I think you have many choices. They include:
1. accepting the ways things are now and use what you have. From that point of view high end headphones could be a wonderful tool to take you deeper into music.
2. rewire your brain using the science of neuroplasticity. A whole new world could open. Or maybe not.
I've chased the 3-D (or even passable 2-D) stereo illusion all my adult life -- about 40 years and have only reached it a few times. Here is my field report.
It's almost entirely the speakers and the room. I confine discussion here to 2-channel (thus, 2 speaker) systems. Separate sub is allowed, since it is mostly non-locatable. Many people will claim high quality electronics are important. Yes and no. The law of diminishing returns applies. Big time. I seem to have done quite well with Behringer for many years. You can buy what costs ten or a hundred times as much, but the improved quality doesn't scale linearly. But I'm getting off track. The point is that, others' claims notwithstanding, the speakers (and the room) influence the sound you hear far, far more than any other component, or even all of them together.
I've owned many different kinds of speakers, including planar. All have their strengths and weaknesses. In my experience, even to make a convincing 2-D (left to right) illusion is something of an accomplishment. When it comes to some illusion of depth and/or the apparent sound space extending further width than the speakers' placement would normally allow, there are but two systems that did it for me:
1980s Infinity RS-3A speakers when using Carver Sonic Holography (very picky about positioning of speakers and listener.) The effect was hit-or-miss, but when it worked, it worked really well. Other 3-D hologram type processors are/were sold, and I suspect they worked much the same. Hughes SRS was a dud, at least for me.
Best (by far) is with Danley invented Unity or Synergy speaker pair. My only extended experience is with a pair of tweaked Yorkville Unity U15. Briefly, a Unity or Synergy speaker provides a very good approximation of a single point source, something very hard for a speaker to do. There are, of course, many highly regarded speakers that "violate" some of the rules of a Synergy, for example, the drivers do not combine seamlessly (beaming, difference in spectral content of direct vs. reflected sound). However, do not under-estimate the value of having a uniform sound field.
In the U15's case, the mid/HF horn is a 15" 60 degree dispersion. This is somewhat important in that the listener hears more of the direct sound than reflected sound. Another advantage of horns is you don't have to be in the geometrical center for perfect effect, although of course that will maximize it.
A final feature, not typically found even on many well-known speakers, is diffraction control. I use a combination of the "towel trick" and the Geddes foam plug. In a nutshell, what these treatments do is reduce (ideally eliminate) diffraction which the ear can perceive as a secondary, unwanted sound source.
Now, of course, it is not necessary that you have horns/waveguides for this. I'm sure many "box" speakers might qualify, but then the issue is reducing the intensity of early reflections from sides. One way you can do this is with a heavily treated room and/or if you sit relatively close to your speakers (near field) and they are well away from early reflection points, usually surfaces.
When dialed in, the illusion of width and depth is at times startling. I've never heard any system come close to the spatial realism. Many people describe the experience as "big headphones" or, I'd say more accurate, feeling as if you could walk into the music.
In closing, it's worth mentioning that most material I listen to is streamed or otherwise mp3 128K or higher, but not "pure" digital. Even so, the realism is very pleasant. My tastes are eclectic, but the width/depth stands out on most recordings, even studio recorded or even pure electronic music.
It's almost entirely the speakers and the room. I confine discussion here to 2-channel (thus, 2 speaker) systems. Separate sub is allowed, since it is mostly non-locatable. Many people will claim high quality electronics are important. Yes and no. The law of diminishing returns applies. Big time. I seem to have done quite well with Behringer for many years. You can buy what costs ten or a hundred times as much, but the improved quality doesn't scale linearly. But I'm getting off track. The point is that, others' claims notwithstanding, the speakers (and the room) influence the sound you hear far, far more than any other component, or even all of them together.
