Earl, either outcome is fine for me as long as there is finally reliable data available.
Guys, I uploaded examples how reverberation sounds like and how the ITDG affects perception of distance:
http://www.mehlau.net/audio/examples/reverberation/
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
Um, who said I was using one mic and recording in mono.. or even that I was doing the recording?
(..true, I did specifically write *mic* as opposed to the plural ..so I could see an incorrect conclusion). Actually (for me) it was in a theater (concert hall) setting (differing tracks, voice and instrumental sometimes combined sometimes not). I was located between the to mic'S and went up to listen in the booth to the mastering afterward and still have the recording - which did sound very similar to what I experienced in the theater and did not display a great deal of image compaction. (I'll add though that the monitors were full range drivers.)Now why prey tell should I stop demanding that stereophony create a live-like experience? That's what I, and I believe most others, are actually looking for - INCLUDING MANY SOUND ENGINEERS (accepting compression and loudness curves that seem to be rampant). And note: *not* that I actually did "demand" such.
Sure there are limitations in the recording process (LOTS), but that doesn't mean you can't achieve something similar in spatial representation to what the sound engineer achieved - and that may well be very realistic (dynamic limitations excepted).
As far as "image" compaction is concerned - THAT is mostly a product of the loudspeakers its played back on (..and the amount of damping the amplifier is providing to the loudspeaker's high freq. response). It typically has little to do with a *properly* recorded track (unless there is phase manipulation that has altered timing at higher freq.s).
markus76 said:
Hmm, what makes you think that the audio engineer was creating/hearing "pin-point precision" during the mastering?
Until recently, a good bit of the pan-potted localization was often mastered on fullrange drivers that do not display this extreme character (or mastered with loudspeakers similar in localization character to fullrange drivers).
Elias said:
The goal of a Summa is accurate reproduction of the source - 'They are here' or 'you are there' is completely irrelavent in this context.
But the fact is that I have always found the ilusion of 'you are there' to be sadly lacking - except with binaural recordings which are amazingly good, but require headphones. So the 'they are here' is more to my likely as that is an illusion that can be very convincing in a small room.
Markus
Yes some real data would be nice, but Floyd and JBL are not an independent source and do have some reasons to take certain stances. I found this in the multiple sub discussion where they stuck to the JBL line.
Actually I think Toole's book is available, if this is the one you're referring to: http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprodu...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222470162&sr=8-1
There's a short review by Linkwitz if you scroll down.
I think it's safe to say Earl's speakers would be closer to the "your are there" camp. I'm in the "do what makes you happy" camp so if omnis make you happy, I'm happy, but it would be hard to deny that you are adding the sound signature of a new room overtop of the recording that neither the musicians or sound engineers ever set foot in. I doubt they'd mind but I think the current trend in control rooms is still for a reflection free zone all around the producer and then a lot of diffusion at the back of the room where the artist couch tends to be. I'm trying to find a decent picture, but it's basically just a bunch of angled walls around the front of the room treated with absorbers so nothing but direct sound heads for the producer unless it travels to the back of the room and hits the diffusors first. I've never been in a room like this before, the only large studio I've been in is Mushroom here in Vancouver and I don't think they've produced too many hits since "taking care of business"
There's a short review by Linkwitz if you scroll down.
I think it's safe to say Earl's speakers would be closer to the "your are there" camp. I'm in the "do what makes you happy" camp so if omnis make you happy, I'm happy, but it would be hard to deny that you are adding the sound signature of a new room overtop of the recording that neither the musicians or sound engineers ever set foot in. I doubt they'd mind but I think the current trend in control rooms is still for a reflection free zone all around the producer and then a lot of diffusion at the back of the room where the artist couch tends to be. I'm trying to find a decent picture, but it's basically just a bunch of angled walls around the front of the room treated with absorbers so nothing but direct sound heads for the producer unless it travels to the back of the room and hits the diffusors first. I've never been in a room like this before, the only large studio I've been in is Mushroom here in Vancouver and I don't think they've produced too many hits since "taking care of business"
Loudspeaker Perception Experiment
I have an 'H' shaped room. Long hallways coming into both long walls a bit more than halfway along. Room is ~ 23 X 14 feet.
