Have you gained any knowledge from your tests other than you like "it" better? We already know that reflections change the spatial perception but know nothing more meaningful beyond that. I think I already said this some thousand posts ago...
Toole's paper is a nice read. I think I will buy his book.
But I will become speculative again, nevertheless:
What Toole says about the credibitiy of the image, reflections with same spectrum are not recognised as individual sources, nobody doubts this is true with one source. But in stereo reproduction in the same time it has to be incredible that the speakers are the sources.
Do your speakers disappear when one is playing mono?
I speculate that the following could be the cause for the "reach out and touch effect": The focus of a stereo phantom source is sharper than the image a single speaker is producing alone.
yes, exactly, I think that we have to take inti account the way the hearing works with natural sound sources if we want to know how the audible illusions work
?
who exactly is talking about multichannel in this thread?
best,
graaf
o yes! substantial knowledge!
for example now I know that the sound is not coming from the floor
and that is something that You don't know
I wonder whether Dr Wittek knows this, or Dr Toole?
If you now could explain why, then this would be "substantial" knowledge.
By the way, it's pretty obvious why the sound is not coming from the floor. Kill the ceiling reflection with an open cell absorber and listen again.
Doesn't sound that wild. I just thought Sony and the others won't allow the people to run micro-satellites fullrange.
yes, single flooder disappears
probably
BTW I posted similar thoughts somewhere earlier in this thread (or stereolith thread?)
According to the Toole paper this is only true for sounds within a certain time window (fusion zone). So the truth is somewhere between your statement and Markus' suggestion to isolate just the direct sound by gating.
knowledge is not only explanations but also observations and experiments
who knows how stereo phantom imaging works? Dr Wittek?
there are only observations, experiments and hypotheses
can You explain the influence of particular reflections in a room?
o yes, You can't
so where is the knowledge? When all You can is to quantify?
first of all - why should I kill it?
and yes - pretty obvious - yet You didn't know and You wrote:
What do we do when we have the thousand full?
I will open a (real) bottle of wine and speak a (virtual) toast.
psychoacoustics is one thing and other is physics of musical instruments,
we should take into account all relevant time windows:
simply there is no defined frequency content during the first 50 to 100 ms of a musical sound
50 to 100 ms
so much for the relevance of "direct sound" of a loudspeaker and of its frequency reponse as such
best,
graaf
Last edited:
well, my question was rethorical
I am not interested in trying to spoil what I have. I don't like sound coming from the floor
BTW - have You actually tried it or are You just speculating? Or did Wittek, Toole or Blauert wrote about it? Perhaps Helmholtz?
How can You be so sure?
and I will buy this Sony 1200
well, maybe
I can have it for ca 250 Euro - is it worth trying for the money?
After you stated that "we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such" (which equals to perceiving no pitch, no timbre, no sound at all), I'm more than interested how YOU explain how we still can hear normally when there are no room reflections like in an anechoic chamber
I am sorry but it is you who has a misconception of what stereophony is. The first public stereo performance used more than 2 speakers. Stereo is limited to 2 transmission channels but it has never been limited to 2 playback channels. There is no standard for "Stereo" yet. There never has been a concrete standard for stereo as far as I know. That is what we are trying to find here right? Then we must explore all of the options and not let the tail wag the dog.
Okay I drew out some subjective impressions of Stereophony on paper a while back and redid them on the computer to make them more clear.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I was being sort of nice with that picture and trying to encompass all different flavors of speakers. But with a poor speaker generally the imaging will be limited to in between the triangles. Even with a great speaker conventional mastering and mixing tends to limit the imaging within that triangle even though it can be stretched out to 180 degrees of coverage. There are products that make use of this illusion and get there in different ways. The depth coverage is not limited to the colored area but that is the area where I perceive things as being "full bandwidth". Anything pushed back in depth further than that area generally will not sound like a pop record (where the overall instruments end up in a balance resembling pink noise) but will have less high end and not as an extreme bass. Localization in front of the speakers themselves is very rare but can happen. And I pretty much only limited my examples to the ones that actually work the best - equal spacing. My anecdotal findings are consistent with Wendy Carlos in regards to speaker placement and hollow spots in the coverage.
Wendy Carlos Surround1
More than one way to end up at the same location. And yeah I wasn't exactly directing it at non conventional speakers where the image is already extended. And this is one of the reasons I was telling him maybe the studios should have kept the flooders.
Last edited: