If a reflection/diffraction is beyond the fusion time of the ear then the reflections will be heard as spaciousness and not color the sound. The fusion time varies with frequency being very short at HFs and long at LFs (this comes from the impulse responses of the gammatone filter that are used to model hearing.
But a reflection on a recording is not like a room reflection in that it only comes from the same direction as the direct sound. Spaciousness requires sound from random directions. This is the concept behind surround sound - to add in these more random directions. The ear can distinguish between real reflections and recorded ones. So real room reflections can add a spaciousness that two channels cannot. That makes them a good thing, albeit as long as there are not fused into the direct sound which colors and obscures imaging.
I, like most room acousticians don't give RT60 much credence. Prefered is the early decay, down to about -15 dB.
It was a long time ago (late 70's) that I heard loudspeakers in an anechoic chamber. I remember not being impressed, but I don't recall details. I like outdoor music when its live, one adjusts to that, but for studio work I prefer having some local room ambiance, much like the mixing engineer had when he produced it.
Not really true as I pointed out above. Spaciousness requires random direction of incidence and 2 channel cannot do that.
Aren't all musical recordings designed to sound good in a room? I only know of a few recordings that are truly anechoic.
I think that I would describe anechoic listening something like that. Something was missing, it was not natural.
There are tons of papers on the AES etc about surround sound.
Basically all of them conclude that surround sound would be a better experience, or at least a lot more predictable experience.
Unfortunately very little music is recorded that way and the music that is properly mixed for surround is even smaller.
It's basically always an afterthought and therefor sounded horrible, more like a gimmick.
I have heard once a well made surround system with a bunch of recordings that were also made with surround in mind and nothing beats it. The great thing about it, is that one can even tweak how he wants the sound stage and spaciousness.
With a stereo system you always have to rely on the room to some extend.
As for the anechoic listening experience, I believe that a part is the subconscious part of our brain that just doesn't sit right with it. I have read some papers on a similar experience when (very) loud sounds are to clean (no distortion at all).
It becomes kinda artificial and unnatural.
We once did a recording of a guitar player in an anechoic room. It sounded very weird and sort of sterile, the musician also found it quite weird and difficult to play, he explained that as musician you are used to and in fact relying on the reflections.
I said, the music was never meant, to sound good, in an anechoic chamber. Put yourself, in the same place as the mastering engineer of the product.
Hes saying that the literal place, the piece of Art known as the finished Master, was crafted, is the place of origin, Acoustically. In this place, we can hear what the Mastering Engineer intended, anything else is a step removed from. Its all apart of the experience. So in order to experience what the Mastering Engineer was experiencing when he put his final touch on his work of Art, and said " I am done" you need identical Room and playback system. That is an extreme iteration. We also have to consider he may have made some changes while listening in headphones, or possible in other system/rooms. A deep hole if being as literal as possible. I'm not suggesting to match temp, humidity, atmospheric pressure...
I am saying that there needs to be some cohesion(unity) between the place of engineering and the place of consumption. That would include, spaciousness of the room.
The point it all, recognizing where ground zero is. What you do with your room is your own business. It would be impossible to be most literal approach, but maybe by looking at some of the trends of mastering rooms, would get a person in a good place, if interested, in Accurate playback, instead of "nice" playback
Last edited:
^ This is all well know but beside the point that I was making. The spaciousness on a recording is not the same as that from the playback room.
Ok then I understand your point... In regards to Spectral decay, system+room, are you also in the way of thinking that a smooth neutral Burst Decay is important?
I believe that the rooms impulse response should be sharp and clean with as long an anechoic delay before reflections as possible. "Burst decay" is, to me, not as relevant as the impulse response. Why substitute new concepts when the old ones work better?
The whole tonal quality isn't the same as well.
Actually, there is barely anything the same.
Another question than would be if that was even the purpose or not?
I have seen mixing engineer deliberately mixing for bad or mediocre quality speakers.
These days even for just smart phones.
Or mixing engineers who over- or under compensate certain parts because of the type of speakers they are using.
Did I already mentioned the endless rabbit hole before? 😀 😀
I know that
I think there is room for play, to where you still have a nice sound, on the big neutral system, but you've catered to a category of playback devices.
You and I both know, That, that, is not good at all for translation lol....
I think there is room for play, to where you still have a nice sound, on the big neutral system, but you've catered to a category of playback devices.
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I was addressing AllenB's comment before mine. One room's spaciousness - the mastering room - does not add to any other room the recording may be listened to. The mastering room just helps the engineer make the recording commercially palatable to the target audience. That room spaciousness is not part of the recording.
I don't understand what you are saying - "2 channel can't do that". I'll look over the posts again when I get a chance.
Edit - Yes, 'the ear can distinguish between real reflections and recorded ones'. Real reflections can be pleasant or unpleasant. They don't make a recording objectively better. Room correction removes the reflections.
Last edited:
Lol, i didn't realize the pun, but yes those as well 😀 😀
obviously I was talking about EQ.
Yes, but I was mostly talking about how different a recording can sound.
There are some recordings that just sound absolutely awful on good speakers.
Referring to another topic, to me many flamenco records come to mind.
They don't even sound like a real flamenco style classical guitar at all.
Totally beats me why that is btw.
