[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/23/2014 4:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/23/2014 1:02 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall
ambience (SIC) is part of the sound. How can recording it, or
synthesizing it, NOT be an improvement?
Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who *does* listen to music in an acoustically dead room? Not me. I'm
quite familiar with the acoustics of my room(s), and can learn the
acoustics of others' rooms fairly quickly (most humans have this
ability... I'm not special in that regard). The ambiance added to the
playback by the room is preferable to layering another ambiance on top
of it. It's OK in movie theaters, but I don't want to hear it at home.

If your listening room is adding significant ambience to the playback --
it's not a good listening room.

Well, none of my rooms add significant ambiance. But, they are not dead
by any means. In short, they are better than the kind of room that
engineers presume during typical recording sessions.

On the other hand, if one is going to add synthesized ambiance to a
recording, it is probably better to do it in acoustically dead rooms.
;-)

A decent listening room has reflections that arrive sooner, and a much
shorter RT60, than most performance venues. The synthesized ambience
thus swamps the room acoustics.

It audibly "piles on" to the room acoustics and most people can hear it.
Those that prefer that kind of sound do what you do, and those that
don't are happy to listen to stereo.

The JVC hall synthesizer has a setting for the room's reverb time. The
synthesizer produces less reverberation for times below this setting.

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

Been there, heard that. You like that sound... fine, but it's clearly
not preferred by most folks, and it might benefit you to understand why
rather than repeatedly insist that we don't know what we're missing.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Neil" skrev i en meddelelse news:m7dbo5
...

On 12/23/2014 4:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

Been there, heard that. You like that sound... fine, but it's clearly not
preferred by most folks, and it might benefit you to understand why rather
than repeatedly insist that we don't know what we're missing.

Illusion of realism vs. realism

Neil

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 24/12/2014 10:54 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

A decent listening room has reflections that arrive sooner, and a much
shorter RT60, than most performance venues. The synthesized ambience
thus swamps the room acoustics.

So now we have any recorded ambience, the listening room's ambience,
plus synthesised ambience. Swamped in ambience ? Yuck.

Right.... which is why we make the original recorded ambience so that it
is missing short-term reflections of the sort that appear in the listening
room.

Synthesized ambience might not be a bad thing if the recording were made
with the expectation of it being added, but most are not.

On the other hand there are a lot of classical recordings that are heavily
spotted and made to sound much too close-in, which might benefit from
synthesized ambience to replace the missing hall ambience. And that
synthesized ambience could be coming from other directions which would be
a help.

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

It what you are listen to necessitates a "hall"....

Much classical music is that way. But not all of it...
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Neil" skrev i en meddelelse news:m7dbo5
...
On 12/23/2014 4:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

Been there, heard that. You like that sound... fine, but it's clearly not
preferred by most folks, and it might benefit you to understand why rather
than repeatedly insist that we don't know what we're missing.

Hey... let's "fix" all those defective concert halls with their smeary,
klanging reverb.


Illusion of realism vs. realism

I have to be honest about it. I can't compare the original with the recording,
so...


Unfortunately, we live in a democracy where one person's point of view is as
good as anyone else's -- even when it's demonstrably wrong.

[Neil Gould]

Peter Larsen wrote:
"Neil" skrev i en meddelelse news:m7dbo5
...

On 12/23/2014 4:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have
never heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never
listen without it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and
greatly enhances the illusion of realism.

Been there, heard that. You like that sound... fine, but it's
clearly not preferred by most folks, and it might benefit you to
understand why rather than repeatedly insist that we don't know what
we're missing.

Illusion of realism vs. realism

Well put.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/24/2014 9:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Neil" skrev i en meddelelse news:m7dbo5
...
On 12/23/2014 4:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

Been there, heard that. You like that sound... fine, but it's clearly
not preferred by most folks, and it might benefit you to understand
why rather than repeatedly insist that we don't know what we're missing.

Hey... let's "fix" all those defective concert halls with their smeary,
klanging reverb.

