[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 11/13/2014 10:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil Gould wrote:
This is a good example of what I was trying to explain to Gary. There
are drivers (not just tweeters, btw) whose radiation pattern is
well-suited to smaller spaces. Speaker enclosures designed with such
drivers can present a stereo sound field that is not sensitive to the
position of the listener.

I've yet to hear any pair of stereo speakers where the position of the
listener isn't sensitive. Of course, some are more so than others.

Precisely. But it's more the room that makes for this than the speakers,
even though the speakers are implicated.


I don't think it's useful to talk about these things generically, as
though all speakers will exhibit directionality that makes listener
position critical in any given room.

Even a perfect point source is going to be in a real room, and the room
effects will make listener position critical.

How critical? Depends on how well-treated the room is. I have heard systems
with very wide sweet spots and systems with very narrow ones, and the room
had as much to do with it as the dispersion pattern of the loudspeakers.

And, of course, the size of the sweet spot that you _need_ depends on the
application. If you have a control room with a dozen people standing
behind a console listening, it's important that they all be able to have
a clean image. If you only have one person behind the console you can live
with a smaller usable area.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Neil wrote:
I've yet to hear any pair of stereo speakers where the position of the
listener isn't sensitive. Of course, some are more so than others.

Perhaps our usage of "sensitive" varies a bit. In my usage, it implies
that only a small area of the room would present a valid stereo image to
the listener. It isn't difficult to do much better than that.

My experience tells me the very best stereo sound stage will come from
speakers which are sensitive to where the listener sits. Those which
lessen that sensitivity also muddy the sound stage.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil wrote:
I've yet to hear any pair of stereo speakers where the position of the
listener isn't sensitive. Of course, some are more so than others.

Perhaps our usage of "sensitive" varies a bit. In my usage, it implies
that only a small area of the room would present a valid stereo image to
the listener. It isn't difficult to do much better than that.

My experience tells me the very best stereo sound stage will come from
speakers which are sensitive to where the listener sits. Those which
lessen that sensitivity also muddy the sound stage.

I think this is a reasonable argument to make in untreated rooms, where
narrower dispersion results in fewer uncontrolled specular reflections.

But I don't think it is necessarily true in very well-controlled rooms.
--scott


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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/13/2014 1:34 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil wrote:
I've yet to hear any pair of stereo speakers where the position of the
listener isn't sensitive. Of course, some are more so than others.

Perhaps our usage of "sensitive" varies a bit. In my usage, it implies
that only a small area of the room would present a valid stereo image to
the listener. It isn't difficult to do much better than that.

My experience tells me the very best stereo sound stage will come from
speakers which are sensitive to where the listener sits. Those which
lessen that sensitivity also muddy the sound stage.

OK... we have different experiences. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/13/2014 12:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 11/13/2014 10:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil Gould wrote:
This is a good example of what I was trying to explain to Gary. There
are drivers (not just tweeters, btw) whose radiation pattern is
well-suited to smaller spaces. Speaker enclosures designed with such
drivers can present a stereo sound field that is not sensitive to the
position of the listener.

I've yet to hear any pair of stereo speakers where the position of the
listener isn't sensitive. Of course, some are more so than others.

Precisely. But it's more the room that makes for this than the speakers,
even though the speakers are implicated.


I don't think it's useful to talk about these things generically, as
though all speakers will exhibit directionality that makes listener
position critical in any given room.

Even a perfect point source is going to be in a real room, and the room
effects will make listener position critical.

No question, here, Scott!

How critical? Depends on how well-treated the room is. I have heard systems
with very wide sweet spots and systems with very narrow ones, and the room
had as much to do with it as the dispersion pattern of the loudspeakers.

I agree with you, but my comment s on the subject presume decent room
treatment, otherwise there is no point at all! Given a decent room,
there are ways to achieve a "very wide sweet spot" via speaker design,
and that's basically all I'm referring to in my posts on the subject.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...

In short, considerable spatial info is _already deliberately embedded_
in this captured data stream.

The problem is that it's not presented in a psychoacoustically correct
fashion (ie, it comes from the front, when it should come from the sides).

Yes, and Ambisonics and Ambiophonics (loudspeaker binaural) and other
surround sound systems can encode all of those directions, stereo cannot.
Stereo can deliver the most important sector, the frontal quadrant,
sometimes semicircle where the instruments are, but the ambience is limited
to within that same set of incident angles. My main thrust is to enhance
normal, legacy two channel recordings to sound the best they can, lifelike
and with most of the envelopment that was present at the recording. Further
enhancements are possible to wring out of the stereo signal as much of the
spatial information as we can, such as Dolby Pro Logic and other surround
systems.

I don't personally like to use artificial "hall" programs that try to mess
with the signal and inject some ambience that was obtained from convolving
a test signal with various venues. I just want to hear what is on the
recording, as recorded, but I want to present, or shape the sound as much
like the typical 3 dimensional "solid" original as possible.

All of these systems of recording and playback can be confusing and
sometimes they cross over into each other. I wouldn't mind starting a new
thread that tries to define and separate them out from each other at the
most basic level for illustration purposes. It could also answer one of the
questions above, about whether multi-miked, panpot stereo is real stereo.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I don't personally like to use artificial "hall" programs that try to mess
with the signal and inject some ambience that was obtained from convolving a
test signal with various venues. I just want to hear what is on the
recording, as recorded, but I want to present, or shape the sound as much
like the typical 3 dimensional "solid" original as possible.

You're not going to successfully extract the ambience unless you have
additional speakers to the side and rear. Bouncing the sound off the wall
ain't gonna do it.

Much of the benefit of hall synthesizers comes from simply delaying the sound,
which assists in "unmasking" the ambience.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I know what standard stereo theory says.

I think you think you know that. I think you do not know that.

Maybe rent a windmill and a donkey, borrow a jousting lance.

Summary, stereo does not work by the "direct flight" method of speakers to
ears, but rather by physically reconstructing all important sound fields
within the listening room.

Not possible. Gary, you appear to be incapable of learning, incapable of
processing information presented to you, repeatedly, on a platter, with
circles and arrows for the good stuff.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I know what standard stereo theory says.

No, no you do not. You seem to believe some very strange things about
"standard stereo theory" that nobody else has ever heard of.

Scott, that is what usually happens when someone has something new to say. I
said that I understand standard stereo theory. That does not mean that I am
going to spit it back to you - you already know all that. My very strange
things are about Image Model Theory.


What I am trying to say is that
this is not correct, or at least not complete. The simplest example is a
single impulsive sound followed by its reflection a few milliseconds
later.
Unless the reflection is heard from a different incident angle than the
direct sound, it will not sound like the original (forward masking).

The ears can't hear the actual angle that the wavefront is coming from, it
can only tell the amplitude and phase differences between channels. So if
the reflection has different amplitude and phase differences than the
original
impulse, it has _perceived_ as coming from a different angle. This is how
imaging works.

No, it is not. When our ears are free to hear the entire presentation in
front of us, they hear all of the spatial characteristics of our speakers
and room. In order to hear a sound from a certain direction, that sound must
come from that direction. Between the speakers this happens by means of
summing localization. Outside the separation of the speakers, it can happen
with wide dispersion direct firing speakers or with multi-directional
speakers purposely creating reflections from front and side walls.

