A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » High End Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 23rd 13, 02:17 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

Donald White wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 7:34 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> KH wrote:


>>> 3-D pattern, 2-D signal.

>
> While I have read this news group for some time and Keith can surely
> answer for himself, I don't think the 3-Ds he is referring to are
> spacial dimensions. The three are time, amplitude and direction. Of
> these the microphone captures only time and amplitude which are are
> the contents of the 2-D signal.
>
> Don
>


Well, that's different! I'm sure Keith can answer for himself on this one,
but I would say that the 3D means the same as the Greek derivation of
"stereophonic," or "solid," three dimensional as opposed to flat, two
dimensional, width only.

Gary Eickmeier

Ads
  #12  
Old April 23rd 13, 02:18 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...

>I suspect that High-End audio will largely
> die with us baby-boomers and older folks.


As you seem to define high end audio, yes. As it morphs, not so much.

> Apparently, except for a very
> few, the younger generations don't view music the way our generation
> views it.


Just sitting down and listening to just recorded music and doing nothing
else as a preferred activity will largely die with our generation.

Listening to music has become an "and" process instead of an "or" process.
People now listen to music as they do something else, and that something
else may be the main activity that is getting their primary attention. So,
the experience is music and, and not so much music or.

> They might say that they love music, but what they actually do
> love are the songs that belong to their generation.


No difference there! ;-)

> W'se all do that to
> a certain extent, But I have friends in their 40's, 30's 20 and I know
> some of their teen offspring. They don't understand my love of music.


Read what follows. What they don't follow is how you express your love of
music.

> "How come you spend tens-of thousands of dollars on playback equipment
> when all you need is an iPod and a pair of ear-buds?" They don't get the
> idea of playback quality at all.


The error here is the lack of affirmation of the true knowledge that a good
digital player and a fine pair of headphones or earphones can be as accurate
and enveloping or even more so than the dedicated room and jillions of
dollars worth of racks and boxes of equipment.

> One friend, in his 40's, once told me
> that while he could appreciate the sound from my system, he felt that he
> didn't need that because he could hear what he was *interested* in with
> his little pre-packaged video surround system. Depressing.


The physical size and cost that equipment has to have in order to be
enveloping and accurate has decreased significantly. A Sansa Clip and a
pair of Sony XBA-2 earphones (for example) should not be pooh-poohed in the
way that many seem prone to do.


  #13  
Old April 23rd 13, 11:18 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Donald White wrote:
> > On 4/22/2013 7:34 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> KH wrote:

>
> >>> 3-D pattern, 2-D signal.

> >
> > While I have read this news group for some time and Keith can surely
> > answer for himself, I don't think the 3-Ds he is referring to are
> > spacial dimensions. The three are time, amplitude and direction. Of
> > these the microphone captures only time and amplitude which are are
> > the contents of the 2-D signal.
> >
> > Don
> >

>
> Well, that's different! I'm sure Keith can answer for himself on this one,
> but I would say that the 3D means the same as the Greek derivation of
> "stereophonic," or "solid," three dimensional as opposed to flat, two
> dimensional, width only.
>
> Gary Eickmeier


That's correct. Three dimensional sound has width, depth and height.
  #14  
Old April 24th 13, 12:45 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > In article >, KH >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And the biggest problem? It's "who cares?". We are a dying breed if
> >> you hadn't noticed, and IMO high-end music reproduction likely won't
> >> outlive us. There is simply no market for "better stereo" that would
> >> have to be re-imagined, and would have to start at the recording
> >> stage.

> >
> > I'm afraid that you have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial
> > head with that statement, Keith. I suspect that High-End audio will
> > largely die with us baby-boomers and older folks. Apparently, except
> > for a very few, the younger generations don't view music the way our
> > generation views it. They might say that they love music, but what
> > they actually do love are the songs that belong to their generation.
> > W'se all do that to a certain extent, But I have friends in their
> > 40's, 30's 20 and I know some of their teen offspring. They don't
> > understand my love of music. "How come you spend tens-of thousands of
> > dollars on playback equipment when all you need is an iPod and a pair
> > of ear-buds?" They don't get the idea of playback quality at all. One
> > friend, in his 40's, once told me that while he could appreciate the
> > sound from my system, he felt that he didn't need that because he
> > could hear what he was *interested* in with his little pre-packaged
> > video surround system. Depressing.

