This was the reason i linked to the plastickman track 'ping-pong'. It does use an analog delay and Haas effect with panning in a wide range of delay. Some of them are in the 5/6ms range (determined by hear) and as this is not a 'natural' sound (simpler than an acoustic sound) it is interesting and easier to detect if the effect is correctly rendered using Linkwitz approach (dipole).
Once you are well into the Haas effect range and if the level is low enough your brain will detach direct sound from the one from the room. This does have an effect if the reverb is not even in frequency but it should not disrupt your brain processing from spatial clues as the integration of both (direct and reverb) is dissociated in time.
Do you guy s does have a software like wavelab or the like which accept vst or rtas plug ins? Because if you have there is alot of very good reverbs plug ins availlable for you to test and check all this by yourself.
It is easy to source relatively dry signal from 'mixing contest' or recording archive and play with the effects to hear what it is all about.
You could even try some first class reverb in evaluation/trials mode (Lexicon PCM comes to mind but Valhala or even convolution reverbs like Waves IR1).
Bbuterfield: you should look at what Griesienger call 'clarity', the concept will interest you.
Last edited:
Lot's of good discussion going on here. I haven't listened to stereo speakers in an anechoic chamber but I doubt it's that similar to using headphones, because of HRTFs. However, I think it's a great thought experiment to highlight the problem with stereo depth: Even if we record reflections of a space with our mic technique, information is lost. Although the time delay and magnitude of a reflection is captured, the angle of arrival most likely is not... or if it is, it can't be re-created correctly with stereo speakers. In an anechoic chamber, every sound the listener hears will (appear to) originate from a spot between the speakers. Is this sufficient to produce a feeling of depth? What about a feeling of envelopment?
In contrast, our rooms can reflect energy from angles that aren't between the speakers, but this reflection wasn't contained in the recording. This may be sufficient for creating a sense of depth and/or envelopment, but it's not authentic to the recording, and the same transfer function would be applied to all recordings.
Interestingly, I keep seeing recommendations for symmetry in listening rooms, but if we intend for our room reflections to reduce inter-aural correlations, we need asymmetry. Additionally, perfect symmetry may negatively impact our perception of tonal balance, by creating the same frequency interference patterns in both ears.
Perhaps surround sound has the best chance of recreating authentic reflection information, but it's not popular. I have some SACDs and DVD-audio disks, and I usually prefer stereo listening even with those. Perhaps they weren't mixed to authentically recreate the recording venue though. I think often times the surround channels are used for effects, or general ambiance that isn't in any way authentic.
So assuming we stick with stereo, what gives the most realistic presentation? If the recording engineers / mixers wanted reflections from between the speakers, they can get them there, right? So perhaps we don't want reflections from the front wall, or from the floor and ceiling, which could similarly be addressed on the recording since our vertical acuity is so poor. But perhaps we want some side-wall (lateral) or even back-wall reflections to do what the speakers can't do. The question is with what delay, at what level, and from what angle.
In contrast, our rooms can reflect energy from angles that aren't between the speakers, but this reflection wasn't contained in the recording. This may be sufficient for creating a sense of depth and/or envelopment, but it's not authentic to the recording, and the same transfer function would be applied to all recordings.
Interestingly, I keep seeing recommendations for symmetry in listening rooms, but if we intend for our room reflections to reduce inter-aural correlations, we need asymmetry. Additionally, perfect symmetry may negatively impact our perception of tonal balance, by creating the same frequency interference patterns in both ears.
Perhaps surround sound has the best chance of recreating authentic reflection information, but it's not popular. I have some SACDs and DVD-audio disks, and I usually prefer stereo listening even with those. Perhaps they weren't mixed to authentically recreate the recording venue though. I think often times the surround channels are used for effects, or general ambiance that isn't in any way authentic.
