If anything, height realized in a hi end audio system should be recording dependent. Playing Copland's Theme for a Common Man,I can't image this music not producing a sound stage at the limits of any boundary present,well above any good speaker.
What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Tim,
Unhappily no. I do not have free access to paid articles on acoustics, and all I could get was some non official access on a computer that did not allow me to record bookmarks or save files - just consult samples! I also spent some time in a paper library consulting some old papers in proceedings, but just casual reading. Even worst, the few digitized old papers are bitmap scans and you have to enter the references manually to continue your search.
Anyway, nothing that I could use without risking of being accused of lowering my credibility even more than it is now at WBF.
Specially because in these localization matters authors disagree very often! As I told I was surfing in my free time, not carrying research.One of the most interesting papers I found but lost trace was about some one who placed several types of simple but fancy reflectors near a cheap microphone and recorded the sound of natural sources at different elevations. Training listeners he found that some of them, depending on the reflector type, could identify the elevation angle with some credibility. He considered that some of the reflectors could be emulating the filtering action of the pinna.
This general paper on localization has many interesting references.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/630l383367067tu0/fulltext.pdf
Micro, I love and appreciate your devotion on this subject. You are to be commanded. :b
I'm often like that; I got interest and do a lot of scientific research (not me; from the scientists, the researchers). Excellent way to discover and learn more ... :b
* And I remember some pages back, the suggestions to close this thread!
I'm learning more from threads like these than other ones without real substance.
I'm often like that; I got interest and do a lot of scientific research (not me; from the scientists, the researchers). Excellent way to discover and learn more ... :b
* And I remember some pages back, the suggestions to close this thread!
I'm learning more from threads like these than other ones without real substance.
Tim,
Unhappily no. I do not have free access to paid articles on acoustics, and all I could get was some non official access on a computer that did not allow me to record bookmarks or save files - just consult samples! I also spent some time in a paper library consulting some old papers in proceedings, but just casual reading. Even worst, the few digitized old papers are bitmap scans and you have to enter the references manually to continue your search.
Anyway, nothing that I could use without risking of being accused of lowering my credibility even more than it is now at WBF.
One of the most interesting papers I found but lost trace was about some one who placed several types of simple but fancy reflectors near a cheap microphone and recorded the sound of natural sources at different elevations. Training listeners he found that some of them, depending on the reflector type, could identify the elevation angle with some credibility. He considered that some of the reflectors could be emulating the filtering action of the pinna.
This general paper on localization has many interesting references.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/630l383367067tu0/fulltext.pdf
I completely understand. I like to read such papers, even though I may only half understand them, and my searches often end the same way.
Tim
As I read this, it is talking about testing binaural hearing (two ears) vs monaural hearing (one ear) and how the pinna is implicated in each. The sound source was several speakers placed at specific heights and used as a constant point source for the listening test.
So they're studying the mechanism of the ear's ability to perceive position relative to vertical and lateral sources with one ear vs two. Not two channel recording and playback with two mono microphones and two mono speakers laterally placed for stereo.
Did I miss something?
--Bill
Bill,
Yes. The article is not on sound reproduction at all - it is on how locate sources and was just referred to show a few references on studies about these matters. People still disagree a lot on fundamental aspects about how it happens. IMHO, most of the argumentation that was used to state why we can not perceive height localization is based on arguments that many of the authors of these psycoacoustics works do not consider true. Unless we understand the fundamentals we will always be discussing semantics.
BTW, I do not have the hope of finding the truth here. But as the question was raised and I found it interesting to read about it. I understand that for some of us this is coffee talk and professionals can feel disturbed about it. Sorry.
Illusion or not illusion, this is the question!
Bill,
Yes. The article is not on sound reproduction at all - it is on how locate sources and was just referred to show a few references on studies about these matters. People still disagree a lot on fundamental aspects about how it happens. IMHO, most of the argumentation that was used to state why we can not perceive height localization is based on arguments that many of the authors of these psycoacoustics works do not consider true. Unless we understand the fundamentals we will always be discussing semantics.
BTW, I do not have the hope of finding the truth here. But as the question was raised and I found it interesting to read about it. I understand that for some of us this is coffee talk and professionals can feel disturbed about it. Sorry.
Illusion or not illusion, this is the question!
Micro
I read the article and I don't see how it brings any new light or sustain your position that 2-ch stereo recordings supports height information ... This article has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And this is not Semantics
Micro
I read the article and I don't see how it brings any new light or sustain your position that 2-ch stereo recordings supports height information ... This article has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And this is not Semantics
FrantzM,
No where I said that THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE sustains my position. I have taken the care to explain it . It is an article on fundamentals of localization, not on sound reproduction. Please read at less a few of my previous posts ...
That sheds light on your confusion. Just curious how did you conclude" that it was an artifact of driver placement or intentional design?" Please avoid circular logic. Don't say it must be because the microphone is incapable of recording it.
One of us is confused, to be sure.
What circular logic are you referring to?
A single microphone recording to a single audio track IS incapable of recording anything but a flat mono representation of what it heard (no positional information whatsoever).
two laterally placed microphones recording into two tracks ARE ALSO incapable of recording anything besides two separate channels of monophonic audio and time/distance cues 'heard' at and between those two points.
When played back on a two channel system with the speakers placed laterally (standard stereo system), all that can be presented is the two independent mono channels, and a mimicking of the lateral time/distance cues originally received by the microphones, but stretched (made wider) or shrunk (made smaller) by the comparison of distance between the mics and distance between the speakers.
Once you understand this simple reality, you'll know why it doesn't matter how great the speakers are. They can reproduce only what was recorded. No more.
Therefore, depiction of height during playback can be only from driver placement, or projection due to driver or crossover design. Or, of course, strange room acoustics.
That isn't circular logic, it's step by step from point a (the start) to point b (the end).
Think about it. If a microphones and speakers (by themselves) are capable of preserving ANY directional information, why do we need stereo?
If you don't believe this, please cite ONE technical paper where true recording height in mono or two channel lateral recording is documented based on the recording and playback process only.
Stereo: A Lateral sound stage (illusion) produced by time differences recorded by dual lateral mics and played back on dual speakers placed laterally.
--Bill
Hello, Bill. I'll go ahead and chime back in now. I am finally seeing the light, or rather, hearing the truth. I have spent some extensive listening time recently, concentrating on the illusion of height within a speaker. Your post above pretty much sums up what my observations have been. Honestly, this could not have been further from "the truth", as I thought, when this conversation started....just based upon my observations. I will go ahead and be the first to admit that my observations over the years have been skewed on the "illusion" of height. With my speakers, the relative height cues between the kick drum, cymbals, high hat and the like are pin-pointable with a good recording. The more I paid attention to these and other specific instruments, the more it became apparent that it was, in fact, the individual drivers and their respective physical height that was creating the illusion. This is something I find great pleasure in with regards to the reproductive effort.
There are many instances of height I have observed in the past with different setups and systems that admittedly I'm still a little bit confused with. A point source speaker, for example, creating the illusion of the singer being 4' higher than the speakers. I will go back to said system and try to see if I can't find the room reflection that causes this [If I can remember who was playing when this illusion occurred]. There are other instances I can remember that offered the illusion of height as well that I will go back and do the same re-evaluation of, just as I have done with my own speakers and system.
I am understanding more about the parlor tricks of recorded music and it has become rather easy for me to now pick up on the phasing techniques and frequency boosts that produce said height illusions. This thread has been an enlightening part of my audio journey and I thank those involved for being a part of it, especially for the patience offered. As I enter yet another stage along my audio journey, I will be paying a bit more attention to the height illusion. This time armed with more knowledge on the subject. Thank you.
There are many instances of height I have observed in the past with different setups and systems that admittedly I'm still a little bit confused with. A point source speaker, for example, creating the illusion of the singer being 4' higher than the speakers. I will go back to said system and try to see if I can't find the room reflection that causes this [If I can remember who was playing when this illusion occurred]. There are other instances I can remember that offered the illusion of height as well that I will go back and do the same re-evaluation of, just as I have done with my own speakers and system.
I am understanding more about the parlor tricks of recorded music and it has become rather easy for me to now pick up on the phasing techniques and frequency boosts that produce said height illusions. This thread has been an enlightening part of my audio journey and I thank those involved for being a part of it, especially for the patience offered. As I enter yet another stage along my audio journey, I will be paying a bit more attention to the height illusion. This time armed with more knowledge on the subject. Thank you.
You're quite welcome. And thanks for training yourself to hear these things more accurately. As you said, there are many parlor tricks, including some perpetrated by speaker manufactures....
I am understanding more about the parlor tricks of recorded music and it has become rather easy for me to now pick up on the phasing techniques and frequency boosts that produce said height illusions. This thread has been an enlightening part of my audio journey and I thank those involved for being a part of it, especially for the patience offered. As I enter yet another stage along my audio journey, I will be paying a bit more attention to the height illusion. This time armed with more knowledge on the subject. Thank you.
I'm glad I have been able to help debunk some of the myths which have been circling for years.
--Bill
In the end, I find that it really doesn’t matter how/why vestiges of height information are available when we listen to our recordings. Whether you want to give the credit (or blame) to mastering engineers who manipulated the recorded signals through a jigger-pookey box on their console or you want to say it is all caused by driver separation or the length of ribbon/planar speakers, it doesn’t matter to me. If you are one who buys into conspiracy theories, you might see a collusion between recording engineers and speaker designers working secretly together in order to bring us the illusion of height in our recordings.
The fact remains that in spite of or because of our gear and our recordings, we do hear height information. Kick drums aren’t at the same vertical height as a saxophone. Someone playing a stand-up acoustic bass doesn’t sound like he standing on a chair playing the bass. Cymbals don’t sound like they are hovering an inch or two above the floor. Or at least they don’t at my house Mr. Archie DeBunker. So aside from telling us we can’t hear what we hear, I don’t know that after 70 pages this thread has been very meaningful.
The fact remains that in spite of or because of our gear and our recordings, we do hear height information. Kick drums aren’t at the same vertical height as a saxophone. Someone playing a stand-up acoustic bass doesn’t sound like he standing on a chair playing the bass. Cymbals don’t sound like they are hovering an inch or two above the floor. Or at least they don’t at my house Mr. Archie DeBunker. So aside from telling us we can’t hear what we hear, I don’t know that after 70 pages this thread has been very meaningful.
Me neither, apart from that my ears hear something that is suposedly not there .
Well soundeffect /hearingeffect or whatever , i like it :b
What i did find very interesting is what soundproof brought up , the fact that stereophonic sound consisted of 3 channels in the early stages
Well soundeffect /hearingeffect or whatever , i like it :b
What i did find very interesting is what soundproof brought up , the fact that stereophonic sound consisted of 3 channels in the early stages
Ampex used 3 channels,a L & R and center channel. I also remember that their system for movie theaters was 4 channels(3 front and 1 surround). They also made a super system for the first release of cinemascope pictures,which was 5 channels IIRC. All this talk of stereo not being very good is hogwash in my opinion.
It's not useful to understand where the things you hear actually come from? You would rather continue to falsely believe that microphone choice and placement has somehow captured height information and a lateral 2-channel system has somehow managed to understand that information and play it back accurately,without the encoding, decoding, amplification or speakers to do so? No intellectual curiosity? No hunger for the truth? You would rather believe what you want to believe than understand what is actually happening and, just possibly, learn to make the most of it?
Ignorance is bliss? OK. Enjoy that.
Bill - thanks for the expertise, I sure needed the help. treitz3 - cudos on your open, inquisitive mind.
Tim
Ignorance is bliss? OK. Enjoy that.
Bill - thanks for the expertise, I sure needed the help. treitz3 - cudos on your open, inquisitive mind.
Tim
I won't argue. Some recordings capture a very believable 3D holographic image,no conventional sweet spot and I'm sure acoustics and mike placement come into play. Take Neil Young's Live at Massey Hall,the recording is so large and has such presence that I sit in awe and try to understand what I am hearing. It's recordings like these that push the envelope and make the question of height heard a real one for many of us.
A wonderful recording, Roger. One of the best "captures" of ambient space outside of classical, IMO. Spacious, large. Lots and lots of well captured, well rendered ambient information. But what separates that ambience into height vs. depth, is not in the recording, it is in your perception. Enjoy it. I know I do.
Tim
Similar threads
