Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't know what a "speech room" is, but I do know what a classroom is. That was the real focus of the paper - classrooms and larger venues use for that purpose:

right - and i was merely eluding to the fact that we are dealing with amplified systems here. so gain is not an issue. we don't 'need' the early reflections to increase the perceived gain of the direct signal - one can simply use the volume knob (*UNLESS you are in a large acoustical space with a developed reverberant sound-field)

"There are many situations in speech communication in rooms where early reflections
would appear to be particularly important such as a teacher talking to students from
somewhere in the middle of a classroom or an actor on a thrust stage. Students behind
the teacher would receive much reduced direct sound and presumably benefit
significantly from early reflections of the speech sounds"



and we (hopefully!) do not have that issue in our reproduction space. nor do we (hopefully!) have any objects blocking the direct signal pathway in our home reproduction space like is possible in a classroom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Seems like both you and Amir want to obliterate the most generalizable part of the paper which happens to be the first paragraph of the formal conclusion of the paper:
"The results of the new studies presented in this paper show that increased early reflection
energy has the same effect on speech intelligibility scores as an equal increase in the
direct sound energy. This was true for both non-impaired listeners and for listeners with
mild to moderate hearing threshold shifts. These impaired listeners are thought to be
representative of a significant portion of the population. "
Both you and Amir seem to want to throw away the baby with the dishwater, even when in this case, it actually helps your cause. I can only conclude that you are so enamoured of the prospect of criticizing my posts that you will miss an opportunity to bolster your own case in the process! ;-)
Close. My main listening room is a house in a near suburban setting, in the first dwelling just off of a the busiest street for a mile or more in either direction. To save energy, we keep our windows open much of the time. But aside from that you seem to be overlooking the fact that movies often contain dramatic speech that is uttered in the midst of shall we say, a complex situation where the other aspects of the scene including sound effects and the speech of other actors decreases the SNR. Never happens in the dramas you watch? Lucky you!

i may have msised it; is there a section within the presented paper that discusses "complex situations" overlapped with speech, and the effects of speech intelligibility?

sounds to me like the major culprit may just be a bad mix job -

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

All I can say is that you and I must watch different movies and TV shows.
Exactly. This was about the first thing that popped into my mind when I started reading Amir's latest reality-challenged rants. Again, the first paragraph of the conclusion of the paper I cited supports the obvious conclusion from this very germane question.
What I see in the paper I cited is that in a classroom setting, the level of the speech is dependent on the vocal capabilities of the teacher. The good news is that this can be bolstered using early reflections, without any loss of intelligibility. Appropriate early reflections are interchangable with simply increasing the SPL which is hard to do in a typical classroom, but easy to do in a listening room.
The myth that this paper busts is the idea that early reflections are more effective at increasing intelligibility than a equivalent increase in SPL, or vice versa. Do what fits!

but gain is merely one component with respect to speech intelligibility.
here is an example where there is plenty of gain and the intelligibility is, well ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxt6eTtYLNw wink.gif

SNR is only one aspect of 'intelligibility' referring to the ability to hear the signal in the presence of a noise floor. in other words, the gain relationship of the signal to noise. tt does not address the other aspects of intelligibility pertaining to the ability to understand the articulation of the signal -
localhost127 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 11:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

the article is with respect to speech rooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc 
This paper presents the results of new studies based on speech intelligibility tests in
simulated sound fields and analyses of impulse response measurements in rooms used for
speech communication. The speech intelligibility test results confirm the importance of
early reflections for achieving good conditions for speech in rooms. The addition of early
reflections increased the effective signal-to-noise ratio and related speech intelligibility
scores for both impaired and non-impaired listeners. The new results also show that for
common conditions where the direct sound is reduced, it is only possible to understand
speech because of the presence of early reflections
. Analyses of measured impulse
responses in rooms intended for speech show that early reflections can increase the
effective signal-to-noise ratio by up to 9 dB.
A room acoustics computer model is used to
demonstrate that the relative importance of early reflections can be influenced by the
room acoustics design.
so sure, this is valid if the signal-to-noise ratio in your home theater is so poor that the gain of the direct signal is impaired beyond intelligibility. did you built your home theater right next to a train yard by chance?
"common conditions where the direct sound is reduced"
the studies put forth are regarding speech rooms. you know, where signal to noise becomes an issue and the early arriving reflections that are fused with the direct signal ARE beneficial due to increased perceived GAIN - in terms of making something easier to hear as being more intelligible in the sense of it being more articulate - and all of this is entirely moot in an AMPLIFIED setting - gain is no longer the issue.

Thanks for doing this. I just finished scanning that article and came to the same conclusion. But you said it better than I could have,
so you saved me the effort (too bad I didn't see your post before I wasted my time scanning the article.


