There are some really excellent opera recordings available these days on Blu-ray . . . I notice that they generally defer to motion picture standards and go primarily for sound clarity and use the screen for "imaging" . . .
So the approach McCarthy proposes will lead to a stereophonic presentation that sounds real "more often than not"? Is that what you're saying?
If yes, what acoustical requirements does he define? Does he recommend a specific reflection pattern? Spectrum of reflections? Angle? Arrival time? D/R? Reverberation time? Do I need to read that book to get answers to those relatively simple questions?
Opera. The next worse thing to musicals. Airplane engines and explosions in outer space - that's more to my liking.
But the topic was "realistic sounding". I have a couple of stereo recordings I did back then when I was working as a recording/mixing/mastering engineer. Just pure stereo miking. They all sound "realistic" except the ones I can't remember where and how I did them. That's all it takes to make something sound realistic. "Expectation bias" at its finest. That realization took me about 20 years. Now I simply don't trust anyone telling me how realistic stereo can sound, not someone on the internet, not even myself.
Marcus, don't bother. I have the book and read some of it. It's far more oriented towards large venue stuff than small rooms - that's why I only read some of it. It would be pretty fundamental for you. Toole's book is better for small rooms.
Explosions in space
I like some musicals. I loved Phantom, both on stage (some performances) and the movie.
I have to confess I was a bad boy, I do have that book, I do have Toole's book and one or two more books a about audio. NONE of them offers the answers dewardh seems to have.
That's what I'm listening to:
Not funny but fun and no warehouse either
Very nice. Result looks smoothed out by windowing below 70Hz.
Here is my sub system with detailed FR:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Also set up for nearfield listening, measurements where taken at 5ft.
When slowly sweeping with tone, sound appears to come from different places in room.
Any pure tone in closed space sets up standing wave sound field. Localization of source from any fixed location becomes impossible.
Explosions in space
Exactly. That's where stereo shines. Do something that can't be done in boring real opera life. Stereo is a medium that offers so much to creative people and listeners but then there's those audiophools that are only interested in a replica of boring real life. The real tragedy is that they believe stereo would enable such replica. It doesn't and there are better techniques to can auditory spaces.
Next time please take my wife with you.
How is the frequency response at different points within the listening area?
At what frequencies?
This is probably the toughest test for a stereo system. If those spatial fluctuations are minimized then stereo works the best. The underlying principle is interchannel level differences translate to interaural time differences at low frequencies.
Last edited:
Yeah, stereo works best with program material. Pure tones are quite revealing of system/human limitations.
I've done similar setup with sub about 5ft from a room corner and measured at >9ft, with similar results.
I really don't care about super uniform content <200Hz. Imaging cues in program material above 200Hz completely control perception of base location in any moderate domestic listening space.
Linear phase response of my sub improves realism of transients with LF content. Even this is secondary to getting flat response >200Hz.
Thread title ought to be "Why should human ear be able to localize bass?" I really don't see any evolutionary survival benefit to localizing LF tones. Very few natural sources.
I've done similar setup with sub about 5ft from a room corner and measured at >9ft, with similar results.
I really don't care about super uniform content <200Hz. Imaging cues in program material above 200Hz completely control perception of base location in any moderate domestic listening space.
Linear phase response of my sub improves realism of transients with LF content. Even this is secondary to getting flat response >200Hz.
Thread title ought to be "Why should human ear be able to localize bass?" I really don't see any evolutionary survival benefit to localizing LF tones. Very few natural sources.
The answers are there if you look for them . . . but you won't see them if you have already made up your mind that they can't be so.
As I said, Earl confirmed, and you already knew if you have the book, McCarthy writes mostly about "production" space. What he writes does "translate" to small rooms, though, if you let it. Those other "numbers" that you want you can get mostly from Toole . . . none of it is obscure or "secret". The only issues are how to get to the "good" numbers in a small room, and again, it's all about pattern control (the core of the McCarthy text). The specific details of small speakers in small rooms may be (a bit) different, but the underlying principles are not . . .
+1Markus - we simply can't trust anything that you say!! Its all about the argument!
Well, yes, probably. And binaural recordings aren't good enough for me. I really never hear anything special about them. A good recording from a stereo mic is as nice, if not better. I don't understand the appeal.
But of course I listen to a lot of operas written for aircraft engines in space, so can't really be trusted.
Not even in movies. Some are a great test for subs (and knick knacks):
Yes movie sound tracks can be taxing on a system. But I was referring to people who listen to track after tack of airplane engines and steam locomotives - just for the "sound quality"!!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.