[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized
reverb (as played through separate speakers, not the main speakers)
is to enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

Right. Unfortunately, because many recordings have a lot of ambience
already, the end result can be swamping it.

Only if you don't it correctly. First, the synthesizer is fully under your
control. Second, introducing ambience from new, "correct" directions actually
reduces any overly-reverberant effect.


The argument that a well-made recording already contains the
hall's ambience overlooks the fact that most of it is coming from
the wrong direction. Synthesized (or extracted) ambience fixes this.

If you're going to add ambience from the rears...

The best place to add ambience is from the sides.

...you need to remove ambience from the front if you want to preserve
the same basic character.

Surprisingly, it doesn't work that way. See preceding.


Is preserving the same basic character important? I think that is the
real question here. (You can make a good argument that it isn't,
although I would probably argue that it is.)

I normally pick a hall that's comparable in size to the hall of the recording.
I used to then touch up the parameter values to get a close match. (This isn't
hard to do. The brain is already wired for this.) But I've found, in practice,
that this isn't usually necessary. Simply presenting the synthesized
ambience -- which includes the ambience of the recording -- from the sides and
rear is enough to satisfy the ear.

The ideal synthesizer would recognize the recording you're playing, and call
up the settings you previously made for it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized reverb
(as played through separate speakers, not the main speakers) is to
enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils rather
than enhances any half decent recording to me.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized reverb
(as played through separate speakers, not the main speakers) is to
enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils
rather than enhances any half decent recording to me.

No, it's because the ambience system isn't set up correctly. When it's
correct, you may doubt as to whether ambience is being added -- until you shut
off the synthesizer.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Neil, you don't know how to think "scientifically".

IT IS NOT "scientific thinking" to posit your personal notions as sufficient
refutations of a hypothesis that you simply disagree with, and that is the
ONLY thing that you've done so far. It is quite clear that you have no
experience in research, William.

So for anything I wish to disagree with -- despite having spent 45 years
involved with it -- I have to present verified research? You've got to be
kidding.

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

And I can tell you what part of that "something" is... Two channel stereo has
been around so long (60 years) that people have accepted it as the way one
listens to music. Whatever happened to the idea that a recording was supposed
to reproduce the original acoustic event?

Conventional stereo does not correctly incorporate or reproduce the ambience
of the recording site. ANYONE who pays attention knows this. When Dr Rumsey
said "Thus far, and (probably) no farther", he should have slapped his head
and thought "What am I saying?". His unjustified conclusion is not unlike the
mathematically invalid proof that two equals zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy (Division by zero)

When you try to reduce science to experimental proof (or disproof) of a
theory, something terrible happens. You stop thinking.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Neill (SIC), you don't know how to think "scientifically".

IT IS NOT "scientific thinking" to posit your personal notions as sufficient
refutations of a hypothesis that you simply disagree with, and that is the
ONLY thing that you've done so far. It is quite clear that you have no
experience in research, William. That which you find "disorganized" and
incomprehensible in Rumsey's presentation is to me simply a typical lecture
that uses various historical studies (some of which I'd seen before) to
support a hypothesis. I don't even have to agree with Rumsey's hypothesis to
understand the validity of his approach and know how it would have to be
challenged, should one wish to do so. I have outlined the requisite methods
to you at least twice before, so I'm pretty sure it's clear to those who are
following this thread which one of us is capable of thinking scientifically.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized
reverb (as played through separate speakers, not the main speakers)
is to enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils
rather than enhances any half decent recording to me.

The surprising thing is that the video presentation that launched this
thread places you and I in the majority. I wouldn't have expected that, but
I do find the rationale fascinating.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Luxey]

недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 15.25.25 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.


It's not what he said. He said the research showed average listeners prefered standard 2ch stereo to
multichannel spatial ****, inspite 2ch stereo being
lesss acurate in spatial "reconstruction", because
it was closer to original in timbre, because
multichannel **** has pahasing issues = comb filter,
if speakers are too close to each other. If you space
them further, there's less unpleasantness,
but then you can just as well drop the number of
channels to (from) 5 to 2, spaced even further away
from each other and come with just about the same level
of spatial accuracy as with original number of speakers
spread so not to cause overly audiable comb filtering.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

I conclude that this is about as good as you can get from recordings that were
intended for reproduction on two-channel two-speaker systems.

