Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereo Raw

STEREO RAW



This article is to answer a few misconceptions about what stereo is and then
to offer some analogies to correct those misconceptions.



"Stereo" is a generic term that means stereophonic, a field-type system of
auditory perspective using more than one channel from microphones to
playback speakers. It can be the legacy two channel system for commercial
recordings or any number of extra channels for surround sound or center
channel or even full peripheral, including above and below. It is reproduced
by loudspeakers in a room, placed in positions which are geometrically
similar to those of the instruments. Stereo is differentiated from
monophonic, a single channel on loudspeaker in a room, binaural, a
head-related system using a dummy head for recording and either headphones
or a circuit for the speakers that can isolate the channels to the
respective ears with crosstalk removal. "Monaural" would be a single
channel sent to one ear on headphone, "diotic" being a single channel sent
to two headphones equally. In general the suffix "phonic" means on
loudspeakers and "aural" means on headphones with the exception that
"binaural" can be reproduced on speakers as mentioned above, in which case
the term is simply loudspeaker binaural, because the signals are still
isolated to each ear at the head of the listener.



The first main point is that there are a few misconceptions about what
stereo is, rooted in some confusion between the head-related system of
binaural and the field-type system stereophonic. Some distinguished writers
still believe that stereo is a "two ears, two speakers" head-related system
intended to pipe the two recorded signals to the two ears, creating an
illusion of a panorama of sounds as heard by the microphones. They believe
that the recorded signals contain all of the spatial information necessary
to decode the original sound field by means of the binaural localization
mechanisms of human hearing by phase, amplitude, timing of the cues in the
recording. Some believe that the system is based on the two ears and their
separation and pickup patterns, their pinnae effects, Interaural Cross
Correlation (IACC), and response curves, or transfer functions. Some have
stated outright that they believe that the "problem" with stereo is
interaural crosstalk.



I hope to show that the system (stereophonic) has nothing whatsoever to do
with the human hearing mechanism, the number of ears on our heads, their
separation, pinnae, or response curves.



We all know how stereo lateralization works, with a summing localization
between the two channels, the intensity or timing differences between
channels making it possible to perceive an auditory event anywhere along a
line between the speakers. With coincident miking techniques where there is
no timing difference between channels the summing localization is based only
on amplitude differences between channels. With some separation between
pickup microphones there are both intensity and timing differences.
Multi-miking techniques with spot mikes picking up various parts of the
sound field and pan-potted into the mix by means of intensity can also be
incorporated, either as the sole method of recording or as spot mikes for
certain important instruments or the human voice for soloists or small
groups.



So where does this alleged confusion between binaural and stereophonic come
from? It could be from the innocent presumption that the use of two speakers
for playback has something to do with our having two ears, which in turn may
have arisen from the Blumlein patent and method of recording with two
coincident mikes. But meanwhile, at around the same time in the Bell Labs,
researchers were experimenting with multiple channels and placing speakers
on the repro stage similar to the positioning of the instruments and
microphones used for pickup. One of their ideal but impractical methods of
reproduction was called the "curtain of sound" in which a line of many
microphones might record the performance and a similar line of speakers
would reproduce it on another stage, or playback space. They defined
binaural as a head-related system and stereophonic as a field-type system,
in which the idea is to place many speakers on a sound stage and reconstruct
the sound fields that existed in the original. Binaural, on the other hand,
was always and only a two channel head-related system based on the human
hearing mechanism and recorded with a dummy head, the idea being that the
headphones would introduce to the ears the identical signals that the dummy
head heard at the recording site. William Snow remarked that the binaural
system brought the listener to the original performance location, whereas
the stereophonic system brought the performers into our own listening rooms.
Bell Labs ended up with their recommendation for a three channel system, but
practical limitations caused it to be limited to the two channel system that
we know today.



So what is the major difference between a head-related and a field-type
system?



