^ ^
exactly my thoughts, Kal. As I previously posted, in the recording, but 2 channels comes up short.
exactly my thoughts, Kal. As I previously posted, in the recording, but 2 channels comes up short.
Do you want "in the room" or "in the recording" for your sound?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I think that what I have read here mostly shows the same misunderstanding that Kal had. The recoprding is a given, not the point of the discussion. And two channel is also a given in this discussion because it is the "standard". Those are the assumptions under which the power point slides were created. Some recordings seek one thing, some another. For what it is worth classical or orchestral music is not my thing. In general I do not rate a playback on its ability to make me think that I am in a concert hall (many consider this the ultimate criteria, I don't because this is not the goal of much of the music that I listen to.)
Now if we move closer to the speakers the direct to reverb ratio is changed and the rooms inherent acoustics are surpressed and the image that we tend to get is more and more that of the acoustic space on the recording. If we move back then the reverberation field increases and we get more of the local acoustic space. Now the local acoustic space is "real" in that the reflections and reverberation are diffuse. The acoustics from the recording are never real since they are not difuse and only come from particular spatial directions.
My observations are also somewhat unique to my particular setup - very directional speakers in a very reveberant small room. In a dead room with wide directivity speakers (probably 80% of them) the effect that I am talking about may or may not even exist. But with my setup it is very pronounced and leads directly to the question that was asked - which is the preference.
In my experience the "you are there" is always unsatisfactory. If I close my eyes, I still know that I am not in another room. (Although, I should say that the binaural playbacks do a very good job of this teleportation of you into another space, but thats not the technology being used in the studio to make the recordings. If it was then this would be an entirerly different discussion.) But on many recordings that I have, if I close my eyes, the illusion that the singer and/or the group is there in the room with me is quite astounding. I have some solo piano works that do this very effectively. My belief is that this is because there is not much acoustic space on these recordings and so what space is added by my room becomes the dominate one. This space, being real, is completely convincing, my brain readily accepts it. Trying to play back a large space in a small room that has any of its own local acoustic is going to be impossible because the local space occcurs sooner than the recorded space and our hearing is very precise about the timing of spacial cues. Only a very dead space could surpress the local cues, but then this leaves only the artificial cues on the recording which are never complete. So in this sense, I agree that two channels is inferior at creating the "you are there", but it perfectly satisfactory, even ideal, at the "they are here" imagery. Since, as I said, I am a "they are here" preference listener, I find two channel quite satisfactory.
Now if we move closer to the speakers the direct to reverb ratio is changed and the rooms inherent acoustics are surpressed and the image that we tend to get is more and more that of the acoustic space on the recording. If we move back then the reverberation field increases and we get more of the local acoustic space. Now the local acoustic space is "real" in that the reflections and reverberation are diffuse. The acoustics from the recording are never real since they are not difuse and only come from particular spatial directions.
My observations are also somewhat unique to my particular setup - very directional speakers in a very reveberant small room. In a dead room with wide directivity speakers (probably 80% of them) the effect that I am talking about may or may not even exist. But with my setup it is very pronounced and leads directly to the question that was asked - which is the preference.
In my experience the "you are there" is always unsatisfactory. If I close my eyes, I still know that I am not in another room. (Although, I should say that the binaural playbacks do a very good job of this teleportation of you into another space, but thats not the technology being used in the studio to make the recordings. If it was then this would be an entirerly different discussion.) But on many recordings that I have, if I close my eyes, the illusion that the singer and/or the group is there in the room with me is quite astounding. I have some solo piano works that do this very effectively. My belief is that this is because there is not much acoustic space on these recordings and so what space is added by my room becomes the dominate one. This space, being real, is completely convincing, my brain readily accepts it. Trying to play back a large space in a small room that has any of its own local acoustic is going to be impossible because the local space occcurs sooner than the recorded space and our hearing is very precise about the timing of spacial cues. Only a very dead space could surpress the local cues, but then this leaves only the artificial cues on the recording which are never complete. So in this sense, I agree that two channels is inferior at creating the "you are there", but it perfectly satisfactory, even ideal, at the "they are here" imagery. Since, as I said, I am a "they are here" preference listener, I find two channel quite satisfactory.
