[wavefieldhelmut]

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt. Therefore is
sufficient the transfer of the assigned pure audio information in a
single mono channel. The spatial sound field becomes created in the
Milan Scala only by the fact that a large number of spatial dispersed
mirror sound sources occur. According her room positions arise signal
delays regarding the listener and the reflection factors by the
surfaces influencing the frequency response and level of these mirrors
sound sources. Though the signal itself always is Caruso's mono
source.
The conventional methods are now seeking to reduce the spatial
distribution of those sound sources upon two, 5.1 or more audio
channels by psychoacoustic principles. This always caused a loss of
spatial information. Much more effective seems the synthesis by the
rendition side, by which in principle all sound sources in their
correct position can be mapped.

This " Wave Field Synthesis" approach is known since two decades.
Depicted by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis. I want to discus
the prospects for this procedure.


Regards Helmut

[Mike Rivers]

Any more than one channel is superfluous. If that's not good enough,
go see a live performance. gg

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 2 Dez., 18:59, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

...



Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt. Therefore is
sufficient the transfer of the assigned pure audio information in a
single mono channel. The spatial sound field becomes created in the
Milan Scala only by the fact that a large number of spatial dispersed
mirror sound sources occur. According her room positions arise signal
delays regarding the listener and the reflection factors by the
surfaces influencing the frequency response and level of these mirrors
sound sources. Though the signal itself always is Caruso's mono
source.
The conventional methods are now seeking to reduce the spatial
distribution of those sound sources upon two, 5.1 or more audio
channels by psychoacoustic principles. This always caused a loss of
spatial information. Much more effective seems the synthesis by the
rendition side, by which in principle all sound sources in their
correct position can be mapped.

This " Wave Field Synthesis" approach is known since two decades.
Depicted by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis. I want to discus
the prospects for this procedure.

Helmut,
A contrasting point of view is presented athttp://www.ambisonic.net/
Ambisonics has the ability to recreate the wavefront at a single point in
space. Unfortunately, recreation of the wavefront in a region, as opposed
to a point, is not within the capabilities of Man.

Regards,
Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 - Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Bob,
I agrre, ambisonics, espatially HOA is a very sophisticated approach,
for a single listener point the best known until today. But the volume
solution is possible by wfs. A elaborate animated depiction for this
allegation you can find by www.syntheticwave.de .

Regards Helmut

[[email protected]]

Real Stereo / two ears / two channels

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/realstereo_e.html

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 2 Dez., 20:10, wrote:
Real Stereo / two ears / two channels

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/realstereo_e.html

.... probably increase the amount of chanals the amount of problems.
But two single speakers have not the possibility for recreate of the
spatial sounf field structure. In addition psychoacoustic problems
arise and the undirected radiation of normal boxes in main range
superpose the rendition by the acoustic of the rendition room, what
leads inevitable upon utterly changed impulse resonse. See:

http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/Stereo200.swf

sorry, helmut

[philicorda[_4_]]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:11:16 -0800, wavefieldhelmut wrote:

snip
Hi Bob,
I agrre, ambisonics, espatially HOA is a very sophisticated approach,
for a single listener point the best known until today. But the volume
solution is possible by wfs. A elaborate animated depiction for this
allegation you can find by www.syntheticwave.de .

I'm interested in this too. Multi speaker '5.1' surround is more of an
special effect to me as it does not seem to make realistic reproduction
any more likely.

There is a free program called 'wonder':
http://gigant.kgw.tu-berlin.de/~baal...ram/index.html
that lets you do stuff like real time panning and automation of point or
plane sources to a wavefront speaker array.

It looks a lot of fun, but I've only tried it with four speakers, which
was not very impressive. I think a load of cheap self powered computer
speakers would do the job, at least to get the idea. Sixteen mics and
sixteen speakers in a line array would be enough.

If you are interested in the technical side, much of the underlying
theory has been worked out years ago by people working with sonar, radar
and geophone arrays.


