Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio
rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? Blu-ray Dolby TrueHD offers 7.1 discrete channels, Dolby Pro-Logic IIz offers 9.1 channels (some decoded, not discrete). Some say that 4 full range speakers arranged in a square with each speaker pointing at the listener (in the middle) is the best way to convey an accurate soundfield. (from http://www.quadraphonicquad.com discussion with Louis Dorren, inventor of the USA Quad FM standard) It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD (maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers. ~~~ Kirk Bayne alt.video.digital-tv Home Page http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"K. B." wrote in message
... I'm more interested in the objective side of audio rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? With large enough a room you can do it with two channels, but with a normal home room in which you want to reproduce a semblance of another acoustic space, I would say 5.1 is a minimum. Gary Eickmeier |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Monday, October 28, 2013 5:28:50 AM UTC-7, K. B. wrote:
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? Blu-ray Dolby TrueHD offers 7.1 discrete channels, Dolby Pro-Logic IIz offers 9.1 channels (some decoded, not discrete). Some say that 4 full range speakers arranged in a square with each speaker pointing at the listener (in the middle) is the best way to convey an accurate soundfield. (from http://www.quadraphonicquad.com discussion with Louis Dorren, inventor of the USA Quad FM standard) It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD (maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers. ~~~ Kirk Bayne alt.video.digital-tv Home Page http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed for cinema sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I don't think that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're probably talking an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How many seems to be a matter for much speculation. I've never heard it done properly, but I've read that the Ambisonics system comes closest to the approximation of a proper sound field reproduction for music than does any system tried thus far. I lived through the quadraphonic "craze" of the 1970's and I must tell you that even when everything was working perfectly (read that as being with 4-channel reel-to-reel tape) I was underwhelmed. Just getting two channels correct is difficult enough, and while such surround systems as Ray Kimber's IsoMike technique is interesting, I do not find it any more realistic sounding than any other multiple channel "surround" scheme. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"ScottW" wrote in message
... On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed for cinema sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I don't think that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're probably talking an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How many seems to be a matter for much speculation. The number required is going to largely depend upon the space in which the "sound field" is being recreated. I briefly (a week) worked in an RF anechoic chamber (which was also a very effective acoustic chamber) and found that stereo just didn't work at modest distances from the speakers. Mono was far better IMO. I'd guess that to overcome the impact of any space (or room)...infinite is probably the right answer. ScottW Not infinite. The Philips company in Eindhoven did this with - I forget exactly - about 24 channels. they could create any space that they had the data for, and make the recording sound like it was there. But this is not the goal of normal reproduction. What we are doing is using the recorded ambience and trying to mix it with the acoustics of a normal, good sounding room to make that room sound more like the origiinal. As Scott has observed, we do NOT want to eliminate the real room from the reproduction because we need the real acoustics to anchor the stereo sound in a real space for it to externalize and sound real to our normal, natural hearing. Ralph Glasgal tries for a "you are there" realism by using his Ambiophonics system to do loudspeaker binaural in surround sound. I have not heard it, but it sounds like a noble attempt to extract even more of the recorded acoustic. http://www.ambiophonics.org/ Gary Eickmeier |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:49:36 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Even with infinite channels you can't do it. You still need the same exact room boundaries and they need to be made of the same materials so the reflective and absorptive properties are the same. You also need the same interior setting with the actual musicians doing their own absorbing, reflecting and diffusing. Then you need all acoustic output devices to have the same exact radiation patterns as the musical instruments they are reproducing. Bottom line is you can't do it and there is no point in trying. Maybe if we ever get Star Trek holodeck technology. And I haven't even mentioned how impossible it is to record the data of an original sound field. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:04:18 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message ... On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed for cinema sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I don't think that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're probably talking an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How many seems to be a matter for much speculation. The number required is going to largely depend upon the space in which the "sound field" is being recreated. I briefly (a week) worked in an RF anechoic chamber (which was also a very effective acoustic chamber) and found that stereo just didn't work at modest distances from the speakers. Mono was far better IMO. I'd guess that to overcome the impact of any space (or room)...infinite is probably the right answer. ScottW Not infinite. The Philips company in Eindhoven did this with - I forget exactly - about 24 channels. they could create any space that they had the data for, and make the recording sound like it was there. But this is not the goal of normal reproduction. What we are doing is using the recorded ambience and trying to mix it with the acoustics of a normal, good sounding room to make that room sound more like the origiinal. As Scott has observed, we do NOT want to eliminate the real room from the reproduction because we need the real acoustics to anchor the stereo sound in a real space for it to externalize and sound real to our normal, natural hearing. Ralph Glasgal tries for a "you are there" realism by using his Ambiophonics system to do loudspeaker binaural in surround sound. I have not heard it, but it sounds like a noble attempt to extract even more of the recorded acoustic. http://www.ambiophonics.org/ Gary Eickmeier That's not what I pointed out. I simply pointed out the difficulties of trying to literally reproduce an original sound field. Of course with audio recording and playback there is no such attempt going on. The idea of stereo recording and playback is to create an *illusion* of what one hears from a musical performance in an original sound field from a particular perspective in the sound field. Huge difference. I totally disagree with your ideas on stereo. I believe to best achieve the above goal of an illusion of an aural experience in a sound field from a recording the play back room should have as little affect on the playback as possible. Bouncing the sound off the playback room walls does the opposite of that. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: =20 You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to= accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. =20 Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original= sound field, one would need an =20 infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conc= lusion back in the 1930's. =20 =20 =20 Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have=20 =20 to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? =20 =20 =20 Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. =20 =20 =20 --- =20 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus prot= ection is active. =20 http://www.avast.com You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduct= ion haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used t= o capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's wh= o came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/1/2013 5:40 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote: On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduction haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used to capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's who came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today. The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway. bl --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 6:20:26 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 11/1/2013 5:40 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote: =20 On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: =20 You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than = to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. =20 Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an origin= al sound field, one would need an =20 infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that co= nclusion back in the 1930's. =20 =20 =20 Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have =20 =20 to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? =20 =20 =20 =20 Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music repro= duction haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology us= ed to capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930'= s who came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today= .. =20 The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has=20 =20 made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong= =20 =20 forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway. =20 =20 =20 bl =20 =20 =20 --- =20 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus prot= ection is active. =20 http://www.avast.com I think you may be missing the point. the research done by Bell Labs and Bl= umlein was what set the whole idea of stereo recording and playback in moti= on. The technology you speak of does not change the fact. It's all still bu= ilt on the principles that research discovered. No one has invented any new= technology that has allowed us to literally recreate an original sound fie= ld. All that technology you are referring to has been designed and built to= work with the principles of stereo recording as established by Bell Labs a= nd Blumlein. No technology so far has made anything possible that the resea= rch back then did not already determine was possible and not possible when = it comes to literally reproducing original sound fields. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/2/2013 1:07 PM, Scott wrote:
