[sunshinedawg]

I would like to read an article by you on this topic.  I am sure the scientific comunity would be very interested in your findings.  I am sure you could submit to both psychological and, acoustics (JASA?) journals.  Besides you listening what research (that you have corroborated on your own) are you basing your claims on?  Psychoacousticly speaking how can you PROVE that an ideal setup as you describe will cause the same results in the brain.  i.e. listening to the exact same performace at the hall and at your home.  What measurements of the brain would you (based on your research) choose to analyze the outcome of your setup.  You also claimed in a previous thread that you use this technique for studio recorded material.  All you are doing here is contaminating the source.

These are some really good questions. I'm not sure what I'm doing is better then anyone else, my theory is why reinvent the soundfield? We know what comprises it at the concert hall, so why try to do anything but recreate those sound pressures in your listening room exactly and then you won't be able to tell the difference between the two. It is obvious to me that the equilateral triangle can't do this. I'll try to come up with some links later today for you. To be honest, most of these ideas are out there anyway, I didn't discover them myself, just stumbled on them one day reading a thread. I thought for the longest time the triangle was the way to go, I never even considered there was another way until a few years ago.

[sts9fan]

Can you please reference papers on this topic?

[sts9fan]

Something I just thought of is rock concerts.  Most that I have been to have two stacks Left and Right.  How does your set up treat that? 

[sunshinedawg]

Something I just thought of is rock concerts.  Most that I have been to have two stacks Left and Right.  How does your set up treat that? 

Again another good question. This adds another variable to the equation, reproduction of reproduction. I tend to like studio music and live concerts that weren't over mixed so I don't deal with rock concert recordings that much. Some of the best recordings I have ever heard are mono from the early part of the 20th century, no processing simple recording, just a horn and needle.

[Daygloworange]

That's the whole point, you are not open to a new idea.

Not true at all.

Your way misses the mark. I am open to anyway to do audio, but nothing you have said explains why your way is superior to mine. Just because you've done something so long for one way does not make it right. I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I don't understand how an equilateral triangle is suppose to be optimal when it adds comb filtering and time domain errors to the playback chain.

The reason we use an equilateral triangle is so that the speakers are aimed at the proper ear, spaced evenly apart for amplitude and timing, which are critical for proper localization, and that the speakers on axis frequency response is aimed at our ear.

Why do you so staunchly defend it? Have tried anything else? Have you researched why everyone uses it? I actually have, and the reasons are mostly circumstantial and not scientific.

Because it replicates (in reverse) the capture of a recording (again, assuming an ideal 2 microphone stereo recording).

I guess you missed the part where I've mentioned over 20 years of recording experience. I know this stuff because it's something I've spent literally thousands of hours doing, and pondering, and reading about, and experimenting with mics, and mic placement.

And yes, I have experimented countless times with speaker spacing, angles, and heights.

Stereo speaker placement is way easier than stereo mic placement (during recording). Mics not only have on axis frequency responses, but (sound pickup, and off axis rejection) polar patterns that you must be aware of, and understand how to implement. Then you have types, ribbon, condensor, dynamic.

Then there's spacing, and phase, and proximity effect (which affects the frequency response of the mic).

So to answer your question, yes, I have experimented many, many times with spacing and so on, and it's only when you have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of 2 channel playback, and sound propagation, can you do a better job (recording a proper) recording, that will playback with more realism on a 2 channel system.

Cheers

[JoshK]

I've heard csero's (Ferenc aka Frank) system in a few iterations.  For all of those who think that stereo can yield a realistic reproduction of a live event (and sound like the original venue) haven't heard the transaural reproduction. 

Whether or not you enjoy this presentation or not, or whether you'd do this in your listening room is irrelevant.  Once you have heard this, it will turn your world upside down in how you perceive stereo sound.  I had to hear it for myself to believe it. 

Its the most satisfying way to listen to classical IMO.  Sound the studio stuff was hit and miss in my perception, but then you have to choose the ambient venue (my words), and it is possible that Frank and I would have chosen differently here.  What is the ambient venue for a studio? 

