Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

stereo

Expand Messages
  • Ted Rook
    My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in particular Blumlein coincident mic stereo. I think I have had one of those lightbulb flashing
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in particular Blumlein coincident
      mic stereo.

      I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.

      Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is directional, the encoding
      is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo. This relies on the mic
      having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand spaced microphones
      encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use omnidirectional
      microphones.

      It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as advertised" and the phantom
      stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along the reproduction chain. It
      seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well as it does.

      The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the signal amplitude and
      speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!

      Ted
    • Ted Rook
      Listening in mono to panpot close mike recordings (FM music) I currently have a sweet spot a few inches wider than my head, which seems OK, and a phantom sound
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Listening in mono to panpot close mike recordings (FM music) I currently have a sweet
        spot a few inches wider than my head, which seems OK, and a phantom sound image
        entirely disconnected from the speakers, I find this fascinating and spellbinding. I've
        worked in audio over thirty years and only recently enjoyed the freedom to make the hi-fi
        set up #1 priority. Better late than never I guess.

        Ted




        On 3 Jan 2006 at 21:43, Ted Rook wrote:

        > My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in particular Blumlein
        > coincident
        > mic stereo.
        >
        > I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.
        >
        > Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is directional, the
        > encoding
        > is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo. This relies on
        > the mic
        > having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand spaced
        > microphones
        > encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use omnidirectional
        > microphones.
        >
        > It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as advertised" and the
        > phantom
        > stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along the reproduction
        > chain. It
        > seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well as it does.
        >
        > The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the signal amplitude
        > and
        > speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!
        >
        > Ted
        >
        >
        >
        > SPONSORED LINKS
        > Electronics
        > Hobby and craft supply
        > Craft hobby
        >
        > Electronics hobby
        > Hobby electronics
        > Audio electronics
        >
        >
        >
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > * Visit your group "regsaudioforum" on the web.
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
        >
      • regtas43
        I hate to be a broken record, but it is all explained in my article Microphone theory and a microphone test recording on www.regonaudio.com There is really
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I hate to be a broken record, but it is all explained in
          my article
          "Microphone theory and a microphone test recording"
          on www.regonaudio.com

          There is really no miracle going on. Everything makes complete
          sense. There is one slightly surprising pyshcoacoustic thing about
          transient time of arrival perception being surpressed in Blumlein
          and the fact that it does not actually matter that it is!
          This is discussed in the article. Otherwise, all is just
          mathematical and stadard pyscoacoustics. Please have a look.

          I feel neglected! How come people don;t read my stuff?!

          REG
          In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@w...> wrote:
          >
          > My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in
          particular Blumlein coincident
          > mic stereo.
          >
          > I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.
          >
          > Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is
          directional, the encoding
          > is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo.
          This relies on the mic
          > having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand
          spaced microphones
          > encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use
          omnidirectional
          > microphones.
          >
          > It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as
          advertised" and the phantom
          > stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along
          the reproduction chain. It
          > seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well
          as it does.
          >
          > The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the
          signal amplitude and
          > speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!
          >
          > Ted
          >
        • Ted Rook
          Don t feel neglected, your writings have helped me get this far and they are excellent, what I tried to write about in my email is the ah-hah experience when
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Don't feel neglected, your writings have helped me get this far and they are excellent,
            what I tried to write about in my email is the ah-hah experience when comprehension
            leaps ahead which has just happened to me. Part of the magical bit for me is that we can
            make a sweet spot big enough to include both ears. Imagine if we could only make a
            sweet spot four inches across, no stereo!

            Personally I value your writings highly and will be coming back to read more for some
            time to come.

            Ted




            On 4 Jan 2006 at 5:07, regtas43 wrote:

            > I hate to be a broken record, but it is all explained in
            > my article
            > "Microphone theory and a microphone test recording"
            > on www.regonaudio.com
            >
            > There is really no miracle going on. Everything makes complete
            > sense. There is one slightly surprising pyshcoacoustic thing about
            > transient time of arrival perception being surpressed in Blumlein
            > and the fact that it does not actually matter that it is!
            > This is discussed in the article. Otherwise, all is just
            > mathematical and stadard pyscoacoustics. Please have a look.
            >
            > I feel neglected! How come people don;t read my stuff?!
            >
            > REG
            > In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@w...> wrote:
            > >
            > > My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in
            > particular Blumlein coincident
            > > mic stereo.
            > >
            > > I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.
            > >
            > > Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is
            > directional, the encoding
            > > is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo.
            > This relies on the mic
            > > having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand
            > spaced microphones
            > > encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use
            > omnidirectional
            > > microphones.
            > >
            > > It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as
            > advertised" and the phantom
            > > stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along
            > the reproduction chain. It
            > > seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well
            > as it does.
            > >
            > > The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the
            > signal amplitude and
            > > speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!
            > >
            > > Ted
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > * Visit your group "regsaudioforum" on the web.
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >
            >
            >
          • Ted Rook
            PS and in particular I d like to thank you for bringing to my attention the Gradient speakers and their principals. Ted
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              PS and in particular I'd like to thank you for bringing to my attention the
              Gradient speakers and their principals.