There are two fundamentally different ways to reproduce a sensory
experience. You can reproduce the sensory input directly, such as with
binaural, or you can reproduce the object itself, the sound fields produced
by the orchestra and let the subject's own sensory apparatus pick it up in
the normal way, just as it does with live sound. The sensory input system
depends heavily on attempting to pick up the sounds in the same way that our
own ears do, such as with the use of a dummy head shaped like our heads and
with number of ears and ear spacing and pinnae as much like ours as
feasible. But the stereophonic system has nothing whatsoever to do with the
number of ears on our heads, the spacing between them, their pinnae effects,
or their frequency response (transfer functions), and the whole recording
and reproduction process can be accomplished without any knowledge or
consideration of those factors - NONE. Compare it to the difference between
sculpture and 3D photography. If we want to reproduce the image of an
elephant, we could do it one of two ways. We could either take a 3D
photograph in color and introduce both halves of the image into our eyes, or
we could hire a sculptor to make a very real 3 dimensional model of an
elephant, even to the point of being life sized and placed in a background
such that we could walk all around it and each of us perceive it with our
native vision mechanism, the whole process accomplished with NO knowledge of
the human vision mechanism. In fact, all beings who can see in three
dimensions etc, such as the animals or visitors from another planet, all
would behold the same model in the same way as they did live, even with no
knowledge of how they see, hear, or anything else, if we did the
reproduction as a model of the real thing rather than a direct sensory
input.



I hope to show that the system of stereophonic sound depends ONLY on our
knowledge and study of sound fields in rooms, and not upon knowledge of the
human hearing mechanism, except for the very fortunate psychoacoustic fact
of the summing localization being able to permit the simplification of the
number of channels to fewer than the number of instruments being reproduced.



The raw, base example for purposes of illustration would be a team of
researchers wishing to begin exploring systems of auditory perspective to
explore the field-type system. They go into the recording studio with a
battery of microphones and multi-channel recorder. They close-mike each
instrument but also including a small amount of the reverberance from the
studio as would be heard near the instrument. Some instruments such as the
piano or drum set might call for more than one mike to capture the extent of
the drum kit or the width of the piano.



On playback, we select a good sounding playback space and place the
speakers, possibly selected for a radiation pattern similar to their
instruments, in positions in the room that are geometrically similar to the
original. We now have a "they are here" system if no reverberance was
recorded, or modified a touch by the original hall sound if some was
recorded. Notice also that if some was recorded, and if we use a llittle of
the natural reflecting surfaces around the speakers in the same way that the
original hall's walls did it, the reflected sound from instruments on the
right side would reflect from the right wall of the playback room etc, but
the instruments themselves would remain anchored where they belong by means
of the precedence effect. In total, this "model" of the original sound would
be 3 dimensional, having depth and width and appropriate ambience behind and
around, and you could literally walk all around the model and hear it from
various angles from anywhere in the room.



This is the raw model for the stereophonic system. I would first point out
that the whole process was accomplished with NO knowledge or reference to
the human hearing mechanism and would be the same to all listeners, each one
hearing the model with his or her own hearing system. It was recorded and
reproduced with knowledge ONLY of sound fields in rooms, reconstructing them
in the new space as a model of the original.



I would then point out that this ideal system could be simplified down to
fewerand fewer channels for a more practical system without losing too much,
if we could only remember what it is that we are doing with the system and
not lose sight of the fact that it is a field-type system, a literal
reconstruction, or model, of the original, not a binaural system.



We first reduce the number of channels to as few as two, thanks to the
summing localization being able to place all of the instruments anywhere
along a line between the two speakers. We can then pull the speakers out
from the walls and place them with some geometrical similarity to the
original left and right positions of the orchestra. Finally, we can
customize the radiation patterns of the speakers to a lower direct to
reflected ratio because of our closeness to the speakers, relative to our
original distance from the orchestra. If we now treat the walls so that we
might get some of the reflected sound from the recording bouncing from the
left, center, and right walls of the listening room, we stand a chance of
having the various recordings make our playback rooms take on most of the
important characteristics of the original acoustics.



Finally, so what?