Until you understand this, you are going to continue to be in the dark.

I understand every word of it but disagree with some of it.

For
example if this were done in an anechoic chamber and you had two speakers
doing it, one straight ahead and one off to the side, you would be able to
hear a certain amount of spaciousness contributed by the reflection. But
bring the reflection speaker around to the same position as the direct
speaker and it will not be the same.

Correct. This is not sterophony, this is two sources both producing
uncorrelated signals. Stereophony is different.

This is basic audio psychoacoustic research, very familiar experiment. It
demonstrates that in order for us to perceive a sound as ambience, or coming
from another direction, it must be made to physically come from there.

In order for us to hear the multitude
of reflections contained in a good recording, we must make those delayed
sounds come from off to the sides. This can be done with some extra
speakers
on time delay or, much simpler, just reflect some of the speakers' output
from front and side walls. If this is done within the fusion time (as it
always will be in small room acoustics), then it will lend a spatial
broadening effect with no "echo" as such.

This is true, but unfortunately the reflections added by the playback room
are always the same no matter what recording you play. Consequently, if
the room reflections are dominant, it makes everything you play back sound
all the same. This is interesting but not particularly useful, and it
also
has nothing to do with stereophony.
--scott

Similarly, all of the recordings that you play on your system will all sound
the same. Everyone's system has some spatial characteristics that do not
change between recordings.

But no, I lied and so did you. The spatial characteristics change with each
new recording, depending heavily on the recording technique. Suppose I have
an Ambisonics system. Even though the decoder and speaker setup remain the
same, each recording is going to sound different, because it was made in a
differnt venue, or there was a different technique used in recording, or a
multitude of reasons. But what remains the same is the ability to make all
recorded sounds come from particular directions, as encoded by the system
and physically displayed by the decoder and speakers. Stereo cannot do that.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I don't personally like to use artificial "hall" programs that try to
mess with the signal and inject some ambience that was obtained from
convolving a test signal with various venues. I just want to hear what is
on the recording, as recorded, but I want to present, or shape the sound
as much like the typical 3 dimensional "solid" original as possible.

You're not going to successfully extract the ambience unless you have
additional speakers to the side and rear. Bouncing the sound off the wall
ain't gonna do it.

Much of the benefit of hall synthesizers comes from simply delaying the
sound, which assists in "unmasking" the ambience.

Agreed, and I do that as well.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I know what standard stereo theory says.

No, no you do not. You seem to believe some very strange things about
"standard stereo theory" that nobody else has ever heard of.

Scott, that is what usually happens when someone has something new to say. I
said that I understand standard stereo theory. That does not mean that I am
going to spit it back to you - you already know all that. My very strange
things are about Image Model Theory.

Then why do you keep saying things about standard stereo theory that are
completely incorrect, such as it supposing a direct connection where each
speaker is heard by an individual ear? You have said this repeatedly, when
if you had any notion of how stereophony works you would realize that no
one has ever claimed that.

The ears can't hear the actual angle that the wavefront is coming from, it
can only tell the amplitude and phase differences between channels. So if
the reflection has different amplitude and phase differences than the
original
impulse, it has _perceived_ as coming from a different angle. This is how
imaging works.

No, it is not. When our ears are free to hear the entire presentation in
front of us, they hear all of the spatial characteristics of our speakers
and room. In order to hear a sound from a certain direction, that sound must
come from that direction. Between the speakers this happens by means of
summing localization. Outside the separation of the speakers, it can happen
with wide dispersion direct firing speakers or with multi-directional
speakers purposely creating reflections from front and side walls.

I think you need to revisit "summing localization." If in fact, a sound
had to come from a particular direction to be heard from that direction,
there could not be any stereo image, only sounds from individual speakers.

But, in fact, in the real world we routinely encounter an accurate and wide
stereo image both between and beyond the speakers. If what you claimed was
correct, this could not occur.

For
example if this were done in an anechoic chamber and you had two speakers
doing it, one straight ahead and one off to the side, you would be able to
hear a certain amount of spaciousness contributed by the reflection. But
bring the reflection speaker around to the same position as the direct
speaker and it will not be the same.

Correct. This is not sterophony, this is two sources both producing
uncorrelated signals. Stereophony is different.

This is basic audio psychoacoustic research, very familiar experiment. It
demonstrates that in order for us to perceive a sound as ambience, or coming
from another direction, it must be made to physically come from there.

And this strange idea is what makes me point out that you have no concept
of traditional stereo theory.

This is true, but unfortunately the reflections added by the playback room
are always the same no matter what recording you play. Consequently, if
the room reflections are dominant, it makes everything you play back sound
all the same. This is interesting but not particularly useful, and it
also
has nothing to do with stereophony.

Similarly, all of the recordings that you play on your system will all sound
the same. Everyone's system has some spatial characteristics that do not
change between recordings.

Yes, and so what the listener hears is the sum of the spatial characteristics
of the recording and the playback hall. However, if the characteristics of
the playback hall do not swamp those of the recording, a recording can be
made to sound very close and intimate while another recording can be made to
sound very distant and large, on the same playback system. If, on the other
hand, the characteristics of the playback system are so dramatic as to
overwhelm those of the recording, than all recordings played back will have
similar character and that is very, very bad and contrary to the whole
purpose.

But no, I lied and so did you. The spatial characteristics change with each
new recording, depending heavily on the recording technique. Suppose I have
an Ambisonics system. Even though the decoder and speaker setup remain the
same, each recording is going to sound different, because it was made in a
differnt venue, or there was a different technique used in recording, or a
multitude of reasons. But what remains the same is the ability to make all
recorded sounds come from particular directions, as encoded by the system
and physically displayed by the decoder and speakers. Stereo cannot do that.

Strange, I hear stereo doing it in front of me right now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I know what standard stereo theory says.

No, no you do not. You seem to believe some very strange things about
"standard stereo theory" that nobody else has ever heard of.

Scott, that is what usually happens when someone has something new to say. I
said that I understand standard stereo theory. That does not mean that I am
going to spit it back to you - you already know all that. My very strange
things are about Image Model Theory.

Then why do you keep saying things about standard stereo theory that are
completely incorrect, such as it supposing a direct connection where each
speaker is heard by an individual ear? You have said this repeatedly, when
if you had any notion of how stereophony works you would realize that no
one has ever claimed that.

The ears can't hear the actual angle that the wavefront is coming from, it
can only tell the amplitude and phase differences between channels. So if
the reflection has different amplitude and phase differences than the
original
impulse, it has _perceived_ as coming from a different angle. This is how
imaging works.

No, it is not. When our ears are free to hear the entire presentation in
front of us, they hear all of the spatial characteristics of our speakers
and room. In order to hear a sound from a certain direction, that sound must
come from that direction. Between the speakers this happens by means of
summing localization. Outside the separation of the speakers, it can happen
with wide dispersion direct firing speakers or with multi-directional
speakers purposely creating reflections from front and side walls.

I think you need to revisit "summing localization." If in fact, a sound
had to come from a particular direction to be heard from that direction,
there could not be any stereo image, only sounds from individual speakers.

But, in fact, in the real world we routinely encounter an accurate and wide
stereo image both between and beyond the speakers. If what you claimed was
correct, this could not occur.

