You can buy budget electret mic modules to make a stereo line level mic built into a wig head. Budget stereo electret mic
First of all, thanks for the suggestions 
.
Let me explain what I'm looking for. I don't "need" to create a dummy head with mic ears. But I do need to learn what the head shading does. I was thinking of using something with absorption, because I need to "see" the balance at the ear, without the specific changes an ear would make.
Maybe the dummy heads would work, covered in wool felt. We, as humans, are used to the changes the ear and head makes, but that's where the fault in Stereo lies. If we hear a source coming from straight forward, both ears get to analyze the sound at the same time. With Stereo we can assure that same condition, having the same balance and timing. However all of the sounds that diffract around the head "eats" away some of the output at specific frequencies while enhancing others. This combing makes it sound less balanced. This is very noticeable with the absence of early reflections.
Even "some" reflections immediately changes that balance at the ears. Even very late reflections (I call reflections later than 7 ms "very late" in this concept) do have a noticeable effect. My even later timed ambience (17 ms or more) still changes the perceived balance here. So everything within the Haas limit will still mess with our perception. Very slight changes in balance bring huge perceptional changes. It might also be good to mention the Haas limit isn't a solid number, it varies with frequency and direction. A high "note" (above say 5 KHz) 17 ms after the main pulse coming from a lateral angle is perceived as a separate source, while that may not happen that fast if it's coming from a similar direction as the first sound. We cannot "see" that direction, so what difference does it create at our ear? I need to cut off the ambient channels at ~3.5 KHz or I'll start noticing them at times while Bill Waslo has them play up as far as they go, coming from the front and timed even later(!)
In a current thread I see people wonder about the differences between the Revel and the M2, I'm not that surprised after doing many experiments.
However, getting it "just right" might be way more complicated.
I "get" the benefits of the Ambiophonic setup, where they have the large part of sound coming from the front, and reconstruct the sound that should have come from the sides.
In my case, the sides sound very convincing (after some mid/side correction). That's the easy part in Stereo to get right, as a side panned sound does not have a disruptive counterpart at the other ear.
It's the reason one should ideally use a single loudspeaker to really hear it's true balance. All the talk of ideal drivers and tweeters etc. means less and less to me without factoring in what two speakers do with two ears listening. It pales in comparison to the true problem here.
The room response makes all the difference if you really want to hear this fault. I bet listening distance also has a huge effect. Similar to the reason why we measure up close within a room, well, most of us.
Every little tweak done to alleviate the cross talk will make giant steps in getting a convincing stage plus balance. But take it too far and you end up with that one spot "head in vice" Stereo. (which is really marvelous, but not the way I want to listen)
The little tweaks I've tried so far, mid/side EQ, Ambient channels, all helped to get closer. But the "head in vice" experiments I did with cross talk compensation did teach me there's more to be had.
Every time we listen indoors we hear the combination that hits our ears, no way around it. Heck, it's the reason these arrays even have a shot of sounding nice! The feared cross talk isn't that bad, as we are so used to cross talk from listening to it during our lives. That's what the big Beolab plays with too.
Even changing and tweaking the tonal balance of the sides makes me able to "place" the sound right where I want it. The hardest part is fighting the cross talk, in a manner that doesn't upset non sweet spot listening positions.
In all honesty, the usual room reflections, present in a normal room, do a great job of achieving that. But they tend to place the recorded scene inside the room, bringing the players into "your" space.
I guess there isn't one simple answer. Multichannel would be a huge step forward to get us closer, but all those songs I love are trapped inside the Stereo format! Once mixed to Stereo it isn't that easy to get the center info out by itself again. Many formats have tried it, to upmix Stereo to multichannel and have failed to convince.
My current experiments are simply based on the fact that one can have a very convincing phantom center with the proper level of reflections, I bet we've all heard that singer floating in front of us that seems so real and convincing, I know I have a couple of times. Mind tricks is all it is. But having enough "fillers" for proper center balance without affecting the sides is my current, almost impossible goal. Hence the reason to first try and achieve that with a multichannel source, where we still have that true dedicated center channel info in tact to play with.
What I learn from that, should help to get Stereo to a higher level too. Although it will always be some kind of compromise.
.Let me explain what I'm looking for. I don't "need" to create a dummy head with mic ears. But I do need to learn what the head shading does. I was thinking of using something with absorption, because I need to "see" the balance at the ear, without the specific changes an ear would make.
Maybe the dummy heads would work, covered in wool felt. We, as humans, are used to the changes the ear and head makes, but that's where the fault in Stereo lies. If we hear a source coming from straight forward, both ears get to analyze the sound at the same time. With Stereo we can assure that same condition, having the same balance and timing. However all of the sounds that diffract around the head "eats" away some of the output at specific frequencies while enhancing others. This combing makes it sound less balanced. This is very noticeable with the absence of early reflections.