me-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today. The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway. bl I think you may be missing the point. the research done by Bell Labs and Blumlein was what set the whole idea of stereo recording and playback in motion. The technology you speak of does not change the fact. It's all still built on the principles that research discovered. No one has invented any new technology that has allowed us to literally recreate an original sound field. All that technology you are referring to has been designed and built to work with the principles of stereo recording as established by Bell Labs and Blumlein. No technology so far has made anything possible that the research back then did not already determine was possible and not possible when it comes to literally reproducing original sound fields. Ah; Our mutual misapprehension is reflected in your last phrase (emphasis mine): "/literally/ reproducing original sound fields." What technology has made possible is/representations/ of original sound fields - that may or may not satisfy the listener. I am a 'may', you are apparently a 'may not'. Since 'stereo' itself is a representation, and there is no literally, digital processing, a la Dolby PLM and future developments, seems to me to be a legitimate activity with the possibility of approaching perfection. bl --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 6:20:26 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 11/1/2013 5:40 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote: On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduction haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used to capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's who came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today.. The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has I think I said that.... Didn't I? made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway. Well, it's not the wrong forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic, it is irrelevant to the discussion however. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
Scott wrote:
IME with minimalist recordings or how shall I put it, recordings that were done using the basic principles of stereo recording and playback as originally designed by Blumlein himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair You most definitely will get closer to the sound as heard from the designated listening position of the original acoustic event the more you kill the acoustic signature of the playback room. this is how stereo was designed to work. *Most* playback room colorations work to destroy the illusion intended to be created by stereo recording and playback. With that said there are inherent limitations to stereo recording and playback and certain colorations can enhance and help compensate for those inherent limitations. That can include some diffused playback room reflections in very small doses. As well as other euphonic colorations from the recording and playback gear itself. The idea that one can make any kind of reasonable attempt to mimic the sound field of a live performance of an orchestra with over 100 instruments in a concert hall that is several hundred times larger than the listening room with an acoustic signature that is so far out of reach by merely firing some of the speaker output at the walls of the playback room is absurd. It will never be anything close. some folks may like that kind of gross coloration but it will never ever be more accurate than a proper stereo set up in a near dead acoustic playback room. And since that is what the OP is interested in... So Mr. Scott, please relate to me the ideal playback system. Outdoors with two channel? 5 channel? Ambisonics? Loudspeaker binaural? If none of those, then you are faced with the same problem that I am, coming as close to the live sound as possible within your playback room. No, you can't get around the fact that the time between reflections will superimpose the size of your playback room upon that of the recorded space, but you cannot solve that by making the sound come from just the speaker locations either. That just makes it worse. How is your system set up? Gary Eickmeier |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:21:00 PM UTC-8, news wrote:
Scott wrote: IME with minimalist recordings or how shall I put it, recordings that were done using the basic principles of stereo recording and playback as originally designed by Blumlein himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair You most definitely will get closer to the sound as heard from the designated listening position of the original acoustic event the more you kill the acoustic signature of the playback room. this is how stereo was designed to work. *Most* playback room colorations work to destroy the illusion intended to be created by stereo recording and playback. With that said there are inherent limitations to stereo recording and playback and certain colorations can enhance and help compensate for those inherent limitations. That can include some diffused playback room reflections in very small doses. As well as other euphonic colorations from the recording and playback gear itself. The idea that one can make any kind of reasonable attempt to mimic the sound field of a live performance of an orchestra with over 100 instruments in a concert hall that is several hundred times larger than the listening room with an acoustic signature that is so far out of reach by merely firing some of the speaker output at the walls of the playback room is absurd. It will never be anything close. some folks may like that kind of gross coloration but it will never ever be more accurate than a proper stereo set up in a near dead acoustic playback room. And since that is what the OP is interested in... So Mr. Scott, please relate to me the ideal playback system. Outdoors with two channel? 5 channel? Ambisonics? Loudspeaker binaural? If none of those, then you are faced with the same problem that I am, coming as close to the live sound as possible within your playback room. No, you can't get around the fact that the time between reflections will superimpose the size of your playback room upon that of the recorded space, but you cannot solve that by making the sound come from just the speaker locations either. That just makes it worse. How is your system set up? Gary Eickmeier There is no "the" ideal sound system. I can tell you what *my* ideal sound system would be. It's just a few steps up from what I already have. But without getting specific for me the ideal playback system consists of full range electrostatic speakers with tremendous dynamic range for that technology in a near field stereo pair in a near acoustically dead playback room with OTL amps that have the juice to drive the speakers, a tube preamp. A universal digital playback component. And a euphonically colored high end TT rig.. That is *my* ideal in fairly broad terms. If you want me to name specific components I could do that as well. Koetsu, Forsell, Oppo, ARC, Joule Electra and Soundlab My ideal may not be other peoples' ideal. We all have unique tastes in music an in sound. Those aesthetics are going to affect our preferences. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"Scott" wrote in message
... There is no "the" ideal sound system. I can tell you what *my* ideal sound system would be. It's just a few steps up from what I already have. But without getting specific for me the ideal playback system consists of full range electrostatic speakers with tremendous dynamic range for that technology in a near field stereo pair in a near acoustically dead playback room with OTL amps that have the juice to drive the speakers, a tube preamp. A universal digital playback component. And a euphonically colored high end TT rig. That is *my* ideal in fairly broad terms. If you want me to name specific components I could do that as well. Koetsu, Forsell, Oppo, ARC, Joule Electra and Soundlab My ideal may not be other peoples' ideal. We all have unique tastes in music an in sound. Those aesthetics are going to affect our preferences. Well, I was hoping it was more scientific than that. You ideal system sounds like giant headphones - some sort of recording engineer's dream system, a system for one person, but not real good for an audience or someone who wants to move around. I would also be concerned that you would get an IHL (Inside the Head Locatedness) problem, especially if you did it in an anechoic environment. Would you want some crosstalk cancellation with such a system? That would really pin you down in one spot, but would also be incorrect with stereophonic recordings. The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" but rather to reconstruct sound fields in your listening room. You PLACE the recorded soundstage at the front of your room, establish the left to right spread and depth of the instruments, and let the recorded early reflections happen in your room the same way and for the same reason they did live. If you do it right, with speaker placement, D/R ratio, and not killing all of the sound around the speakers, you get a very realistic soundstage that you can hear from anywhere in the room and walk around and get different perspectives on the performers. THAT is the way the system was designed to work, bringing the performance into your room and making your room take on the ambience of the recorded space - NOT sticking signals from two channels into your ears and "fooling" you into hearing another space. That would be a binaural system, which has its own problems or else it might become the standard. Gary Eickmeier |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/4/2013 1:22 PM, news wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... There is no "the" ideal sound system. I can tell you what *my* ideal sound system would be. It's just a few steps up from what I already have. But without getting specific for me the ideal playback system consists of full range electrostatic speakers with tremendous dynamic range for that technology in a near field stereo pair in a near acoustically dead playback room with OTL amps that have the juice to drive the speakers, a tube preamp. A universal digital playback component. And a euphonically colored high end TT rig. That is *my* ideal in fairly broad terms. If you want me to name specific components I could do that as well. Koetsu, Forsell, Oppo, ARC, Joule Electra and Soundlab My ideal may not be other peoples' ideal. We all have unique tastes in music an in sound. Those aesthetics are going to affect our preferences. Well, I was hoping it was more scientific than that. Why? As Scott stipulated, there is no "the" system, i.e. no one size fits all listeners system. Scott's "perfect" system certainly isn't my ideal, but that's the point. We like, and listen for, different things in the playback. You ideal system sounds like giant headphones - some sort of recording engineer's dream system, a system for one person, but not real good for an audience or someone who wants to move around. I would also be concerned that you would get an IHL (Inside the Head Locatedness) problem, especially if