???? If this is a response to my comment regarding preferences, above, I
don't understand why you are suggesting anything at all about concert halls.

Illusion of realism vs. realism

I have to be honest about it. I can't compare the original with the
recording, so...

It's not necessary to do so, since the "reality" that you are altering
with hall synthesis is the recording, not the original performance. That
was made quite clear in Rumsey's presentation as one basis for the
perceptual preferences of most listeners.
--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey: "... tiled bathroom?"

Uhm, exactly where do you think some of those early vocals got their reverb?

Yep. Johnny's room down the hall.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have
never heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis.

Unsupported assumption based on little more than the self-aggrandizing
pontification of a pompous blowhard.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 9:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Illusion of realism vs. realism

I have to be honest about it. I can't compare the original with the
recording, so...

It's not necessary to do so, since the "reality" that you are altering
with hall synthesis is the recording, not the original performance.
That was made quite clear in Rumsey's presentation as one basis
for the perceptual preferences of most listeners.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Used with restraint, the synthesized
hall sound doesn't screw up the ambience in the recording. It DOES NOT sound
like a different hall tacked onto the recording's ambience.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who
have never heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis.

Unsupported assumption based on little more than the
self-aggrandizing pontification of a pompous blowhard.

Only one person claimed to have heard hall synthesis. No one else has. They're
arguing without direct experience.

I have a very nice system. It's a shame you'll never be allowed to hear it.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I have a very nice system. It's a shame you'll never be allowed to
hear it.

Thanks for the chuckle, li'l buddy. And for proving my point.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/24/2014 3:21 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 9:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Illusion of realism vs. realism

I have to be honest about it. I can't compare the original with the
recording, so...

It's not necessary to do so, since the "reality" that you are altering
with hall synthesis is the recording, not the original performance.
That was made quite clear in Rumsey's presentation as one basis
for the perceptual preferences of most listeners.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Used with restraint, the
synthesized hall sound doesn't screw up the ambience in the recording.
It DOES NOT sound like a different hall tacked onto the recording's
ambience.

Once again, I can appreciate *your preferences*, but I disagree with
them based on decades of experience with various surround concepts.
According to the statistics presented in Rumsey's piece, a majority of
listeners share that opinion. He gave a lot of perceptual information as
well as objective data to support those statistics. Still waiting to see
someone refute any of it *with objective facts and/or statistics*.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

Once again, I can appreciate *your preferences*, but I disagree with them
based on decades of experience with various surround concepts. According to
the statistics presented in Rumsey's piece, a majority of listeners share
that opinion. He gave a lot of perceptual information as well as objective
data to support those statistics. Still waiting to see someone refute any of
it *with objective facts and/or statistics*.

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

I've contacted Dr Rumsey, and expect to be discussing these things with him
early next year.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

I have a very nice system. It's a shame you'll never
be allowed to hear it.

Thanks for the chuckle, li'l buddy. And for proving my point.

The one on your head?

I have Apogee speakers and Curl electronics. (What's in //your// listening
room?) Not exactly chopped liver.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"None" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

I have a very nice system. It's a shame you'll never
be allowed to hear it.

Thanks for the chuckle, li'l buddy. And for proving my point.

The one on your head?

I have Apogee speakers and Curl electronics. (What's in //your//
listening room?) Not exactly chopped liver.

Yes, I'm sure everyone is suitably impressed with your bragging about
your speakers; further evidence that you're a pompous blowhard. Your
continual boasting about your audio equipment ... are you compensating
for something? Thanks for more laughs "li'l" buddy.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...

Yes, I'm sure everyone is suitably impressed with your bragging about your
speakers; further evidence that you're a pompous blowhard. Your continual
boasting about your audio equipment ... are you compensating for something?

No need to. I have a black-powder rifle.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/24/2014 6:19 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

Once again, I can appreciate *your preferences*, but I disagree with
them based on decades of experience with various surround concepts.
According to the statistics presented in Rumsey's piece, a majority of
listeners share that opinion. He gave a lot of perceptual information
as well as objective data to support those statistics. Still waiting
to see someone refute any of it *with objective facts and/or statistics*.