I am very interested in vulnerableness of the signal level. You would think that smoothness of signal would be enough, but I feel that it falls short. I think duration has a strong effect on not just perception of how loud something is but also how loud something is in comparison to another signal. Example being; Two sets of tones. One set, would have very short duration, the other, a significantly longer duration. Each set of tones would contain, the same, multiple frequencies with unique level. The contrasting frequencies, that are close in level but not identical, I theorize that these differences in levels, would be easier to recognize, in the set of tones with highest duration....
Definitely a topic of psychoacoustics. Has something like this been covered already?
Decay effects perception of loudness, Thus decay would need to be uniform across the spectrum in order to convey neutrality of the system.
isn't this a discussion of Temporal Response? I'm not sure. Can I say "The temporal response should be equal across the spectrum"
Is this irrelevant lol, as temporal information is already in the IR? Or is it that as long as the reflections are pushed back enough, it won't matter?
Definitely a topic of psychoacoustics. Has something like this been covered already?
Decay effects perception of loudness, Thus decay would need to be uniform across the spectrum in order to convey neutrality of the system.
isn't this a discussion of Temporal Response? I'm not sure. Can I say "The temporal response should be equal across the spectrum"
Is this irrelevant lol, as temporal information is already in the IR? Or is it that as long as the reflections are pushed back enough, it won't matter?
Last edited:
In judging levels of multiple frequencies, of various levels, how would decay effect the ability of a person to accurately judge level of the multiple frequencies in contrast to each other, if duration was the variable, but also, always equal, across the spectrum...
I was thinking I asked that right but now I'm like, focused on Milliseconds versus Period for the decider of what "equal across the spectrum" is supposed to me.... Pretty sure Burst Decay is where its at. As in an Even Cycle time, across the spectrum is the perceived "Nuetral"....otherwisewhat is the point of Burst Decay using Periods as increments.
I was thinking I asked that right but now I'm like, focused on Milliseconds versus Period for the decider of what "equal across the spectrum" is supposed to me.... Pretty sure Burst Decay is where its at. As in an Even Cycle time, across the spectrum is the perceived "Nuetral"....otherwisewhat is the point of Burst Decay using Periods as increments.
Last edited:
Dolby Volume
https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/pdfs/dolby-volume-tech-paper.pdf
LUFS: How To Measure Your Track’s Loudness in Mastering
https://www.edmprod.com/lufs/
https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/pdfs/dolby-volume-tech-paper.pdf
LUFS: How To Measure Your Track’s Loudness in Mastering
https://www.edmprod.com/lufs/
Leveling is the basis of any mastering work. I mean, we work on calibrated level.
It's a notion a lot of people don't get...
Something like Dolby Volume is interesting but it would be way simpler if metadata about rms level of source was included and used by players...
Would kinda stop loudness war too ( not really but at least for styles which doesn't requires it it would solve many issues).
It's a notion a lot of people don't get...
Something like Dolby Volume is interesting but it would be way simpler if metadata about rms level of source was included and used by players...
Would kinda stop loudness war too ( not really but at least for styles which doesn't requires it it would solve many issues).
I've been thinking that if cycle time across the spectrum was even, that, that, was neutrality, but it is truly Milliseconds not Periods!?
This is about Judging levels of multiple frequency in comparison to each other, not leveling. This is essentially I guess about Judging Tone. Having a flat FR is not the end of the story. Spectral Decay effects perception of Tone. Having a balanced spectral decay is home position, Measured in Milliseconds apparently...
Bringing me to another point! A neutral like Spectral Decay is not the end of the Story, A neutral like FR is not the end of the story....proven by headphones..... what else is there? I has something to do with Loudspeakers vs Headphones. I think, I said I think, its possible that having 2 ears receiving each channel, instead of just one ear, per channel may be apart of it???
The story being; increases our perception of tone.
Asked again, another way..... Increasing duration uniformly across the spectrum, does this, increase perception of Tone. I would think yes.
Things that (I think) increase the (accurate) perception of tone; Neutral FR, low Group Delay, Even Spectral Decay across the spectrum, using Two ears instead one per channel as in headphones that don't have crosstalk. Is there more? Longer duration of Decay, evenly across the spectrum?
@gedlee I almost hate to ask, I feel I might have to go dig it up out of the thread, but once you talked about some experience you had with excess decay in a Gym or something that added to the insert adjective here.... I forget, you were saying it made for a very tangible sound or something like that...
This is about Judging levels of multiple frequency in comparison to each other, not leveling. This is essentially I guess about Judging Tone. Having a flat FR is not the end of the story. Spectral Decay effects perception of Tone. Having a balanced spectral decay is home position, Measured in Milliseconds apparently...
Bringing me to another point! A neutral like Spectral Decay is not the end of the Story, A neutral like FR is not the end of the story....proven by headphones..... what else is there? I has something to do with Loudspeakers vs Headphones. I think, I said I think, its possible that having 2 ears receiving each channel, instead of just one ear, per channel may be apart of it???
The story being; increases our perception of tone.
Asked again, another way..... Increasing duration uniformly across the spectrum, does this, increase perception of Tone. I would think yes.
Things that (I think) increase the (accurate) perception of tone; Neutral FR, low Group Delay, Even Spectral Decay across the spectrum, using Two ears instead one per channel as in headphones that don't have crosstalk. Is there more? Longer duration of Decay, evenly across the spectrum?
@gedlee I almost hate to ask, I feel I might have to go dig it up out of the thread, but once you talked about some experience you had with excess decay in a Gym or something that added to the insert adjective here.... I forget, you were saying it made for a very tangible sound or something like that...
Last edited: