I said pretty much the same thing a few days ago with the addition of less than optimum mastering in the early days. CDs got a bad rap and it stuck. The idea wasn't met with much enthusiasm.
I said pretty much the same thing a few days ago with the addition of less than optimum mastering in the early days. CDs got a bad rap and it stuck. The idea wasn't met with much enthusiasm.
Sorry about that, I have just tuned into this enormous thread and only read the first and last few pages.
Rob.
Typical audiophile's reaction: disregard the underlying physics and make assertions based on your perceptions, backed by the requirement of the other to move up to more betterness.
Two channel stereo is NOT a mechanism that can consistently and repeatedly transport a three-dimensional sonic event to a listening room. There is no magic (except for the skills of some recording engineers, these could rightfully be called magic), there is no holophony.
And yes, I have heard 'better systems'. Including one that allowed me to count the tiles on the walls of the bathroom in Pink's hotel. You know, when the groupie calls 'you wanna taka a baaa-aaaath?'
I agree with Michael. A better than average system can fill a whole room with sound with good quality material, and go a long way towards sounding like a surround sound system with only 2 speakers.
The BluRay disc "Avatar"sounds incredible through a better than average system, and even some of the Soapies have excellent ambience, and Low Frequency Effects. A good example of what a decent stereo system is capable of , is when playing the stereo downmix of the Chesky recording with the track "The Storm" which even gives the illusion of height.
SandyK
Last edited:
I'm afraid I completely disagee. Binaural recording played on "Stereo" headphones are holographic, limited only by the nature of the material recorded.
Sorry,
TerryO
But isn't the example in the third sentence just another example of what you appear to decry so strongly in the first sentence? It most certainly is I'm afraid.
But the important questions to my mind are:
1) what prevents consistency and repeatability?
2) if true, why is everyone wasting time here?
But the important questions to my mind are:
1) what prevents consistency and repeatability?
2) if true, why is everyone wasting time here?
Isn't it a given that we all here are, generally, talking in a context of ordinary stereo with playback over speakers in a domestic environment? Binaural recording falls entirely out of this category. Or else show me where I can buy a binaural version of The Joshua Tree.
So you appear to disagree just for the sake of argueing. That won't bring us any further.
It isn't. Not even remotely. Hint: was there a bathroom at all?
You want me to repeat here the whole body of knowledge on recording techniques, music venue acoustics, living room acoustics, loudspeaker design and performance, and human auditory perception?
Because we are human beings confronted with a fascinating unsolvable problem related to the enjoyment of the aesthetics of particular types of sonic events?
But there are of course two different philosophies one can adopt here. One is to acknowledge that the problem won't be solved in any absolute way, and to accept all issues involved for what they are, mitigating them where possible and where reasonable.
The other is to dogmatically state that there is no problem, that there is a single 'truth', and that 'better systems' bring one closer to that truth.
Yeah, I was kicking myself for not pulling the quotes the first time around.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
The anecdote was... well... just an anecdote. It could mean whatever you'd like. I didn't give it much of my time quite honestly.
Wow. Such modesty is overwhelming. What I meant was, if it CAN occur, what prevents it repeated consistent occurrence? Just the general idea, not a dissertation. Are you implying that only rarely do recordings, speakers, listening rooms, etc. "align" to achieve the desired aural effect? And even then it's just a fleeting glimpse?
I don't think those 2 philosophies are mutually exclusive (although they are as stated; by design I would guess). I'm more in the first camp, but I don't see how that negates an acceptance of 'better systems'. R&D in the audiophile world is as valid as in any other science.
Yes indeed! And your description of 'alignment' is a very good one.
Take for instance 'depth'. I can be possible that for a given event, recording technique, speakers, and room depth information can be truly conveyed from the event to the listening experience. But change one of recording technique, speakers, or room and this is broken. This indicates that the information cannot consistently be transferred through the chain (or rather all possible chains). What you can have from a certain level of quality on are playback illusions of depth that can be plausible, but not necessarily 'true'. Contrary to lateral positioning two channel stereo has no mechanism for the robust transmission of depth. (Let alone height.) So when it happens, it is more like a fluke.
This contrary to the absolutist belief that stereo is holy and can capture a complete soundfield.
Absolutely. My above statements were deliberately black and white. The reality, however, consists of an infinity of shades of colour.
Not at all.
I say it can not happen in a repeatable and consistent way. That does not preclude it from happening when a particular recording hits a particular replay chain/room.
