Re: Point source and stereo image.
- REG, Are you saying that automatic correction does not work, or cannot work? Suppose an automatic correction system used multiple measurements to figure out what the room was doing and what the speaker was doing, then corrected for the room and speaker operating together in the bass and used 1/3 octave parametric EQ to smooth the speaker above the bass. Would that not work?
You have recommended both automatic EQ of bass and you have recommended ordinary EQ of the range above the bass, even urging people to buy a box and try it. Why would it be impossible for a designer to do what you recommend, but do it automatically?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
. . .
> For example, listen to pink noise, same signal
> through both speakers. A nightmare! Wrong (compared
> to facing one speaker and only that one speaker
> playing) and moreover
> wildly unstable with respect to head position.
> Now listen to some music--sounds pretty good.
> It strikes me that perhaps one should forget
> about theoretical perfection--which is clearly
> not happening in stereo and requires extremely
> high order Ambisonics to get even close--
> and try instead to massage away the things
> that bug you in practice. Your brain wants
> it to sound right and does its best. Help
> it out and live happily ever after--which is
> why automatic correction systems do not really
> work (except in the bass)
- The world is diminished by his loss. I count it
a great privilege to have known him.
And in addition to my admiration for his
accomplishments and my awe of his amazing abilities,
I liked him a lot.
--- In email@example.com, "HM" <hmartinburm@...> wrote:
> Wolfgang Sawallisch (* 26. August 1923 in Munich; 22. Februar 2013 in Grassau
> > The main trouble with audio is that
> > long ago people began to form an idea
> > of what recorded music ought to sound
> > like that is quite different from
> > what music actually does sound like.
> > I always think of Sawallisch as saying
> > to me that the orchestral sound at Bayreuth
> > out in the hall was "the most beautiful sound
> > in the world"--no direct sound at all,
> > all space and diffuse field. (The orchestra
> > is under a "roof" with no direct access
> > to the audience, no line of sight transmission
> > of sound at all).
> > I also recall a famous recording producer
> > describing to me his experience going to Boston Symphony
> > Hall and hearing the glorious sound and thinking
> > that if he could just get that recorded, his
> > life would be complete, the pinnacle of accomplishment
> > reached. And then a little later realizing that if
> > he made a recording that sounded like what he was
> > hearing, no one would buy it("except" he added "you"[meaning me]}
> > REG
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ken Holder <ken_holder@> wrote:
> > >
> > > At 05:33 PM 5/19/2012, Robert wrote:
> > >
> > > >It strikes me that perhaps one should forget
> > > >about theoretical perfection--which is clearly
> > > >not happening in stereo and requires extremely
> > > >high order Ambisonics to get even close--
> > > >and try instead to massage away the things
> > > >that bug you in practice. Your brain wants
> > > >it to sound right and does its best. Help
> > > >it out and live happily ever after--which is
> > > >why automatic correction systems do not really
> > > >work (except in the bass)
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course my brain (poor old worn-out thing that it is)
> > > would do its best better if the record companies would
> > > just co-operate. (Actually they do seem to have gotten
> > > better these last mumble-mumble years. Right?)
> > >
> > > Ken Holder
> > > Old Guy
> > >