What? You are having some serious problems with yourself, seems to be.
"it sounds like an orchestra" If this is the level of your perception, then what else there is to say.
"it sounds like an orchestra" If this is the level of your perception, then what else there is to say.
Ralph
has it ever been tried to use WAVES in a conventional 5.1 or 7.1 setup?
Best, Markus
can You tell us please how exactly your multi-way omni-dipole setup looks alike?
It seems to be completely different from single driver closed box that I have built. I wonder what can be the operating principle common to them.
best,
graaf
Here is something relatively new for the discussion TKK Akustiikka / TKK Acoustics Laboratory / Research / Spatial sound / Directional audio coding
The idea is this. Spatial attributes of a recording are analyzed or synthesized from scratch. This data is then used to render the performance using arbitrary loudspeaker arrangement. A good candidate for a universal audio format for distribution and playback.
There are some demos for conventional 5.0 arrangement. I don't have a multi-channel set so can't comment.
The idea is this. Spatial attributes of a recording are analyzed or synthesized from scratch. This data is then used to render the performance using arbitrary loudspeaker arrangement. A good candidate for a universal audio format for distribution and playback.
There are some demos for conventional 5.0 arrangement. I don't have a multi-channel set so can't comment.
No. I do have the Denon recording and it is a useful research tool. But to have a concert-hall sound at home one wants the stage ambience to come from the front speakers and the rear ambience not to. So an ideal two channel recording system uses a microphone that just picks up frontal sound, direct and indirect. This signal is then properly reproduced by the front speakers, preferably without crosstalk so that the directional properties of all the direct and reflective sounds are correctly delivered to the ears.
If only a frontal pair has been recorded then one can use a hall impulse response to generate signals for side, rear and ceiling ambience. Alternatively one can use a second stereo microphone just behind the frontal mic pair to record the rear half of the hall. It is important that this rear facing mic not be exposed to the front stage. The Panambiophone is designed to make 4.0 surround recordings this way. You can try some of these recordings by downloading them from the Ambiophonic.org website and see pictures of the Ambiophone.
I do have to tell you that there are no commercial Ambiophonic recordings available at this time. Chesky and others simply refuse to try this method. But despite the CD/LP lack of theoretical purity, most ordinary large ensemble 2.0 recordings sound fine played Ambiophonically since they are not anechoic.
Ralph Glasgal
Home Page
I reread that part of Toole and you are misquoting it and taking it out of context. The study that you refer to was done in an anechoic chamber and was not a real precise experiment so it is a poor choice as supporting evidence. That said, the results were also mixed with the trained listeners preferring high directivity and the novices preferrring the wider directivity. Toole then goes on to point out several researchers who found that high directivity was prefered.
You have picked the data that supports your position, but conveniently ignored that which did not.
As I have always said, this issue is controversial. But nowhere is anbody suggesting that a "ceiling flooder" is a good approach. The question is directional CD versus non-directional CD - no other option is even consider viable.
Yes you can use WAVES IR halls to feed two or four surround speakers placed as in 5.1 or 7.1. But you should understand that there is nothing magical about the placement of the 5.1 or 7.1 angles. In general if you can only have four surround speakers then they are best placed at the sides toward the rear. This is because research on halls shows the best ones to have strong lateral reflections followed by rear, then ceiling and finally frontal.
That is humans prefer halls where the ambience is as uncorrelated as possible so this is true for the sides then the rear and finally the ceiling. Ceiling ambience is essentially mono and so is less interesting to the brain. But experiments show that humans like to have all three reverb fields coming to them.
If you make a comparison between the 7.1 signals from a DVD or home theater processor and the signals generated by WAVES, WAVES wins every time in my opinion and with WAVES you can add as many speakers as you like. Of course this does not apply to movie sound effects. For direct sound at the rear you want to use two speakers just behind the listening position and crosstalk cancel them. Then you have the full 180 wide rear sound stage that some movies actually have. If you crosstalk cancel the front pair you get 360 degrees and never need a center speaker. How to do all this for free is on the Ambiophonics website.