For
example if this were done in an anechoic chamber and you had two speakers
doing it, one straight ahead and one off to the side, you would be able to
hear a certain amount of spaciousness contributed by the reflection. But
bring the reflection speaker around to the same position as the direct
speaker and it will not be the same.

Correct. This is not sterophony, this is two sources both producing
uncorrelated signals. Stereophony is different.

This is basic audio psychoacoustic research, very familiar experiment. It
demonstrates that in order for us to perceive a sound as ambience, or coming
from another direction, it must be made to physically come from there.

And this strange idea is what makes me point out that you have no concept
of traditional stereo theory.

This is true, but unfortunately the reflections added by the playback room
are always the same no matter what recording you play. Consequently, if
the room reflections are dominant, it makes everything you play back sound
all the same. This is interesting but not particularly useful, and it
also
has nothing to do with stereophony.

Similarly, all of the recordings that you play on your system will all sound
the same. Everyone's system has some spatial characteristics that do not
change between recordings.

Yes, and so what the listener hears is the sum of the spatial characteristics
of the recording and the playback hall. However, if the characteristics of
the playback hall do not swamp those of the recording, a recording can be
made to sound very close and intimate while another recording can be made to
sound very distant and large, on the same playback system. If, on the other
hand, the characteristics of the playback system are so dramatic as to
overwhelm those of the recording, than all recordings played back will have
similar character and that is very, very bad and contrary to the whole
purpose.

But no, I lied and so did you. The spatial characteristics change with each
new recording, depending heavily on the recording technique. Suppose I have
an Ambisonics system. Even though the decoder and speaker setup remain the
same, each recording is going to sound different, because it was made in a
differnt venue, or there was a different technique used in recording, or a
multitude of reasons. But what remains the same is the ability to make all
recorded sounds come from particular directions, as encoded by the system
and physically displayed by the decoder and speakers. Stereo cannot do that.

Strange, I hear stereo doing it in front of me right now.
--scott

Whew. Sometimes I seriously wonder if Gary is for real, or one of the
cleverest trolls ever to hit this group.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I know what standard stereo theory says.

No, no you do not. You seem to believe some very strange things about
"standard stereo theory" that nobody else has ever heard of.

Scott, that is what usually happens when someone has something new to say.
I said that I understand standard stereo theory.

Scott seems to be right. You do not appear to understood clue of how
stereophonic imaging works.

[Scott's 278'th attempt at explaining]

The ears can't hear the actual angle that the wavefront is coming from,
it
can only tell the amplitude and phase differences between channels. So
if
the reflection has different amplitude and phase differences than the
original
impulse, it has _perceived_ as coming from a different angle. This is
how
imaging works.

Your comment to it

No, it is not. When our ears are free to hear the entire presentation in
front of us, they hear all of the spatial characteristics of our speakers
and room.

My comment: NO NO NO NO and utterly NO! - the ears to not hear spatial
charactestics, they perceive the plane sound field in the ear canal. The
brain then SUPPOSES how the room has influenced the sound and what direction
original and reflected sound is coming from.

You allegation is then that reflected sound and thereby a phasemodified and
frequency filtered addition to the perceptible (!) sound will augment proper
virtual imaging. It will not so do for two reasons:

1) it is the same addition to all sound you play back in the room.

2) in information terms it constitutes obfuscation.

In order to hear a sound from a certain direction, that sound must come
from that direction.

No. It must arrive with a suitable delay to the "other" ear.

Between the speakers this happens by means of summing localization.
Outside the separation of the speakers, it can happen with wide dispersion
direct firing speakers or with multi-directional speakers purposely
creating reflections from front and side walls.

I have occasionally tried playing back stereophonic recordings via a
surround setup. Interestingly it tends to provide better spaciousness and a
reasonable 3d perception for panpot-stew. Even more interesting the rear
image (!) collapses when playback of a real stereophonic recording is
switched from standard stereo to surround playback with properly delayed
rear speaker(s). That observation of mine contradicts your statement above.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"hank alrich" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Whew. Sometimes I seriously wonder if Gary is for real, or one of the
cleverest trolls ever to hit this group.

He is not a troll, my understanding is that the truly is well meaning.

I also think his loudspeakers make some sense for standard living room
playback, just as Carlssons wide dispersion concept does. It was a
revelation to hear a pair of them at Bejerot's in Stockholm when visiting
them as a teenager, a sonic image actually appeared in an upward arc between
the floorstanding loudspeakers. Monitoring perfection and just putting sound
all over a living room _are_ different concepts, neither should claim to be
good at the others objectives.

I have since learned that the upwards arc is a perception oddity caused by
strangeness in the treble, be it of the recording or of the playback,
something that is quite consistent with having 4 Peerless cone tweeters, the
good un's, aimed in different directions. Fake but as efficient as a good
body augmentation.

shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Whew. Sometimes I seriously wonder if Gary is for real, or one of the
cleverest trolls ever to hit this group.

I think he is a sincere guy who has never heard a properly set-up stereo
playback.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think [Gary] is a sincere guy who has never heard
a properly set-up stereo playback.

It wouldn't hurt for him to hear good Ambisonic playback, as well.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Much of the benefit of hall synthesizers comes from simply delaying
the sound, which assists in "unmasking" the ambience.

Agreed, and I do that as well.

Prove that it works as you say it does.

[Trevor]

On 14/11/2014 5:57 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Whew. Sometimes I seriously wonder if Gary is for real, or one of the
cleverest trolls ever to hit this group.

Isn't "clever" and "troll" an oxymoron?

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...


Scott seems to be right. You do not appear to understood clue of how
stereophonic imaging works.

[Scott's 278'th attempt at explaining]

The ears can't hear the actual angle that the wavefront is coming from,
it
can only tell the amplitude and phase differences between channels. So
if
the reflection has different amplitude and phase differences than the
original
impulse, it has _perceived_ as coming from a different angle. This is
how
imaging works.

Your comment to it

No, it is not. When our ears are free to hear the entire presentation in
front of us, they hear all of the spatial characteristics of our speakers
and room.

My comment: NO NO NO NO and utterly NO! - the ears to not hear spatial
charactestics, they perceive the plane sound field in the ear canal. The
brain then SUPPOSES how the room has influenced the sound and what
direction original and reflected sound is coming from.

Peter with all due respect, where did you get this?

You allegation is then that reflected sound and thereby a phasemodified
and frequency filtered addition to the perceptible (!) sound will augment
proper virtual imaging. It will not so do for two reasons:

1) it is the same addition to all sound you play back in the room.

2) in information terms it constitutes obfuscation.

In order to hear a sound from a certain direction, that sound must come
from that direction.

No. It must arrive with a suitable delay to the "other" ear.

Are you familiar with interaural crosstalk Peter? In stereo, both ears hear
both speakers. The recording cannot isolate the channels to their respective
ear, causing us to be able to perceive the directions of the original sounds
anywhere but between the spaekers. If there is a left channel sound, both
ears hear the left speaker and therefore the direction of the sound is left
speaker, no matter where it was in real life in the recording site. For
anywhere in between, the summing localization permits us to hear the
auditory event anywhere along a line between teh speakers. Recorded sounds
do not arrive at the ears separately from each channel. It is not a head
related system. What you and Scott and others are saying is how binaural
works, not stereo.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message

My comment: NO NO NO NO and utterly NO! - the ears to not hear spatial
charactestics, they perceive the plane sound field in the ear canal. The
brain then SUPPOSES how the room has influenced the sound and what
direction original and reflected sound is coming from.