That's not at all to say that it is the best possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Regardless, you're missing the point. The purpose of synthesized
reverb (as played through separate speakers, not the main speakers)
is to enhance/complement what is in the recording -- not swamp it.

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils
rather than enhances any half decent recording to me.

No, it's because the ambience system isn't set up correctly. When it's
correct, you may doubt as to whether ambience is being added -- until
you shut off the synthesizer.

As long as you are happy with it. But you should also accept that types
like me hate such things.

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

I conclude that this is about as good as you can get from recordings that were
intended for reproduction on two-channel two-speaker systems.

That's not at all to say that it is the best possible.
--scott

Want better recordings? Play or find better music. Next€¦

To this day a lousy recording of a great song captivates me, and perfect
presentation of crap redirects my attention.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/28/2014 11:22 AM, hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

I conclude that this is about as good as you can get from recordings that were
intended for reproduction on two-channel two-speaker systems.

That's not at all to say that it is the best possible.
--scott

Want better recordings? Play or find better music. Next€¦

To this day a lousy recording of a great song captivates me, and perfect
presentation of crap redirects my attention.

+1

One of the premises that Rumsey used to support his hypothesis is that
people listen to music, and ambiance has an insignificant role in their
preferences. That certainly holds true for me.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/28/2014 9:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Neil, you don't know how to think "scientifically".

IT IS NOT "scientific thinking" to posit your personal notions as
sufficient
refutations of a hypothesis that you simply disagree with, and that is
the
ONLY thing that you've done so far. It is quite clear that you have no
experience in research, William.

So for anything I wish to disagree with -- despite having spent 45 years
involved with it -- I have to present verified research? You've got to
be kidding.

It is the scientific thing to do. Since that fact apparently eludes you,
I can only hope that it is the last time you stick your foot in your
mouth trying to assess my ability to think scientifically.

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

No one made the claim that stereo is "as good as you can get", so this
is yet another straw man. Read Luxey's response for one clue, and there
are several more if you need them.

And I can tell you what part of that "something" is... Two channel
stereo has been around so long (60 years) that people have accepted it
as the way one listens to music. Whatever happened to the idea that a
recording was supposed to reproduce the original acoustic event?

Yet another point covered in Rumsey's piece: what percentage of
recordings did he say attempt to reproduce the original acoustic event?

Conventional stereo does not correctly incorporate or reproduce the
ambience of the recording site.

What part of "...conventional stereo is not trying to reproduce the
ambiance of the recording site..." is so difficult to accept?

When you try to reduce science to experimental proof (or disproof) of a
theory, something terrible happens. You stop thinking.

When you try to replace science with subjective opinion, you get religion.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils
rather than enhances any half decent recording to me.

No, it's because the ambience system isn't set up correctly. When it's
correct, you may doubt as to whether ambience is being added -- until
you shut off the synthesizer.

As long as you are happy with it. But you should also accept that types
like me hate such things.

Okay. Have you ever been handed the remote and been allowed to adjust the
synthesis to your taste?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...

недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 15.25.25 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

It's not what he said. He said the research showed average listeners prefered
standard 2ch stereo to
multichannel spatial ****, inspite 2ch stereo being
lesss acurate in spatial "reconstruction", because
it was closer to original in timbre, because
multichannel **** has pahasing issues = comb filter,
if speakers are too close to each other. If you space
them further, there's less unpleasantness,
but then you can just as well drop the number of
channels to (from) 5 to 2, spaced even further away
from each other and come with just about the same level
of spatial accuracy as with original number of speakers
spread so not to cause overly audiable comb filtering.


Actually, what he said was that two-channel, two-speaker stereo gave the best
compromise between timbral accuracy and ambience rendering.

[William Sommerwerck]

Let's just say that I object to Neil being so tolerant of other people's
tastes.

[Luxey]

недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 22.40.20 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
"Luxey" wrote in message
...

недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 15.25.25 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is
wrong. Badly wrong.