The answer is that this is a radical change in thinking about how the
process works, from a two ears/ two speakers process achieved with the
direct sound output from two speakers to a 3 dimensional model of a typical
original sound field, a reconstruction of all aspects of the original within
the listening room rather than a direct sensory input from the speakers to
your ears. The paradigm to be sought is now sound fields in rooms rather
than the "accuracy" of getting the signals intact from the speakers to your
ears. The new model requires paying attention to the radiation patterns,
room positioning, and acoustical qualities of the whole playback system.
In-wall speakers, nearfield speakers, dead rooms, highly focused sound from
the speakers, all must be re-examined in light of the new theory.



The total acoustical situation that we are hearing when our ears are free to
hear it without any attempt to isolate the channels at the ears or from the
room can be described visually as the image model of the fields in the room,
whether it be the original concert hall or the playback room. What we are
hearing is the total acoustical situation, direct, early reflected, and late
reflected reverberant sound. All of these must be reproduced, which is to
say reconstructed in front of us, or else it will sound different from the
original. The preferred solution would be surround sound, but in any case
the sound patterns within the room must be honored and the goal changed to
realism rather than accuracy. We are not "doing" accuracy with stereophonic
recording, unless you want to hear the piano from underneath the lid, the
singer from a foot in front of her tonsils, or the perspective from 9 feet
above the head of the conductor. Rather, we are seeking realism as will be
displayed in the final result by the placement of the microphones and
speakers to display the sounds from a distance from us in the listening
room, with signal processing or extra channels all around us, and NOT from
the perspectives of any particular microphones.



Gary Eickmeier


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Stereo Raw

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

This article is to answer a few misconceptions about what stereo is and then
to offer some analogies to correct those misconceptions.


Not. Done.

You the deafest mo'fo' ever thought to design speakers.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Stereo Raw

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

STEREO RAW


See my post(s) in this newsgroup November 13.

Gary Eickmeier


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Stereo Raw

On 15/11/2014 04:57, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
STEREO RAW


Summary :- I know more than anyone else about sound reproduction, and
all you experts know nothing.

Again.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Stereo Raw

Garry,

for one thing, it all works, as it does, due hearing mechanism and the way the perception works. You do not have to know anything about it, but still. Without any attempt to isolate.... and so on ...., our ears and our brain still are .... isolating .... and so on ...

It's all same BS talk from you, all over again, never showing anything. Why don't you go play with your grandchildren instead, or with a cat, buy a dog, walk it, ... whatever. Just lay off this stereophonic thing.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Stereo Raw

I usually feel people can blab on as they like, and if i don't like it, i don't have to read it.... But this is sucking all the air out of the room in this news group...

I think the thing to do is to start another more worthwhile discussion.... But unfortunatley,i don't have a more interesting topic at hand right now.

Maybe someone else does.


Mark
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo Raw

Luxey wrote:
Garry,
for one thing, it all works, as it does, due hearing mechanism and the way =
the perception works. You do not have to know anything about it, but still.=
Without any attempt to isolate.... and so on ...., our ears and our brain =
still are .... isolating .... and so on ...=20


I think the problem is that he doesn't believe that it actually DOES work,
presumably because he has never actually heard it work.

I know when I first heard it work I was staggered.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Stereo Raw

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Luxey wrote:
Garry,
for one thing, it all works, as it does, due hearing mechanism and the way =
the perception works. You do not have to know anything about it, but still.=
Without any attempt to isolate.... and so on ...., our ears and our brain =
still are .... isolating .... and so on ...=20


I think the problem is that he doesn't believe that it actually DOES work,
presumably because he has never actually heard it work.

I know when I first heard it work I was staggered.
--scott


Maybe he staggers.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereo Raw


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Luxey wrote:
Garry,
for one thing, it all works, as it does, due hearing mechanism and the way
=
the perception works. You do not have to know anything about it, but
still.=
Without any attempt to isolate.... and so on ...., our ears and our brain
=
still are .... isolating .... and so on ...=20


I think the problem is that he doesn't believe that it actually DOES work,
presumably because he has never actually heard it work.

