Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Mind Stretchers

Hello again Keith -

Thanks for the frank and honest reply. This is what I thought was going on,
but I didn't think anyone else realized it. What I mean is, maybe I am some
kind of idealist, but I firmly believe that systems can be analyzed and
designed better. My background is industrial design. I have never worked in
that field, but my schooling has apparently had a great impact on me. We
used to consider it our job to analyze whole systems before we could design
"a better mousetrap."

In audio, it seemed to me after extensive reading about stereo and imaging
and psychoacoustics that we have studied all of the parts of the elephant
but never put them all together in a cohesive big picture of what it looks
like or how it works. Binaural, yes, quite simple, you want the signals that
impinged on the binaural head to be channeled directly to your ears, and you
should hear the same acoustic event that happened to the dummy head. Stereo,
not so fast.

An engineer once said to me, when he got as frustrated as you and AE with my
theories, that "stereo just happens." That is a pretty good summary of the
state of the art!

If I may be as frank with you as you have with me, your admitted differences
in taste in speakers between - well among the three of us - was the reason I
wrote the What Can We Hear thread. The most maddening aspect of all of audio
is that we have not yet winnowed down the field by pure experimentation and
experience to one concept of what it is that your speakers should be like,
what they should do in making the sound that was recorded. Nor can you sit
two audiophiles down in front of a given system and have them agree that
this is the ultimate. In short, still no concensus whatsoever after all
these years, as you have said. I find this frustrating and unproductive. I
believe that there IS a goal, a paradigm, possible, but that an audio
reproduction event is also a NEW event, a new work of art if you will, and
not JUST a replica of the live event. I have made a few recordings now that
I enjoy more than the live event I was recording!

Boils down to my desire to have you do some "hard-nosed" listening to your
system and see how it really does compare to live. I think it might survive
the first three EEFs, but fail on the spatial one. I mean, even in the sweet
spot maybe you can hear some annoying artifacts of such a high direct field
that do not happen live. In my experience (hey, I once sat with Gordon Holt
at a demo of the Wilson WAMM in southern California at a big dealer) the
Wilsons are too hot on the direct sound, compared to live music, which is a
primarily reverberant field. The imaging runs from one speaker to the other,
and that is it. If there is an extreme left or right instrument, it comes
from that speaker, an effect that annoys the crap out of me. My first
requirement is that the sound go outside the speaker boxes. Too hot a direct
field will collapse the sound to the speakers and in between, and effect
that is not like live. This is just one effect you may notice if you listen
with a really hard-nosed realistic attitude.

Now, I am sorry that I did not answer some of your previous questions above,
when you have taken the time to write back. I mean no disrespect, so I will
try, and fortunately you have repeated some of it here, so I will respond
below:


"KH" wrote in message
...

I don't think you want to know "how stereo works", you appear to want some
theory that ties everything together, and that when adhered to results in
*A* correct, optimally realistic reproduction. There is no such single
solution, and there never will be for the myriad reasons presented to, and
apparently ignored by you. A few:

1. The recorded signal does NOT contain all the information from the
original space, and short of an infinite number of mics and channels,
never will. This is a simple fact.


OK, I understand what you are getting at here, but my smartass answer would
be, where did it go? The microphones heard just as much of the audible
happenings when recording in stereo as the binaural head would have. With
the binaural head, the problem we found was that the head could not turn
while listening, so there was an IHL problem, but there was no "missing"
information, it was just not presented in quite the same way as we can
listen live. The stereo microphones, no matter which pattern except for AE's
nemesis the close up multimiked affair, record the direct sound, and the
early reflected and some of the reverberant, just like you would if you were
there. There is enough information going into your two ears at the time, so
why not into the microphones and therefore out of the speakers at the time
of playback?

What you are getting at is found in Blauert, in fact right on the cover,
where it shows a zillion small speakers around the subject's hotseat during
an experiment in which multiple microphones recorded an event of the sound
arriving at a single spot, and there is an attempt to reproduce a "you are
there" impression, kind of like binaural only with speakers and for this one
listener only. Amar Bose told me of an experiment in Eindhoven where Philips
had used about 120 channels and some signal processing in an anechoic
environment to cause the reproduction sound fields to be more of a duplicate
of the original and have no interference from the listening environs.


