[rosconey]

how the fuck did a fun thread turn into a pissing match
its a friggin shame

[Hantra]

Too me the weird thing is this 'babbling brook' mentioned here??

Listening again cranked up loud I still don't know what people are hearing? I don't hear it

You gotta have a TubeDAC to hear this. . .        

how the fuck did a fun thread turn into a pissing match  
its a friggin shame

Agreed. . . Seems to be a common denominator here though . . .

[John Casler]

One of, if not the first released, was "Immacualte Collection" by Madonna.

In the beginning of "Vogue" she asks. "What are you looking at"? with a real quick pan from left to right , except it starts (depending on set up again) well to the left of you, and ends up well to your right side.

The body of the music in this cut fills the room and is "highly" detailed, with lots of synthesizer generated percussion, deep throbbing bass, well amplified hand claps and finger snaps, backround vocals and instruments.

It is a room filling wall of sound that basically extends (at least) from your direct left to your direct right.

[azryan]

NathanM,

"-No offense but...this preoccupation with 20 seconds of a sound effect is an amusing example of the absurdity of audiophiles in general."

Totally agree. See my response below for how IMO you 'shouldn't' be listening at levels that anyone can hear this 'brook' but it is there. And yes... were are all dorks for talking about crap like this. hehe
I do love this CD though so the original thread topic was interesting to me.

You're wrong about The Final Cut being better than Amused to Death though. heh
Did you know some of the F.C. stuff was supose to be part of the Wall? Though a Floyd album it was pretty much Roger Waters first 'solo' CD. David Gilmour hates it. heh
Sorta meandered off of the Walls main plot so it's really a 'left overs/C-Sides album'. I do really like it myself though.

IMO Amused to Death is Waters best solo CD.

"-On mine I don't hear sounds coming from behind me, but rather hard left and right in that telltale phasey manner.-"
"-Also, a person's interpretation of direction could be subjective as well."

I swear to you it's not subjective. Everyone here hears it as coming from slightly behind them in my system. It's really exactly like the sound is coming from my surround speakers which are ~110degrees (to the sides, but slightly 'behind' me).

John, can't answer any of what I wrote back? Ok. weak, but fine.
You acted like you didn't even read it all though? I bet that's not true.

Still claim you heard the crickets before... fine. I can;t 'prove' you didn't, but VERY hard to believe though based on 'what YOU wrote here'. Not what I invented like you act.

"-The locust sound is underneath the sound of the crickets, and now rather clear on my system but those from Radio Shack, might not resolve them."

Oh dear god! Everyone else who posted 'crickets' must have already been hearing these 'locusts' sounds John!

I DO personally admit however to not knowing a cricket from a locust (actually they're Cicada's- Everyone's wrong! hehe), but I do know when I'm hearing the ultra low level sound of a shovel scraping the ground when you post lines like that!! hehe

That's not ultra resolution. It's just better insect identification skills! And you win vs. me in that one! hehe

And you pretend to quote the inventor of Q-Sound and what he told you? Oh man!!
Just go to qsound.com!!!
What does the top of the screen say? QSound Labs Inc.: 3D Audio Enhancement & Surround Sound.

If it doesn't come from slightly behind you then it AIN'T surround is it!?
I'm sure you'll claim 'nope, it's not' though. Try looking around that site too.

I was trying to HELP you so you could know that a full SURROUND effect exists, but you act like a kid about it not wanting to be wrong in any way, and keep claiming it's not supose to be surround.

From their own site -"They had inadvertently created 3D audio!"

It wasn't even an invention as much as a lucky mistake. They just noticed what out of phase sound does! It's not that hard. As I said lots of non-Q-Sound CD's have this effect too because it's simple out of phase sounds. Maybe mistakes in many cases. Who knows?

Sorry... the QSound inventor didn't invent 'out of phase sound' and where people sitting dead center think that sound is coming from.

Personally I think actually hearing TRUE surround sound from these Q-Sound CD's is a hell of a lot cooler than trying to hear a babbling brook that's so low level it's inaudible at any reasonable level.

What's the sickest is that I KNOW you're going to try to get this effect on your system while you still insult me for my claiming you're just a little off on how you hear it now.


rosconey, 'how did this turn into a pissing match'?
It's not.
John took what I said wrong from my first post here, and then said a lot of things based on that chip on his shoulder that I felt the need to correct.

And it's been something between us from other posts you probably haven't seen.

I love when the peanut gallery pops in when ANY two people here have an argument. They usually make some tiny childish quip about it ruining the thread, YET usually they themselves have nothing useful to say about the actual thread topic.

So where are your comments on this CD? Or Q-Sound? Oh.. I see there are none. Point made.
Did you see all of mine? Here's some more...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listened to that track again.