I know when I first heard it work I was staggered.
--scott


Scott -

I posted a very careful explanation of what I am saying, with examples of
the various approaches and an ideal system and the simplifications that have
been applied to such a system. Previously I have posted a partial history of
my listening experience to systems designed and installed by their owners,
such as Mark Davis, Jim Winey and Peter Walker.

That's the best I can do. I am surprised that no one here can talk on the
subject, or isn't interested.

Gary


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo Raw

On 11/17/2014 9:19 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

That's the best I can do. I am surprised that no one here can talk on the
subject, or isn't interested.


I think nobody is interested. We're satisfied with the approaches that
we know for achieving a "stereo experience."


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Stereo Raw

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
That's the best I can do. I am surprised that no one here can talk
on the subject, or isn't interested.


Pointing out your glaring inaccuracies and invalid assumptions is
actually talking on the subject, even if you're unable to hear it due
to your ears being occluded by the lining of your colon.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Stereo Raw

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I am surprised that no one here can talk on the subject, or isn't
interested.


I'm a person who's more interested in understanding than knowing. Nothing
you've written has ever "clicked". Nothing has provoked the "Aha!" reaction,
where you see how things fit together, and how they relate to other things we
know to be true (or accept as being true).

Until you can provide these, you will continue to lead a one-man parade.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Stereo Raw

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Luxey wrote:
Garry,
for one thing, it all works, as it does, due hearing mechanism and the way
=
the perception works. You do not have to know anything about it, but
still.=
Without any attempt to isolate.... and so on ...., our ears and our brain
=
still are .... isolating .... and so on ...=20


I think the problem is that he doesn't believe that it actually DOES work,
presumably because he has never actually heard it work.

I know when I first heard it work I was staggered.
--scott


Scott -

I posted a very careful explanation of what I am saying, with examples of
the various approaches and an ideal system and the simplifications that have
been applied to such a system. Previously I have posted a partial history of
my listening experience to systems designed and installed by their owners,
such as Mark Davis, Jim Winey and Peter Walker.

That's the best I can do. I am surprised that no one here can talk on the
subject, or isn't interested.

Gary


We're too busy talking to windmills.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo Raw

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
I am surprised that no one here can talk on the subject, or isn't
interested.


I'm a person who's more interested in understanding than knowing. Nothing
you've written has ever "clicked". Nothing has provoked the "Aha!" reaction,
where you see how things fit together, and how they relate to other things we
know to be true (or accept as being true).


I think this is a consequence of Gary's observations running counter to those of
the rest of the world. The "theory" exists to explain something that nobody
else sees. For all I know, it might be a good theory were the observations
valid.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereo Raw


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

I am surprised that no one here can talk on the subject, or isn't
interested.


I'm a person who's more interested in understanding than knowing. Nothing
you've written has ever "clicked". Nothing has provoked the "Aha!"
reaction, where you see how things fit together, and how they relate to
other things we know to be true (or accept as being true).

Until you can provide these, you will continue to lead a one-man parade.


This is a fascinating divide. I know that you are a curious and well read
person William. You have agreed that what most here think about stereo being
able to communicate sounds from outside the speaker separation is not true,
or else we wouldn't need Ambisonics. I am getting the impression that these
folks wouldn't touch surround sound with an insulated pole.

Have you read any of Mark Davis's articles on what makes speakers sound the
way they do? Have you heard the differences among all of the speaker types
such as direct, omni, dipole? This is not rocket science, there are easily
observable reasons that the various speakers sound the way they do. The "Big
Three" of radiation pattern, positioning, and acoustical qualities of the
room combine to create the imaging that we hear. Is that wacko nutso to you?
To anyone here? Linkwitz asked those questions of the AES. I am answering
them. Does anyone know about all this? In answering those questions, about
which of the Big Three characteristics of speakers are better than others, I
put together some cheap prototype speakers for the blind testing and I won
the first round to the surprise of everyone there. I have now had some much
better versions of the speakers made and installed in my system, and they
work and work well. I still need a center channel built and that is
underway. Maybe I could run another series of blind tests to get some more
objective evidence for a future paper. I think a lot more work could be done
on this if I can just get the ideas out there.