Peter with all due respect, where did you get this?

Gary, this is the whole POINT of stereophony. If this was not mentioned
before in this thread, it's because it is so basic and fundamental that it
is pretty much just assumed.

Are you familiar with interaural crosstalk Peter? In stereo, both ears hear
both speakers.

This is true.

The recording cannot isolate the channels to their respective
ear, causing us to be able to perceive the directions of the original sounds
anywhere but between the spaekers.

This is demonstrably false. Any well-set-up stereo system should have a
stereo image that extends beyond the speakers. Is the sound actually coming
from beyond the speakers? No, it is a trick.

If there is a left channel sound, both
ears hear the left speaker and therefore the direction of the sound is left
speaker, no matter where it was in real life in the recording site. For
anywhere in between, the summing localization permits us to hear the
auditory event anywhere along a line between teh speakers.

"Summing localization" is not an explanation. What is happening is that
signals, caused by the combination of right and left channel outputs,
appear at the ears and both the amplitude and phase differences between
those signals that appear at the ears affect the perceived position.

Recorded sounds
do not arrive at the ears separately from each channel.

This is true, but has nothing to do with the matter. Nobody has ever said
that it did, and the fact that you keep harping on this being untrue is
angering people because you seem to believe that this statement somehow
disproves the standard perceptual model when in fact it has nothing to do
with it and it is not a thing anyone has ever believed.

It is not a head
related system. What you and Scott and others are saying is how binaural
works, not stereo.

In fact, stereo is in some sense head related in that it's being played
back in a room and your head is in the room and the width and shading of
your head affects what signal makes it to your ears.

But what we are describing is indeed conventional stereo. You need to
understand how conventional stereo works if you are going to argue against
it, because if you keep arguing against things that are patently false and
nobody believes, your arguments are not very useful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...

My comment: NO NO NO NO and utterly NO! - the ears to not hear spatial
charactestics, they perceive the plane sound field in the ear canal. The
brain then SUPPOSES how the room has influenced the sound and what
direction original and reflected sound is coming from.

Peter with all due respect, where did you get this?

Scott already answered this better than I could have done, thanks Scott.

Are you familiar with interaural crosstalk Peter?

Yes, and so is the brain. It uses so much processing power to perceive the
sensed audio that it really only does it really really really well if you
close ýour eyes so that it can use also the visual cortex for audio
processing and it will do its very amazing best to address all the
incapabilities of the sensors (ears) and compensate for them.

Learning to listen is a very valid concept, you need good programme and a
good playback system in a suitable room. I did not say "a costly playback
system". I found it helpful to have a good tutor too that could explain what
to listen for when evaluating transducers and how and was fortunate to
encounter one.

When tinkering with loudspeakers and with audio recording it is btw. in my
experience _imperative_ to use somebody elses recordings to evaluate the
loudspeakers and somebody elses speaker design to evaluate the recordings.
Not solely, but also.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
snip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSpPyTNSlTU

Fast forward to about 1:20

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in message
...

Much of the benefit of hall synthesizers comes from simply delaying
the sound, which assists in "unmasking" the ambience.

Agreed, and I do that as well.

Prove that it works as you say it does.

William, that was your statement.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...

My comment: NO NO NO NO and utterly NO! - the ears to not hear spatial
charactestics, they perceive the plane sound field in the ear canal. The
brain then SUPPOSES how the room has influenced the sound and what
direction original and reflected sound is coming from.

Peter with all due respect, where did you get this?

Scott already answered this better than I could have done, thanks Scott.

Are you familiar with interaural crosstalk Peter?

Yes, and so is the brain. It uses so much processing power to perceive the
sensed audio that it really only does it really really really well if you
close ýour eyes so that it can use also the visual cortex for audio
processing and it will do its very amazing best to address all the
incapabilities of the sensors (ears) and compensate for them.

Learning to listen is a very valid concept, you need good programme and a
good playback system in a suitable room. I did not say "a costly playback
system". I found it helpful to have a good tutor too that could explain
what to listen for when evaluating transducers and how and was fortunate
to encounter one.

When tinkering with loudspeakers and with audio recording it is btw. in my
experience _imperative_ to use somebody elses recordings to evaluate the
loudspeakers and somebody elses speaker design to evaluate the recordings.
Not solely, but also.

Peter, Scott, and all who are truly interested -

I can see now why no one has commented on my Stereo Raw thread. All of these
comments you are making above about stereo are actually about binaural. The
main difference between the two is interaural crosstalk, which means both
ears can hear both speakers in stereo, whereas with binaural, either on
headphones or on loudspeaker binaural, the crosstalk is eliminated so that
each ear actually does hear only its respective channel.

The audible result is that with stereo the localization is limited to
between the speakers, but with binaural you can perceive sounds way off to
the sides, outside the boundaries set by the speakers. You can read up on
all of this in Blauert in a section about TRADIS (Damaske & Mellert) on p
285 or in The New Stereo Soundbook in 6.1, Binaural Recording and
Reproduction.

Gary Eickmeier

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I can see now why no one has commented on my Stereo Raw thread. All of
these comments you are making above about stereo are actually about
binaural. The main difference between the two is interaural crosstalk,
which means both ears can hear both speakers in stereo, whereas with
binaural, either on headphones or on loudspeaker binaural, the
crosstalk is eliminated so that each ear actually does hear only its
respective channel.

You think crosstalk is eliminated with binaural?

--
*TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I can see now why no one has commented on my Stereo Raw thread. All of these
comments you are making above about stereo are actually about binaural. The
main difference between the two is interaural crosstalk, which means both
ears can hear both speakers in stereo, whereas with binaural, either on
headphones or on loudspeaker binaural, the crosstalk is eliminated so that
each ear actually does hear only its respective channel.

No, Gary, we're talking about stereo, from two speakers through a room into
two ears.

And there is a _lot_ that is different between stereo and binaural. The
HRTF is encoded into the binaural recording, while your head produces it
on playback with stereo. It's not just a matter of crosstalk.

As I keep telling you, you need to understand the "standard stereo model"
as you call it, if you are going to be able to make a coherent argument
against it. What Peter and Mike and I have been describing to you is how
conventional two-speaker stereo is known to work.

The audible result is that with stereo the localization is limited to
between the speakers, but with binaural you can perceive sounds way off to
the sides, outside the boundaries set by the speakers. You can read up on
all of this in Blauert in a section about TRADIS (Damaske & Mellert) on p
285 or in The New Stereo Soundbook in 6.1, Binaural Recording and
Reproduction.

You need to hear a proper stereo system with two speakers in a room that
allows localization of sounds outside the speakers. It does not give you
a full 360 degree image the way a good binaural recording does, but it
gives a wider image than just the space between the speakers because stereo
ALSO relies on phasing tricks, not just binaural methods.

I don't think you have ever heard an actual properly-set-up stereo playback,
and I think you need to do that first.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I don't think you have ever heard

I fixed it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I can see now why no one has commented on my Stereo Raw thread. All of
these
comments you are making above about stereo are actually about binaural.
The
main difference between the two is interaural crosstalk, which means both
ears can hear both speakers in stereo, whereas with binaural, either on
headphones or on loudspeaker binaural, the crosstalk is eliminated so that
each ear actually does hear only its respective channel.

