innappropriate surrtound-sound systems are for
recreating sound fields. Perhaps you might want to research
the subject before you hold forth on it.

As to the "definition" of stereo sound, you may well like to
redefinf it however you like, but you should note that there's
an 80 jump on your claim to the definition, and should you
disagree, you might want to take it up with the kind folks
at Bell Labs.

I hope that most of you are listening in surround sound to all recordings,
even two channel. If so, you are at least partially agreeing with me on the
reconstruction principle. If not, I've got my work cut out for me....


Yes, among other things, you have a LOT of reading up to
do, not the least of which is on fundamental definitions.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Mind Stretchers

On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:30:00 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

snip
As to the "definition" of stereo sound, you may well like to
redefinf it however you like, but you should note that there's
an 80 jump on your claim to the definition, and should you
disagree, you might want to take it up with the kind folks
at Bell Labs.


Now here, you and I agree. Bell Labs defined stereo for the ages back in the
early 1930's as I have mentioned at least once in this thread. Mr.
Eickmeier's attempt to redefine it is fraught with problems, to say the
least.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...

Mr. Eickmeier, you have a lonn history of taking a term,
redefining it for the purposes of some agenda, without
letting anyone else know about your surreptitious redefinition,
and then proceeding to argue from that point.


Mr. Pierce, what a treat! Thank you for taking the time to share your
extensive knowledge.

For the record, "surround sound" was NEVER designed as a means
of recreating the original sound field. Things like 5.1 surround
and the like were developed as effects systems used in conjunction
with video and the like. James Jophnston has elsewhere described
how completely innappropriate surrtound-sound systems are for
recreating sound fields. Perhaps you might want to research
the subject before you hold forth on it.


Hey, what a great idea! But, indeed, I have been reading voraciously about
all this for over 30 years now! But I didn't stumble across a statement like
that - do you have any references or quotes to help us out here?.

As to the "definition" of stereo sound, you may well like to
redefinf it however you like, but you should note that there's
an 80 jump on your claim to the definition, and should you
disagree, you might want to take it up with the kind folks
at Bell Labs.


Gosh, it sure seems like you know something there that I don't - but. I have
quoted the research from Bell Labs in my various papers and writings. My
favorite reference is William B. Snow's 1953 paper
that is republished in the AES Anthology of Stereophonic Techniques. In it,
he defines all of the auditory perspective systems.

Yes, among other things, you have a LOT of reading up to
do, not the least of which is on fundamental definitions.


Thanks for the tip. So let me read to you for a minute:

From R. Vermeulen's paper on Stereo Reverberation (JAES, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.

124 - 130, 1958 April):

NECESSITY FOR AUGMENTED REVERBERATION

It is true that by suitable positioning of the microphone we can pick up
reverberation sound from the hall and reproduce the plolongation of the
sound. But here again, we are apt to make the same mistake in that we
reproduce only one and - of course - the only measurable characteristic of
the sound field, viz, the reverberation time, but neglect its spatial
distribution. The loudspeakers of a stereophonic set can never reproduce the
sound field in the concert hall with any accuracy in the home; how indeed
could they do so with only the data from two microphones at their disposal?
Neither can they deliver to the listener's ears exact copies of the
instantaneous sound pressure at the place of the microphones, if only
because the listeners are free to move their heads and are sitting at
different places. The loudspeakers can only produce a quite different sound
field, which will nevertheless give an impression that resembles the
original in certain respects. But not in all rexpects, beause they are only
capable of simulating sound sources in the space between them. Thus
stereophony can only widen the "hole in the wall of the concert hall" to a
"large window" but it cannot give the listener the impression that he is
present in the auditorium. It cannot imitate the sound reflected from all
sides by the ceiling and the walls. This does not matter as long as the
reproduction takes place in the concert hall itself where the ceiling and
the walls are present to produce reverberated sound with the desired
properties. In a living room, however, the absence of enough reverberated
sound or at least its different character places the listener in the positon
of an outsider."

He goes on to describe how to simulate the reverberant field by means of a
distribution of loudspeakers.

Permit me one more quote, this time from Blauert (the well-known Spatial
Hearing book, p 282) in describing the two basic approaches to transmitting
a spatial impression across a distance of space and time:

"In principle two approaches to solving this problem are possible. One
consists of generating a sound field in the playback room that corresponds
largely to that in the recording room. Such an electroacoustically generated
sound field is called a 'synthetic sound field.' The second approach
proceeds from the assumption that an optimal acoustical reproduction is
attained if the subject's ear input signals are collected, transmitted, and
reproduced. Processes employing this technique are called binaural or 'head
related' since a head, usually a dummy head, is used in collecting the ear
input signals."

His "synthetic sound field" is a large collection of microphones leading to
a similar number of speakers around the subject in an anechoic environment,
in an attempt to duplicate the original field as much as possible, or
necessary. Surround sound in the home theater system is a simplification of
this approach, which most of us realize by common sense.

You might want to do some more reading on this subject, starting
with those two sources. It is possible that you could use some reinforcement
in acoustics and psychoacoustics.

Gary Eickmeier


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Mind Stretchers

On 5/30/2012 2:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Dick wrote in message
...


large snip

Thanks for the tip. So let me read to you for a minute:

From R. Vermeulen's paper on Stereo Reverberation (JAES, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.

124 - 130, 1958 April):

NECESSITY FOR AUGMENTED REVERBERATION

It is true that by suitable positioning of the microphone we can pick up
reverberation sound from the hall and reproduce the prolongation of the
sound. my emphasis.


Quite a relevant point that I've been endeavoring to have you
understand. Thank you for pointing out the reference - there is no
"spatial" information in the signal. Level and arrival time. That's it.


But here again, we are apt to make the same mistake in that we
reproduce only one and - of course - the only measurable characteristic of
the sound field, viz, the reverberation time,


Note - time...the *only* measurable characteristic. There is no other
recording parameter to capture "spatial" information. Here's your
answer to your "smartass" question. Rhetorical on your part evidently.

but neglect its spatial
distribution. The loudspeakers of a stereophonic set can never reproduce the
sound field in the concert hall with any accuracy in the home; how indeed
could they do so with only the data from two microphones at their disposal?


Wow, this guy's good. You indeed can never reproduce the sound field in
the venue when using only two microphones for the recording. Why?
Simply because, as he states above, the spatial information is not
encoded in the signal. Note, recordings using 3 mics, or any number of
close-miked instruments panned into place will suffer the exact same
effects. Wonder where I've heard that before...


snip

He goes on to describe how to simulate the reverberant field by means of a
distribution of loudspeakers.


And corresponding microphones. This in no wise supports your method of
taking a signal devoid of non-temporal spatial information (i.e. no
incident angle info) and by bouncing the entire - direct and reverberant
- signal off the wall(s), thereby introducing an artificially delayed
acoustic wave superimposed on the directly radiated signal (which also
contains both the direct and reverberant data). While you may sense
that as spaciousness, it is clearly less accurate.

And as Mr. Pierce accurately observed, morphing the term "stereo" to
incorporate any number of speakers in any configuration is, IMO, clearly
a dodge. If you want to discuss surround sound - the term you clearly
know is universally applied - say so.

Keith

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Doug McDonald[_6_] Doug McDonald[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Mind Stretchers

Actually I suspect that 4 mikes is enough to establish a
soundfield and am quite sure that 16 would be.


That is for the soundfield impinging on one spot of course.

The four mikes would be four omnis in a spaced tetrahedron,
say 10 inches on a side.

The sixteen would be in groups of four coincident ones at the points of the same tetrahedron.
These would consist of one omni and three figure 8 ones, the three figure
8 ones being pointed up-down, east-west and north-south.
Or, alternatively, four cardioids pointing out from the center
of the tetrahedron.

This would allow computerized localization of
a single sound source generating a sine wave, or
localization of the original and reflections of a
point impulse source. Of course doing this for a whole
orchestra would be an immense and probably somewhat
impractical computer programming job. The accuracy would
decrease at low frequencies of course.



Doug McDonald
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Actually I suspect that 4 mikes is enough to establish a
soundfield and am quite sure that 16 would be.


That is for the soundfield impinging on one spot of course.

The four mikes would be four omnis in a spaced tetrahedron,
say 10 inches on a side.

The sixteen would be in groups of four coincident ones at the points of
the same tetrahedron.
These would consist of one omni and three figure 8 ones, the three figure
8 ones being pointed up-down, east-west and north-south.
Or, alternatively, four cardioids pointing out from the center
of the tetrahedron.

This would allow computerized localization of
a single sound source generating a sine wave, or
localization of the original and reflections of a
point impulse source. Of course doing this for a whole
orchestra would be an immense and probably somewhat
impractical computer programming job. The accuracy would
decrease at low frequencies of course.


OK as long as we are stretching minds here, permit me to do another thought
experiment - which could easily be a real experiment if we had time etc.

We will record a singer with one mike, a drum kit with another, a piano and
perhaps a bass, all with their own microphones. They are playing in a good
hall or studio. While recording the piano on the left side of the room we
also catch the early reflected sound from front and left side wall.
Similarly for all the other instruments and voice. The recording now
contains information about both the direct sound of that performer and some
of the reverberant from near them.

We will play back each channel to a fairly omnidirectional speaker placed in
a position similar to the performer it is reproducing. The singer, for
example, will be a sound image that is nailed in the center of your room and
pulled out from the front wall of the room. You can now walk all around and
magically hear the singer where she belongs, three dimensionally singing
right there in front of you. Any problems so far? We recorded her with but
one mike, paid no attention whatsoever to the human hearing mechanism, HRTF,
spacing of ears, dummy heads, none of it. When we listen to her on playback,
we each use our own human hearing mechanism and HRTF and all that to hear
her, each in our own way in our own head, so there is no question of
worrying about any of that.

The piano will be played from a speaker or speakers on the left side, and if
it is basically omnidirectional it will cast some reflected sound toward the
front and left side walls just as the live piano did, and you recorded. The
spatial impression we will all get from this arrangement on playback will be
the same for all of us and very similar to the live event, and again we can
walk all around and the piano will remain nailed right there where it
belongs.

Similarly for all instruments, the whole system becoming more like a "model"
of the live event than a "picture" taken from one spot in the studio with a
fixed perspective. Is this getting spooky or what? Stay with me.

What we have here is a field-type system, a system which was recorded and
reproduced with no reference whatsoever to the human hearing mechanism or
the position of a typical listener to the live event. We play it back by
positioning the speakers in another acoustic space, in a certain way that
models the playback situation after the original, and we have a "stereo"
phonic, meaning "solid" sounding reproduction of the original.

If the original was played in a more live acoustic, like a church or a cave
or a good concert hall, we would have preserved most of the temporal aspect
of that reverberation, and on playback it is up to us to recostruct the
spatial aspect with correct radiation patterns and positioning of the
speakers and enhancent from some surrond speakers, fed by either additional
mikes or signal processing. If we take that approach, we get a pretty good
impression of the sound of the original event, even though the temporal
aspect of our playback room is superimposed on the recording a little.

But wait - what if we use quite directional speakers on the same recording?
Well, this would be a big mistake, because then all of the sound, the direct
and the reverberation, would be forced to come from the location of that
player, an unnatural sounding situation. The piano, for example, would have
all of its output coming from the speaker box rather than from both the
speaker and the left side wall. It would be more "accurate" if you compare
the wrong aspects to each other - the electrical input signal would be JUST
LIKE the acoustical output of the thing - but the resultant sound would be
nothing like the original - accurate but not realistic! What a mess.

This experiment is the paradigm for the field-type system that we call
"stereophonic sound" in general, presented to you as a basis for
understanding the simplification of it that we call - well, the same word is
unfortunately used. The extremely fortunate psychoacoustic principle that
permits us to simplify this more elaborate model down to fewer speakers and
microphones is called summing localization. This is the idea that you can
image anywhere between two coherent sources by means of intensity or time
difference or a combination of the two, permitting the impression of many
instruments from just two or more mikes and speakers.

So the "big picture" of what we are doing with "stereo" is something like
close miking the soundstage rather than each individual instrument, but the
principle remains the same. We can get away with reproducing an entire
symphony orchestra with just two speakers if we position them in a certain
way and let them reflect a certain amount of their output from the
appropriate wall of the playback room etc etc in a way that models the
playback after the (typical) live event.

This grand simplification can be engineered with time/intensity trading so
that you can walk across the room and have the imaging remain solid and hear
them from some degree of variable perspective. You can also engineer the
directivity index of the speakers so that the RANGE OF RATIOS of direct to
reflected sound is similar to that in the (typical) concert hall with the
very much greater distance of the listener from the source.

As I said, there is very much more to study about all of this, but we will
get nowhere until we can understand the basic principle and how it differs
from what we have been doing (or not paying any attention to) for so many
years.

It's a whole deal.

Gary Eickmeier



  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Mind Stretchers

On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:44:41 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

Actually I suspect that 4 mikes is enough to establish a
soundfield and am quite sure that 16 would be.


That is for the soundfield impinging on one spot of course.

The four mikes would be four omnis in a spaced tetrahedron,
say 10 inches on a side.


I suggest that 4 omni-directional microphones, that close together. would
yield mono unless some precautions were taken to isolate the microphones from
each other (as in Kimber's Iso-Mike setup.
http://www.isomike.com/gallery/gallery.html).



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Mind Stretchers

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:01 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Actually I suspect that 4 mikes is enough to establish a
soundfield and am quite sure that 16 would be.


That is for the soundfield impinging on one spot of course.

The four mikes would be four omnis in a spaced tetrahedron,
say 10 inches on a side.

The sixteen would be in groups of four coincident ones at the points of
the same tetrahedron.
These would consist of one omni and three figure 8 ones, the three figure
8 ones being pointed up-down, east-west and north-south.
Or, alternatively, four cardioids pointing out from the center
of the tetrahedron.

This would allow computerized localization of
a single sound source generating a sine wave, or
localization of the original and reflections of a
point impulse source. Of course doing this for a whole
orchestra would be an immense and probably somewhat
impractical computer programming job. The accuracy would
decrease at low frequencies of course.


OK as long as we are stretching minds here, permit me to do another thought
experiment - which could easily be a real experiment if we had time etc.

We will record a singer with one mike, a drum kit with another, a piano and
perhaps a bass, all with their own microphones. They are playing in a good
hall or studio. While recording the piano on the left side of the room we
also catch the early reflected sound from front and left side wall.
Similarly for all the other instruments and voice. The recording now
contains information about both the direct sound of that performer and some
of the reverberant from near them.

We will play back each channel to a fairly omnidirectional speaker placed in
a position similar to the performer it is reproducing. The singer, for
example, will be a sound image that is nailed in the center of your room and
pulled out from the front wall of the room. You can now walk all around and
magically hear the singer where she belongs, three dimensionally singing
right there in front of you. Any problems so far? We recorded her with but
one mike, paid no attention whatsoever to the human hearing mechanism, HRTF,
spacing of ears, dummy heads, none of it. When we listen to her on playback,
we each use our own human hearing mechanism and HRTF and all that to hear
her, each in our own way in our own head, so there is no question of
worrying about any of that.