2. The stereo effect is an *illusion*, and always will be, again, unless
multitudinous speakers are used to replay the recording from equally
multitudinous mics.

3. There is no objective reference for realism. There is only
*preference* for various implementations of the illusion.


Yes... well... as I agreed earlier, the recording is a new work of art,
using the original as a stepping off point, but I think there are ways we
can study the whole process and get closer, if not all the way there, which
I believe is a false goal. Architects agree about the design goals of a good
hall, but audiophiles have no agreement on the design goals of a good
speaker/listening room system. This is because most think that stereo is a
"trick" that may fool your ears into hearing an illusion of the live event -
kind of like binaural.

I use Wilson Audio Sophia II's as my reference. Dave Wilson designs his
speakers to perform exactly the opposite of what you propose. He uses
diffraction pads to quell early reflections and the resulting comb filter
effects. He has a specific setup routine developed to optimally place
*his* speaker designs to maximize their presentation. The result is an
overall decent imaging ability, with a very sweet sweet spot. I listen
in the sweet spot, and don't care that the true sweet spot is quite small,
or that the image shifts as I walk around - that is irrelevant in my
usage. In the sweet spot, the sound is - to me - quite realistic, on a
good recording.

AE on the other hand uses ML panels. While these can sound very good, and
certainly have a much wider listening angle than my Sophias, they don't
sound as realistic to me. AE feels the opposite way I'm sure, quite
possibly for opposite reasons.

It's a fallacy to think that there is a single solution to disparate
interpretations of realism. As long as you refuse to accept that your
preference of illusion is neither universal, nor normative, I doubt your
quest will have a happy ending.

Keith


So back to my paradigm of a physical reconstruction of the (or perhaps you
may force me to say "an") audio event, the whole Bose research study,
architectural acoustics knowledge, freeing the sound from the speakers, all
that.

To slightly rephrase the Bose research work, Dr. Bose found that hi fi
sucks, so they tried to figure out why. They went into the concert hall and
listened with a binaural head and measured the various sound fields, and
came back and examined the differences. Architectural acoustics designers
know full well what constitutes a good sounding hall, which is a wide, even
spread of the early reflected sound from the instruments and a full, rich,
but not echoey reverberant field. We were trying to reproduce that huge
sound field from two point sources in front of us, a difference that makes
the sound "harsh and strident" as they put it. Plus, the imaging would be as
Linkwitz and I would describe it, a series of cartoon flat images strung on
a clothesline between the speakers. Not saying that this is what you are
experiencing in your setup, just asking you to listen with a hard-nosed
critical attitude.

The macro situation that I find myself in is that audio people like yourself
keep pursuing the stereo idea that you want the pure, unadulterated recorded
sound to come to your ears unmolested by the listening room in a high direct
field, the acoustic duplicate of the electrical input idea. They will put
absorption at the points of the first reflections using mirrors to assist
them, and baffle up their speakers to try and keep all of the nasty
reflected sound away from the room, or anywhere except directly to your
ears - the exact opposite of what they should be doing. But no, no matter
how faithfully you believe such a theory, you just cannot take the huge,
wide set of fields that were recorded and pipe them all through just two
points in space and have it sound anywhere near the same in a mistaken
attempt at a false goal of "accuracy."

During our discussion I stumbled upon a most interesting ad in Playback, the
electronic version of the Absolute Sound/Perfect Vision people:

http://www.avguide.com/article/audie...ample+Articles)

I wrote to John McDonald with some questions about this interesting speaker.
I asked him if I could see their instruction manual on speaker placement
because this is where I came into this movie - when I wrote to Bose and told
them that their speaker placement nistructions were all wrong. I found that
the Audience people were doing the same thing with their manual and ads,
trying to tell people that you can place their speakers anywhere you want
and get great stereo.

And the beat goes on. Thanks again for a great discussion.

Gary Eickmeier



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Mind Stretchers

On 5/28/2012 9:37 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hello again Keith -

Thanks for the frank and honest reply. This is what I thought was going on,
but I didn't think anyone else realized it.


Gary, please re-read your last sentence in the context of "us" as
readers, not you as author. Do you not see how implicitly dismissive it
is? That is why I "beat you up" about being condescending previously.
I've been around long enough to remember your earlier forays here, and
as I recall, they devolved similarly. You would do yourself a service
if you would take more care in tone.

