Exactly the "practical" approach I was talking about
By the way, I don't think there are many recordings compatible with crosstalk cancellation. Stereo is NOT a binaural reproduction technique. It works BECAUSE of crosstalk. At the same time crosstalk introduces significant errors.
The problem is not loudspeaker design but stereo itself. Stereo is not a binaural technique. Even if one could make loudpspeakers into "binaural projectors", virtually all recordings are made with and for two speaker stereo (crosstalk) playback. This is where the discussion needs to start, not end
I would love to see the recording industry record in binaural or the like, but we are not on thet forum. For this forum we must talk about how to adapt traditional recordings into 2 channel or multi channel presentations. This simply cannot be done with traditional playback techniques. We have to move our mains closer together and incorporate crosstalk cancellation.The problem is not loudspeaker design but stereo itself. Stereo is not a binaural technique. Even if one could make loudpspeakers into "binaural projectors", virtually all recordings are made with and for two speaker stereo (crosstalk) playback. This is where the discussion needs to start, not end
Everybody has been discussing the same malarkey on these forums for ages....
how far have we gotten?
I have not been around here much lately because frankly, I'm boared to tears with these tired arguments.
Let's try to be more adventurous in our thought process.
Markus
I read it, or reread it as it was all very familiar. Not much new to me. Two points:
1) He is talking about recording techniques and not loudspeaker reproduction, so quoting this paper in discussion of playback would be inappropriate unless you explain why you think it is relevant.
2) He clearly states that his discussion is only valid for recordings in live venues where an exact reproduction of this venue is desired. This means that it has no relevance to the 95% of music releases for which this is not the case. This is, of course (here he goes again) a big pet peeve of mine - the audiophiles assumption that "sound reproduction is only worthy of consideration if classic music is the source. Unless one listens to classical music the quality of reproduction is not important - others don't care." This is total nonsense and leads to no end of bad assumptions and discussion that only apply if the audiophiles assumption is valid.
I never listen to classical music at home, I get enough of it live to satisfy me, but I am still passionate about music. To me the playback has to be dead accurate to the recording.This approach does not always give the "best compromise" to the "audiophile assumption" - that I will agree to, but it does seem to work well for the Blumlein approach to stereo. (Spaced mics on my system just sounds like open air music everywhere with no image at all.) Clearly accuracy is the best for me and for a whole lot of other people.
If one looks around at what is happening to orchestras and opera companies it may well be that a marketplace that aims at satisfying the "audiophile assumption" may well go bankrupt along with the source companies that it intends to reproduce. In other words, the reproduction may be complete right down to obsolescence.
If I were younger I would write a paper like Stan's for non-original venue reproductions. But just like Stan, who is about my age, I just don't do much writing anymore. (Stan is an old friend - I have even stayed at his home before.)
I read it, or reread it as it was all very familiar. Not much new to me. Two points:
1) He is talking about recording techniques and not loudspeaker reproduction, so quoting this paper in discussion of playback would be inappropriate unless you explain why you think it is relevant.
2) He clearly states that his discussion is only valid for recordings in live venues where an exact reproduction of this venue is desired. This means that it has no relevance to the 95% of music releases for which this is not the case. This is, of course (here he goes again
) a big pet peeve of mine - the audiophiles assumption that "sound reproduction is only worthy of consideration if classic music is the source. Unless one listens to classical music the quality of reproduction is not important - others don't care." This is total nonsense and leads to no end of bad assumptions and discussion that only apply if the audiophiles assumption is valid.I never listen to classical music at home, I get enough of it live to satisfy me, but I am still passionate about music. To me the playback has to be dead accurate to the recording.This approach does not always give the "best compromise" to the "audiophile assumption" - that I will agree to, but it does seem to work well for the Blumlein approach to stereo. (Spaced mics on my system just sounds like open air music everywhere with no image at all.) Clearly accuracy is the best for me and for a whole lot of other people.
If one looks around at what is happening to orchestras and opera companies it may well be that a marketplace that aims at satisfying the "audiophile assumption" may well go bankrupt along with the source companies that it intends to reproduce. In other words, the reproduction may be complete right down to obsolescence.
If I were younger I would write a paper like Stan's for non-original venue reproductions. But just like Stan, who is about my age, I just don't do much writing anymore. (Stan is an old friend - I have even stayed at his home before.)
Gedlee, you have raised some questions that are important; also
subconsciously or dictated by evidence. To me, it seems that you are the most audiophile in true terms, as you don't allow any processment to be done between you and the music. As any infinitesimal deviation from the original sequence brings infinite grades of error, and that's not acceptable.
That happens since/when you know how the original sound of the instruments is and how it should be (in re-production).
The fact about musical reproduction at home is that you are allowed to sit in the first row of the theatre and have a precise and distinct sensation.
So, that depends on mic technique.
About ( now talking to Markus) the crosstalk in stereo...
We're not sensing only trough the ears but also the whole endoskeleton (?!) brings vibrational information; the skull itself is the container...but I think that you know that. I wish you are not tempted to ...ehm...measure diaphonic intercorrelation in human sensing
subconsciously or dictated by evidence. To me, it seems that you are the most audiophile in true terms, as you don't allow any processment to be done between you and the music. As any infinitesimal deviation from the original sequence brings infinite grades of error, and that's not acceptable.
That happens since/when you know how the original sound of the instruments is and how it should be (in re-production).
The fact about musical reproduction at home is that you are allowed to sit in the first row of the theatre and have a precise and distinct sensation.
So, that depends on mic technique.
About ( now talking to Markus) the crosstalk in stereo...
We're not sensing only trough the ears but also the whole endoskeleton (?!) brings vibrational information; the skull itself is the container...but I think that you know that. I wish you are not tempted to ...ehm...measure diaphonic intercorrelation in human sensing
Markus
I read it, or reread it as it was all very familiar. Not much new to me. Two points:
1) He is talking about recording techniques and not loudspeaker reproduction, so quoting this paper in discussion of playback would be inappropriate unless you explain why you think it is relevant.
2) He clearly states that his discussion is only valid for recordings in live venues where an exact reproduction of this venue is desired. This means that it has no relevance to the 95% of music releases for which this is not the case. This is, of course (here he goes again
Did we read a different paper?? Neither #1 nor #2 is true. He talks about what 2 speaker stereo is and how it differs from binaural. His discussion is not only relevant to coincident microphone techniques but to interchannel intensity based recordings in general, which is about 99% of all recordings.
Please don't make me cite large parts of the paper. It's really all in the first 3 chapters.
The assumption that this is a major factor in hearing doesn't become true just by repeating it. Any references, research, etc.?
Indeed it's not a major fact, but still exists.
It is demostrated that hearing is a sense that has ears as organum.
It is demonstrated that sound is a vibrational phenomenon that happens on our planet.
Music is a thing that does not exist in nature and has been created by men -well, also Gandharvas if you are into Hinduism - and the instruments for producing music has been perfected in thousand years history without the need of any instrumentation but skill & ear.
It is demostrated that hearing is a sense that has ears as organum.
It is demonstrated that sound is a vibrational phenomenon that happens on our planet.
Music is a thing that does not exist in nature and has been created by men -well, also Gandharvas if you are into Hinduism - and the instruments for producing music has been perfected in thousand years history without the need of any instrumentation but skill & ear.
That's the only relevant point. Is it a major issue or not? Now you've said it yourself, it's not.
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about any 'issues' that happen in human perception.
It's like that and stop !
The skull is one and the ears are two. Any problem with that ?
Vibrations pass thru our body and can reach inner limbical or whatever nerve.
Still, any problem with that ?
The re-creation of a recorded event need space to make it happen again -
it needs to be evolved again in time and space. HPs don't allow the 'space' parameter to be recreated. Again, any problem with that ?
It's like that and stop !
The skull is one and the ears are two. Any problem with that ?
Vibrations pass thru our body and can reach inner limbical or whatever nerve.
Still, any problem with that ?
The re-creation of a recorded event need space to make it happen again -
it needs to be evolved again in time and space. HPs don't allow the 'space' parameter to be recreated. Again, any problem with that ?
A bit OT.
Music is any sound that vary with time and sounds 'musical' to the ear.
Many birds produce very musical sounds and so do many insects in the forest !
That surely is of " Natural origin ? ".
The "space parameter" is the wave field at our ears. It can easily be recreated with headphones. It's very hard to recreate a wave field with speakers. Even Blumlein was aware of this. Please read his original "stereo" patent.
Again, tactile sensations aren't a significant factor in hearing. Significant is what our ear drum does. No speaker needed. Headphones will do.
Furthermore, two speaker stereo has a myriad of problems. It isn't a binaural technique. It's listening in an interference field. That field is created by two speakers (in a room). The left speaker is also heard by the right ear and the right speaker is also heard by the left ear. This is the basis of stereo. Level differences are "converted" to matching time differences at lower frequencies because of that interference field.
I figured that we would interpret the paper differently, we always do. But I'll stand by my comments.
But if accuracy is the goal then one need not use musical instruments as the judge, test signals are just as good if not better. There is then no personal judgment involved as those are always less stable.
This isn't correct and there is a wealth of data supporting this. In automotive, binaural playback over headphones of vehicle noise is quite common. Extensive studies have shown that below about 100 Hz there is significant interaction between tactile and acoustic sensations. Listening just over headphones is not sufficient if the true sense below 100 Hz is to be achieved.
What you say is true, of course, above 100 Hz. but not below.
She might disagree
Evelyn Glennie: How to truly listen | Video on TED.com
It is a bit more complicated than ear drum vs. tactile, they need each other as well as the eyes sometimes.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.