I think it comes down to a bit of a difference in the objective.  Stereo is good for a studio recording that is meant to be reproduced in stereo.  The engineer mixes it and listens to it in stereo for a perception he and the artist agrees upon.  Live venues are entirely different.

Live venues capture both the first arrival and the reflected sound at the mic.  Problem is that our ears can determine not only amplitude but direction.   This is akin to the difference between speed and velocity in physics 101.  How can the reflected sound (let's say eminating from behind your head by 10º) captured at the mic and then reproduced from your two speakers up front have the same direction information to your ear?   It can't.  This is the crux of the arguement in my mind. 

The ambiophonics website had a picture illustrating that very point.  When you sit down and free your mind of a priori biases and think about it, I can't see how you can come to any other conclusion than stereo is flawed to some extent.  The efficacy of that flaw can only be experienced to understand its magnitude.

Studio recordings don't have an absolute reference, in terms or a real acoustic space.   I don't argue against stereo here, because that is the way it was intended to be reproduced, even though stereo still has flaws in my mind.  Recordings of live rock are another strange exception, and here we have both stereo first arrival information and reflected sound.  However, I heard some live rock on Frank's system and it sounded right to me.   

Ultimately, I listen to a lot of studio recorded music and I live with stereo in my home, with its warts and all, but I cannot buy into the arguements that DGO puts forth.   This is a flawed rationale throughout its fabric.   

[sts9fan]

I am sure it could very well be amazing.  This conversation is very similar to things I deal with on a daily basis.  In science the norm ALWAYS has the benefit of the doubt.  There will ALWAYS be people who will defend the norm to the ends of the earth because that is how "we have always done it".  When we get a new vendor that claims that they can give use quantitative results were we have been using qualitative for decades we are sceptical. The proof is in the pudding.  Also I can get defensive if someone says they can do something better then say my HPLC or Mass Spec.  I know how to use my instruments and I know what they can do.  I am sure they will be beat but I need to be convinced.  DGO is just the typical naysayer.  The main problem I see here is nobody involved has any credentials in any of the scientific fields discussed.  Experience in doing something one way is not creditable.  I have never heard this way of doing things (not sure I am interested honestly because seems too complicated I like a simple system and listening)  so I cannot comment.  Like they say: If you have not heard it you have not opinion

[Daygloworange]

Josh,

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said in your post. So, we are not at opposite ends of an argument here.

I would suggest listening to some binaural recordings (with headphones) before you come to firm conclusions on what 2 channel audio can and cannot do.




http://home.access4less.net/~krisbee/Field%20Recording.html

A link to a site for binaural enthusiasts:

http://www.binaural.com/serendipity/index.php

Ultimately, I listen to a lot of studio recorded music and I live with stereo in my home, with its warts and all, but I cannot buy into the arguements that DGO puts forth.   This is a flawed rationale throughout its fabric. 

Uhh, that's a pretty harsh way of saying you disagree.....

I've read many of your posts before Josh, and seriously, I can't imagine how you think what I'm talking about is flawed throughout it's fabric.

I didn't invent any of these principles here, and these are the basic, fundamental principals. I'm just sharing what is common knowledge to many in the know about how sounds propagate.

Please don't make blanket (dismissive)statements without elaborating.

Cheers

[BrianM]

Live venues capture both the first arrival and the reflected sound at the mic.

What is the estimated lapse in time between the first arrival and the reflected sound hitting the microphone, please.

[Daygloworange]

Live venues capture both the first arrival and the reflected sound at the mic.

What is the estimated lapse in time between the first arrival and the reflected sound hitting the microphone, please.

Depends on the room the sound is in.

Sound travels at roughly 1100 ft per second (at sea level). So you can extrapolate from that.

