c'mon Markus - You haven't followed any recommendations from me
Yes, You are biased, clearly, and in particularly stark contrast to Elias, in the context of the Stereolith thread
it can be clearly seen in the outcome of the Stereolith thread which from You is just putting me on Your ignore list while from Elias it is starting new and interesting thread on "Single Speaker Stereo"
no I am not
BUT it is not at all necessary
with a coincident driver all I want is to avoid serious inconsistencies between the direct and reflected wavefront, that's all
and it's actually precautionary because perhaps even this is not really required for totally satisfying results - as tinitus' experiments with multiple drivers lying around on the floor have shown
Last edited:
Recently I have done some critical listening tests with various test records (from XLO, Tacet and many more) to KEF Ci200 in a FCUFS setup with relatively more delayed ceiling reflection than in my usual setup (listening seat much closer to the speakers than usual), speakers positioned along the long wall, side wall about 1 meter from the speaker. I chose this setup, which I think is suboptimal for FCUFS, deliberately.
My conclusion is that ONLY virtual sound sources that are:
1) closely miked, with no or little reverb
2) panned full L or full R
(tend to) seem to be coming from the speakers.
For example with a dry mono recording played through one FCUFS only the sound seems to be coming from the speaker.
With the same mono recording played through both speakers the sound seems to be coming from the center at the listener's height.
But the effect IS real and some recordings (crappy recordings IMHO but nevertheless) under some circumstances suffer audibly from it.
best,
graaf
My conclusion is that ONLY virtual sound sources that are:
1) closely miked, with no or little reverb
2) panned full L or full R
(tend to) seem to be coming from the speakers.
For example with a dry mono recording played through one FCUFS only the sound seems to be coming from the speaker.
With the same mono recording played through both speakers the sound seems to be coming from the center at the listener's height.
But the effect IS real and some recordings (crappy recordings IMHO but nevertheless) under some circumstances suffer audibly from it.
best,
graaf
Does this imply, that above does NOT happen with your recommended setup?
Btw - how is your usual setup exactly? Listening distance etc.
Rudolf
in my usual setup there are several differences: listening distance ca 4 m (vs 3 m in the test setup), much smaller UniQs with better dispersion, closer to side walls (ca 75 cm vs ca 150 cm in the test setup), some shelves on the front wall above the speakers which can produce some earlier, elevated, scattered reflections
but what is more important I have never experienced anything like the sound coming from the speaker ie. from the floor level when I was listening to a single FCUFS mono setup for some time (I posted my observations once in this thread) BUT the listening distance was more like 5 m then - deep in the reverberant field
anyway - the point of my post in which I have reported my recent test was to acknowledge that there are some situations when some virtual sound sources can indeed be perceived as "situated close to the floor level"
however it looks like this effect is recording dependent rather than anything else - dry recorded sounds suffer from it
and under certain conditions - apparently sufficiently present in my usual setup and also in the mono setup I tested once and absent in the recent test setup - room reflections can somewhat substitute for the lack of recorded reverb thus lifting the virtual sound source up from the floor/speaker level
I would like to stress that this doesn't lead to loss of image definition. Perhaps it is no longer pin-point by standards of some pin-point stereo lovers but it is defined and can be perceived as separate and distinct sound source.
but what is more important I have never experienced anything like the sound coming from the speaker ie. from the floor level when I was listening to a single FCUFS mono setup for some time (I posted my observations once in this thread) BUT the listening distance was more like 5 m then - deep in the reverberant field
anyway - the point of my post in which I have reported my recent test was to acknowledge that there are some situations when some virtual sound sources can indeed be perceived as "situated close to the floor level"
however it looks like this effect is recording dependent rather than anything else - dry recorded sounds suffer from it
and under certain conditions - apparently sufficiently present in my usual setup and also in the mono setup I tested once and absent in the recent test setup - room reflections can somewhat substitute for the lack of recorded reverb thus lifting the virtual sound source up from the floor/speaker level
I would like to stress that this doesn't lead to loss of image definition. Perhaps it is no longer pin-point by standards of some pin-point stereo lovers but it is defined and can be perceived as separate and distinct sound source.
Your usual setup looks like a lot of strong early reflections in a highly reverberant field to me. I can well understand that you don't experience a sharply defined source (whether loudspeaker or phantom image) in that setup.
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
... which is equivalent to "close to the speaker".