The piano will be played from a speaker or speakers on the left side, and if
it is basically omnidirectional it will cast some reflected sound toward the
front and left side walls just as the live piano did, and you recorded. The
spatial impression we will all get from this arrangement on playback will be
the same for all of us and very similar to the live event, and again we can
walk all around and the piano will remain nailed right there where it
belongs.

Similarly for all instruments, the whole system becoming more like a "model"
of the live event than a "picture" taken from one spot in the studio with a
fixed perspective. Is this getting spooky or what? Stay with me.

What we have here is a field-type system, a system which was recorded and
reproduced with no reference whatsoever to the human hearing mechanism or
the position of a typical listener to the live event. We play it back by
positioning the speakers in another acoustic space, in a certain way that
models the playback situation after the original, and we have a "stereo"
phonic, meaning "solid" sounding reproduction of the original.

If the original was played in a more live acoustic, like a church or a cave
or a good concert hall, we would have preserved most of the temporal aspect
of that reverberation, and on playback it is up to us to recostruct the
spatial aspect with correct radiation patterns and positioning of the
speakers and enhancent from some surrond speakers, fed by either additional
mikes or signal processing. If we take that approach, we get a pretty good
impression of the sound of the original event, even though the temporal
aspect of our playback room is superimposed on the recording a little.

But wait - what if we use quite directional speakers on the same recording?
Well, this would be a big mistake, because then all of the sound, the direct
and the reverberation, would be forced to come from the location of that
player, an unnatural sounding situation. The piano, for example, would have
all of its output coming from the speaker box rather than from both the
speaker and the left side wall. It would be more "accurate" if you compare
the wrong aspects to each other - the electrical input signal would be JUST
LIKE the acoustical output of the thing - but the resultant sound would be
nothing like the original - accurate but not realistic! What a mess.

This experiment is the paradigm for the field-type system that we call
"stereophonic sound" in general, presented to you as a basis for
understanding the simplification of it that we call - well, the same word is
unfortunately used. The extremely fortunate psychoacoustic principle that
permits us to simplify this more elaborate model down to fewer speakers and
microphones is called summing localization. This is the idea that you can
image anywhere between two coherent sources by means of intensity or time
difference or a combination of the two, permitting the impression of many
instruments from just two or more mikes and speakers.

So the "big picture" of what we are doing with "stereo" is something like
close miking the soundstage rather than each individual instrument, but the
principle remains the same. We can get away with reproducing an entire
symphony orchestra with just two speakers if we position them in a certain
way and let them reflect a certain amount of their output from the
appropriate wall of the playback room etc etc in a way that models the
playback after the (typical) live event.

This grand simplification can be engineered with time/intensity trading so
that you can walk across the room and have the imaging remain solid and hear
them from some degree of variable perspective. You can also engineer the
directivity index of the speakers so that the RANGE OF RATIOS of direct to
reflected sound is similar to that in the (typical) concert hall with the
very much greater distance of the listener from the source.

As I said, there is very much more to study about all of this, but we will
get nowhere until we can understand the basic principle and how it differs
from what we have been doing (or not paying any attention to) for so many
years.

It's a whole deal.

Gary Eickmeier




From experience, I can tell you that this doesn't work. The direct sound from
the instrument is so much louder than any hall reverb, that once you pad-down
the gain on the microphone preamp/mixer so as to not overload the
electronics, the reverb will be completely lost . That's one of the things
that some engineers/producers like about close-up multimiking. The sound from
the instrument being miked is so dominate compared the sounds of instruments
around it or any hall acoustics that it is quite isolatory. I.E. essentially
all you get on that track is the sound of that instrument, with other
instruments around it or any hall acoustics being severely attenuated. In
places where that isolation isn't enough, of course, they use sound absorbent
panels called gobos. These types of recordings often rely on artificial
reverb added to the mix during production.

As I've said before, I find this kind of overproduction both unnecessary and
extremely artificial sounding. The concert goer does not hear those
instruments so close-up and they sound different in the hall than they do
close-up on the stage. For instance, from the audience, a dozen violins
playing together sounds like a string section, but that same dozen violins,
individually close-miked and then electronically mixed together in a mixing
console, sounds like 12 individual violins. It does NOT sound like a string
section, This is true of other instruments as well.

There is a story told about a famous 20th Century composer (I believe it was
Copland, but don't quote me) who was listening to the playback of one his
works recorded by Columbia in the late 1960's using multi-mike/multi-track
techniques. At one point in the playback, the composer jumped up and yelled
"what's that tuba doing in the sound?" A beaming producer piped up and said.
"We're real proud of that. We were having a difficult time getting that on
tape, so we used a contact microphone on it and now you can hear it
perfectly!" "You idiot, " responded the composer, "that tuba line is there
to help keep the brasses on time, It's not meant to be heard by the
audience!"

So much for multi-miking and multi-track technology. Only one stereo pair is
needed for suburb stereo sound, if the engineer knows what he is doing. All
the spatial cues are there, Width, height, and depth (also called
front-to-back). In a properly made, real stereo recording, the triangle
shimmers up in the air, hovering over the percussion section (just as in real
life), you can hear that the brasses are behind the woodwinds and you can
close your eyes and pick-out each instrument (during solos) with holographic
precision. If you need reverb, that can be added with another stereo pair in
the back of the hall.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Mind Stretchers

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:01 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
OK as long as we are stretching minds here, permit me to do another
thought experiment - which could easily be a real experiment if we
had time etc.

We will record a singer with one mike, a drum kit with another, a
piano and perhaps a bass, all with their own microphones. They are
playing in a good hall or studio. While recording the piano on the
left side of the room we also catch the early reflected sound from
front and left side wall. Similarly for all the other instruments
and voice. The recording now contains information about both the
direct sound of that performer and some of the reverberant from
near them.


First problem - every mic picks up a different view of the reflections
of the room. The strongest reflections often don't come from objects
near the musical instrument, because on a stage the only such thing
near is the floor and the floor does not give a distinct reflection
because every part of it is a different distance away from the mic and
the instrument. Secondly, floors reflect sound away from the mic and
the instrument because the angle of reflection is the complement of
the angle of incidence.

Far better - close mic the instruments, and also mic the room.

We will play back each channel to a fairly omnidirectional speaker
placed in a position similar to the performer it is reproducing.
The singer, for example, will be a sound image that is nailed in the
center of your room and pulled out from the front wall of the room.
You can now walk all around and magically hear the singer where she
belongs, three dimensionally singing right there in front of you.
Any problems so far?


The biggest problem with this is that while the listener can partially
dereverberate the room, his ability to do so is limited. In many rooms
the many reflections from the omni speakers give you a real mess. Been
there, done that with Ohm F's. The second problem is that listeners
don't want to walk around speakers as a rule. They want to sit in
their favorite seat, so anything you invest or pay for that "walk
around" realism is lost and not appreciated. Most speakers are used in
suboptimal places in suboptimal rooms. This very much favors
directional speakers.

If you have a fairly dead listening room (not a bad idea), the best
you can say is that omni speakers are at least not a serious problem.
Speakers with controlled directivity will still sound at least as
good. Again, I've heard this comparison just lately and Gary knows
where. ;-)


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Doug McDonald[_6_] Doug McDonald[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Mind Stretchers

On 5/31/2012 11:02 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:44:41 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in ):

Actually I suspect that 4 mikes is enough to establish a
soundfield and am quite sure that 16 would be.


That is for the soundfield impinging on one spot of course.

The four mikes would be four omnis in a spaced tetrahedron,
say 10 inches on a side.


I suggest that 4 omni-directional microphones, that close together. would
yield mono unless some precautions were taken to isolate the microphones from
each other (as in Kimber's Iso-Mike setup.
http://www.isomike.com/gallery/gallery.html).


I'm not proposing that the 4-mike arrangement would
be "playable". The 16 mike one would, of course,
since it is a gross superset of both the standard
coincident cardioid pair and the spaced cardioid pair.
It could mimic those exactly, if the mikes were ideal examples
of their nominal pattern, using linear combinations.

I was in fact referring to using these for a computerized soundfield
analysis.

Doug McDonald
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:01 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote



The biggest problem with this is that while the listener can partially
dereverberate the room, his ability to do so is limited. In many rooms
the many reflections from the omni speakers give you a real mess. Been
there, done that with Ohm F's. The second problem is that listeners
don't want to walk around speakers as a rule. They want to sit in
their favorite seat, so anything you invest or pay for that "walk
around" realism is lost and not appreciated. Most speakers are used in
suboptimal places in suboptimal rooms. This very much favors
directional speakers.


Hi Arn -

No, nothing I have been trying to relate favors directional speakers. We
talked about the spatial nature of speakers and rooms being audible, so that
if that characteristic is very different from live it will not, cannot,
sound the same.

Here is another paradigm for you to digest: Think of an experimenter who
wants to investigate this spatial business. He puts three omnidirectional
speakers on the stage of a concert hall, runs some pink noise thru them,
and records them. He gets back home and plays the recording on his "hi fi"
system with its highly directional speakers. But no matter how he equalizes
it, it just doesn't sound the same.

Comes the dawn, he realizes the problem. His live sound had a completely
different spatial pattern than his reproduction attempt at home. It couldn't
sound the same!

If you have a fairly dead listening room (not a bad idea), the best
you can say is that omni speakers are at least not a serious problem.
Speakers with controlled directivity will still sound at least as
good. Again, I've heard this comparison just lately and Gary knows
where. ;-)


Yes, and it's no big secret - it is part of public knowledge:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLReport10.05.pdf

I would also direct your attention to Siegfried Linkwitz's listening room,
with its highly reflective front end. These properties were duplicated in
the test room, which was good, and which reinforced what I have been saying
for 30 years. The speakers were positioned as I have recommended as well.

Gary Eickmeier



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Mind Stretchers

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:08:53 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:01 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote



The biggest problem with this is that while the listener can partially
dereverberate the room, his ability to do so is limited. In many rooms
the many reflections from the omni speakers give you a real mess. Been
there, done that with Ohm F's. The second problem is that listeners
don't want to walk around speakers as a rule. They want to sit in
their favorite seat, so anything you invest or pay for that "walk
around" realism is lost and not appreciated. Most speakers are used in
suboptimal places in suboptimal rooms. This very much favors
directional speakers.