Cranked it up louder than I've EVER listened to it before and could hear that brook. I know 100% it's not noise anyone's hearing.

It is however buried so low on this track as should not be audible at any reasonable levels.

If you have small monitor speakers and hear it clearly and then w/o turning down the volume, skip to another track where loud percussion kicks right in you'll could very easily damage your speakers IMO.

The noise level is still hardly there at all when cranked this loud on my system, but Im gonna take this CD to my friend's computer and look at exactly how low this 'brook' is recorded.

I'll probably record this small intro clip on to a CD-RW and bump the cricket level up to -0db so at more resonable levels on my system I can hear just how clean that brook is recorded. I'm guessing it's very much hovering at the noise floor and it'll sound a little noisy when bumped up.

In case anyone thinks I'm just saying 'I heard it too'... I can tell you it images Right rear. Same place the first dogs bark from.
Unlike the crickets chirping at the same time in all both front channels and both qusi-surround 'channels'.

I'm guessing that the dogs were recorded by that brook, and on that original recording you might have heard the brook clearly, but as that clip is mixed SO low in this track, I bet Roger Waters doesn't even know (or remembers -if he ever knew) that brook's there! hehe

Are were really talking high resolution here or just playing around w/ microscopic (is microphonic a word?) stuff that probably was never even meant to be heard?

Feel free to claim it's the former. I think it's the later, but can't say I know that for sure.

[rosconey]

azryan,
So where are your comments on this CD? Or Q-Sound? Oh.. I see there are none. Point made.

um i made a comment at the beginning of the thread-
you sir appear to be a putz
 

[rosconey]

John Casler
One of, if not the first released, was "Immacualte Collection" by Madonna.


i hope you didnt  buy a madonna cd/ real men dont do that-LOL

[_scotty_]

azryan, do you hear the same imaging phenomena when you use the
Panasonic receiver in 2ch mode in the system.  I have been hearing the same sort of surround imaging from two channels for many years when it is on the record or CD. That was one of the first things that impressed me about the XR25's performance. Total immersion in the sound field is one of my primary requirements for an acceptable level reproduction resolution.  Not all sources have the information recorded in a manner
that will produce the effect of course. If the information that should be behind you is stuck on the wall in front of you or on the wall beside you something is wrong somewhere. It may not even be equipement related,
a head related transfer function,HRTF, specific to a given individual
may preclude them from hearing this sort of imaging the way you or I do.
How well your ears are matched from a sensitivity and frequency response standpoint is also part of the equation.

[John Casler]

John Casler
One of, if not the first released, was "Immacualte Collection" by Madonna.


i hope you didnt  buy a madonna cd/ real men dont do that-LOL

Rosconey

    Guilty as charged, but I seldom listen to anything but VOGUE.  In fact I use it as one of about 50 Pop reference tracks since it offers a lot of sonic perfromance qualities.

MaxCast

Although I am not promoting Q-sound, a list of software can be found here:
http://www.qsound.com/2002/spotlight/main2a-3.asp

[John Casler]

What's the sickest is that I KNOW you're going to try to get this effect on your system while you still insult me for my claiming you're just a little off on how you hear it now.

Sorry if something I posted "insulted" you.  (not intentional)

As much as I would love to confirm your "mistaken certainty" I can only assure you, that I really have no interest in hearing what you hear, in this aspect.

I would suggest that since there is obviously a "problem" of some type here, that we (for the good of the other list members) keep our posts to discussion of the topic.

[nathanm]

It's so exciting!<-- In case you don't have it, click here.

[BrunoB]

My Newforms 645's did pretty well at this, and my GR Alphas nail it perfectly. The only other speakers that were close were the RM-40's, but I'm sure lots of other speakers can do it if set-up just right and aren't getting room effects.

I think that the "Amused to death" CD is quite useful to optimize speaker and foam placement.

For instance, at the beginning of track #6, there is a sound of a dripping faucet coming from the surround left. When my set-up is right, if I rotate my head, left toward the surround sound, I can still hear it coming from the surround left. When not properly set-up, the surround effect dissapears.




Bruno

[azryan]

-scotty-

"-azryan, do you hear the same imaging phenomena when you use the Panasonic receiver in 2ch mode in the system."

Sorry, I don't use the Panny in 2-chan as I think it's not even close to as good as my pre/pro and 2-chan amp combo when I tested it. I never tested Amused to Death on that Panny. I just use the Panny for my surrounds. It gets too HOT too! Hope it doesn't fry down the road! Stupid fan doesn't work offa' temp, but seems to work offa' current so it gets HOT at idle from so little often being in the surrounds in so many DVD's.

Anyway...

"-If the information that should be behind you is stuck on the wall in front of you or on the wall beside you something is wrong somewhere.-"

Exactly. And IMO close but 'not quite' surround is also off. Though as I said... not by much.