So assuming we stick with stereo, what gives the most realistic presentation? If the recording engineers / mixers wanted reflections from between the speakers, they can get them there, right? So perhaps we don't want reflections from the front wall, or from the floor and ceiling, which could similarly be addressed on the recording since our vertical acuity is so poor. But perhaps we want some side-wall (lateral) or even back-wall reflections to do what the speakers can't do. The question is with what delay, at what level, and from what angle.
I guess the other dipole enthusiasts are hiding out over in the planar forum.
I think the problem starts with people thinking they know what sound should come out of the point-source stereo speakers and exactly what sound is needed to convince listeners they are in Carnegie Hall. If that arrogant assumption were true, all the comments above would make sense or at least be grist for discussion.
Dipoles fill the left and right sides of your "listening stage" with good helpings of left- and right-field sounds and your brain does the rest. It is harder for your brain to "do the rest" when all the sound emanates from two small shiny boxes.
(About suppressing the rear sound, most comments I have heard say it makes the dipole sound poorer. That observation alone contradicts the sense of some previous comments.)
B.
I think the problem starts with people thinking they know what sound should come out of the point-source stereo speakers and exactly what sound is needed to convince listeners they are in Carnegie Hall. If that arrogant assumption were true, all the comments above would make sense or at least be grist for discussion.
Dipoles fill the left and right sides of your "listening stage" with good helpings of left- and right-field sounds and your brain does the rest. It is harder for your brain to "do the rest" when all the sound emanates from two small shiny boxes.
(About suppressing the rear sound, most comments I have heard say it makes the dipole sound poorer. That observation alone contradicts the sense of some previous comments.)
B.
Last edited:
Excuse me Ben but what are you talking about please?
In other word could you explain clearly your point?
If you think the discussion doesn t have an interest then ok no need to be part of.
If you have a point of view and do think there is issue in thought then go for it and explain. Otherwise i do not see your point... ?
In other word could you explain clearly your point?
If you think the discussion doesn t have an interest then ok no need to be part of.
If you have a point of view and do think there is issue in thought then go for it and explain. Otherwise i do not see your point... ?
1. Your brain creates the sound stage based on cues that support perceptions of "Carnegie Hall" and discarding to the extent cognitively possible the cues that support "your room". Your music room provides a substantial body of sound cues indicating you are sitting and listening in your music room; but the signals shaped by a recording engineer, in their wisdom and with many tools to use, to promote the perception of Carnegie Hall have to overcome those cues.
2. It is easier for your brain to create a coherent sound stage from the sound cues in the room arising from dipole speakers as compared to small-sized sources. One reason is because small-sized sources provide too many trustworthy ("ecologically valid") sound cues that conflict with perceiving Carnegie Hall in your room.
BTW, anybody who wants a really terrific sound stage should simply install a wall-to-wall scrim curtain in front of their speakers. I wonder if krivium will find that puzzling? I bet bbutterfield will find it interesting.
And krivium, if you don't like what I have to post, YOU can stop reading it.... instead of rudely asking me to get lost.
B.
Last edited:
Probably you meant echo-locating and not ecologically.
Echolocalization is how blind people find themselves into space.
Dear Mister Bentoronto,
I m deeply sorry if my words had been misunderstood. I didn t mean to be rude with you and didn t think you should 'get lost'*.
English not being my native language sometimes reading between lines is not easy especially when it is 4am in this part of our small world. I thought i asked politely if the whole discussion is pointless to you so in these case not to be part of it or if you have a point of view to discuss it and express your view. Maybe that is me badly expressing myself, maybe it is cultural difference in the way we express respect i don t know.
Now you did and i m happy with that, because i wasn t sure the laconic statement you made about arrogance was about the subject or someone expressing itself.
So you ve got something personal about me. Well fine.
From someone who know where 'the final frontier' in audio is i understand because I don t know where it is and i still wonder and it may be an irritating behavior to someone 'in the knows'.
It seems to me too that it is obvious you don t have read the whole thread as some assumption you
make about me, my room or my speaker are just plainly wrong.
I do apologize again and i m really happy to had been the withness of some very fine use of what i call "political rethoric" move pointed against me.
If you had not thought about it i suggest you may consider a carrier in that field.