If I point the rear radiation of my dipoles directly at the first reflection point on the front wall and do nothing to attenuate or diffuse it, even add some SPL to the rear tweeter - in that case I can "glue" even the worst recording to my front wall. There will be not a single recording which stays at the speaker. This is absolutely steerable by the power of the front wall reflection. But this is not my regular setup of course.
You can look at it whatever way you want - it is no longer the image definition as recorded in the studio.
It is no longer "high fidelity". If you love the one more than the other it is solely a question of your personal taste.Rudolf
I don't really know what You mean by "sharply defined" but virtual sound sources in my setup are certainly realistically defined. No wash of sound or anything like that.
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
why worry?
You can look at it whatever way you want - it is no longer the image definition as recorded in the studio.
an emotional issue?
c'mon there is not such thing as "the image definition as recorded in the studio"
no, it's a question of REALISM, dry recorded sound glued to the speaker, even at an ear height, is just totally artificial - totally unrealistic
and high fidelity is about REALISM, what else?
The pin point realism from studio recordings is only on the recording, it's not there in real life. The very dry recordings that can be heard is also not realistic. Very few locations if any at all, where you have concerts are dry (without any reverb or delay of some sort).
But, for a speaker to be realistic it should also be able to reproduce unrealistic recordings. But, it should not be the studio monitor that's the reference. The studio moitor it self, is only a playback device, and basically you don't know if the sound going into the mic's actually sound this way. A speaker output can be valued in many different way, and we as listeners gives these values different weight - there is no right and wrong only wrong. So between all the wrong reproducting speakers there is, we choose the one we think is the least wrong (to our taste)
But, for a speaker to be realistic it should also be able to reproduce unrealistic recordings. But, it should not be the studio monitor that's the reference. The studio moitor it self, is only a playback device, and basically you don't know if the sound going into the mic's actually sound this way. A speaker output can be valued in many different way, and we as listeners gives these values different weight - there is no right and wrong only wrong. So between all the wrong reproducting speakers there is, we choose the one we think is the least wrong (to our taste)
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
Do You know ambiophonics or just the basic idea of an ambiopole or of the transaural stereo?
Have You tried it?
The idea that:
[bolds mine] is not new.
Last edited:
strictly speaking there is no such thing as "realistic speaker" vs "unrealistic speaker"
neither there is anyting like "realistic recording" vs "unrealistic recording"
there is "realistic sound" vs "unrealistic sound"
HiFI recording and HiFi speakers suport realistic sound, that's all
It doesn't help me (or the discussion) if someone tells me what is "real" or "realistic" for him/her. I have found out for myself, that everybody has his own "reality", meaning his own perception of life and the world he is living in.
There is a common reality mankind has agreed on to share: It is called science (or better said, the shared explanation models of the different sciencies). But that must be another thing than the reality of graaf, for instance.
I always pity people who know how a "real" piano sounds. Because I know a dozens of ways a piano can sound - depending on make, player, listening distance, room situation etc. And if it is recorded from 1-2 m, that is fine with me. I had listened to normal and grand pianos at that distance for almost a decade, before I listened to my first one in a concert hall from row 13. How dull, mushy and B O R I N G!!
So if people don't know better than row 13 - be it. But don't tell me that it is the "realistic" way for everybody to do.
What I want from a speaker is simply to reproduce everything that is in the recording. If I want the pin-point-version, I position myself in the nearfield (almost). If I want row 13, I position myself deeper into the room. As easy as that. And both versions are "real" in the same way.
Rudolf
There is a common reality mankind has agreed on to share: It is called science (or better said, the shared explanation models of the different sciencies). But that must be another thing than the reality of graaf, for instance.
I always pity people who know how a "real" piano sounds. Because I know a dozens of ways a piano can sound - depending on make, player, listening distance, room situation etc. And if it is recorded from 1-2 m, that is fine with me. I had listened to normal and grand pianos at that distance for almost a decade, before I listened to my first one in a concert hall from row 13. How dull, mushy and B O R I N G!!
So if people don't know better than row 13 - be it. But don't tell me that it is the "realistic" way for everybody to do.
What I want from a speaker is simply to reproduce everything that is in the recording. If I want the pin-point-version, I position myself in the nearfield (almost). If I want row 13, I position myself deeper into the room. As easy as that. And both versions are "real" in the same way
.Rudolf
Oh dear, those poor pianists have been deceived so badly over the years, then ...
