[sunshinedawg]

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.

No, the things that are critical for proper localization are to actually have the sounds in the right places and to not have the sound coming from multiple places. Go back and research pinnae, head transfer functions etc, all the things that the equilateral system fails on. All the artifacts that the triangle creates make the brain do tons more processing and it can never resolve the information because it is incorrect info. This is the definition of listening fatigue and it is the reason I can no longer tolerate the equilateral method.

[sunshinedawg]

Wow, this is a fascinating topic.  Question for the promoters - what recordings and processing equipment are you using for this? 

You can see the list of my gear on the first post. I use it for any recording, even mono. It's not that hard to pull off once you experiment a little, it is has the ultimate tweakibility factor to it, if you like to tweak you'll have tons to tweak.

[miklorsmith]

So, how are the primary sounds eliminated from the reflection and ambient channels?

[Daygloworange]

No, the things that are critical for proper localization are to actually have the sounds in the right places and to not have the sound coming from multiple places.

Isn't a multi speaker arrangement what you are advocating?

Go back and research pinnae, head transfer functions etc, all the things that the equilateral system fails on. All the artifacts that the triangle creates make the brain do tons more processing and it can never resolve the information because it is incorrect info.

I suggested you research the binaural recording techniques that I posted earlier. From your latest post, I can only assume, you didn't even look at it. Binaural recording is a process that was based on in depth studies of all the mechanics of ear and brain function.

I'll suggest again, do some homework.

All the artifacts that the triangle creates make the brain do tons more processing and it can never resolve the information because it is incorrect info. This is the definition of listening fatigue and it is the reason I can no longer tolerate the equilateral method.

Please post a link to a description of how the brain needs to process "tons" more information from a L/R  2 channel setup.

You have 2 ears. An (ambient) stereo mic recording is made with 2 mics that are positioned to approximate the way a humans ears capture sound. A 2 channel audio system plays it back with 2 (L/R) transducers aimed at your L/R ears.

Where is all the tons of "more information"?

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

You can see the list of my gear on the first post. I use it for any recording, even mono. It's not that hard to pull off once you experiment a little, it is has the ultimate tweakibility factor to it, if you like to tweak you'll have tons to tweak.

You're using a Yamaha pro logic integrated, and a inexpensive Yamaha reverb to create a multi speaker surround setup.

A couple of things. While digital reverbs have come a long, long way, inexpensive ones are not powerful enough to have the computing/processor capability of the complex algorithyms necessary to realistically simulate a natural ambiance.

The other thing is, you are talking about realism of pyschoacoustics to the nth degree, and you are using mid-fi components. I find that a bit ironic.

I won't even get into, taking a (forward captured) two channel recording, and then processing it to add as rear firing information, and have me believe that I couldn't poke a million holes into how that could be done way better.

Since when do you have a second orchestra in back of you at a concert?

If you are getting a kick out of it, more power to you. 

But some of the "facts" that you present about how sound propogates, and pyschoacoustics are where I have the issues.

If, you had dry (anechoic) recordings, and where to process through a multi channel system such as what you have, that might actually have more merit as to sounding more like a realistic soundfield, but again, limited by the processor capability of your components.

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

I have a hard time believing that ambient channels invented by a processor on the fly, where none are present on the recording itself, are going to be more believable than a simple signal path to better equipment.

How many good seats are there in this room, by your measure?  I'm guessing one.

[sunshinedawg]

Isn't a multi speaker arrangement what you are advocating?

Yes, but my system doesn't repeat sounds in other channels/speakers/locations, except for reverb, which doesn't make a difference because it is not directional. And it does not place sounds where they didn't come from.

Please post a link to a description of how the brain needs to process "tons" more information from a L/R  2 channel setup.

You have 2 ears. An (ambient) stereo mic recording is made with 2 mics that are positioned to approximate the way a humans ears capture sound. A 2 channel audio system plays it back with 2 (L/R) transducers aimed at your L/R ears.

Where is all the tons of "more information"?

Cheers

unwanated crosstalk  Look at the rays labeled unwanted crosstalk. Where you are suppose to have two rays, you now have four. Not only do you have to process this extra info, the info is incorrect and misleading to your pinnae.

[sunshinedawg]

I have a hard time believing that ambient channels invented by a processor on the fly, where none are present on the recording itself, are going to be more believable than a simple signal path to better equipment.