I can understand how humans evolved to prefer, and use, a reflection from the ground. We have been living on or near the ground
for a long time. Rooms with ceilings are a more recent feature of our lives. At least in my stereo room I prefer to absorb first
reflections from floor and ceiling (maybe if I had "better" speakers with more uniform dispersion this would not be an issue)

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #183 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

OTOH, your condescending rethorical question pretty much exactly proove my point. What on Earth has speech intelligibility to do with stereo sound reproduction???

what section of the NRC paper in discussion did you find relevant or beneficial to "stereo sound reproduction" or an "outside-the-head, holographic (holophonic?) phantom projection experience of sound"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Um, I guess you should know that? I mean, you're one of the guys that routinely keep derrailing potentially interesting threads into worthless idiotic nit-picking defenition/penis measurement marathons of absolute no interest to anyone but you own egos.

here's a discussion where you won't have to worry about any that: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407637/the-room-acoustics-master-disagreement-thread
localhost127 is online now  
post #184 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:28 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

what section of the NRC paper in discussion did you find relevant or beneficial to "stereo sound reproduction" or an "outside-the-head, holographic (holophonic?) phantom projection experience of sound"?

None, and that was exactly my point. But you didn't get that, and you couldn't stop youself -you just had to take another swing in the air, because you felt your ego was threatened. Again ..Thing is, I don't care the least about your ego, so I forgive you.

hevi is offline  
post #185 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


But aside from that you seem to be overlooking the fact that movies often contain dramatic speech that is uttered in the midst of shall we say, a complex situation where the other aspects of the scene including sound effects and the speech of other actors decreases the SNR.

But in a movie, the speech has already been uttered and recorded. Maybe it could have been recorded better, and captured some of those apparently helpful early reflections.
Then the question becomes, can adding extra early reflections in the playback phase actually help intelligibility? My guess would be no.

There is a big difference between standing behind a lecturer (which should never happen imo) and reproducing sound when sitting in front of (or being surrounded by) speakers directing the sound right at you.

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #186 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

rofl3dbig.gif
You got granddaughters?

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #187 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Remind me when was the last time anyone had some sort of outside-the-head, holographic (holophonic?) phantom projection experience of sound with headphones and normal 2 channel audio recordings.
Pretty common is live recordings made with two mics - less common in processed and remixed suff

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #188 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

None, and that was exactly my point. But you didn't get that, and you couldn't stop youself -you just had to take another swing in the air, because you felt your ego was threatened. Again ..Thing is, I don't care the least about your ego, so I forgive you.

so do you feel the discussion should have continued with the false assumption that the presented paper is directly relevant to our (amplified) reproduction spaces regarding speech intelligibility and SNR?
do you yourself experience speech intelligibility issues when utilizing headphones?
localhost127 is online now  
post #189 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:46 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

Pretty common is live recordings made with two mics - less common in processed and remixed suff

Which kind of brings in Another dimension to the "reproduction chain". "processed and remixed stuff" usually use pan-pot (R-L intensity) to place the phantom images in the soundstage. Another technique is phase differense recordings. -time differense between channels, or a mix of the two. Which is most "correct"?

panpot mixes have vastly different stereophonic properties than time difference mixes due to the "time intensity trading" mechanism in the brain. Little bit depending on your setup, you'll usually have much wider sweetspot with toed in speakers in a decent room and a time difference mix than a panpot mix because of how the brain interpret the stimuli from the two types of stereo mixes in conjunction with how most spekers radiate.

hevi is offline  
post #190 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
You use your brain to hear?
Are you serious??
Quote:
Yet your beloved ETC...
It isn't my beloved etc. Its just a tool. There have been interesting discussions previously about the relevance of etc being spectrally blind. I'm on no crusade.
Quote:
I wish you could post *and* understand my references and then the job would be done.
Ah, wouldn't be AVS without these deflecting insults.
Quote:
Did you for example follow why just a thin half inch piece of carpet does the job or eliminating concern for floor reflection?
You'd rather redirect to another topic than address my specific points? Sorry, I don't have the time or concern to follow you on another chase. I commented on what I wanted to. If you are incapable of responding to it, so be it.
Quote:
Sad that we can't really have this conversation in a more cordial and constructive manner.
You question someones reading comprehension then bemoan the tone of discussion. Always the victim.
Quote:
Surgically deal with them? You are skipping to surgery without even knowing if the patient is sick?
I both read and understood the snippet from D'Antonio I posted. I gave you the benefit of doubt in that if reflections fell within the specified parameters they are beneficial. If they then fall outside...

And no, I don't recommend skipping to surgery. That is PRECISELY what I advocate against. Find out if the room is sick.

What tool are you going to use to do that when the parameters listed in that example are GAIN and TIME?????

Bigus is offline  
post #191 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 12:54 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

do you yourself experience speech intelligibility issues when utilizing headphones?

Absolutely. when wearing my Etymotic ER-4S it is allmost impossible to hear what people say around me smile.gif. Say how about we burry the ax for now, sing "we shall overcome" and move on in a constructive direction? How bout trying to define what, in terms of early reflections is OK, and what is not?

hevi is offline  
post #192 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Absolutely. when wearing my Etymotic ER-4S it is allmost impossible to hear what people say around me smile.gif. Say how about we burry the ax for now, sing "we shall overcome" and move on in a constructive direction? How bout trying to define what, in terms of early reflections is OK, and what is not?

vs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi 
you're one of the guys that routinely keep derrailing potentially interesting threads into worthless idiotic nit-picking defenition/penis measurement marathons of absolute no interest to anyone but you own egos.

as i instructed above, you're more than welcome to join this discussion and not have to worry about the "de-railing": http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407637/the-room-acoustics-master-disagreement-thread
localhost127 is online now  
post #193 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Which kind of brings in Another dimension to the "reproduction chain". "processed and remixed stuff" usually use pan-pot (R-L intensity) to place the phantom images in the soundstage. Another technique is phase differense recordings. -time differense between channels, or a mix of the two. Which is most "correct"?
panpot mixes have vastly different stereophonic properties than time difference mixes due to the "time intensity trading" mechanism in the brain. Little bit depending on your setup, you'll usually have much wider sweetspot with toed in speakers in a decent room and a time difference mix than a panpot mix because of how the brain interpret the stimuli from the two types of stereo mixes in conjunction with how most spekers radiate.

I really can not answer your question. It is a good question, but one I have no control over, or correct answer to. This is a question best posed
to people who record music. I mostly just listen. And since most producers do not reveal how they mixed (pan-pot, or delay, or both) it is
impossible for me to tell you which is best. And since I can't change my listening room for every song played, I have to choose a solution
that works as best as possible (perhaps trying to reproduce the "average" mixing environment, or not). I used to tweak my speakers for the room, now I tweak the room
for the speakers. There really is not "right" solution. You have to make things sound as good as you can in your room for the types of things you listen to.
How you do that depends on many things, and you might change your opinion with time. In the end it is all opinion and and compromise (you have to compromise
becuase things are recorded in so many different ways, and different people have different preferences). Threads like this can be useful, or not, depending
on your mood and what you want.

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #194 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Absolutely. when wearing my Etymotic ER-4S it is allmost impossible to hear what people say around me smile.gif. Say how about we burry the ax for now, sing "we shall overcome" and move on in a constructive direction? How bout trying to define what, in terms of early reflections is OK, and what is not?
vs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi 
you're one of the guys that routinely keep derrailing potentially interesting threads into worthless idiotic nit-picking defenition/penis measurement marathons of absolute no interest to anyone but you own egos.
as i instructed above, you're more than welcome to join this discussion and not have to worry about the "de-railing": http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407637/the-room-acoustics-master-disagreement-thread

Enlighten me. Is that your way of saying that you're not interested in moving the discussion in a constructive direction?

hevi is offline  
post #195 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 01:20 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

I really can not answer your question. It is a good question, but one I have no control over, or correct answer to. This is a question best posed
to people who record music. I mostly just listen. And since most producers do not reveal how they mixed (pan-pot, or delay, or both) it is
impossible for me to tell you which is best. And since I can't change my listening room for every song played, I have to choose a solution
that works as best as possible (perhaps trying to reproduce the "average" mixing environment, or not). I used to tweak my speakers for the room, now I tweak the room
for the speakers. There really is not "right" solution. You have to make things sound as good as you can in your room for the types of things you listen to.
How you do that depends on many things, and you might change your opinion with time. In the end it is all opinion and and compromise (you have to compromise
becuase things are recorded in so many different ways, and different people have different preferences). Threads like this can be useful, or not, depending
on your mood and what you want.

From a production/price point of view, mono recorded pan-pot is usually the best choise (hence the extesive use of it in contemorary music recording). Fielity wise (stereophonic illusion, rather) I'd say time difference is king. It just mitigates so many of the pan-pot shortcomings when it comes to soundstage and three-dimensionality.

edit: F***K, I am now officailly *hating* Crapple iPads! It is friggin impossible to convey any kind of Communication without it f**king up Words and case! (WTF! I wrote the whole paragraph in lowercase and it frigging Changes random Words to leading uppercase! WTF!?!)

hevi is offline  
post #196 of 871 Old 06-26-2012, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Enlighten me. Is that your way of saying that you're not interested in moving the discussion in a constructive direction?

Follow the link. See what you think. I'm shocked nobody stomped on my opinion. Not that I'd mind. It is an opinion based
on science and experience, and, it is an opinion that could change as I learn and experience more.

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #197 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 01:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked: 1160
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

I can understand how humans evolved to prefer, and use, a reflection from the ground. We have been living on or near the ground
for a long time.

Except for one little problem. The ground absolutely sucks as a reflector. Ditto for the woods.

Being out in nature is a lot like walking around in an anechoic chamber, except for walking next to mostly vertical stone walls.

In fact, burying a speaker in the ground with its face flush is a common way to get about the same effect as an anechoic chamber.
arnyk is offline  
post #198 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 04:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked: 1160
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Which kind of brings in Another dimension to the "reproduction chain". "processed and remixed stuff" usually use pan-pot (R-L intensity) to place the phantom images in the soundstage. Another technique is phase differense recordings. -time differense between channels, or a mix of the two. Which is most "correct"?
panpot mixes have vastly different stereophonic properties than time difference mixes due to the "time intensity trading" mechanism in the brain. Little bit depending on your setup, you'll usually have much wider sweetspot with toed in speakers in a decent room and a time difference mix than a panpot mix because of how the brain interpret the stimuli from the two types of stereo mixes in conjunction with how most spekers radiate.