It's not what he said. He said the research showed average listeners prefered
standard 2ch stereo to
multichannel spatial ****, inspite 2ch stereo being
lesss acurate in spatial "reconstruction", because
it was closer to original in timbre, because
multichannel **** has pahasing issues = comb filter,
if speakers are too close to each other. If you space
them further, there's less unpleasantness,
but then you can just as well drop the number of
channels to (from) 5 to 2, spaced even further away
from each other and come with just about the same level
of spatial accuracy as with original number of speakers
spread so not to cause overly audiable comb filtering.


Actually, what he said was that two-channel, two-speaker stereo gave the best
compromise between timbral accuracy and ambience rendering.

Yes, but only as far as the perception of a body of listeners under test goes.
That body, being highly random, is highly representative of the average
listener's taste. And that is it. What is your problem? Nobody said you can't get better ambience rendering, or better timbral accuracy, it's just what listeners under test prefered.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

I must be very rare, then, because any such thing usually spoils
rather than enhances any half decent recording to me.

No, it's because the ambience system isn't set up correctly. When it's
correct, you may doubt as to whether ambience is being added -- until
you shut off the synthesizer.

As long as you are happy with it. But you should also accept that types
like me hate such things.

Okay. Have you ever been handed the remote and been allowed to adjust
the synthesis to your taste?

Yes. I hit the off button with a sense of relief.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman wrote: "the boat sank"

I wish this thread would too! Good grief. Lots of other threads dormant here that shouldn't be.

[geoff]

On 29/12/2014 3:25 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

So .... surely a Quadraphonic (or 5.1) recording is the best answer -
not a synthetic pretend ambience ?

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 29/12/2014 3:25 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

So .... surely a Quadraphonic (or 5.1) recording is the best answer -
not a synthetic pretend ambience ?

The only surround I've liked is ambisonics. But it has to be specially
recorded, so not an end user or compatible one.

I don't want or need something designed for a cinema at home.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"geoff" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On 29/12/2014 3:25 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

So .... surely a Quadraphonic (or 5.1) recording is the best answer - not
a synthetic pretend ambience ?

Discrete quadrophonics works great. It maps easily to 5.1, so there ought to
have been a rush to re-issue recordings, there must be quite many in the
vaults, but perhaps on the shelves that are permanently submerged and/or
overgrown with mold or recorded on the tape we shouldn't have used ...

geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article om,
Peter Larsen wrote:
Discrete quadrophonics works great.

Four channels and four speakers?
Never heard it work well. Positioning down the sides is poor.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

Have you ever been handed the remote and been allowed
to adjust the synthesis to your taste?

Yes. I hit the off button with a sense of relief.

You mean you shut it off immediately? Then the synthesizer was grossly
misadjusted -- probably the ambience equivalent of jamming the controls on an
equalizer all the way up.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 22.40.20 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
"Luxey" wrote in message
...
недеља, 28. децембар 2014. 15.25.25 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је
напи�ао/ла:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel,
two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something
is wrong. Badly wrong.

It's not what he said. He said the research showed average listeners
prefered
standard 2ch stereo to
multichannel spatial ****, inspite 2ch stereo being
lesss acurate in spatial "reconstruction", because
it was closer to original in timbre, because
multichannel **** has pahasing issues = comb filter,
if speakers are too close to each other. If you space
them further, there's less unpleasantness,
but then you can just as well drop the number of
channels to (from) 5 to 2, spaced even further away
from each other and come with just about the same level
of spatial accuracy as with original number of speakers
spread so not to cause overly audiable comb filtering.


Actually, what he said was that two-channel, two-speaker stereo gave the
best
compromise between timbral accuracy and ambience rendering.

Yes, but only as far as the perception of a body of listeners under test
goes.
That body, being highly random, is highly representative of the average
listener's taste. And that is it. What is your problem?

I'm not interested in what other people like. (See Harry F Olson.)

Nobody said you can't get better ambience rendering, or better timbral
accuracy.

But that was implied.

It's just what listeners under test prefered.

This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing listener
preference gives you useful information about the /quality/ of sound
reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this.