No, Gary, we're talking about stereo, from two speakers through a room
into
two ears.

And there is a _lot_ that is different between stereo and binaural. The
HRTF is encoded into the binaural recording, while your head produces it
on playback with stereo. It's not just a matter of crosstalk.

As I keep telling you, you need to understand the "standard stereo model"
as you call it, if you are going to be able to make a coherent argument
against it. What Peter and Mike and I have been describing to you is how
conventional two-speaker stereo is known to work.

The audible result is that with stereo the localization is limited to
between the speakers, but with binaural you can perceive sounds way off to
the sides, outside the boundaries set by the speakers. You can read up on
all of this in Blauert in a section about TRADIS (Damaske & Mellert) on p
285 or in The New Stereo Soundbook in 6.1, Binaural Recording and
Reproduction.

You need to hear a proper stereo system with two speakers in a room that
allows localization of sounds outside the speakers. It does not give you
a full 360 degree image the way a good binaural recording does, but it
gives a wider image than just the space between the speakers because
stereo
ALSO relies on phasing tricks, not just binaural methods.

I don't think you have ever heard an actual properly-set-up stereo
playback,
and I think you need to do that first.
--scott

Scott -

Thanks for at least delving into the subject a little more than the others.
But your constant statements that I have not heard a really good system are
preposterous. That has been my (one of my) methods of studying IMT for these
some 30 years - going around to various systems at various locations, as
many as I could find time for, and listening intently for imaging effects
and correlating my impressions to the radiation pattern of the system in
question. So all I can tell you in opposition to your stubborn assumption is
that I have done "nothing BUT that" for many many years.

The best example I heard in my wanderings was perhaps Jim Winey's demo of
the MG-20s in a large showroom of a local dealer. Like you, I was fascinated
at first by some of the imaging effects it was doing, so I listened longer.
I think the pencil thin ribbon tweeter is part of the magic, because it
would have a MUCH wider radiation pattern than, say, a planar electrostatic
like the Acoustats of so many years ago. So I listened on to various
recordings and came to the conclusion that if there were any extreme left or
right sounds they always appeared at the limiting speaker, unlike my system.
On mine the sound NEVER comes from any speaker but rather from anywhere
across the front of the room. If you ever heard it you would get a kick out
of it. Sounds like there are holographic players in mid air in front of you.
It's all done with mirrors.

Your statement about binaural encoding the HRTF in the recording and the
head doing it in stereo is insightful to an extent, but the crosstalk in
stereo is the limiting factor and difference between the systems. Think
about an extreme left or right signal in stereo for instance. In this case
there IS no summing localization happening, just the sound coming from the
direction of the speaker. You can add a crosstalk elimination circuit such
as Sonic Holography and then it could happen, but of course that IS
binaural, proving my point.

When you say Peter and Mike and you have been saying that I don't understand
the standard stereo model, or theory, that is one reason that I wrote that
long article, to show you the differences between stereo and binaural and in
doing so to show my understanding of it. If there is something amiss in my
explanation, please show me where.

I have been working on all of this stuff for over 30 years now, studying
acoustics and psychoacoustics, stereo and binaural theory, writing papers,
listening to everything and coming to some inescapable conclusions. I have
now got my ideal speakers and an ideal listening room and it is all proving
out as expected. Will be getting a center channel identical to the L and R
shortly.

One more insight that I was hoping to be able to share with you and the
group is about your statement that multi-miked, pan potted stereo is not
"real" stereo. But my example of an ideal syatem in which each instrument is
miked separately and played back on its own speaker, placed in the room like
the original, shows that even if the recording does not contain the acoustic
clues about position and reverberance off the walls of the studio, your
playback room can supply them and make it sound like they are playing right
in your room - just as "stereo" as any other real stereo recording. That
was the whole basis for the Live vs. Recorded series from AR in the 50s and
60s.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

One more insight that I was hoping to be able to share with you and the
group is about your statement that multi-miked, pan potted stereo is not
"real" stereo. But my example of an ideal syatem in which each instrument
is miked separately and played back on its own speaker, placed in the room
like the original, shows that even if the recording does not contain the
acoustic clues about position and reverberance off the walls of the
studio, your playback room can supply them and make it sound like they are
playing right in your room - just as "stereo" as any other real stereo
recording. That was the whole basis for the Live vs. Recorded series from
AR in the 50s and 60s.

I have some comments, but not time to type them right now, I'll get back to
this.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/17/2014 11:01 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

One more insight that I was hoping to be able to share with you and the
group is about your statement that multi-miked, pan potted stereo is not
"real" stereo. But my example of an ideal syatem in which each instrument is
miked separately and played back on its own speaker, placed in the room like
the original, shows that even if the recording does not contain the acoustic
clues about position and reverberance off the walls of the studio, your
playback room can supply them and make it sound like they are playing right
in your room - just as "stereo" as any other real stereo recording. That
was the whole basis for the Live vs. Recorded series from AR in the 50s and
60s.

stereo v. pan pots
There are a number of differences between a stereophonic source and a
source positioned by a pan pot. Consider the simplest case, the
recording of a single off-center source. When one uses any of the
typical stereo mic arrangements, there is a lot of position information
in the recording. Typically, a pan pot is fed by a mono mic (or
instrument) source. So, going no further than that, the sound will be
quite different from the stereo mic configuration if for no other reason
than the off-axis information being incomparable.

"each instrument being played back on it's own speaker..."
Few instruments have radiation patterns similar to speakers. In your
example of an "ideal system", only the amplitude of the sound is likely
to be similar. If one can't tell the difference between a live
instrument in the room vs. a speaker in the location of that instrument,
I'd suggest that they lack the ability to discern some rather
fundamental qualities of the sound, so it may not matter whether the
recorded sound is dry or with ambiance.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

[Gary]

The audible result is that with stereo the localization is limited to
between the speakers,

No, broken recording or broken playback.

[Gary]

but with binaural you can perceive sounds way off to
the sides, outside the boundaries set by the speakers.

What speakers? - binaural is a headphone playback concept!

[Scott]

You need to hear a proper stereo system with two speakers in a room that
allows localization of sounds outside the speakers. It does not give you
a full 360 degree image the way a good binaural recording does, but it
gives a wider image than just the space between the speakers because
stereo
ALSO relies on phasing tricks, not just binaural methods.

I don't think you have ever heard an actual properly-set-up stereo
playback,
and I think you need to do that first.

System suggested that is within reasonable cost for a retiree. I try to
avoid typing the same stuff again and again, it is however relevant to
remind you that you should not evaluate your own loudspeaker design with
your own recordings and you should not evaluate your recordings on your own
loudspeaker design.

[Gary]

Thanks for at least delving into the subject a little more
than the others. But your constant statements that I have
not heard a really good system are preposterous.

On this I agree with Scott.

[Gary]

That has been my (one of my) methods of studying
IMT for these some 30 years

Huh? - IMT not on my list of known acronyms.