I've owned many different kinds of speakers, including planar. All have their strengths and weaknesses. In my experience, even to make a convincing 2-D (left to right) illusion is something of an accomplishment. When it comes to some illusion of depth and/or the apparent sound space extending further width than the speakers' placement would normally allow, there are but two systems that did it for me:
1980s Infinity RS-3A speakers when using Carver Sonic Holography (very picky about positioning of speakers and listener.) The effect was hit-or-miss, but when it worked, it worked really well. Other 3-D hologram type processors are/were sold, and I suspect they worked much the same. Hughes SRS was a dud, at least for me.
Best (by far) is with Danley invented Unity or Synergy speaker pair. My only extended experience is with a pair of tweaked Yorkville Unity U15. Briefly, a Unity or Synergy speaker provides a very good approximation of a single point source, something very hard for a speaker to do. There are, of course, many highly regarded speakers that "violate" some of the rules of a Synergy, for example, the drivers do not combine seamlessly (beaming, difference in spectral content of direct vs. reflected sound). However, do not under-estimate the value of having a uniform sound field.
In the U15's case, the mid/HF horn is a 15" 60 degree dispersion. This is somewhat important in that the listener hears more of the direct sound than reflected sound. Another advantage of horns is you don't have to be in the geometrical center for perfect effect, although of course that will maximize it.
A final feature, not typically found even on many well-known speakers, is diffraction control. I use a combination of the "towel trick" and the Geddes foam plug. In a nutshell, what these treatments do is reduce (ideally eliminate) diffraction which the ear can perceive as a secondary, unwanted sound source.
Now, of course, it is not necessary that you have horns/waveguides for this. I'm sure many "box" speakers might qualify, but then the issue is reducing the intensity of early reflections from sides. One way you can do this is with a heavily treated room and/or if you sit relatively close to your speakers (near field) and they are well away from early reflection points, usually surfaces.
When dialed in, the illusion of width and depth is at times startling. I've never heard any system come close to the spatial realism. Many people describe the experience as "big headphones" or, I'd say more accurate, feeling as if you could walk into the music.
In closing, it's worth mentioning that most material I listen to is streamed or otherwise mp3 128K or higher, but not "pure" digital. Even so, the realism is very pleasant. My tastes are eclectic, but the width/depth stands out on most recordings, even studio recorded or even pure electronic music.
@Pano
This has been a fun conversation, maybe the reason I can speak in non technical terms is I am a technician and not an engineer. The difference between and engineer and a tech is a tech needs to operate in both the theoretical and practical worlds, it is the only way to make the engineer's designs to actually work. When I switched from electronics to computer service when I got the work done I would tell the lead engineer how I did it he and would tell me that isn't what he wanted done. When I pushed him to show me what he wanted done the usual answer was vague and to go do it again without enough detail on what I should do instead. In the end I would just do it my way which was the simplest way for me with the lowest risk of data loss or down time and simply move on to the next job without talking to him. Funny thing is he burned out 20 years before I did. He was a smart guy but his down fall was trying own every detail and not to trust me to execute and move on.
Back to LSD, the reason I got the great insight into myself was I could not sleep until I came all the way down. I also learned not to drink on LSD, everyone I tripped with claimed they could drink mass quantities while tripping with no effect, they were wrong, they were incredibly drunk but just didn't know it. That left me alone with my thoughts for what felt like an eternity while they all passed out. The other benefit was I felt fine the next day and they all had acid hangovers, little did they know that drinking a quart of vodka was the real reason.
This has been a fun conversation, maybe the reason I can speak in non technical terms is I am a technician and not an engineer. The difference between and engineer and a tech is a tech needs to operate in both the theoretical and practical worlds, it is the only way to make the engineer's designs to actually work. When I switched from electronics to computer service when I got the work done I would tell the lead engineer how I did it he and would tell me that isn't what he wanted done. When I pushed him to show me what he wanted done the usual answer was vague and to go do it again without enough detail on what I should do instead. In the end I would just do it my way which was the simplest way for me with the lowest risk of data loss or down time and simply move on to the next job without talking to him. Funny thing is he burned out 20 years before I did. He was a smart guy but his down fall was trying own every detail and not to trust me to execute and move on.
