It may be that adjusting for depth is more complicated to manipulate than left/right. Also, it may be that most systems to not reproduce depth as well as they can do L/R position and or mix balance.
Regarding multiple people perceiving the same imaging from the same set of speakers, seems like that would depend on how well the system can simulate the sound field of a real acoustic event. The closer to ideal spatial reproduction, the more likely people would localize the same as they would at the live event.
Or that the brain infers the depth, otherwise the spot miked instruments will be floating out in front of the orchestra?
Ref ideal spacial reproduction: that would require many speakers, not 2 of course.
Ref ideal spacial reproduction: that would require many speakers, not 2 of course.
Spot mics might be delayed so as to not comb filter with the stereo room mics. Some HF roll off is possible too. Adjustment levels may be kept minimal as well. Also, presumably an impulse of the room could be taken, then used to synthesize some room reverb for a close mic.
A big factor in the perception of soundstage/image is training. In real time i experienced clients being taught how to listen for the soundstage. There is so much happening that, at least to first hear the phenomem, one has to concentrate of that aspect of the sound.
dave
^ "the optical cart sounds like almost like CD in terms of clarity (CD played on a really good dac,.."
Now, I'm really curious.... ( actually I'm really curious since I have not had the opportunity to hear an optical cartridge yet ).
How do they sound to you?
I mean, the crosstalk is there in the groove from the beginning as the cutting head introduces it. The difference would be in how the cartridge reads the grooves and how the "light crosstalk" is processed at the "pre amplifier"...
Now, I'm really curious.... ( actually I'm really curious since I have not had the opportunity to hear an optical cartridge yet ).
How do they sound to you?
I mean, the crosstalk is there in the groove from the beginning as the cutting head introduces it. The difference would be in how the cartridge reads the grooves and how the "light crosstalk" is processed at the "pre amplifier"...
The soundstage ideally is an expanding sphere or hemisphere. But you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of hearing the full and accurate soundstage that’s in the recording unless you take care of business - I.e., vibration isolation for source components minimally, the speakers too if you can handle it. Room Treatment also. You’ll need a methodology for speaker set up, one that identifies the ideal speaker locations. If it was easy everyone could do it. Just arbitrarily placing the speakers without a methodology is like trying to solve x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns. People often place their speakers much too far apart then toe them in to make up for it. 😲
Last edited:
Hi,
Since you said that: "It hurts subjectivism beliefs when they read he designed loudspeakers without listening to them." (bold is mine)
First of all please note that I am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist, and you?
Secondly, to be honest I hardly followed you at all and your point, then if I were to behave like some posters on this forum I really wouldn't have answered you and that's it.
Instead I want at least to reply that it's not when a so-called "truth" is discovered that matters, as you state.
What really matters is whether that presumed "truth" was related to something immutable or to something subject to change.
If a presumed "truth" is related to something subject to changes induced by the passing of time then that truth itself it will be subject to changes induced by the passing of time.
No surprise.
In more than 30 years many things have changed, audio systems and people, recordings and sources, and the way of listening to systems has also changed, and the expectations have also changed.
You yourself are no longer the same as you were more than 30 years ago.
Frankly I guess that the bio-system hearing/brain relationship is changed over time, but I won't say it otherwise you will surely ask me for an objective reference, right?
Of course, there are - maybe - other truths that even last over time, so what?
Instead of talking about other people's truths, please talk to me about your truths.
I don't have the best one. Its a W3, with boron cantilever. Also, we clean all our vinyl with a Nessie machine and use a custom mix of cleaning agents. Thus we have pretty much no problems with static attracting dust. Cleaning is only needed maybe every 50 plays, and seems to not have any adverse effects on sound.
What people say after hearing optical, and I won't disagree, is that these cartridges sound more 'clear' (in a good way) as versus magnetic. Of course there still are limitations due to the nature of vinyl, tracking errors, etc. Mostly what changes is the the loss of grainy sound of magnetic. IOW, part of what you hear and attribute to everything but the magnetic cartridge, really turns out to be the sound of cartridge tech itself. More musical info gets buried in that magnetic sorta-graininess than you know. You may be able to hear through it, like with a noise floor (detect a signal buried in noise), but so far everyone who hears optical says it sounds better than the best magnetic they have heard.
https://ds-audio-w.biz/products/
Last edited:
I have to wonder if it's the environment both the sound system and the people listening are in that makes it as difficult. As I mentioned previously, out in the field (natural surroundings) I can hear up, down, left, right, front, and behind me perfectly, even still - at my not 20 anymore age. It's been that way as a given for so long I take it for granted.
An example would be I can hear a car take the corner to come down the street behind me and I automatically cinch up the dogs leash.
Why wouldnt that innate ability just transparently map into whatever it is a sound system presents? Stress of being "on the spot" to hear something maybe others are going to and you're not?
Outdoors, there are much fewer reflections, mostly just ground bounce at low frequencies.
So the direct sound is more distinct, even at the same loudness.
So the direct sound is more distinct, even at the same loudness.
Last edited:
I find myself in between both extreme but with a drift toward objectivism ( let's say 60/40 toward objectivism.
And i would not care about it: your choice to answer or not, mine to give my pov. In the end with this kind of thread where we exchange on very theorical points few really listen to others and it's way more a recreative rethorical exercice in my view.
I'am not the same than 30 years ago for sure: i gained knowledge and experience in the field, both by theory and practice.
And from this i can tell i disagree completly about the fact audio systems, recordings and source have changed ( cause for the last 30years i was into the industry as recording/mixing engineer, musician and technician as pro and amateur) and i doubt 30 years was enough to change the way our auditory system changed too as it is result of evolution on a way higher time scale (eg: one of the subject at play in this thread atm capability to feel elevation for which we are poor as we had less chance to have predators attack from above than around us...)
No need for justification as it is an established fact by science. But yes i like to have reference, it help to dismantle myth and opinion related false facts we have to face in that hobby of us ( not only in hobby sadly this days). This is a plague in my humble opinion: not that i deny the fact people can express themself as they want/need ( which i find a good thing) but the issue which arise when people doesn't accept to be corrected when they say BS. At least whith science related reference, writtings have to be peer reviewed and can be critisized over thanks to some kind of rules ( this is how science works, by critisizing previous works). Nothing to do with beliefs which are by definition impossible to argue about ( as are preferences).
I think the difference we could have with evolution is related with time frame required for it to happen.
I could talk about my truths but feel it to be too much egotic and at most anecdotal evidence ( which can be interesting but in no way truths), and to be honest i'm more interested in 'our' truth than mine ( as a species amongst other). Probably a bias from my study in social sciences.
Yeah, I like that personally. However, for reproduction at home it seems like there needs to be some balance between the reverberant sound of space versus the openness of not too much reverberation. That's what the sometimes maligned process of 'voicing' is for. To get a good balance of various things that are not always so easy to measure.
Last edited:
Doesn’t that automatically imply multichannel and multimicrophone recording like Pentatone is doing with their DSD’s ?
Or do you mean mono in the middle and even additional reduced left and right in between left and right.
Is there any evidence that this latter setup improves the soundstage ?
Hans
So I just finished the Aegis headphone amp and bought a used pair of Sennheiser HD800s now when I listen to music do I hear a better soundstage, no I hear what the engineer in studio herd on his headphone when he mixed the track. Now live performance recorded with binaural microphones may pickup all the direct/ reflected sound that builds a soundstage but I don’t think all the complexities can be recreated in a studio mixing environment. Well normal environment that picture with all the microphones around the guitar player is not what is normally done and still it is mostly direct without reflected.
Last edited:
Binaural canot be reproduced over loudspeakers as there is interaural bleeding ( binaural 'effect' only works with headphones,eg as heard on 'the wall' when tv drop).
We never talk about soundstage with headphones ( all sounds seems located inside the head) and never use them for soundstage duty during mixing ( their main use is to check for freq response anomaly and as a kind of 'audio magnifier' to check for issues): soundstage is created on loudspeakers.
We never talk about soundstage with headphones ( all sounds seems located inside the head) and never use them for soundstage duty during mixing ( their main use is to check for freq response anomaly and as a kind of 'audio magnifier' to check for issues): soundstage is created on loudspeakers.
The truth is that there isn't a single truth that you will not see change over time.
Audio is the least scientific and least studied branch of technology.
That’s why so many personal beliefs come up.
Even engineers, designers, technicians and objectivists have their own personal beliefs, but they are so caught up in defending their own image (even to themselves) that they dare not talk about them and/or declare them in public.
All this because audio has little scientific.
They are not preferences, they are defects.
Let me give you an example of the sense of smell.
Make two healthy people smell the acetic acid (just as an examle) pungent odor and they will both tell you that it is a pungent odor.
If one of the two people says it is a sweet smell, the anomaly is in the person.
This also applies to hearing.
No one likes to listen to their Hi-Fi system with shrill treble, croaking mids and long, boomy bass.
If any, the anomaly is in the person.
What is wrong here, and many posters make this mistake, is calling it as a "preference", while in fact it is a defect.
No problem, your opinions not proven by the scientific method have the same validity as those of anyone else.
I already said practically the same a few pages earlier too.
At the end of the day it counts for almost nothing, in my humble opinion and with all due respect.
What I learned was that well healed audiophiles want BIG amps - not powerful, but physically imposing. Most of the non class D stuff is the size of a large microwave and is heavy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.