From another topic. Posting for future reference.
So it does work... (see startpost)
Better than I thought (and heard) if made properly...
If anybody cares I can share my thoughts on it.
So it does work... (see startpost)
Better than I thought (and heard) if made properly...
If anybody cares I can share my thoughts on it.
Yes, the accoustics of the head distort perception and make it possible at the same time.
As long as the accoustics of the head is not incorporated in the playback, I can only imagine myself as being the microphone, lol.
I've been looking at my cats head this morning because as it was sitting in my lap looking around for the source of the sound. I noticed his fur is a lot less dense right in front of his ears. So thin in fact, that I reckon sound can bounce from his skull into his outer or inner ear. The shape of his head must shape the sound too.
It got me thinking, if evolution shaped his ears, his fur and his perception, ours must have been shaped too.
Then I realised why it is that I always feel 'more aware/awake' when I walk out the barbers' shop: they cut the accoustic filter at the back of my head hahaha
This difference is one of the things you can emulate with this setup.
Tracking the lines between my ear openings I reach my nose. Reminded by the last couple of posts that the mind tricks your perception. I can't see my nose if I don't focus on that. Evolution made a mechanism for my nose to be filtered out of sight. Not very efficient, a smaller nose would have been more easy.
Maybe my nose is an accoustic device. It creates a devision between left and right. Eye sockets and nose bridge working together to create phase abnormalies for sound traveling across.
It might work with less than full range speakers at the rear.. In reality the top octaves wouldn't be able to travel through my skull either. The window of resolution for this might have something to do with center to center distance of the ears, circumference of the head and its accompanying frequencies etc etc. For now, keeping speaker output minimum phase seems to work.
As long as the accoustics of the head is not incorporated in the playback, I can only imagine myself as being the microphone, lol.
I've been looking at my cats head this morning because as it was sitting in my lap looking around for the source of the sound. I noticed his fur is a lot less dense right in front of his ears. So thin in fact, that I reckon sound can bounce from his skull into his outer or inner ear. The shape of his head must shape the sound too.
It got me thinking, if evolution shaped his ears, his fur and his perception, ours must have been shaped too.
Then I realised why it is that I always feel 'more aware/awake' when I walk out the barbers' shop: they cut the accoustic filter at the back of my head hahaha
This difference is one of the things you can emulate with this setup.
Tracking the lines between my ear openings I reach my nose. Reminded by the last couple of posts that the mind tricks your perception. I can't see my nose if I don't focus on that. Evolution made a mechanism for my nose to be filtered out of sight. Not very efficient, a smaller nose would have been more easy.
Maybe my nose is an accoustic device. It creates a devision between left and right. Eye sockets and nose bridge working together to create phase abnormalies for sound traveling across.
It might work with less than full range speakers at the rear.. In reality the top octaves wouldn't be able to travel through my skull either. The window of resolution for this might have something to do with center to center distance of the ears, circumference of the head and its accompanying frequencies etc etc. For now, keeping speaker output minimum phase seems to work.
Last edited:
Thanks for making an appointment of mine but don't forget not to mix pears with apples for a serious comparison.
In that link we talked about the EQ of the rooms, and I gave that example so that it is understood that the monophonic sound vs. Stereophonic sound must be made in the same conditions of the room and with the same sound system.
It could also be said that a stereo sound of a boom box is poor compared to the monophonic system of my friend's father, and we would not be missing the truth.
I can show that I have conceived the perfect system, but I lacked the support of the necessary financial capital from some large sound company. (Choose what you want, Sony, Phillips, etc.) It is a complex recording-reproduction (that is, an orchestra of many instruments simultaneously, not a soloist accompanied by an acoustic guitar, that's easy, even a trio is easy jazz compared to a symphony orchestra ...)
Well, here I go.
1) each instrument is recorded with a single cardiode microphone, the latter being fundamental.
2) the playback scenario must be the same as that of the different sound jacks of the individual microphones, that is, the same room.
