I think one proposal was to sit near a velocity maximum in the modal region and not using symmetrical loudsepeaker placement, that way the phase is more different between ears and the uncorrelated low frequency information can come through the recording in the modal region. Ofcourse then the effect is very narrow band, encompassing about the bandwith of the mode, but Griesinger reported that every little bit helps creating the illusion. And to stay on topic, the frequency response would not be flat and ...um... maybe 'Flat' is not correct for stereo system
But 99,9% of recordings have correlated low frequencies, so all this becomes moot. And those other 0,1% are incopatible with typical bassmanagement schemes, so I don't see that low freq. envelopment/'hall sound' could become mainstream anytime soon. Maybe with Ambisonics and WFS?
When i take this statement as a basic consense, i'd like to ask:
Is there a "better" balance between "locatedness of phantom sources" and "spaceusness"
to be achieved than
- using the same monitor speakers for home listening as have been used during mastering and
- rebuilding the room where the mastering was made in our home environment ?
Can we achieve a "better" experience of the recording, than the one perceived during the
mastering ?
Given the studio equipment used is state of the art and well suited for the purpose and
having a mastering room of suitable size and matched acoustics, my intuitive answer would
be: No.
So where does the discussion about which speakers being the best for homely listening,
how to set them up in the home environment and how to treat the room come from ?
A preliminary collection of deviations:
1) The mastering engineer is assumed to sit in a defined (although not "fixed head")
position related to the monitor speakers, as the mixing console is his working place.
---
Home listeners instead are allowed to move usually ... despite of
"hey fellow audio freak, take your seat THERE and listen to my new (self built) speakers until
you are released ..." situations, which are very enjoyful to some listeners but not to all of them ...
2) The mastering room is assumed to be optimized for a certain frequency dependent decay,
which is typically shorter than the decay of rooms for different purposes.
There are also preferences in delay and intensity of reflections.
Not all studios have mastering rooms of same acoustics.
---
Most home listening rooms serve as living rooms as a main purpose instead ... e.g. varying
intensity especially of early reflections is to be expected as well as large variance of
late reverberation. Even the "inter home listening room variations" now multiply with the
"inter room variations" of the mastering side.
3) Not all studios use the same speakers and equipment for mastering.
---
Even the home equipment has a large diversity, multiplying the
"inter home variations" with the "inter recording variations"
4) Not all record companies employ the same mastering engineer, nor do they have
the same "corporate identity" due to esthetics of recorded sound.
---
The "inter home listeners variation" in listening experience, taste, genre preferences
multiply with the "inter record company variations" in "corporate sound identity".
...
While this may not be the end of the list, we have surely more than enough "sources of deviation"
between "intended auditive mastering result" and "auditively perceived result at home".
More than enough sources of deviation but:
--- The speaker being only one of the sources of perceivable deviation. ---
How could a target specification for "a home speaker" look like ?
Without advocating for certain techniques of achieving this or that particular
property, to me there is a simple "meta specification" due to imaging:
Reduction of deviation (see above list) while maintaining the intended
balance of locatedness and envelopment.
This is the way of maintaining the "largest enjoyable repertoire of recordings."
I also do not like to discredit Bose 901, but just take it as an example:
Does is really create diffusivity ?
IMO a speaker following this concept can only create diffusivity, when the reflections
caused from off axis radiation are fairly random in delay time and intensity ...
This may not be the case in the majority of living rooms and speaker positions.
In many living rooms such a speaker will create (even early) highly correlated reflections
with respect to the direct sound also showing up in a presence of comb filtering due
to placement.
Of cause it will exhibit a very small ratio of direct sound, even when listening close,
compared to more direct speakers.
But i can imagine setups, where such a speaker performs very well - of course this will
not be the typical setups we will find in the majority of owner's living rooms.
Bose 901 is the examplaric speaker neglecting my above mentioned "personal meta specification".
The speaker has a well earned - and meanwhile traditional - place in those discussions ...