>
> When I was a kid I got my first tape recorder, a stereo one, I was maybe 15.
> We messed around with playing our voices backwards, doing skits, recording
> some of our 45s Then I found out about stereo tapes and wanted to try that.
> My uncle willed me his "hi fi" console, which had an RCA jack input, so I
> used that as one channel and the speakers in the recorder as the other. All
> I knew was that there were some sounds over there, and some over here, and
> that was stereo. Maybe the louder you played it the more real it sounded.
>
> Later when I was in High School, one fine lunch period a couple of musicians
> came into the gym and started playing some examples of some jazz pieces. I
> don't remember but I think it was a bass and some drums. I just remember
> that I was transfixed. Couldn't move, couldn't go on to lunch or class. I
> guess our family didn't go to good, live music much, or didn't take us kids.
> Later yet, I remember going up to the record department of J.L. Hudson's and
> listening to Ahmad Jamal for as long as they would let me. Everyone else was
> listening to Elvis and the new Rock 'n Roll, and I was discovering Ella
> Fitzgerald on the radio. Didn't know who she was, didn't even know she was a
> black woman, just recognized her voice every time and sat transfixed. I
> thought "who is that?" and had to seek her out and find some tapes. Made a
> fool of myself trying to give a speech about her in speech class. But one of
> my friends was taken with my enthusiasm and went with me to a concert in the
> Ford Auditorium in Detroit, on the evening of our graduation. We sat in the
> front row. All she had for accompaniment was a piano trio. She had the
> audience in the palm of her hand for an hour and a half. When it was over,
> we exited around the back of the stage after the curtain came down, and as
> we walked out there she was coming off the stage. Her eyesight was not the
> best and of course she didn't need to wear her glasses to sing, so she
> thought we were just some backstage people, and we heard her gushing "They
> were so kind, so kind." We were so kind! She sang some of the Gershwin
> songbook for us! It was at the peak of her career, 1962! I saw it, I heard
> her live right in front of me! OMG!
>
> Later in my many musical episodes I met and got autographs from Ella, Oscar
> Peterson, Ray Brown, Count Basie, McCoy Tyner, Nat Adderly at his home here
> in Lakeland - he helped me find a trio to play at my wedding 16 years ago.
> He bemoaned the state of jazz appreciation in this country. So do I.
>
> Gary Eickmeier


My story is similar. As a teen, I found a fairly new Roberts
"Crossfield" 770 (really an Akai) at an estate sale auction and
purchased it for 5 bucks (there were no other bids). I bought a
couple of cheap mikes from Layfayette Radio, mail order and went around
recording everything, especially our high-school band. I also made the
first recording ever done of Emmy Lou Harris, the country singer. She
was a high-school friend and was into aping Joan Baez in those days (boy
do I wish I'd have kept THAT tape!) I also started recording off of FM
and had a number of tapes of the famous Washington DC "Watergate
Concerts" I wish I still had them as well. FM was uncompressed and
un-limited in those days, and the radio station carrying the broadcasts
had just recently gone stereo. I had added a Knight-Kit stereo multiplex
adapter to my Eico HTF-90 FM tuner and could receive the broadcasts is
stereo.

For listening I had a two Knight-Kit 18-Watt mono integrated amplifiers
and two 12 " bass reflex speakers (EV "Wolverine" 12"") in cabinets my
dad built for me (he was an amateur cabinet maker, and a talented one).

I think I enjoyed that old system much more than I enjoyed any system
I've had since then. FM radio was filled with great music, and it
SOUNDED good too. There were lots of live concerts in DC as well. If it
wasn't the National Symphony live from the rotunda of the Natural
History museum, it was one of the President's bands (Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, Air Force) giving concerts almost any night (if they weren't
playing at a State Occasion they had little else to do).

