This does not sound like a violin on my headphones. Is this a good sample file to test this idea?
https://soundcloud.com/ian-fisher-c...run-test?in=embertone/sets/friedlander-violin
Anyone had a violin played in their living room and did it sound the same as your Hi-Fi?
True, we often make such distinctions. I was trying to avoid extra complications.
If we create pressure adjacent to a transducer, depending on boundary conditions, pressure may build in a confined space, or a longitudinal pressure wave may be launched. Both are consequences of the pressure created locally, but what happens in the surrounding space can be thought of as two different types of behavior.
On the other hand, they can be thought of as two aspects of the same thing. To make an electrical analog, we may sometimes take a short-length unterminated transmission line at low freq as a capacitor (gimmick capacitor), even though when viewed at high frequencies, it may seem to be a transmission line stub, resonator, or antenna. However, viewing it as multiple different things amounts to choosing models that are convenient for particular situations. Maxwell's always applies to all the the cases if we look at what it happening in the most general way.
It is possible to go into much more detail about these issues, such as particular analytic solutions compared to numerical modeling. Probably best to stop here for now though.
Last edited:
Understood that much information about the soundfield is lost when recording with mics, since they are usually only directional pressure transducers. But my point is that so long as we use such mics, we have accepted that not all information can be or has been captured. In other words, we have chosen to accept the use of a form of lossy encoding. That being the case, the best we can do later is to reconstruct whatever information we do have. To wit, whatever data is recorded on a CD or LP, etc.
As said before, what you´re describing is just another possible reference point.
If stating the obvious is denial in your book....
Certainly it would help if you just could cite the standard.
I´m sorry, but an external observer can´t have any memories of other listeners internal perception.
That is exactly my point.
Trying to recreate a convincing illusion of 'being there' at the(a) live event is going to be exactly as successful as hunting wild unicorns in downtown L.A.
Besides the LP, CD or whatever is the final product the artist wanted us to hear, not what was fed into the microphones during recording.
Sometimes what we get is very close to the output of the mics, that depends on genre and philosophy of the artist but it is still nowhere near their input aka the mythical live event which existed momentarily but and was lost forever.
Bottomline: HiFi MUST be referenced to the waveform we purchased, streamed or downloaded because there is nothing else we could possibly and sensibly reference it to and keep our sanity.
Agreed. I was trying to describe what you just said, only in different words.
Since some people are very interested in capturing live acoustical performances in a very simple way, such as with a pair of mics used to directly produce stereo, in an earlier post I took that as one particular case of interest, and I then tried to describe the more general case where the information on a CD or LP was created by some different, and often more complex process. Whether or not that came across exactly as I intended, I think we are on the same page here.
Last edited:
If you exchange "preferred" by "choosed" in my example it might help to discuss the real issue instead of dealing with semantics.
The listener choose another reproduction variant (opposite to the majority) because it was more "like the real thing" to him.
Nothing to disagree, but language is rarely unambiguous.
Sorry, but in fact you´re not repeating rather changing your point of view.
Sometimes it was "is this indistinguishable from a real..." then it was "is it more like the real thing.." and it was a "compromise" and quite often (always) did depend on a majority decision.
Especially the first two (indistinguishable and more like) are quite different.
Indistinguishable leads to a dichtomous decision as it can be onyl or can´t be while "is it more like.." leads to range and of course - as it is a multidimensional experience - diverging directions of difference. Which means that it can be "more like the real thing" in this respect while "less like the real thing" in another dimension.
At least from that it is a matter of preference.
Of course i understand that within a couple of days and posts we aren´t as precise as we would be if preparing a paper.
And maybe it is a matter of language, as for me preference would only produce a difference in the degree of fidelity, if someone prefers a variant _although_ he knows that it is "less like the real thing".
In all other cases i´d understand that preference means that a listener preferred a variant, _because_ it is "more like the real thing" therefore of course delivers more "high fidelity" .
But at all means it should be uncontroversial that a majority decision can´t decide which reproduction variant has to be more "high fidelity" to a specific listener.
Take your time.
But given the fact that today all relevant journals (even from the past) are indexed and abstracts (at least) are avaible it is telling that nothing relevant
popps up during a database search.
It imo supports the statement that listening tests comparing real sound events to reproductions were´t (aren´t) as common as you might have thought.
Headphones will never be hi-fi for me as no real acoustic event injects pressure directly into my ear-canals.
The track sounded awful.
//
How do you know what other listener need to "recreate a convincing illusion of being there" or form a convincing illusion of "they are here" ? 😉
Imo your bottomline doesn´t really match your former paragraph as the intention of the artists (or producers) came into play.
As artists (producers/recording engineers) and listeners are different individuals with diverging perception that´s were the problems arise (based on the premise that in fact - as you stated - the reality got lost during the recording)
But nevertheless,if you consider the evolution of reproduction it is a valid hypothesis that it was driven by the goal to get more from "the real thing" therefore the step from monoaural to stereophonic was a big step forward in approximation.
As stated before, if you read the articles/papers from the 1930s when the first introduction of stereophony took place you know that their reference was in fact "the real thing". And they already knew that a nearly unlimited number of reproduction channels were actually needed, would have preferred at least to have a third channel, but dropped that idea (imo mainly due to practical reasons) and so two channel stereophone reproduction was introduced.
Jakob and DF, it seems like your disagreement is based on focusing on two different views of human listening. Jakob seems to be focusing more on differences in individual people, and DF seems more focused on some statistical view of a comparatively large population of listeners.