What I mean is, maybe I am some
kind of idealist, but I firmly believe that systems can be analyzed and
designed better. My background is industrial design.


Systems can be analyzed and designed better, no argument. But one has
to be aware of the fixed constraints, and in this case, the variability
among listeners is one.

I have never worked in
that field, but my schooling has apparently had a great impact on me. We
used to consider it our job to analyze whole systems before we could design
"a better mousetrap."


I've never worked in "that field" either, my background is in
pharmaceutical development and validation. I don't claim any expertise
in audio system design, but I have a sufficient background in physics,
analytical methodologies, logic, and test design that I have a pretty
good eye for when pertinent variables are being ignored. You routinely
ignore the preferences of individual listeners. A fatal flaw IMO.

In audio, it seemed to me after extensive reading about stereo and imaging
and psychoacoustics that we have studied all of the parts of the elephant
but never put them all together in a cohesive big picture of what it looks
like or how it works.


I think that's what the basic disagreement is. The theory is well
understood, the physics are pretty well understood, and there are myriad
ways to design and arrange speakers and rooms.

snip

If I may be as frank with you as you have with me, your admitted differences
in taste in speakers between - well among the three of us - was the reason I
wrote the What Can We Hear thread. The most maddening aspect of all of audio
is that we have not yet winnowed down the field by pure experimentation and
experience to one concept of what it is that your speakers should be like,
what they should do in making the sound that was recorded.


That's not idealism, Gary, that simply ignoring that there is no "right"
when it comes to listener preference. There are a hundred Grape flavors.
Do you believe there should be some unifying theory that would result
in the one, true, grape flavor and everyone would then agree with that
selection?

If you and I disagree about which grape is the most realistic, is one of
us wrong? If you and I disagree about whether a specific stereo
implementation is realistic or not, is one of us wrong? If your answer
to either question is "yes", further discussion is pointless as you're
now in the realm of ideology not acoustical theory.

Nor can you sit
two audiophiles down in front of a given system and have them agree that
this is the ultimate. In short, still no concensus whatsoever after all
these years, as you have said. I find this frustrating and unproductive.


Welcome to the world of subject variability. That you find it
frustrating is unsurprising, but that is the way people are. But look
at your postulate above; if two audiophiles listen to two different
systems, and one thinks A is perfect, while the other thinks A sounds
canned, but B, now B is perfect. Your takeaway seems to be that both A
and B are "broken" somehow (else there could be no disagreement) and
there has to be a theory to "fix" them such that both listeners will
find C perfect, and preferable to either A or B. My takeaway is that
both audiophiles have found implementations that produce an illusion
that fits their own personal definition of realism.

I
believe that there IS a goal, a paradigm, possible, but that an audio
reproduction event is also a NEW event, a new work of art if you will, and
not JUST a replica of the live event. I have made a few recordings now that
I enjoy more than the live event I was recording!

Boils down to my desire to have you do some "hard-nosed" listening to your
system and see how it really does compare to live.


Why on Earth would you think that I haven't?

snip
1. The recorded signal does NOT contain all the information from the
original space, and short of an infinite number of mics and channels,
never will. This is a simple fact.


OK, I understand what you are getting at here, but my smartass answer would
be, where did it go?


It got converted into two dimensions. Basically, level and arrival time.
How do you think incident angle information is coded into the signal?
That's the HRTF information that is lost in the process. Not because
it wasn't in the venue, and not because the microphone didn't pick it
up, but because it was transduced using a very different instrument than
WE use to hear.

The microphones heard just as much of the audible
happenings when recording in stereo as the binaural head would have.


No, the binaural head changes the recorded sound as a result of the
transfer function. The signals are different.

With
the binaural head, the problem we found was that the head could not turn
while listening, so there was an IHL problem, but there was no "missing"
information, it was just not presented in quite the same way as we can
listen live. The stereo microphones, no matter which pattern except for AE's
nemesis the close up multimiked affair, record the direct sound, and the
early reflected and some of the reverberant, just like you would if you were
there. There is enough information going into your two ears at the time, so
why not into the microphones and therefore out of the speakers at the time
of playback?