you did it in an anechoic environment. I don't think a "near dead" home listening room is meant to be anything close to anechoic. Scott can correct me if that was his intent. snip The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" Well yes, actually it is. but rather to reconstruct sound fields in your listening room. You PLACE the recorded soundstage at the front of your room, establish the left to right spread and depth of the instruments, and let the recorded early reflections happen in your room the same way and for the same reason they did live. Which is just your interpretation of *how* signals should be supplied to your ears. A distinction without a difference. If you do it right, with speaker placement, D/R ratio, and not killing all of the sound around the speakers, you get a very realistic soundstage that you can hear from anywhere in the room and walk around and get different perspectives on the performers. Well, realistic to you is not realistic to all. And apparently, from his description, Scott doesn't value (as I do not) a system that is designed to present a soundstage that doesn't change significantly when you walk around the room. I listen in my sweet spot - I don't care about the rest of the room. THAT is the way the system was designed to work, Yes, in your opinion. And since Scott's system does not comport with your definition how stereo is *supposed* to work, then his ideal system clearly can't be his ideal system. Right? Keith |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, news wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message=20 =20 ... =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 There is no "the" ideal sound system. I can tell you what *my* ideal so= und=20 =20 system would be. It's just a few steps up from what I already have. B= ut=20 =20 without getting specific for me the ideal playback system consists of= =20 =20 full range electrostatic speakers with tremendous dynamic range for t= hat=20 =20 technology in a near field stereo pair in a near acoustically dead=20 =20 playback room with OTL amps that have the juice to drive the speakers,= a=20 =20 tube preamp. A universal digital playback component. And a euphonicall= y=20 =20 colored high end TT rig. =20 =20 =20 That is *my* ideal in fairly broad terms. If you want me to name specif= ic=20 =20 components I could do that as well. Koetsu, Forsell, Oppo, ARC, Joule= =20 =20 Electra and Soundlab =20 =20 =20 My ideal may not be other peoples' ideal. We all have unique tastes in= =20 =20 music an in sound. Those aesthetics are going to affect our preference= s. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Well, I was hoping it was more scientific than that. You might want to include that in the question next time. Although I would = have been quick to make the same point. Ideals in sound are personal.=20 You ideal system sounds=20 =20 like giant headphones=20 No, it doesn't. Assuming that is, that giant headphones sound like,well, he= adphones. My system sounds nothing like headphones. The imaging is very lif= e like on the right source material. On weak source material the soundstagi= ng is still out where one would expect such a stage. Headphones image mostl= y in my head with conventrional stereo recordings, even the best ones. Nope= , my system sounds nothing like headphones. - some sort of recording engineer's dream system, a=20 =20 system for one person, but not real good for an audience or someone who= =20 =20 wants to move around. That is true. There is only one good seat in the house. But that works for = me. Again, ideals are personal.=20 I would also be concerned that you would get an IHL=20 =20 (Inside the Head Locatedness) problem, especially if you did it in an=20 =20 anechoic environment. Nope. But let's get real. Not suggesting an anechoic chamber for a listenin= g room.=20 =20 =20 =20 Would you want some crosstalk cancellation with such a system?=20 No!!!!! that would make it into giant headphones. Cross talk is a coloratio= n that in the right doses goes a long way towards compensating for the inhe= rent problems of stereo recording and playback. I strongly suspect that the= cross talk one gets from certain flavors of high end cartridges are doing = much the same thing to enhance the imaging. That is what I suspect at least= .. But we know this much, completely eliminate cross talk with a conventiona= l stereo recording and you get headphones. No thanks. That would=20 =20 really pin you down in one spot, but would also be incorrect with=20 =20 stereophonic recordings. It would be a bad thing IMO. =20 =20 =20 The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" but rather= to=20 =20 reconstruct sound fields in your listening room. Well there you are just plain wrong. I strongly suggest you read up on some= of the literature on the subject written by to folks who actually invented= and developed stereo recording and playback. http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/i= ndex.php/Alan_Dower_Blumlein "In December of 1931, Blumlein patented a remarkable new system of recordin= g that he called =93binaural sound.=94 Binaural sound was similar to what w= e would call =93stereo=94 today. It used two microphones, recorded two sepa= rate recordings, and reproduced them from two separate loudspeakers. It was= intended to duplicate the way we hear sounds through our two separate ears= .." You PLACE the recorded=20 =20 soundstage at the front of your room, establish the left to right spread = and=20 =20 depth of the instruments, and let the recorded early reflections happen i= n=20 =20 your room the same way and for the same reason they did live. If you do i= t=20 =20 right, with speaker placement, D/R ratio, and not killing all of the soun= d=20 =20 around the speakers, you get a very realistic soundstage that you can hea= r=20 =20 from anywhere in the room and walk around and get different perspectives = on=20 =20 the performers. You may like that but that is not how stereo was ever *designed* to work.= =20 =20 =20 =20 THAT is the way the system was designed to work, bringing the performance= =20 =20 into your room and making your room take on the ambience of the recorded= =20 =20 space - NOT sticking signals from two channels into your ears and "foolin= g"=20 =20 you into hearing another space. That would be a binaural system, which ha= s=20 =20 its own problems or else it might become the standard. =20 =20 =20 Sorry Gary but these threads always get hijacked by you into these bizarre = debates about what you personally think stereo ought to be. It's well docum= ented what stereo is and how it works. You can argue against that reality a= ll you want but it won't change it. If you like bouncing the sound off your= walls then more power to you. But these arguments that fly in the face of = a well documented history of the development of stereo sound are just the s= ame old same old.=20 |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
Scott wrote:
On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, news wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" but rather to reconstruct sound fields in your listening room. Well there you are just plain wrong. I strongly suggest you read up on some of the literature on the subject written by to folks who actually invented and developed stereo recording and playback. http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.ph...Dower_Blumlein "In December of 1931, Blumlein patented a remarkable new system of recording that he called “binaural sound.” Binaural sound was similar to what we would call “stereo” today. It used two microphones, recorded two separate recordings, and reproduced them from two separate loudspeakers. It was intended to duplicate the way we hear sounds through our two separate ears." The Bell Labs folks, William Snow, Harry Olson, Keller, Steinberg, knew that the stereophonic system was a field- type system, not a head-related system, in which the live sounds are recorded with any number of microphones and then reproduced on loudspeakers in a similar geometric arrangement to the microphones. You can develop the entire system, from microphones to number of channels to loudspeakers and their placement in the room, without any knowledge of or reference to the human hearing system. If you duplicate the SOUND of a live event in another space, your job is done, and you can listen to the result the same way you do to the live sound, with your natural hearing, no matter your ear spacing, pinnae, head shape, freq response of your hearing, or anyth;ing else to do with how you hear. If we could just examine the problem from that standpoint we might have more success in refining the system and making it sound more realistic. I guess that answers the tree falling in the forest question once and for all.... Gary Eickmeier |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:56:15 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
Scott wrote: =20 On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, news wrote: =20 "Scott" wrote in message =20 =20 ... =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" but =20 rather to =20 =20 reconstruct sound fields in your listening room. =20 =20 Well there you are just plain wrong. I strongly suggest you read up =20 on some of the literature on the subject written by to folks who =20 actually invented and developed stereo recording and playback. =20 http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.ph...Dower_Blumlein =20 "In December of 1931, Blumlein patented a remarkable new system of =20 recording that he called =93binaural sound.=94 Binaural sound was simil= ar =20 to what we would call =93stereo=94 today. It used two microphones, =20 recorded two separate recordings, and reproduced them from two =20 separate loudspeakers. It was intended to duplicate the way we hear =20 sounds through our two separate ears." =20 =20 =20 The Bell Labs folks, William Snow, Harry Olson, Keller, Steinberg, knew t= hat=20 =20 the stereophonic system was a field- type system, not a head-related syst= em,=20 =20 in which the live sounds are recorded with any number of microphones and= =20 =20 then reproduced on loudspeakers in a similar geometric arrangement to the= =20 =20 microphones. Well yeah... It's stereo. You can develop the entire system, from microphones to number=20 =20 of channels to loudspeakers and their placement in the room, without any= =20 =20 knowledge of or reference to the human hearing system. Well no, these things were found out by actually researching how humans hea= r and perceive sound. That was in fact the bulk of the work done at Bell wa= s researching how we hear and perceive sound. From that came the idea of st= ereo recording and playback. They didn't come up with the idea in a vacuum. =20 =20 =20 If you duplicate the SOUND of a live event in another space, You can't. So your premise is dead in the water right there. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