Both can be thought of as different ways of looking at the same thing. For the purposes of defining Hi-Fi in some practical way, its hard to see how focusing on individual differences can lead to a useful definition. If I am wrong about that, please help me understand whatever it is I may be missing.
Regarding some statistical view of Hi-Fi, I think that could be of some practical use, but its not clear how it could be defined without reference to some physical measures of reproduction accuracy, such as accuracy in reproducing sound pressure adjacent to a transducer as a function of time (while at the same time understanding whatever limitations may be associated with that model).
Both can be thought of as different ways of looking at the same thing. For the purposes of defining Hi-Fi in some practical way, its hard to see how focusing on individual differences can lead to a useful definition. If I am wrong about that, please help me understand whatever it is I may be missing.
Regarding some statistical view of Hi-Fi, I think that could be of some practical use, but its not clear how it could be defined without reference to some physical measures of reproduction accuracy, such as accuracy in reproducing sound pressure adjacent to a transducer as a function of time (while at the same time understanding whatever limitations may be associated with that model).
That is a really really small angle .. 10 degrees of your whole visual field, a tinier part of your audible field (the rights words to express that sentence as I wanted have abandoned me right now..).
What about the sound of the reverb, the people around you etc etc? Is that real life experience being judged too? How is the recording going to capture that ? How is your setup at home going to do that in your living room whilst playing a recording that isn't designed to capture that anyways?
I think, if this were a test of high fidelity equipment, your methods would be flawed.. The test would be to replace the musicans with hifi gear, each playing close-mic'd recordings of each player. Then you listen from the same seat with your eyes closed. I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with a good active speaker in each of their places and playing the full frequency response.
To then judge your hifi system at home you would need to go binaural otherwise you would be judging/testing for something that the recording and traditional two-speaker system is not designed for do at all.. the idea that it IS designed to recreate your binaural experience is a lie and marketing exaggeration from both the recording label and the equipment manufacturer.
This lie/exaggeration has become normalised so that even the most ardent follower of hifi or diyer still thinks this way.
The usual stereo set up is one of convenience for reproducing music in a pleasing and practical way in the home, it is not there to recreate the event in your brain so that you believe it is the real thing!
I wasn't using a 50mm lens so the picture does not equate to my visual field. I would estimate the orchestra was +/-40 degrees.
And yes the reverb is a key part, which is why subwoofers are vital in the home for classical music as there is a lot of energy there to give you ambient clues. You can 'feel the space' with your eyes closed.
It's not a test of hifi, its merely a reference of live music which was wonderful and something that for many reasons you cannot get the 'experience' of at home.
Next time I will leave wife behind and put a dummy head in her seat 🙂
And yes the reverb is a key part, which is why subwoofers are vital in the home for classical music as there is a lot of energy there to give you ambient clues. You can 'feel the space' with your eyes closed.
It's not a test of hifi, its merely a reference of live music which was wonderful and something that for many reasons you cannot get the 'experience' of at home.
Next time I will leave wife behind and put a dummy head in her seat 🙂
Oh... I'm sorry Billshurv! I am going to have to break this to you now so that you change your live music tune-up for next year.
You were listening to a massive line-array up each side of the proscenium arch.
https://www.k-array.com/en/rss/item/2325-invisible’-k-array-system-at-royal-opera-house.html
🙁
But at least that is a test of high fidelity of their class D powered line arrays - you thought it was all live sound. It might explain the balance that was set by the engineers, to counter perhaps the over powering 6 double basses?
EDIT: my opening line sounds like it's being sarcastic and nasty - I don't mean it to be. Genuinely it would would very disappointing for me to find that out so I sympathise .
You were listening to a massive line-array up each side of the proscenium arch.
https://www.k-array.com/en/rss/item/2325-invisible’-k-array-system-at-royal-opera-house.html
🙁
But at least that is a test of high fidelity of their class D powered line arrays - you thought it was all live sound. It might explain the balance that was set by the engineers, to counter perhaps the over powering 6 double basses?
EDIT: my opening line sounds like it's being sarcastic and nasty - I don't mean it to be. Genuinely it would would very disappointing for me to find that out so I sympathise .
Personally, I have some concerns whet fitting a symphony orchestra in my living room so I'm going for "being there" 🙂
//
Actually I reckon I was above the 7 degree vertical up in the gods, but that does explain my comment about the odd soundstage when I looked up rather than down into the pit. I'll do calculations tonight.
Arrow shows my seat with direct line of sight into orchestra pit.
I will continue to book that seat when I go 🙂
Attachments
Is a exploration of the NS10 that. Here is another article in a home studio magazine referencing that same paper but more readable perhaps:
The Yamaha NS10 Story | Sound On Sound
Don't take it too far or when she goes away for a few days, you'll end up with a binaural recording of your own snoring!
The listeners or even the artists perception don't really come into it.
The album, cd or file is the final product as the artist (or his/her manager or producer) envisaged and you either like it or not.
It is not the artists job to figure out how you or I might perceive things and is not our job to second guess what the artist may have really meant in our opinion.
The waveform as sold IS the original and we can replay it with low or high fidelity. If you start altering that waveform in ways that make you more likely to believe that you are 'there' you left the area of High Fidelity and entered the field of artificial electro-acoustic effects. Then you can start arguing about different perceptions and different solutions required by different people and you would be right to do so but it is not HiFi.
No no, it's not an artificial construct. You can physically go up to the piano and experience this yourself in person. Then the recording tries to play back the sound you would hear at that position - that is the reference. There is nothing artificial about it at all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.