Yeah, it's called Nostalgia.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

  #15  
Old April 24th 13, 12:46 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

>
> > First of all the system has to sound like music. With Bose 901s, you
> > have one strike against you right there. 901s sound terrible (to me)
> > they have no highs, the bass is muddy and slow (with the equalizer.
> > Without the equalizer they have NO bass) and that reflected sound off
> > the wall is, to me incredibly annoying and unrealistic.

>
> This is, of course, the biggest and most frustrating stumbling block in
> trying to relate my story. As soon as they get wind of my using 901s in my
> system, "nanner nanner, he can't be right, he likes Bose 901s - ha ha, Bose,
> no highs no lows, must be Bose." And I can sympathize with all who say that,
> because they have not been demonstrated properly in about 40 years.
>
> I opened my tale with how I discovered a tragic fault with the Bose owners
> manual. It had us placing the 901s from a foot to a foot and a half from the
> front and side walls. That is not just wrong, it is disaster in the making.
> The only reason I can think of for them to be doing that is to make "the
> public" think that they can be placed almost anywhere and give that great,
> Bose spacious sound. Well, they can't, and no company can change the laws of
> acoustics with an owners manual.
>
> Long story short, I have mine 5 ft from front and side walls, and I am
> incorporating a Velodyne F1800 subwoofer. My system images like a
> striped-assed ape, puts out sound power like the Second Coming, and has a
> power response that has no limits with any recording I have of my thousands.
>
> Believe it or leave it, you have not heard 901s yet.


The pair I had I tried in every configuration imaginable including
around 5 ft (and 6ft and 7 fit. At the time I lived in a loft-like place
with huge open spaces) out from any reflective surface. I never liked
them and didn't keep them long. I didn't even think that they made
decent surround speakers.
>
> > You listen to the stereo system that you like and be happy that you
> > can come THAT close. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with what we CAN do. I
> > wish the industry would catch-up with me, but they have gone in
> > another direction entirely! Properly recorded stereo sounds magical
> > to me, I can turn out the lights (with a proper recording) and point
> > to each and every instrument in the ensemble with pin-point accuracy.
> > I can hear the highest highs (that my old ears can respond to) and
> > the lowest lows. The midrange is very realistic and distortion-free.
> > I'm content with that because I know what's possible and what's
> > impossible.

>
> What are you listening to again? I forgot.


Martin-Logan Vistas. And while flat-panel electrostatics can be
considered bi-polar, M-Ls are not. The curved screen focuses the back
wave in on itself so the bi-polar effect is largely lost. Even so, I was
a Magnaplanar enthusiasts for many years (still am, actually, but I
think electrostatics are just better) and though they are true bipolar
speakers they do not do what Bose 901s do (thankfully).
>
>
> > BTW, MBL 101s only work in giant rooms. In the average 14 X 18 living
> > room they don't work at all.

>
> That is because an omni is still a little too hot in the direct sound. You
> need to back off from them a certain distance for the direct sound to go
> down to something more Bose like, and live sound like.


Believe me, if Bose 901s sounded ANYTHING like MBLs, I would still be
listening to them.

Everybody has different tastes. I'm not trying to impugn yours, just
demonstrate how mine differs.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

  #16  
Old April 24th 13, 02:16 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

On 4/23/2013 3:18 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
>
>> Donald White wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2013 7:34 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> KH wrote:

>>
>>>>> 3-D pattern, 2-D signal.
>>>
>>> While I have read this news group for some time and Keith can surely
>>> answer for himself, I don't think the 3-Ds he is referring to are
>>> spacial dimensions. The three are time, amplitude and direction. Of
>>> these the microphone captures only time and amplitude which are are
>>> the contents of the 2-D signal.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>

>>
>> Well, that's different! I'm sure Keith can answer for himself on this one,
>> but I would say that the 3D means the same as the Greek derivation of
>> "stereophonic," or "solid," three dimensional as opposed to flat, two
>> dimensional, width only.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier

>
> That's correct. Three dimensional sound has width, depth and height.
>


Actually no, I wasn't referring to solid geometry. As Donald states,
I'm talking about time, amplitude, and direction. Hence all the
discussion surrounding vector information. A 2-D signal does not
contain directional information that is not just required, but is an
intrinsic property of a vector. Acoustic signals comprise multitudinous
vectors. It's the vector summation, filtered and transformed via the
HRTF that allows identification, aurally, of three dimensions. It's the
angular component that is excised during transduction.