[Gary]

... I listened on to various recordings and came to the
conclusion that if there were any extreme left or right sounds they always
appeared at the limiting speaker,

A sound in the stereo image that appears to come from the left or right
loudspeaker is monophonically recorded, in case of a stereo recording it may
still appear to come from that position but from behind it, in space. This
does not imply that a GOOD monophonic recording may not similarly convey
space, it need not be speaker located, but is a darn good test of center
image stability if played back on a stereo system.

[Gary]

unlike my system. On mine the sound NEVER comes from any
speaker but rather from anywhere across the front of the room.

I have an old Decca test record, it starts with mono playback. It is also a
very good idea to start with mono recording and then move on to stereo with
a pair when you have some feeling for how a microphone picks up sound. It is
quite possibly broken by design if a mono sound source does NEVER appear to
come from one of the loudspeakers if panned fully left or right.

[Gary]

If you ever heard it you would get a kick out of it. Sounds like
there are holographic players in mid air in front of you. It's all done
with mirrors.

Yes, you explained that, it is all caused by reflections from the near
walls. Those the rest of the stereo world tends to attenuate to prevent them
from obfuscating the real imaging. Using those reflections to obtain a
pleasing sound all over a room is a valid architectural concept and your
front and side mounted units appear to be similar in aim, but it is not the
golden fleece, it is nylon.

[Gary]

When you say Peter and Mike and you have been saying that I don't
understand the standard stereo model, or theory, that is one reason that I
wrote that long article, to show you the differences between stereo and
binaural and in doing so to show my understanding of it. If there is
something amiss in my explanation, please show me where.

I have tried to do that tersely above.

[Gary]

I have been working on all of this stuff for over 30 years
now, studying acoustics and psychoacoustics, stereo and binaural
theory, writing papers, listening to everything and coming to
some inescapable conclusions. I have now got my ideal speakers
and an ideal listening room and it is all proving out as expected.
Will be getting a center channel identical to the L and R shortly.

You have a speaker system that is set up to play your own recording back
that are recorded to sound good on it, ie. a self-confirming logical loop.

[Gary]

One more insight that I was hoping to be able to share with you
and the group is about your statement that multi-miked, pan potted
stereo is not "real" stereo.

Kramer is on our side, you're in the AES right? - he gives lectures
occasionally, watch out in case there is one near you. He started out with
doing chamber music with a pair.

[Gary]

But my example of an ideal syatem in which each instrument is miked
separately and played back on its own speaker, placed
in the room like the original,

I take it you ARE aware that for such a recording to have a wee bit of a
chance to actually represent each instrument in a room it would have to be
done with one main pair only.

[Gary]

shows that even if the recording does not contain the acoustic clues about
position and reverberance off the walls of the studio,

Consider a cello, a violin or an open back Fender twin reverb. Do you
earnestly think you can represent their sound fairly with a single microphe
recording made so close that room information is adequately suppressed?

[Gary]

your playback room can supply them and make it sound like they
are playing right in your room - just as "stereo" as any other
real stereo recording.

I don't want that and stereo does not offer it. What stereo does offer is to
remove one wall of your room and replace it with the concert hall.

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYukGHPRX5Y

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil" wrote in message
...

stereo v. pan pots
There are a number of differences between a stereophonic source and a
source positioned by a pan pot. Consider the simplest case, the recording
of a single off-center source. When one uses any of the typical stereo mic
arrangements, there is a lot of position information in the recording.
Typically, a pan pot is fed by a mono mic (or instrument) source. So,
going no further than that, the sound will be quite different from the
stereo mic configuration if for no other reason than the off-axis
information being incomparable.

Wow - wait for it....

"each instrument being played back on it's own speaker..."
Few instruments have radiation patterns similar to speakers. In your
example of an "ideal system", only the amplitude of the sound is likely to
be similar. If one can't tell the difference between a live instrument in
the room vs. a speaker in the location of that instrument, I'd suggest
that they lack the ability to discern some rather fundamental qualities of
the sound, so it may not matter whether the recorded sound is dry or with
ambiance.

BINGO! I have communicated something - finally!

YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is
missing from standard stereo theory.

Now take that example and simplify it down to two or three channels, taking
advantage of the summing localization principle that lets us position the
instruments anywhere along that line, and make the speakers have a
generalized radiation pattern that is similar to those of most instruments
heard at a distance that might be typical of most concert situations (make
their image models as similar as possible) and you have Image Model Theory!
Take the simplest example of just three instruments. It is possible to
imagine a situation - an example - where we record them up close, then play
them back on three speakers, each one chosen to have the same radiation
pattern as its instrument. OR, we might use just two speakers, generalize
their radiation patterns as being similar to most instruments, and have them
phantom image the center instrument.

Continuing with the example of three instruments:

You record them in "real" stereo with a pair of mikes, I record them up
close for the immediacy and impact that most of us appreciate and pan tem
in.

My recording lacks the acoustical cues from the recording site, yours does
not. You play yours back on - dare I say it - some directional speakers in a
dead studio and depend on the cues in the recording to make it sound real.

Mine lacks those cues - doesn't have to, but let's say it does - but I am
going to play it back on speakers with radiation patterns similar to the
instruments placed at a distance from me such that the patterns of direct
and reflected sounds resulting from that playback environment will be as
similar to the original (if they were playing there live) as possible. For
the most part recordings miked up close and pan potted will sound like they
are playing right in your room (they are here), which is the desired goal
with rock and pop quite often.

But even with recordings that do contain the cues from the recording site,
playing back with sound patterns in your room that are as similar as
possible to those of the live situation will sound most real, or at least
better than if you try to play it with all direct sound under the mistaken
assumption that we want to hear only the purest, most "accurate" sound that
entered the microphones straight to our ears and that will permit us to hear
"into" the recording site somehow.

THAT is what I am questioning and trying to show a different paradigm as the
goal for the process. Does that make any sense yet, from your experience?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Thanks Peter - I will try and keep this brief, but this is extensive -

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

[Gary]

but with binaural you can perceive sounds way off to
the sides, outside the boundaries set by the speakers.

What speakers? - binaural is a headphone playback concept!

Loudspeaker binaural, crosstalk elimination circuit, Ambiophonics, Sonic
Holography etc.

[Scott]

You need to hear a proper stereo system with two speakers in a room that
allows localization of sounds outside the speakers. It does not give
you
a full 360 degree image the way a good binaural recording does, but it
gives a wider image than just the space between the speakers because
stereo
ALSO relies on phasing tricks, not just binaural methods.

I don't think you have ever heard an actual properly-set-up stereo
playback,
and I think you need to do that first.

Silly suggestion to an experienced audiophile, AES member, etc etc - baby
stuff

System suggested that is within reasonable cost for a retiree. I try to
avoid typing the same stuff again and again, it is however relevant to
remind you that you should not evaluate your own loudspeaker design with
your own recordings and you should not evaluate your recordings on your
own loudspeaker design.

Also presumptive suggestion to an experienced person


[Gary]

That has been my (one of my) methods of studying
IMT for these some 30 years

Huh? - IMT not on my list of known acronyms.