"Repeatable and consistent" means that a reasonable majority of sound fields (i.e. width, depth, height of a number of sound sources) can be conveyed (*) without much hassle to a majority of reasonable-quality replay systems (let's confine ourselves to speakers) positioned in the majority of reasonably-standard living rooms. And this using recording techniques that can be reasonably employed on a wide range of musical styles.
(* Meaning that it does not get distorted in the process, i.e. the sonic geometry perceived on replay must match the original event, which is something else than being just plausible and attractive!)
You are redefining the meaning of "repeatable" as it applies to experimental physics. If a certain system with a certain recording is able to convey a true three-dimensional "soundstage", then if someone would like to experience it for himself, he can duplicate the conditions and the experiment is repeatable if he gets the same results. What you are trying to communicate is that the experience is not "universal" under a variety of conditions, which is of no concern here.
John
John
Last edited:
A question about the basis on which people enter a discussion such as this...
In an earlier exchange with a commenter I said:
They replied:
The funny thing is, that I completely made up the thing about Neodynium cable spacers. As far as I know, there is no such thing and, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that a cable spacer can "open up the soundstage" and "quicken the bass". Yet my good friend sought to leap to the defence of the fictional person who had made this imaginary claim. He didn't recognise the imaginary claim as being so outlandish it could be dismissed without checking its "veracity".
This seems to say that in the world of audio, any claim can be accorded the same respect as any other. Even if it is made up and never had any scientific basis whatsoever.
No doubt, people might say that every claim can be tested and proved true or false (checking the "veracity" of the claim). But as we have discussed ad nauseam, when it comes to audio there is no criterion by which it can be judged better or worse. (Measurements are not conclusive apparently.)
So how can progress be made? I don't see how a discussion such as this can go anywhere if even outlandish claims cannot be dismissed out of hand ("on a whim"), yet there are no agreed methods by which their "veracity" can be checked.
Where can this discussion go?
In an earlier exchange with a commenter I said:
They replied:
The funny thing is, that I completely made up the thing about Neodynium cable spacers. As far as I know, there is no such thing and, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that a cable spacer can "open up the soundstage" and "quicken the bass". Yet my good friend sought to leap to the defence of the fictional person who had made this imaginary claim. He didn't recognise the imaginary claim as being so outlandish it could be dismissed without checking its "veracity".
This seems to say that in the world of audio, any claim can be accorded the same respect as any other. Even if it is made up and never had any scientific basis whatsoever.
No doubt, people might say that every claim can be tested and proved true or false (checking the "veracity" of the claim). But as we have discussed ad nauseam, when it comes to audio there is no criterion by which it can be judged better or worse. (Measurements are not conclusive apparently.)
So how can progress be made? I don't see how a discussion such as this can go anywhere if even outlandish claims cannot be dismissed out of hand ("on a whim"), yet there are no agreed methods by which their "veracity" can be checked.
Where can this discussion go?
Should I now reply to you "Typical engineer's reaction - you can't imagine it, therefore it can't be true." Just as silly. The call to "betterness" is simply practical. Most systems just don't do it. Therefore many people don't believe it exists. The reflex of balking at "better" is just a cop out.
Wrong. I've heard it over and over again, on several systems. I don't say it's easy, but it's quite possible. The vast majority of systems don't do it, but that does not mean that all can not. The vast majority of humans can not run a 4 minute mile. Does that mean that all can not? Does physics make it impossible?
Yes, there is. And it can be done with 2 channels. I'll admit that when I first heard it I was gob smacked. I had to shake my head and ask "How is that possible?" But it does exist and is such a striking effect that it is not easily forgotten. Of course it's an illusion, but a stable and repeatable illusion. (Hint - it doesn't much happen in the typical small listening room)
Actually, it would be very interesting to set you down in front of a system that can do this and get your reaction. Perhaps you wouldn't hear it. But I don't know anyone who has not heard it on a capable system, so it's not a rare or isolated effect.
So then please tell us how two channel stereo with loudspeaker-based replay is to convey three spatial dimensions, under the conditions I outlined before.
Now you are assuming that I have never experienced such, while above I explicitly told the tale of the groupie in the bathroom.
Indeed. But it is very much our concern here. Because we are all listening to a variety of recordings under a variety of conditions.
Would we be better off with a single standard recording technique, standard loudspeakers, and a standard listening room?
Imagination is fine for your own enjoyment but why would anyone post online based on that??
I have always said audiophiles let their imaginations run wild. Its their biggest asset because of the enjoyment they can have and biggest flaw when posting opinion online.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.