[geoff]

On 23/11/2014 6:31 p.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

Whoops - just noticed that one. Do you recall how I told of modeling it
after the Bose 901 in the D/R ratio


In a cooking analogy, why would you model a feast on a turd ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 24/11/2014 6:31 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
ous other systems such as in the car and send them to other people to
comment. But no, listening to some KEF Q-somethings would not be any
revelation to me.

There's nothing quite like an open mind .....


geoff

[John Williamson]

On 24/11/2014 08:04, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is saying
SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading comprehension.
There is no contradiction between asking how many speaker builders are in
the group and my not being one. As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

If you did all the calculations and drafted the final working drawings,
then you have a claim to be a designer. If you built the speakers
yourself, you are an engineer.

If you came up with a concept and made a sketch, then you are an artist
with an idea, which you then passed on to a designer and an engineer to
make.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is
saying SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading
comprehension. There is no contradiction between asking how many
speaker builders are in the group and my not being one. As for
speaker designer, if I am not the designer of my new speakers, what
would you call it?

Please get your attributions right, Gary. I did not write any of the above,
and you snipped the part that I did write.

As for what you could call your role in the creation of your speakers, it
depends. From what you've written, I gather that the acoustic concept for
your speakers was a variant of the Bose design, and if so, you are the
selector of the concept that you employed for their construction. You may
have had a significant role in the appearance of the speaker enclosures, but
that depends on any changes contributed by the builder.

--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is saying
SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading comprehension.
There is no contradiction between asking how many speaker builders are in
the group and my not being one. As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

Gary

The contradictions come all over the place with you. "Designer" but
didnt design. "Builder", but didn't build. Those are the words _you_
chose.

I didn't make this **** up. You did. Lecture me on reading comprehension
while apparently you dont even understand what _you_ write, or recal
what you have written.

Impressive, sir.

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

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 24/11/2014 6:31 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
ous other systems such as in the car and send them to other people to
comment. But no, listening to some KEF Q-somethings would not be any
revelation to me.

There's nothing quite like an open mind .....


geoff

I still find myself thinking he could hardly troll any better.

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

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 23/11/2014 6:31 p.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

Whoops - just noticed that one. Do you recall how I told of modeling it
after the Bose 901 in the D/R ratio


In a cooking analogy, why would you model a feast on a turd ?

geoff

Because your tastebuds are dysfunctional.

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

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
I'd have thought middle, 50% L, and 50% R would have been a little
kinder and gentler. Maybe with some stereo reverb washed across the full
span.



geoff "

No pan pots back then. A signal was placed either on one side or the other for stereo, or on both sides for mono(phantom).

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 24/11/2014 08:04, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is saying
SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading comprehension.
There is no contradiction between asking how many speaker builders are in
the group and my not being one. As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

If you did all the calculations and drafted the final working drawings,
then you have a claim to be a designer.


So WInISD makes just about anyone a designer then.

If you built the speakers
yourself, you are an engineer.

If you came up with a concept and made a sketch, then you are an artist
with an idea, which you then passed on to a designer and an engineer to
make.



--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

On 24/11/2014 18:19, Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 24/11/2014 08:04, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

If you did all the calculations and drafted the final working drawings,
then you have a claim to be a designer.


So WInISD makes just about anyone a designer then.

If they can be bothered, yes.

It's like any tool, though, it doesn't necessarily make you a *good*
designer. That's where experience and a good pair of ears come in.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is
saying SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading
comprehension. There is no contradiction between asking how many
speaker builders are in the group and my not being one. As for
speaker designer, if I am not the designer of my new speakers, what
would you call it?

Please get your attributions right, Gary. I did not write any of the
above,
and you snipped the part that I did write.

As for what you could call your role in the creation of your speakers, it
depends. From what you've written, I gather that the acoustic concept for
your speakers was a variant of the Bose design, and if so, you are the
selector of the concept that you employed for their construction. You may
have had a significant role in the appearance of the speaker enclosures,
but
that depends on any changes contributed by the builder.