How many good seats are there in this room, by your measure?  I'm guessing one.

Why not just try it?

[miklorsmith]

No space in my room, though it is decent sized, and not wanting to (being able to) buy a bunch of equipment, and not passing the "predicted effort vs. predicted benefit" smell test.

I'd be happy to check it out in someone else's room if the opportunity arises though.

[sunshinedawg]

This is what's known as "changing your tune."

didn't change my tune. I'm just not arrogant, I said my method is better then an equilateral triangle. I don't claim to know whatever one else is doing. Therefore, I don't know if my way is better then anyone else's.

[Daygloworange]

unwanated crosstalk  Look at the rays labeled unwanted crosstalk. Where you are suppose to have two rays, you now have four. Not only do you have to process this extra info, the info is incorrect and misleading to your pinnae.

Ok, so I've looked at the illustration you've linked to.



The whole concept of "rays" is probably the basis of all these theories. In this illustration it shows 2 "beams" radiating to the listeners head. A trumpet doesn't beam one signal to one ear, and one signal to the other ear.

It sends forth a hemispherical wavefront that both ears pick up independantly.

It is incorrectly illustrating (mono, or summed )sound propagation emanating from 2 speakers. It should also show a hemispherical wavefront emanating from the trumpet, not the rays that it is showing.

I'll give you a simple experiment that anyone on AudioCircle can do.

To illustrate, (even taking into account these "rays"), take a mono signal (be it a sine wave, or a complex wave) and play it back over one speaker directly in front of you. Listen to it blindfolded.

Put 2 speakers in an equilateral triangle, and sit in the proper spot, adjust the level so that the playback is at the same SPL level (from the listening position)as the mono speaker. Now play the same sound source, listen to it blindfolded, and get back to me.

Cheers

[sunshinedawg]

It is incorrectly illustrating (mono, or summed )sound propagation emanating from 2 speakers. It should also show a hemispherical wavefront emanating from the trumpet, not the rays that it is showing.

I'm not sure what your saying, I don't see that this diagram is incorrect. If you compare the left side to the right there is no way you are recreating the original sound, extra hemi wave or not. It is a bad approximation. If you think that an equilateral triangle can fix this, then we simply, probably, will never agree. You might ask yourself this. Why even bother with all this? Why not just put the sounds where they are suppose to be and be done with it? Why the fake, artificial phantom stage image? Why add something into the chain that is not there or can create artifacts? Why add extra waves, beams or whatever? I like to keep it simple, then I don't have to worry about extra things.

[Daygloworange]

I'm not sure what your saying, I don't see that this diagram is incorrect.

It's improperly illustrating how the sound is emamating from the trumpet, and how your ears (and in the case of a stereo recording, how a pair of mics) are picking it up.


The illustration shows 2 beams firing at the listeners ears (like they were 2 lazerbeams). When in reality, the trumpet is spraying sounds in all directions (front, back, side, up, down, and everywhere in between).

Your ears are just funnels. Capturing only the direct sound that they are capable of.


In a mono speaker setup, the mono speaker sprays sound from a single point source (like the trumpet in the picture), in a 2 speaker set up, the summing of the 2 signals from the 2 speakers is coming from the summed L/R interaction of the 2 speakers, and is (for all intents and purposes here) coming from straight ahead, just like the trumpet, and single speaker.

Why add something into the chain that is not there or can create artifacts? Why add extra waves, beams or whatever? I like to keep it simple, then I don't have to worry about extra things.

C'mon man, your kidding right?     I'm not the one advocating a multi-speaker, multi amp/processor/reverb set up.

You might ask yourself this. Why even bother with all this?

I'm not frustrated with 2 channel audio at all. As a matter of fact, since I've come over from the recording side and improved and updated my playback system over the last few years, I've become astonished at what a good 2 channel system can accomplish.

I'm not looking to add rear channels to my system.

I'd much rather optimize my 2 channel to the highest degree possible within my means, than dilute my budget over a multi channel, multi- amp/processor system.

I hope you do a little more digging on the internet, maybe pickup a book or two on the science of recording, and spend some time investigating away from these ambiophonics, who are obviously bending known laws of physics to make their system/process sound more plausible.

Unfortunately, I don't expect at this point you are open minded enough though. You seem to have bought the concept of ambiophonics, hook, line and sinker. Obviously, I'm not getting through to you at all.