Kind Regards
You raise a very important point but I have to call a "time out" until somebody checks the facts with Toole's book.
I wouldn't be surprised if room echos help localization of a single speaker as a source. But I think they harm localization of a stereo phantom image.
Yes, all kinds of echos (on the recording or added by the music room) seem to help with the warm-and-fuzzy good feeling of ambiance that Toole endorses so much. But that is not the same as saying the phantom image is redintegrated better.
BTW, I try to avoid the term "illusion." ALL percepts are brain creations - so I suppose you could call ALL perceptions illusions. But that gives an unsavory sound to the processes of perception and just adds food to engineero-centric bias.
Or you could simply recognize that all percepts are "best efforts" of the brain to create a coherent image from the mess of cues available to it. In the case of playing music, you have mostly coherent cues from the recording and always misleading cues from the room. The important question is how veridical is the perception or how precise is the localization (and how to make it more so) not how "illusory" is it.
If anybody thinks they know something about how hearing works, try this on for size. A few issues ago, Scientific American had a feature article about people who were blind in every usual sense but could walk down a hall and not bump into things (using only visual cues). Others can sense emotion in pictures of faces without being able to "see" the picture. This would be nothing peculiar to the folks who know something about perception.
I'll have to break with conventional wisdom here and say that duplicating the mastering experience isn't an assurance of best fidelity.
Start with a few assumptions: that the musicians were doing something well worth capturing and the microphones picked it up well. The recording engineer then took that raw material and placed it in stereo space, adjusted it, EQed it, added effects and reverb, etc.
If we assume he did a perfect job and created, that day, a perfect listening experience, then yes, we would want to duplicate his system to get back to that perfect experience. What if he wasn't that good? What if his system wasn't that good?
Starting with the second one, we know that if his monitering system was dull he might make the mix bright to compensate. Weak in bass?, lets goose it up some. What if it has a 3dB hole at 2.7kHz? Will he accurately detect that and perfectly compensate for it? The room mode with a Q of 8 at 74Hz? Is that perfectly compensated for? My guess is that he will compensate for the broad trends but not catch the narrow trends. At the same time he will have listened to a lot of other recordings on the system, to get a sense of the monitors, and might realize they are a little weak in the bass and not go crazy with EQ. He'll take the recording home and try it on another system and further learn what aspects of the sound he should and shouldn't compensate for.
The point is that, although the notion makes sense that the engineer will "dial in" the exact inverse of his monitor system (and so we should listen to the same system at home to get back to his ideal recording), I would doubt that anything other than broad adjustment makes it into the mix, if that.
The best we can hope for is that the engineer used a light hand on the controls and effects, that the microphone feeds made it into the recording with minimal interference. Some engineers will process the sound to death and others will give it minimal processing. This might be the case whether the engineer was monitoring over a good or a bad system. As audiophiles we search out labels and recordings that have limited the amount of "mucking about".
I've been in recording studios from time to time (sometimes in the back of the room with my fingers in my ears). Engineers aren't really listening for a pleasant audio experience. The monitors are a tool meant to be very revealing and to give an x-ray view of whats going on in the mix. Levels are high enough that they hear every detail and to compensate for a days worth of threshold shift. I think it a bit like the conductor of an orchestra. It would be fascinating to stand by the conductor's side on the podium and hear what he hears, but it wouldn't be what you are used to: raw sound and too high a level. The conductor has learned how to translate what he hears in the middle of an orchestra into an expected experience in the middle of the hall. Standing at the podium isn't what you really want.
I believe it is highly likely that an audiophile with good speakers in a decent room can have a better audio experience than the recording engineer ever had.
David S.
I'm with Dave S fully. I think the argument of "matching" listening rooms to "recording studio" is just a bit of unjustified hopeful thinking. That is, the proponents are looking for simple tech-natural solutions to cling to.
Footnote: Chicago once had a great, non-proscenium orchestra hall. All seats - and esp. the cheap ones - had fabulous sound. But the conductors complained that they (the conductors) couldn't hear the mix like they'd like to. So the Bolt Bernanek Newmans of this world (acoustic consultants) screwed up the paying customers' sound in various ways to make the conductors happier. I think whenever you see those common plastic reflectors hanging over an orchestra, that's the message to take away. In other words, the conductor may or may not have nice sound. You'd think the conductor could "adjust" his/her orchestra as needed despite the odd emphases at the podium instead of screwing the customers.
Footnote: Chicago once had a great, non-proscenium orchestra hall. All seats - and esp. the cheap ones - had fabulous sound. But the conductors complained that they (the conductors) couldn't hear the mix like they'd like to. So the Bolt Bernanek Newmans of this world (acoustic consultants) screwed up the paying customers' sound in various ways to make the conductors happier. I think whenever you see those common plastic reflectors hanging over an orchestra, that's the message to take away. In other words, the conductor may or may not have nice sound. You'd think the conductor could "adjust" his/her orchestra as needed despite the odd emphases at the podium instead of screwing the customers.
Last edited:
Just b/c some mastering engineers know well what they are doing doesn't mean we can have a loudspeaker/room deviated in any random way and expect good sound. I'm not suggesting that this is what people are advocating even though I see no alternatives being offered by 'no standard' thinkers. I'm all for doing what you like, but there is no way a recording can account for every possible loudspeaker/room defect. There are just too many ways to screw up a room or loudspeaker. The same thing can be said in reverse--there's no way a loudspeaker and room can compensate for poor recording. So some degree of standardization and knowledge of acoustics/psychoacoustics is absolutely necessary unless you just don't care much about the original intent. That may be the case for some, but it's not for me since I know most recording engineers are not morons. If not similar to the mastering environment or IEC, then what? How can we expect to get closer to the original intent by deviating further from the environment it was invented(mastered) in? Until someone offers a realistic solution, well we'll just have to be stuck with what seems like the obvious solution and it obviously works here at home. Occam's Razor is still alive and well in my house. All apologies for my simplistic thinking.
I also find it interesting that it seems to me the majority of people complaining about recordings advocate the most deviated loudspeakers and rooms. 😕
Return back to the ill defined portion of the central paradox as it's the most interesting part of the hobby to me,
Dan
I also find it interesting that it seems to me the majority of people complaining about recordings advocate the most deviated loudspeakers and rooms. 😕
Return back to the ill defined portion of the central paradox as it's the most interesting part of the hobby to me,
Dan
And I agree with Dantheman too. What can be said that is constructive?
First, it prolly is best to add some fuzzy ambiance from the room, but not stuff that makes it hard for the brain to re-create a good phantom. That may be about the same as advocating the "usual suspects" for bounces and timings. But it helps to have the right underlying concept.
Second, the stuff that comes on some CDs needs adjustment when you play it at home. Anybody disagree with that? The question is what are the right user-friendly adjustments? For sure, "doctor knows best" is a not a satisfying answer because your speakers will sound great on some recordings and you need "grin and bear it" for the rest.
Odd that so little effort has gone into developing adjustments. We've inherited stuff like tone controls that are just the most basic circuits appropriate to tubes. Digital stuff has its own favorite parameters which may or may not be helpful in the human domain. Subs can be moved closer or further from walls and corners and that is a kind of special adjustment quite different from the old tone controls.
About Occam's Razor, there is another take on simplicity, "A theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - attributed to Einstein.
First, it prolly is best to add some fuzzy ambiance from the room, but not stuff that makes it hard for the brain to re-create a good phantom. That may be about the same as advocating the "usual suspects" for bounces and timings. But it helps to have the right underlying concept.
Second, the stuff that comes on some CDs needs adjustment when you play it at home. Anybody disagree with that? The question is what are the right user-friendly adjustments? For sure, "doctor knows best" is a not a satisfying answer because your speakers will sound great on some recordings and you need "grin and bear it" for the rest.
Odd that so little effort has gone into developing adjustments. We've inherited stuff like tone controls that are just the most basic circuits appropriate to tubes. Digital stuff has its own favorite parameters which may or may not be helpful in the human domain. Subs can be moved closer or further from walls and corners and that is a kind of special adjustment quite different from the old tone controls.
About Occam's Razor, there is another take on simplicity, "A theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - attributed to Einstein.
I gladly believe that this is possible ... and should happen from time to time with a decent setup.
But i also think that complaining about too many recordings is
substantiating that suspicion you mention.
I can live very happy with both statements cited and i can see no
contradiction, just trying to find aspects of "truth" by balancing
evidence and cues when making speakers or modifying a setup in a room ...
Kind Regards
Last edited:
Hello,
I'm glad one eared listening came up. Indeed, human is capable of spatial hearing with one ear only. Broadband high frequency sounds are the key here. Pinna rules, gives no mercy! After I realized this many pieces has fallen into right places 🙂
One eared listening is something one can improve by training. Everyone should do a simple experiment: plug one ear with protection earplug, listen some music with high freq content. At first you can rotate head (slightly) to make the localisation more accourate. This really is something one can learn in time. Try with your eyes closed.
Why this is important for stereo listening? Because the same pinna gives no mercy for stereo either! There is no way 2 loudspeakers would satisfy the brain because of conflicting cues: below about 700Hz ITD says something, above about 700Hz ILD tells something else, and above about 3kHz two pinnas have a different story again. For stereo speakers there are strong cues from all of these perception mechanisms, and they conflict. No good.
I think the best improvement (tweek) one can have on stereo is to remove the crosstalk (by cross talk canceller, either mechanoacoustic or electronic) and place you speakers directly in front.
All in all I would say individual variations are big in terms of pinna power. Thus some may not find it an issue at all, while others are beeing held out of satisfaction before also pinna is satisfied. Over the years I've come to a conclusion the force is strong with my pinnas 😎 It's a blessing and at the same time it's a curse.
- Elias
I'm glad one eared listening came up. Indeed, human is capable of spatial hearing with one ear only. Broadband high frequency sounds are the key here. Pinna rules, gives no mercy! After I realized this many pieces has fallen into right places 🙂
One eared listening is something one can improve by training. Everyone should do a simple experiment: plug one ear with protection earplug, listen some music with high freq content. At first you can rotate head (slightly) to make the localisation more accourate. This really is something one can learn in time. Try with your eyes closed.
Why this is important for stereo listening? Because the same pinna gives no mercy for stereo either! There is no way 2 loudspeakers would satisfy the brain because of conflicting cues: below about 700Hz ITD says something, above about 700Hz ILD tells something else, and above about 3kHz two pinnas have a different story again. For stereo speakers there are strong cues from all of these perception mechanisms, and they conflict. No good.
I think the best improvement (tweek) one can have on stereo is to remove the crosstalk (by cross talk canceller, either mechanoacoustic or electronic) and place you speakers directly in front.
All in all I would say individual variations are big in terms of pinna power. Thus some may not find it an issue at all, while others are beeing held out of satisfaction before also pinna is satisfied. Over the years I've come to a conclusion the force is strong with my pinnas 😎 It's a blessing and at the same time it's a curse.
- Elias
Ben, I think you are right--a good eq is always going to be needed if a very high level of enjoyment with all your recordings is desired. There are too many variables for it to be otherwise. Ideals are great to discuss, but don't exist. I buy my recordings because of who or what is recorded, not who or where the recording was made. That makes for a lot of variables. Of course they are unnecessary of you are just trying to play the recording......... but what's the point in that? Do no harm even to yourself.
Anyone have a favorite EQ or EQ typology? The EQs I've added to my system in the past either caused a humm or as much as I hate to say it, seemed to reduce clarity. Are the EQs like Audyssey, whatever HK calls theirs, and Dolby adjustable on the fly(for the recording)? Not that I see in the literature. It seems they do these automatic setup where they are EQing for in room response. Yuck! Bad idea except in the modal region and even there perhaps a listening space average would be better. I'm going to the store to check these things out in a bit.