Hi Arn -

No, nothing I have been trying to relate favors directional speakers. We
talked about the spatial nature of speakers and rooms being audible, so that
if that characteristic is very different from live it will not, cannot,
sound the same.

Here is another paradigm for you to digest: Think of an experimenter who
wants to investigate this spatial business. He puts three omnidirectional
speakers on the stage of a concert hall, runs some pink noise thru them,
and records them. He gets back home and plays the recording on his "hi fi"
system with its highly directional speakers. But no matter how he equalizes
it, it just doesn't sound the same.

Comes the dawn, he realizes the problem. His live sound had a completely
different spatial pattern than his reproduction attempt at home. It couldn't
sound the same!


No, it couldn't sound the same, and not necessarily for the reasons you give.
First of all, unless the pink noise (defined as 1/f or, noise with equal
power density over the entire spectrum) is close-miked, the recording venue
will alter the spectrum. Secondly, and most importantly, microphones are not
flat in frequency response, so therefore when recorded, the microphones will
change the character of the noise so that it is no longer "pink".



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

I find the arguments posed lend themselves greatly to favoring
directional speakers.
If the spatial nature of the original venue is captured in the
recording and one wishes to create the illusion of the original venue
in the playback room, limiting the interaction of the original
recording with the playback room enhances the illusion.


And how exactly does that work? Does the sound from each speaker enter the
appropriate ear and fool you into hearing "into" the recorded acoustic
space? Tell me just what you think is happening with stereo.


Omnidirectional speakers at home isn't going to fix that. He's
got a better chance at coming close through a near field setup with
directional speakers than
omnis in a new room creating a unique to that room spatial pattern.


Maybe if you put the speakers almost on top of your ears, that would be the
best stereo of all. No, nobody is confusing stereo with binaural. How could
I even think it.


http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLReport10.05.pdf


I don't understand how this subjective assessment of "auditory scene"
has any relevance to accurate recreation of a sound field.


You're kidding, right?


I'm fairly confident the Orions dynamic capability (ability to create
the illusion of the raw power of an orchestra) is well beyond anything
a box with RS in wall speakers can create yet that didn't seem to be a
factor in your assessment. I wonder why?


Why do you say that? Where did you get that?

Scottie, you're a great man - I read your stuff in the Recording magazine -
but like most others you have not thought all that much about stereo theory
beyond "two ears, two speakers." But it just does not work that way.
Everyone here is just spouting back to me what he already believed before,
and not trying to see what I am saying. I don't know how I can "unhook" you
guys from your preconceptions.

If someone could just give me a nod, an inkling, some interest or partial
agreement, maybe you see my point about the spatial nature of the original
vs the reproduction, anything but all this "I didn't believe that before so
it can't be true" crap. Just give me something. I can't see where I have
left out anything of the explanation. Just start your next post with "Gary,
that is an interesting point about the________________________

Gary Eickmeier


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Mind Stretchers

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The biggest problem with this is that while the listener can partially
dereverberate the room, his ability to do so is limited. In many rooms
the many reflections from the omni speakers give you a real mess. Been
there, done that with Ohm F's. The second problem is that listeners
don't want to walk around speakers as a rule. They want to sit in
their favorite seat, so anything you invest or pay for that "walk
around" realism is lost and not appreciated. Most speakers are used in
suboptimal places in suboptimal rooms. This very much favors
directional speakers.


Hi Arn -

No, nothing I have been trying to relate favors directional speakers. We
talked about the spatial nature of speakers and rooms being audible, so
that
if that characteristic is very different from live it will not, cannot,
sound the same.


It can't sound the same no matter what, at least at the current state of
technology.

Here is another paradigm for you to digest: Think of an experimenter who
wants to investigate this spatial business. He puts three omnidirectional
speakers on the stage of a concert hall, runs some pink noise thru them,
and records them. He gets back home and plays the recording on his "hi fi"
system with its highly directional speakers. But no matter how he
equalizes
it, it just doesn't sound the same.

Comes the dawn, he realizes the problem. His live sound had a completely
different spatial pattern than his reproduction attempt at home. It
couldn't
sound the same!


Excluded middle argument.

If you have a fairly dead listening room (not a bad idea), the best
you can say is that omni speakers are at least not a serious problem.
Speakers with controlled directivity will still sound at least as
good. Again, I've heard this comparison just lately and Gary knows
where. ;-)


Yes, and it's no big secret - it is part of public knowledge:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLReport10.05.pdf

I would also direct your attention to Siegfried Linkwitz's listening room,
with its highly reflective front end. These properties were duplicated in
the test room, which was good, and which reinforced what I have been
saying
for 30 years. The speakers were positioned as I have recommended as well.


So Gary are you pulling an AL Gore on us and claiming to have invented LEDE?
;-)

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...


I would also direct your attention to Siegfried Linkwitz's listening
room,
with its highly reflective front end. These properties were duplicated in
the test room, which was good, and which reinforced what I have been
saying
for 30 years. The speakers were positioned as I have recommended as well.


So Gary are you pulling an AL Gore on us and claiming to have invented
LEDE?
;-)


No, LEDE is just the opposite of what should be done. If you can't see that,
then I have failed to communicate.