Why do you keep conflating stereo and binaural, and assuming everyone
but you confuses the two? If you believe all the spacial clues are in a
stereo recording I would submit that the confusion is yours.

Even were binaural relevant, there are the transduction errors (both
ways), standardized simulated pinna and ear canals that create spacial
clue errors, relative to a human listener, as well as the fixed
perspective that screws up realism in a fun new way.

snip
2. The stereo effect is an *illusion*, and always will be, again, unless
multitudinous speakers are used to replay the recording from equally
multitudinous mics.

3. There is no objective reference for realism. There is only
*preference* for various implementations of the illusion.


Yes... well... as I agreed earlier, the recording is a new work of art,
using the original as a stepping off point,


Then I would say that your whole approach is one of redefining what you
think live music *should* sound like. How can one consider the real
event to be anything other than the intended *end* point, not a
"stepping off point"?


but I think there are ways we
can study the whole process and get closer, if not all the way there, which
I believe is a false goal. Architects agree about the design goals of a good
hall, but audiophiles have no agreement on the design goals of a good
speaker/listening room system.


The point you repeatedly overlook - audiophiles, IME, all have the exact
same design goals; faithful reproduction of the recorded event. They
have different *preferences* that impact how they perceive the various
implementations designed to realize that goal.

This is because most think that stereo is a
"trick" that may fool your ears into hearing an illusion of the live event -
kind of like binaural.


*Most* are right - "trick", "illusion", call it what you will - that is
the goal of stereo. You seem to want to disconnect the reproduction
from the event, preferring to consider the reproduction paramount, and
massaging it to meet your interpretation of realism; an interpretation
untethered from the seminal event, and unconstrained by the desire to
faithfully recreate it. This concept is at odds with the goals of every
audiophile I know, or have conversed with. If this is, indeed your view,
then I hope you like the role of Sysiphus.


snip


The macro situation that I find myself in is that audio people like yourself
keep pursuing the stereo idea that you want the pure, unadulterated recorded
sound to come to your ears unmolested by the listening room in a high direct
field, the acoustic duplicate of the electrical input idea. They will put
absorption at the points of the first reflections using mirrors to assist
them, and baffle up their speakers to try and keep all of the nasty
reflected sound away from the room, or anywhere except directly to your
ears - the exact opposite of what they should be doing.


Important caveat - *in your opinion*. And make no mistake, as much as
may want to rationalize why your preferences MUST be the universal
TRVTH, that just isn't a decision you get to make for the audio public
at large.

But no, no matter
how faithfully you believe such a theory, you just cannot take the huge,
wide set of fields that were recorded and pipe them all through just two
points in space and have it sound anywhere near the same in a mistaken
attempt at a false goal of "accuracy."


Ah, but whereas taking "the huge, wide set of fields that were recorded
and pipe them all through just two points in space" split in some ratio
between sound radiated directly at the listener and sound directed
toward the front wall and then listening to the reflected simulation of
the reverberant field is more accurate? Really? This approach adds
spacial clues that are NOT in the recording, and thus cannot be
accurate. There is no information in the recording that can be used to
correctly "calibrate" some split of direct versus reflected sound to
equal the spatial information in the recording venue - it's simply
artificial. You may prefer the result, great, it's right for you, but
you have no reason to assume that it is universal for other listeners.
Looking across current speaker designs, it would seem quite the opposite
in fact.

Keith
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sebastian Kaliszewski Sebastian Kaliszewski is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Mind Stretchers

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[...]
"KH" wrote in message
...

I don't think you want to know "how stereo works", you appear to want some
theory that ties everything together, and that when adhered to results in
*A* correct, optimally realistic reproduction. There is no such single
solution, and there never will be for the myriad reasons presented to, and
apparently ignored by you. A few:

1. The recorded signal does NOT contain all the information from the
original space, and short of an infinite number of mics and channels,
never will. This is a simple fact.


OK, I understand what you are getting at here, but my smartass answer would
be, where did it go?


It was lost. Simple as that.

The microphones heard just as much of the audible
happenings when recording in stereo as the binaural head would have.


Binaural head records only that one head's perspective. Nothing more.