Scott wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:56:15 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Scott wrote: On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote: You can develop the entire system, from microphones to number of channels to loudspeakers and their placement in the room, without any knowledge of or reference to the human hearing system. Well no, these things were found out by actually researching how humans hear and perceive sound. That was in fact the bulk of the work done at Bell was researching how we hear and perceive sound. From that came the idea of stereo recording and playback. They didn't come up with the idea in a vacuum. OK, they researched what the frequency range of our hearing is and some factors about time/intensity trading for the summing localization, some other things. But when Snow defined all of the possible systems, he made sure to describe the stereophonic (three dimensional, on loudspeakers) system, he distinguished between binaural (a head-related system) and stereophonic (a field-type system, which means a system on loudspeakers that makes sound patterns in rooms, not in your head). A major part of the distinction involves the fact that we cannot, nor does the system attempt to, reproduce a perfect "you are there" complete acoustic picture of some original sound scene. It is not recorded that way, and it is not supposed to be played to achieve that. The microphones are placed much closer to the instruments than a dummy head or the live listener would sit, and the channels are recorded and built to mimic that live sound at the front of your room, and then let the natural acoustics localize the sound and place it in a real space. To push the analogy one step further, think of my player piano analogy. Oscar Peterson records a song on a player piano. You put that player piano in another room and play the digital keystrokes. It sounds perfectly real, and undeniably so. Then substitute microphones for the digital cartridge that recorded him and speakers for the player piano. The speakers should have a similar radiation pattern to the piano, and should be placed similarly to the way the original was placed. It will sound just as real. You have done stereo with no reference to the human hearing system. If you wish to record the ambience of an original piano recital hall along with the sound of the piano, feel free, but when you play it back it should be made to come from incident angles that are similar to the live patterns, NOT directly from the two speakers with the same angles as the direct sound! The ambience will be spatially similar to the original, and the easiest way to accomplish that is to just let it reflect from the walls of your room, if the speakers are placed in positions that are geometrically similar to the musicians relationship to their room. The temporal characteristic of your room will be superimposed upon that contained in the recording, but your room has a very short reverb time and signature. My only statement about that is that it shows that one of the factors for greater realism is to get a larger room! Again, the system set up as sound patterns in rooms, without a need for any reference to the human hearing system. If you duplicate the SOUND of a live event in another space, You can't. So your premise is dead in the water right there. I hope that you can see that this would be a false goal for stereophonic, as opposed to binaural. A whole different system with different goals. Audiophiles have been laboring for a hundred years now under the mistaken assumption that the recording contains this perfect picture of some original sound, shot from the best seat in the house so that if you play it back with enough "accuracy" it will transport you to the location of the microphones. We need to erase that assumption and replace it with the actual system as described above. Not easy. I realize that I am always beating this horse, but the fellow keeps getting up again and trampling all over what I am trying to relate. But all of the talking and typing is not going to convince anyone until I demonstrate it with an actual system, designed and installed properly. Fortunately, I am working on a pair of speakers with the help of a very knowledgeable and capable speaker builder and engineer, and I will be able to demonstrate all of this with some speakers that are not Bose 901s. The 901s work pretty well if done right, but no one believes me because of all of the mis-use of them over the years, including by me before I got a clue. This has been a 30 year quest which may finally bear fruit in a physical reality. Please stay tuned. Not sure just how to go about demoing all this so it goes viral, but I will think of something.... Gary Eickmeier |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/6/2013 9:04 AM, news wrote:
Scott wrote: On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:56:15 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Scott wrote: On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote: You can develop the entire system, from microphones to number snip A major part of the distinction involves the fact that we cannot, nor does the system attempt to, reproduce a perfect "you are there" complete acoustic picture of some original sound scene. It is not recorded that way, and it is not supposed to be played to achieve that. The microphones are placed much closer to the instruments than a dummy head or the live listener would sit, and the channels are recorded and built to mimic that live sound at the front of your room, and then let the natural acoustics localize the sound and place it in a real space. To push the analogy one step further, think of my player piano analogy. Oscar Peterson records a song on a player piano. You put that player piano in another room and play the digital keystrokes. Well, you aren't playing "digital keystrokes", you are using digital technology to perfectly recreate the actual keystrokes on a real piano. It sounds perfectly real, and undeniably so. Because it *is* real. There is little, if any, resemblance between recording mechanical movements (keys), and recording an acoustic event. Then substitute microphones for the digital cartridge that recorded him and speakers for the player piano. The speakers should have a similar radiation pattern to the piano, and should be placed similarly to the way the original was placed. It will sound just as real. No, it won't. The piano has it's own distinct radiation pattern, and you aren't recording that information at all, not to mention inaccuracies in the microphones themselves. Just putting that signal into speakers that are "similar" to the piano's, in "similar" locations, will not result in a similar sound. *You* might think it sounds real, but it will not sound like the piano playing in the same space. You have done stereo with no reference to the human hearing system. So? You've created a stereo piano that doesn't sound like the "real" piano. snip If you duplicate the SOUND of a live event in another space, You can't. So your premise is dead in the water right there. I hope that you can see that this would be a false goal for stereophonic, as opposed to binaural. Uhm, nope. A whole different system with different goals. Audiophiles have been laboring for a hundred years now under the mistaken assumption that the recording contains this perfect picture of some original sound, Really? Funny that none of them have ever posted in this group. Absolutely the opposite is routinely stated here, and given as the primary reason a "perfect" reproduction is unobtainable. shot from the best seat in the house so that if you play it back with enough "accuracy" it will transport you to the location of the microphones. We need to erase that assumption and replace it with the actual system as described above. Not easy. Because, IMO, it is simply a wrong assumption, and an inaccurate characterization of the "opposing" position. If you can make the playback system sufficiently "accurate", control the radiation pattern and room interactions, you can recreate the acoustic signal that was recorded. We all know that will *NOT* recreate the sound at the microphones. Once again, the recording is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional acoustic, and information describing that 3rd dimension is *irretrievably* lost. I realize that I am always beating this horse, It's dead, you can stop now. Basically, you want to give up all pretense of being accurate to the recorded signal (to the extent practicable) in favor of a system that has "realism" as you - personally - see it. In essence, further divorcing it from an accurate (again, to the extent practicable) playback of the recording by introducing a panoply of reflected sounds. Sounds which, importantly, were *not* present in the original venue, or on the recording, to create an artificial sense of spaciousness that you find realistic. You look at this as creating a new "performance" in your room, while adding reflections "similar" to those that would be obtained from the musicians playing in some venue. To you this is realism. I look at it as distortion of the recorded signal through addition of comb filtering artifacts, superposition distortion, and inaccurate and unrealistic directional information. Both of these positions are valid, the distinction being in the ear of the beholder. I find it astounding that you can read Scott's description of HIS ideal system, and still think that he would listen to your ideal system and through an epiphany, change his mind about realism. Or mine. You simple refuse to believe that people have different interpretations of "realism". As the man said, "When all else fails, we can whip the horse's eyes/And make them sleep, and cry." Time to let that poor horse catch some zzz's. Keith |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"KH" wrote in message
... On 11/6/2013 9:04 AM, news wrote: A whole different system with different goals. Audiophiles have been laboring for a hundred years now under the mistaken assumption that the recording contains this perfect picture of some original sound, Really? Funny that none of them have ever posted in this group. Absolutely the opposite is routinely stated here, and given as the primary reason a "perfect" reproduction is unobtainable. The OP of this thread is a question about how many channels are required to perfectly portray an original sound field. Gary Eickmeier |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/7/2013 8:32 AM, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message ... On 11/6/2013 9:04 AM, news wrote: A whole different system with different goals. Audiophiles have been laboring for a hundred years now under the mistaken assumption that the recording contains this perfect picture of some original sound, Really? Funny that none of them have ever posted in this group. Absolutely the opposite is routinely stated here, and given as the primary reason a "perfect" reproduction is unobtainable. The OP of this thread is a question about how many channels are required to perfectly portray an original sound field. Gary Eickmeier Yes, and the OP made no claims whatsoever that current recording techniques *do* capture sufficient information for a perfect playback. To the contrary, I read the question as how many channels, recording and playback, would be required to make it perfect. How do you construe such a question as a claim that current recording technology is perfect? Keith |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"KH" wrote in message
