BBC Dip

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
My personal choice system7 on that design would be for one more dB of top.

I fully appreciate the advantages of headphones celef, I was referring to the apparent unnaturalness. Also axis through the head.

I'm not sure soundbloke that I could cope with, without a major effort, some of that academic stuff which you kindly posted, maybe my IQ is not high enough, and it dels with the ear rather than the external environment. I do remember that Gerzon's work has been highly praised.
 
I fully appreciate the advantages of headphones celef, I was referring to the apparent unnaturalness. Also axis through the head.

Those are not artifacts of listening on headphones but of incorrect mastering / mixing for heaphone use. And also only applies to something deliberately trying to create a live event... which is a relatively small subset of music compared to the majority of studio recorded or completely electronic music.

Headphones, for me allow greater insight into what went on in the studio and therefore makes it more natural, a better ability to hear each mono track placed in a stereo field or the stereo effects added to mono sources etc etc etc

Then of course there is binaural recordings - in my opinion, you can't get more natural replay than that.

Replay via speakers simply can't escape the unnaturalness of a room and evironment interacting with music recorded in a completely different environment (if it's a live recording).

The idea of naturalness and unnaturalness is more a matter of psychology and personal normalisation imho .
 
Those are not artifacts of listening on headphones but of incorrect mastering / mixing for heaphone use...
The idea of naturalness and unnaturalness is more a matter of psychology and personal normalisation imho .

This is not correct. The "in the head" localisation that occurs with headphones is the same that occurs at the nulls of the M-channel combing in stereo when the image collapses - except that it occurs at all frequencies with headphones.
 
Those are not artifacts of listening on headphones but of incorrect mastering / mixing for heaphone use. And also only applies to something deliberately trying to create a live event... which is a relatively small subset of music compared to the majority of studio recorded or completely electronic music.

This raises the circle of confusion problem - the intention of the masterers.

Headphones, for me allow greater insight into what went on in the studio and therefore makes it more natural, a better ability to hear each mono track placed in a stereo field or the stereo effects added to mono sources etc etc etc

Yes inevitably the removal of the room, and being on axis will improve top reception where much detail is.

Then of course there is binaural recordings - in my opinion, you can't get more natural replay than that.

Replay via speakers simply can't escape the unnaturalness of a room and evironment interacting with music recorded in a completely different environment (if it's a live recording).

Agree

The idea of naturalness and unnaturalness is more a matter of psychology and personal normalisation imho .

That certainly is a factor IMO.
 
This is not correct. The "in the head" localisation that occurs with headphones is the same that occurs at the nulls of the M-channel combing in stereo when the image collapses - except that it occurs at all frequencies with headphones.

Are you sure you're using the right terminology - doesn't seem to exist if you search the internet.

The channel's don't interact - unless you have an acoustically transparent head ? I don't. Unless you're saying the result occurs in both rather than the comb filtering occurs with both? They are surely different and unconnected causes of an "in your head" perception.

I also dont localise the image in my head.. my brain translates the sound differently (unless it's a mono recording or very poor quality equipment - using good heaphones and audio players has really changed my experience, so perhaps it's that). I think this also is a matter of personal perception and normalisation - again I'd use the example of that dress photo as an example of how one's own brain's normalisations of sense inputs then effect later perceptions. The dress - Wikipedia . I find the images created floating between speakers as unnatural. When you know it's a mic located inside the lid of a piano and yet it is floating between the speakers... . If you yourself put your head in the lid of a piano when being played, you will also discover that the headphone presentation is closer to natural than an image several metres infront of you.

A studio album, played on headphones is more like how it should sound in my opinion, despite it being mixed/mastered on traditional monitors. It's a creation, a sound-sculpture, not an attempt at recreating a live event in your living room like Star Trek's Holodeck. (but if that's what you want to attempt, then binaural is more successful).

So much depends on mic technique and studio technique, that to draw conclusions from experience is kind of meaningless.
 
Last edited:
The comb filtering occurs only over the loudspeakers.

What you are missing is that stereo requires hearing both the left and right channels in both ears. The notion of the left and right stereo channels corresponding ideally to left and right ears is a myth. The combing at higher frequencies, however, is a detrimental side effect.

Microphones techniques form a "spectrum" of their own, ranging from near coincident arrangements to spaced arrays with or without obstacles in the middle. The former might be considered true stereo (if different to Blumlein's original work), whilst the latter tends to binaural. Reproduction via loudspeakers ranges from true stereo to "transaural". So there is indeed a whole range of possibilities, but the physics of our hearing is unchanging - unlike our perception.
 
i can not keep up with what is being said, i need to translate almost every word and everything gets very messy

so i must ask: i find loudspeaker listening also somewhat distant sounding, high output level decreases this as does listening near field, is there any physcoacoustical trick that can be done to cure this?
 
...i find loudspeaker listening also somewhat distant sounding, high output level decreases this as does listening near field, is there any physcoacoustical trick that can be done to cure this?

There are no "tricks". If you are talking about "immersion" in a recording then boosting the S-channel below about 700Hz will do it. Certainly sitting close enough to your loudspeakers will reduce the effect of your listening room, although that will likely cause frequency response errors too because the loudspeakers are not likely designed for that purpose. My advice would be to try three-loudspeaker stereo and a shuffler that allows you to vary the M and S channels level (as well as compensating for some of the localisation errors in stereo above 700Hz which is yet another subject). Most people have yet to hear what is actually encoded in a well-engineered stereo recording...
 
I am in a position in which I feel that repeatedly assertions have been made, and which are done with apparently great authority as though impervious to any contrary view, and which seem to dismiss any contrary views.

However they lack a detailed and analytical account supporting their supposed validity.

I do hope that they are not just a stance which is not able to be substantiated by a clear explanation and foundational analysis, preferably with references.
 
Last edited:
I am in a position in which I feel that repeatedly assertions have being made, and which are done with apparently great authority as though impervious to any contrary view, and which seem to dismiss any contrary views.

However they lack a detailed and analytical account supporting their supposed validity.

I do hope that they are not just a stance which is not able to be substantiated by a clear explanation and foundational analysis, preferably with references.

None of my comments are impervious to criticism of any kind: I seek only the truth. But any criticism needs to be backed up by an equal amount of knowledge or experience for it to withstand a suitably rigorous response. I always try to provide the necessary technical detail and my posts are normally backed up with seminal references for the interested reader to pursue if they wish. Is there anything in particular you wish to debate?
 
I am in a position in which I feel that repeatedly assertions have been made, and which are done with apparently great authority as though impervious to any contrary view, and which seem to dismiss any contrary views.

However they lack a detailed and analytical account supporting their supposed validity.

I do hope that they are not just a stance which is not able to be substantiated by a clear explanation and foundational analysis, preferably with references.

Bump?
 
None of my comments are impervious to criticism of any kind: I seek only the truth. But any criticism needs to be backed up by an equal amount of knowledge or experience for it to withstand a suitably rigorous response. I always try to provide the necessary technical detail and my posts are normally backed up with seminal references for the interested reader to pursue if they wish. Is there anything in particular you wish to debate?

I obviously need to do a lot of reading in order to be able to deal with the points you raise.
 
What you are missing is that stereo requires hearing both the left and right channels in both ears. The notion of the left and right stereo channels corresponding ideally to left and right ears is a myth. The combing at higher frequencies, however, is a detrimental side effect.

That's not true.

Take a binaural recording: it's a stereo recording with two tracks. For the 3D illusion to work, you cannot have the left and right channels being heard in both ears. That is why binaural doesn't work on speakers - it necessarily requires the ears to be isolated from each other and to be fed specifially recorded tracks. The crossfeed and according head transfer function is part of the recording..

That can be also entirely created via DSP with mono tracks mixed in a 3-dimensional soundfield as part of the normal mixing stage - no longer limted to simple stereo pan-pots or rough and ready phase techniques. The illusion will collapse if both ears can hear both channels - it is necssary for them to be isolated.

Any combing or other filtering effects that are part of the natural, everyday listing to the world are built-in to the recorded tracks whether via DSP or with a binaural dummy head.

As I say, the "in the head" sound from listening on headphones is because it has been mixed/mastered for the usual speaker setup... when music is mixed for headphones, you create what you want and intend with isolated ears. Granted, in the past, the practicalities of recording dictated that it was easier to mix for a stereo soundfield to be replayed on a hifi setup .. which then doesn't work on headphones in the same way. Not so much these days.

You will find albums and tracks being remastered with 3D soundfields for listening on headphones only (because of the isolation). Tidal has a section for them.

Ironlically, mixing for heaphones but using studio monitors to do that mixing would benefit from monitors with a dip so that the engineer doesn't try to EQ out the peak from stereo speakers (because that peak wont be there on headphones).
 
Last edited:
Upon doing some reading it was going in to some detail about "the dips" in various speakers. Its said these do experience some dip. Dip or no dip, I like them :D
 

Attachments

  • 20200215_164845[790].jpg
    20200215_164845[790].jpg
    458.2 KB · Views: 214
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.