I am here to learn recording and I was just trying to communicate something
very important that I have discovered about playback because of my statement
that "it ain't a recording until it gets played back." If I send a recording
to you, or you to me, what each of us hears will not be the same from the
same recording. I am very concerned that there is no standard for playback,
or that what people seem to be settling on is not the best it can be (see
the Beolab 5 controversy in previous posts).

Maybe there is no settling this except a listening test for preference. I
should be getting the center channel speaker in a couple of months and then
I believe I could win against all comers. Does anyone get down to Florida on
vacation? I am in central Florida, Lakeland.

Ralph Glasgal is another iconoclast like me who has designed and built his
own ideas on how sound playback should be done. I would love to make it up
there sometime and have him down here. Just doesn't seem to happen as time
goes by.

Gary




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Stereo Raw

Reading about the sound of speakers€¦

Dancing about architecture makes more sense, because you get the
exercise.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Stereo Raw

Gary,

what you're trying to acheive is impossible, because it is wrong in premisse,
which is: magicaly, being able to percieve soundfield as a such (?), without
isolating details.
It is somewhat possible not to go into detail if listening is absolutely
casual, if the signal is on the edge of undistracting background noise, but
even then, at some point, mind will be atrcted by detail and that's it.

Also, it is somewhat possible if listening under altered state of mind, but in
that case even mono work quite well, let alone stereo, quadro, ...

All above temporarily putting aside the fact that by effortlsly and
unintentionally isolating different kind of info while listening to a recording
with just a slightest interest, closing your eyes and letting your self hear
it, one can actually experience the sense of "being there", in the space as
recorded.

However, I think it is the kind of idea, where if somebody with real resources
and real knowledge would seriously work on it, I believe a plethora of, more
less, usefull patents could pop out as by-products, but never it will work as
you imagine it would.

I promise never to discuss this again.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereo Raw


"Luxey" wrote in message
...
Gary,

what you're trying to acheive is impossible, because it is wrong in
premisse,
which is: magicaly, being able to percieve soundfield as a such (?),
without
isolating details.
It is somewhat possible not to go into detail if listening is absolutely
casual, if the signal is on the edge of undistracting background noise,
but
even then, at some point, mind will be atrcted by detail and that's it.

Also, it is somewhat possible if listening under altered state of mind,
but in
that case even mono work quite well, let alone stereo, quadro, ...

All above temporarily putting aside the fact that by effortlsly and
unintentionally isolating different kind of info while listening to a
recording
with just a slightest interest, closing your eyes and letting your self
hear
it, one can actually experience the sense of "being there", in the space
as
recorded.

However, I think it is the kind of idea, where if somebody with real
resources
and real knowledge would seriously work on it, I believe a plethora of,
more
less, usefull patents could pop out as by-products, but never it will work
as
you imagine it would.

I promise never to discuss this again.


Well thanks Lux, but it is a pleasure to get a serious post from you, so
don't stop.

This phenomenon seems to be unique to stereo music reproduction, that we
think we can somehow make it sound absolutely real. We don't presume that
movies will fool us into thinking we are there, even 3D ones. It is an
obvious reproduction through a rectangle up there. The depth and color
qualities are enjoyable, but no one expects to be fooled into thinking he is
right there.

As for music, you are right - we can hear a piece on the car radio that
certainly doesn't fool anyone into sounding like reality, but is very
enjoyable and can transport us in our imagination to the mood and spirit of
the lyrics etc etc.

So what's up with all this realism quest anyway? I guess it is just some
Holy Grail, a fantasy quest because stereo is so much better, more realistic
sounding than mono, that maybe we can go all the way and be transported to
the concert hall. Might also be some ad copy or articles in the subjective
audio press that gets us going.