... Yes, and the OP made no claims whatsoever that current recording techniques *do* capture sufficient information for a perfect playback. To the contrary, I read the question as how many channels, recording and playback, would be required to make it perfect. How do you construe such a question as a claim that current recording technology is perfect? Keith Keith, I think that once again there is a communication gap here. I take the OP's question as how many channels do we need to fix it? Maybe he realizes that we are not going to get there with two channel because that just addresses the front sound, so the next logical step is to increase the channels until it is just about there. Scott and I answered no we can't get there from here for similar enough reasons. The way I state it is that to do stereo, a loudspeaker based system, you have to run the sound through two different rooms before you hear it. Still some agreement among all of us, generally, right? OK now, where we begin to diverge is that Scott, and maybe you, and a lot of others want to solve this problem by decreasing the room sound as much as feasible without turning it into an anechoic chamber. I disagree because we need the room to anchor and localize and externalize the sound in a real, physical space. I go even further to say that this is the whole idea of the stereophonic system, to reconstruct the sound that was recorded in another room - your room. THAT is the concept that we will violently disagree on. You try to tell me that you can't do that - it will make everything sound like your room, and that isn't accurate, isn't the idea. I point out that if you do it right, the speakers will disappear as the apparent source of the music, and the room will disappear as a "nuisance variable" as Floyd Toole puts it, that is even noticeable on playback. The room simply does not have much of a reverberant field, and so what you hear is what is contained in the recording - if you get the spatial part right. By this time your head is exploding, so I attempt to erase all knowledge (and misconceptions) about stereo and such and start from scratch. The recording does not, and cannot, contain an exact picture of the original performance, for the basic reason stated above, nor is it intended to, due to the nature of the production of the recording. This recording is a new work of art, based on the live event, that we will use to reconstruct a realistic representation of the original within our room. This new work may be an attempt at the realistic reproduction of the original event, or it may be a totally new work concocted in the studio and/or recorded with multiple tracks and built up to taste. Doesn't matter that much, what we need to do is not try to place the sound directly into our ears but rather use it to reconstruct the sound at home. Kind of like rolling in that player piano and placing it properly so that it will have good sound in its new performance. "But that's not accurate, wah wah wah." We are not doing accuracy, we are doing realism. Which leads me to the most controversial part. I have been lectured that this is a two dimensional process, that we simply cannot record all of the little sound patterns that existed in the live performance, with the early reflections off the walls of the concert hall, the ceiling and floor and all of the decorations and diffusers and on and on, so all that remains is some "illusion" of what might have been. Let's characterize these myriad reflections as first you get the first arrival sound and then afterward comes "zing, ping, pow" the myriad reflections from all directions. But we cannot record zing ping pow with our crummy system, so they are gone - vanished. Right? Here we go on final approach. For simplicity sake, we record a piano trio - piano, bass, and drums. We close mike them to get a crisp, tight recording. Back at studio, mix the piano into center, bass at left, drums at right (or anywhere within the stereo field due to the happy factor of summing localization being able to place sounds anywhere between). We then play back on speakers placed in positions that are geometrically similar to the instruments and microphones, somewhere away from all walls in positions that you might place them if they were there live. On playback, first arrival sounds come from appropriate locations - AND - because of this similar positioning and radiation patterns of the speakers - what do you know - zing ping pow happening all over again right in your room! The drum sound will reflect off the front and right side walls, the bass off the left walls and the piano will remain mainly centered. With larger orchestras and wetter recordings you can think of the process as "close miking the soundstage" in a way that records the instruments AND their early reflected and a tad of the reverberant sound in the live space. SUMMARY: We couldn't record each and every zing ping pow during the session, but we really did capture the essence of it enough to get it spatially correct on playback and have it arrive at the audience from incident angles that are very similar to the live situation and for the same reasons. So no, they are not right in the two channels if you just kill all room sound and attempt to listen near field or something, but if we reconstruct the main spatial positioning of the speakers and let the room work for us rather than against us, it will sound very realistic and even bring most of the original ambience back alive - if you understand how to decode it with the physics of the playback situation. In other words, the path to glory lies not in increasing channels and smothering the room sound, but rather understanding the system and shaping the playback sound fields just right to mimic most of the characteristics of the typical live sound fields. Sorry once again to be so wordy and lectury, but this justs scratches the surface of how to do stereo right, which I call Image Model Theory. Gary Eickmeier |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message snip Keith, I think that once again there is a communication gap here. I take the OP's question as how many channels do we need to fix it? Maybe he realizes that we are not going to get there with two channel because that just addresses the front sound, so the next logical step is to increase the channels until it is just about there. Scott and I answered no we can't get there from here for similar enough reasons. Not really that similar as far as I can tell. The way I state it is that to do stereo, a loudspeaker based system, you have to run the sound through two different rooms before you hear it. Still some agreement among all of us, generally, right? OK now, where we begin to diverge is that Scott, and maybe you, and a lot of others want to solve this problem by decreasing the room sound as much as feasible without turning it into an anechoic chamber. Yes, certainly, when you use speakers specifically designed to reduce first reflections. Anathema to you, I know, nonetheless it behooves one to use equipment within it design parameters. I disagree because we need the room to anchor and localize and externalize the sound in a real, physical space. This we disagree on. I go even further to say that this is the whole idea of the stereophonic system, to reconstruct the sound that was recorded in another room - your room. This is a non-sequitur. We all agree on this point, but not on our ability to do so, or the equipment/methodology used to create the best illusion of the original performance. THAT is the concept that we will violently disagree on. No, the "that" you refer to is apparently two conflated ideas as stated above. You try to tell me that you can't do that - it will make everything sound like your room, and that isn't accurate, isn't the idea. I point out that if you do it right, the speakers will disappear as the apparent source of the music, and the room will disappear as a "nuisance variable" as Floyd Toole puts it, that is even noticeable on playback. The room simply does not have much of a reverberant field, and so what you hear is what is contained in the recording - if you get the spatial part right. BUT, to me and to many others, it doesn't *matter* if the speakers disappear if the resulting sound field sounds fake, contrived, or directionally diffuse. By this time your head is exploding, Not for the reason you think... so I attempt to erase all knowledge (and misconceptions) about stereo and such and start from scratch. The recording does not, and cannot, contain an exact picture of the original performance, for the basic reason stated above, nor is it intended to, due to the nature of the production of the recording. Exactly so. This recording is a new work of art, based on the live event, A nonsensical term in this context. This recording is...a crippled version of the live event, missing some valuable information. Not to say recording is not an Art, it is, but it is an art trying to mimic reality (for live events at least) not to craft something new and different. that we will use to reconstruct a realistic representation of the original within our room. This new work may be an attempt at the realistic reproduction of the original event, or it may be a totally new work concocted in the studio and/or recorded with multiple tracks and built up to taste. Doesn't matter that much, what we need to do is not try to place the sound directly into our ears but rather use it to reconstruct the sound at home. Kind of like rolling in that player piano and placing it properly so that it will have good sound in its new performance. "But that's not accurate, wah wah wah." We are not doing accuracy, we are doing realism. Which leads me to the most controversial part. Careful with that "we" pardner... I have been lectured that this is a two dimensional process, that we simply cannot record all of the little sound patterns that existed in the live performance, with the early reflections off the walls of the concert hall, the ceiling and floor and all of the decorations and diffusers and on and on, so all that remains is some "illusion" of what might have been. You're running off the rails here and getting confused in terminology. We certainly cannot record the 3-d *pattern* from the concert hall, but we certainly can, and do, record the reflections. All of these reflections are, for lack of a better term, embedded in the recording without regard to direction. Let's characterize these myriad reflections as first you get the first arrival sound and then afterward comes "zing, ping, pow" the myriad reflections from all directions. But we cannot record zing ping pow with our crummy system, so they are gone - vanished. Right? No, you are incorrect, and here is where you jump the rails entirely. To use your terms, let's say that zing, ping, and pow are separated by 1ms, and zing is separated from first arrival by 1ms, just to make the illustration simple. The math works the same for any delay time. In the concert hall, you hear each over a 4ms window, and each from a different direction. Your ears decode the directional information (timing, level, incident