from Werner:
My current modest setup has astonished me at times with soundstage/instrument localization but I could not say confidently that it was more true to the original. (In the interest of disclosure, my stereo also has a sub and center-channel.)
It seems you did not take my previous remarks as an affront, and I appreciate that. I simply wanted to point out what I saw as an inconsistency.
for Telemann:
Interesting post my good man! Mr. Culshaw, aware of his recording's technical shortcomings, purposely resorting to the power of suggestion for a little nudge in his favor. He's certainly thorough (or desperate
). In other occupations that could be considered less than moral activity. Some may see it so anyway. I'm definitely not one of those.
And the junglescapes example lends some credence to something I posted in another thread. I have not experienced those recordings firsthand, but knew it was being done.
Pano, I've no doubt of your experience with the stable and repeatable illusion of dimensional audio and it's realistic qualities. But you neglected the edge-of-the-seat answer - was it CD or phonograph?
I'd agree with that. ie Stereo can sometimes provide a 3D effect but it remains short of the goal of "real"; it isn't a "clone" of the original performance.
My current modest setup has astonished me at times with soundstage/instrument localization but I could not say confidently that it was more true to the original. (In the interest of disclosure, my stereo also has a sub and center-channel.)
It seems you did not take my previous remarks as an affront, and I appreciate that. I simply wanted to point out what I saw as an inconsistency.
for Telemann:
Interesting post my good man! Mr. Culshaw, aware of his recording's technical shortcomings, purposely resorting to the power of suggestion for a little nudge in his favor. He's certainly thorough (or desperate
). In other occupations that could be considered less than moral activity. Some may see it so anyway. I'm definitely not one of those.And the junglescapes example lends some credence to something I posted in another thread. I have not experienced those recordings firsthand, but knew it was being done.
Pano, I've no doubt of your experience with the stable and repeatable illusion of dimensional audio and it's realistic qualities. But you neglected the edge-of-the-seat answer - was it CD or phonograph?
I presume that people here are all familiar with this..?:
(I just found it Googling, but maybe others here have seen it before?)
Francinstien
(I just found it Googling, but maybe others here have seen it before?)
Francinstien
...
Oh no, you had to ask!
Both, to some degree - but:
The very best reproductions of space, position, depth, height, width, and ambiance that I've heard, have all been from - drum roll please - compact disc. Every time.
I don't know if that was the medium, the recordings or pure coincidence, but that's been my experience.
I can scan a graph from the research that illustrates this effect.
The experiments were done in mono, and show that, with a fixed speaker position, the higher the frequency the higher the perceived source location. Couple this with appropriate room reflections and you have 2 basic tools for creating an image with apparent height.
dave
Reading that web site I linked to, it seems that Abbey Road used the 'Blumlein Shuffler'. By sheer coincidence, I saw Arena about George Martin the other night, and he was describing how he used to hear "an arc of sound" from the monitor speakers, with height as well as a left-right effect.
I should have pasted part of the post before last in bold because, uniquely in all of this thread, it seems to provide a rational explanation as to why LP might sound better than CD! Eureka!!!
Francinstien
Francinstien
Psychoacoustics, man - I maintained earlier that linearisation may not be the correct path to a "more realistic sound" - thanks for the link.
What's so wonderfull about that. The old Audio Amateur had a number of different article's about the Blumlein's crossfeed recording techniques, etc., back in the 70's and a number of people were actually doing it. The diy headphone guys have also done a fair number of crossfeed circuits over the years and some are quite good. But like I mentioned earlier, the Binaural recording technique, especially through headphones, is the best I've heard. However, it's not bad with speakers either.
Having said that, I'll go back to what you have "humorously" described as "magic" and "hand waving."
TerryO
What's so wonderful about that is that the crosstalk you get from the vinyl replay process is responsible for the "improvement" of the stereo image. The increased "solidity" of image.
Depending on which side of the fence you are on, playback is either enhanced (so folks say vinyl is better) or distorted (folks say CD is better).
You pick.
Depending on which side of the fence you are on, playback is either enhanced (so folks say vinyl is better) or distorted (folks say CD is better).
You pick.
I think I'd pick having the "optimum crossfeed" be recorded and reproduced accurately - or even better the effect that matches your listening environment, particular loudspeaker, room, listening geometry dialed in with a a room correction processor
"relying" on a particular cartridge production tolerance, tonearm alignment to deliver with different pressings from different cutting machines, studios, recording mic placement... in a magically "synergistic" listening set up is wishful thinking
I found a picture to illustrate my point about aliasing near the Fsr/2 frequencies:
Any of the pictured sinewaves could be the original signal, at almost any level.
These beats/aliasing errors extend down into the midrange, getting smaller as they go of course: but I think we can still hear them as our ears are very very good in the midrange.
Realistically a decent (accurate reproduction) frequency response to 10kHz is pushing it for a CD. Nyquist never said you can go perfectly to Fsr/2 - people just think he did. He said that was the limit, after which the digital information can be interpreted as various different waveforms.
Late coming to thread, just was looking at some posts, didn't nor will read the whole hundreds of pages of the thread. This maybe already addressed but above is incorrect.
The example used shows 3 sines having exact Fsr/2 frequency, which theorem says the signals components must be less than Fsr/2.
If you or who generated the picture used a frequency a little below Fsr/2 with those three sine waves, it would still appear to be coinciding at each sampling point fromthe short time given (7 sampling points only), but as the time advances the difference between sampling values will start to show up.
The sine waves are by theorem are infinite, many people don't consider this.
That all said, because of some other ideal conditions imposed by Nyquist, the higher the sampling in real world the better it is. I am not going to go into it more than than saying Nyquist requires infinite signal and preknowledge of the whole signal, which are both not realistic in real life. The higher the sampling the better it approaches to the idealistic theory case.
Just wanted to correct your conclusion, which are drawn from an example from Fsr/2, and on very limited number of samples.
As I wrote in the above post, just wanted to correct, you are missing the part that all DACs contain some kind of a low pass filter (requirement of Nyquist), which would filter out the high frequencies that are the cause of the abrupt changes and will leave you with the 15Khz original signal.
That all said, as I wrote in my previous post, this is in theory, and in reality other factors cause some error, but it is not what you wrote.
So still the higher the sampling the better it is, and I will leave it at that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.