You are not Hank, and no, I did not have a significant role in the
appearance of the speaker. I had a significant role in the design of the
radiation pattern and variable frontal pattern. I did build 3 prototype
speakers on the road to this one, but they were just cheap "concept"
speakers with Radio Shack parts - one of which won the Linkwitz Challenge.

So have we nailed it down now? Everyone happy?

Thanks for your support.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is
saying
SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading comprehension.
There is no contradiction between asking how many speaker builders are in
the group and my not being one. As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

Gary

The contradictions come all over the place with you. "Designer" but
didnt design. "Builder", but didn't build. Those are the words _you_
chose.

I didn't make this **** up. You did. Lecture me on reading comprehension
while apparently you dont even understand what _you_ write, or recal
what you have written.

Impressive, sir.

I said I was the builder sir?

Gary

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 24/11/2014 18:19, Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 24/11/2014 08:04, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

If you did all the calculations and drafted the final working drawings,
then you have a claim to be a designer.


So WInISD makes just about anyone a designer then.

If they can be bothered, yes.


How could anyone not be bothered??? I suppose if you could to it by
hand, but that sounds ugly. Otherwise it's just cut and try.

It's like any tool, though, it doesn't necessarily make you a *good*
designer.


It solves the problem of an optimal enclosure in size and geometry.
You still have to fill in the crossover and higher register drivers.

That's where experience and a good pair of ears come in.

--
Les Cargill

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/24/2014 4:37 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is
saying SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading
comprehension. There is no contradiction between asking how many
speaker builders are in the group and my not being one. As for
speaker designer, if I am not the designer of my new speakers, what
would you call it?

Please get your attributions right, Gary. I did not write any of the
above,
and you snipped the part that I did write.

As for what you could call your role in the creation of your speakers, it
depends. From what you've written, I gather that the acoustic concept for
your speakers was a variant of the Bose design, and if so, you are the
selector of the concept that you employed for their construction. You may
have had a significant role in the appearance of the speaker enclosures,
but
that depends on any changes contributed by the builder.


You are not Hank,

Which is why the attribution in your post was incorrect.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Followers of this thread may enjoy Francis Rumsey's presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82nth2Pnwk

It is fairly nontechnical but goes into some very fine philosophical
discusssions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Followers of this thread may enjoy Francis Rumsey's presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82nth2Pnwk
It is fairly nontechnical but goes into some very fine philosophical
discussions.

Very interesting. My experience has been somewhat different from his. I've
contacted him on LinkedIn. Hopefully, he will respond.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

I found the statistics that he presented regarding the perceived
timbral quality of vs. the mathematical [sic] accuracy of the sound
to be in accord with my impressions...

I've had the opposite experience. Adding ambience to the sides and rear
improves timbral accuracy.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Followers of this thread may enjoy Francis Rumsey's presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82nth2Pnwk

It is fairly nontechnical but goes into some very fine philosophical
discusssions.

Thanks, Scott!

Rumsey's presentation was based on very good philosophical grounds in the
fields of both audio and digital graphics. I found the statistics that he
presented regarding the perceived timbral quality of vs. the mathematical
accuracy of the sound to be in accord with my impressions, which were based
primarily on my anecdotal experience over the decades. Nice to have those
backed up with some facts!

In the unlikely event that I don't post again before the Christmas holiday,
best wishes to all in the group, and have a great new year.

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

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

I found the statistics that he presented regarding the perceived
timbral quality of vs. the mathematical [sic] accuracy of the sound
to be in accord with my impressions...

I've had the opposite experience. Adding ambience to the sides and
rear improves timbral accuracy.

It shouldn't be surprising that there isn't a 100% agreement on the nature
of any experience, which is a simple explanation for the plethora of system
configurations in the market, whether for audio, video, computer user
interfaces or any other modalities.

The issues that Rumsey raised with regard to the lack of standards for
recording material intended for systems beyond stereo speakers to be spot on
and curiously absent from the efforts of those who advocate for such things.
It appears that the majority of listeners find the unavoidable artifacts to
be distracting.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

The issues that Rumsey raised with regard to the lack of standards
for recording material intended for systems beyond stereo speakers
to be spot on and curiously absent from the efforts of those who
advocate for such things. It appears that the majority of listeners
find the unavoidable artifacts to be distracting.