Image Model Theory - what we have been talking about all this time - the
concept that the paradigm for the process should be to make the image models
of the playback and live sound as similar as possible for it to sound
realistic

[Gary]

... I listened on to various recordings and came to the
conclusion that if there were any extreme left or right sounds they
always appeared at the limiting speaker,

[Peter]

A sound in the stereo image that appears to come from the left or right
loudspeaker is monophonically recorded, in case of a stereo recording it
may still appear to come from that position but from behind it, in space.
This does not imply that a GOOD monophonic recording may not similarly
convey space, it need not be speaker located, but is a darn good test of
center image stability if played back on a stereo system.

[Gary]

unlike my system. On mine the sound NEVER comes from any
speaker but rather from anywhere across the front of the room.

I have an old Decca test record, it starts with mono playback. It is also
a very good idea to start with mono recording and then move on to stereo
with a pair when you have some feeling for how a microphone picks up
sound. It is quite possibly broken by design if a mono sound source does
NEVER appear to come from one of the loudspeakers if panned fully left or
right.

Not in my experience with direct firing speakers. An engineer friend of mine
pronounced that if you had a recording of a bag of cats panned all the way
over to one side, it would be impossible for it so sound like it is coming
from anywhere except that speaker. I decided to show the group that that was
not true. I took a mono recording of his voice, put it on Audition, and made
it pan from one side to the other, pausing at the center and ending up at
left channel. I used some orange cones from Home Depot to place on the floor
of the room where the audience said the sound was coming from. At center,
they said where to place the cone, slightly behind the center line and at
center. When it got to extreme left, same drill - I asked if it came from
the speaker, they said no. I said is it here, etc, until it ended up behind
the left speaker and slightly outside the stereo pair.

This was with my prototype speakers that were to be used in the blind
testing of the Linkwitz Challenge, and that ended up winning over the Orions
and the Behringers.

[Gary]

If you ever heard it you would get a kick out of it. Sounds like
there are holographic players in mid air in front of you. It's all done
with mirrors.

Yes, you explained that, it is all caused by reflections from the near
walls. Those the rest of the stereo world tends to attenuate to prevent
them from obfuscating the real imaging. Using those reflections to obtain
a pleasing sound all over a room is a valid architectural concept and your
front and side mounted units appear to be similar in aim, but it is not
the golden fleece, it is nylon.

You have to know how to do it. It is all part of an overall theory about
radiation pattern, room positioning, and acoustical qualities of the
reflecting surfaces.


[Gary]

I have been working on all of this stuff for over 30 years
now, studying acoustics and psychoacoustics, stereo and binaural
theory, writing papers, listening to everything and coming to
some inescapable conclusions. I have now got my ideal speakers
and an ideal listening room and it is all proving out as expected.
Will be getting a center channel identical to the L and R shortly.

You have a speaker system that is set up to play your own recording back
that are recorded to sound good on it, ie. a self-confirming logical loop.

No, I am not an idiot. I have hundreds of recordings and have made a few of
my own now, to try and learn some of the differences that various recording
techniques make. Also, in doing recording, you get to hear the real thing
and compare your recording and playback to that.

[Gary]

One more insight that I was hoping to be able to share with you
and the group is about your statement that multi-miked, pan potted
stereo is not "real" stereo.

Kramer is on our side, you're in the AES right? - he gives lectures
occasionally, watch out in case there is one near you. He started out with
doing chamber music with a pair.

Who Kramer? Doesn't ring a bell right off.

[Gary]

But my example of an ideal syatem in which each instrument is miked
separately and played back on its own speaker, placed
in the room like the original,

I take it you ARE aware that for such a recording to have a wee bit of a
chance to actually represent each instrument in a room it would have to be
done with one main pair only.

No, that is not the example I am doing.

[Peter}
Consider a cello, a violin or an open back Fender twin reverb. Do you
earnestly think you can represent their sound fairly with a single
microphe recording made so close that room information is adequately
suppressed?

That is the example, and that was the method for the Live vs. Recorded demos
by Acoustic Research in the 50s and 60s. The only problem with doing such
anechoic recordings is that you need to position the microphone to catch the
best, or most representative, sound of that instrument's total sound power
output that we would get from the reflected sound in the live situaion.


[Gary]

your playback room can supply them and make it sound like they
are playing right in your room - just as "stereo" as any other
real stereo recording.

I don't want that and stereo does not offer it. What stereo does offer is
to remove one wall of your room and replace it with the concert hall.

Not possible.

One example I used in my paper was an analogy of the "perfect" audiophile
system. I said imagine your listening room suspended in the middle of the
concert hall. Some will say that a good system will sound like you have
punched out two large holes in the speaker end for the sound to come
through. Others will stretch the example to blow out a full picture window
at the front, to let all of the sound in. Surround enthusiasts will punch
out 4 or 6 more holes along the sides and back, to let the ambience in.

So let's take it all the way and make it a completely transparent screen
enclosure instead of a room, to let ALL of the sound in as if you were right
there.

I would then caution you that in a real room, the sound can get IN to the
room but it can't get OUT, bouncing around with the time between reflections
of the smaller space.

Finally, ALAS, this is NOT a good example at all, because the process is not
one of letting the sound into the room from somewhere outside, it is one of
playing it from completely within our playback room, for better or worse.
That is a very different thing, and needs to be taken into consideration
when designing a playback system.

[Peter}

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYukGHPRX5Y

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Nice little example. How did you mike that? Can I get a file that I can
convert to CD and play on my big system? Better than YouTube quality, I
mean.

Thanks again,

Gary

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what
is missing from standard stereo theory.

I'm rather unclear about this. Are you saying all 'instruments' have the
same 'radiation' pattern? Surely this would have to be the case for your
theory to work?

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

[skipalot]

Thanks Peter - I will try and keep this brief, but this is extensive -

I think we'd better agree to see things differently based on each our
experiences, there is however a crucial point that warrants looking into.

Not in my experience with direct firing speakers. An engineer friend of
mine pronounced that if you had a recording of a bag of cats panned all
the way over to one side, it would be impossible for it so sound like it
is coming from anywhere except that speaker.

I tend to agree.

I decided to show the group that that was not true. I took a mono
recording of his voice, put it on Audition, and made it pan from one
side to the other, pausing at the center and ending up at left
channel. I used some orange cones from Home Depot to place on the floor
of the room where the audience said the sound was coming from. At
center, they said where to place the cone, slightly behind the center line
and at center. When it got to extreme left, same drill - I asked if it
came
from the speaker, they said no. I said is it here, etc, until it ended
up behind the left speaker and slightly outside the stereo pair.

Excellent description of and proof of the imaging problems caused by wall
reflections.

This was with my prototype speakers that were to be used in the blind
testing of the Linkwitz Challenge, and that ended up winning over the
Orions and the Behringers.

If you ever heard it you would get a kick out of it. Sounds like
there are holographic players in mid air in front of you. It's all done
with mirrors.

Yes, you explained that, it is all caused by reflections from the near
walls. Those the rest of the stereo world tends to attenuate to prevent
them from obfuscating the real imaging. Using those reflections to obtain
a pleasing sound all over a room is a valid architectural concept and
your front and side mounted units appear to be similar in aim, but it is
not the golden fleece, it is nylon.

You have to know how to do it. It is all part of an overall theory about
radiation pattern, room positioning, and acoustical qualities of the
reflecting surfaces.