You can rant and rave against intensity stereo all you want, but intensity stereo is what your beloved coincident mic pairs deliver.

Me, I have no problems with intensity stereo whether its sourced from coincident mics or pan pots.

Recording and reproduction as we know it today is rife with fake phase differences, coincident pair micing or not.
arnyk is offline  
post #199 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You can rant and rave against intensity stereo all you want, but intensity stereo is what your beloved coincident mic pairs deliver.

I don't know if my post qualify (or was intended) as a "rant and rave against intensity stereo" -most music I listen to and enjoy the most is done with such tecnhiques.

Also, I don't recall mentioning that I prefer coincident mic pairs. I don't pretend to know much about recording and micing techniques but I have a few friends that are pretty decent and experienced recording engineers so I beleave I have at least some insight to how difficult it is and what choises needs to be made to select the right setup. I've listened to his demos/testsof different recording/micing techniques. As you allready pointed out, an X/Y-pair does not code time difference. An A/B setup however do. As do pseudo-coincident setups like NOS, ORTF etc. All micing techniques naturally have their pros and cons, but IMHO time difference techniques done right render a more realistic soundstage and also "widens" the sweetspot (the soundstage resist collapsing to the side if you sit off-axis, compared to intensity coded recordings).

hevi is offline  
post #200 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 03:00 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
It is apparent that you are not very aware of what constitutes the norm of contemporary recording technique, as your preferences necessarily assumes that all recording be done in an ensemble manner where the mic records and retains the precise phase relationships between players as well as records the gain of all players relative to one another that is assumed to be regulated at the time of playing - which unfortunately is nowhere close to contemporary recording technique. And as a result of the actual common studio practices, I fear most of your 'debate' is moot as the process dictates the techniques available for use.

Such while such imagined 'ensemble' technique might be great if you are recording chamber music, such is not the nature of contemporary recording technique, where players may be in different rooms, in isolation booths, and parts are layered that are performed independently to click tracks or are overdubbed, or someone may even 'phone in' a part from half way across the world via wire, and/or complete a part 3 weeks after the rest of the track is completed. So much for maintaining the phase and spatial relationships of each part relative to one another with a mic pair (of whatever topology)!

I am curious to hear how you would affect the time /phase relationships of a typical session of that sort in addition to create an image/sense of localization when there is NO sense of imaging or localization from the individual multi-tracked parts other than with gain and panning and where the 'phase relationship' consists of little more than where in the track the engineer punches in the part laid down a month after the rest of he material was recorded!...

And all that is in addition to the fact that this thread is now so far removed from whatever it was originally about in the name of "moving the discussion in a constructive direction" which apparently means simply responding with any concern however unrelated it is to ANYTHING that the thread ever pretended to be about.

But then it is instructive to note that on a forum that pretends to include acoustics as a fundamental part of audio, that there is NO defined area in the entire forum designated for the discussion of actual acoustical concepts. Speaks volumes - especially as what passes for acoustics for most here is the transposition of small signal 2space analysis imagined to be analogous to 4 space acoustical behavior.

Of course, we have still others who can only perform word searches and whose acoustics training consists of "spending several days" on the subject and who cite "references" from someone I have NEVER spoken with who claims that "After all that, 90% of the gear he admired, I found to be bad, musically speaking", which is absolutely bogus as I NEVER made reference to which "gear" should be used! (aside from the fact that I DO like the heritage Klipsch horn loaded products, provided they are modified with precision signal delay to compensate for the physical driver offsets. Oh, but I DO like the TAD mid-high horns coupled with the Jubilee horn loaded low end for a single crossover located at ~400 Hz...)

And as to statements such as "Personally, i dont know if I agreed with his science. If it sounds good and measures poorly, then stick to the measurements because what you're hearing is deceiving you. While this can be true it also has its problems, notably when the relationship of the measurements to the performance is circumspect." Not bad for someone who hallucinated that I talked about equipment preferences (funny, none of what what was alleged was substantiated - as is the pattern in cut and paste - as opposed to discussing the actual concepts) and the topic back then was the fact that the KlipschHorn (as well as the LaScala) had significant non-minimum phase signal offsets between drivers, that as they were designed before the advent of precision microsecond delay units featured a woofer that was delayed by not inches, but with the woofer delayed by 7.4ms and the mid range horn delayed by 1.7ms - a factor of 8.364 -> ~8.4 FEET of offset!!!! Can we say mega group delay?!

Of course those citing this would NEVER actually address the issue raised that suggested that these speakers would benefit from the use of precision microsecond delay and which got quite a few audiophool's panties in a wad who were aghast that I would dare challenge the implementation of a design from someone as esteemed as Paul Klipsch or that the design could not be improved upon. Oh, and how could anyone dare make such a claim regarding the signal alignment problem that does result in substantial crossover region superposition errors when folks claimed not to hear it as a distinct issue - as the offset was within the Haas region and would only be defined by measurement equipment that has a more acute resolution than do our ears! DUH!

