You don't need to do it. But it's nice for a reality check what stereo really is. The annoying part is, the barrier works
I see what you are saying now, yes if the channels are different then the situation is different. But if the channels are the same, then nothing audible could or would occur. Center phantom images remain unchanged.
I think that this misses the point. It is an experiment that helps to explain "image" and how lateral reflections and cross-talk can have a strong effect. It is, of course, a completely contrived effect, not one that the producers intended, so its no different really than "EQing to taste", but it is an interesting experiment.
For an experiment I understand the concept, but I really hope nobody would do this as a permanent fix..... How would this differ much from listening to a set of headphones? Yes you lose the cross talk and phase perception with your head but the elimination of crosstalk is at its maximum with the headphones. I rarely listen to headphones, even high quality headphones take part of the sonic experience out of the equation and there is no way to put it back in an acoustic sense. So unless I am trying to be nice and not have everyone else listen to what I am I will stay with a nice set of speakers in the room.
Some good discussion this morning, a few pages back. We are starting to see the explore the difficulties of making a speaker sound like real instruments. I've done the experiment a few times, one channel/one speaker per instrument. It's fun, but it still doesn't sound exactly like the real thing.
As was mentioned this morning, the mic pics up the sound of the instrument at a point. But the acoustic radiation of instruments into space is far from uniform. Some quick googling for diagrams will show you that. Then you play that single point recording back thru speakers that have their own radiation patterns - patterns that are not the same as the instrument. Double problem. You can't get the same pattern without heroic efforts.
The brain is very good at filling in the gaps, tho.
That's why I was always tempted to add some reverb. It just fooled the brain into finding it all more natural.
As was mentioned this morning, the mic pics up the sound of the instrument at a point. But the acoustic radiation of instruments into space is far from uniform. Some quick googling for diagrams will show you that. Then you play that single point recording back thru speakers that have their own radiation patterns - patterns that are not the same as the instrument. Double problem. You can't get the same pattern without heroic efforts.
The brain is very good at filling in the gaps, tho.
That's why I was always tempted to add some reverb. It just fooled the brain into finding it all more natural.
Actually I'm thinking about doing it. Virtually, via headphones.
The stage will be localized outside your head obviously. Localization ambiguity will be completely removed. If the barrier is absorptive, typical comb filter effects will be removed.
Do you wear glasses? It's like looking through very dirty glasses vs. perfectly clean glasses.
Another effect is the width of the stage. Try it. If you never had a beer in your life then the taste is hard to describe.
I think you know why this configuration is better than headphones. Im sure you've read somewhat into this? No?
Was the material recorded in the way that I suggested earlier? Did you make the recording?
Do you mean this?
The recordings were very dry, but not 100% anechoic. They didn't contain much of anything but the instrument or voice direct. That was the point.
This technique worked best for me when played back in a live room like a big theater.
Yes in some cases, but not all. It was something we did regularly for theater.
This is actually not true according to Haas. It is just the other way around. Don't overunderestimate the effects of innate brain processing on the perception of sound. The same goes for the whole discussion about interaural cross talk. As a physical concept it might make sense, but in a physiological way it doesn't.
Yes, of course. Anything from 4 track cassette to Studer 24 track open reel. It was all long ago, so I've never done it on digital multi-track.
It did work very well for our intended purpose - theater, but I never heard it work convincingly in a small listening room. It was fun, but it was not a substitute for live.
One important thing I learned was that as cool as all the multi-track, multi-speaker technique was, all someone had to do was pick up a sax or a trumpet and play it in the same room - and it blew us away. No competition.
Without that reference, tho, it was worth the effort.
Pano,
Thank you for that last reference to a horn player in the room and nothing sounding quit like that in reality. Even a horn player played back through an all horn system doesn't have that same transient response, the fast rise times and the directivity of a real instrument. When you can get an instrument let alone an entire band to have that sound you will be a world closer to the live event. But I don't think that any one of us can be fooled into believing that a reproduced instrument through the entire playback system has the same sound as a live instrument in a room. Close perhaps, but there are just those subtle clues that always give it away.
Thank you for that last reference to a horn player in the room and nothing sounding quit like that in reality. Even a horn player played back through an all horn system doesn't have that same transient response, the fast rise times and the directivity of a real instrument. When you can get an instrument let alone an entire band to have that sound you will be a world closer to the live event. But I don't think that any one of us can be fooled into believing that a reproduced instrument through the entire playback system has the same sound as a live instrument in a room. Close perhaps, but there are just those subtle clues that always give it away.
Pano,
There have been experiments done using dry multitrack recordings of orchestral works played back through individual speakers placed roughly how the orchestra would be placed on stage, done in many theaters noted for "good acoustics".
The "virtual orchestra" playback was then recorded in various seats of the various halls using a binaural head, tiny microphones placed in the head's ears.
Listening back on headphones, one can then compare the different room's acoustics without the usual long travel times and differences between orchestras and performance material.
Binaural recordings played back on headphones preserve both the inter-aural arrival time differences around the head and the effects of the pinna, which assist in vertical height (azimuth) and front and rear placement.
Unfortunately, unless the dummy's head has exactly the same pinna and size as your own, the results won't be perfect.
Still, the results can be amazingly realistic in preserving locational cues. While experimenting with a Sennheiser Binaural head/mic system, I once had my (ex) wife talk to me while I held the head in front of me listening on headphones.
I slowly turned the recording head around, and even though I was looking right at her, I felt compelled to look over my shoulder to see where her voice appeared to be coming from.
The binaural localization mostly falls apart when listened to on loudspeakers (unless located like Texas headphones) and tends to sound more like an ORTF recording done with peaky mics, the peaks caused by the imitation pinna and mic location in a small cavity.
An interesting binaural recording was done during the drum solo on the long version of Iron Butterfly's "Inna Gadda Da Vida" starting around 6 minutes in to the song.
The head was moved around the drums during the solo, listening to it on phones, it gives the same impression, though if you think of sitting still, the relative impression is the drums (and room) are moving around your location.
Listening to the same track on stereo loudspeakers sounds more like the drums are being played back through a phase-shifter effect, the far more usual studio trick of that era to achieve a similar type of sound.
The room you listen in tends to swamp the recorded cues unless the speaker's dispersion is well controlled and early reflections are damped.
Art
Dunlavy tried to compare the 2:
Dunlavy Audio Labs Signature SC-VI loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.comDunlavy speaker test said:
I've seen more tests like this mentioned in the Dunlavy history.
This is an important statement. You need directional speakers to increase the direct to reflected ratio, raise the clarity and preserve the location cues in the recording. When this is done, the effect is much more realistic. It is not the real thing, but it gets closest to what's on the recording.