angle) to place the sound spatially. On the recording, they are simply 2-d signals 1ms apart, differing in level. Here we go on final approach. For simplicity sake, we record a piano trio - piano, bass, and drums. We close mike them to get a crisp, tight recording. Back at studio, mix the piano into center, bass at left, drums at right (or anywhere within the stereo field due to the happy factor of summing localization being able to place sounds anywhere between). We then play back on speakers placed in positions that are geometrically similar to the instruments and microphones, somewhere away from all walls in positions that you might place them if they were there live. On playback, first arrival sounds come from appropriate locations - AND - because of this similar positioning and Ok so far. radiation patterns of the speakers Gee, where did this happen? Did you invent the piano speaker, bass speaker, and drum kit speaker? This isn't feasible. Nonetheless, let's assume you have these perfect speakers for discussion purposes. - what do you know - zing ping pow happening all over again right in your room! The drum sound will reflect off the front and right side walls, the bass off the left walls and the piano will remain mainly centered. Well, let's do a bit of an arrival timeline here. Let's say that in the new room, the smaller playback room, that new room first arrival and new in-room zing ping and pow are now only separated by 0.2ms. So what happens when you play back in the room? Let's see, to be simplistic, you play one pure tone from each "instrument", in sync. Let's look first at just the Direct component (call it X). Just to make it easier to diagram, let's say that for the original venue "zing" is (A), "ping" is (B), and "pow" is (c). So X, A, B, and C are all separated by 1ms. Let's say the NEW room "zing" is (D), "ping" is (E), and "pow" is (F) all separated from each other, and X, by 0.2ms. OK, for the direct sound only we have: Elapsed Time 0.2ms - X 1.2ms - X+A 2.2ms - X+A+B 3.2ms - X+A+B+C Good so far? Ok, lets add the reflected sound now, with the parts of the originally recorded reflection given in parentheses: 0.2ms X 0.4ms X D(X) 0.6 X D(X) E(X) 0.8 X D(X) E(X) F 1ms X D(X) E(X) F(X) 1.2ms X+A D(X) E(X) F(X) 1.4ms X+A D(X+A) E(X) F(X) 1.6ms X+A D(X+A) E(X+A) F(X) 1.8ms X+A D(X+A) E(X+A) F(X+A) 2ms X+A D(X+A) E(X+A) F(X+A) 2.2ms X+A+B D(X+A) E(X+A) F(X+A) 2.4ms X+A+B D(X+A+B) E(X+A) F(X+A) 2.6ms X+A+B D(X+A+B) E(X+A+B) F(X+A) 3.8ms X+A+B D(X+A+B) E(X+A+B) F(X+A+B) 4ms X+A+B D(X+A+B) E(X+A+B) F(X+A+B) 4.2ms X+A+B+C D(X+A+B) E(X+A+B) F(X+A+B) 4.4ms X+A+B+C D(X+A+B+C) E(X+A+B) F(X+A+B) 4.6ms X+A+B+C D(X+A+B+C) E(X+A+B+C) F(X+A+B) 4.8ms X+A+B+C D(X+A+B+C) E(X+A+B+C) F(X+A+B+C) Now, in the hall, you hear X+A+B+C all separated by arrival time and incident angle allowing localization. In the room, even IF you have ideal, perfect speaker radiation patterns, and perfect placement, you end up with X+A+B+C, D(X+A+B+C), E(X+A+B+C), (X+A+B+C) at the listening position. This incorporation of additional time delayed components to both the direct and reflected sounds causes the smearing effects I find objectionable (well, that and an unrealistically sized soundstage), and that you apparently find to be "realism". Note that this only gets more complex with more speaker and incident angles. snip SUMMARY: We couldn't record each and every zing ping pow during the session, Yes, we did (to within the limitations of the microphones), that's the part you seem to not grasp. We can and often do capture 2 dimensions of those quantities. We have the vector sum, but not the angle. But that reflected sound IS there. In other words, the path to glory lies not in increasing channels and smothering the room sound, but rather understanding the system and shaping the playback sound fields just right to mimic most of the characteristics of the typical live sound fields. ....that you feel are the most important. Keith |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"KH" wrote in message
... On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: radiation patterns of the speakers Gee, where did this happen? Did you invent the piano speaker, bass speaker, and drum kit speaker? This isn't feasible. Nonetheless, let's assume you have these perfect speakers for discussion purposes. - what do you know - zing ping pow happening all over again right in your room! The drum sound will reflect off the front and right side walls, the bass off the left walls and the piano will remain mainly centered. Well, let's do a bit of an arrival timeline here. Let's say that in the new room, the smaller playback room, that new room first arrival and new in-room zing ping and pow are now only separated by 0.2ms. So what happens when you play back in the room? Let's see, to be simplistic, you play one pure tone from each "instrument", in sync. Sorry, I don't want to trash all of your work on the X, A, B, C diagram, but I'm getting Deja Vu all over again here. I said that all of the foregoing just scratches the surface, so permit me to elaborate just one more level. There are two stereophonic recordings being made at the live event. One, the direct sounds and their directions, left to right. Two, the reflected sounds have been recorded in stereo as well - as you have agreed. Both the directions and the timings of those reflections, plus the reverberant tail as the sound dies out during the reverb time of the hall. No, we cannot find enough channels to do each reflection with a direct loudspeaker, nor could we do a new setup for every recording. What is important to audibility is that these reflected sounds NOT come from the same directions (sources) as the direct sounds that were recorded. This is why you cannot just wipe out the room and listen to the speakers only, in near field or any other manner. Nor is it necessary to have precisely the same radiation pattern as each musical instrument - just a general pattern will suffice, one that is oriented toward the model, not the live sound itself, in a general way, not for each instrument and each recording. The main requirement is to get the spatial patterns more correct and separate the later arriving reflected sounds from the first arriving direct sounds. This will be done simply by time delay. In the model, a matrix of real and virtual speakers is set up equidistant from each other such that the loudnesses of all 8 of these sources is about equal and there will be a summing localization among them all, in depth as well as width, so that the recorded sounds come from a region within this structure somewhere behind the plane of the real speakers and from wall to wall in width. This structure, a spatially arrayed, temporally delayed, spectrally shaped sound field simulator then becomes the "canvas" on which the recorded sounds can array themselves. The main point is that the reflections from the recording come from correct spatial angles on playback, which MUST be different from the direct sounds. Your whole timing discussion is mostly irrelevant to this spatial requirement. The fact that the timings of the reflections in your room are shorter than those in the recording matters not. Those timings remain as recorded, but now come from spatially similar angles during playback if properly recorded. At this point you declare that Eickmeier is full of it once again, because there is no way to separate out the reflections from the direct sound in the recording in order to make this fantastical model work. You would be wrong. It is all done with time delay. Much like a Hafler or Dolby Stereo playback system can extract the ambience from a recording and wrap it around to the sides and rear, the time delay of the reflected sound in your room can decode the reflected in the recording for the frontal soundstage. How? There can be only one first arrival, and that HAS to be from the actual speakers in the model. Later arriving, longer duration sounds will come from the virtual sources or reflections in your listening room if the balances are all about right. The audible result is that for tight dry recordings with none or little reverberance contained in them, the direct sounds just take on a harmless image shift toward the reflecting surfaces and form themselves as an aerial image slightly behind the plane of the speakers. More reverberant recordings take on the spaciousness and depth similar to the live situation and for similar reasons. As long as zing ping pow happen within the fusion time, we perceive them as part of the direct sound but with the spatial signature of the model, which has been designed to be similar to the live model. Probably a few gaps in all that, but I am tired and at least I tried! Gary Eickmeier |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/9/2013 9:17 AM, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message ... On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: snip Sorry, I don't want to trash all of your work on the X, A, B, C diagram, but I'm getting Deja Vu all over again here. Perhaps if you tried to understand the ramifications of the illustration instead just dismissing it because it disagrees with your "notion" of what happens, it might be more fruitful. I said that all of the foregoing just scratches the surface, so permit me to elaborate just one more level. There are two stereophonic recordings being made at the live event. One, the direct sounds and their directions, left to right. Two, the reflected sounds have been recorded in stereo as well - as you have agreed. No, I have NOT agreed with this. I have stated that there is one, and only one, stereo recording being made, and that recording contains both the direct and reflected sounds superimposed upon one another, the sum of which is reflective of their relative delay times. Sure, assuming that there are *two* separate stereo recordings is quite useful for your model, but is simply not factual. Both the directions and the timings of those reflections, plus the reverberant tail as the sound dies out during the reverb time of the hall. Irrelevant to the discussion as far as I can see. No, we cannot find enough channels to do each reflection with a direct loudspeaker, nor could we do a new setup for every recording. What is important to audibility is that these reflected sounds NOT come from the same directions (sources) as the direct sounds that were recorded. OK, here we agree. Now, ponder this a bit further in the context of the illustration I provided. Given that the reflected sounds are superimposed on the direct sound in the original recording, the direct portion of the sound in the playback room WILL have those reflected components coming DIRECTLY at you as part of the direct, first arrival soundfield. Yet you state this is unacceptable, and doesn't happen. But you can provide no physical mechanism that accounts for this. You simply cannot continue to pretend that this is not the case unless you provide some evidence for how these reflected sounds are disambiguated from the direct sound. It is physically impossible. snip The main point is that the reflections from the recording come from correct spatial angles on playback, which MUST be different from the direct sounds. Your