Perhaps this is some of the confusion. I thought vectors would be well
understood in the discussion.

Keith

  #17  
Old April 24th 13, 03:14 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >I suspect that High-End audio will largely
> > die with us baby-boomers and older folks.

>
> As you seem to define high end audio, yes. As it morphs, not so much.
>
> > Apparently, except for a very
> > few, the younger generations don't view music the way our generation
> > views it.

>
> Just sitting down and listening to just recorded music and doing nothing
> else as a preferred activity will largely die with our generation.>
> Listening to music has become an "and" process instead of an "or" process.
> People now listen to music as they do something else, and that something
> else may be the main activity that is getting their primary attention. So,
> the experience is music and, and not so much music or.


And that's sad really, because listening to serious music is an
intellectual exercise. Not giving it all the attention it warrants is
like reading Spinoza or Marcel Proust while having sex. Your attention
just isn't 100% on your reading! 8^)
>
> > They might say that they love music, but what they actually do
> > love are the songs that belong to their generation.

>
> No difference there! ;-)


Uh, yes there is. Pop music is (and has been for many years) mostly
about the lyrics, I.E. "poetry" with a beat. Largely speaking the melody
has been irrelevant. That's why pop music has morphed into rap and
hip-hop finally eliminating everything EXCEPT the lyrics and the beat.

> > W'se all do that to
> > a certain extent, But I have friends in their 40's, 30's 20 and I know
> > some of their teen offspring. They don't understand my love of music.

>
> Read what follows. What they don't follow is how you express your love of
> music.
>
> > "How come you spend tens-of thousands of dollars on playback equipment
> > when all you need is an iPod and a pair of ear-buds?" They don't get the
> > idea of playback quality at all.

>
> The error here is the lack of affirmation of the true knowledge that a good
> digital player and a fine pair of headphones or earphones can be as accurate
> and enveloping or even more so than the dedicated room and jillions of
> dollars worth of racks and boxes of equipment.


While that MIGHT be so, It's not their criticism at all. They don't
listen with a "good digital player" and a fine pair of headphones. They
listen with an iPod and cheap pair of earbuds.
>
> > One friend, in his 40's, once told me
> > that while he could appreciate the sound from my system, he felt that he
> > didn't need that because he could hear what he was *interested* in with
> > his little pre-packaged video surround system. Depressing.

>
> The physical size and cost that equipment has to have in order to be
> enveloping and accurate has decreased significantly. A Sansa Clip and a
> pair of Sony XBA-2 earphones (for example) should not be pooh-poohed in the
> way that many seem prone to do.


Who is pooh-poohing anything? I use an iPod occasionally to listen to
music casually, Lossless compression and Sony MDR-6s of course. But you
seem to be singularly intent on using my anecdote to reinforce your
opinion: I.E. that all high-end audio is bunk. Now I have no comment on
your opinion, because we've been there countless times, but I will say
that your interpretation wasn't the point of my post or of my friend's
comments at all. Their personal point, and my larger point was just what
you said above, before your soapbox got the better of you. I.E. that the
idea of sitting down and listening to great music (and great music comes
in all genres, classical, jazz, folk, even rock and so-called "easy
listening" (Sinatra, Bing, Steve and Eddie, etc., all doing their
interpretations of the "Great American Songbook") is passť and
therefore spending any money on equipment that would get one closer and
MORE INVOLVED in the music isn't a part of their lifestyle nor has it
any priority in their lives.

This is what is tragic. That society seems to be on it's way to the
human race becoming more Eloi-like with each successive generation.
'"Books? Yes, we have books." As they crumbled to dust in his hand.'

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #18  
Old April 24th 13, 03:15 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

On 4/23/2013 6:18 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I suspect that High-End audio will largely
>> die with us baby-boomers and older folks.

