They are emulating a pinna transform, depending on how similar it is to yours and how accurate your system is, governs how well it works Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
That's mostly correct to say.
But people can judge distance to a live sound source, esp human voices. There are a variety of what psychologists call "cues" to depth. One cue is the ratio of direct to reflected sound. Another cue is the familiar or expected loudness of a sound - with the "stage whisper" being a sort of inexplicable complicating cognitive factor. There's little research on this topic that I know of (and my thanks to Bolserst for trying to educate me).
So, now let's visit the recording studio with 35 tracks of close-miked instruments, almost all single set-ups and therefore in mono. Obviously, the loudness of a track has very little to do the instrument and a lot to do with the mic and pre-amp. Using a panpot and a couple other tricks, the engineer cooks the lot.
The engineer and producer create their sound tapestry from those pieces. Can they control direct/reflected ratio? Maybe a little. Can they control expected loudness? Sure, easy... except when the conductor or produced screams "make the oboe louder... it's introducing the theme to the second movement...". Anybody who is open to hearing objectively will recognize that the loudness of instruments is an estheric choice related to the score or musical purpose and not tied to the cues to depth.
So radiosmuck is right that stereo is one-dimension but that the recording team create a bit of synthetic depth. And that cooked sound is what some folks in this thread are hearing when they think they are hearing a great recording with depth.
There are lots of reasons to have a sound system in your home. The question I raised is how important is it to fuss to create a system that can potentially provide spatial localization. Clearly many posters in this thread are relaxed on having that feature.
It's a pity that we are so over-focussed on the parlour trick (providing spatial localization) that we aren't experimenting in getting good sound at home without compulsive attention and great effort to create spatial localization... perhaps at the cost of ambience.
B.
Last edited:
Major problems reside in the mid-bass region, when you have to identify the origin of the sound and the instrument who plays.
The so called muddiness is probably the symptom/reason for what you cannot simply determine which instrument originated that sound.
The so called muddiness is probably the symptom/reason for what you cannot simply determine which instrument originated that sound.
...possible consequences are:
Mental illness, from prolonged exposure to an artificial reality (which is not)
Negationism, finding always the others to be in phallacy, and negating their reality (feel)
Mental illness, from prolonged exposure to an artificial reality (which is not)
Negationism, finding always the others to be in phallacy, and negating their reality (feel)
Some psycho-acousticians have suggested it's a good idea to expose yourself to real-world sound to enhance your brain's ability to create believable illusions.
Play those 35 tracks back through 35 full range mono speakers in a room with controlled ambience and reflections, and record with twin mikes onto two track stereo gets you a true, stereophonic recording worth listening to.
Try listening to ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana. Just drums, bass, lead guitar and a vocalist in a big room with an absolutely huge stereo soundstage from three guys and a Neve mixing desk. Unbelievable in two speaker stereo.
ToS
Funny, that's not one I would have picked, but I do love the big meaty bass on that record.
jeff
Some of it, but not what i was refering too. Some are surprisingly poor. And surprisingly expensive.
dave
Given the growing lack of interaction with the natural world, exposure to smells, sounds, sights, touch, means that human beings systems are often not getting the same amount of training as we would have 5 millenia ago.
dave
Who said that? If it has any value as a thought, might apply to babies up to 2 years old, otherwise just gibberish.
I never heard of a "psycho-acoustician" - not saying there isn't somebody who self-proclaims that's their title. There are cognitive and human-factors psychologists who know something about acoustics and there are physicists who know something about hearing and testing humans (like Toole).
B.
There are humans testing humans
That's fair!
But, as Ben remarks, who are them? Do they have the right to put in phallacy some tests? What are those tests?
Or is just Scott's rambling, as it emerges from the vague sentence.
And what Toole says about height? I've read a book about ecolocalization and its use through experienced humans in various fields, one being the recognition of characteristical noises in the environment in the background of a phone call, yes -like those in the Tv movies like CSI etc.
Another chapter was about eating in a dark room restaurant; another about the mike positioning -the ones you see suspended on the head, when captured inside the frame, otherwise you oughn't see 'em- in popular Tv fictions and how the changing of the rooms, a different set, made the audience to write to the production about a different 'feel' in the scenes.
I'm a self-proclaimed expert, BTW 😛 😱