Regards Helmut

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

wavefieldhelmut wrote:

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.

No. He was not an omnidirectional point source.

Regards Helmut


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 09:29:16 -0800 (PST), wavefieldhelmut
wrote:

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.

He wasn't really. Caruso in a room certainly wasn't. Caruso in a
room with a musical accompaniment very certainly wasn't.

[Randy Yates]

"Peter Larsen" writes:

wavefieldhelmut wrote:

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.

No. He was not an omnidirectional point source.

I think what you're getting at, Peter, is that Caruso, or
indeed any acoustic source, has a 3D dispersion pattern,
so even if a perfect acoustic model of the room is known,
the resulting soundfield can't be perfectly predicted without
knowing both the source signal and the source dispersion pattern.

Interesting point. Helmut, what do you say to that?

What's more, the dispersion pattern can be time-varying. Yow!
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Mark]

On Dec 2, 9:32 pm, soundhaspriority wrote:
NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message



He wasn't really. Caruso in a room certainly wasn't. Caruso in a
room with a musical accompaniment very certainly wasn't.

This is all getting much too complicated. I have to go with audioaesthetic:

Real Stereo / two ears / two channels


but that is only true if you are listening with headphones...

real stereo recorded with an x/y pair or whatever you choose is not
real stereo when played back through two speakers.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Randy Yates wrote:


"Peter Larsen" writes:

wavefieldhelmut wrote:

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of
canals regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another
approach: Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.

No. He was not an omnidirectional point source.

I think what you're getting at, Peter, is that Caruso, or
indeed any acoustic source, has a 3D dispersion pattern,
so even if a perfect acoustic model of the room is known,
the resulting soundfield can't be perfectly predicted without
knowing both the source signal and the source dispersion pattern.

That AND that his entire upper body was the sound source, not just the
mouth.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Interesting point. Helmut, what do you say to that?

What's more, the dispersion pattern can be time-varying. Yow!

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 2 Dez., 20:05, "soundhaspriority" wrote:
"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

...





On 2 Dez., 18:59, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

....

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt. Therefore is
sufficient the transfer of the assigned pure audio information in a
single mono channel. The spatial sound field becomes created in the
Milan Scala only by the fact that a large number of spatial dispersed
mirror sound sources occur. According her room positions arise signal
delays regarding the listener and the reflection factors by the
surfaces influencing the frequency response and level of these mirrors
sound sources. Though the signal itself always is Caruso's mono
source.
The conventional methods are now seeking to reduce the spatial
distribution of those sound sources upon two, 5.1 or more audio
channels by psychoacoustic principles. This always caused a loss of
spatial information. Much more effective seems the synthesis by the
rendition side, by which in principle all sound sources in their
correct position can be mapped.

This " Wave Field Synthesis" approach is known since two decades.
Depicted by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis. I want to discus
the prospects for this procedure.

Helmut,
A contrasting point of view is presented athttp://www.ambisonic.net/
Ambisonics has the ability to recreate the wavefront at a single point in
space. Unfortunately, recreation of the wavefront in a region, as
opposed
to a point, is not within the capabilities of Man.

Regards,
Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 - Zitierten Text
ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Bob,
I agrre, ambisonics, espatially HOA is a very sophisticated approach,
for a single listener point the best known until today. But the volume
solution is possible by wfs. A elaborate animated depiction for this
allegation you can find bywww.syntheticwave.de.

Regards Helmut

Helmut,
I am familiar with it, but it is actually a very old idea. One of
Green's theorems states that if you know the boundary conditions for a
volume, the field inside is completely determined. For three dimensions,
the transducers must be spaced at less than 1/2 the maximum wavelength. If
you want to reproduce the field at 10 kHz, this requires about 17,700
transducers/meter^2.
I see that the website mentions a two dimensional solution, in which
case the requirement is about 140 transducers per linear meter. However,
this is not wavefield synthesis. It is simply an approximation that may be
better to the ear than other approximations.
I don't think you will find anyone in this group who can discuss with
you how many transducers are actually required to fool the ear. We are not
acousticians here. What does Angelo Farina say about it?