Even "some" reflections immediately changes that balance at the ears. Even very late reflections (I call reflections later than 7 ms "very late" in this concept) do have a noticeable effect. My even later timed ambience (17 ms or more) still changes the perceived balance here. So everything within the Haas limit will still mess with our perception. Very slight changes in balance bring huge perceptional changes. It might also be good to mention the Haas limit isn't a solid number, it varies with frequency and direction. A high "note" (above say 5 KHz) 17 ms after the main pulse coming from a lateral angle is perceived as a separate source, while that may not happen that fast if it's coming from a similar direction as the first sound. We cannot "see" that direction, so what difference does it create at our ear? I need to cut off the ambient channels at ~3.5 KHz or I'll start noticing them at times while Bill Waslo has them play up as far as they go, coming from the front and timed even later(!)
In a current thread I see people wonder about the differences between the Revel and the M2, I'm not that surprised after doing many experiments.
However, getting it "just right" might be way more complicated.
I "get" the benefits of the Ambiophonic setup, where they have the large part of sound coming from the front, and reconstruct the sound that should have come from the sides.
In my case, the sides sound very convincing (after some mid/side correction). That's the easy part in Stereo to get right, as a side panned sound does not have a disruptive counterpart at the other ear.
It's the reason one should ideally use a single loudspeaker to really hear it's true balance. All the talk of ideal drivers and tweeters etc. means less and less to me without factoring in what two speakers do with two ears listening. It pales in comparison to the true problem here.
The room response makes all the difference if you really want to hear this fault. I bet listening distance also has a huge effect. Similar to the reason why we measure up close within a room, well, most of us.
Every little tweak done to alleviate the cross talk will make giant steps in getting a convincing stage plus balance. But take it too far and you end up with that one spot "head in vice" Stereo. (which is really marvelous, but not the way I want to listen)
The little tweaks I've tried so far, mid/side EQ, Ambient channels, all helped to get closer. But the "head in vice" experiments I did with cross talk compensation did teach me there's more to be had.
Every time we listen indoors we hear the combination that hits our ears, no way around it. Heck, it's the reason these arrays even have a shot of sounding nice! The feared cross talk isn't that bad, as we are so used to cross talk from listening to it during our lives. That's what the big Beolab plays with too.
Even changing and tweaking the tonal balance of the sides makes me able to "place" the sound right where I want it. The hardest part is fighting the cross talk, in a manner that doesn't upset non sweet spot listening positions.
In all honesty, the usual room reflections, present in a normal room, do a great job of achieving that. But they tend to place the recorded scene inside the room, bringing the players into "your" space.
I guess there isn't one simple answer. Multichannel would be a huge step forward to get us closer, but all those songs I love are trapped inside the Stereo format! Once mixed to Stereo it isn't that easy to get the center info out by itself again. Many formats have tried it, to upmix Stereo to multichannel and have failed to convince.
My current experiments are simply based on the fact that one can have a very convincing phantom center with the proper level of reflections, I bet we've all heard that singer floating in front of us that seems so real and convincing, I know I have a couple of times. Mind tricks is all it is. But having enough "fillers" for proper center balance without affecting the sides is my current, almost impossible goal. Hence the reason to first try and achieve that with a multichannel source, where we still have that true dedicated center channel info in tact to play with.
What I learn from that, should help to get Stereo to a higher level too. Although it will always be some kind of compromise.
Last edited:
This one: Styrofoam Head seems to fit quite well, accurate size and all. I might order a couple to play with. They have far cheaper models as well, that I can throw in too.
2 years of research for crosstalk cancellation "Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH
LINK: "Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
"Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH LINK: "Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
2 years of research for crosstalk cancellation
LINK: "Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Nice price tag.....
... here we diy and have tons of free power in wesayso and Pano.
2 years of research for crosstalk cancellation
LINK: "Mono correction" algorithm for BACCH | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Excellent find by the way, it really made me think a bit harder about my preliminary results. In other words: it's starting to make sense to me.
Be careful with head models. If it isn't your head, it isn't going to sound right to you. I've played around enough with HRTF to be sure of that. I'd say find a head or ball that is the same width as your head a then draw only general conclusions.
I've lately working on headphone EQ and it's interesting how changing the EQ changes the perceived space of the headphones. I'm sure you're experiencing some of that with your system.
I've lately working on headphone EQ and it's interesting how changing the EQ changes the perceived space of the headphones. I'm sure you're experiencing some of that with your system.
I agree with this, which is why I wanted to try with a ball made from something that doesn't reflect too much.
Last thing I want to create is that head in vice sweet spot experience. The mid/side EQ isn't bound to the sweet spot. Processing like Bacch from Choeiri is and does factor in the exact head size etc. and goes way beyond my goals. However the theory is interesting to learn from.
Last thing I want to create is that head in vice sweet spot experience. The mid/side EQ isn't bound to the sweet spot. Processing like Bacch from Choeiri is and does factor in the exact head size etc. and goes way beyond my goals. However the theory is interesting to learn from.
Last edited:
While I've had a lot of fun with both Stereo reproduction and Home Theater, it is way too soon to come to any conclusions.
However it does seem I can get away without a physical center channel in Home Theater. It is working a bit differently from what I expected but I was able to get ahead. I still haven't bought a ball or Styrofoam head though.
I guess I will have to do that at some point to clearly move ahead. I've had many smiles per minute during my tests and got tangled up in checking out a bigger TV set and upgrading my graphics card. The graphics card is ordered, the TV will still have to wait a bit.
Plans are to upgrade the TV early next year (probably going with Oled, I have Plasma right now), bring in the subs and redo the living room walls etc.
So why the graphics card update? The Mad-VR software is fun to work with to improve the images, but requires a hefty card to play with.
I've ordered a game card for the first time after years of running Quadro's for my 3D hobbies. It really should perform well with both, I got a Nvidia based GTX 1070, as they are getting a bit cheaper after the introduction of it's follow up cards.
Mad-VR needs a lot of CUDA cores to do it's best work up-scaling video. The results are worth it to me compared to letting a TV do the scaling. I guess a GTX 1060 6 GB could have been enough, but I chose the 1070 due to the larger number of CUDA cores. The price differences aren't that shocking anymore.
However it does seem I can get away without a physical center channel in Home Theater. It is working a bit differently from what I expected but I was able to get ahead. I still haven't bought a ball or Styrofoam head though.
I guess I will have to do that at some point to clearly move ahead. I've had many smiles per minute during my tests and got tangled up in checking out a bigger TV set and upgrading my graphics card
. The graphics card is ordered, the TV will still have to wait a bit.Plans are to upgrade the TV early next year (probably going with Oled, I have Plasma right now), bring in the subs and redo the living room walls etc.
So why the graphics card update? The Mad-VR software is fun to work with to improve the images, but requires a hefty card to play with.
I've ordered a game card for the first time after years of running Quadro's for my 3D hobbies. It really should perform well with both, I got a Nvidia based GTX 1070, as they are getting a bit cheaper after the introduction of it's follow up cards.
Mad-VR needs a lot of CUDA cores to do it's best work up-scaling video. The results are worth it to me compared to letting a TV do the scaling. I guess a GTX 1060 6 GB could have been enough, but I chose the 1070 due to the larger number of CUDA cores. The price differences aren't that shocking anymore.
I use Mad-VR as the renderer for my DVD collection, that only gets upgraded to Blu-Ray very slowly. Even when playing native Blu-Ray Mad-VR makes a clear difference on my TV. The scaling routines are top notch, but require lots of GPU power. As I'm also addicted to 3D design, so I had the power needed to upscale these sources to achieve good quality images on my TV and this newly ordered card will probably work pretty good for my 3D hobbies as well. I'm not a gamer though, so I'm only interested in 4K movie playback and 3D CAD.
I haven't got a 4K TV yet, but I just love what Mad-VR did for my old DVD collection. However, the current TV is way too small for the sounds I have.
Here's a comparison between native UHD 4K material and upscaled 1080p with Mad-VR:
Archimago's Musings: 1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "Pacific Rim" - Digital "2K" Filmmaking (and a look at Blue Planet II) Future titles will probably level out these differences but I see this as a good way to be able to enjoy my older collection in more than decent quality.
Lots more titles to look at in that blog, but the proof is in seeing the movies really move on screen. I love the Mad-VR engine and played with it extensively to be able to get the most satisfying movie experience. In these examples only scaling is applied, there's lots more to play with within Mad-VR. I still have old concert DVD's in varying formats and not all of them are available in better formats.
Just going HDMI-out to the TV really is no comparison i.m.h.o.
I haven't got a 4K TV yet, but I just love what Mad-VR did for my old DVD collection. However, the current TV is way too small for the sounds I have
.Here's a comparison between native UHD 4K material and upscaled 1080p with Mad-VR:
Archimago's Musings: 1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "Pacific Rim" - Digital "2K" Filmmaking (and a look at Blue Planet II) Future titles will probably level out these differences but I see this as a good way to be able to enjoy my older collection in more than decent quality.
Lots more titles to look at in that blog, but the proof is in seeing the movies really move on screen. I love the Mad-VR engine and played with it extensively to be able to get the most satisfying movie experience. In these examples only scaling is applied, there's lots more to play with within Mad-VR. I still have old concert DVD's in varying formats and not all of them are available in better formats.
Just going HDMI-out to the TV really is no comparison i.m.h.o.
Last edited:
Just to show the crack after the emergency repair:
(did not fully clean up the enclosure after gluing)
Am I convinced it will stay that way? Sadly, no...
But one can hope, right?
Now if I could find something as balanced as this:
Magic Body Control
I didn’t go threw all 470 pages , and I’m sure it’s long been repaired , but I was wondering how you feel about using fibreglass resin ?
When I was hardcore into car audio, I always took a brush and painted fibreglass resin on all my inside joints .
Once it’s mixed, it sticks incredibly well and it’s practically impossible to break apart .
I’m getting more and more concerned with following this appoach now after seeing others have also had issues with contraction and expansion in the joints .
I might have to go back to laminating several layers for the walls instead