There is a way to faithfully reproduce the audio scene and it's the best way....
Binaural audio! But this requires a dummy head recording.
So the next best thing as far as I know (with just two speakers) is ambiophonics.
Sorry. Seem to be "clarity impaired" recently.
When discussing purely objective based designs vs. any subjective influence on that design:
Your response (post 628):
"All of my designs are purely objective - nothing has ever been done based on anything personally subjective.."
(..and I believe that the overall message of that sentence is still within context even if the quote is abbreviated.)
I then suggest that *perhaps* your designs have inadvertently "bypassed" some pitfalls in a design that would otherwise result in poorer performance - subjective performance (..not objective performance).
Further, I suggest one area where this is often the case among all designs - potentially even your own: the subjective perception of depth from a design.
You then suggest that you expressly design to avoid such pitfalls. That your designs take into account those conditions - including my example of subjective depth reproduction. (..this was post 635.)
It's at this point that I'm wondering just how you might avoid such pitfalls without utilizing subjective evaluation - specifically with respect to subjective depth reproduction.
The portion of my latest post that you quoted is the ONLY way I now how to OBJECTIVELY improve upon the subjective impression of depth, basically two very similar formats for creating an objective "depression" in the frequency response that usually improves the subjective impression of depth.
I don't know how to improve upon "depth" in any given design any other way than that, OBJECTIVELY. Other than that, I have never read anything other than subjective evaluation "tweaking" that has made an improvement in depth (in normal loudspeaker design).
What are you doing *objectively* that expressly accounts for an improved subjective depth perspective from your designs?
Or, are your results (without disparagement) somewhat lucky in this regard?
Or, do you in fact use subjective evaluation to some degree to obtain an improved subjective depth perspective?
Clearer?
I'm still waiting for the first binaural movie, shot in the first person and viewed through an OLED HMD with a 4k resolution, 60fps and a 120 degree angle.
After that experience, I think we can all agree that it's time to retire from this forum
The funny thing is.....it's possible right now!
After that experience, I think we can all agree that it's time to retire from this forum
The funny thing is.....it's possible right now!
I've tried Keele's barrier technique lately but all I can say is, it doesn't work, at all. There was no depth and widening to the sound stage. I even listened to the songs specifically recommended by Keele.
Really expected better because RACE processed material had some sort of added spaciousness (although it sounded very artificial).
Setup: 2x2m cardboard barrier with no absorption, Behringer B2031P placed as close as possible.
I'm still waiting for the first binaural movie, shot in the first person and viewed through an OLED HMD with a 4k resolution, 60fps and a 120 degree angle.
After that experience, I think we can all agree that it's time to retire from this forum
The funny thing is.....it's possible right now!
HRTFs are like fingerprints, they differ from person to person. Find a way to record and mix audio in a binaural, HRTF-independent format which can be played back on common speaker setups and on HRTF-individualized setups.
Looks like every experiment you conduct results in a failure. Fate ?
Are you doing any better?
There might very well be numerous reasons why the IMP "outperformed" (even if nearly insignificantly), the Beheringer and Orion.
However, the point was to help clarify just ONE aspect (Direct Sound vs. Reflected Sound) of why the IMP obtained it's improved results.
More specifically to preclude the almost automatic response by others that the primary reason is because of Reflections.
(..basically a way to isolate two distinct variables at least to some extent.)
I'm not mentioning this to formulate opinion on why the IMP sounds the way it does, but rather to provide a caution to others that they can't know that it sounds the way it does (when compared to other designs) because of reflections without some sort of isolated comparison.
Essentially I'm providing a means (if somewhat flawed) for testing their own hypothesis that the explanation for improved performance from the IMP is the result of reflections.
The testing of course should be a theoretical "1-1", or basically should have included the same participants under the exact same testing conditions (except of course for listening in a free-field condition). Under that testing scheme it really doesn't matter if the ABX test is flawed or not (..and it may well have been), because the flaw is carried over to the free-field test (i.e. reasonably identical conditions except for free-field vs. in-room).
Of course because its now after the fact, and because we really aren't concerned with the responses of *others*, it would be more of testing condition for each interested individual.
i.e.
1. build an IMP,
2. compare to your own loudspeakers that you think are good in-room; objectively place values on subjective performance.
3. IF your results are similar (you preferred the IMP's presentation),
"Rinse and Repeat" in a free-field condition.
4. If your results in free-field are dissimilar to your results in-room then you have reasonably concluded (as a hobbyist), that your hypothesis is correct. IF not, then you have likely concluded that another factor owing to direct sound is responsible for your preference.
Either way, you would want to expand upon those tests in an attempt to understand the process better to ultimately improve upon the design to achieve better results.
Last edited:
Of course it won't be perfect, but it is as close as you can get without ultra high order ambisonics.
Binaural only differs between people at pinna frequencies, and not all that much even then.
High order ambisonics - where can I buy that?
As much as I know that Gerzon's ideas are correct on a mathematical level, I doubt they are correct on a psychoacoustical level. You know the Toole anecdote when Ambisonics completely failed in an anechoic room?
I have no intent of saving anyone from their own folly. If you want to be ignorant, that's your problem.
My intent is simply to educate less experienced audio enthusiasts, so they make educated choices rather than be suckered by pseudoscientific marketing.
Particularly in regard to DIY, I believe in Open Source Hardware (akin to Open Source Software). Commercializing this hobby does not benefit the community at large.
Last edited:
The Open Source Software movement is a good example. I no longer have a need to pay for MS Windows, as I use Linux at home. Work is a different story, but I have no control over that.
You can't of course. That's the point.
I don't hang on to every point toole makes, or any other audio guru for that matter.
You are right though, I should have said the theory of ambisonics.
But the consequence of pinna cues being slightly off with binaral does not compare to the incompetence of stereo's effort, or even multichannel for that matter.
This analogy under your previous quote would imply that MS Windows does not benefit the "community".
Linux is very much dependent on the commercial success of Windows - it's an inter-relationship based on competition.
Note that "Open Source" is still about property rights, and property rights have always been about "commercial" interest.
Said differently: "Open Source" is not quite so altruistic as many assume.
Additionally SL's designs are in fact rather "open-source" like. He provides a lot of detail about each design (comparatively speaking), so that those who actually have the ability to otherwise modify the design - could certainly build it with reasonable similarity (and then modify it if they thought they could improve upon it).
Greater specifics to the design (in a more user friendly step-by-step process) are provided for fee. ..And not a large fee when compared to expense of building the design (..and certainly not when compared to the time and effort to create the design).
Many open-source providers seeking some measure of profit from their IP are similar: Selling "manuals" and/or "user support". ..And often at prices *way* beyond what we would ordinarily think of as the cost of the software.
Last edited:
OT posts removed. Let's keep to the technical discussion.
I like the CBT concept though. The one that makes sound, that is. It has many very desirable characteristics. Would love to hear one some day.