Cheers

[JoshK]

DGO,

Sorry to come off as harsh and dismissive.  I was trying to make the point that I just don't buy into the equilateral triangle is the ultimate in reproduction anymore.  Maybe for studio recordings, but then there really isn't an "ultimate" anymore, at least as I see it.

stsfan,
I don't think you are going to find a lot of people with tons of scientific credentials because those people really aren't interested in the problem or at the very least only work on pushing what we already have a tiny bit forward.  I can tell you that a lot of people who are very scientific in nature (a few engineers of another field, etc) have pushed this method forward.  It is just that old habits die hard.  Stereo has a half century of entrenchment and trying to sell anyone on anything else is an uphill battle, so you aren't likely to see any commercial products to this end. However, then doesn't mean it isn't credible.

BrianM, the arrival time isn't the main issue.  I know you are really trying to argue that reproduced reflections coming from the stereo speakers isn't an issue because of arrival time, however, I think that misses the point.  Even if everything came at the same time, does direction matter?  I think empirically and heurestically it can be shown it does.

[BrianM]

Live venues capture both the first arrival and the reflected sound at the mic.

What is the estimated lapse in time between the first arrival and the reflected sound hitting the microphone, please.

Depends on the room the sound is in.

Sound travels at roughly 1100 ft per second (at sea level). So you can extrapolate from that.

I'm interested in what exactly I should be extrapolating from that.  Since we're talking about a small fraction of a second (which is why I posed the question), back and side reflections as experienced in the hall might essentially be indistinguishable from the total sound one is hearing.  When I'm at Orchestra Hall I certainly don't hear "orchestra, then reflections", I just hear one generalized, ambient sound.  Sound travels really fast (he observed).  If I close my eyes, the sound is probably experienced as coming from in front of me (the stage) -- including the reflections, which congeal with the frontal sound.  When, say, a trumpet blows a note, I notice how instant the spread of the sound is -- it can sound as though it's coming from an area much larger than the bell of the trumpet.  It immediately fills the room.  So do properly resonated operatic voices.

If you've taken the steps to largely eliminate your own listening room from the equation, and the first arrival and first reflections arrive at the microphone to close enough to one another so as to be virtually indistinguishable from one another, and dissolve together into original sound + ambience, then....somebody please tell me if I'm anywhere near sense.

One more try: hearing a trumpet in Orchestra Hall vs. hearing a trumpet in a dead recording studio.  The ambient reflections in the hall simply color the tone of the trumpet -- I'm not sure we don't hear them as time differentiated.  (Actually reverb lasting more than a fraction of a second is another matter, of course).

[Daygloworange]

  DGO is just the typical naysayer.  The main problem I see here is nobody involved has any credentials in any of the scientific fields discussed.  Experience in doing something one way is not creditable. 

Oh puhleeze.....

This conversation is very similar to things I deal with on a daily basis.  In science the norm ALWAYS has the benefit of the doubt.  There will ALWAYS be people who will defend the norm to the ends of the earth because that is how "we have always done it".  

Ya, ya. And vice versa.

If your assumption is that I'm one of those people you describe, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

The proof is in the pudding.

Yup.

Also I can get defensive if someone says they can do something better then say my HPLC or Mass Spec.  I know how to use my instruments and I know what they can do.  I am sure they will be beat but I need to be convinced.  DGO is just the typical naysayer.  The main problem I see here is nobody involved has any credentials in any of the scientific fields discussed.

Fair enough. Then do the homework on the topic. Or not.

Ignorance is bliss to some.

I've said all along that I've presented the fundamentals only, and these are simple, well established scientific findings, from numerous "credible" scientists, who have done the proper test to setablish parameters of sound propagation.

You couldn't even begin to design a loudspeaker without the fundamentals I describe.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

DGO,

Sorry to come off and harsh and dismissive.  I was trying to make the point that I just do buy into the equilateral triangle is the ultimate in reproduction anymore.  Maybe for studio recordings, but then there really isn't an "ultimate" anymore, at least as I see it.

Josh,

We're cool.

I'm not sure if people here are getting the (wrong) impression that I'm implying that 2 channel audio can reproduce a full 360 deg. soundfield.

It can't. I have many issues with how typical (read: popular) 2 channel recordings are made. I wish 2 channel audio was 5 channel audio from day one.