Regards,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -



Hi Bob,
by various occasion I was able to listen the horizontal speaker rows.
Theoretically it must be a piteous rendition by 20 centimeters spaced
speakers because the spatial aliasing, but fortunately we not very
sensible regarding this faults. I agree with you that such rendition
not really wfs. But the German Scientifics would lacerate my would I
say this. And the result is the best spatial depiction i know, except
ambisonics.
Really 3d- wfs would need by my opinion a field of approximate one to
two thousand speakers for sophisticated rendition. I have an idée, how
that would be to shoulder by bearable effort and good spouse
acceptance factor, but it isn't openly put yet.


Regards Helmut

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 3 Dez., 06:40, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
"Peter Larsen" writes:
wavefieldhelmut wrote:
Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of
canals regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another
approach: Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.
No. He was not an omnidirectional point source.
I think what you're getting at, Peter, is that Caruso, or
indeed any acoustic source, has a 3D dispersion pattern,
so even if a perfect acoustic model of the room is known,
the resulting soundfield can't be perfectly predicted without
knowing both the source signal and the source dispersion pattern.

That AND that his entire upper body was the sound source, not just the
mouth.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



Interesting point. Helmut, what do you say to that?

What's more, the dispersion pattern can be time-varying. Yow!- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Peter,

Merciless you have discovered my simplification. Of course Caruso has
a directional radiation pattern. How it is possible that to include
into the synthesis is fairly described by my www.syntheticwave.de
website, patent description part:

61. The momentary position and the momentary adjustment of the
acoustic source must be assigned to the dynamic data, which are
updated during the transmission in short time intervals. Finally it
makes different sound impression clear for the listener, if Caruso
turns unexpectedly and hits the sound against the decoration.
81. The polar directional characteristic of the associated acoustic
source enters synthesis, as the amplitude of the virtual mirror
acoustic source is reduced periodically by the amount of the level
sinking in its polar directivity pattern in the associated solid
angle.

That must by in each octave, a good set of tasks for the software
developer.


According Depiction:

http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/source_turn.swf


Regards Helmut

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 10:22 pm, Mark wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:32 pm, soundhaspriority wrote: NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message



He wasn't really. Caruso in a room certainly wasn't. Caruso in a
room with a musical accompaniment very certainly wasn't.

This is all getting much too complicated. I have to go with audioaesthetic:

Real Stereo / two ears / two channels

but that is only true if you are listening with headphones...

real stereo recorded with an x/y pair or whatever you choose is not
real stereo when played back through two speakers.

no, you confuse binaural with stereo.
I find the soundstage great with ortf , nos and jecklin disc
recordings and stereo speakers.

ps, the Philips Pavilion for the 1958 worlds fair had over 350
speakers for its performance of an electronic music composition, "Poem
Electronique"

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 3 Dez., 08:28, "soundhaspriority" wrote:
"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

...
On 2 Dez., 20:05, "soundhaspriority" wrote:





"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

...

On 2 Dez., 18:59, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"wavefieldhelmut" wrote in message

....

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt. Therefore is
sufficient the transfer of the assigned pure audio information in a
single mono channel. The spatial sound field becomes created in the
Milan Scala only by the fact that a large number of spatial dispersed
mirror sound sources occur. According her room positions arise signal
delays regarding the listener and the reflection factors by the
surfaces influencing the frequency response and level of these
mirrors
sound sources. Though the signal itself always is Caruso's mono
source.
The conventional methods are now seeking to reduce the spatial
distribution of those sound sources upon two, 5.1 or more audio
channels by psychoacoustic principles. This always caused a loss of
spatial information. Much more effective seems the synthesis by the
rendition side, by which in principle all sound sources in their
correct position can be mapped.

