Did you read the mostly. What other problems? Dont want to here the uasual GFB nonsense, show me some proof.
I had a friend which said me that, gluing a lead weight to a CD transport ...
If you are looking for me, I am already outside
A better attack would be to point out the load dependency of the amp I use as an example is only 0.6dB, which some would call negligible.
The GNFB not nonsense has been covered extensively here and elsewhere. Go do some reading.
Good point
I'll look into that next time I mess with the voicing of my guitar amp.
You are welcome Jacob.
Only please replace “hydrophilic” with “hygroscopic” in that post
A hydrophilic substance absorbs water and molecularly bonds with it.
A hygroscopic substance absorbs water (e.g. humidity from the air) but does not bond with it.
Modest Howie, thanks for the info.
George
Continue to laugh.
What said Dimitri and Zung was exactly the conclusion of a long and serious study of the "Service de la recherche de l'ORTF". (The state Radio/TV company like BBC for England)
With extensive listening studies and lot of tests on samples of the population.
The same kind of study that Fletcher and Munson made on levels perceptions.
A big Japanese company (Technics ?) had, at this time, produced out of this study a studio gear able to manipulate the perceived sound position in a 3D space with a 2D system, acting like the balance button (but in 3D) of the mixing desk.
I had the luck to had-it in demo in a studio, and, continue to laugh, it was amazingly *working*.
Last edited:
Unless some only listen to recordings of live music done only with a couple of mics, all else we listen to and like has been "voiced" by the sound engineers.
Distortion included. And I do not talk about guitarists ;-)
Last edited:
The effects boxes work amazingly well, my Kindle with its tiny speakers on the edge can throw a believable 360 degree image on THX encoded movies. One of our DSP guys showed me a circuit with a few caps and R's, two op-amps and two pots that could put the lead singer in the average pop mix anywhere in space.
Like the balance it works with more "reality" when we work with phases in the same time than response curve modifications.
The lateral position of an instrument between the center and the side of the speakers can be set in a more convincing way if you add a delay on this instrument to the opposite channel (Our listening system is sensitive to volume + relative phases in its localisation process).
But i believe you know this.
Most of the sound engineer do not do this because it is more complicated and time consuming.
Last edited:
Height is surprisingly easy. You can do it yourself: build some king of notch filter at a few kHz, maybe a bridged T with a pot to change the frequency of the notch; play anything, and turn the pot up and down at a rate of maybe .5 t/s. There's an AES paper or preprint on this, I'm sure it from the late 70's, but I just can't remember the title.
Depth is more related to amplitude or decay or both, I'm not too sure about this one.
In free air, it is impossible to evaluate the distance of a sinusoidal signal. I believe the ways we evaluate the distances are highly cultural. I think we evaluate in comparison with our memory of how sound the same object, closer. Level, loss of treble in air, response curve (cf Fletcher and Munson). It is still hard in free air (remember when you have the eyes closed on a beach or with snow around).
So reflections (reverb) is the most efficient tool in studios.
I worked on this aspect in a very subjective way (headphones help to be more precise.) manipulating all those together until I got a convincing result. It is fast, with habit.
Last edited:
Agreed, especially with a sine wave (steady state).
I'm just speculating whether we could relate the perception of transients (attach-sustain-decay) to previous experiences (if any) where we know something about the distance. Good examples are live vs recorded classical pieces with an orchestra and a choir, the Missa Solemnis sort of stuff, with lead singers at the front, orchestra behind, and the choir all the way to the back. Under the right circumstances, the spacial properties can be reproduced with convincing realism.
And you're right: with (more) modern music, judicious application of artificial reverb can also create the illusion, e.g. the choir in "Down So Low" in the "Hasten Down The Wind" album by Linda Ronstadt. Listen for the spacial differentiation of the backing vocals and the choir.
Last edited:
It is fine for someone to have a preference. Just not to claim it's the one true sound.
I do like listening to simply miked live recordings of acoustic music. And I don't add water to single malt. But I do have a couple of 'popular' records I use to judge if my system is behaving as I expect as, when setup correctly the different tracks appear as a patchwork quilt across the soundstage. I believe hifi reviewers call it 'listening into the mix' or some such rubbish. Albums like this are often more enjoyable in the car as they were not mixed for high end systems but to sell singles.
I also like Furtwangler recorded mechanically....
@Zung: Look up presence region. a low Q bandpass centered around 2kHz will seem to move the image forwards of backwards. But only a bit. If you want to shift it back 20ft you require party tricks.
Don't forget, 2 Speakers can only produce a 1D (straight line) soundfield with very low grade beamforming. Everything else is in your head as your brain desperately tries to make sense of what the ears are receiving. All our ears are different and all our brains are different.
Was it the 1973 Porsche 911 that had oil on one side and gas on the other?
Also two six volt batteries in series to even out the weights. More than one person gassed up the oil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.