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

Care to say why you found them so, ideally backing those notions with
some objective data?

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 6:19 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

Care to say why you found them so, ideally backing those
notions with some objective data?

WHAT objective data? The listeners' reactions he reported were wholly
subjective.

Again (and again, and again), I repeat that the weirdness is due to his
reporting that many listeners reacted exactly the opposite of the way I do.

I've been listening to surround sound for almost 45 years. It is not new to
me, and my system is set up so that it works correctly. The opinions of
inexperienced listeners are unlikely to be the same as mine.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 6:19 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

Care to say why you found them so, ideally backing those
notions with some objective data?

WHAT objective data? The listeners' reactions he reported were wholly
subjective.

The TESTS were subjective, the statistics, e.g. the number of
participants, were objective. For example, to counter that result,
you would need to show tests that had the opposite result to
those Rumsey presented. I suspect that you cannot do that.

I don't need to counter them, because they don't mean anything. I //assume//
the people in the test have little experience with surround sound. Their views
are therefore not of much interest -- except as representing those of
inexperienced listeners.


Again (etc) you think that those that don't agree with you are weird,
I didn't say that.
inexperienced, and so forth, rather than having a legitimate basis for
their own preferences. That would give a rational being cause for pause.

Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Were these test repeated over a
period of time to see if the listeners' opinions changed? Were they even set
up correctly?

35 years ago, people said to me "I don't like quadraphonic sound, but I like
your system." This was presumably because my system was correctly configured.
Why do you think I'm so adamant about my viewpoint?

Be patient. I hope to spend some time talking with Dr Rumsey in January, and
we can bet a better understanding of why there are differing views.

PS: If you think I'm going to grovel in front of Dr Rumsey just because he has
a PhD, you're mistaken.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 6:19 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

Care to say why you found them so, ideally backing those
notions with some objective data?

WHAT objective data? The listeners' reactions he reported were wholly
subjective.

The TESTS were subjective, the statistics, e.g. the number of participants,
were objective. For example, to counter that result, you would need to show
tests that had the opposite result to those Rumsey presented. I suspect that
you cannot do that.

Again (and again, and again), I repeat that the weirdness is due to
his reporting that many listeners reacted exactly the opposite of the
way I do.

I've been listening to surround sound for almost 45 years. It is not
new to me, and my system is set up so that it works correctly. The
opinions of inexperienced listeners are unlikely to be the same as
mine.

Again (etc.) you think that those that don't agree with you are weird,
inexperienced, and so forth, rather than having a legitimate basis for their
own preferences. That would give a rational being cause for pause.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/25/2014 10:11 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 6:19 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I found the statistics not only surprising, but downright weird.

Care to say why you found them so, ideally backing those
notions with some objective data?

WHAT objective data? The listeners' reactions he reported were wholly
subjective.

The TESTS were subjective, the statistics, e.g. the number of
participants, were objective. For example, to counter that result,
you would need to show tests that had the opposite result to
those Rumsey presented. I suspect that you cannot do that.

I don't need to counter them, because they don't mean anything.

Apparently, only because they disagree with your subjective,
unsubstantiated opinions based on your preferences.

I
//assume// the people in the test have little experience with surround
sound. Their views are therefore not of much interest -- except as
representing those of inexperienced listeners.

What is clear is that you don't understand the various perception tests
(more than one was presented to substantiate the conclusions in the
presentation). If you did, you'd know that your above suppositions are
completely irrelevant.

Again (etc) you think that those that don't agree with you are weird,

I didn't say that.

Since the "statistics" represent the participants, your message is quite
clear.

inexperienced, and so forth, rather than having a legitimate basis for
their own preferences. That would give a rational being cause for pause.

Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Were these test repeated over
a period of time to see if the listeners' opinions changed?