Back to LSD, the reason I got the great insight into myself was I could not sleep until I came all the way down. I also learned not to drink on LSD, everyone I tripped with claimed they could drink mass quantities while tripping with no effect, they were wrong, they were incredibly drunk but just didn't know it. That left me alone with my thoughts for what felt like an eternity while they all passed out. The other benefit was I felt fine the next day and they all had acid hangovers, little did they know that drinking a quart of vodka was the real reason.
LOL, yes - don't blame the vodka!
I am also a tech, not an engineer - even tho my title often carries that word. I have to make it work in a real world, non ideal situation. Fortunatley I have enough experience that when I get to talk to the design engineers, they are happy to listen to feedback. They realize that they "don't get out enough." I do not envy them their jobs.
I am also a tech, not an engineer - even tho my title often carries that word. I have to make it work in a real world, non ideal situation. Fortunatley I have enough experience that when I get to talk to the design engineers, they are happy to listen to feedback. They realize that they "don't get out enough." I do not envy them their jobs.
The inner narration is often actually an impediment to speed reading. People who hear the words in their head will read slower and with worse comprehension because they are basically sounding the words out silently. This can require extended effort to overcome.
And the stereo illusion is just that, an illusion. So we can't automatically take the loss of it as a negative thing. After all many people perceive a soundstage that is totally at odds with what was actually recorded or even what was intended by the engineers. Immersion in this internal imagery is the point for many people, but it is a poor substitute for deliberate thought. In many cases what we see is people dazzled by the illusion and unable to make logical deductions or deeper reflection on the experience.
I wonder if your resistance to the illusion may give you a better sense of where the sound is really coming from, and that might actually be useful in sound work. In a highly feeling-oriented field, there are endless examples of people falling for their own internal illusions. To not have those would estrange you somewhat for sure, but may also be quite an advantage.
And the stereo illusion is just that, an illusion. So we can't automatically take the loss of it as a negative thing. After all many people perceive a soundstage that is totally at odds with what was actually recorded or even what was intended by the engineers. Immersion in this internal imagery is the point for many people, but it is a poor substitute for deliberate thought. In many cases what we see is people dazzled by the illusion and unable to make logical deductions or deeper reflection on the experience.
I wonder if your resistance to the illusion may give you a better sense of where the sound is really coming from, and that might actually be useful in sound work. In a highly feeling-oriented field, there are endless examples of people falling for their own internal illusions. To not have those would estrange you somewhat for sure, but may also be quite an advantage.
Sorry, I write and read through Google Translate for linguistic reasons. Of course, I try to edit, i.e. Google is used as an economical slave
. However, I hope that thought will overcome all obstacles.1. First, we need to determine whether the interlocutor/interlocutors (in this case, you) have NATIVE SPATIAL hearing. This is easy enough to do by answering the question: when I close my eyes, do I HEAR at least approximately the spatial position of some NATURAL sound source? For example, various sounds from an open window and SURELY I answer myself: "the window is on the right / behind / above / etc." In this case, you must ignore the timbre and volume of the sound source! If the answer is no, “I can’t determine the direction/location, but I can hear the source,” then the problem is already medical. And it is unlikely that they will help you on this forum (I apologize in advance, I DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND anyone!). If the answer is yes "I can determine", then you can proceed to the next paragraph.
2. In the overwhelming case of the production and consumption of an AUDIO PRODUCT (a file / disc with music, soundtrack of a program or a film), various "tricks" are used. Some of them are somewhat similar to "tricks" in fine art, when in a flat drawing they try to convey volume through penumbra / shadows, "perspective", etc. However, at the base (from "deception" to "underlining") all tricks are reinforced concrete
anthropometric and physiological factors that accompany the formation of ANY objective acoustic stimulus of auditory SENSATION. There are only four of them.a) HRTF, i.e. four-dimensional (!!) transmission coefficient (depends on frequency and three spatial coordinates) for each ear separately from a given point in space;
b) two-channel auditory sensor (two ears);
c) the possibility of acoustic location (i.e., instinctive or meaningful movements of the head and body in order to "clarify" the position of the "site" of interest in the general sound event, in fact - scanning space using the first two factors);
d) the body's own noises associated with vital activity (breathing, pulse/blood flow noise, vocal cords, tissue acoustic conduction, etc.).
Factor d) is nothing but our native/natural acoustic support - "point/line/reference area" - relative to our body. Together with the vestibular sensation "up / down" normally determines "where I am and my ears"
.It is amazing how HRTF normally affects. For a more or less wideband stimulus spectrum (i.e. more than two or three pure tones/sinusoids) no two points in the near space (1cm to 4-5m from the entrance to the auditory canal) have the same HRTF! And "stereo" (i.e. spatial auditory sensation) is possible even with one ear: plug one ear with a comfortable finger, close your eyes and ask a friend / girlfriend to walk around or just move around you and / or your head a mobile phone playing some kind of noise-music . You quite accurately determine where and along what trajectory the mobile phone is moving!
Well, ash stump
, what with "an alien body" or "without a body" (under water or in headphones, as if ALL EXTERNAL sounds are located inside the head - see factor d) ) this is either impossible or much less accurate. Because we are adapted ("used") to the HRTF of our own body. No miracles. One physiology and physics with mathematics. But on the "inaccuracies / shortcomings" in these factors, you can compose all sorts of tricks. Though optical (for visual sensations, of course), though acoustic. "Headphones" (exclusion of factors one and three + exclusion of interpenetration of the acoustic stimulus for the ears through the air - reduction and distortion against the norm of the influence of factor two) - the brightest focus, by the way ...When carefully considering the conditions and methods of consumption and production of audio products, one can be surprised to find how far modern audio technology is from both perfection and Nature
Our audio technology is very similar to a drawing set, and not to DOCUMENTAL / SCIENTIFIC holographyAnd in conclusion, I will quote, probably, the most famous researcher of Spatial Hearing:
...there is no such thing as non-spatial hearing... J.Blauert
Last edited:
My answer to question 1 is I do indeed my NATIVE SPATIAL hearing works correctly, I can quickly locate sounds normally. For instance hearing a wood pecker and the using that to locate the bird with my eyes, not easy, they blend in quite well. But, the stereo tricks recorded into the music don't seem to work for me, I get no phantom center or instruments located in 2d nor 3d space. I speculate that this may also be related to my inability to visualize pictures in my "mind's eye".Sorry, I write and read through Google Translate for linguistic reasons. Of course, I try to edit, i.e. Google is used as an economical slave
1. First, we need to determine whether the interlocutor/interlocutors (in this case, you) have NATIVE SPATIAL hearing. This is easy enough to do by answering the question: when I close my eyes, do I HEAR at least approximately the spatial position of some NATURAL sound source? For example, various sounds from an open window and SURELY I answer myself: "the window is on the right / behind / above / etc." In this case, you must ignore the timbre and volume of the sound source! If the answer is no, “I can’t determine the direction/location, but I can hear the source,” then the problem is already medical. And it is unlikely that they will help you on this forum (I apologize in advance, I DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND anyone!). If the answer is yes "I can determine", then you can proceed to the next paragraph.
And in conclusion, I will quote, probably, the most famous researcher of Spatial Hearing:
...there is no such thing as non-spatial hearing... J.Blauert
Have you ever deliberately connected your stereo speakers out of phase? When I do that on accident, it seems all sound is coming from "either side" of the speaker setup or the walls of the room, with nothing in between. That might be an interesting test to see what happens in your own perception. It's a fairly gross effect. Would be great of you could temporarily arrange a (2PDT?) switch at your listening seat so you could throw one speaker out and back to see what comes and goes for you.