3) A monophonic amplifier with its respective acoustic cabinet is needed, of excellent quality both, minimal distortion and specific bandwidth for the instrument to be played.
4) each acoustic transducer (the acoustic box, ja) of the previous point will be located in the exact position where the respective sound was taken.
5) everything will be mixed in a system without adaptation curves for our brains, not RIAA, not NARTB, nothing !
6) all amplifiers synchronized in phase to the same SPL that were determined in the room will be reproduced, taking the measurement from the point of the listener to each different instrument, after measuring the decibel meter.
Etc, etc., etc.
Satisfaction guaranteed !
"The truth is not bitter, what you don't have is a solution"
Francisco de Quevedo
Well, here I go.
1) each instrument is recorded with a single cardiode microphone, the latter being fundamental.
2) the playback scenario must be the same as that of the different sound jacks of the individual microphones, that is, the same room.
3) A monophonic amplifier with its respective acoustic cabinet is needed, of excellent quality both, minimal distortion and specific bandwidth for the instrument to be played.
4) each acoustic transducer (the acoustic box, ja) of the previous point will be located in the exact position where the respective sound was taken.
5) everything will be mixed in a system without adaptation curves for our brains, not RIAA, not NARTB, nothing !
6) all amplifiers synchronized in phase to the same SPL that were determined in the room will be reproduced, taking the measurement from the point of the listener to each different instrument, after measuring the decibel meter.
Etc, etc., etc.
Satisfaction guaranteed !
"The truth is not bitter, what you don't have is a solution"
Francisco de Quevedo
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing the experience of a 'proper' Karlsson box.
To be complete I will quote the last part of your story following the part that I quoted:
I agree fully with you about your comparing method mono vs stereo.
After all, in a scientific experiment you can only change 1 variable to be able to 'proof' something. In this fashion, only a mono apple can be compared to stereo apples. Comparing a mono apple to stereo pears is indeed not fair for neither fruit.
What struck me in your story, and the reason I quoted it, was the 'realism' part.
Especially in relation to the Karlsson cabinet. Although a subjective experience, it matches what I could have set as a design goal if it was my design.
So would you compare mono to a stereo system with, for example, an appropriate +6dB/octave low frequency boost applied to the S-channel and a linear phase (delay) correction? Not all stereo reproduction methods are the same, even before considering more than two loudspeakers and their interactions with the listening environment.
Are you talking about Stereo or Mid/Side? They are not the same indeed...
If you want, point me to a confirmed M/S recording and I'll have a listen, then I can try to explain the experienced differences between that, and stereo recordings and if corrections are needed. I can guess a M/S recording would sound like a Dolby Pro Logic one, the first version of Dolby Pro Logic, that is.
So far, it has been compatible with every "stereo" recording I played on it, as well as 'downmixed' quadraphonic.
I will have a try with mono too. I will try downmixed 5.1 and downmixed 7.1 too if I can find any.
Lets see if we can find an incompatible format.
If you want, point me to a confirmed M/S recording and I'll have a listen, then I can try to explain the experienced differences between that, and stereo recordings and if corrections are needed. I can guess a M/S recording would sound like a Dolby Pro Logic one, the first version of Dolby Pro Logic, that is.
So far, it has been compatible with every "stereo" recording I played on it, as well as 'downmixed' quadraphonic.
I will have a try with mono too. I will try downmixed 5.1 and downmixed 7.1 too if I can find any.
Lets see if we can find an incompatible format.
I am all ears
I don't get the fat printed part
Can you explain the importance of a high quality 'accoustic cabinet' for an amplifier?
Oh, you mean amplifier+speaker in a box... Now I get it.
Your system doesn't need it, good!
You mean time?
Seems like a good idea to match live SPL with playback SPL
Your concept is something completely different than mine, I like that!
The idea of replacing the instruments by speakers in the same room rule out room accoustics and sound source location as variables.
In your practical lay out, you might want to try to add a bit more microphones and speakers.
Like my listening setup is an inside out microphone, you could try turning my speakers inside out...
Set up 4 cardiod microphones in a circle around the instrument, pointing inward, 90 degrees apart.
To play back, place 4 monopole speakers in the spots where the microphones were, facing outwards this time.
No phase trickery needed only careful placement of the recording+playback membranes, and now all directional information of the live event of the instrument+its player is restored. You are right in picking cardoid mics I think, because in the direction of the back side of a cello player outward, the sound signal is completely different from standing in front of the player. Dipole microphones are a no-go here.
Beautiful.
Just made that up.
Thanks !
That sounds interesting too, won't you have copied it from Sthepen King?
Tomorrow with time I will answer in parts, I have to admit that you have captured my interest, some pseudo scholars of the forum are a bean next to you!
Just a doubt before falling asleep with the erotic images you have related.
The jacuzzi with the lady, which has to do with music? I've been to those places but usually the sound is not high fidelity, and besides, who cares?
Just a doubt before falling asleep with the erotic images you have related.
The jacuzzi with the lady, which has to do with music? I've been to those places but usually the sound is not high fidelity, and besides, who cares?
Tomorrow with time I will answer in parts, I have to admit that you have captured my interest, some pseudo scholars of the forum are a bean next to you!
Just a doubt before falling asleep with the erotic images you have related.
The jacuzzi with the lady, which has to do with music? I've been to those places but usually the sound is not high fidelity, and besides, who cares?
Nothing erotic about two people standing on opposite sides in a pool of water.
But who am I to judge long distance relationships
On a serious note, I think I will refrain from using 'people' in projecting ideas from now on to prevent such events. I am glad I was made aware of the innuendo as I clearly wasn't, and I wouldn't wan't others to get the wrong idea. Litterally, I want others to get the right idea. Moving on.
I will try to make some dipoles soon, and try the actual Blumlein array, but as a speaker.
Hoping that it doesn't function as the audio equivalent of the camera obscura, and it doesn't accidentally create audible tesseracts when playing music that already has accoustic information in them.
Before that, I'm not done playing with this setup yet.
I will try to make some dipoles soon, and try the actual Blumlein array, but as a speaker.
Hoping that it doesn't function as the audio equivalent of the camera obscura, and it doesn't accidentally create audible tesseracts when playing music that already has accoustic information in them.
Before that, I'm not done playing with this setup yet.
Last edited:
Robinntip
Do not give too much seriousness to the subject, everything has already been experienced, tested, and put into practice.
The perfect system that I put into theory is just a crude example, something ironic and very approximate to how things should be to achieve an approximation (only that, an approximation) in the reproduction of an event recorded and reproduced by technical means, which have It has evolved over the years, but never managed to emulate exactly the original sound.
As someone said here, have fun, but don't expect to discover the philosopher's stone.
All the best for you !
Do not give too much seriousness to the subject, everything has already been experienced, tested, and put into practice.
The perfect system that I put into theory is just a crude example, something ironic and very approximate to how things should be to achieve an approximation (only that, an approximation) in the reproduction of an event recorded and reproduced by technical means, which have It has evolved over the years, but never managed to emulate exactly the original sound.
As someone said here, have fun, but don't expect to discover the philosopher's stone.
All the best for you !
Thanks for your kind response.
This has been a fun thinking excersize with a practical element. The title is meant the be humurous in the way you describe it and the experiments are intrinsic. Hence I posted in this subforum.
Participating yesterday, I hope you have enjoyed it. I did.
And I hope others will try, too.
I'd like to hear ideas to try.
This has been a fun thinking excersize with a practical element. The title is meant the be humurous in the way you describe it and the experiments are intrinsic. Hence I posted in this subforum.
Participating yesterday, I hope you have enjoyed it. I did.
And I hope others will try, too.
I'd like to hear ideas to try.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.