My first diy was ACE horns, my late brother used them until the cats
destroyed the second pair of Castle RS8DD's with a plane plexiglas reflector
on them to make them more directional, something that improved the
transition to the piezo, with cross-over and frequency modification circuit
to make it sound right. They were simple to build and had the same pleasing
imaging properties the Carlsson's had.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/19/2014 1:27 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...

stereo v. pan pots
There are a number of differences between a stereophonic source and a
source positioned by a pan pot. Consider the simplest case, the recording
of a single off-center source. When one uses any of the typical stereo mic
arrangements, there is a lot of position information in the recording.
Typically, a pan pot is fed by a mono mic (or instrument) source. So,
going no further than that, the sound will be quite different from the
stereo mic configuration if for no other reason than the off-axis
information being incomparable.

Wow - wait for it....

"each instrument being played back on it's own speaker..."
Few instruments have radiation patterns similar to speakers. In your
example of an "ideal system", only the amplitude of the sound is likely to
be similar. If one can't tell the difference between a live instrument in
the room vs. a speaker in the location of that instrument, I'd suggest
that they lack the ability to discern some rather fundamental qualities of
the sound, so it may not matter whether the recorded sound is dry or with
ambiance.

BINGO! I have communicated something - finally!

I don't know what makes you think this is the result of your comments,
but just to be clear; it is not. If you understood what I wrote, you'd
see that I disagree with your notions regarding traditional stereo
recording.

YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is
missing from standard stereo theory.

The meaning of what I've written is that the inability to emulate
musical instruments with speakers is well understood, and therefore not
an objective of stereo recording. IMO, the many choices made during
recording to deal with this inability orients the process in a different
direction than you presume.

Now take that example and simplify it down to two or three channels, taking
advantage of the summing localization principle that lets us position the
instruments anywhere along that line, and make the speakers have a
generalized radiation pattern that is similar to those of most instruments
heard at a distance that might be typical of most concert situations (make
their image models as similar as possible) and you have Image Model Theory!

This is a hypothesis, not a theory, and it has some serious flaws.

Take the simplest example of just three instruments. It is possible to
imagine a situation - an example - where we record them up close, then play
them back on three speakers, each one chosen to have the same radiation
pattern as its instrument. OR, we might use just two speakers, generalize
their radiation patterns as being similar to most instruments, and have them
phantom image the center instrument.

Continuing with the example of three instruments:

You record them in "real" stereo with a pair of mikes, I record them up
close for the immediacy and impact that most of us appreciate and pan tem
in.

Wait... you're panning stereo pairs? Why?

My recording lacks the acoustical cues from the recording site, yours does
not. You play yours back on - dare I say it - some directional speakers in a
dead studio and depend on the cues in the recording to make it sound real.

Please drop the straw man arguments about "directional speakers in a
dead studio", since no one has suggested such a thing w/r/t stereo
listening environments.

Mine lacks those cues - doesn't have to, but let's say it does - but I am
going to play it back on speakers with radiation patterns similar to the
instruments placed at a distance from me such that the patterns of direct
and reflected sounds resulting from that playback environment will be as
similar to the original (if they were playing there live) as possible. For
the most part recordings miked up close and pan potted will sound like they
are playing right in your room (they are here), which is the desired goal
with rock and pop quite often.

But even with recordings that do contain the cues from the recording site,
playing back with sound patterns in your room that are as similar as
possible to those of the live situation will sound most real, or at least
better than if you try to play it with all direct sound under the mistaken
assumption that we want to hear only the purest, most "accurate" sound that
entered the microphones straight to our ears and that will permit us to hear
"into" the recording site somehow.

THAT is what I am questioning and trying to show a different paradigm as the
goal for the process. Does that make any sense yet, from your experience?

Although I understand your hypothesis, I don't agree with the
presumptions that lead you to that notion. As I stated before, speakers
DO NOT have the same radiation pattern as musical instruments. Any
system that presumes otherwise is just creating special effects. Not
that there's anything wrong with that, but such systems are not related
to the principles behind playing traditional stereo recordings.

Beyond that, few recordings are made with the assumption that the
listener's environment will be able to emulate the recording
environment. I don't know of any rock or pop recordings that are made
with that assumption. But I admit to only knowing of a small percentage
of such recordings, even though I've been a pop and rock musician for
over 50 years.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[Scott]

You need to hear a proper stereo system with two speakers in a room that
allows localization of sounds outside the speakers. It does not give
you
a full 360 degree image the way a good binaural recording does, but it
gives a wider image than just the space between the speakers because
stereo
ALSO relies on phasing tricks, not just binaural methods.

I don't think you have ever heard an actual properly-set-up stereo
playback,
and I think you need to do that first.

Silly suggestion to an experienced audiophile, AES member, etc etc - baby
stuff

Possibly, but why then do you keep denying that a real stereo image is
possible?

I'm sitting here in front of a console. I can bring up a 1kc tone on two
channels, panned hard right and hard left. By adjusting the relative
gains of the two channels I can move the tone back and forth between the
speakers.

This is not stereo, per se. This is only "intensity stereo" or "panpotted
stereo" if you prefer.

Now, I can take a delay line, patch it into one of those channels, and
delay that channel about 3ms. Now, by adjusting the relative gains of the
two channels I can make the tone come from outside the speakers.

Try this yourself with conventional speakers in a well-treated room and see
how it works. As you pan farther and farther over, the sound moves from the
center out to the speaker and then past the speaker and then it collapses
back inward as the panning is increased.

I don't think that you have ever heard this effect, and this is somewhat
central to what makes stereo work.

I think that until you hear proper stereo working properly that you should not
be considering yourself an experienced person.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"Neil" wrote in message
...

stereo v. pan pots
There are a number of differences between a stereophonic source and a
source positioned by a pan pot. Consider the simplest case, the recording
of a single off-center source. When one uses any of the typical stereo mic
arrangements, there is a lot of position information in the recording.
Typically, a pan pot is fed by a mono mic (or instrument) source. So,
going no further than that, the sound will be quite different from the
stereo mic configuration if for no other reason than the off-axis
information being incomparable.

Wow - wait for it....

"each instrument being played back on it's own speaker..."
Few instruments have radiation patterns similar to speakers. In your
example of an "ideal system", only the amplitude of the sound is likely to
be similar. If one can't tell the difference between a live instrument in
the room vs. a speaker in the location of that instrument, I'd suggest
that they lack the ability to discern some rather fundamental qualities of
the sound, so it may not matter whether the recorded sound is dry or with
ambiance.

BINGO! I have communicated something - finally!

YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is
missing from standard stereo theory.

You have written much, and communicated nothing. You appear not to
understand what Neil wrote in his reply.

The playback system cannot have the same radiation pattern as the
instruments, for every instrument exhibits a signature pattern according
to class and a particular pattern according to each individual
instrument, something that can vary immensely with string instruments,
made as they are of wood.

Gary, not only are you not in the ballpark, you're not even in the
parking lot. You're in another country, where the game is something
different, and you claim to know how to play it. Since that country has
a population of one, there is no way to argue or discusss with you.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Silly suggestion to an experienced audiophile, AES member, etc etc - baby
stuff

Yet you can't even get a ride using training wheels, because training
implies learning.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I think that until you hear proper stereo working properly that you should not
be considering yourself an experienced person.

Experience comes from an abiity to receive, consider, and process
incoming information.

Nuff said.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic