I think we had that already. It's all about standardization. Think of it as a framework. Each framework would define physical and technical properties of listening rooms and loudspeakers. The problem is that we don't have the knowledge (yet) to relate physical properties of sound fields to human hearing in a meaningful way.
Last edited:
not exactly, I think they are tilted too much for this
well, yes, but in fact this is huge advantage, isn't it?
and add to this its inherent simplicity (almost everyone can DIY it) and You got an overall winner from a diyaudio perspective
Last edited:
Other peoples recordings or mine? If you PM me I could maybe send some stuff but I'm not releasing my recordings or songs officially yet and I don't really want to show off anything else I have worked on that you could get.
I just think what needs to be done is a clear map of psychoacoustics of loudspeakers in a room. All of them I have seen aren't comprehensive enough. Recording and mixing techniques as well as monitoring techniques need to be more intuitive and effective. The mixer needs to see into the mix completely and I am afraid that is the largest problem with modern production - the monitoring is not giving them a complete picture of what is actually on the recording.
What kind of maps are you talking about? Have never seen one.
Being able to look in the mix and creating "the picture" are two separate things.
Then there's the problem that each engineer creates the picture with and within his very own reproduction setup. To make matters worse, add the average audiophool that exactly "knows" how that picture should look like afterwards. It's a mess.
I remember now it wasn't you. It just seemed like something that you would link me to. It was an old study on summing localization. They used a dummy head and tested out various scenarios to try and map out phantom imagery with stereophonic sound. I could prove very easily with a demo that the study is incomplete and doesn't cover all of the possible phantom images with conventional stereo let alone a system like what I use.
I still don't understand what that has to do with standardization. We're obviously using a different vocabulary and have a different level of understanding on the topic at hand. You finally might want to read some literature to prepare for further discussion. Here's a list of localization attributes commonly found in literature taken from Witteks PhD thesis (already linked several times):
Localisation
General mapping law between the location of an auditory event
and a certain attribute of the sound source. (Definition according
to Blauert, 1997)
Mechanism/Process that maps the location of an externalised
auditory event to certain characteristics of one or more sound
events. (Definition according to Theile, 1980)
Direction
The direction in which the source is perceived
Distance
Perceived range between listener and reproduced source
(Definition according to Rumsey’s (2002) ‘individual source
distance’)
Depth
Sense of perspective in the reproduced scene as a whole
(Definition according to Rumsey’s (2002) ‘environment depth’)
Stability
The degree to which the perceived location of a source changes
with time.
Robustness
The degree to which the perceived location of a source changes
with movement of the listener.
Accuracy
The degree to which the intended and the actually perceived
source agree with each other. This ‘agreement’, unless defined
differently, involves all attributes of the source. Often, the term
accuracy is used only for the ‘directional accuracy’, which
means the agreement concerning the source direction. The relevant
measure for this attribute is the ‘directional error’ of a
source/system.
Resolution
The achievable precision of the synthesised sound field in terms
of direction and/or distance.
Individual source width ISW, Apparent source width ASW
Perceived width of the source
(Definition according to Rumsey, 2002).
(Image) focus
The degree to which the energy of the perceived source is focussed
in one point.
Definition of the image
Similar to image focus
Diffuseness
Inverse of image focus
Blur
Inverse of image focus
Locatedness
Spatial distinction of a source.
(Definition according to Blauert, 1997)
The degree to which an auditory event can be said to be clearly
perceived in a particular location.
Certainty of source localisation
Similar to ‘locatedness’, used by Lund (2000)
Localisation quality, Localisation performance
These terms describe a mix of attributes. They describe the
overall performance of localisation. They should be defined
individually, because they can have ambiguous meanings
(‘quality’ of the directional accuracy, sound colour, focus, locatedness
or an ‘average’ quality?).
Externalisation
The degree to which the auditory event is outside the head
Spaciousness
Often used in the same meaning as ‘apparent source width’
ASW, but also used to describe the perceived size of the environment.
Presence
Sense of being inside an (enclosed) space or scene.
(Definition according to Rumsey, 2002).
Often also used as an attribute of sound colour.
Localisation
General mapping law between the location of an auditory event
and a certain attribute of the sound source. (Definition according
to Blauert, 1997)
Mechanism/Process that maps the location of an externalised
auditory event to certain characteristics of one or more sound
events. (Definition according to Theile, 1980)
Direction
The direction in which the source is perceived
Distance
Perceived range between listener and reproduced source
(Definition according to Rumsey’s (2002) ‘individual source
distance’)
Depth
Sense of perspective in the reproduced scene as a whole
(Definition according to Rumsey’s (2002) ‘environment depth’)
Stability
The degree to which the perceived location of a source changes
with time.
Robustness
The degree to which the perceived location of a source changes
with movement of the listener.
Accuracy
The degree to which the intended and the actually perceived
source agree with each other. This ‘agreement’, unless defined
differently, involves all attributes of the source. Often, the term
accuracy is used only for the ‘directional accuracy’, which
means the agreement concerning the source direction. The relevant
measure for this attribute is the ‘directional error’ of a
source/system.
Resolution
The achievable precision of the synthesised sound field in terms
of direction and/or distance.
Individual source width ISW, Apparent source width ASW
Perceived width of the source
(Definition according to Rumsey, 2002).
(Image) focus
The degree to which the energy of the perceived source is focussed
in one point.
Definition of the image
Similar to image focus
Diffuseness
Inverse of image focus
Blur
Inverse of image focus
Locatedness
Spatial distinction of a source.
(Definition according to Blauert, 1997)
The degree to which an auditory event can be said to be clearly
perceived in a particular location.
Certainty of source localisation
Similar to ‘locatedness’, used by Lund (2000)
Localisation quality, Localisation performance
These terms describe a mix of attributes. They describe the
overall performance of localisation. They should be defined
individually, because they can have ambiguous meanings
(‘quality’ of the directional accuracy, sound colour, focus, locatedness
or an ‘average’ quality?).
Externalisation
The degree to which the auditory event is outside the head
Spaciousness
Often used in the same meaning as ‘apparent source width’
ASW, but also used to describe the perceived size of the environment.
Presence
Sense of being inside an (enclosed) space or scene.
(Definition according to Rumsey, 2002).
Often also used as an attribute of sound colour.
Since you seem to know much more than me Markus maybe you can explain the difference between these two examples. The differences in localization you experience and what is the cause of the differences. Bonus points if you can tell me which is projecting a more accurate illusion of a real space.
Lossless A and B
zSHARE - A.flac
zSHARE - B.flac
Lossy A and B
zSHARE - A.ogg
zSHARE - B.ogg
Lossless A and B
zSHARE - A.flac
zSHARE - B.flac
Lossy A and B
zSHARE - A.ogg
zSHARE - B.ogg
back on topic, please.
ceiling flooder excels in stability and robustness, exactly where (in comparison) conventional stereo setup fails miserably - head-in-a-vice is a must
well, in that specific sense I would even say the less focus the more realistic spatial quality
because there is no such sound source in reality, no musical instrument, in case of which energy is focussed in one point
real sound sources are sound spots of determinate sizes, some of them quite big
best,
graaf
points for Mr Carlsson
35° upwards is well suited for seated listener at the typical distance from the speaker of ca 3 m, and 45° inwards is perfect for classic Blumlein isosceles stereo triangle: 45°-45°-90° (unlike typical audiophile equilateral triangle)
Last edited: