Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer
Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr. Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last for an entire LP. You just open the top and let the air mingle with your own. The canisters sell for just $499, and can be saved on the shelf until the next playing for at least two weeks! Save it until the next time you need to put on a demo to impress your friends. A 12-pack can be had for a discounted rate of $4999 plus shipping. A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." There there. Gary Eickmeier |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers
and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony Orchestra. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On Sunday, April 1, 2012 12:15:24 PM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its knees. LOL at Peter Belt and the 'phooles who buy his products. But please don't include room treatments among your list of BS tweaks. Room acoustics is an important aspect of audio reproduction, and bass traps, diffusers, and other treatments are important tools for improving sound quality. --Ethan |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On 4/1/2012 12:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony Orchestra. I'm confused. Is it just the concert hall air or does it include the characteristic air of the orchestra and conductor? Think of the possibilities if one could mix and match! Also wondering if lower cost small venue air will become available in the future. == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
William Sommerwerck wrote:
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony Orchestra. No way, it's got von Karajan's actual flatulence in there. That's how you know it's authentic. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On 4/1/2012 1:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
William wrote: A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony Orchestra. No way, it's got von Karajan's actual flatulence in there. That's how you know it's authentic. --scott Hmmm, do we now know one of those "golden eared" reviewers? == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On 1 Apr 2012 13:10:22 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article William Sommerwerck wrote: A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony Orchestra. No way, it's got von Karajan's actual flatulence in there. That's how you know it's authentic. --scott Flatulence is ok. I want to know if the Air is treated for pathogens and allergens upon packaging. And, if so, how might the treatment affect its sonic properties?? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
I imagine there are different varieties; Chamber Air, Symphony Air,
Jazz Air, etc.. I'm waiting for Burlesque Air, aka "Air on a G String". Peace, Paul |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On 4/1/2012 5:33 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil bull****. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but hopefully we don't have time for them here. Audio Aprilphools, perhaps. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On Sun 2012-Apr-01 12:15, Gary Eickmeier writes:
pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr. Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last for an entire LP. snip I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil bull****. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but hopefully we don't have time for them here. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat.
Gary Eickmeier "Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... http://sciencepunk.com/v4/pwbelt.htm Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
april fool!
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On Sun 2012-Apr-01 15:23, Mike Rivers writes:
I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil bull****. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but hopefully we don't have time for them here. Audio Aprilphools, perhaps. arrrgh Got me again. forgot what day it is. Every couple years somebody gets me with one. I just never pay attention to it. Glad i dialed back the high octane torch before posting grumble. I should've known g. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more 'there' there." Interviewer: Is this some new sort of hi-fi you're talking about? Beatnik: Oh, yeah, man, my fi is very very high. It's very mellow. -- Ernie Kovacs Routine -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... Ethan is spot on. Beyond a certain basic quality of equipment, room acoustics are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to. For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of listening tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might have merit, and which are a waste of time and money. Too big a subject for a thread in a newsgroup, but the only room treatment that results in greater realism is to get a bigger room. Gary Eickmeier |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message .com... OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat. April Fools is getting really tough. This is what you have to compete against: http://electronicdesign.com/article/...ff-anyhow-6134 Intersting quote from the above: " Let's say you have demonstration models of some good loudspeakers. How do you decide that type A is better than type B, or, that it's different? Mr. David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs, Farmington Hills, Mich., combined a set of relays and a random number generator to make an "ABX" tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester connects to the A speakers, or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can listen intently and decide that the sound you're listening to is the "A" sound. If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B, B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell. In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test. Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance, capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can. So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for $100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a $480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift," etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax. You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and stalk out. Now, let me digress briefly. Let's say you have demonstration models of some good loudspeakers. How do you decide that type A is better than type B, or, that it's different? Mr. David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs, Farmington Hills, Mich., combined a set of relays and a random number generator to make an "ABX" tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester connects to the A speakers, or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can listen intently and decide that the sound you're listening to is the "A" sound. If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B, B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell. In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test. Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance, capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can. So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for $100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a $480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift," etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax. You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and stalk out." In fact, Dave and 5 other people including myself were repsonsible for inventing, designing and building the above-mentioned ABX device. It is interesting that the long-term response of the top High End audio gurus such as Atkinson and Harley has been to, as Mr. Pease said: "...get mad at me and stalk out". |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message Ethan is spot on. Beyond a certain basic quality of equipment, room acoustics are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to. For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of listening tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might have merit, and which are a waste of time and money. Too big a subject for a thread in a newsgroup, but the only room treatment that results in greater realism is to get a bigger room. Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. Just getting standing waves under control above 40 Hz or so can make a dramatic improvement in a room. Hell, I have been to some very expensive manufacturers' demos in listening rooms with windows all over the place, direct slap echos at high frequencies causing very obvious imaging issues... nobody seemed to care.... Just closing the curtains would have made a distinct improvement... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Scott Dorsey writes:
Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and no walls for tens of miles in every direction? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes: Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and no walls for tens of miles in every direction? You get a slap echo from the ground, and no reflections from the walls. It's fairly common to do measurement work this way rather than use an anechoic chamber. With a speaker set up on top of a ladder in a meadow, I can see standing waves from the ground and sometimes a little bit from the ladder, but otherwise I can get pretty clean curves. For actual listening this is sometimes a bad thing since most recordings are made a little dry, with the intention of listening to them in a slightly live acoustic. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes: Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and no walls for tens of miles in every direction? Corrosion problem. geoff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Richard Webb wrote:
On Sun 2012-Apr-01 12:15, Gary Eickmeier writes: pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr. Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last for an entire LP. snip I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil bull****. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but hopefully we don't have time for them here. No really - for the music to sound 'right' the medium (air, in this case) needs to be Concert Hall Density. Otherwise the different instruments arrive at the listening position at different times. geoff |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"geoff" wrote in message ... No really - for the music to sound 'right' the medium (air, in this case) needs to be Concert Hall Density. Otherwise the different instruments arrive at the listening position at different times. That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you determine when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe - but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive? Gary Eickmeier |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 7:43:32 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive? All sound travels at the same speed, about 1100 feet per second. So if you're 11 feet in front of a loudspeaker, you'll hear the sound 10 milliseconds after it starts to play. --Ethan |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
On 4/4/2012 7:43 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you determine when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe - but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive? You have to think of sound waves as an expanding 'front" in this case, so the sound 'arrives" when the front arrives at your point of measurement. It may get louder or softer through the cycle, but if there's another copy of it coming from a different distance, you need to take the same point on each wave to determine their phase relationship. They all originate at the same point, so that's as good a point of reference as any. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Scott Dorsey writes: Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and no walls for tens of miles in every direction? Speakers for use in rooms are designed for a specific number of boundary surfaces. Examples: 1. Speaker hung on middle of wall = 1 boundary surface. 2. Speaker on floor at juncture of wall and floor = 2 boundary surfaces. 3. Speaker in corner at juncture of two walls and floor = 3 boundary surfaces. 4. Speaker in very small space, such as a sound booth with rigid walls = pressurization model of acoustic space. If the wall is rigid, acoustic reinforcement of the speaker output is proportional to the sum of the boundary surfaces. The speaker designer voices the speaker with the assumption of one of the above. As the frequency reproduced approaches zero, the acoustic model transitions from one that approximates free space, to another model dominated by standing waves, and finally, one characterized by pressurization. Headphones are designed for a pressurized space. Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition that results from experience we've all had. Sound outside sounds thin compared to sound inside, and this is the reason why. Speakers for outdoor sound reinforcement are designed with the assumption of no boundary surface reinforcement. This requires much higher acoustic power , which practically speaking, requires much higher acoustic efficiency, than speakers designed for use inside. This is typically met with horn radiators, which have problems with phase shift. So it is a real question whether available technology can provide sound as pleasing on a salt flat as in a well treated acoustic space. So here's a question: Are there outdoor sound systems that have such high fidelity that the salt flat can be used to best the fidelity of the best interior systems and treated rooms? Assume full bandwidth is required. Bob, your discussion above shows that you are thinking in terms of frequency response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings anechoically. Spatially speaking, such a system would be a disaster regardless of freq response, because all of the sound would be forced thru those two points in space. It would be dry and annoying and if off center all you would hear would be the nearer speaker. If on center, all of the sound would be heard to come from the limited portal defined by the separation between the speakers. All of the recorded ambience would come from the same set of limited angles and sound very unnatural. Loudspeaker binaural might be interesting played that way, if you were right on center, but might have a lot of In-Head Localization (IHL) similar to the headphone effect. Gary Eickmeier |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Soundhaspriority writes:
Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition that results from experience we've all had. Actually I don't know if they'd sound good or not, I was just wondering. All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think headphones are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going into each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right? |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 4/4/2012 7:43 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you determine when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe - but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive? You have to think of sound waves as an expanding 'front" in this case, so the sound 'arrives" when the front arrives at your point of measurement. It may get louder or softer through the cycle, but if there's another copy of it coming from a different distance, you need to take the same point on each wave to determine their phase relationship. They all originate at the same point, so that's as good a point of reference as any. No, you have to think of sound waves as a phenomenon that takes some time to happen. A 50 Hz wave doesn't just "arrive" - it takes 1/50th of a second to happen. Nor is it just one cycle. I think we all know that drivers would have to be separated by several feet for anything to be audible at all, that then it would be for reasons other than time alignment. Gary Eickmeier |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Soundhaspriority writes: Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition that results from experience we've all had. Actually I don't know if they'd sound good or not, I was just wondering. All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think headphones are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going into each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right? NO. That is what binaural is all about, not stereophonic. Someone stop me from preaching. Gary Eickmeier |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... [snip] Bob, your discussion above shows that you are thinking in terms of frequency response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings anechoically. No, Gary, I was posing a question for discussion. No opinion is expressed or implied. Your question was based on a series of statements about the freq response consequences of losing the boundaries of a normal room. You said nothing about the spatial, which is why I responded. Gary Eickmeier |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Soundhaspriority writes:
That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of cues provided by the external ear and skull. There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull. All of the extra cues that are available when listening to sound live come from moving the head. Wearing headphones is equivalent to listening to sound with the head rigidly held in one position. I have long thought that a headphone system with motion sensors using real-time mixing from a multiple-track source (more than two tracks) would fix this, but I don't know if anyone has actually built such a system. It's certainly technically feasible. It could be done for sources like 5.1 sound. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Soundhaspriority writes: All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think headphones are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going into each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right? No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear on any controller I'm aware of. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Soundhaspriority writes: That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of cues provided by the external ear and skull. There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull. You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound reproduction for a while. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
NO. That is what binaural is all about, not stereophonic.