I have made lot of unrealistic recordings and live shows back in the old days.
Regarding crosstalk barrier: There was a bit more free space between the separate sources/instruments in the recording - some people would call it "more black". Better separation in the depth too. Generally I would call it a clearer definition/rendition of the scene.
What I did not like: the auditory scene shrinked in perceived width (about 1/4 less) and retreated into some distance. Both aspects destroyed my perception of being part of the event.
Apart from that I prefer to have my head in a vice against having my head in a vice AND a silly large sheet of wood in front of my nose.
Rudolf
You understand what's the reason for this? What is the main effect of the crosstalk barier?
What I did not like: the auditory scene shrinked in perceived width (about 1/4 less) and retreated into some distance. Both aspects destroyed my perception of being part of the event.
then imagine a CTC like effect without shrinking of the scene
There is a difference between "this sounds nice" and "this sounds realistic".
Humans have their perception of reality. Bats have different, for instance. Each species its own - this is science.
oh really?
What does the science You talk about say?
Science which I know says: there are objective criteria for a sound source recognition as real by HUMAN listeners. For example the science says: a real sound source has an apparent source width.
Any differences from the Gestalt perspective have nothing to do about it. This is PHYSICS and BIOLOGY.
who told You so? What are You talking about?
What I want from a speaker is simply to reproduce everything that is in the recording. If I want the pin-point-version, I position myself in the nearfield (almost). If I want row 13, I position myself deeper into the room. As easy as that. And both versions are "real" in the same way
I don't get it - so what is it that You want? Fidelity to the producer's artistic intention? Then why moving back and forth - is this intended by the producer?
First of all - how do You know "what is in the recording"? What is it? Bits of 0-1 information? How does a bit sound? What is an acoustical fidelity to a bit of information? Isn't it absurd? Can't You see it?
Moving Your seat back to get a "Row 13" perspective on any recording You want? For example a studio recorded closely-miked solo piano???
Oh my, Your listening room must be really huge!
But I can tell You - I am in no need of moving my seat back and forth. When I listen to a closely miked studio solo piano recording then I can hear it right in front of me as if it was in my room. When the recording is of a classical singer with piano accompaniment in a big room then I can clearly hear the distance and the recording venue.
As simple as that.
BTW I have a piano in my room actually. My daughter takes lessons.
No instrument sounds literally pin point, not even a triangle! Perhaps flute piccolo comes closest to pin-point.
But basically a sound within an instrument is an event in space - I am talking about temporal and spatial distribution of resonances and reflections within the instrument itself.
The instrument may be quite big, take that piano as an example, as You wish, Your own example after all
Are You seriously saying that a piano listened to up-close sounds pin-point?
Really?
Oh my, Rudolf - please, c'mon! what's the (pin-)point????
I say it takes 13th row in an anechoic chamber to make a piano start to sound a bit pin-point
Last edited:
I understand crosstalk cancellation good enough to help me through the day, thanks.
I've got as much CTC as I need. With the scene as wide as I want it.
You mean each human has his own perception of reality.
That's what I'm saying all the time
Perceptions are not formed by the physical reality alone. There are strong filters of individual experience, aquired "knowledges", tastes and prejudices, where "reality" has to pass through. Since listening to stereo is a thing of perception to a very high degree, I find it adventurous (at least) to say "Each specious has its own (perception of reality)".
I don't know of a definition of the "source width" of a real piano for instance. Have you got one? The apparent source width would be a thing of perception - which could make the width very different depending on our different angles, distancies or focus of individual perception. Not even talking of the perception of the recorded version ...
I can't give any attention to your further quibblings until you try to make a meaningful difference between the (shared) material reality and the (individually) perceived "reality".
Rudolf
I understand crosstalk cancellation good enough to help me through the day, thanks.
perhaps, OTOH not good enough to understand what is being discussed. Otherwise You wouldn't worry that I did my "best to hide the origin of sound from your brain"
I'm glad You're happy.
You mean each human has his own perception of reality.
That's what I'm saying all the time
no, "humans have" doesn't mean "each human has his own"
Perhaps it is as I am not sure what You mean by "specious" here.
Geez... it is now obvious that You clearly don't have a clue of what I am talking about.
same to You, waste of time, hopeless, I give up