Do I need to remind the members of rec.audio.pro that most of the advances in
sound reproduction have come from engineers who were trying to achieve greater
fidelity?

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 29/12/2014 3:25 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can
get -- you know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

So ... surely a Quadraphonic (or 5.1) recording is the best answer --
not a synthetic pretend ambience?

A digitial model of a specific hall's ambience can be "close enough" that the
ear is pleased.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

IT IS NOT "scientific thinking" to posit your personal notions as
sufficient refutations of a hypothesis that you simply disagree with...

It is eminently scientific. I asked a perfectly good scientific question --
why do someone else's conclusions -- based on testing which has not been
adequately described -- so emphatically disagree with my 45 years' listening
experience? Most (not all) Western philosophers believe(d) that knowledge is
derived from sense testimony. So science is supposed to categorically reject
personal observation?

I assume you know what peer review is. It is acceptable to object to someone
else's findings without doing research yourself. Objections are usually the
result of spotting something wrong with the design of the research, or the way
the results were interpreted. In this case, I'm saying the conclusions are
lunatic, based on my own experiences.

It's interesting that Dr Rumsey said he initially felt Gunther Thiele's
"explanation" of why conventional stereo playback doesn't have serious
problems with combing effects was "insane", but he eventually changed his
mind. Why should he have? Thiele's explanation is dumb. *

To quote the world's most-famous detective: "It is a capital mistake to
theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

and... "I never guess. It is a shocking habit €” destructive to the logical
faculty."

* The consensus is that a loudspeaker that can be heard as a distinct sound
source is poorly designed (most likely due to excessive diffraction from the
cabinet edges).

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

IT IS NOT "scientific thinking" to posit your personal notions as
sufficient refutations of a hypothesis that you simply disagree
with...

It is eminently scientific. I asked a perfectly good scientific
question -- why do someone else's conclusions -- based on testing
which has not been adequately described -- so emphatically disagree
with my 45 years' listening experience?

That is NOT a "scientific question" at all. It is simply an emotional
reaction without foundation.

Funny thing is, if you really understood that presentation, you'd know that
it is not in disagreement with your notions. You are simply in the minority
group. You think, for some unknowable reason, that you are NOT in the
minority. That CAN be tested scientifically, but you are completely
unqualified to do so.

I'm saying the conclusions are lunatic, based on my own experiences.

I'm saying that you have no objective basis to arrive at your conclusion. It
is your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. I don't know why you have to keep
pouring your religious kool-aid in hopes that I and a few others will
finally take a drink. It's not going to happen, William. We know what we
like to listen to, and we even know why.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

I'm saying that you have no objective basis to arrive at your conclusion.

"Objective" in what way?


It is your personal, unsubstantiated opinion.

What is a substantiated opinion?


If this were 1955, and you told me you'd just seen color TV, and thought it
was terrible -- what might I assume? Perhaps that the set was badly
misadjusted?

I would like anyone in this group who has sat down with a JVC or Yamaha hall
synthesizer, and actually spent time adjusting it ("to taste" or otherwise),
and did not like the results, to tell me why. This isn't a trick question. I
really want to know.

There's an obvious parallel with color TV and color motion pictures. Why
should anyone not like color, as it's how we normally see?

There are good reasons for not liking color. One is that it's used poorly. I
recently saw the color remake of "Lost Horizon", a classic example of lousy
production design and poor color cinematography.

Another is that color is used at all. Some subject matter seems more
appropriate in B&W. I'm a member of a "Gunsmoke" discussion group, and there
are people who don't like the color episodes. This is mostly because
"Gunsmoke" was a fairly "gritty" program, and color makes it seem
inappropriately realistic.

There was a time when most motion-picture dramas were filmed in B&W. Color
wasn't "serious" enough.

These are all aesthetic reasons. That one can object to color simply because
it's bad color goes without saying. Of course! But anyone who states they
categorically don't like color -- period -- would be considered a little odd.

(Billy Wilder seemed to find any reason he could for filming in B&W, until
shifts in public taste pretty much forced color on him. "Some Like It Hot"
could have been a very good color film -- but Wilder shot in B&W because (as
he said) the discrepancy between Lemmon's and Curtis's makeup, and that of the
"real" women, would have been obvious.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like a straight answer to the question I have repeatedly asked (or
implied).