It's also just as likely that their original opinions were confirmed
with additional exposure to surround systems. Special effects are like
that, which is one reason that such devices get refined over relatively
short periods of time.

Were they even set up correctly?

I would imagine that adequate resources were available to insure that
the audio systems were properly set up. It's not rocket science. One
important part is that the results completely agreed with other
perceptual tests for fairly well-researched and generally understood
reasons.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't need to counter them, because they don't mean anything.

Apparently, only because they disagree with your subjective, unsubstantiated
opinions based on your preferences.

Absolutely. There is nothing "substantiated" about other people's preferences
that make them -- uh -- preferable.


What is clear is that you don't understand the various perception tests
(more than one was presented to substantiate the conclusions in the
presentation). If you did, you'd know that your above suppositions are
completely irrelevant.

Do you? I don't understand what's meant by "artifacts".


I would imagine that adequate resources were available to insure that the
audio systems were properly set up. It's not rocket science.

Imagine?

One important part is that the results completely agreed with other
perceptual tests for fairly well-researched and generally understood
reasons.

I read nothing of the sort.

All I see is that experienced listeners -- who generally accept two-channel
stereo as the only correct form of playback -- cannot tolerate hearing
anything different.

I'm not responsible for other people's inability to understand something
unfamiliar to them.

Let's let this drop until I've had a chance to discuss this with Dr Rumsey.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/25/2014 2:34 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I don't need to counter them, because they don't mean anything.

Apparently, only because they disagree with your subjective,
unsubstantiated opinions based on your preferences.

Absolutely. There is nothing "substantiated" about other people's
preferences that make them -- uh -- preferable.


What is clear is that you don't understand the various perception
tests (more than one was presented to substantiate the conclusions in
the presentation). If you did, you'd know that your above suppositions
are completely irrelevant.

Do you?

Yes. Definitely.

I don't understand what's meant by "artifacts".

Since you've previously stated that you can't hear them, that may be a
sufficient explanation for your lack of understanding. The only question
is why you're so ready to dismiss those that *can* hear them?


I would imagine that adequate resources were available to insure that
the audio systems were properly set up. It's not rocket science.

Imagine?

Of course. I do not specifically know who was involved, but can easily
imagine that they are qualified to do the setup.

One important part is that the results completely agreed with other
perceptual tests for fairly well-researched and generally understood
reasons.

I read nothing of the sort.

Read? This thread is about a YouTube video.

All I see is that experienced listeners -- who generally accept
two-channel stereo as the only correct form of playback -- cannot
tolerate hearing anything different.

I'm not responsible for other people's inability to understand something
unfamiliar to them.

Your presumption that surround is unfamiliar to those who prefer stereo
is completely unfounded. For example, unless your career includes being
a pro audio dealer who also designed, constructed and installed many
audio systems, some in surround configurations, you are less familiar
than I (I did such work for my company in the '70s through '90s), yet I
still prefer stereo for well over 90% of the material that I listen to
because I *can* hear the artifacts that devices like JVC's hall
synthesis units introduce.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

I don't understand what's meant by "artifacts".

Since you've previously stated that you can't hear them,

No, that I DON'T hear them. Not the same thing!

that may be a sufficient explanation for your lack of
understanding. The only question is why you're so ready
to dismiss those that *can* hear them?

Because you don't hear people in concert halls saying they don't like
ambience. The //categorical// rejection shown by experienced listeners in this
test indicates that //something// is very, very wrong.


Of course. I do not specifically know who was involved, but
can easily imagine that they are qualified to do the setup.

Why should you imagine such a (vain) thing?


All I see is that experienced listeners -- who generally accept
two-channel stereo as the only correct form of playback -- cannot
tolerate hearing anything different.

I'm not responsible for other people's inability to understand
something unfamiliar to them.

I've been trying to find an article in "Tape Recording" magazine, circa 1958,
in which the author tells how recording engineers he was trying to sell
professional tape recorders to, generally preferred the technology they were
familiar with -- which included wax and acetate disks. This is beyond absurd.