I don't hear them.

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT standard is
not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and ambience speakers are
best positioned where they generate lateral sound.

I think Rumsey raised more questions than he answered.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:

The issues that Rumsey raised with regard to the lack of standards for
recording material intended for systems beyond stereo speakers to be spot on
and curiously absent from the efforts of those who advocate for such things.
It appears that the majority of listeners find the unavoidable artifacts to
be distracting.

We don't even really have good paper standards for recording material intended
for stereo playback. There is no standard playback configuration, although
engineers all have a rough idea.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT standard is
not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and ambience speakers are
best positioned where they generate lateral sound.

But most of the ambience in a real concert hall isn't lateral. Is that
important? Can we tell?

I think Rumsey raised more questions than he answered.

Absolutely, but he raised some very important ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/22/2014 9:54 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

The issues that Rumsey raised with regard to the lack of standards for
recording material intended for systems beyond stereo speakers to be spot on
and curiously absent from the efforts of those who advocate for such things.
It appears that the majority of listeners find the unavoidable artifacts to
be distracting.

We don't even really have good paper standards for recording material intended
for stereo playback. There is no standard playback configuration, although
engineers all have a rough idea.
--scott

Agreed, though the range of possibilities for stereo is narrow in
comparison to more complex arrays. I also don't think it's a separate
issue from that which inversely ties listener's appreciation to the more
accurate reproduction of spacial cues.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/22/2014 9:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

The issues that Rumsey raised with regard to the lack of standards
for recording material intended for systems beyond stereo speakers
to be spot on and curiously absent from the efforts of those who
advocate for such things. It appears that the majority of listeners
find the unavoidable artifacts to be distracting.

I don't hear them.

Apparently, most of us do.

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT
standard is not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and
ambience speakers are best positioned where they generate lateral sound.

Such a notion of "ideal" is not relevant to listeners that reject
complex configurations in preference to simpler stereo setups. After
all, it is about the pleasure of the listening experience.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

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

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT
standard is not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and
ambience speakers are best positioned where they generate lateral
sound.

But most of the ambience in a real concert hall isn't lateral.
Is that important? Can we tell?

Regardless of the percentage, it's the lateral sound we're most-aware of.
Halls designed without attention to the importance of lateral sound generally
don't sound good. (This is why "shoebox" halls tend to sound good.)

Many years ago, when I had only four-channel playback, the rear speakers were
literally to the rear. I wondered why this produced "empty sides" with
ambience, and didn't understand it at the time. My current six-channel system
has the side and rear speakers positioned within 15 degrees (front and rear)
of the listening position. No empty sides.

I think Rumsey raised more questions than he answered.

Absolutely, but he raised some very important ones.

No argument. That's what science is about.

He accepted me on LinkedIn. I hope to be talking with him soon.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/22/2014 9:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT
standard is not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and
ambience speakers are best positioned where they generate lateral
sound.

Such a notion of "ideal" is not relevant to listeners that reject complex
configurations in preference to simpler stereo setups.
After all, it is about the pleasure of the listening experience.

Which is precisely the reason I refuse to listen to recordings without having
a hall synthesizer engaged. Stop by sometime, and I'll demonstrate.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

...the range of possibilities for stereo is narrow in comparison
to more complex arrays. I also don't think it's a separate issue
from that which inversely ties listener's appreciation to the more accurate
reproduction of spatial cues.

I've been listening to surround sound (of one form or another) since 1970. The
idea that the inclusion of specific spatial information degrades the
subjective accuracy of the "direct" sounds is incomprehensible. I've always
found the exact opposite to be true.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/22/2014 12:34 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/22/2014 9:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

That the "ideal" position for side speakers match those of the IRT
standard is not a coincidence. The ear "likes" lateral sound, and
ambience speakers are best positioned where they generate lateral
sound.

Such a notion of "ideal" is not relevant to listeners that reject
complex configurations in preference to simpler stereo setups.
After all, it is about the pleasure of the listening experience.

