♫ Curlew - song / call / voice / sound.
♫ Northern Lapwing - song / call / voice / sound.
Bitterns are the really spook ones. Esp when you are camping next to their breeding grounds.
♫ Northern Lapwing - song / call / voice / sound.
Bitterns are the really spook ones. Esp when you are camping next to their breeding grounds.
Last edited:
Could be due to the imperfect soundfield capture and/or the processing step...
Did you listen to this one?
YouTube
They obviously tried to include some movements to demonstrate the abilites of dummy-head-recording.
Would be interesting to see if that works for you and if differently on different headphones/in-ears.
Don´t know how much time it will take, but I´d assume that in the future best/raw formats will be distributed and the end devices will do the adaptions/features needed according to the situation in which it will be reproduced.
Dynamic compression when listening in a car, "3D processing" for headphone us, processing for easy background listening and so on.
That´s why i mentioned todays worktools as it is much easier than in the past to do some individulized stuff.
I remember the AKG approach with the K1000 and BAP-1000 audiosphere, the latter used 9 HTRF presets (avaeraged data) and even offered for best results to get the personal HTRF measured at AKG.
I did wonder about that, they are common on the estuary and I'm familiar with their sound. What I hear is in the middle of the night, usually winter and on mass, I think that makes a difference to the sound and it is most similar to some of the recordings of lapwings. I've never seen them though.
Obviously "measurement" of soft skills is a difficult task, but please tell me why you cited RMarsh´s comment in this regard.
I´s it seems that you´ve posted a "non sequitur" but maybe i just don´t understand it correctly.
Could be curlew
Just read this by someone who used to live on the Dwyryd estuary by me The curlew’s call haunts sands and hills | Environment | The Guardian
Because he was talking about imagery and the discussion you and I were having stemmed from a reply connected to Stirling's Sumiko speaker placement method
Yes, see oystercatchers too, it's the middle of a winter's night calling on mass thing.
It does not matter how much you spend on audio equipment, you are only listening to a sterile facsimile of the original, rather like watching a travel programme on a huge expensive TV, it will never replace actually being there.
It is an interesting question, John. And, indeed, reason why i use often the word "culture' when we are about listening impresssions, we do not all look to the same things.
It seems that most of the audiophiles are most involved in linearity.
Some about sound stage, or image in the space.
Personally, my first criteria is dynamic (micro and macro) and physical impact. You ? It seems you are more in concern with various distortions and "characters" that bring components and topologies.
Of course, for everybody, it is a combination of all the criteria.
People that listen to classical music will not have the same réquisits that the ones that listen to pop music, Roch'n roll, or people that prefer to listen to different kind of jazz etc...
It depend of our history.
VERY interesting. I just listened with headphones and my PC speakers. Will try later on my big sytem.
Conclusion? Very natural reproduction. Room acoustic is well retranscribed in both situations (stereo).
Localisation is good (but not "ponctual") with my headphones. No localisation with my speakers: everything seems to come from the center with a stereo "sound field".
That confirm my conclusions the one and unique time in my pro life I tried to experiment dummy heads. I concluded that "Couple ORTF" was the best compromise for both type of listening.
My best drums were recorded in a non academic way: Drum kit in a big room. A couple at some distance from the drums for the basis+ little adds of close mikes recordings to add more precision and micro dynamic.
For various reasons, the record was finally mixed by somebody else that did not took care to call-me. And, as I was supposed to do the mix, I did not took the care neither to add a note about this experiment.
He believed that the two 'stereophonic tracks' with the whole drums were the usual "top" couple for the cymbals. Build all the battery with the "near" 8 tracks and put some noise gate to try to isolate the cymbals on the stereo tracks. Catastrophic result.
John,
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I have been involved with studios and recording, as well as various forms of binaural recording, Syn-Aud-Con Nature of Hearing classes, and patented a hearing test system was precisely because I am fascinated by listening critically. To state that you can hear things others cannot makes you sound quite self absorbed. Many of us with trained hearing have spent thousands of hours in studios listening to and tweaking reproduced music with an ear towards equipment flaws. In my decades of studio experience I have found if something can be heard, then that person hearing it can often point it out to others with trained hearing and they will hear it as well. And by this I am referring to engineers who made the very recordings you claim to hear such great sound from. How do you think they got that way? By accident? There is no magic in moving air molecules and despite Ann Wilson's protestations, you are not a Magic Man, you are a human with the standard issue apparatus.
The factors which determine our hearing acuity are one of my central interests, and just as you have spent decades designing circuits for better sound, I and others have spent decades better understanding how and why we can or perhaps cannot hear differences in reproduced sound. My company was one of the sites of Philips's original data compression tests which would later result in the MP3 format. While they were busy trying to convince themselves and us the sound was identical to uncompressed, I and other engineers were calling BS on it and pointing out the audible flaws. They made the assumption that the average person's hearing perception on which they based their algorithms could then applied to the hearing of specific trained individuals which it does not. This was not a test of circuitry per se, it was a test of the nature of hearing.
These are two necessary sides of the full equation of high fidelity reproduction. Just as you expect people to evaluate your excellent advances towards better sound reproduction, advances in understanding the nature of hearing is one of the important factors which drive speaker and acoustic design, both which are critical parts of the reproduction equation. If you do not believe this you have not been hearing accurate sound.
I cannot fault you for attempting to increase the value of your brand, it is how you pay bills, but aren't you the least bit interested in why you hear those things you hear?
With respect,
Howie
If I understand correctly, most of them got that way through the traditional studio engineer apprentice training system (which mostly no longer exist). How will the next generation of engineers learn the same skills? And, how about training some audio equipment designers, too?
Last edited:
Very persistent. The business interest if very strong indeed.Regardless of conditions, subjective observation is subjective observation, not a proof.
And again you´re responding and posting things that only exists in your imagination but are not related to anything i posted.
Who´s talking about "proof" ? You seem to be the only one still believing that something like "proof" is available in sensory evaluation.
See what you´ve cited:
And you responded with:
"What's even more erroneous? Concluding from subjective observation."
So you´ve introduced "subjective observation" at this point.
Which is remarkable as our overlaying topic was the subjective observation that must decide which kind of treatment/placement to choose under the conditions/premises that i´ve mentioned.
But what does that have in common with erroneous conclusions if the model that is used is wrong?
If it´s wrong we are drawing wrong conclusions and it doesn´t help or play a role if other conclusions can be wrong either.
That should not be that hard to understand.
I already spelled out my point and you ask what it is. See, this is what I've been describing.
Just repeat it instead of wasting time with hand waiving.
Posting more imagined events will not help your case in _this_ reality......
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood John Curl´s post; imo he was just wondering about what parameters seem to be most important to others in reproduction, not so much about if he personally could hear something that others could not.
Which is exactly the needed refinement (even reformulation) of models i was talking about.
Hmmm. comments.......
Mono listening. If recorded with a single microphone is OK... but, not a stereo or multi-mic recording played in mono..... If JC listens to stereo recordings in mono, a LOT of information would be lost... via L-R cancellation. Same thing happens to lesser degree when significant cross-talk is allowed.... as you go towards mono. the cancellation of signals increases and stage width decreases. For accurate playback of stereo recording, you need low amount of cross-talk (including room).
We all know - dont we - that listeners have preferences. Or bias. Same for magazine reviewers. If we use the same magazine and same small group of friends or same magazine reviewers to give us feedback... we tend to design to match their bias and get good ratings.
My fall-back position is usually what a wider range of people say... Different reviewers from many different cultures over time. If you can get substantially more than 50% of them to agree, then you have some truth about the design/product.
THx-RNMarsh
Mono listening. If recorded with a single microphone is OK... but, not a stereo or multi-mic recording played in mono..... If JC listens to stereo recordings in mono, a LOT of information would be lost... via L-R cancellation. Same thing happens to lesser degree when significant cross-talk is allowed.... as you go towards mono. the cancellation of signals increases and stage width decreases. For accurate playback of stereo recording, you need low amount of cross-talk (including room).
We all know - dont we - that listeners have preferences. Or bias. Same for magazine reviewers. If we use the same magazine and same small group of friends or same magazine reviewers to give us feedback... we tend to design to match their bias and get good ratings.
My fall-back position is usually what a wider range of people say... Different reviewers from many different cultures over time. If you can get substantially more than 50% of them to agree, then you have some truth about the design/product.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Good question.
Even while, in the 70, we played a lot with all the possible ways we could imagine to create *new* sounds, it was always based on foundations as much realistic and credible as possible.
It seems most of the new generation producers do not care about this at all. It looks like they look only to some physical pleasures, subliminal effects, I don't know how to express this. No more connexion with any make believe of reality.
Like computer-generated images in science fiction movies.
More generally, it seems young customers of music do not care any more of "Hifi".
Think and recall, those are what goes on in your head, just like imagination.
Nice try, Jakob1863 on other forum.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.