Your presumption that surround is unfamiliar to those who prefer stereo
is completely unfounded. For example, unless your career includes being
a pro audio dealer who also designed, constructed and installed many
audio systems, some in surround configurations, you are less familiar
than I (I did such work for my company in the '70s through '90s), yet I
still prefer stereo for well over 90% of the material that I listen to
because I *can* hear the artifacts that devices like JVC's hall synthesis
units introduce.

"Like" the unit? Or the unit itself? The only "serious" consumer devices of
this type came from JVC and Yamaha.

Name ONE artifact. ONE. And I'm talking about when the synthesizer and
speakers are set up correctly. (I can think of at least three artifacts when
the setup is wrong.)

I love learning new stuff. Give me that one artifact that spoils the listening
experience.

PS: I'm well-aware that some people are disturbed by hearing direct sounds (as
opposed to ambience) come from behind them. This is probably a variation in
nervous-system response. Such people were probably less-likely to be killed by
saber-toothed tigers.

Many years ago I worked for Rupert Neve. When one of my co-workers visited, I
played the Harvest SQ LP of DSM. He sat there with his jaw hanging down. "I
never want to listen to regular stereo again."

------------------------------

There's something else you're overlooking -- audiophile-grade multi-channel
recordings. Do you think Jordi Savall makes surround recordings because he has
nothing better to do with his time? I've heard no objections from Rene Jacobs
that H-M records him in surround. And there's 2L and other labels making such
recordings (which sometimes place direct sounds to the rear). The presumption
is that these people want the listener to hear playback that comes closer to
what's heard live. If they didn't think this was achieved, they wouldn't do
it.

I really want to put this discussion on hold until I've talked things over
with Dr Rumsey.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/26/2014 9:43 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

I don't understand what's meant by "artifacts".

Since you've previously stated that you can't hear them,

No, that I DON'T hear them. Not the same thing!

It's exactly the same thing if they exist, which they do.

that may be a sufficient explanation for your lack of
understanding. The only question is why you're so ready
to dismiss those that *can* hear them?

Because you don't hear people in concert halls saying they don't like
ambience. The //categorical// rejection shown by experienced listeners
in this test indicates that //something// is very, very wrong.

This is about playing back musical recordings, the vast majority of
which have nothing to do with concert halls.

Of course. I do not specifically know who was involved, but
can easily imagine that they are qualified to do the setup.

Why should you imagine such a (vain) thing?

How is it vain to presume that research projects are set up by qualified
people?

Your presumption that surround is unfamiliar to those who prefer stereo
is completely unfounded. For example, unless your career includes being
a pro audio dealer who also designed, constructed and installed many
audio systems, some in surround configurations, you are less familiar
than I (I did such work for my company in the '70s through '90s), yet I
still prefer stereo for well over 90% of the material that I listen to
because I *can* hear the artifacts that devices like JVC's hall synthesis
units introduce.

"Like" the unit? Or the unit itself? The only "serious" consumer devices
of this type came from JVC and Yamaha.

Since there is more than one device of this type, and there are, the
term "like" refers to units of similar purpose.

Name ONE artifact. ONE.

Some were adequately described in the presentation. Please revisit that
video.

I love learning new stuff.

This is "really old stuff" to me.

PS: I'm well-aware that some people are disturbed by hearing direct
sounds (as opposed to ambience) come from behind them.

Surely, you realize that hearing direct sounds from behind is a common,
every-day experience for most creatures? If people are disturbed by
artificially created representations of those sounds, it is most likely
due to those representations.

Many years ago I worked for Rupert Neve. When one of my co-workers
visited, I played the Harvest SQ LP of DSM. He sat there with his jaw
hanging down. "I never want to listen to regular stereo again."

For the benefit of those reading this who may not have a background in
this area: anecdotal testimonials are not valid refutations of the
research results involved in this discussion.

There's something else you're overlooking -- audiophile-grade
multi-channel recordings. Do you think Jordi Savall makes surround
recordings because he has nothing better to do with his time?