With
the binaural head, the problem we found was that the head could not turn
while listening, so there was an IHL problem, but there was no "missing"
information, it was just not presented in quite the same way as we can
listen live.


It was just an information for a pair of ears at that particular, frozen
position. It simply does not contain all the information for all the other
poistions within that venue.

The stereo microphones, no matter which pattern except for AE's
nemesis the close up multimiked affair, record the direct sound, and the
early reflected and some of the reverberant,


Those data are convolved i.e. intermixed together. And they could not be
loslessly separated anymore.

just like you would if you were
there.


And if your ears were exactly at the postion of those mikes (let us ignore
different directional and freqiency characteristics for now). Note just one pair
of ears both at fixed points in space.

There is enough information going into your two ears at the time, so
why not into the microphones and therefore out of the speakers at the time
of playback?


Because information going into the ears is just that information going into that
paricular ears and nothing more.
What goes into the ears for example depends on those ears position within the
space.


With two mikes you don't record soundfield. You only record two onedimiensional
projections of the soundfield at two arbitrary points in space.


As you like visual analogies. Look at the photography -- it's a record of visual
information about a space it was taken in. But it's just record of one point
perspective of that space. You can't easily recreate whole information about
that space -- even by making that photgraph big enough and surrounding it with
varius mirrors and other tricks won't make it look like a real thing. For one
simple reason it does not contain the all information about the whole space --
it only contains 2-dimensional projection of that space, projection taken at one
particular point in space and time.
If for example there were two objects in that space and one of them occluded the
other it won't be on the photograph, while someone actually present in that
space could walk 2 steps to the side and see that object.

Now there are techniques (algorithms) which could recreate some 3D information
out of 2D picture but:
1. they are much more complex that setting few mirrors -- they require a lot of
computing power
2. they work for typical situations but they're unexact and make a lot of errors.
3. they couldnt recreate information there is no clue about in the 2D imeage,
for example that aforementioned fully ocluded object would not be recreated at all.


In case of two mikes you have two one dimensional images and unlike photograph
those two dimensions are not orthogonal. But as our hearing is much less precise
and much less data intensive than our sight I could not exclue that some smart
algorithm could convincingly recreate a soundfield similar enugh to original
one. But I'm certain that, assuming it exists at all, it's not some simplistic
addition of few delayed and attenyuated copies of the original.



What you are getting at is found in Blauert, in fact right on the cover,
where it shows a zillion small speakers around the subject's hotseat during
an experiment in which multiple microphones recorded an event of the sound
arriving at a single spot, and there is an attempt to reproduce a "you are
there" impression, kind of like binaural only with speakers and for this one
listener only. Amar Bose told me of an experiment in Eindhoven where Philips
had used about 120 channels and some signal processing in an anechoic
environment to cause the reproduction sound fields to be more of a duplicate
of the original and have no interference from the listening environs.


And those are the "easy" ways to recreate a soundfield which from some narrow
set of points resembles soundfield of a recording venue.


2. The stereo effect is an *illusion*, and always will be, again, unless
multitudinous speakers are used to replay the recording from equally
multitudinous mics.

3. There is no objective reference for realism. There is only
*preference* for various implementations of the illusion.


Yes... well... as I agreed earlier, the recording is a new work of art,
using the original as a stepping off point, but I think there are ways we
can study the whole process and get closer, if not all the way there, which
I believe is a false goal. Architects agree about the design goals of a good
hall, but audiophiles have no agreement on the design goals of a good
speaker/listening room system. This is because most think that stereo is a
"trick" that may fool your ears into hearing an illusion of the live event -


Since it is

kind of like binaural.


Binaural is not a trick -- it's just one point static perspective. It works but
only for that very point and that particular orientation. Hece one problmem with
it is that one have to not move their head.

[...]

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
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
Mind Stretchers Gary Eickmeier High End Audio 26 July 25th 12 12:10 PM
Mind Stretchers Arny Krueger[_4_] High End Audio 20 June 9th 12 08:58 PM
Mind Stretchers Audio Empire High End Audio 7 May 30th 12 04:43 AM
Mind Stretchers Sebastian Kaliszewski High End Audio 0 May 28th 12 03:38 PM
Mind Stretchers Audio Empire High End Audio 0 May 28th 12 03:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 PM.

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"