There ARE a lot of researchers and writers, however, who have gone before me
and said very similar things to what I am advocating, so I am not a
screwball advocating some iconoclast nonsense. Just trying to synthesize
everything that is known and a few details that I have discovered about it.

This whole discussion is interesting to me because - well, primarily because
I am trying to tell fellow lovers of good sound what causes some of the
audible effects and problems that have consequences on system setup and can
improve their sound, and also partly because it shows how stead and
unmovable the audio industry is. It is more like "camps" of warring factions
rather than truly interested enthusiasts.

You have encountered this EXACT phenomenon with high end audiophile
resistance to double blind testing and especially the ABX approach and all
that it taught you. So how does it feel to be scorned and laughed at by
certain camps? You can write your ass off and it will not penetrate.

I have great respect for most of the respondents in this group, including
you, so I was hoping to get at least some agreement on some areas or
inroads, but it's more like trying to convince a Chevy man to get a Ford. I
just hope upon hope that some of the correspondents are not right, that it
is just a matter of taste and I am tilting at windmills.

There HAS to be something more scientific about it than that.

Gary Eickmeier



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Mind Stretchers

On 6/6/2012 5:55 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Arny wrote in message
...
"Gary wrote in message
...


big snip

I just hope upon hope that some of the correspondents are not right, that it
is just a matter of taste and I am tilting at windmills.


I haven't seen any correspondents saying that it is *just* a matter of
taste. Quite the opposite. Everyone has acknowledged that there are
many areas, especially in the recording process, where clearly things
can improve. What is clear, however, is that you consistently refuse to
acknowledge that preference plays a major role, and thus there simply
cannot be any universally acknowledged *best*, or most realistic
presentation.


There HAS to be something more scientific about it than that.


There is nothing remotely unscientific about evaluating and
understanding listener preferences, and recognizing how such preferences
impact the universality or efficacy of any particular engineering
solution. As long as you continue to think there is *a* single correct
way to create realism, you will be tilting at windmills.


Keith

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

"KH" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2012 5:55 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

big snip

I just hope upon hope that some of the correspondents are not right, that
it
is just a matter of taste and I am tilting at windmills.


I haven't seen any correspondents saying that it is *just* a matter of
taste. Quite the opposite. Everyone has acknowledged that there are many
areas, especially in the recording process, where clearly things can
improve. What is clear, however, is that you consistently refuse to
acknowledge that preference plays a major role, and thus there simply
cannot be any universally acknowledged *best*, or most realistic
presentation.


I haven't talked all that much about preference, that is not the point of
the thread. I couldn't have refused to acknowledge preference's role in
audio.


There HAS to be something more scientific about it than that.


There is nothing remotely unscientific about evaluating and understanding
listener preferences, and recognizing how such preferences impact the
universality or efficacy of any particular engineering solution. As long
as you continue to think there is *a* single correct way to create
realism, you will be tilting at windmills.


Didn't talk about a single best way, acknowledged many times that there are
many ways to make a recording, for example, such as Blumlein, spaced omni,
ORT-F, etc. Just talking about what is audible about speakers and rooms, and
attempting to offer a new way to look at the big picture of sound in rooms
and compare that to the live situation.

I offered in the What Can We Hear thread that the spatial nature of sound
was the main stumbling block, or difference, between live and reproduced. I
said that we can hear speaker positioning and different radiation patterns
and offered some reasons for certain positioning and the result of
mis-positioning them. If a hole in the middle effect is a matter of
preference, then more power to you. If a boxy sound in speakers is a
preference, then hey.

For me, it really helps in my recording efforts to be able to "see" sound
patterns or the probable implications of microphone positioning or technique
w respect to the final result, because often I cannot hear that final result
until I get home and produce the recording and play it on my big system. On
the recording site, all I have is a headphone to make sure the channels are
all working and I am getting some good strong signal. I place the mikes
more visually than anything else, because there is no monitoring setup
isolated from the performers.

In setting up a home audio system, I appreciate a more visual understanding
of sound as a basis for room treatment, speaker selection, and positioning.

Within all of those ranges, there are a lot of possible preferences, but
that was not what I was hoping to talk about, and you are right, that would
be pointless.

If ANYBODY got ANYTHING out of this thread, please tell me.

Gary Eickmeier





  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Mind Stretchers

On 6/7/2012 6:34 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2012 5:55 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

big snip

I just hope upon hope that some of the correspondents are not right, that
it
is just a matter of taste and I am tilting at windmills.


I haven't seen any correspondents saying that it is *just* a matter of
taste. Quite the opposite. Everyone has acknowledged that there are many
areas, especially in the recording process, where clearly things can
improve. What is clear, however, is that you consistently refuse to
acknowledge that preference plays a major role, and thus there simply
cannot be any universally acknowledged *best*, or most realistic
presentation.


I haven't talked all that much about preference,


Well, yes. Quite. That's the point I was making; you want to divorce
preference from "realism" in reproduction, and that is a basic error IMO.

that is not the point of the thread.


And that is, again IMO, your basic misunderstanding of the goal of
reproduction in the home. Given that such reproduction must try to
create an illusion of the recorded event, in very large part it is a
matter of preference, and trying to examine the problem without
acknowledging that such a constraint exists is perfectly reasonable; for
your personal satisfaction. If you want to extrapolate your 'theory' to
a broader audience, you are doomed to failure if you ignore that basic
precept.