I put some little KEF 2-way speakers at the start of the hallway entrances and toed them in about 30 degrees.
Both imaging and spaciousness were vastly improved compared to having them at either end of the room. And it didn't matter which end of the room I sat in.
Interestingly, when I sat "behind" the speakers at the shorter end of the room and closer to the hallway entrances, classical symphonic music really did sound like (not same as) a concert hall experience. I think this is because I was hearing more uncorrelated sound.
The reason is pretty clear, I think: most of the early reflections either went down the hall or were much delayed and diminished reflecting from the end walls, and I got the direct sound comparatively very quickly. In effect, the speakers were 10 to 20 feet from the sidewalls, without having the kind of SPL loss I'd have if the room really did have big dimensions.
I've given those speakers away. I have to get the new, more directional ones finished and try it again. See if the difference is as great.
I have an 'H' shaped room. Long hallways coming into both long walls a bit more than halfway along. Room is ~ 23 X 14 feet.
I put some little KEF 2-way speakers at the start of the hallway entrances and toed them in about 30 degrees.
Both imaging and spaciousness were vastly improved compared to having them at either end of the room. And it didn't matter which end of the room I sat in.
Interestingly, when I sat "behind" the speakers at the shorter end of the room and closer to the hallway entrances, classical symphonic music really did sound like (not same as) a concert hall experience. I think this is because I was hearing more uncorrelated sound.
The reason is pretty clear, I think: most of the early reflections either went down the hall or were much delayed and diminished reflecting from the end walls, and I got the direct sound comparatively very quickly. In effect, the speakers were 10 to 20 feet from the sidewalls, without having the kind of SPL loss I'd have if the room really did have big dimensions.
I've given those speakers away. I have to get the new, more directional ones finished and try it again. See if the difference is as great.
Elias, especially for you a quail beeping from different locations. There are no frequencies below 2000 Hz (applied a high pass):
http://www.mehlau.net/stuff/quail.wav
What do you hear when playing it back over your speakers?
Best, Markus
This must have just become available because I talked to Floyd not long ago and he said that it wasn't yet out. I was afraid that he would push multi-channel playback as thats "his thing". I don't completely buy into this however. Floyd is almost strickly a classical enthusiast who believes very strongly in the quest for "you are there", i.e. in an auditorium. Much of the current genre of music is not of the nature and I don't see it benefiting so much by multi-channel. At any rate the market will decide and two channel isn't going to go away soon if at all.
By the way for those who are interested, I have arranged for Floyd to give a one day class in Loudspeakers and Romms at ALMA on Jan 5th 2009 in Las Vegas. The book will be given away as part of the class.
By the way for those who are interested, I have arranged for Floyd to give a one day class in Loudspeakers and Romms at ALMA on Jan 5th 2009 in Las Vegas. The book will be given away as part of the class.
poptart said:
Actually I would tend to believe the opposite, but it heavily depends on the source. I never get the "you are there" image with complete realism, but I do get the "they are here" with stark realism. That could be the recordings that I have as I don't have much classical. One guy brought over some strickly two mic recordings and they were quite impressive, best that I've heard for live auditorium music. But I don't have anything like that. Everything that I have in that genre sounds like a hodge podge of multiple mikes until the sound is awash in non-imagery.
Yes I think the book is just available, I remember looking not long ago and there was only a placeholder there where you could pre-order.
About the here or there issue, I was making an assumption based on the narrower directivty of your speaker compared to an omni. To me an omni anchors the "they are here" end of that spectrum. Whatever is on the recording is maximally affected by the acoustic space you play it in. I consider headphones the "you are there" at the other end of the line because absolutely no signature of your room is added. Personally though I can't enjoy headphones, I don't get "you are there" just "they are in your head" which I find uncomfortable.