"-It may not even be equipement related, a head related transfer function, HRTF, specific to a given individual may preclude them from hearing this sort of imaging the way you or I do.-"

Woah. HRTF? Beyond me. Maybe you could describe that. I'm guessing I'm not the only one reading here who doesn't really have a grasp of that term's meaning -unless it just means 'sound that hits people's heads'?

"-How well your ears are matched from a sensitivity and frequency response standpoint is also part of the equation."

Is that part of HRTF then or a sepp. point?

Anyway... this 'slightly behind' me effect as I said is something everyone who's heard my system has also heard. No debates about where it was imaging from anyone.

Lots of diff. ages, heights, men, women, etc... so that doesn't seem to be critical or a relevent variable at all in my room?

Empirical ("that's what happended") evidence is all I got though. No scientific explanation.

It's also not just Amused to Death. It's lots of other stuff. Like my buddy's old g'friend has that Q-Sound Imm. Col. from Madonna and heard that sweep from Rear left around to Front right at the begining of Vouge. (which is why he didn't throw away this poor bright/harsh recording).

He's got old Mission speakers and mid-level Sony Rec. Nothing fancy at all.

Now in his new apartment he can't quite get it to image like that. Close, but no cigar. It's a worse sounding room though. You can hear his speaker set-up is compromised compared to the very optimal (IMO) set-up he had before.

On my Newform 645's I had way back when he first played that track for me I couldn't quite get it as good as his mid-fi system nailed it.

Madonna didn't start 'behind me' to the left, just 'mostly off to the side' 'outside the left speaker'. Like the diff. between a so-so cloudy center image and a laser sharp center image.

I moved the speakers a bit and got it to Q-Sound from the Rear left, but it was a less that perfect phase thing in the speaker's design I think that kept it from being totally perfect (not the room IMO which has very little effect on the 'far-from-walls speakers at 'typical' moderate volumes).

It was very close but not quite 'spot-on' on the RM-40's I heard, and I'm inclined to blame the totally untreated room on that. (so DON'T say I'm insulting that speaker again John! I never did here!)

On my Alpha's (replacing the 645's) in my dedicated room it nailed Q-Sound better than I've ever heard anywhere... but that's NOT bragging at all about how system's so awesome or any crap like that.

As I said..., my buddy's mid-fi system in his old apartment pretty much nailed it perfectly too, and as I said here...

I'm sure w/ perfect placement lots of systems could nail this effect, and was just trying to point this out as a 'goal' for people who tweak their system non-stop trying to improve everything.
 
Which would be everyone trying to hear that pointless babbling brook in this Amused to Death track (laughingly ironic CD title for this thread too! hehe).

I think it's important to be able to totally hear this 'surround' effect too 'cuz it means non-out of phase stuff up front is imaging 'just right' then.
It's a helpful tool IMO to good imaging set-up.

People can argue that it doesn't have to sound like it's 'behind' you to be correct, but I'm not the only one here who hears it like this, and it's my opinion having tested Q-sound stuff on several diff. systems, altered speaker positioning to hit it better, and played Q-sound stuff for many people all hearing 'it's behind me'... that I know what I'm talking about.

I stand behind the opinion that it's suposed to be slightly 'behind' you.

[John Casler]

It's so exciting!<-- In case you don't have it, click here.

Well I have to take back my assertion that a Radio Shack system might not be able to produce the Locust sounds, since in this download, I can identify even more "critters".

ON MY COMPUTER SPEAKERS!!  

There are now either tree toads or small frogs in the chorus

And if I might expand on a point MaxCast made that not only being able to hear detail and resolution (as far as identifying a sound as a particular instrument, or frog as it were ) but, having knowledge of what is making the sound, is as musch a part of the enjoyment of listening as having good equipment.

While listening for the enjoyment of the music is probably paramount to most of us, being able to "see into" the music and hear the details is also enjoyable.

This seems to start by just being able to hear all the lyrics if applicable and moves on from there.

Hearing "detail" and identifying it (like hearing hardened fingers running on the strings of a guitar or hearing the finer inner detail of a solo violin) is what can bring one closer to the "reality" of a performance.

Again that was the original idea behind starting this thread.  Discussing what we hear, can get heads nodding (as in, "Oh yeah", so that's what I'm hearing).

The old "helping a blind man see" or "not seeing the forest, for the trees" idea.

This can be as much a part of the listening experience as how particular components sound.  And when both are discussed it adds even more.

[azryan]

nathanm,

Is that from your site or did you just find that clip that happens to be the subject of this wacky thread?

I'm wondering 'cuz it said 'cicadas' in the title and I mentioned 'cicadas' (totally as a joke) and would laugh again if I were right about them being in there too! heh (not that I know a cicada from any other cricket/grasshopper/locust type thing. heh)

Maybe you made the clip yourself and just titled it funny like that? heh

John,

"-Well I have to take back my assertion that a Radio Shack system might not be able to produce the Locust sounds, since in this download, I can identify even more "critters".
ON MY COMPUTER SPEAKERS!!"

This isn't the same thing as on the CD we're talking about.

This MP3 clip's peak levels are clearly bumped up much higher. I'm guessing to 0db (or that's what I'd do).

It should be easlity clear on everyone's computer speakers. My crappy 2W POS tiny paper cone in my 10 year old computer shows up these details clear enough.

This is like what I posted that I was planning to do on my friends computer.

See exactly how low that 'brook' is on the CD, and to hear if there's any noise in that brook or if it's totally clean and just a hair above the noise floor. I'm guessing it's a little noisy as it's so freakin' low level, but can't say for sure.

[nathanm]

Maybe you made the clip yourself and just titled it funny like that?

Yes of course.  It's called Cicadas Crickets Locusts Dogs Brooks Hiss and Air actually.  (no cicadas in there I'm 99.999% sure, but hey maybe my system isn't resolving enough ) Also, it is about a bazillion times louder than the original sound file (normalized to 100%), which is not even VISIBLE in Sound Forge at 1:1 zoom!  Maybe other audio editors will show some wiggles, but on mine there were none even though you were hearing sound.  

There's two blips in there at about 8 seconds in where you hear a different kind of noise\insect.  Is that the locust sound?  The crickets are going *chirp chirp* but the other one goes *buzzbuzzbuzz...buzzbuzzbuzz*.  We need to bring in the Audiophile\Entomologist experts now!

What I'm amazed at is that for being an AAD record the tape hiss is incredibly low.  Cool.

I did notice that when I switched to rhodium RCA plugs instead of brass I heard that the second dog just needed a bath and was not a mangy stray mutt as I originally thought.  The first dog is a golden retriever and his name is either Rufus or Roy, I can't be certain without wire dampening.

[John Casler]

There's two blips in there at about 8 seconds in where you hear a different kind of noise\insect. Is that the locust sound? The crickets are going *chirp chirp* but the other one goes *buzzbuzzbuzz...buzzbuzzbuzz*.

Take it from a country boy, that is the locust.  

Now listen again and hear the frogs. (could be tree toads, but most likely young leopard frogs) We "have" amphibians" in the choir

The first dog is a golden retriever and his name is either Rufus or Roy, I can't be certain without wire dampening.

Maybe we should consult Chuck?

[_scotty_]

azryan here is some information to fill in the gaps in this discussion so far.
The effects being discussed in this thread transcend system resolution,
and personal issues. The point I was delicately trying to make is that
the aural perception of these localization effects is dependent on a host of variables and to simplistically argue system resolution as the determining factor in whether one hears the effect or not is to miss understanding of the underlying principles governing the phenomenon. John hears these effects even more clearly on his computer speakers because he is listening near field with a minimum of room interaction,echos, and comb filtering altering the original amplitude and phase relationships encoded
in the program. The music was mixed down and positions for phantom
sound sources panned to their intended locations in a near field monitor
evironment. To be able to hear them at all in a far field listening situation
is a stroke of luck and a fortuitous combination of the listeners head and ears being in the right location and the speakers not interacting with the room acoustics to destroy the critical phase relationships present in the material. azryans' experience and that of his friends is not easily duplicated in the home stereo environment. Here are links discussing this subject in depth if anyone cares to read more about it. Most of these HRTF alogrithms were generated to create a virtual sound scape for PC gaming using only two speakers.
http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/PAPERS/JASA_Nov_1998.pdf
http://www.qsound.com/2002/library/Q3d1_5.pdf
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~franko/thesis/Chapter1.html#sub2
finally a very long list of resources on the subject
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/64075/0

 I hope this clarifies my earlier post on this subject, Scotty

[doug s.]

azryan here is some information to fill in the gaps in this discussion so far.
The effects being discussed in this thread transcend system resolution,
and personal issues. The point I was delicately trying to make is that
the aural perception of these localization effects is dependent on a host of variables and to simplistically argue system resolution as the determining factor in whether one hears the effect or not is to miss understanding of the underlying principles governing the phenomenon. John hea ...

i am in 100% agreement.  altho i *do* believe i have a resolving rig, i am conwinced that it is my room that allows me to hear the effects on cd's such as "amused to death".  w/my speakers almost 6' out into the room, & even greater distance to side walls, & w/greater than 20' behind me, i am fortunate to have a room that doesn't intrude much on the presentation...  the room is the most important component in a system, imo.

doug s.