Doing it 'a l'envers' as we call it in french (upside down) is a nice example of mastering of the art of discussion.
You 'll have my vote if you do so, be sure.
Respectfuly ( because i do think that someone involved in a field for almost 60 years deserve it for the amount of knowledge and experience he have and the willing he have to share.),
I m sincerely yours.
*i will still read your post mr Bentoronto. I don t think that people which are not in agreement with me (given this is what you think i am) should "get lost". Quite the opposite in fact.
The history attribute (probably wrongly) to Voltaire the following sentence "je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrais jusqu a ma mort pour que vous puissiez l'exprimer" ( "i don t agree with what you say but i ll fight to death for you to have the right to express it"). I try to make this mine.
I m deeply sorry if my words had been misunderstood. I didn t mean to be rude with you and didn t think you should 'get lost'*.
English not being my native language sometimes reading between lines is not easy especially when it is 4am in this part of our small world. I thought i asked politely if the whole discussion is pointless to you so in these case not to be part of it or if you have a point of view to discuss it and express your view. Maybe that is me badly expressing myself, maybe it is cultural difference in the way we express respect i don t know.
Now you did and i m happy with that, because i wasn t sure the laconic statement you made about arrogance was about the subject or someone expressing itself.
So you ve got something personal about me. Well fine.
From someone who know where 'the final frontier' in audio is i understand because I don t know where it is and i still wonder and it may be an irritating behavior to someone 'in the knows'.
It seems to me too that it is obvious you don t have read the whole thread as some assumption you
make about me, my room or my speaker are just plainly wrong.
I do apologize again and i m really happy to had been the withness of some very fine use of what i call "political rethoric" move pointed against me.
If you had not thought about it i suggest you may consider a carrier in that field.
Doing it 'a l'envers' as we call it in french (upside down) is a nice example of mastering of the art of discussion.
You 'll have my vote if you do so, be sure.
Respectfuly ( because i do think that someone involved in a field for almost 60 years deserve it for the amount of knowledge and experience he have and the willing he have to share.),
I m sincerely yours.
*i will still read your post mr Bentoronto. I don t think that people which are not in agreement with me (given this is what you think i am) should "get lost". Quite the opposite in fact.
The history attribute (probably wrongly) to Voltaire the following sentence "je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrais jusqu a ma mort pour que vous puissiez l'exprimer" ( "i don t agree with what you say but i ll fight to death for you to have the right to express it"). I try to make this mine.
Last edited:
Bbuterfield: i wonder if when Griesinger talk about this concept of 'clarity' he is not talking about the 'critical distance' in other words.
Once he left Lexicon he is gone from virtual space rendering to real space rendering with the LARES concept. His description of the ball of fuzzy sound could be well attributed to critical distance in my understanding.
Once he left Lexicon he is gone from virtual space rendering to real space rendering with the LARES concept. His description of the ball of fuzzy sound could be well attributed to critical distance in my understanding.
No. For "ecological validity" and why yellow bananas are ripe, seeProbably you meant echo-locating and not ecologically. Echolocalization is how blind people find themselves into space.
Ecological validity (perception - Wikipedia)
While there can be an objective assessment of ecological validity of cues (at least in principle), it is a mistake to think our brains prioritize cues by the same standard. For example, persons of the engineering persuasion believe visual stereopsis is the most ardent cue to depth because it is almost never false (at least in the abstract). But it isn't as influential a cue to depth as some others.
B.
Last edited:
This is also a good thread, the comments from John K are very useful in describing the differences
Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!?
"Last, preferences. There is no doubt that if you want the most accurate representation of what is recorded a direct radiator with relatively narrow beam width will generally provide that better than a dipole in a reverberant room, even one of modest reverberation. A dipole source will typically provide a greater level of early reflections which will obscure some spatial detail resulting in a more open sound. It is the same old argument, do you want a window on the performance as provided by a direct radiator, or do you want to bring a performance into you room, as generally provided by dipole type speakers? You don't need wave guide speaker to hear these differences. Small monitor like the LS3/5a and its spin offs are excellent at providing the type of image found with direct radiators."
I personally enjoy the dipole sound.
Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!?
"Last, preferences. There is no doubt that if you want the most accurate representation of what is recorded a direct radiator with relatively narrow beam width will generally provide that better than a dipole in a reverberant room, even one of modest reverberation. A dipole source will typically provide a greater level of early reflections which will obscure some spatial detail resulting in a more open sound. It is the same old argument, do you want a window on the performance as provided by a direct radiator, or do you want to bring a performance into you room, as generally provided by dipole type speakers? You don't need wave guide speaker to hear these differences. Small monitor like the LS3/5a and its spin offs are excellent at providing the type of image found with direct radiators."
I personally enjoy the dipole sound.
If you're implying that what we see impacts our perception of what we hear, then I agree with you. I'm not sure that the scrim curtain has a different theoretical impact than closing your eyes. Can you clarify?
I think the two are related, but that critical distance is a simplification.
Reading Griesinger's work, there's a few things that I can't quite make sense of. He stresses the importance of the phase of harmonics, but also dissects audio into critical bands about 1/3 octave wide. It seems to me that multiple harmonics of a fundamental will rarely occupy the same critical band.
Also, when I listen to chords played on a piano, a C major chord always sounds the same, but it's impossible for the players to always be hitting the keys with the same timing, which means my brain doesn't care about the phase relationship between the different notes that make up the chord.
So many interesting posts, I'm trying to catch up.
Ra7, good to see you join the party.
Ra7 came by to hear my Altec A5 system in the early stages, so we have a common reference. He visited me in Kona, but was about 2 months to early to hear my lava cave system. Really wish that had worked out. One day I'll get to hear his system.
Ra7, good to see you join the party.
Ra7 came by to hear my Altec A5 system in the early stages, so we have a common reference. He visited me in Kona, but was about 2 months to early to hear my lava cave system. Really wish that had worked out. One day I'll get to hear his system. The eyes do deceive, but I've found it's not the whole story. In your new house you really do have depth and you can hear it. The visuals help, but the reality of actual depth is there and you hear it. Your fortunate to have that space. Are you getting various levels of depth?
That's a good experiment, and having done it can tell you that the visuals don't need to be hidden because the difference is audible. In case you missed this one:
I've often read that listening to a stereo pair of speakers in an anechoic chamber is like listening to a pair of giant headphones. But that hasn't been my experience. As stated above HRTF makes it sound different. Even without reflections speakers still sound like speakers, I.E. not inside your head. Sure wish I could get headphones to sound like that.
I used that giant headphones phrase too, for a pair of large synergys in a small room. Naturally there is difference to hp's, because the sound appears to be in front of you. It is the clarity and punchiness, envelopment that is unbelieveable. I guess huge dominance of direct sound is the key in this case, like in nearfield. Listening distance was 3m and it sounded bettter than nearfield less than 1m. It was fascinating, but too intense for long time listening, for me. Personal thing for sure.
Height perception is provided by our HRTF.
Specifically, emphasising frequencies at about 10Khz will make a sound seem to come from higher than the speakers actual location. (Technically an upwards angular pitch relative to the listener)
I've heard this phenomena many times, with sounds convincingly seeming to originate several feet above the top of the speakers, and with speakers that emphasise 10Khz it can tend to make most recordings sound like this.
So if the sound seems to originate above the speakers on many recordings I would be checking the speakers for a response peak at 10Khz!
Last edited:
This is a constuctive argument for discussion sake. Thank you posting that Ben.
The last sentence you wrote i find interesting. Do you have some more information about that to share (reading, experience)?
You are probably right. I'm sorry not to have enough spare time at the moment to deepens my read of Griesienger's work.
I think this 1/3 ocatve division is a 'convention' measure in acoustic. But i can't remember why at the moment or i'm completly wrong about that!
This is related to the way our brain process the message. We are most sensitive to transcient to determine which instrument is played.