This " Wave Field Synthesis" approach is known since two decades.
Depicted by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis. I want to discus
the prospects for this procedure.

Helmut,
A contrasting point of view is presented athttp://www.ambisonic.net/
Ambisonics has the ability to recreate the wavefront at a single point
in
space. Unfortunately, recreation of the wavefront in a region, as
opposed
to a point, is not within the capabilities of Man.

Regards,
Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 - Zitierten Text
ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Bob,
I agrre, ambisonics, espatially HOA is a very sophisticated approach,
for a single listener point the best known until today. But the volume
solution is possible by wfs. A elaborate animated depiction for this
allegation you can find bywww.syntheticwave.de.

Regards Helmut

Helmut,
I am familiar with it, but it is actually a very old idea. One of
Green's theorems states that if you know the boundary conditions for a
volume, the field inside is completely determined. For three dimensions,
the transducers must be spaced at less than 1/2 the maximum wavelength.
If
you want to reproduce the field at 10 kHz, this requires about 17,700
transducers/meter^2.
I see that the website mentions a two dimensional solution, in which
case the requirement is about 140 transducers per linear meter. However,
this is not wavefield synthesis. It is simply an approximation that may be
better to the ear than other approximations.
I don't think you will find anyone in this group who can discuss with
you how many transducers are actually required to fool the ear. We are not
acousticians here. What does Angelo Farina say about it?

Regards,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Bob,
by various occasion I was able to listen the horizontal speaker rows.
Theoretically it must be a piteous rendition by 20 centimeters spaced
speakers because the spatial aliasing, but fortunately we not very
sensible regarding this faults. I agree with you that such rendition
not really wfs. But the German Scientifics would lacerate my would I
say this. And the result is the best spatial depiction i know, except
ambisonics.
Really 3d- wfs would need by my opinion a field of approximate one to
two thousand speakers for sophisticated rendition. I have an idée, how
that would be to shoulder by bearable effort and good spouse
acceptance factor, but it isn't openly put yet.

Regards Helmut

Helmut,
Yes, that is why I asked, how does it sound? If the left and right
stereo pair were replaced by two compact boxes, each a phase-array, could
they receive a computed signal that would make much better sound? Such a
thing could actually be done. For example, the high mids & tweeter could be
replaced by a piezo array separately drive. Connect by UWB USB digital for
no more cables!

Regards,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -



Hi Bob,

let me describe my personal impression by the newest application what
i was able to listen, installed by childreen channal in erfurt in a
studio cinema.damped but not anechoic room, all arond equiped app 20
cm spaced speakers, each app 15 watts, 100mm diameter, good subwoofer
but no tweeters:

If the source material produced esecially for wfs rendition, a utterl
amaizing deep space rendition arose. Speaker no longer regarding as
reference piont. The sound sources loosed by the speakers, also
perceivable inside the listening room also, thats very impressivly.
But no long while agoe, until become disturbing the reduction onto the
horizontal plain. Also I feel a uncertain localisation of very nearby
spaced sources, because the direct sound portion seems my not
sufficient for such sources. Additionally a lack of high range level
occur, a known but not unsolvable problem caused by speaker spacing
and diameters as far a I can estimate.

For the other case, the rendition of konventionally produced material,
the advantages by my opinion not justify the effort. Only the
advantage of the widely enlarged sweet spot remain. That covers the
whole room now because the virual speakers may placed wide beyound the
speaker room walls. On the other hand that reason let arose by my a
lack of intimacy.

But all in all a very promising approach that can solve many of the
problems regardig sound rendition. I see a good chahce for combination
of conventionally and adapted recording procedures.


