I can't answer for Elias but for my part I have to say that with suitable recordings my back-to-back setups reproduced sound source location matching exactly what I was able to hear through headphones - in terms of both lateralization and depth
and also matching exactly the intentions of recording/mixing engineer and the facts of the recorded event - among many others I use also a test record from Polish magazine "Audio" with extensive liner notes plus photos with descriptions of what was where and where it should be heard when reproduced at home
this is how a flooder does it and does it very well indeed 😎
such was my experience with my back-to-back boxes, and as I said before I was doing double checking of correct lateralization and depth position of sound sources through headphones
that was not my experience with my back-to-back boxes, and as I said before I was doing double checking of correct lateralization and depth position of sound sources through headphones
oh yeah, granted, the truth about pink noise, happy listening! 😉
not really, try my propositon - a flooder in a Beveridge placement
best,
graaf
What if the recording engineer was wrong with his stereo triangle, but the microphone was initially right if a microphone that preserves ITD cues was used.
- Elias
- Elias
but first of all it is wholly immaterial what recording/mixing/anything engineer thought or intended!
because accuracy in the sense of reproducing accurately what an engineer intended is pure bull****
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/172806-flat-not-correct-stereo-system-114.html#post2512518
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/172806-flat-not-correct-stereo-system-114.html#post2512582
Last edited:
I was thinking even a simple thing like reproducing a sound coming from a location, and what if the microphone picked up the correct ITD (and maybe ILD) but the recording engineer screwed it up with his stereo triangle when trying to create art or to match the sound location in his system, and the initially correct cues are errored by him, BUT if we could regenerate the correct ITD cue again at home, sort of undo the recording engineer in between the microphone and listeners ears.
- Elias
- Elias
99,9% of all recordings are made for spaced speaker setups, so how can this be "wrong"? Stereo as we know it has its drawbacks but it also has its strengths which have become part of the art.
it can be wrong just in being less realistic than it is easily possible to achieve with technical resources that are readily available
an art of incompetent mediocrity?
Stereo miking techniques either deliver ILD or ITD plus ILD. These techniques are used extensively only in acoustic concert recordings which is only a fraction of all recordings. Close miking is standard (sometimes in combination with a stereo miking technique). Virtually all mixing consoles use only ILD to place a source at the desired location. Blumlein himself "invented" the MS miking technique to deliberately remove any ITDs to avoid negative effects on 60° stereo systems and make the recording mono compatible.
Spaced omni only delivers ITD, like the Schoeps AB.
As was demonstrated by cardboard stereolith that is enough !
As was demonstrated by cardboard stereolith that is enough !
That was then 1930's, now is now 2011. Time to move on.
Monocompatibility is not needed. Only mono players available today are clock radios etc cheap plastics.
- Elias
certainly You are 100% right!
but also is quite certain that the industry will never accept this as standard because it would turn their safe world of professionalism and expertise upside down
it is just too much of cognitive dissonace to take for a typical person, especially with high self-esteem 😉
that is of course very human but also what is quite sad about humanity - narrow-mindedness, more or less learned and educated but in the end always the same
ah whatever, we still can do something interesting with the crap they are giving to us to make it sound MUCH more realistic
it looks like that back-to-back as such, and as implemented in the original Stereolith is not enough but still perhaps something can be done to make it better, work IS in progress 🙂
and there is also the flooder/Beveridge combined approach
it took me almost four (4) years to get people here to take more thorough look at this back-to-back and to inspire more advanced experiments, it is very difficult to get the message through the information noise
how long will it take in case of the flooder/Beveridge? 😉
Last edited:
yes, and that is actually the only direction the industry can move in - it is always towards bigger quantity if commodity to sell
it was also the main industry motivation behind embracing stereophonics back in the 50-60s of XX
it was obvious to all music lovers as first horrible ping-pong stereo recordings were an obvious step back in terms of sound quality
Blumlein's patent was not intended for use at home for music reproduction, it was intended for movie theaters as sound system needed for sound film reproduction, hence two speakers to flank te screen and it was brilliant but the rest is just another history of typically human greed and mediocrity
Last edited:
Ok, let's talk about Beveridge 😀
I'm familiar with the concept since many ears. Never build one yet. I'm not interested in their ESL technology but the psychoacoustics involved.
Here:
technical_details
it is mentioned (see the java animation at the bottom of page) that optimum listening position is such where the total opening angle to the speakers is about 90 degrees. So they suggest wider than stereo. I've heard comments that they should be placed even more wider almost at the side.
How the pinna cues are supposed to be handled here for a center phantom image?
If the speakers are at the side head shadow should maximise ILD. Total opposite of stereolith..
Of course the line array helps if listening position is not exactly in the room center line so off center location intensity error is not maybe too bad.
Any good links for a summary of the hypothesised psychoacoustics involved in Beveridge?
- Elias
I'm familiar with the concept since many ears. Never build one yet. I'm not interested in their ESL technology but the psychoacoustics involved.
Here:
technical_details
it is mentioned (see the java animation at the bottom of page) that optimum listening position is such where the total opening angle to the speakers is about 90 degrees. So they suggest wider than stereo. I've heard comments that they should be placed even more wider almost at the side.
How the pinna cues are supposed to be handled here for a center phantom image?
If the speakers are at the side head shadow should maximise ILD. Total opposite of stereolith..
Of course the line array helps if listening position is not exactly in the room center line so off center location intensity error is not maybe too bad.
Any good links for a summary of the hypothesised psychoacoustics involved in Beveridge?
- Elias
Yes, but I would only used wide spaced for lower frequencies. Also fits well for the multi-sub approach camp in dealing with room acoustics.
Optimal Source Distribution.
Virtual Acoustics and Audio Engineering: Optimal Source Distribution
http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/fdag/vap/html/OPSODIS.pps
Optimal Source Distribution.
Virtual Acoustics and Audio Engineering: Optimal Source Distribution
http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/fdag/vap/html/OPSODIS.pps
Last edited:
can We continue there?:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-155.html
and include the use of a flooder ?
starting point could be this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-108.html#post2133755
now imagine not a single casual speaker in mono lying on teh floor on it's back but a stereo pair of dedicated speakers - could be even dipole (tinitus has something like that) - and this in a Beveridge placement
this is how Beveridge Himself understood this matters: white_paper now I see that David has already posted this one earlier, thank You 🙂
best regards,
graaf
Last edited:
Yes I'm aware of white paper white_paper but I cannot see any figures there, they are blank.
- Elias
- Elias