But hey, its interesting that he now comes down on the side of those who contest the validity of signal alignment and who can find no nexus between SIGNIFICANT 8.4 FOOT driver signal offsets and audible anomalies and for whom innuendo is the bread and butter of some who are unable to address the actual substantial facts - which included the validation of the claim by none other than Dick Heyser himself. But rather than directly address such substantial acoustical issues, they expend more time running to moderators to complain about the presentation of such facts rather than actually addressing them. But its hard to actually address issues when all one can do are word searches and cut and past and who avoids any actual reference to the topic at hand regarding the effects of non-minimum phase signal offset. But hey, what can be more consistent that selectively finding a quote from someone clueless who was NEVER involved in any discussion and who admits that they did not fully understand the point and is confused at the potential that there may indeed be a no nexus between measurements and perception and then falsely claims that I was recommending other "equipment" choices rather than a modification that is now implemented as standard in their products such as the Jubilee and is now standard in their professional line. Apparently Klipsch engineering has also fallen for the ruse...

Yup, another case of the same Flatlanders aghast at the suggestion that there could indeed exist acoustical behaviors that manifest themselves as audible anomalies that are beyond the unaided resolution of our hearing - analogous to the existence of small unseen 'bugs' in water and the environment that can only be seen with the use of a microscope that could contribute to health issues! Imagine, the nerve of some people who employ measurements to augment perception. And to think some assert that such signal offsets do not manifest themselves in the form of substantial spatial polar lobing and cannot be heard? That is simply BS. Burn the witch!

But then the false charge that one relies and believes on measurements to the exclusion of perception is yet one more BS claim made by someone who bases their experience upon having spent an ENTIRE several days discovering the existence of acoustics and who likewise cites hearsay evidence rather than actual substantial facts. But when that is all one has, its any port in a storm...as apparently 7.4 ms non-minimum phase signal offsets corresponding to an 8.4 FOOT offset are inconsequential. But hey, why mention the actual substance behind an issue when you can quote someone who in reading about it after the fact failed to grasp the meaning of the issue? rolleyes.gif

And a "gamer" tag? It came from an old email and AVS would not allow it to be updated after non-use of over 6 years. But of course one should not be surprised that "games" is where someone from the ultimate world of games and dysfunctional toys called MS would naturally gravitate...

Oh, and as far as Amy, who objected when I had the audacity to point out what many considered to be a 'flaw' in a product on a company forum...I didn't tell her to 'kiss my @ss', I told her to F O.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #201 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 04:08 PM
GGA
Advanced Member
 
GGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Topanga CA
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 13
As best I remember, most of the information in this thread has to do with side wall reflections, as do most of the treatments. Floor reflections and "floor bounce" have been occasionally brought up. I have read very little about ceiling reflections, possibly because they are so cumbersome to treat for non-professionals (or even for pros).

It'd seem that side wall, floor and ceiling reflections would have different characteristics, both physically and how the brain interprets them. Amir stated regarding floor reflections, "The answer had to do with the fact that the floor reflections come to our ear from a different angle and listening tests demonstrate that its effect is limited to higher frequencies.

Anyway I'd enjoy reading more about floor and ceiling reflections and if they require different treatments. I think side reflections have been very well covered in this thread and I am very grateful for that.
GGA is offline  
post #202 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 04:18 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
As this thread bears little semblance to the original question, and anyone desiring to search for information would most likely be unable to reference any useful information based upon the title, may I suggest asking the question in a new thread with a title that more approximately states the actual topic at hand...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #203 of 871 Old 06-27-2012, 05:04 PM
GGA
Advanced Member
 
GGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Topanga CA
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 13
A most excellent suggestion. The new thread has been started.

May this thread R.I.P.
GGA is offline  
post #204 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 02:06 AM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

It is apparent that you are not very aware of what constitutes the norm of contemporary recording technique, as your preferences necessarily assumes that all recording be done in an ensemble manner where the mic records and retains the precise phase relationships between players as well as records the gain of all players relative to one another that is assumed to be regulated at the time of playing - which unfortunately is nowhere close to contemporary recording technique. And as a result of the actual common studio practices, I fear most of your 'debate' is moot as the process dictates the techniques available for use.

It would’ve been an amazing ability you’d possessed, had you actually been able to judge anyone’s awareness of contemporary music recording techniques correctly with only a few lines of that persons scribbles as input. However, I am sad to say, you don’t possess that ability. I am very well aware of contemporary music recording and how and why it is done the way it is done –I happen to live in a country with less population than Michigan, yet we ‘ve been the world’s third largest music exporter the last decades or so. Our kids learn about this stuff in school
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Such while such imagined 'ensemble' technique might be great if you are recording chamber music, such is not the nature of contemporary recording technique, where players may be in different rooms, in isolation booths, and parts are layered that are performed independently to click tracks or are overdubbed, or someone may even 'phone in' a part from half way across the world via wire, and/or complete a part 3 weeks after the rest of the track is completed. So much for maintaining the phase and spatial relationships of each part relative to one another with a mic pair (of whatever topology)!