Granted.
Yes, that is one of the limitations of stereo.
Yes, but it only works for "small" stuff.
It seems to me that only very dry recordings should be ideal when using the playback room's ambience as an added effect. Trying to create that "in my room" illusion? A recording with very little ambience of its own, allowing your room to create the ambience, might work. A lively recording, whether from the natural ambience of a hall or the electronic ambience created in the studio, will give you both spaces - your room's and the recordings' - inelegantly laid on top of each other, not a more "natural" space. And the problem is that the only recordings I have that are dry enough to allow my room to "be the ambience" are ones that I've made myself, that were recorded in very dry booths or rooms and have not had any reverb or delay added to them in the mix.
I've heard the rare speaker system that seems to make the most of a lively space (all bi-pole or di-pole designs), but I think this has more to do with the signal staying flatter off-axis than it does with a more "natural" sense of space - and even these systems sound better in quieter rooms.
For critical listening, it seems to me that minimizing the effects of the listening space seem to get the best results most of the time from most recordings. Fortunately, most domestic listening rooms are quiet enough to work pretty well, but when we hear our room's ambience and declare it more "natural," I think we're probably just preferring what we're most accustomed to.
My ears, my systems, my rooms. YMMV.
Tim
I've heard the rare speaker system that seems to make the most of a lively space (all bi-pole or di-pole designs), but I think this has more to do with the signal staying flatter off-axis than it does with a more "natural" sense of space - and even these systems sound better in quieter rooms.
For critical listening, it seems to me that minimizing the effects of the listening space seem to get the best results most of the time from most recordings. Fortunately, most domestic listening rooms are quiet enough to work pretty well, but when we hear our room's ambience and declare it more "natural," I think we're probably just preferring what we're most accustomed to.
My ears, my systems, my rooms. YMMV.
Tim
By this comment do you mean a limited number of instruments, or sources? If so, then yes that a practical truth, but not a therorectical limitation. There is no limit to the number of instruments that could be resolved in the "they are here" scenario, except that more instruments mean bigger acoustic recording spaces and that means a local acoustic on the recording of a large space, which is incompatible with the local acoustics of a small listening room. What its the many instruments in a large space that cannot be done with two channels. For me, I go out to enjoy this type of performance since it cannot be duplicated at home. Virtually everything else however can be. In fact, I prefer a DVD of a live reinforced concert to going to the real event because invariably the sound engineers will screw up the live event.
Yes Tim I do strongly disagree. Its not that the recording has to be dry, but it cannot have an acoustic that is in stark contrast to the local one unless the loacl one is surpressed (which has its own problems). Many many recodrings are like this, but, of course, no classical works are.
And I strongly prefer a lively room when the speakers are not such as to ruin the effect. The speaker design is critical when the room is lively and the wrong speakers in a live room are a disaster. But the right speakers in a lively room are truely impressive as anyone who has heard my system will attest to. In this discussion we must atke note that we cannot discuss the topic with the room being seperate from the speaker design, because the two, in this context, are intimately connected.
A rooms true acoustic is always "more natural" because its real. It can't get any more "natural" than that. I think you take the term in a different context than I used it.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree until I get a chance to hear your speakers, then. I've used large, small, directional, less-directional, omni directional, pro and consumer, active and passive, but my experience has always been pretty consistent -- they always sound better in quiet (not necessarily stone dead) rooms, and if the design is appropriate, better yet in a near field configuration. But maybe that's because the overwhelming majority of my recordings are studio. That's typically a pretty quiet room.
Tim
I would agree that the theory behind reproduction of a concert hall, via a series of mics, recreated in a totally separate space by 2 speakers would seem impossible. But, for some reason, it works. I also don't know how bees can fly.
Consider that our binaural hearing system is just that. We transduce sound waves that are funneled into a canal, with a displaceable membrane at the end. Our tympanic membrane has no auditory/neural connections, but acts as a buffer with a series of small bones attached to it. A muscle attaches to the tympanic membrane to protect it from blow-out due to very large noises. That is why we can hear a pin drop at one time, and can walk through NYC another time. The bones set-up currents within the cochlear organ that deflect a membrane. Deflection of this membrane excites nerves. For all intents and purposes, each cochlear organ can be regarded a single point of integration. The membrane is complex and has different regions which deflect preferrentially to certain frequencies. The spatial distribution of the nerves at the membrane and also the nucleus in the brainstem convey a great deal about sound localization. Differences between the two ears can tell us left vs. right. We can lateralize sound reflexively, but more precise localization probably requires higher cortical association centers.
Higher level processing takes subliminal cues within the recording, and attempts to make sense of it. These subtle delays from sound bouncing off objects creates a sense of space. If you see a photo of two adults, one being 1/4 size smaller than the other, we interpret the smaller object as being distant. Geometric visual patterns add to this perspective to make it convincing. The same thing happens with hearing. It is really phenominal when one thinks about it.
What I have noticed is through noise reduction and high quality components, the spatial cues within the recording are revealed. They are there. Although I have a somewhat lively room that is much smaller than a concert hall, I would suggest that the sonic recreation is a very good facsimile of the actual performance. The information about weight and size are within a standard CD. It is just a matter of resolving that information, without the preference for resolving excessive detail in other sonic attributes. Again, by paying particular attention to electricity quality and with good components, this can be reasonably achieved.
Do I think I am literally in the concert hall? There are several things that are not perfect, but at this point, I can list them on one hand. Still trying to see if these can be solved, and that is what this hobby is about.
Consider that our binaural hearing system is just that. We transduce sound waves that are funneled into a canal, with a displaceable membrane at the end. Our tympanic membrane has no auditory/neural connections, but acts as a buffer with a series of small bones attached to it. A muscle attaches to the tympanic membrane to protect it from blow-out due to very large noises. That is why we can hear a pin drop at one time, and can walk through NYC another time. The bones set-up currents within the cochlear organ that deflect a membrane. Deflection of this membrane excites nerves. For all intents and purposes, each cochlear organ can be regarded a single point of integration. The membrane is complex and has different regions which deflect preferrentially to certain frequencies. The spatial distribution of the nerves at the membrane and also the nucleus in the brainstem convey a great deal about sound localization. Differences between the two ears can tell us left vs. right. We can lateralize sound reflexively, but more precise localization probably requires higher cortical association centers.
Higher level processing takes subliminal cues within the recording, and attempts to make sense of it. These subtle delays from sound bouncing off objects creates a sense of space. If you see a photo of two adults, one being 1/4 size smaller than the other, we interpret the smaller object as being distant. Geometric visual patterns add to this perspective to make it convincing. The same thing happens with hearing. It is really phenominal when one thinks about it.
What I have noticed is through noise reduction and high quality components, the spatial cues within the recording are revealed. They are there. Although I have a somewhat lively room that is much smaller than a concert hall, I would suggest that the sonic recreation is a very good facsimile of the actual performance. The information about weight and size are within a standard CD. It is just a matter of resolving that information, without the preference for resolving excessive detail in other sonic attributes. Again, by paying particular attention to electricity quality and with good components, this can be reasonably achieved.
Do I think I am literally in the concert hall? There are several things that are not perfect, but at this point, I can list them on one hand. Still trying to see if these can be solved, and that is what this hobby is about.
I think it works surprisingly well, all things considered.
Not so sure I would make the emphases that you make. The cochlea is more of an analyzer than an integrator. The several brainstem nuclei can actually make very precise inter-aural timing and amplitude determinations. Contextual localization probably requires cortical involvement although owls and bats do remarkably well with primarily mesencephalic mechanismsm.
Yes. As you imply, all our sensations are filtered through memory and associations to create our conscious perceptions. These are elegant mechanisms but they are also what permits us to be fooled, sometimes constructively.
Similar threads