whole timing discussion is mostly irrelevant to this spatial requirement. And all of those reflections will contain BOTH the reflected and direct sounds from the original recording. The fact that the timings of the reflections in your room are shorter than those in the recording matters not. Those timings remain as recorded, but now come from spatially similar angles during playback if properly recorded. You state this over and over, and ignore simple evidence that this is simply false. At this point you declare that Eickmeier is full of it once again, because there is no way to separate out the reflections from the direct sound in the recording in order to make this fantastical model work. You would be wrong. Then provide some explanation supported by physics. It is all done with time delay. Much like a Hafler or Dolby Stereo playback system can extract the ambience from a recording and wrap it around to the sides and rear, the time delay of the reflected sound in your room can decode the reflected in the recording for the frontal soundstage. How? There can be only one first arrival, and that HAS to be from the actual speakers in the model. And that frontal soundstage that you construct will comprise both the direct and reflected sound as recorded in the venue. Later arriving, longer duration sounds will come from the virtual sources or reflections in your listening room if the balances are all about right. You can *create* new soundfields with your approach, and you may like the outcome. You simply are NOT "extracting" or "decoding" reverberant information from the original recording. You have one amalgamated signal comprising both direct and reflected sound. You cannot selectively add/remove delay times to retrieve the reflected sound embedded in the recording. Any delay times you build in the "spacial model" will apply equally to both the direct and reflected components *of the recorded signal*. The audible result is that for tight dry recordings with none or little reverberance contained in them, the direct sounds just take on a harmless image shift "Just" a harmless image shift? toward the reflecting surfaces and form themselves as an aerial image slightly behind the plane of the speakers. More reverberant recordings take on the spaciousness and depth No one denies that your approach can create a sense of spaciousness (typically way to large IME). It brings other bugaboos with it however, like those "harmless image shifts" that others find very objectionable. similar to the live situation and for similar reasons. This is simply your opinion. Others don't find the level of "similarity" that you do. snip Probably a few gaps in all that I'd say. Unless you can provide a physical mechanism (not an analogy or mental image) for how the reflected and direct sounds are disambiguated upon replay - and I'm not talking about how you *create* NEW reflected/delayed soundfields - then there's really nothing left for us to discuss. Both the direct and reflect sounds in your model will contain *both* the direct and reflected sounds recorded in the actual venue. You like that, I don't. Keith |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 8:17:38 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message ... On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: radiation patterns of the speakers Gee, where did this happen? Did you invent the piano speaker, bass speaker, and drum kit speaker? This isn't feasible. Nonetheless, let's assume you have these perfect speakers for discussion purposes. - what do you know - zing ping pow happening all over again right in your room! The drum sound will reflect off the front and right side walls, the bass off the left walls and the piano will remain mainly centered. Well, let's do a bit of an arrival timeline here. Let's say that in the new room, the smaller playback room, that new room first arrival and new in-room zing ping and pow are now only separated by 0.2ms. So what happens when you play back in the room? Let's see, to be simplistic, you play one pure tone from each "instrument", in sync. Sorry, I don't want to trash all of your work on the X, A, B, C diagram, but I'm getting Deja Vu all over again here. reality will keep hitting you in the face over and over again every time you make these completely incorrect assertions about stereo. I said that all of the foregoing just scratches the surface, so permit me to elaborate just one more level. There are two stereophonic recordings being made at the live event. No. There is only one stereophonic recording being made. Even with mulitmiking One, the direct sounds and their directions, left to right. Two, the reflected sounds have been recorded in stereo as well - as you have agreed. Noooooooo. They are all entwined in the same single stereophonic recording. There is no separate channels for reflected sound. The mics pick up the direct and the reflected sound. You can't separate them. It's all in one recording. Both the directions and the timings of those reflections, plus the reverberant tail as the sound dies out during the reverb time of the hall. No, the "directions" do not die out. that doesn't even make sense. No, we cannot find enough channels to do each reflection with a direct loudspeaker, nor could we do a new setup for every recording. Again this doesn't even make sense. You can't mimic the reflections of the original venue without recreating that venue. That is never going to happen.. That is the primary reason the inventors of stereo recording and playback never went that route. It would be futile. What is important to audibility is that these reflected sounds NOT come from the same directions (sources) as the direct sounds that were recorded. Actually that is not important. If it were, all we would ever hear with playback is the directional sound coming from the speakers. Funny thing how we hear directionally. It has to do with phase, amplitude and spectral content. Stereo recording and playback utilizes this to create an aural illusion. If it didn't work then stereo would sound like two point sources. But it does work. And it does so without bouncing the sound off the walls. That is not a part of how stereo works. This is why you cannot just wipe out the room and listen to the speakers only, in near field or any other manner. Actually you can. And it works well. Nor is it necessary to have precisely the same radiation pattern as each musical instrument - just a general pattern will suffice, one that is oriented toward the model, not the live sound itself, in a general way, not for each instrument and each recording. How on earth can you possibly make such a claim? Have you made comparisons between speakers and live instruments in concert halls? Not that it matters.. The main requirement is to get the spatial patterns more correct and separate the later arriving reflected sounds from the first arriving direct sounds. That is just going to be a sonic mess. as has already been pointed out to you all you are doing is taking the original two or multi channel recording with all the reflected sounds of the hall that are on the recording and then making them echo off the walls of the playback room. Sonic smearsville USA. This will be done simply by time delay. In the model, a matrix of real and virtual speakers real and "virtual" speakers? What is a "virtual speaker?" I probably shouldn't have asked. is set up equidistant from each other such that the loudnesses of all 8 of these sources is about equal and there will be a summing localization among them all, in depth as well as width, so that the recorded sounds come from a region within this structure somewhere behind the plane of the real speakers and from wall to wall in width. This structure, a spatially arrayed, temporally delayed, spectrally shaped sound field simulator then becomes the "canvas" on which the recorded sounds can array themselves. And this is supposed to work with what recordings? What you are proposing is just a seemingly random made up new flavor of multichannel and then mixing room echo into it. The main point is that the reflections from the recording come from correct spatial angles on playback, That would not happen with what you are proposing. Wouldn't even be close. which MUST be different from the direct sounds. Your whole timing discussion is mostly irrelevant to this spatial requirement. No it was not irrelevant. the timing of reflected sounds gives us our aural cues to recognize the illusion of original sound space. The fact that the timings of the reflections in your room are shorter than those in the recording matters not. Those timings remain as recorded, but now come from spatially similar angles during playback if properly recorded. It matters hugely. This is really old news. Take a recording with substantial real recording venue reverb on it and play it back into a reverberant playback room and you get all kinds of confusing spacial cues that pretty much destroy each other. You end up with poor imaging and a lot of smeared sound. IOW a complete sonic mess. At this point you declare that Eickmeier is full of it once again, because there is no way to separate out the reflections from the direct sound in the recording in order to make this fantastical model work. You would be wrong. No we would all be right. It's not like this is anything new. It is all done with time delay. Nope, no such thing as time delay that seperates the reverb and direct reflections from the direct radiation of the instruments. Once it hits the mics it all becomes one signal. Taking that signal and adding time delayed playback over the regular playback just smears the sound. Much like a Hafler or Dolby Stereo playback system can extract the ambience from a recording and wrap it around to the sides and rear, the time delay of the reflected sound in your room can decode the reflected in the recording for the frontal soundstage. Those systems can't actually extract the ambiance from a recording. How? There can be only one first arrival, and that HAS to be from the actual speakers in the model. Later arriving, longer duration sounds will come from the virtual sources or reflections in your listening room if the balances are all about right. The audible result is that for tight dry recordings with none or little reverberance contained in them, the direct sounds just take on a harmless image shift toward the reflecting surfaces and form themselves as an aerial image slightly behind the plane of the speakers. And what recordings that actually exist in this world would you be refering to here? And let's not forget that this is a huge issue for any attempt to reinvent stereo/multi chanel recording and playback. Just ask JJ Johnston. He helped develop such a system that by all reports was a substantial step up when it comes to realism. But the problem is we have over half a century of recorded musical heritage and any new system has to be retro compatible for that vast array of existing recordings. If not then what is the point? Ditch our music collections and wait and hope for the new recordings made with the new system? Not going to happen. More reverberant recordings take on the spaciousness and depth similar to the live situation and for similar reasons. As long as zing ping pow happen within the fusion time, we perceive them as part of the direct sound but with the spatial signature of the model, which has been designed to be similar to the live model. Except it doesn't work. It doesn't work because that is not how those recordings were designed to work. what you get is the good old Bose 901 sound. No thanks. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:55:41 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 8:17:38 AM UTC-8, news wrote: "KH" wrote in message ... On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Except it doesn't work. It doesn't work because that is not how those recordings were designed to work. what you get is the good old Bose 901 sound. No thanks. This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/9/2013 9:06 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:55:41 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote: On Saturday, November 9, 2013 8:17:38 AM UTC-8, news wrote: "KH" wrote in message ... On 11/8/2013 8:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Except it doesn't work. It doesn't work because that is not how those recordings were designed to work. what you get is the good old Bose 901 sound. No thanks. This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. Notwithstanding the current obsession with zombies, equine and otherwise, I believe I did just that in my last post. I'm not trying to convince Gary he's "wrong" about what he believes is *his* holy grail, just trying to get him to understand why it isn't *the* grail for all of us. Sisyphean task though that clearly was, I'll now be content under my rock. Keith |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
Audio_Empire wrote:
This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. Thank you George. I know it's hard. I just wonder if you all understand what makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound different from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else. What physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is better, or best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet considered? A very talented fellow is helping me build a pair of speakers that will be able to demonstrate all that I am talking about. I'm not sure what venues I might be able to use to show it, but at least the plans will be available for all to build once we get someone to review them. My IMP (Image Model Projector) speakers have already been a hot topic in the DIY Audio blog, but they were just hacked together with Radio Shack wallspeakers in a box. The new ones will be a higher end sub/sat system with good components and not overly expensive. There are just too many aspects of the total sound picture that are unfamiliar to most, or difficult to explain in a newsgroup post, and no amount of talk is going to change that. But thanks for listening! Gary |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:47:19 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. Thank you George. I know it's hard. I just wonder if you all understand what makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound different from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else. What physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is better, or best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet considered? Of course we know why different speakers sound different. M-Ls are electrostatic. That means that they are fast and because they have no cabinets from the midrange -up, they are free of cabinet resonances and colorations. They are push-pull so they have low harmonic distortion. The diaphragms are light and curved so they have flat frequency response beyond 20 Khz and their curved panel makes then act like a line source at any axis on the curve. The bottom end is a cone so they have decent bass. Other speakers have cones and cabinets over most of their frequency ranges so they are going to sound different from ESLs. Speakers also differ in crossovers, crossover frequencies, and types of baffling - Ported Infinte baffle, folded horn, etc. That makes their low ends different. You pick the ones you like, the ones that sound most like those aspects of live music that blow your individual skirts up. There are lots of good speakers out there these days and many would suit me fine. If I had all the money in the world I own a pair of Wilson Alexander XLS, but then I'd be very temped by a pair of M-L CLS with subwoofers too. Mostly I have always liked ESL speakers or Magneplanars. That's about it, really. A very talented fellow is helping me build a pair of speakers that will be able to demonstrate all that I am talking about. I'm not sure what venues I might be able to use to show it, but at least the plans will be available for all to build once we get someone to review them. My IMP (Image Model Projector) speakers have already been a hot topic in the DIY Audio blog, but they were just hacked together with Radio Shack wallspeakers in a box. The new ones will be a higher end sub/sat system with good components and not overly expensive. That's fine Gary, just try not to be too disappointed if you find that not everybody who listens to your new speakers agrees with your design premise - although I'm sure your speakers will gain a following. Maybe enough of one to make a decent business out of the venture. There are just too many aspects of the total sound picture that are unfamiliar to most, or difficult to explain in a newsgroup post, and no amount of talk is going to change that. But thanks for listening! Very true. Audio_Empire |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. Thank you George. I know it's hard. Thanks in very large part to a lack of explanatory clarity, and reliance on obfuscatory analogies of questionable cogency to support your model. I just wonder if you all understand what makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound different from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else. What physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is better, or best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet considered? And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant this position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the 'unwashed' is your aim. I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein. snip Keith |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"KH" wrote in message
... On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. Thank you George. I know it's hard. Thanks in very large part to a lack of explanatory clarity, and reliance on obfuscatory analogies of questionable cogency to support your model. I just wonder if you all understand what makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound different from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else. What physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is better, or best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet considered? And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant this position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the 'unwashed' is your aim. I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein. Arrogant but valid. George's answers were not exactly on target. Speakers sound the way they do because of their radiation pattern and frequency response. That's about all we can hear from any speaker. The result of radiation pattern depends also on the speaker positioning and the room acoustics, and Linkwitz's questions and all of my theories are about how all that fits together. It expands our understanding of how speakers interact with rooms beyond the simplistic frequency response and distortion of the direct sound and shows how to use the room as part of the speaker design and neutralize its ill effects. That's all. Big subject with some surprising findings. Gary Eickmeier |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/11/2013 6:06 AM, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message ... On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: snip And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant this position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the 'unwashed' is your aim. I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein. Arrogant but valid. Uhm, no, you misunderstand (I hope). By "...this position..." I don't mean belief in your theory or it's merit, but the implicit - and often explicit - statement that everyone else is incompetent and ignorant. That is not a valid assumption. Keith |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message=20 =20 ... =20 On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote: =20 Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest =20 you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to =20 disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out. =20 =20 Thank you George. I know it's hard. =20 =20 Thanks in very large part to a lack of explanatory clarity, and relianc= e=20 =20 on obfuscatory analogies of questionable cogency to support your model. =20 =20 I just wonder if you all understand what =20 makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound differe= nt =20 from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else.= =20 =20 What =20 physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is bette= r,=20 =20 or =20 best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet=20 =20 considered? =20 =20 And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant th= is=20 =20 position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all=20 =20 dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the=20 =20 'unwashed' is your aim. =20 =20 I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein= .. =20 =20 =20 Arrogant but valid. No, not valid in any way shape or form.=20 George's answers were not exactly on target. Actually they were on target even if they weren't all that technical. Speakers=20 =20 sound the way they do because of their radiation pattern and frequency=20 =20 response. That's about all we can hear from any speaker. Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have to= do would be to consider radiation patterns and then apply digital EQ. Clea= rly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds of audible= distortions in speakers beyond frequency response. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:14 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote: =20 "KH" wrote in message=20 =20 Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have = to do would be to consider . radiation patterns and then apply digital = EQ. Clearly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds = of audible distortions in speakers beyond frequency response. That was kind of my point. I just didn't want to get sucked into another de= bate over Gary's unorthodox theories, so I just glossed over my response to= his query about why speakers sound as they do with the obvious. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
DVD surround sound | Audio Opinions | |||
How to go Surround Sound?? | Car Audio | |||
FA: Rare Spatial Sound SP-1 Surround Sound Processor | Pro Audio |