I think that there are many facets of the sounds that we are recording, and
that some of them can be identical to the real thing, such as loudness and
frequency response. So we keep trying to go all the way with the rest of
them, the main one being the spatial one. We find that oooh, yes, we can do
some things there too, such as surround sound, LEDE, larger rooms

So I press on and have found a few situations where the playback does indeed
sound like the real thing. It is always due to capturing the sounds One of
them was a magic show where the music sounded so real I thought it was a
live orchestra. Turned out to be a stack of Bose 802 professiojnal speakers
spreakers and


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereo Raw


"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
Gary,

what you're trying to acheive is impossible, because it is wrong in
premisse,
which is: magicaly, being able to percieve soundfield as a such (?),
without
isolating details.
It is somewhat possible not to go into detail if listening is absolutely
casual, if the signal is on the edge of undistracting background noise,
but
even then, at some point, mind will be atrcted by detail and that's it.

Also, it is somewhat possible if listening under altered state of mind,
but in
that case even mono work quite well, let alone stereo, quadro, ...

All above temporarily putting aside the fact that by effortlsly and
unintentionally isolating different kind of info while listening to a
recording
with just a slightest interest, closing your eyes and letting your self
hear
it, one can actually experience the sense of "being there", in the space
as
recorded.

However, I think it is the kind of idea, where if somebody with real
resources
and real knowledge would seriously work on it, I believe a plethora of,
more
less, usefull patents could pop out as by-products, but never it will
work as
you imagine it would.

I promise never to discuss this again.


Well thanks Lux, but it is a pleasure to get a serious post from you, so
don't stop.

This phenomenon seems to be unique to stereo music reproduction, that we
think we can somehow make it sound absolutely real. We don't presume that
movies will fool us into thinking we are there, even 3D ones. It is an
obvious reproduction through a rectangle up there. The depth and color
qualities are enjoyable, but no one expects to be fooled into thinking he
is right there.

As for music, you are right - we can hear a piece on the car radio that
certainly doesn't fool anyone into sounding like reality, but is very
enjoyable and can transport us in our imagination to the mood and spirit
of the lyrics etc etc.

So what's up with all this realism quest anyway? I guess it is just some
Holy Grail, a fantasy quest because stereo is so much better, more
realistic sounding than mono, that maybe we can go all the way and be
transported to the concert hall. Might also be some ad copy or articles in
the subjective audio press that gets us going.

I think that there are many facets of the sounds that we are recording,
and that some of them can be identical to the real thing, such as loudness
and frequency response. So we keep trying to go all the way with the rest
of them, the main one being the spatial one. We find that oooh, yes, we
can do some things there too, such as surround sound, LEDE, larger rooms

So I press on and have found a few situations where the playback does
indeed sound like the real thing. It is always due to capturing the
sounds One of them was a magic show where the music sounded so real I
thought it was a live orchestra. Turned out to be a stack of Bose 802
professiojnal speakers spreakers and the very large auditorium making it
sound real. Another was in a hi fi store lobby I heard some band rockin
out! It was just a pair of 901s hanging from chains in the next room,
rockin and sockin.


So I press on and have found that it is always an acoustical matter so that
is my direction and there are a lot of questions remaining to be answered.

Gary


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: 360 Systems Model 2800 Programmable stereo Parametric EQ for stereo bus or mastering kellykevm Pro Audio 0 February 16th 07 03:54 AM
FA: Stereo 10 band Equalizer, IMX Stereo Expander & Manual [email protected] Marketplace 0 June 24th 06 08:43 PM
Escort '97 - Can I add Stereo RCA input plugs to my factory stereo? David Car Audio 0 November 29th 04 09:46 PM
"Lost" left channel into stereo headphones through 3.0 / 3.5 mm stereo jack socket / plug Clive Long,UK General 0 June 9th 04 05:57 PM
Mazda Tribute - Stereo upgrades/mods, 7 speaker cd and cassette stereo - upgrd prairieboy Car Audio 0 March 9th 04 03:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"