Why would I care about that unless Jordi produced a significant
percentage of the material I listen to? Unfortunately, that isn't even
remotely the case, and therein lies one other factor contributing to
people's preferences for stereo (again, as was pointed out in the
presentation).
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

Because you don't hear people in concert halls saying they don't like
ambience. The //categorical// rejection shown by experienced listeners
in this test indicates that //something// is very, very wrong.

This is about playing back musical recordings, the vast majority of which
have nothing to do with concert halls.

This was not made clear in the presentation.


Of course. I do not specifically know who was involved, but
can easily imagine that they are qualified to do the setup.

Why should you imagine such a (vain) thing?

How is it vain to presume that research projects are set up
by qualified people?

It's a joke, Neil, it's a joke. And a weak one, I admit.


This "discussion" has become a "he said, she said" exchange.


Many years ago I worked for Rupert Neve. When one of my co-workers
visited, I played the Harvest SQ LP of DSM. He sat there with his jaw
hanging down. "I never want to listen to regular stereo again."

For the benefit of those reading this who may not have a background
in this area: anecdotal testimonials are not valid refutations of the
research results involved in this discussion.

Neil, you're making yourself look -- sorry -- intellectually foolish. Just
because someone says they performed a study, doesn't mean it was a good study.
I've just been reading about twin studies, and you wouldn't believe the
inconsistent and grossly conflicting results of some of these.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

Because you don't hear people in concert halls saying they don't
like ambience. The //categorical// rejection shown by experienced
listeners in this test indicates that //something// is very, very
wrong.

This is about playing back musical recordings, the vast majority of
which have nothing to do with concert halls.

This was not made clear in the presentation.

It was quite clear to me. I'd even go so far as to say that it was a basic
to his explanations of the results. Perhaps you should review the
presentation before you take on Rumsey.

Many years ago I worked for Rupert Neve. When one of my co-workers
visited, I played the Harvest SQ LP of DSM. He sat there with his
jaw hanging down. "I never want to listen to regular stereo again."

For the benefit of those reading this who may not have a background
in this area: anecdotal testimonials are not valid refutations of the
research results involved in this discussion.

Neil, you're making yourself look -- sorry -- intellectually foolish.
Just because someone says they performed a study, doesn't mean it was
a good study.

If you really understood research design, you'd realize that whether a study
is good or bad is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are proper
ways to challenge research studies, and your example is not one of them.

I've just been reading about twin studies, and you
wouldn't believe the inconsistent and grossly conflicting results of
some of these.

Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn that I know for a fact that this is
true! The difference is that twin studies are set up to be correlative and
do not involve anecdotal testimonials by individuals outside of the group.
Presenting such anecdotes as refutations of the statistical results in the
presentation is intellectually dishonest. You don't have to take my word for
it... ask any researcher.
--
best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 9:21 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/24/2014 9:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Illusion of realism vs. realism

I have to be honest about it. I can't compare the original with the
recording, so...

It's not necessary to do so, since the "reality" that you are altering
with hall synthesis is the recording, not the original performance.
That was made quite clear in Rumsey's presentation as one basis
for the perceptual preferences of most listeners.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Used with restraint, the
synthesized hall sound doesn't screw up the ambience in the recording.
It DOES NOT sound like a different hall tacked onto the recording's
ambience.


Especially if original recording was in an anechoic space, or one
perfectly matched to the synthesised one. Esle if ought too unless the
new one is swamping the old.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

It is increasingly obvious, Neil, that you grovel in front of perceived
authority.

If someone says "Our tests show that...", and you know from personal
experience that the conclusion is dead wrong, you have a perfect right to
question the test methodology -- even if you don't know the details.

I just finished listening to Dr Rumsey's presentation a second time, and there
is no question that it's a disorganized, and occasionally dead-wrong, mess.
There is no real "organizing point" around which his talk is formed, and the
absurd -- and demonstrably untrue -- statement that two-channel stereo is
about as good as we can get, renders virtually everything he says highly
doubtful.