Ralph Glasgal
Home Page
IF symphonic music in a large hall were my pashion, then this would certainly be the manner in which I woiuld pursue that goal. I completely understand what is being done and technically it is the correct approach. I have the highest respect for Dr. Farina his work is exemplary.
Alas, this kind of thing is only ever going to have a small audience as society today is just not interested in the classic approach to music. It makes up an ever shrinking aspect of the market both for live as well as recorded music. I'm not going to side with whether this is right or wrong, only that it is a fact. But it is a fact that I personally cannot argue against.
Alas, this kind of thing is only ever going to have a small audience as society today is just not interested in the classic approach to music. It makes up an ever shrinking aspect of the market both for live as well as recorded music. I'm not going to side with whether this is right or wrong, only that it is a fact. But it is a fact that I personally cannot argue against.
You must understand that Ambiophonics also works for games, video, movies, rock concerts, new age, electronic music, etc. It also is great on laptops and PC speaker stuff. It is also possible that once one can have a true concert-hall experience in the home, classical music may make a comeback. But it has ever been thus. Only about 3% of the humans in any country like classical music. But this minority supports all the orchestras, all the opera houses, and all the composers. Not only are they wealthy, but influential enough to get government to help pay the bills. They also buy their share of the top end audiophile hardware.
Ralph Glasgal
I agree with Earl. A successful implementation needs to enable reproduction of as many auditory spaces as possible. It needs to maintain compatibility with common stereo (which I consider a cultural phenomenon like music for halls or music for churches) while enabling better spatial control by the recording itself.
So it's probably just a problem with the recording industry that refuse to use the available tools and formats.
Best, Markus
So it's probably just a problem with the recording industry that refuse to use the available tools and formats.
Best, Markus
I am well aware of these facts as well and the fact that many orchestras are going broke because this source of funding is drying up. I have many friends who are professional classical musicians and I hear the same thing from all of them. As a business, classical music is going away.
I recently downloaded Hotto's Ambiophonic audio player.
It brings up some issues for me that apply to simple stereo.
Playing classical music, whether orchestral or chamber, I was put in amongst the musicians. A very impressive effect. But, to me it wasn't "natural". I didn't like it. That's not where I sit when I go to a concert.
Even in stereo, speakers seem to fall into one of three different spatial presentations:
-all music is ALWAYS "in" the room. You are amongst the musicians.
-you are ALWAYS in the acoustic of the recorded venue. You look out at the musicians from a variable distance depending on the recording.
-both presentations are possible depending on the recording. e.g. with classical, the concert hall is not in your room, but you are in the concert hall. With girl and guitar, the music IS in the room.
These different presentations seem to be possible with nominally flat on-axis responses. I don't know how they correlate with the off-axis response.
I see the ability to portray both ends of the presentation spectrum as desirable.
Are there any suggestions as to the factors involved?
David
It brings up some issues for me that apply to simple stereo.
Playing classical music, whether orchestral or chamber, I was put in amongst the musicians. A very impressive effect. But, to me it wasn't "natural". I didn't like it. That's not where I sit when I go to a concert.
Even in stereo, speakers seem to fall into one of three different spatial presentations:
-all music is ALWAYS "in" the room. You are amongst the musicians.
-you are ALWAYS in the acoustic of the recorded venue. You look out at the musicians from a variable distance depending on the recording.
-both presentations are possible depending on the recording. e.g. with classical, the concert hall is not in your room, but you are in the concert hall. With girl and guitar, the music IS in the room.
These different presentations seem to be possible with nominally flat on-axis responses. I don't know how they correlate with the off-axis response.
I see the ability to portray both ends of the presentation spectrum as desirable.
Are there any suggestions as to the factors involved?
David
I am not
I only repost quotes posted here earlier by el'Ol
well, Dr Toole referred to it, who am I to judge His choice of supporting evidence? Besides He is referring to research results published in scientific publication.
I understand that You are questioning scientific value of the publication?
Tell me - what is wrong about using anechoic chamber in such an audiblity test? What was imprecise in the experiment in Your opinion?
not at all, testing preferences for a type of presentation and testing audibility of alleged degradation of imaging are two separate things, aren't they?
I could say in response that You conveniently ignore the fact that about a half of professionals taking part in those tests declared that they could produce music with such disastrous wide dispersion speakers, disastrous according to Yout standard of course
because it is not discussed at all, perhaps due to an alleged (by You) marketing bias of a Harman employee?
they don't sell any flooders
isn't the flooder CD laterally? isn't the detrimental floor VER eliminated? isn't the ceiling VER delayed as much as 10 ms?
best regards,
graaf
Well that is a problem for your position since this "report" was never peer reviewed or published, it was only ever given as a "paper" at a convention. All convention papers are reviewed after the conference and those that are deemed to be good work are reviewed and may be published. That paper was not published which means that it was not deemed to be well done or it was reviewed and rejected. Either way, its not data source that I would consider highly reputable.
Floyd is very careful on this exact point of directivity to say that there are widely variant results. And most of his conclusions suporting wide directivity are based on tests and loudspeakers from the 70's - not a good basis for data IMO. Modren CD loudspeakers are vastly better than those of decades ago. Further he never studied high directivity loudspeakers in a room designed for high directivity loudspeakers. The listening rooms were all standard types which are optimized around standard loudspeaker designs.
I change BOTH the loudspeaker AND the room to augment each other. This has never been considered in any valid study and the only results that are available for this approach are those reviews of my room that I have posted. I am perfectly content to stand by those results as the only ones that represent an impression of what I claim to be the correct approach.
I understand, yet Dr Toole somewhat felt that He could refer to this allegedly substandard paper, therefore I also feel that I am allowed, especially as I can find concurring personal observations at gearslutz (from professionals that have opportunity to listen to Moultonian studio setups)
well, same can be said about the flooder idea, all I have are personal reviews from people who tried it and posted their observations here - like El'Ol, Etienne88, Elias or tinitus
and measurements done by them (El'Ol and Etienne88)
these are the only results
and I am also perfectly content to stand by those results
best regards,
graaf
You can refer to it, just be careful calling "proof" of anything.
One can make up any kind of speaker setup and say that its valid because it hasn't been tested and proved otherwise. Mine included. The key comes in the assumptions made and the supporting data used in defining this setup. Are they reasonable? and made from valid information? I believe that what Markus and I have been saying is that "sure you approach has not been tested", BUT "it is not based on valid assumptions and data". It appears to be based on what you would like to be true and your personal preference for a highly spacious sound. Within this context you are probably correct, but that's a pretty narrow context.
Then I guess that we are done and others will have to decide thiose reviewers were unbiased.
Last edited:
Why do we want to replicate the concert hall experience at home? For me, listening to records is something else. Records can be significantly better than live performances in many ways!
When Decca startet with stereo recording in the late fifties, they were quite clear on that stereo records was a new medium, especially when they did the Wagner operas. On records they could do things better and different than in the theater, and even do things that are impossible in a live performance. Even back then they did overdubs and a lots of editing.
When we know that no recordings are a 1:1 image of a real acoustic event, why use the "real thing" as reference?
When Decca startet with stereo recording in the late fifties, they were quite clear on that stereo records was a new medium, especially when they did the Wagner operas. On records they could do things better and different than in the theater, and even do things that are impossible in a live performance. Even back then they did overdubs and a lots of editing.
When we know that no recordings are a 1:1 image of a real acoustic event, why use the "real thing" as reference?
StgErik - I quite agree. I do not buy the premise that the replication of a concert hall sound is the goal. Perhaps its possible in extreme situations, and perhaps there are a few would would endevour to do that, but its not me and its not many. I take "stereo" at face value as the medium that it is - what its good at doing and what it isn't.
Absolutely and for most music out there, the stereo recording is the original. This is a fundamental cultural change. Todays music is specifically made for stereo playback like symphonic music was made for concert hall "playback".