But....... there are truly amazing 2 channel audio recordings that are frighteningly realistic, when played through a really good 2 channel system, or through high quality headphones.

Since we're talking about a small fraction of a second (which is why I posed the question), back and side reflections as experienced in the hall might essentially be indistinguishable from the total sound one is hearing.  When I'm at Orchestra Hall I certainly don't hear "orchestra, then reflections", I just hear one generalized, ambient sound.

Brian,

What you hear are a combination of direct sound, early first reflections, late first reflections, and echoes, and standing waves.

Early reflections can be as small as milliseconds, while late relections can get quite long. Room decays can last for many seconds. Typically, concert halls have anywhere between 1.5 to 2.5 seconds of reverberation time (RT 60).

Cheers

[sts9fan]

stsfan,
I don't think you are going to find a lot of people with tons of scientific credentials because those people really aren't interested in the problem or at the very least only work on pushing what we already have a tiny bit forward.  I can tell you that a lot of people who are very scientific in nature (a few engineers of another field, etc) have pushed this method forward.  It is just that old habits die hard.  Stereo has a half century of entrenchment and trying to sell anyone on anything else is an uphill battle, so you aren't likely to see any commercial products to this end. However, then doesn't mean it isn't credible.

Well this is pretty much what I said.  I am not claiming the idea is not credible but new ideas can be tough to swallow from a relative layman.

If your assumption is that I'm one of those people you describe, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Then your response should have been "I should try that and hear for myself"

Fair enough. Then do the homework on the topic. Or not.

Nope the burden of proof is on the new technology.  If I am asked to replace my instruments with something "better".  What I say is "Prove it".  

[BrianM]

Even if everything came at the same time, does direction matter?  I think empirically and heurestically it can be shown it does.

Doesn't this assume that you'd have to be able to identify which direction reflections come from when sitting in the original venue?

[Daygloworange]

If your assumption is that I'm one of those people you describe, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Then your response should have been "I should try that and hear for myself"

Yeah, and then somebody will come along and tell me that listening to 2 channel audio is better with a couple of bananas up my nose....  

I've done my homework......I think I've mentioned that.  

Cheers

[JoshK]

Even if everything came at the same time, does direction matter?  I think empirically and heurestically it can be shown it does.

Doesn't this assume that you'd have to be able to identify which direction reflections come from when sitting in the original venue?

No, its more complicated then that.  I think early reflections more than likely do get scrambled to some sense in our perception, but the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound in a classical concert hall is pretty low and these venues have later reflections as DGO more accurately described.

I am not going to try to argue scientifically the case, because I can't.  I haven't done the research.  I just know if you listen to classical music from csero's system it is a whole thing altogether then listening on any stereo setup.  The "reason why's" are partly explained (poorly at that) by what I was trying to describe.  If you are listening to music in your sweet spot and your dog barks beside you at the same time that someone plays a horn note, you can still tell that the dog barked from beside you.  I think the latter reflections and reverb are something akin to this, whether you are conscientious of it or not.  The ear/brain does a lot of processing. 

[sts9fan]

Yeah, and then somebody will come along and tell me that listening to 2 channel audio is better with a couple of bananas up my nose.... 

I've done my homework......I think I've mentioned that. 

Unfortunately with new technology "homework" is not good enough.  Background and experience can only give you a baseline.

[miklorsmith]

Wow, this is a fascinating topic.  Question for the promoters - what recordings and processing equipment are you using for this?  If there are dedicated ways to do this, I "get it".  If it's using processed stereo recordings with a kludged gear setup I'm much more skeptical.

A few practical matters:  It's exceedingly difficult to get system synergy right with 2 speakers.  Trying to get something like this put together sounds nearly impossible.

Cost-wise, many cheaper speakers and amplification channels doesn't appear on the surface to be "better".

If soundstaging/imaging is the chosen pursuit, carrying that to the ultimate degree might be a viable path.  My view is that tonality and dynamics are much more important.  As such, this approach could be intellectuctually satisfying but probably not my ultimate choice.