There's a huge amount of speculation, and very little objective fact -- only
opinions of people who probably have little experience with surround sound.

We could argue this for the next 50 years, and you're not going to change my
views -- that is, the facts. If you would be patient, and let me discuss this
with Dr Rumsey, then we can have a better conversation. If you insist on
continuing the argument, I will find a better way to spend my time than
talking with Dr Rumsey.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:21 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Used with restraint, the
synthesized hall sound doesn't screw up the ambience in the
recording. It DOES NOT sound like a different hall tacked onto
the recording's ambience.

Especially if original recording was in an anechoic space...

Well... If the synthesizer doesn't have high reverb density (is that the right
term?), such a lack will be more-audible on an anechoic recording.


...or one perfectly matched to the synthesised one.

Close matching is desirable, but not absolutely necessary. The delay the
synthesizer introduces tends to unmask the ambience already in the recording.


Else it ought to unless the new one is swamping the old.

It's virtually impossible for the synthesized hall to swamp the hall in the
recording, for the reason stated in the preceding paragraph.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It is increasingly obvious, Neil, that you grovel in front of
perceived authority.

Please, William. If by now you don't understand that my position is based on
a formal education in research (focused on perception, as it turns out) as
well as decades of setting up pro audio systems so that I have first-hand
experience with not only the equipment but the many issues involved in the
design then you haven't comprehended much of what we've talked about in this
thread. My first post that you responded to stated that Rumsey's
presentation provided statistical support for that which I have experienced.
"Grovelling" would be exactly the opposite; that his presentation was NEW
INFORMATION THAT SHAPED MY VIEWPOINT.

If someone says "Our tests show that...", and you know from personal
experience that the conclusion is dead wrong, you have a perfect
right to question the test methodology -- even if you don't know the
details.

But you WILL have to know HOW to question the methodology, and it is plainly
obvious that you have neither the background or experience to do so. You
simply disagree with the content without having sufficient understanding of
it.

I just finished listening to Dr Rumsey's presentation a second time,
and there is no question that it's a disorganized, and occasionally
dead-wrong, mess. There is no real "organizing point" around which
his talk is formed, and the absurd -- and demonstrably untrue --
statement that two-channel stereo is about as good as we can get,
renders virtually everything he says highly doubtful.

Which proves my point about your knowledge of research design. You are
obsessed with the "what" rather than the "why" of his talk, when the
presentation was primarily about the "why", and the presented research
results support his assertions. OF COURSE Rumsey's assertions can be
challenged, but to do so with any credibility requires you to get beyond
your personal convictions and find studies that refute those he presented.
Alternatively, you will need to set up correlative studies that return
results that refute those he presented. Unfortunately you lack the
qualifications to do any of that, so you simply repeat your predilections as
gospel and think that we should "grovel" to you for some unknowable reason.
It's not going to happen.

If you really understood any of what I wrote, you'd know that I basically
don't care what people prefer in terms of their audio systems; to me, their
preferences are as valid as my own. That is the primary difference between
you and I.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

I have other things to do. Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who
hides behind formalized research, rather than rationally addressing the issues
involved?

Dr Rumsey starts off by asking a question whose only answer is "yes". * He
hasn't yet decided what it is he's discussing.

He eventually wanders around to asking -- in the context of his
presentation -- two malformed/misstated/meaningless questions:

1 Are listeners more interested in timbral accuracy or positioning accuracy?

2 Does surround reproduction interfere with timbral accuracy (or any other
aspect of two-channel reproduction)?

These are poor questions. One can have both timbral and positioning accuracy
(or hall re-creation/synthesis). With respect to ambience, you cannot have
timbral accuracy //without// correct ambience reproduction.

One of the problems that afflicts many scientists is that they think they can
rationally design experiments that reliably reveal the the truth or untruth of
a proposition, without first having done their homework. The homework, in this
case, would be setting up a playback system that doesn't have these problems,
and having a variety of listeners casually audition it and record their
reactions. You would then have an idea of what sort of research might be
useful.

