If this is happening then this is definitely not a direction that I would be pursuing ...
If one loves the "effect", I certainly would not discourage them from pursuing it.
As I have said many times in this thread. If you like accuracy, this is not it. If you strongly prefer euphonic listening, this IS it.
neither would I
smeared details and soft transients are problems of a particular poor implementation of the concept - of poor speakers, to put it simply
Soundtrackmixer's experience with the concept is limited
as far as overblown imaging is concerned I don't know what is meant by that
Thanks. I don't have multichannel recordings, and then no need for multichannel playback. My reference source is accoustic instruments. I play classical guitar and any accustic instrument is my reference source.
From source to any speaker in a room, there is a long an unknown path. At least for most listeners the path is unknown.
I haven never heard a recorded classical guitar sound close to realistic. It can sound fantastic and involvingm and even "better" than the real thing. Since the output in my room (and any control room for that matter), is so far from the original source, I really think that speaking of front firing versus top firing vs back firing etc. is nonsense. My guitar i surely not fronfiring, so even thinking of picking up the right sound with one maybe two mic's is nonsense.
And, I don't really care if what comes out of my speakers is 100% accurate. But, I'm aiming at wide or no sweet spot, but still with sharp imaging. I can accepts some smearing, but not much.
We just have different preferences and that's life. It's clear that you have a lot of knowledge and you are enthusiatisc about reproduction of music. I really do appreciate that, but we don't have to agree on our personal preferences.
I appreciate such an honest statement.
However I would like to know what You mean by accuracy exactly?
In particular, would You agree with Linkwitz's opinions that "people who only listen to loudspeakers and thus always compare loudspeakers are poor judges of accuracy" and that "unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids"?
Darn clever of me, wasn't it?
Just be glad I didn't post in 7.1!
then it just would be a pure flooding
Any person with working hearing hears a myriad of sounds other and in addition to loudspeakers, from the sound of their own breath, to doors opening and closing, birds, cars, airplanes, an endless list each day.
Unless one is confined to a single room, one usually also realizes that the acoustic reverberation signature of every enclosed space has distinct features, every sound produced is subject to the reverberation of the space it is produced in.
Obviously there is a vast difference in the bias of listeners, you recognize reflected sound as "accurate sound reproduction", I perceive the same as additional reflections added to the original recording.
The addition of additional reflections by my bias is one more step removed from an "accurate sound reproduction" akin to slow or ringing transient response.
Art
I think "the spaciousness of virtual sound sources" would simply be ASW (apparent source width) ?
As I understand it, ASW does not limit the source to be real, and it can be virtual as well.
Oh!!then it just would be a pure flooding
Not to worry, I went back and mixed it to single track mono in post production.
Sure, but some bias is less biased than other
Anechoic chamber for you, that is. Really ?
I think it's more than just width - it is height and depth as well, and robustness ("The degree to which the perceived location of a source changes with movement of the listener"), and locatedness ("Spatial distinction of a source." (Definition according to Blauert, 1997) "The degree to which an auditory event can be said to be clearly perceived in a particular location.") too
Or are you just in denial that the design is basically flawed.
Graaf has to prove that.
That is because you have no perspective of what the original presentation is suppose to be.
For all the conclusion you have come to, and you cannot understand this - I am not sure any comment will help you figure this out.
Your honesty is totally respected, and you probably understand what a acoustical guitar would sound like when played back.
I agree with this and am glad you recognize it.
I would suggest you hear a classical guitar recorded in the DXD format at 32/384khz or 352.4khz sample and bit rate.
Well this argument may work for you, but it does not work for me.
That is because you know how to PLAY the guitar, but you are not experienced with actually recording it. Two different disciplines here. If you choose the right microphones, you only need two to capture a single guitar.
You cannot have wide and no sweet spot imaging and expect sharp imaging as well. That is a cake and eat it to proposition that cannot be accomplished. According to THX listening tests you have to control the dispersion pattern to get sharp imaging. You have to accept compromised sharp imaging to get a wide or no sweet spot. You cannot have both.
This I totally agree with.
Or rather You have to prove that basic flaw
Prove? Why? After all I rely on Your own account of Your experience with FCUFS
I have - I listen to live music quite often