Dan
Anyone have a favorite EQ or EQ typology? The EQs I've added to my system in the past either caused a humm or as much as I hate to say it, seemed to reduce clarity. Are the EQs like Audyssey, whatever HK calls theirs, and Dolby adjustable on the fly(for the recording)? Not that I see in the literature. It seems they do these automatic setup where they are EQing for in room response. Yuck! Bad idea except in the modal region and even there perhaps a listening space average would be better. I'm going to the store to check these things out in a bit.
Dan
Hi,
I have a solution proposal for this (I didn't try it in practise):
On both side walls of the room place multiple of bass boxes in an array (horisontal and vertical). The purpose is to launch a plane wave (approximately). Right hand side array is fed from R channel. Left hand side array is fed with a delayed and inverted R channel (the delay is equal to room width). And vice versa.
In this way there is no standing waves, since a wave will only travel until it reaches the opposite wall where it is cancelled.
Now if, and it's a big if, there is stereo content in bass there is low IACC. If there's mono bass to start with one can decorrelate L and R channels, but then it's up to you what you prefer since you need to come up with the decorrelator impulse response of some kind.
- Elias
I have a solution proposal for this (I didn't try it in practise):
On both side walls of the room place multiple of bass boxes in an array (horisontal and vertical). The purpose is to launch a plane wave (approximately). Right hand side array is fed from R channel. Left hand side array is fed with a delayed and inverted R channel (the delay is equal to room width). And vice versa.
In this way there is no standing waves, since a wave will only travel until it reaches the opposite wall where it is cancelled.
Now if, and it's a big if, there is stereo content in bass there is low IACC. If there's mono bass to start with one can decorrelate L and R channels, but then it's up to you what you prefer since you need to come up with the decorrelator impulse response of some kind.
- Elias
In the larger picture, I believe we are on the right track in wresting control from the room with constant/controlled directivity loudspeakers. Once that is accomplished, we're positioned to adjust the variables to suit our tastes and listening pleasures via predictable means; without this, it's the lifelong crapshoot characteristic of "Audiophilia...." 😉
I agree. I think there shoud be optimum to allow maximum in both phantom imaging and spaciousness. However that optimum might turn out to be very narrow in terms of allowed parameter variance? Maybe it's hard to achieve in practise concidering variables (speaker + room)?
However, there are other opinions about reflections and localisations e.g. Moulton etc. they say reflections help to the phantom imaging.
I don't have the article, but I know that usually the weakest sense is being taken over by other senses for compensation (evolutionary survival consept). Blind can have superior hearing. Also hearing damage in one ear is compensated by the remaining ear (one eared listening mentioned before)
- Elias
I think today's modal opinion is not that say, a blind person has better hearing but that they use it better. However, in the SciAm article, the guidance was entirely "visual" without seeing objects, not with auditory help (for example avoiding tripping on the legs of a camera tripod hazard can't be done by ear).
Rotating your head away from the stereo listening position does about the same thing to the stereo image as going into the next room. And when you rotate your head a bit, you are then listening (and localizing) to the speakers as the sound source, not the phantom image (except in so far as your imagination can be kept in check and you are just using your hearing). Try it.
And when you have very efficient speakers (like some horns) that play the residual noise grunge in your amps audibly, you localize it to the speaker and that kind of unmasks the Wizard of Oz.
Last edited:
-------------
That is a very common "wouldn't it be nice if were true" myths.
One-ear localization can be done by all of use - although it might take a bit of practice.
The "superior hearing" is also one that can be trained up on normal-sighted individuals.
There are some cases of neural and anatomical changes (I won't use the word, adaptation, since that has a specific & technical meaning), but those are most likely not in play here.
Haa! That's the one, I remember it was presented in german forum few years back. I had the idea in the 90's, but I don't claim for rights of invention 😀
This is limited only to front-back. I think left-right works better as I propose, since it gives you stereo in case it exists in the recording.
- Elias
- Status
- Not open for further replies.