Neill, you don't know how to think "scientifically". I will again ask you to
hold off and let me talk with Dr Rumsey. If I'm wrong, he will have no trouble
changing my mind.

* Is surround sound "about" producing/reproducing acoustic space? Or is it
about creating arbitrary effects? Well, yes. He sets up a meaningless conflict
between timbral accuracy and spatial accuracy, where none exists.

[UnsteadyKen]

In article:

William Sommerwerck says...

Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who
hides behind formalized research, rather than rationally addressing the issues
involved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-righteousness



--
Ken O'Meara

List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
http://unsteadyken.esy.es/

[William Sommerwerck]

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
In article:
William Sommerwerck says...

Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who hides
behind formalized research, rather than rationally addressing
the issues involved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-righteousness

Speaking the truth -- if it /is/ the truth -- is not self-righteousness.

Accusing someone of self-righteousness is an easy way to dismiss what they
say, without having to get your hands dirty.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be
an improvement?

If we record it or synthesize it in an inaccurate way, it might be worse
than not having it at all.

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who would want to listen to it in a tiled bathroom?

Quite. Ideally your listening room would have a similar characteristic to
the one in which the mix was balanced. Then you'd hear what the engineer
intended.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be
an improvement?

If we record it or synthesize it in an inaccurate way, it might be worse
than not having it at all.

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who would want to listen to it in a tiled bathroom?

Quite. Ideally your listening room would have a similar characteristic to
the one in which the mix was balanced. Then you'd hear what the engineer
intended.

Precisely! And with speakers that have similar radiation patterns.

This is why standardization of monitoring environments has been such a
big issue in the past, and will remain so.

Now, that said, a lot of commercial recordings are made to be artificially
forward, and sound almost the way it sounds at the conductor's platform. If
one prefers the way the orchestra sounds in the balcony, addition of
artificial ambience might do well to make the sound more to your taste and no
less "realistic."

On the other hand, some orchestral recordings are quite distant-sounding and
would be destroyed by the additional added reverb.

There's no standardization in part because listeners' tastes vary. I like
a more distant presentation myself, so I tend to use a monitoring
configuration that gives a more distant feel so that if the recording
sounds good to me on them, it will sound good to the conductor on
the soffit-mounted horns. But that's my personal way of dealing with
my personal tastes and shouldn't necessarily fit anyone else's way of
working.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 28/12/2014 5:08 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have other things to do. Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone
who hides behind formalized research, rather than rationally addressing
the issues involved?


Um, what ?!!!!


geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

...some orchestral recordings are quite distant-sounding
and would be destroyed by the additional added reverb.

Such recordings are uncommon. The only one I can think of -- off the top of my
head -- is the Rilling "War Requiem".

Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized reverb (as
played through separate speakers, not the main speakers) is to
enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

The argument that a well-made recording already contains the hall's ambience
overlooks the fact that most of it is common from the wrong direction.
Synthesized (or extracted) ambience fixes this.


There's no standardization in part because listeners' tastes vary.

More to the point... There's no standardization on what a recording "should"
sound like.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized reverb (as
played through separate speakers, not the main speakers) is to
enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

Right. Unfortunately, because many recordings have a lot of ambience already,
the end result can be swamping it.

The argument that a well-made recording already contains the hall's ambience
overlooks the fact that most of it is common from the wrong direction.
Synthesized (or extracted) ambience fixes this.

If you're going to add ambience from the rears, you need to remove ambience
from the front if you want to preserve the same basic character. Is preserving
the same basic character important? I think that is the real question here.
(You can make a good argument that it isn't, although I would probably argue
that it is.)

There's no standardization in part because listeners' tastes vary.

More to the point... There's no standardization on what a recording "should"
sound like.

That's not my fault. I've done my best.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 28/12/2014 5:08 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have other things to do. Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone
who hides behind formalized research, rather than rationally addressing
the issues involved?


Um, what ?!!!!

Precisely !!!

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