You seem to confuse the applicability of a specific recording technique with its sonic aspects. Just because it is more difficult or time consuming and not always practical to go A/B or pseudo-coincident does not take away its sonic and/or perceptual characteristics compared to a pan-pot mix does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

I am curious to hear how you would affect the time /phase relationships of a typical session of that sort in addition to create an image/sense of localization when there is NO sense of imaging or localization from the individual multi-tracked parts other than with gain and panning and where the 'phase relationship' consists of little more than where in the track the engineer punches in the part laid down a month after the rest of he material was recorded!...
Synthesizing an A/B or pseudo-coincident signal topography digitally with decent quality from a bunch of mono sources is pretty much a trivial technical exercise today (I was involved in a VR Project for the military ~10 years ago where we did pretty much just this in real-time with excellent result), but (sadly) the industry has not yet taken the leap and probably will not in the near future
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

And all that is in addition to the fact that this thread is now so far removed from whatever it was originally about in the name of "moving the discussion in a constructive direction" which apparently means simply responding with any concern however unrelated it is to ANYTHING that the thread ever pretended to be about.

[about fiftyeight pages or so worth of ramblings totally unrelated to me and the thread subject omitted]

Indeed...

hevi is offline  
post #205 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 02:56 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post


You seem to confuse the applicability of a specific recording technique with its sonic aspects. Just because it is more difficult or time consuming and not always practical to go A/B or pseudo-coincident does not take away its sonic and/or perceptual characteristics compared to a pan-pot mix does it?

Synthesizing an A/B or pseudo-coincident signal topography digitally with decent quality from a bunch of mono sources is pretty much a trivial technical exercise today (I was involved in a VR Project for the military ~10 years ago where we did pretty much just this in real-time with excellent result), but (sadly) the industry has not yet taken the leap and probably will not in the near future
.

Not at all! You are mistaking my complete indifference to the entire issue for ignorance of recording techniques.
And such passion, such angst....but does anyone else here care - especially as such a left field notion lands in the middle of THIS thread?

Yeah, after all of that, you imagine that you can synthesize the phase relationships necessary to achieve an accurate distributed soundstage using existing technology without using pan and gain. Right. I guess with that you could just eliminate the need for all the knobs and sliders on the mixing board as well...just think of the cost savings...

Of course you could simply use already existing technologies that surpass anything currently marketed that do not cost significantly more and that what exists such as the Killion ITE mic technology in an ensemble setting and have a much more accurate 3 space rendition than ANY of the alternative surround processing schemas or of your mentioned techniques WITHOUT any necessary encoding or decoding. And that was achieved about 25 years ago. And who cares about some new synthesis scheme - even if ANY of the issues raised in the entire topic had ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that had come before in this thread...

Good luck finding anyone who cares - especially seeing as how the recording industry continues to shrink as larger studios are closing by the score, and what remains continues to move to home based project studios and distribution continues to shrink and move to a direct distribution model. Yup, everyone is just begging to find another esoteric technology to buy and implement despite the market trend moving inexorably toward more and more portable low-fi solutions.

So maybe you can bring this up with someone who cares AFTER you solve the compression wars...

And after all is said and done we are left with a left field proposal in search of a problem that fails to address real world recording issues and technologies as it is actually and commonly done on earth.

I wish you luck finding an audience.

But your are wasting your time responding to me here, as the point that YOU utterly miss is that I don't care about the issue. And responding full of ire and passion won't change that... Sorry... But maybe if you added another couch?... rolleyes.gifwink.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #206 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 04:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked: 1160
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

I have a few friends that are pretty decent and experienced recording engineers so I beleave I have at least some insight to how difficult it is and what choises needs to be made to select the right setup.

That may be fine and good, but it is possible that your friends have a narrow view of these things.
Quote:
I've listened to his demos/testsof different recording/micing techniques. As you allready pointed out, an X/Y-pair does not code time difference. An A/B setup however do.

Right, and spacing microphones usually has the effect of introducing audible time differences that are artifacts of the relative location of the mics. These time differences overlay the time differences that exist in the natural sonic scene.

Coincident pairs don't remove natural time differences, they just avoid synthesizing more of them.
Quote:
All micing techniques naturally have their pros and cons, but IMHO time difference techniques done right render a more realistic soundstage and also "widens" the sweetspot (the soundstage resist collapsing to the side if you sit off-axis, compared to intensity coded recordings).

That would be a technical claim that as stated seems to be supported by only your personal preferences. I study these things and do live recordings all the time. I know of no logical reason why adding a fog of artificially-generated time differences and the resulting comb filtering would enhance the sweet spot, and I know of no person who has made formal studies of these things that supports this claim technically.

My own belief is that audiophiles have been educated by journalists to desire a certain amount of phasiness in the recordings that they listen to. Technical studies and common sense are very clear - spacing the microphones by even just several inches adds this phasiness by artificial acoustical means. You could make the mics coincident and obtain the similar results by adding electrical phase shift or a time delay to just one channel. Of course, few would actually add such delays intentially, but spacing the mics has a similar effect.

The only spacing that makes any natural sense at all would be to space the mics by putting a head-like acoustical structure between them in which case you have a binaural recording which works great if you are willing to listen with headphones/earphones.
arnyk is offline  
post #207 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 01:35 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That may be fine and good, but it is possible that your friends have a narrow view of these things.

Perhaps. I know recording engineers that are from both “camps”, but a couple of them stand out as both exceptionally talented and knowledgable both musically, but also technically. I’m pretty sure you have a couple of their recordings in you collection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Right, and spacing microphones usually has the effect of introducing audible time differences that are artifacts of the relative location of the mics. These time differences overlay the time differences that exist in the natural sonic scene.
Coincident pairs don't remove natural time differences, they just avoid synthesizing more of them.

Define “natural time differences”. I don’t really want to state the obvious, but when it comes to creating phantom projected sound events in a 2 channel stereo setup there’s basically two mechanisms at work. Time difference and amplitude differences between the two sound sources.
With a coincident setup –as I know it- you place two directional (i.e cardoid) mics at an angle as close to each other as possible –it will ideally be purely amplitude coded, pretty much the same way an pan-pot monochannel mix will be in terms of phase difference between channels, right? Not much time difference, but amplitude differences between left and right channels, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That would be a technical claim that as stated seems to be supported by only your personal preferences.

Yes, my claim is that I prefer the properties of a time difference coded or hybrid coincident over pan-pot, correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I study these things and do live recordings all the time. I know of no logical reason why adding a fog of artificially-generated time differences and the resulting comb filtering would enhance the sweet spot, and I know of no person who has made formal studies of these things that supports this claim technically.

There’s no formal studies published that I know of (can’t say I have searched for it the last five years of so) that validate *exactly* what I claim. However, the effects of psychoacoustic time difference and amplitude difference localization queues of loudspeaker signals has almost been beaten to death over the years (e.g Jordan 1954, Leakey 1959, Brittain and Leakey 1956, Hansson 1959, Franssen 1959, 1960, 1963, Wendt 1960, 1963, 1964, Mertens 1960, 1965, Bauer 1960, 1961, Harvey and Shroeder 1958, Ortmeyer 1966, Snow 1953, Sandel 1955, Clark et al. 1957 etc, etc, etc.).

Franssen did a couple particularly interesting studies of simultaneous time and level differences and how they interact to place the phantom image in a typical stereophonic loudspeaker setup (1963, I think). It was later followed by others. With this research as input you can build a reasonably solid case that it is possible to create a setup with speakers that –as most speakers do- roll off when going off-axis a “certain” amount, that can take advantage of the combination of added time differences that is introduced by moving the listening position off-axis so that the psychoacoustic “sum” of first wavefront timing and intensity differences between speakers will keep the phantom projection in place for a wider listening angle than a pan-pot mix. Without the time difference coding, it will be much more difficult to keep the phantom projection from collapsing early due to how the brain respond to the interaction between time difference and intensity difference for a two speaker setup.

Now, since you’re a smart guy, you know that scale is of importance here, since an certain off-axis angle in a small venue/listening distance will create much smaller time difference than the same angle in a larger venue. So, while there are a lot of ifs and buts, I can still make a pretty good theoretical case that time difference coding has an impact on sweet spot size in normal sized listening/living rooms, and my own experiments, how unscientific they may be, indicate exactly what is already known from the research in the area.

hevi is offline  
post #208 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
For simple two mic recordings (yes I know these are not often used any more - for better or worse),
seems to me a fake head between to mics would be best for headphone listening,
two mics spread 8-10 feet apart might be best for reproduction on two speakers in a "typical" home.

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd is offline  
post #209 of 871 Old 06-28-2012, 10:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,078
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 749 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Are you serious??
Yes. Auditory filters exist in your ears, not in your brain. How they work determines good bit of the topic we are talking about here. As does how the sound is captured by the two ears relative to changes that occur due to their position, etc. I will explain this in a future post. Net, net, you can't just say you use your brain to hear. You hear due to combination of your two ears and your brain.
Quote:
You'd rather redirect to another topic than address my specific points? Sorry, I don't have the time or concern to follow you on another chase. I commented on what I wanted to. If you are incapable of responding to it, so be it.
It is all the same topic whether you want to acknowledge it or not. You said the tool of choice was what Dragon and Local advocate, i.e. ETC. That tool gives you the wrong information about floor reflections. I gave the example from the FHG paper and how impulse response measurements led to room treatments which resulted in worse subjective results. You can't say ETC is the right tool and then complain when I show a clear case in front of us where it showed misleading information. Additional case we just demonstrated using speech intelligibility where if you ran an ETC, you would have seen a bunch of reflections that you would have then wanted to “surgically remove” resulting in net negative results. So two examples in front of you, and both demonstrating how psychoacoustics trumps simple amplitude/time measurements that are devoid of frequency content and how we hear.
Quote:
I both read and understood the snippet from D'Antonio I posted. I gave you the benefit of doubt in that if reflections fell within the specified parameters they are beneficial. If they then fall outside...
What specified parameters? You mean the 20 to 50 milliseconds time window of early reflections as in this quote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

But here is another industry expert on the subject of reflections and its benefits:
"Research has revealed the importance of early reflections and reverberation to intelligibility. There is a difference in hearing speech and understanding it. When early reflections arrive between in a temporal window roughly 20 - 50 ms after the direct sound and roughly between 5 and 15 dB below the level of the direct sound, there is a process called temporal fusion in which the direct sound is fused with the early reflections making it louder and more intelligible. This is shown in Figure 18. So one of the central design criteria for small rooms used for speech is to provide early reflections and not absorb them!"
Do you believe what you just read? Do you know who has said that? Dr. Toole? Nope. Dr. D'Antonio! Shocker. What is Figure 18? This one:
i-45H4Xpv-X2.png
Here is the article: http://www.rpginc.com/docs%5CTechnology%5CWhite%20Papers%5CAcoustical%20Design%20of%20Speech%20Rooms%20using%20the%20Complete%20Acoustical%20Palette.pdf
If so then you are misunderstanding the use of that metric. Let me explain.

You see, the "business" or money in this area is not in home theater or living room treatment of consumers. There is little money in that as evidenced by so many people wanting to get advice for free here and go and put a DIY fiberglass on the wall and call it done. We are too damn cheap that way. biggrin.gif The money is in commercial installations and hence larger venues. Those people don't do DIY stuff often and buy acoustic products in volume. As a result much of the research in acoustics is written with that audience in mind. What does that have to do with this quote? They key word was the timing window of early reflections as 20 to 50 milliseconds. Sound travels about one millisecond per foot. So converting that to distance, it says that the reflected path would be 20 to 50 foot longer than direct path. The type of room this defines is far larger than our home spaces. If you want specifics, measurements by Allan Devantier (Harman) shows that the first 6 reflections in a typical listening rooms have fall at less than 10 milliseconds. So everything in this context falls in the “early window” category. Fusion occurs strongly there as there is zero chance of the a double image/echo.

You ask what tool to use for this purpose? The answer is none! We can classify what happens in our rooms relative to reflections and based on their psychoacoustics effects and determine the type of treatment (if any) to be applied there. I gave the example of carpet before. No timing/amplitude measurement is necessary and indeed, performing such ETC measurements can and will lead you to erroneous results and actions that can degrade the sound of your room in addition to costing you money/looking ugly in one’s living room. That is the conclusion that is reached if one appreciates the research that has been done in this area. If you want to analyze graphs, focus on low frequencies where frequency response clearly tells us what we need to fix. And psychoacoustics plays no role. That is where you want to get your fix of this sort of analytics. Not in the frequencies above the transition area. If you or others want to raise a protest again, I wish that you include listening tests backing your point of view. I have provided good bit about my position.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #210 of 871 Old 06-29-2012, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked: 1160
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

.
Define “natural time differences”.

Time differences due to the fact that the sound sources aren't coincident. For example, there are time differences between musicans because they can't be physically coincident. Reflections involve time differences for pretty obivous reasons.
Quote:
I don’t really want to state the obvious, but when it comes to creating phantom projected sound events in a 2 channel stereo setup there’s basically two mechanisms at work. Time difference and amplitude differences between the two sound sources.

I have no problems with statements of the obvious when they establish common ground. Please go on! ;-)
Quote:
With a coincident setup –as I know it- you place two directional (i.e cardoid) mics at an angle as close to each other as possible –it will ideally be purely amplitude coded, pretty much the same way an pan-pot monochannel mix will be in terms of phase difference between channels, right?

Wrong. The natural time differences (as defined above) still show up in the coincident-miced recording. The only time differences that coincident micing minimizes are the ones due to the micing setup. In my way of thinking, time differences due to micing are artificial.
Quote:
Yes, my claim is that I prefer the properties of a time difference coded or hybrid coincident over pan-pot, correct.

I suspect that your preferences in this matter are the consequence of abstract reasoning, and not actual good experiments. Look at your sitaution up to this time. You appear to have wrongly indicted coincident micing as if it made natural time differences go away, when in fact no such thing ever happens.

As is my way, I've done some informal experiments that guide my thinking in this matter. It turns out that if one does multitrack close-miced recording, and uses good fairly modern mixing software, one has the opportunity to control timing and amplitude pretty much at will. So I did so and listened to its effects using primarily headphones, but also with speakers. My conclusion was that even though I could put in time delays at will, doing so had minor to impereceptible effects. IOW, I did hear differences but they didn't make that much difference.

I have to admit that at my core, I'm a flaming subjectivist. What I hear or what my trusted associates hear takes precedence over any number of turgid papers or dusty books. If I were to summarize the outcome of my last 20 years of study of psychoacoustics, it has helped me understand why the DBTs I am aware of produce the apparently insensitive results that they do. The reason is really pretty simple: Fletcher, Munson and Fielder were practically speaking, wildly optimistic about what we can in practice actually hear. Zwicker and Fastl rule. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off