I think that you have superobjective spatial hearing
Ie. don't fall for studio tricks. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. I rarely, but still met such people in my practice (I've been doing audio since I was 15, I'm 65). The advantage is that you simply have the highest requirements for both recording (production) and playback (consumption) of audio products. This may be one of the "disadvantages". Since it is problematic for you to organize a fairly budget solution for a home system. Plus, not all records in the 3D aspect will please you . Most likely "expensive and rare". The second "shortcoming" is a consequence of the first one: for one reason or another, you could not form the "average for the hospital" STEREOTYPE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype) of electro-acoustic sounding in its separate context/section under the name "stereo" (2/3D). This stereotype in general, and not only in the spatial context, is very similar to the stereotype of vision under artificial lighting in the aspect of "color" or the stereotype of "flat images" in the aspect of "volume" (3D).
Me too. At 15 (or so), I can remember standing in front of the Radio Shack store at the mall where they had a small system setup and playing right at the entrance. Flipping the rocker "Stereo / Mono", "Stereo / Mono", "Stereo / Mono", "Stereo ... Mono", "Stereo" and listening to how that sounded.
My introduction to audio technology began differently. Since a schoolboy (secondary school in the USSR, a year before graduation, 1973) doesn’t have much money, except for “breakfasts and movies”, I decided instead of movies and sandwiches to make myself an amplifier and a speaker for my parent’s tape recorder (oh yes! Led Zeppelin !! !). And so I started with the "library". And reading everything in a row, I suddenly thought: is it really this variable resistor that is the volume control ???? Well, that's it, I'm gone.
Indeed, today I can say that the problem of adjusting the STIMULUS, which leads to an adequate change in the FEELING of loudness and not to the detriment of other types of sensations, has NOT been SOLVED so far! But a SINGLE-CHANNEL amplifier based on germanium transistors + a speaker from an old tube receiver I still did ))))
Exactly, all sounds are anchored to the Left and Right speakers, also I heard no vertical separation and no depth. As I posted earlier in the thread I had been chasing what everyone else experiences for 50 years with no results. Different speakers, room placement, toe in, toe out. I now except that I'm wired differently and just enjoy the music.
Ok, I understand now.
Have you tried do move the speakers closer together? 1,5 meter or 5 feets.
I get a hole in the middle if they are to far away.
No difference?
Last edited:
I have a setup in my living room at about 5 feet, in my office at about 10 feet, still no stereo effect.
How far away are the speakers from your sitting place?
You shall sit a bit far away then the speakers are placed together.
Well it is difficult to understand when I havnt the same problem.
Last edited:
It must be hard to have a different picture of stereomusic.
Well you can see what we cant see. ☺️
If you want to hear audio stretched across your room then mess with the group delay. I did this on accident with an XO. All of the highs were in the front of the room in the ceiling. Things like bongos sound wrong with a ramp of a GD.
This paper suggests a person can stretch the grid of what we hear by either tilting the head or pointing the eyes up.
So look to where you want your midline to be (even closed).
Cool paper on how we hear and how fast we recover from changes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123622/
I do think that speakers can make bad sounds that can trigger our hearing in a way that takes us out of the experience. I hate sibilant sounds.
This paper suggests a person can stretch the grid of what we hear by either tilting the head or pointing the eyes up.
So look to where you want your midline to be (even closed).
Cool paper on how we hear and how fast we recover from changes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123622/
I do think that speakers can make bad sounds that can trigger our hearing in a way that takes us out of the experience. I hate sibilant sounds.
Attachments
OP and others can try looking at photos using one eye only. Without having two-eye-identical-inputs yelling "FLAT", the photo will be perceived with stereo-depth, at least about 2/3 the depth of the actual 3D scene observed with both eyes. (I'm a lifetime fan of stereoscopy and discovered this phenomenon quite accidentally.) Then, please also try listening to music with one eye closed, and compare the left vs right halves of the sound & soundstage.