Your idee for phase array- possibly it can by a little advantage, but
no new expirience. I have experimented with delayed additional signals
for early reflexions, without big fortune.



kind regards helmut
sorry for the misstakes in spelling and grammar

[Boris Lau]

wavefieldhelmut wrote:
Hi Bob,

let me describe my personal impression by the newest application what
i was able to listen, installed by childreen channal in erfurt in a
studio cinema.damped but not anechoic room, all arond equiped app 20
cm spaced speakers, each app 15 watts, 100mm diameter, good subwoofer
but no tweeters:

Sounds like the Iosono system. I have seen a demo in a cinema in Ilmenau
and I am in contact with some folks who mixed some material for that
system. The advantage over regular surround systems for conventional
material is the much wider sweet spot in the cinema - good surround on
pretty much all seats. And I think that might actually be one of the big
advantages.
Special material is of course fun as well. But to my knowledge, the
system still has a lot of problems, e.g., nasty phasing effects if
virtual sound sources are moving within the audience. That's why they
always use a ghost voice in that part of the demo. Of course it's
impressive, but still pretty limited.

Boris

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:
wavefieldhelmut wrote:

Hot discussions arise in the last time regarding the number of canals
regarding the perfect rendition. I want to discus another approach:
Caruso was a mono sound source without all doubt.

No. He was not an omnidirectional point source.

With a tenor, so much of the sound comes from the chest that you can't even
trust a rough model treating it as a point source.

On top of this, of course, the room imaging is very important for stereo.
Now, with those Caruso recordings the room was as dry as possible and the
performer as close to the horn as possible, because they were fighting for
the highest intelligibility.

Ideally, you need to be able to reproduce a wavefront in 3-D space in order
to give a perfect reproduction of the original sound in the hall. That
means a sphere with microphones mounted every half-wave at the highest
frequency you care about.

In the real world you can get away with a less accurate wavefront model,
but nobody is really sure how much less you can really get away with, and
there have been a lot of researchers in the past ten years trying to figure
out where the breakeven points are. Look at some of the stuff Vanderkooy
has written. Ignore all the papers from NHK researchers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Randy Yates wrote:

What's more, the dispersion pattern can be time-varying. Yow!

Turn off the damn ceiling fan!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

Real Stereo / two ears / two channels

but that is only true if you are listening with headphones...

real stereo recorded with an x/y pair or whatever you choose is not
real stereo when played back through two speakers.

no, you confuse binaural with stereo.
I find the soundstage great with ortf , nos and jecklin disc
recordings and stereo speakers.


OK then,

an X/Y pair into headphones may be "true BINAURAL".

But with 2 speakers (instead fo headphones), there is no true binaural
and not true stereo.

So if you are mixing for speakers (instead of headphones) there is no
reason to have an aversion to "pan pot stereo".

Mark

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 3 Dez., 13:33, Boris Lau wrote:
wavefieldhelmut wrote:
Hi Bob,

let me describe my personal impression by the newest application what
i was able to listen, installed by childreen channal in erfurt in a
studio cinema.damped but not anechoic room, all arond equiped app 20
cm spaced speakers, each app 15 watts, 100mm diameter, good subwoofer
but no tweeters:

Sounds like the Iosono system. I have seen a demo in a cinema in Ilmenau
and I am in contact with some folks who mixed some material for that
system. The advantage over regular surround systems for conventional
material is the much wider sweet spot in the cinema - good surround on
pretty much all seats. And I think that might actually be one of the big
advantages.
Special material is of course fun as well. But to my knowledge, the
system still has a lot of problems, e.g., nasty phasing effects if
virtual sound sources are moving within the audience. That's why they
always use a ghost voice in that part of the demo. Of course it's
impressive, but still pretty limited.

Boris

Hi Boris,

I am in the lucky position, that it is les than a half hour to drive
to that " Lindenlichtspiele" cinema from my home. Well known in this
matter the phasing like effects you describe for moved sources. But it
seems my not a generally problem, i would refer it onto insufficient
computing power regarding the FFT. Too much compressed MP3 sounds
comparable pitful. By the newer approach in Erfurt stuck me out not
such noises.