I couldn't have refused to acknowledge preference's role in
audio.


Actually, you've done so repeatedly. Explicitly by your continual
insistence that box speakers are "wrong*, direct sound is *wrong*, that
in essence, anything you don't like, or that doesn't represent *your*
internal reference for realism is *wrong*.

You do so implicitly by choosing to ignore any references to preference
that others bring up. This thread being the exception.

There HAS to be something more scientific about it than that.


There is nothing remotely unscientific about evaluating and understanding
listener preferences, and recognizing how such preferences impact the
universality or efficacy of any particular engineering solution. As long
as you continue to think there is *a* single correct way to create
realism, you will be tilting at windmills.


Didn't talk about a single best way, acknowledged many times that there are
many ways to make a recording, for example, such as Blumlein, spaced omni,
ORT-F, etc.


That's a dodge Gary. You have acknowledged that recordings can improve,
but have repeatedly insisted that your reflected sound method is the
only approach to realism in reproduction. That is a simple fact.

Just talking about what is audible about speakers and rooms, and
attempting to offer a new way to look at the big picture of sound in rooms
and compare that to the live situation.

I offered in the What Can We Hear thread that the spatial nature of sound
was the main stumbling block, or difference, between live and reproduced.


And no one has argued that point, with the stipulation that capturing
that nature in the recording does not happen today.

I
said that we can hear speaker positioning and different radiation patterns
and offered some reasons for certain positioning and the result of
mis-positioning them. If a hole in the middle effect is a matter of
preference, then more power to you. If a boxy sound in speakers is a
preference, then hey.


And these statements clearly demonstrate that you are not getting my
point. You appear unable to accept that others may simply not *hear* it
your way. Neither of these descriptions, "a hole in the middle" or
"boxy sound" is of any interest to any of us here (to my knowledge). But
all of your writing leads me to conclude that if a particular
implementation sounds a particular way to *you*, then that is the only
way it could be interpreted (or interpreted correctly). Thus anyone who
prefers such an implementation must, perforce, like the sound as *you*
perceive it to be, i.e. conforming to your own internal definitions.

If my system sounds real to me, and you hear it and state, as fact, "it
sounds like a hole in the middle", you are simply being *wrong* about
*my* perception of it. When I hear most dipoles, and certainly 901's
(unless augmented with significant additional directly radiated sound -
like the L-100's I mentioned previously), I hear an artificially large,
diffuse soundstage, with directional clues that seem totally wrong. My
perception is not open to your agreement or disagreement. You really
need to understand that point.

snip

In setting up a home audio system, I appreciate a more visual understanding
of sound as a basis for room treatment, speaker selection, and positioning


A point without controversy.

Within all of those ranges, there are a lot of possible preferences, but
that was not what I was hoping to talk about,


I know. And the only cogent reasons I can see to ignore preferences in
such a discussion would be if you deny, or are unaware of their effects,
or you believe yours preferences to be correct, and others must be
brought to "see the light".

and you are right, that would
be pointless.


Again, your interpretation of what I wrote is 180° off the mark. I said
ignoring preference in the discussion renders the discussion moot. It is
pointless to discuss your preferences in the context of right and wrong.
It certainly is appropriate to discuss your preferences, why you hold
them relative to certain implementations, what cues or facets of
reproduction trigger your perception of realism, how you can record to
preserve those clues, and how you arrive at a setup that optimally
reproduces those perceptual clues. However, stating that listening to
direct radiating speakers is "wrong" because they don't fit your visual
model is a value judgment you simply do not get to make for the world at
large.


If ANYBODY got ANYTHING out of this thread, please tell me.


Well, I don't know. Answer the question you ignored before, and I'll
tell you if there was anything to be learned, IMO:

If you and I completely disagree about whether a
specific stereo implementation (yours, mine, AE's, etc.) is
realistic or not, is one of us wrong? Yes or no?

Irrespective of that question, however, I can say that if you really
believe what you stated previously, namely;

"Yes... well... as I agreed earlier, the recording is a **new work of
art**, using the original as a stepping off point..."emphasis mine
and:

"...an audio reproduction event is also a NEW event, a new work of art
if you will, and not JUST a replica of the live event. I have made a few
recordings now that I enjoy more than the live event I was recording!"

then one thing I have gotten is that there's virtually no overlap
between your goals, and mine (or most anyone else's here unless I miss
my guess). Mine is reproduction, yours appears to be creation of some
new "performance" event. The two are not congruent; your
creation-of-event vision being the very antithesis of "hi fidelity".

Keith

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mind Stretchers Gary Eickmeier High End Audio 26 July 25th 12 12:10 PM
Mind Stretchers Audio Empire High End Audio 7 May 30th 12 04:43 AM
Mind Stretchers Sebastian Kaliszewski High End Audio 0 May 28th 12 03:38 PM
Mind Stretchers Audio Empire High End Audio 0 May 28th 12 03:35 PM
It came up, on a mind not clear ... Watt? Me worry? Vacuum Tubes 3 December 21st 09 01:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"