Someone stop me from preaching. Don't apologize for criticizing someone who is trolling this group (even if he doesn't think he is). |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mrs. Maniac" wrote in message
... Soundhaspriority writes: That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of cues provided by the external ear and skull. There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull. done for sources like 5.1 sound. More utter bull**** from a proudly ignorant troll. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
William Sommerwerck writes:
You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction unambiguously unless you move your head. Period. You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound reproduction for a while. In this case, it's simple math, and has no relation to sound, sound recording, or sound reproduction. You can't triangulate a position with just two signals. It's as simple as that. A stationary head provides only two signals. If you want more, you have to move your head. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
William Sommerwerck writes:
No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. If the original sound is recorded with an artificial head, and then played back with headphones that introduce the same sound into the ear canals, the playback should sound exactly like the original. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. If the original sound is recorded with an artificial head, and then played back with headphones that introduce the same sound into the ear canals, the playback should sound exactly like the original. And how many binaural recordings are available at your local record store? |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
Might I quote Pope? (Alexander, not The.)
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
High End Audio Again
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Scott Dorsey writes: Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and no walls for tens of miles in every direction? Speakers for use in rooms are designed for a specific number of boundary surfaces. Examples: 1. Speaker hung on middle of wall = 1 boundary surface. 2. Speaker on floor at juncture of wall and floor = 2 boundary surfaces. 3. Speaker in corner at juncture of two walls and floor = 3 boundary surfaces. 4. Speaker in very small space, such as a sound booth with rigid walls = pressurization model of acoustic space. The boundary effects are predictable and primarily affect low frequency response. Equalization can mitigate the primary negative effect (perceived as thin sound). If the wall is rigid, acoustic reinforcement of the speaker output is proportional to the sum of the boundary surfaces. The speaker designer voices the speaker with the assumption of one of the above. As the frequency reproduced approaches zero, the acoustic model transitions from one that approximates free space, to another model dominated by standing waves, and finally, one characterized by pressurization. Headphones are designed for a pressurized space. Common wisdom seems to be that the boundary behind conventional speakers should be rigid with some diffusion. If it ends in corners it may be necessary to put absorbtion in the corners. Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition that results from experience we've all had. Sound outside sounds thin compared to sound inside, and this is the reason why. Exactly. Speakers for outdoor sound reinforcement are designed with the assumption of no boundary surface reinforcement. Depends. Playing music for a large crowd at an outdoor venue is a common and very profitable pastime during the summer in the US. We killed a few people this way last summer, but it can be done safely and even somewhat pleasurably for critical listeners. Most of the time the venue is either an existing outdoor music venue with some kind of rigid, diffusing acoustic shell, or a raised plaform with sonically transparent horizontal boundaries and bass reinforced by massive (sub)woofers. This requires much higher acoustic power , which practically speaking, requires much higher acoustic efficiency, than speakers designed for use inside. This is typically met with horn radiators, which have problems with phase shift. If the only technical problems with outdoor speakers were the phase shift inehrent in waveguide-based speakers, it would be a very good day indeed. I know that high end audiophiles are educated by the high end establishment to distrust waveguides, but in fact modern waveguide-based speakers are probably the most ideal speaker drivers around. So it is a real question whether available technology can provide sound as pleasing on a salt flat as in a well treated acoustic space. The potential problem with this statement is that it appears to conflate two different things: music production and music reproduction. The rules for large space music reproduction are different from those for small spaces, and being outdoors changes the rules again because it changes the scale of the problem. So here's a question: Are there outdoor sound systems that have such high fidelity that the salt flat can be used to best the fidelity of the best interior systems and treated rooms? Assume full bandwidth is required. Solving the bandwidth problem outdoors (example: on a plane or salt flat) as far as bass extension goes is just a matter of spending money on existing technology. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
High-end audio | Pro Audio | |||
More on High-Res Audio | High End Audio | |||
6146s in High End Audio | Vacuum Tubes | |||
High-end car audio | Car Audio | |||
from rec.audio.high-end | Tech |