By my opinion is regrettable the always propagated reduction of the
system advantages by the enlarged sweet spot. That is a psychoacoustic
caused approach again what quashing the utterly new possibilities of
the physicalical sound field rekonstruction.
A reduced upon a row of too largely spaced speakers of course cannot
deliver all capabilities of the wave field synthesis system approach.
But lets looking beyound that limits and not arguing only the still
remaining problems, but also the prospects of this procedure and its
breathtaking chances.


Regards Helmut
www.syntheticwave.de

[wavefieldhelmut]

If psychoacoustics could combined with Wavefield Synthesis, then perhaps it
could be possible to intelligently allocate a reduced number of transducers.
What could be accomplished with 200 transducers in a compact cabinet?


Good question!

Forgot the rows, but a speaker field would work with restrictions:
Because the too large speaker spacing would occur corners in the
radiation pattern. You must resigning the depiction of sources outside
the speaker field for lower frequencies by that reason and limiting
the procedure upon main frequency range. That gets worse mainly the
elevation detection. Above 2 or 3 kHz tweeters would be needed. Your
wife must accept speakers behind the Sofa. But such equipment just
would eneable the depiction of virtually acoustical enlarged or
minified rendition rooms, what may causing a much more impressive
rendition.

kind regards helmut

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:28:30 -0500, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

But agreeing also with "audiaesthetic", I've heard some incredible
two-channel stereo. Apparently, there are many ways to fool the ear.

Did these "incredible two-channel stereo" examples have anything in
common?

[Scott Dorsey]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:28:30 -0500, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

But agreeing also with "audiaesthetic", I've heard some incredible
two-channel stereo. Apparently, there are many ways to fool the ear.

Did these "incredible two-channel stereo" examples have anything in
common?

I don't know about the other guy, but the incredible two-channel stereo
recordings I have heard all had the following things in common:

1. Recorded with minimalist miking with SOME technique that gave phase
differences between channels.

2. Recorded by people who weren't idiots and had a lot of experience
listening to live music.

3. Playback in a room with a VERY dead front space, and speakers that
more or less preserve phase across the vocal band.

4. Playback with speakers that have a very low bottom end. It's amazing
how much accurate low end improves perception of orchestral recordings.

5. OFTEN playback with electrostatic speakers or electromagnetic dipoles,
but I have heard "incredible" accuracy out of monkey boxes a couple
times in my life so I know it's possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 3 Dec 2007 17:57:15 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:28:30 -0500, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

But agreeing also with "audiaesthetic", I've heard some incredible
two-channel stereo. Apparently, there are many ways to fool the ear.

Did these "incredible two-channel stereo" examples have anything in
common?

I don't know about the other guy, but the incredible two-channel stereo
recordings I have heard all had the following things in common:

1. Recorded with minimalist miking with SOME technique that gave phase
differences between channels.

2. Recorded by people who weren't idiots and had a lot of experience
listening to live music.

3. Playback in a room with a VERY dead front space, and speakers that
more or less preserve phase across the vocal band.

4. Playback with speakers that have a very low bottom end. It's amazing
how much accurate low end improves perception of orchestral recordings.

5. OFTEN playback with electrostatic speakers or electromagnetic dipoles,
but I have heard "incredible" accuracy out of monkey boxes a couple
times in my life so I know it's possible.
--scott

You are supposed to give the others a chance..

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:34:27 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:

So if you are mixing for speakers (instead of headphones) there is no
reason to have an aversion to "pan pot stereo".

Just to be contrary, my experience is just the opposite.
I've heard lots of mono recordings, made in real rooms
and mostly single mic'd, that sound realistic to me,
but have never heard a binaural recording that
works for me, even if the same setup works for other
folks.

I *can* be fooled by pan potting for pop music, but I can
also fool myself for music for which I know an expected
room sound. When the room sounds right, I seem to fill
in the geometry.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 4 Dez., 00:47, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:34:27 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:

So if you are mixing for speakers (instead of headphones) there is no
reason to have an aversion to "pan pot stereo".