Which is precisely the reason I refuse to listen to recordings without
having a hall synthesizer engaged. Stop by sometime, and I'll demonstrate.

Thanks, but I've heard hall synthesizers, several varieties of Ambisonic
setups, and it just isn't my cup of tea for 90%+ of the music that I
listen to. I do like those effects in an IMAX theater, though.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/22/2014 12:37 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

...the range of possibilities for stereo is narrow in comparison
to more complex arrays. I also don't think it's a separate issue
from that which inversely ties listener's appreciation to the more
accurate reproduction of spatial cues.

I've been listening to surround sound (of one form or another) since
1970. The idea that the inclusion of specific spatial information
degrades the subjective accuracy of the "direct" sounds is
incomprehensible. I've always found the exact opposite to be true.

I've also listened to surround for about the same length of time (from
other comments you've made in the past, I surmise that we are the same
age +/- a month or two). People differ in what they consider to be
important in the sound, and to me, all but a very few recorded pieces
suffer when played on surround systems mainly because they weren't
recorded with that intent so the artifacts become a distraction (as was
pointed out in Rumsey's presentation).

The bottom line appears to be that you hold the minority viewpoint,
which is fine, because somebody's got to do it! ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...

I've also listened to surround for about the same length of time (from other
comments you've made in the past, I surmise that we are the same age +/- a
month or two). People differ in what they consider to be important in the
sound, and to me, all but a very few recorded pieces suffer when played on
surround systems mainly because they weren't recorded with that intent so
the artifacts become a distraction (as was pointed out in Rumsey's
presentation).

There are two types of surround -- ambient and immersive. Unless the recording
is a botched job, ambience in the extra channels always enhances the sound. (I
don't know why anyone would react otherwise.) *

Immersive is different. I have some rock SACDs that were mixed for immersive
surround 30 years or more after the original recording, and they just don't
"work" aesthetically. DSM was conceived for surround, and it works.

* When I use a hall synthesizer, the rear level is set so low you don’t hear
the effect -- until it's shut off.


The bottom line appears to be that you hold the minority viewpoint, which is
fine, because somebody's got to do it! ;-)

As I like to say... Once you're heard //good// surround, you'll never go back
to POS.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Neil" wrote in message ...

I've also listened to surround for about the same length of time (from
other comments you've made in the past, I surmise that we are the same
age +/- a month or two). People differ in what they consider to be
important in the sound, and to me, all but a very few recorded pieces
suffer when played on surround systems mainly because they weren't
recorded with that intent so the artifacts become a distraction (as was
pointed out in Rumsey's presentation).

There are two types of surround -- ambient and immersive. Unless the
recording is a botched job, ambience in the extra channels always enhances
the sound. (I don't know why anyone would react otherwise.) *

Back when I had dolby surround playback enabled in my setup I found that it
often improved multimiked stereo mixes by providing a credible illusion, but
also that the room immersion inherent in a good playback of a recording made
with an omni pair would collapse instead of improve when dolby playback was
enabled.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/23/2014 8:20 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

I've also listened to surround for about the same length of time (from
other comments you've made in the past, I surmise that we are the same
age +/- a month or two). People differ in what they consider to be
important in the sound, and to me, all but a very few recorded pieces
suffer when played on surround systems mainly because they weren't
recorded with that intent so the artifacts become a distraction (as
was pointed out in Rumsey's presentation).

There are two types of surround -- ambient and immersive. Unless the
recording is a botched job, ambience in the extra channels always
enhances the sound. (I don't know why anyone would react otherwise.) *

Perhaps people react otherwise because in most cases it isn't an
auditory improvement over stereo. From the statistics presented,
apparently the majority don't prefer the effect, and I agree with the
reasons that Rumsey presented for this result. Let's at least
acknowledge that this is a matter of preference and taste rather than
presume that we all must be wrong or inexperienced.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/23/2014 8:20 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

I've also listened to surround for about the same length of time (from
other comments you've made in the past, I surmise that we are the same
age +/- a month or two). People differ in what they consider to be
important in the sound, and to me, all but a very few recorded pieces
suffer when played on surround systems mainly because they weren't
recorded with that intent so the artifacts become a distraction (as
was pointed out in Rumsey's presentation).

There are two types of surround -- ambient and immersive. Unless the
recording is a botched job, ambience in the extra channels always
enhances the sound. (I don't know why anyone would react otherwise.)

Perhaps people react otherwise because in most cases it isn't an auditory
improvement over stereo. From the statistics presented, apparently the
majority don't prefer the effect, and I agree with the reasons that Rumsey
presented for this result. Let's at least acknowledge that this is a matter
of preference and taste rather than presume that we all must be wrong or
inexperienced.

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience is part
of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be an improvement?

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience is part
of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be an improvement?

If we record it or synthesize it in an inaccurate way, it might be worse than
not having it at all.

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who would want to listen to it in a tiled bathroom?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 7:02 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be
an improvement?

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

In stereo we get an smattering of the recorded real ambience. A
synthesised (surround) ambience may add or may detract from the
smattering of real one.

geoff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/23/2014 1:02 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience (SIC)
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be
an improvement?

Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who *does* listen to music in an acoustically dead room? Not me. I'm
quite familiar with the acoustics of my room(s), and can learn the
acoustics of others' rooms fairly quickly (most humans have this
ability... I'm not special in that regard). The ambiance added to the
playback by the room is preferable to layering another ambiance on top
of it. It's OK in movie theaters, but I don't want to hear it at home.

On the other hand, if one is going to add synthesized ambiance to a
recording, it is probably better to do it in acoustically dead rooms. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

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

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be an
improvement?

If we record it or synthesize it in an inaccurate way, it might be worse
than not having it at all.

True. But that's not generally the case.


Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who would want to listen to it in a tiled bathroom?

I've never heard a commercial recording that sounded like that. And a hall
synthesizer has to be pushed to its most extreme settings to produce such an
effect.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 24/12/2014 7:02 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall ambience
is part of the sound. How can recording it, or synthesizing it, NOT be
an improvement?
Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

In stereo we get an smattering of the recorded real ambience. A synthesised
(surround) ambience may add or may detract from the smattering of real one.

You might not believe this, but the synthesized ambience actually makes the
recording sound //less// reverberant.

If you want to fuss, the hall synthesizer can be adjusted to closely
approximate the ambience of the recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 12/23/2014 1:02 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

When we attend a live performance in a concert hall, the hall
ambience (SIC) is part of the sound. How can recording it, or
synthesizing it, NOT be an improvement?
Who would want to listen to music in an acoustically dead room?

Who *does* listen to music in an acoustically dead room? Not me. I'm quite
familiar with the acoustics of my room(s), and can learn the acoustics of
others' rooms fairly quickly (most humans have this ability... I'm not
special in that regard). The ambiance added to the playback by the room is
preferable to layering another ambiance on top of it. It's OK in movie
theaters, but I don't want to hear it at home.

If your listening room is adding significant ambience to the playback -- it's
not a good listening room.

On the other hand, if one is going to add synthesized ambiance to a
recording, it is probably better to do it in acoustically dead rooms. ;-)

A decent listening room has reflections that arrive sooner, and a much shorter
RT60, than most performance venues. The synthesized ambience thus swamps the
room acoustics.

The JVC hall synthesizer has a setting for the room's reverb time. The
synthesizer produces less reverberation for times below this setting.

It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never heard
a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without it. It's
natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the illusion of
realism.

[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 10:54 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


A decent listening room has reflections that arrive sooner, and a much
shorter RT60, than most performance venues. The synthesized ambience
thus swamps the room acoustics.



So now we have any recorded ambience, the listening room's ambience,
plus synthesised ambience. Swamped in ambience ? Yuck.
It's obvious these objections posted come from listeners who have never
heard a proper demonstration of hall synthesis. I never listen without
it. It's natural-sounding, never obtrusive, and greatly enhances the
illusion of realism.

It what you are listen to necessitates a "hall"....

geoff