😳
Sorry, I focused on the title of the post (3D) and I missed that mtidge problem. My apologies to him, now I understand his allusion to the stereo in my living room.....I do what I can with my English and the translator.
Last edited:
Having trained myself to hear panning as lateral position, I can say that the training was largely but not completely successful. Now I sort of perceive a mix of the two, a phantom image and of separate speakers. Also, it depends a lot on the speakers and their placement. The Sound Lab ESL panels are quite good for creating an illusion of space while also being very low distortion. I can still hear cues that attract my attention to one speaker or the other at times. For me at least, higher frequencies tend to sound more like they are coming from the speakers, mids and bass can produce a quite compelling spatial illusion. Turning down the HF a little on the speaker EQ enhances that illusion. From talking to other people about their perception I think that's more a property of the speakers than it is of my hearing.
Who stated / claimed that two humans have the exact same anatomy? What does it say in the textbooks you mentioned?
BTW, not holding my breath.
Only if paired up with decent room acoustics.
Recordings from the 60's, Beatles a good example, were recorded very "right and left" not stereo.
A driver out of phase will totally lose the imaging. Really poor crossover phase management and eq to submission will blur the image
Reflections from surfaces within two feet of the speakers will smear the image. Basically a too bright room hurts too.
Height and distance are eq related.
Queues are usually higher frequency related. How is your hearing upper range?
So the remedy would be a horizontal line array. That’s what they would hear during a real event, no? Their ears would simply follow the source?
@Disco-Pete,
Depends on the event. A rock show everything comes from the PA, so it would be hard to pick out the separate players. If I had attended a Dead show when they had of sound I might have heard the different players, from what I know Phil Lesh had a 33 foot stack for his base, and the others were connected to there own arrays. That is why I brought up opera, no PA, no amplification so I can locate the players. The orchestra is down in the pit so there is not much separation there. It has been a long time since I listen to a jazz band in a small venue so I can't say for sure how that sounded to me.
Depends on the event. A rock show everything comes from the PA, so it would be hard to pick out the separate players. If I had attended a Dead show when they had of sound I might have heard the different players, from what I know Phil Lesh had a 33 foot stack for his base, and the others were connected to there own arrays. That is why I brought up opera, no PA, no amplification so I can locate the players. The orchestra is down in the pit so there is not much separation there. It has been a long time since I listen to a jazz band in a small venue so I can't say for sure how that sounded to me.
Flip the phase of one of the speakers - and see if it still perceives the same way. Imagine if that did it?
If i can figure out how to easily extract the list from my music server i will post it.
dave
But in the real world it is a real source not an imaginary source,so is quite different.
dave
Is this similar to what http://www.davidgriesinger.com/ is doing?
"Our SonicFocus apps use alternating third-octave noise bands that allow a user to find their equal loudness profile from a frequency flat frontal loudspeaker. The test is then repeated with a pair of headphones or earbuds. The app uses this data to find the equalization for the earphone that produces the identical timbre at their eardrum from the earphone that they get from a frontal source. The result is accurate timbre and frontal localization without head tracking. The test also provides some compensation for minor degrees of hearing loss. The difference in image and timbre with our equalization is startling".
When you momentarily forget a name like David Griesinger, it's really hard to find. Using Google brought me to a previous mention of him, by myself, here in DIYAudio - before any landing on his own website!
My sole success in any of that was making a recording of my bedroom system with mic capsules stuffed into in my own ears, then playing that back through headphones for my wife (who hears much better then me) - whom I successfully tricked into believing the recorded speakers were actually playing in front of her.
I
No, I was referring to real events as opposed to recorded ones. For example someone actually walking across the room and following their footsteps as opposed to the same on a recording panning from one side to the other. With a horizontal line array you would have the source moving across also rather than diminishing and increasing spl. Mind you that would require multi-channel recording
At real events I believe I experience same 3D sound field as everyone else. I'm guessing that kind of recording you suggest doesn't exist yet. Someone mentioned when stereo was first proposed it had three channels but it was not practical. Also I heard that a very large number of tracks and speakers was proposed as the only true way to represent a live sound field.
I've used that software, with help from David. It did "something" but did not get anywhere near externalization for me. I did like the EQ it gave me for the headphones, tho.
I suppose it would present a more defined/positive sound field but I would not use "true" as an adjective here. In my mind/exp, two sources represent the best stereo effect the same way your own ears/eyes do. Quality of ancillary gear is really the arbiter and the sound engineer of course. I have a Charlie Byrd direct to disc jazz vinyl I used to play back when and the only comment I ever got from people after a demonstration was pure astonishment and "sounds like they're right there" at the realism coming out of a pair of Kef 105s, Boothroyd Stuart Meridian 105 monos, and Oracle Delphi tt with Dynavector Ruby cart on an FR arm. If you put a curtain in front of the speakers, you could possibly be fooled.
I disagree with that hypothesis.
What it hints at is that we as primates are predominantly visual creatures.
If our visual and auditory cues disagree our brain automatically disregards the auditory ones and goes with what is visually possible.
To wit: If I have my speakers on the wall behind there is no perception of depth with my eyes open. However if they are placed either side of a window ie the visual cues allow for depth behind the speakers there is.
When my eyes are closed there are no visual cues to overrule the auditory ones.
You may have heard that "every organ that is not used atrophies" Well, then we can also deduce that "every organ that is exercised tends to develop its capacities more" I found this, the full article is in the link, you have to use GT
https://www.infosalus.com/salud-inv...tan-agudizar-sentido-oido-20190423074336.html
" TIGHTER NEURONAL TUNING IN BLIND PEOPLE That study found that, in the auditory cortex, blind people showed tighter neural "tuning" than sighted people when discerning small differences in sound frequency. "This is the first study to show that blindness produces plasticity in the auditory cortex. This is important because it is an area of the brain that receives very similar auditory information in blind and sighted people..."
https://www.infosalus.com/salud-inv...tan-agudizar-sentido-oido-20190423074336.html
" TIGHTER NEURONAL TUNING IN BLIND PEOPLE That study found that, in the auditory cortex, blind people showed tighter neural "tuning" than sighted people when discerning small differences in sound frequency. "This is the first study to show that blindness produces plasticity in the auditory cortex. This is important because it is an area of the brain that receives very similar auditory information in blind and sighted people..."
Last edited by a moderator:
diyAUdio is an English language forum. You must post here in English. This is stated in rules.