Just to be contrary, my experience is just the opposite.
I've heard lots of mono recordings, made in real rooms
and mostly single mic'd, that sound realistic to me,
but have never heard a binaural recording that
works for me, even if the same setup works for other
folks.

I *can* be fooled by pan potting for pop music, but I can
also fool myself for music for which I know an expected
room sound. When the room sounds right, I seem to fill
in the geometry.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck




Hi Chris,

I agree. And and as far as all conditions suited, also stereo can
deliver amazing good reproduction.
For perfect rendition I see some different ways:

1. Invite Caruso in your bathroom and let sing him, that's very
impressive.
2. Record Caruso's voice in a very dry environment and play that
record by a good bookshelf box, placed upon a pedestal in your
bathroom instead Caruso. By apt directional pattern the same sound
field arises.
3. Make that with a pair of Stereo boxes and avoid by a Jecklin disc
around your head, that the left box sound hits your right ear.
4. Record Caruso by a dummy Head, couple the rendition with a head
tracker to deliver the important Doppler effects by head movements and
let the dummy head adapting regarding your HRTF´s. If that impossible
because the record is dedicated for broadcast, only the way to a good
chirurgery remains.
5. Sit in the focus of a well produced high order ambisonics
rendition.
6. Restore the wave fronts physically in its spatial structure.


Somewhere knows more ways?


Regards Helmut

[[email protected]]

On Dec 3, 12:34 pm, Mark wrote:
OK then,

an X/Y pair into headphones may be "true BINAURAL".

But with 2 speakers (instead fo headphones), there is no true binaural
and not true stereo.

So if you are mixing for speakers (instead of headphones) there is no
reason to have an aversion to "pan pot stereo".


no, xy is not binaural, it is a form of stereo.
binaural involves using a dummy head ...wiki it!
and the "pan pot stereo" is not true stereo!
it is pan pot mono and most recordings use this.
true stereo does exist, you may not be listening to the right
recordings.
try soundkeeper records http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/
or the cowboy junkies first album.

[Randy Yates]

Mark writes:
[...]
But with 2 speakers (instead fo headphones), there is no true binaural
and not true stereo.

There can be, for one listener. This is what Duane Cooper was
researching back in the 80's. He called it "transaural."

Essentially he used a Shroeder matrix to perform interaural crosstalk
cancellation and then inverse-filtered the room. So the technique is
only good for a single listener in a fixed location.

But that's probably not what you had in mind.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 4 Dez., 13:47, wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:34 pm, Mark wrote:

OK then,

an X/Y pair into headphones may be "true BINAURAL".

But with 2 speakers (instead fo headphones), there is no true binaural
and not true stereo.

So if you are mixing for speakers (instead of headphones) there is no
reason to have an aversion to "pan pot stereo".

no, xy is not binaural, it is a form of stereo.
binaural involves using a dummy head ...wiki it!
and the "pan pot stereo" is not true stereo!
it is pan pot mono and most recordings use this.
true stereo does exist, you may not be listening to the right
recordings.
try soundkeeper records http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/
or the cowboy junkies first album.

Hello,

X/Y is certainy a more complex reproduction as simple panpot stereo,
but you have not in all cases the possibilitiy to produce so.
But by speaker rendition the problem remain, that the waves of the
left box hit also the right ear unwantedly, in opposition to
headphones.

And whats with Z? We can forget the elevation level for spacial
correct loudspeaker rendition?

Helmut

[wavefieldhelmut]

On 3 Dez., 23:57, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:28:30 -0500, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

But agreeing also with "audiaesthetic", I've heard some incredible
two-channel stereo. Apparently, there are many ways to fool the ear.

Did these "incredible two-channel stereo" examples have anything in
common?