About the here or there issue, I was making an assumption based on the narrower directivty of your speaker compared to an omni. To me an omni anchors the "they are here" end of that spectrum. Whatever is on the recording is maximally affected by the acoustic space you play it in. I consider headphones the "you are there" at the other end of the line because absolutely no signature of your room is added. Personally though I can't enjoy headphones, I don't get "you are there" just "they are in your head" which I find uncomfortable.
poptart said:
The logic is excellent here, and yet the conclusion (as you have noted with headphones), is completely wrong.
(..typically non-directive/wide horizontal dispersion loudspeakers in normal domestic settings usually increase the sense of recording's venue - that: "you are there" quality, where as reducing or removing that L/R summing plus pinna cues and perhaps lateral listening room reflections seems to decrease the sense of a recording venue (..as Headphones do altogether) - that: "they are here" ..or "hear in my head" quality.)
I'm not pointing this out as an error on your part, but rather that the error is in the rather pervasive belief that:
"the listener's room necessarily alters the recording in a fashion *significantly* detrimental to the recording."
Consider that *if* the recording has "hall sound" within it, *and* that "hall sound" is significantly reduced on playback with more horizontally directive speakers, *that*
..either the "narrowed" directivity of the speaker itself and/or its DECREASED interaction in the listener's room -
IS NOT PORTRAYING THE RECORDING ACCURATELY.
(..something to think about.
)(Note that I've personally found that the room does negatively effect the presentation, but not grossly so (at high freq.s) with a modicum of loudspeaker placement sense - and not in a manner that can't be effectively mitigated with even better placement and some modest room treatment. I have found though significantly increasing/narrowing directivity by means of a waveguide at higher freq.s can and usually does negatively impact the portrayal of "hall sound" for those tracks that have it.)
Caveat: Note that this is a continuation of the latest discussion here, that specifically room interaction near and within the "modal region" is not represented. In other words lower the freq. enough and "hell yes - the room detrimentally interacts with the loudspeakers".
Hello,
Thank you for making these sounds.
This is very interesting test.
First let me analyze the 'sound' itself: it has four times two part of whistles where each two being the same. Important to note that each whistle contains a melodic part as a tone and addition to this there is a small sibilance part like 'ssss'.
When I listen to this with loudspeakers this is what I hear:
- First part:
Strong melodic part coming from direction exactly from right loudspeaker. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Second part:
A little bit smaller volume melodic part coming from little elevated angle somewhere in frontal hemisphere, not localisable very well but coming from up front. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Third part:
For melodic part the same as for the second part but little bit higher volume. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Fourth part:
Strong melodic part coming entirely from location of left loudspeaker. Small sibilance part coming mainly from direction of left loudspeaker, very small volume sibilance part from right loudspeaker.
Because I know this is the image split I explained earlier that will happen if there is very high freqs included, so I turned the volume very low in order to try to hide the small sibilance part. The hearing result is the same for the melodic part of the sound, first is located at right speaker, second and third are elevated in the frontal hemisphere not very localisable, and the fourth part is entirely at the left speaker only.
Would be very useful if others would do the test too.
- Elias
markus76 said:
Thank you for making these sounds.
This is very interesting test.
First let me analyze the 'sound' itself: it has four times two part of whistles where each two being the same. Important to note that each whistle contains a melodic part as a tone and addition to this there is a small sibilance part like 'ssss'.
When I listen to this with loudspeakers this is what I hear:
- First part:
Strong melodic part coming from direction exactly from right loudspeaker. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Second part:
A little bit smaller volume melodic part coming from little elevated angle somewhere in frontal hemisphere, not localisable very well but coming from up front. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Third part:
For melodic part the same as for the second part but little bit higher volume. Small sibilance part coming from two directions exactly the same as left and right loudspeakers.
- Fourth part:
Strong melodic part coming entirely from location of left loudspeaker. Small sibilance part coming mainly from direction of left loudspeaker, very small volume sibilance part from right loudspeaker.
Because I know this is the image split I explained earlier that will happen if there is very high freqs included, so I turned the volume very low in order to try to hide the small sibilance part. The hearing result is the same for the melodic part of the sound, first is located at right speaker, second and third are elevated in the frontal hemisphere not very localisable, and the fourth part is entirely at the left speaker only.
Would be very useful if others would do the test too.
- Elias
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.