So I won't push it any further with you. My intent here was not to upset you, but to try and explain a few things.

Do check out the links I posted earlier on the binaural recording process. I think you might get a real kick out of that. It is very cool.

Cheers

[sunshinedawg]

C'mon man, your kidding right?     I'm not the one advocating a multi-speaker, multi amp/processor/reverb set up.

All sounds in my system are consistent with a natural sound field. Don't be biased toward how many channels/amps or whatever I'm using. Yours is a weak approximation at best. I have done all the research you suggest. This is what it points to. I am open minded, I tried your way it doesn't work for me. Are you open minded enough to try my way or are you so convinced on paper that all the things that I say are wrong, don't matter?

I'm not upset, just trying to get people to think out of the box. I'm not bending any laws of physics. Putting the sounds where they are suppose to be is, following the laws of physics. It is you who are bending them by putting them in the wrong places and in duplicate places, and magically thinking they are going to reproduce the original.

[miklorsmith]

I don't believe your setup is capable of putting the sounds where they are supposed to be.  You may be hearing sounds in the places where you would expect them to be, but they are not present as such on your source material and are being artificially fabricated by a digital processor.  Some sound isn't the same as proper sound.

To say this is the same as a 9.2 recording or whatever is pure folly.

I'm not saying you can't enjoy what you have more than a 2 channel setup but to say it's more true to the source is simply impossible.

[opaqueice]

Open baffles fascinate me, but don't think I'd ever own them because they don't simulate how sounds are really made.  Unless your vocalists have holes in the back of their throats (or a twin singing back to back in perfect assynchronization varying by frequency), the sound they produce only comes out the front.

That's not true at all.  Have someone talk, or sing a note, and walk around behind them.  Do that outside so you dona't have to worry about reflections.  Guess what?  You can still hear them.

Dipoles are a much better approximation to real sound sources than any sealed-box speaker can be.  The primary reason is that sealed box speakers have a dispersion pattern that depends very strongly on frequency.  At high frequencies the sound is quite directional (because tweeters radiate very little to the sides and rear, particularly when they're inside a box).  At low frequencies, the sound is more or less non-directional (because the entire box vibrates in and out as the cone moves).  The transition between those two regimes is extremely unnatural - it's unlike any real sound source - and makes it very easy to identify box speakers as box speakers. 

No single speaker will ever be able to reproduce perfectly the sound field of all the different instruments and sounds you might want it to, but dipoles are a much better approximation than conventional speakers.  Their main drawback, as with panel electrostatics, is lack of bass.

[opaqueice]

All sounds in my system are consistent with a natural sound field. Don't be biased toward how many channels/amps or whatever I'm using. Yours is a weak approximation at best. I have done all the research you suggest. This is what it points to. I am open minded, I tried your way it doesn't work for me. Are you open minded enough to try my way or are you so convinced on paper that all the things that I say are wrong, don't matter?

sunshinedawg - and everyone else arguing about this - please answer one simple question for me.

Is your goal:

a) to reproduce what you would hear if you were at the recording venue, or

b) to reproduce what you would hear if the musicians were performing in your living room?

Those are often totally orthogonal goals, getting close to either requires very different equipment and setup, and this conversation is rather pointless until you clarify that.

[miklorsmith]

I don't believe either is possible in any realistic sense though having the performers in the room with you is probably closer.

[opaqueice]

I don't believe either is possible in any realistic sense though having the performers in the room with you is probably closer.

Neither is possible if you demand perfect accuracy - that's clear.  But my point is that they are very, very different goals to strive for, demanding different techniques and methods. 

For example you might want an anechoic chamber and precisely fixed sweetspot for a), whereas good dipoles and an untreated room can get you closer to b).

[sunshinedawg]

I don't believe your setup is capable of putting the sounds where they are supposed to be.  You may be hearing sounds in the places where you would expect them to be, but they are not present as such on your source material and are being artificially fabricated by a digital processor.  Some sound isn't the same as proper sound.

To say this is the same as a 9.2 recording or whatever is pure folly.

I'm not saying you can't enjoy what you have more than a 2 channel setup but to say it's more true to the source is simply impossible.

This is a sound argument, it's not the same as the original, but its the best I've found.  I'm in the camp that I enjoy it more.