I don't know about the other guy, but the incredible two-channel stereo
recordings I have heard all had the following things in common:

1. Recorded with minimalist miking with SOME technique that gave phase
differences between channels.

2. Recorded by people who weren't idiots and had a lot of experience
listening to live music.

3. Playback in a room with a VERY dead front space, and speakers that
more or less preserve phase across the vocal band.

4. Playback with speakers that have a very low bottom end. It's amazing
how much accurate low end improves perception of orchestral recordings.

5. OFTEN playback with electrostatic speakers or electromagnetic dipoles,
but I have heard "incredible" accuracy out of monkey boxes a couple
times in my life so I know it's possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."




Hello Scott,

I think I know what you want to describe, the emotionally event what's
hardly can deliver other stimulus of the five faculties of perception.
And in so far I also would agree by our audioesthetic friend that's
the amount of single canals isn't to prefer in this matter. But no one
of your points may fail and I see a further important fact in this
connection.

First and almost you must avoid misguiding cues. That's only possible
then, when the recording room posses a comparable acoustic behaviour
as the rendition room. Let my justify this opinion:

By normal Speakers you cannot avoid to hit the surfaces of your
rendition room in the mainly frequency range, that's constitute
physically by the regarding wave lengths. Is the rendition room
comparable, let consider per example in ceiling altitude, fits the
reflection in the rendition room the according recording room
reflection. The impulse response become hardly changed, you get a
hardly to distinguish impression.

But if you want to restore the sound impression of the scala of Milan,
you must have a according ceiling high in your listening room. If not
reaching your amount of money for that, because your speakers was very
expensive, then your living room ceiling produce this reflection much
too early. You cannot believe to sit in the Scala of Milan and all of
your emotion getting broken.

Electrostatics may increase the boundary for the detection of this
fault because of its more directive radiation, but to fouling our mind
by a adapting radiated wavefront is only a possiblity of a sound field
synthesis approach.


Regards Helmut


P.S.: NAGRA indeed is the mother of all perfection; it would be an
excellent gadget to record Caruso in your bathroom...

[wavefieldhelmut]

But if you want to restore the sound impression of the scala of Milan,
you must have a according ceiling high in your listening room. If not
reaching your amount of money for that, because your speakers was very
expensive, then your living room ceiling produce this reflection much
too early. You cannot believe to sit in the Scala of Milan and all of
your emotion getting broken.
--------------------------------------------------------


....I should specify a solution in that matter by the wave field
synthesis principle by help of a animation:


http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/principe.swf



It shows the Scala of Milan as upper room depiction. The black point
is Caruso; yellow our listener, sitting upon the most expensive chair.
Our goal isn't to establish a perfect loudspeaker rendition; rather we
want to generate the same signals by the ears of a listener at home.

The under depiction shows the according way: Green is our living room.
The home- listener becomes set into a common geometrical system in
coincidence by the Scala - listener, but in front a wave field
synthesis speaker wall instead Caruso. That can generate arbitrary
curved wave fronts steerable by the signal processors. The direct wave
of Caruso's Aria may produce by the speaker field likely an acoustic
curtain perfectly, widely without to hit unwanted the living room
walls.

Now must elevate the living room ceiling in that way:
In the Scala accrue a mirror source apparently above Caruso for that
reflection. In order to reproduce that correctly must store the living
room measurement and reflection factors by the playback Renderer. Now
become possible to calculate by playback site a new position for the
virtual source of Scale reflection properly in home theatre. Both
depicted virtual sources works by Caruso's dry recorded audio signal,
the early reflection wave front becomes equalization according the
difference between reflection factors of Scala and living room.

That procedure restores all first reflections of the Scala surfaces by
such way, result must be the restoration of direct wave and first
strong reflections in Time, direction and level. The reverberation has
hardly influence regarding determination of the source direction and
may remain in the audio signal subsequent to appropriate initial time
delay gap.


What should distinguish such sound field from the genuine???
And what is the problem to build the hardware today?



Regards Helmut
www.syntheticwave.de