Concert halls (etc) immerse the listener in a reverberant environment. Is
there something wrong with this? (Inquiring minds want to know.) I don't
believe that a taste for ambience has been "educated" into us. It is as
natural as the ability to sing, or play a musical instrument.

What's wrong with trying to replicate this environment in playback, either
through recording it, or synthesizing it? There /is/ no rational objection --
provided the recording or synthesis is done well.

So the /only/ reason one might object is that it's done badly. Which is quite
easy to do. (Shall I list how it can be done wrong?)

I have yet to get a rational response. You don't like something that, /in
theory/, you should like. Why?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Concert halls (etc) immerse the listener in a reverberant environment.
Is there something wrong with this? (Inquiring minds want to know.) I
don't believe that a taste for ambience has been "educated" into us. It
is as natural as the ability to sing, or play a musical instrument.

What's wrong with trying to replicate this environment in playback,
either through recording it,

If you have well matched speakers etc and sit in the sweet spot in a
reasonably good room, that ambience will be reproduced - if it was
recorded.

or synthesizing it?
There /is/ no rational objection --
provided the recording or synthesis is done well.

I really couldn't be bothered having to set up some synthesized artificial
ambience system each time I wanted to listen to music.

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

Have you ever been handed the remote and been allowed
to adjust the synthesis to your taste?

Yes. I hit the off button with a sense of relief.

You mean you shut it off immediately? Then the synthesizer was grossly
misadjusted -- probably the ambience equivalent of jamming the controls on an
equalizer all the way up.

You can't accept that others might have a preferecne counter to your
own, again, Bill.

Hint: they do, and they will. How about them apples? Assuming you like
apples. Some do not like apples.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/29/2014 11:53 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

I'm saying that you have no objective basis to arrive at your conclusion.

"Objective" in what way?

Those familiar with the scientific process would not have to ask. That
you must ask suggests that you are not prepared to understand any answer
I might give you.

It is your personal, unsubstantiated opinion.

What is a substantiated opinion?

Ay yi yi. Really? It is an opinion derived from some empirically based
information. Does that help?

I would like anyone in this group who has sat down with a JVC or Yamaha
hall synthesizer, and actually spent time adjusting it ("to taste" or
otherwise), and did not like the results, to tell me why. This isn't a
trick question. I really want to know.

Some of us, including myself, have given you several reasons. All you
have to do is go back and read them again if you "really want to know",
but I suspect we'll only see some more diversionary drivel in response.

I would like a straight answer to the question I have repeatedly asked
(or implied).

Concert halls (etc) immerse the listener in a reverberant environment.
Is there something wrong with this?

The answer was given many times already. The vast majority of recordings
-- Rumsey's figure is higher than I would have thought, but I have no
objective basis to refute it -- have nothing to do with replicating the
acoustics of concert halls.

What's wrong with trying to replicate this environment in playback,
either through recording it, or synthesizing it?

Nobody cares what you are trying to do with your system, William. Just
because, to me, it is akin to someone walking into an art gallery with a
set of Magic Markers to "enhance the presentation" does not mean that
you should not do that in your own home. Enjoy.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Luxey]

William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
"Luxey" wrote in message
William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:

Actually, what he said was that two-channel, two-speaker stereo gave the
best
compromise between timbral accuracy and ambience rendering.

Yes, but only as far as the perception of a body of listeners under test
goes.
That body, being highly random, is highly representative of the average
listener's taste. And that is it. What is your problem?

I'm not interested in what other people like. (See Harry F Olson.)

Than this whole presentation, is not of interest to you. It was all about the
preference and possible causes, no definite answers. Why are you arguing
if not interested?

Nobody said you can't get better ambience rendering, or better timbral
accuracy.

But that was implied.

As far as I'm concerned, it was not.

It's just what listeners under test prefered.

This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing listener
preference gives you useful information about the /quality/ of sound
reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this.

This is what I call thesis switching. It is not testing the listeners what
gives the info about the quality. What it gives is info about the preference.
Based on that info there could be a research to find out what quality may
have led to the mentioned preference.