>
> As you seem to define high end audio, yes.


Well, yes, that goes without saying. But my definition is not
mega-buck, it's more related to need for high quality reproduction of
music - as an activity, not a background operation - in order to be
satisfied.

> As it morphs, not so much.


Sorry, can't agree with you there based on my experience. I wish it
were so.
>
>> Apparently, except for a very
>> few, the younger generations don't view music the way our generation
>> views it.

>
> Just sitting down and listening to just recorded music and doing nothing
> else as a preferred activity will largely die with our generation.
>
> Listening to music has become an "and" process instead of an "or" process.
> People now listen to music as they do something else, and that something
> else may be the main activity that is getting their primary attention. So,
> the experience is music and, and not so much music or.


And I do the same as well - on airplanes for hours on end, and while
reviewing reams of data, etc. - but that *I* don't consider to be part
of "high-end" listening. YMMV

<snip>

> The physical size and cost that equipment has to have in order to be
> enveloping and accurate has decreased significantly. A Sansa Clip and a
> pair of Sony XBA-2 earphones (for example) should not be pooh-poohed in the
> way that many seem prone to do.


This is absolutely true IME, yet it hardly compares to a real full-range
system. I'm not saying that "kids" can't appreciate...yadda,
yadda,...it's just that, as you relate, the video generation never
really had the audio-only immersion that we (old guys) did (chemically
enhanced or not), and as a result just don't relate to it in the same
manner as we do.

Keith
  #19  
Old April 24th 13, 01:07 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

KH wrote:

> Actually no, I wasn't referring to solid geometry. As Donald states,
> I'm talking about time, amplitude, and direction. Hence all the
> discussion surrounding vector information. A 2-D signal does not
> contain directional information that is not just required, but is an
> intrinsic property of a vector. Acoustic signals comprise
> multitudinous vectors. It's the vector summation, filtered and
> transformed via the HRTF that allows identification, aurally, of
> three dimensions. It's the angular component that is excised during
> transduction.
> Perhaps this is some of the confusion. I thought vectors would be
> well understood in the discussion.
>
> Keith


So Keith Howard says there is no directional information in a stereo
recording? Just time and amplitude? Then what, pray tell, is the difference
from mono?

Gary Eickmeier

  #20  
Old April 24th 13, 01:08 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Stereophonic Realism - a Tautology

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...



> The error here is the lack of affirmation of the true knowledge that
> a good digital player and a fine pair of headphones or earphones can
> be as accurate and enveloping or even more so than the dedicated room
> and jillions of dollars worth of racks and boxes of equipment.
>
>> One friend, in his 40's, once told me
>> that while he could appreciate the sound from my system, he felt
>> that he didn't need that because he could hear what he was
>> *interested* in with his little pre-packaged video surround system.
>> Depressing.

>
> The physical size and cost that equipment has to have in order to be
> enveloping and accurate has decreased significantly. A Sansa Clip
> and a pair of Sony XBA-2 earphones (for example) should not be
> pooh-poohed in the way that many seem prone to do.


In my fanciful Mars article, in which an imaginary trip to Mars by the AES
introduces the Martians to loudspeaker stereo rather than the only system
they had ever known, headphones, the team remarks on their success:

"The demonstration went extremely well. It is so refreshing to see beings
who had never been exposed to this type of reproduction jumping up and down,
screaming, and at times weeping over the beauty and realism of the music.
They had never been able to move around, dance, and interact with each other
before during a hi fi experience, unencumbered with headphones. They had
never felt the chest-thumping bass or been able to turn toward the soloists
and practically 'see' them playing. They enjoyed this pure audio experience
even more than a complete AV bit, feeling that they were in the living
presence of the performers even without the visuals."

Gary Eickmeier

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereophonic to Octophonic Sarah[_8_] Pro Audio 8 January 31st 11 01:46 PM
Is it live or is it Memorex? - Recorded Realism Ethan Winer Pro Audio 23 October 3rd 08 03:12 PM
Real Stereophonic Recordings Tim Ferrell Pro Audio 18 April 12th 04 12:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.