Almost all the information about the family of instrument (plucked/bowed string, hitted membrane,etc,etc,...) we hear is contained in the 4/5ms (at most iirc) at starting of sound. The decaying part are not as critical.
There is a simple experiment to make, just cut this transcient parts with a sample of guitar and a piano (single note) and use a progressive slow attack enveloppe on the remaining sound. It should be difficult to differ them.
One of my teacher had a mantra "ours hears are transcient captors".
Your C major chord (probably) doesn't sound the same each time you play it, there is some underlying 'beatings' which developps between each time. One could argue this is related to tune (which is true) but i talk about the same thing that happen when you listen to a bell's sound (big one's used on church).
They are tuned to a pitch but if you listen carefully they have some complex subharmonics 'beating' not nescessarely in tune with theyr pitch. This is the thing i'm refereing to.
Pano, Griesinger have developped some interesting headphone techniques he propose for anyone to test.
You just have to contact him by email and he will send you the soft and other goodies.
This is exactly what i am after. Yes personal preferences and the way i listen to music too. I'm really like to hear all the production tricks and aesthetical choices made by artists, producers and engineers.
And when this meets the emotion the artist expose (make ring my own emotion in sympathy) this just blow my mind!
As for every one here (within theyr own preference).
This seems inline with what i've read from Griesienger.
I would say something about recordings (of classical music mainly) and share an anecdot about a recording i've been part of.
More often classical recording are made using a single pair microphone (or three using 'grand A/B' in very big concert hall - which use a third omni mic at the apex of a triangle to fullfill the 'hole' in center created by the very large space used between the 'main' A/B couple) which is located more or less at the same location than the director. This microphones are usually lifted several meters over the head of the director.*
This has several obvious benefits as it give a more 'panoramical' SRA/view, help to give a better scene rendering ( much less physical masking of instruments by others which are much more in depth (physical location) of the scene, and it make the recording tools less obstrusive from a visual point.
But it change the way the 'floor bounce' from the orchestra is perceived from the director place. (i don't talk about the rendering you have from seat because it is considered -right or wrong this is an esthetical choice- that the best listening point IS the director place.)
If we forget reverberation rendering this point about floor bounce may give a disturbing clue to someone listening to this kind of recording as this is not something we are used to in real life.
About the anecdoct, i once worked on a short-film where all the originals recording where unusable. We had to redone every ambiance because of the windnoise on the original takes.
There was outdoor shots of 2 cars in a desert. The director (which was the prinicpal actor, camera and sound operator, editor,... well you've got the idea) tried to achieve this but there was something wrong with his try.
He located a mono microphone (as he didn't know how to perform a stereo rec) at 1.2m height at a parking lot and recorded his car moving along. Then edited takes and used reverbs to try rendering space.
I suggested we should try to find a location where ground would be made of same material as in the film and to try a stereo recording of the scene using same height as where the camera was initally located to shot the scene (about2.5m in height with a view from above) with ours 2 cars (each one performing the moves seen on scene separately and then mix the two takes together).
When he made the first assesment of quality (something he learned this day!
) sceptical about possible results, his eyes opened. He couldn't believe how close the illusion was from his memory of the original spot 10000km away from where we made the rerecording.I do think this floorbounce factor is at play in the way we perceive elevation too.
*you usually see other mics used in each intrument subsection. They are here as backup in case something doesn t translate well with the main couple or for aestetical choice made by director or producer. The lesser the use of them the better as they induce some phasyness mess, bleeding of other sections, tonal imbalance, etc,etc,...
Last edited:
Yes, I've also read the 7K gives a height effect and it does work for me. I suppose some of that is dependent on ear shape.
But the height illusion that fascinates me is different, and rare. I've heard systems - large systems, that could do very convincing height when it was there in the recording. Like making a cave sound not only wide and deep, but very tall. And hearing a recording of an orchestra and choir where the vertical positions of each level of the choir were distinct. It's a sense of realism that's rare. I've chased it for years with only limited success.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.