Do I need to remind the members of rec.audio.pro that most of the advances in
sound reproduction have come from engineers who were trying to achieve greater
fidelity?

Yes, so? You are saying? I hope you don't expect us to finish your sentences.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/29/2014 6:51 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message
(...)
Nobody said you can't get better ambience rendering, or better timbral
accuracy.

But that was implied.

I heard NO SUCH implication that better rendering of ambiance could not
be achieved. In fact, just the opposite. The historic research
referenced showed that doing so shifted the majority of the
participants' focus such that they became more aware and critical of the
imperfections of the effort and less appreciative of the content,
providing support for the statistical results.

It's just what listeners under test prefered.

This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing
listener preference gives you useful information about the /quality/ of
sound reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this.

Why are you conflating "preference" with "quality"? See above.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 29/12/2014 3:25 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong.

So .... surely a Quadraphonic (or 5.1) recording is the best answer -
not a synthetic pretend ambience ?

The only surround I've liked is ambisonics. But it has to be specially
recorded, so not an end user or compatible one.

I rather liked quad, and I have heard some 5.1 recordings that were made
well. I think the notion of 5.1 is a good one (as was quad) although the
implementation is often lacking.

I don't want or need something designed for a cinema at home.

I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly,
although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky
rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I would like a straight answer to the question I have repeatedly
asked (or implied).

You don't seem to recognize such an answer, since you seem to have
completely missed the many that have been posted.

There /is/ no rational objection -- provided the recording or
synthesis is done well.

Thus, you refuse to consider all rational objections.

So the /only/ reason one might object is that it's done badly.

So you say, with your fingers in your ears while you bellow "Bla bla
bla, I can't hear you!"

(Shall I list how it can be done wrong?)

Sure, if you think it will make you feel smarter than everyone else.

I have yet to get a rational response. You don't like something
that, /in theory/, you should like. Why?

You're always waxing platitudinous about asking the right question.

"I have yet to get a rational response."

You've received numerous rational responses, but being convinced that
anyone who disagrees with you is wrong is preventing you from thinking
straight. You can't even recognize a rational response. You could
start by reexamining your explicit and implicit assumptions, beginning
with the whopper (implicit and occasionally also explicit) that you're
always right.

"You don't like something that, /in theory/, you should like. Why?"

There you go. Unproven and likely invalid assumption. Irrelevant
question. You have failed to establish any validity to your
"/theory"/. You should backtrack and find out why your theory isn't
really working out. You assume that you're always right, which makes
it impossible to understand why anyone could disagree with you,
despite their clear and well-thought-out responses and explanations.
You can't see the light of day because your head is too far up your
asshole. RT60 is so short in there that any kind of fake reverb would
probably sound like an improvement to you. But most people don't
listen to music with their heads up your asshole.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly,
although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky
rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything.
--scott


I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people
consume media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.

€œAll of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly
in a room alone.€� €• Blaise Pascal.


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly,
although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky
rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything.

I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people
consume media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.

I think there is still a small market for realistic recordings that are
designed to be listened to rather than listened through. I agree that
the market is small and shrinking but I don't think it's zero yet.

€œAll of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly
in a room alone.€� €• Blaise Pascal.

Amen.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing
listener preference gives you useful information about the /quality/
of sound reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this.

Why are you conflating "preference" with "quality"? See above.

I'M NOT.

Do you (meaning everyone reading this) see why I get so exasperated --
ANGRY -- at people's illiteracy -- their utter inability to read and
understand plain English?

READ THAT PARAGRAPH OUT LOUD. What does it actually say?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so
quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings
for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically
reproduce anything.

I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people consume
media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.

So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not
acquire or listen to surround recordings?


€œAll of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly
in a room alone.€� €• Blaise Pascal.

I don't know if that's true, but it's worth thinking about. By yourself, in a
quiet room.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so
quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings
for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically
reproduce anything.

I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people consume
media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.

So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not
acquire or listen to surround recordings?

No, but a good argument can be made that one should not invest money in
their production which could be better spent on more lucrative investments
like Ukranian yoghurt futures.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."