              Ted


              On 4 Jan 2006 at 5:07, regtas43 wrote:

              > I hate to be a broken record, but it is all explained in
              > my article
              > "Microphone theory and a microphone test recording"
              > on www.regonaudio.com
              >
              > There is really no miracle going on. Everything makes complete
              > sense. There is one slightly surprising pyshcoacoustic thing about
              > transient time of arrival perception being surpressed in Blumlein
              > and the fact that it does not actually matter that it is!
              > This is discussed in the article. Otherwise, all is just
              > mathematical and stadard pyscoacoustics. Please have a look.
              >
              > I feel neglected! How come people don;t read my stuff?!
              >
              > REG
              > In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@w...> wrote:
              > >
              > > My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in
              > particular Blumlein coincident
              > > mic stereo.
              > >
              > > I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.
              > >
              > > Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is
              > directional, the encoding
              > > is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo.
              > This relies on the mic
              > > having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand
              > spaced microphones
              > > encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use
              > omnidirectional
              > > microphones.
              > >
              > > It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as
              > advertised" and the phantom
              > > stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along
              > the reproduction chain. It
              > > seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well
              > as it does.
              > >
              > > The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the
              > signal amplitude and
              > > speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!
              > >
              > > Ted
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              > * Visit your group "regsaudioforum" on the web.
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >
              >
              >
            • Ted Rook
              Robert, your message below has been in my thoughts, the bit about transient time of arrival, not your complaint ;-) I have spent a lot of time at your
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 25, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                Robert, your message below has been in my thoughts, the bit about transient time of arrival, not your complaint ;-) I have spent a lot of time at your webpages.

                It seems to me what you are referring to is the playback situation when a point recording is being heard. Despite the absence of time of arrival differences in the L and R channel recordings, on playback there will be time of arrival differences due to the interaural separation. Yet these cues seem to not matter, as you say, it works despite them. Very strange, but undeniably so.

                Sometimes when returning to the sweet-spot I find that the phantom stereo image does not appear immediately but takes a second or to to arrive and stabilise. In the meantime the sound appears to be localized at the loudspeakers. After a second or so the phantom image is established and persists. I wonder if this transient experience is the result of awareness of some internal discrimination process going on?

                Ted



                On 4 Jan 2006 at 5:07, regtas43 wrote:

                > I hate to be a broken record, but it is all explained in
                > my article
                > "Microphone theory and a microphone test recording"
                > on www.regonaudio.com
                >
                > There is really no miracle going on. Everything makes complete
                > sense. There is one slightly surprising pyshcoacoustic thing about
                > transient time of arrival perception being surpressed in Blumlein
                > and the fact that it does not actually matter that it is!
                > This is discussed in the article. Otherwise, all is just
                > mathematical and stadard pyscoacoustics. Please have a look.
                >
                > I feel neglected! How come people don;t read my stuff?!
                >
                > REG
                > In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@w...> wrote:
                > >
                > > My attention has been focussed on stereo recently and in
                > particular Blumlein coincident
                > > mic stereo.
                > >
                > > I think I have had one of those "lightbulb flashing" insights.
                > >
                > > Coincident mics encode stereo because the mmic sensitivity is
                > directional, the encoding
                > > is amplitude information, what might be called amplitude stereo.
                > This relies on the mic
                > > having sensitivity that varies with direction. On the other hand
                > spaced microphones
                > > encode stereo as arrival time differences and hence can use
                > omnidirectional
                > > microphones.
                > >
                > > It seems to me that amplitude stereo actually works "as
                > advertised" and the phantom
                > > stereo image is a miraculous gift requiring linearity all along
                > the reproduction chain. It
                > > seems improbable that it can work, but a miracle it works as well
                > as it does.
                > >
                > > The stereo information is probably only a few percent of the
                > signal amplitude and
                > > speaker directivity introduces errors bigger than that!!
                > >
                > > Ted
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                > *   Visit your group "regsaudioforum" on the web.
                >     
                > *   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >     regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >     
                > *   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                >

              • regtas43
                Was I making sense about the pink noise? Think of it this way. A 1 kHz sound has a wavelength of about a foot. So if it is coming out of two speakers in phase
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 15, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Was I making sense about the pink noise? Think of it this way.
                  A 1 kHz sound has a wavelength of about a foot. So if it is coming out
                  of two speakers in phase and one gets six inches closer to one speaker
                  than the other, it cancels entirely!
                  With 2 kHz signals, things are even more unstable.
                  (The high highs are not so bad--they are "headshadowed" one ear from
                  the opposite speaker in each case so there is not so much mixing and
                  hence not so much in and out cancellation as one moves around).
                  So if one is not in an equindistant position, things go quite bonkers.
                  This is one reason why people sometimes feel uncomfortable with
                  stereo, especially if it is quasi-anechoic, i.e., done as it is
                  supposed to be in theory.
                  This is also why (I think!)many people like spaced moni recordings--
                  because the sound is already more or less phase randomized so that
                  these interference effects are less.

                  Stereo is an odd medium, actually. It is surprising it works so well,
                  in a way. But centering is really quite critical at least in principle!

                  A lot of people would like the Allison sound if they heard it.

                  REG
                • Robert Greene
                  Clearly, there are (at least) two uses for two speakers in a room. One use is to fill the room with some sound that is pleasing over a wide area. It is obvious
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Clearly, there are (at least) two uses for two speakers in a room.
                    One use is to fill the room with some sound that is pleasing over a
                    wide area. It is obvious from counting "degrees of freedom" that an
                    exactly controlled sound cannot be produced over a wide area with two
                    speakers. But the results can be quite agreeable.

                    The other use is quite different. It attempts to create the original
                    soundfield but at only one listening location. This works remarkably
                    well--at that one location. The (horzontal part of the) soundfield at
                    one point has two degrees of freedom if one discounts the pure
                    pressure comnponent, and the speakers each give a degree of freedom
                    and bingo--for horizontal sound only. Not perfect of course--no
                    height, no sound from behind, etc. But good.

                    The two different ideas have been present since stereo started.
                    They still are. The difference goes back to Blumlein one point
                    miking versus Bell Telephone Labs(as they were then) spaced omnis.
                    The difference has never left. It never will go away until stereo is
                    no longer used.

                    There is no use in carrying on polemically about this. What can and
                    cannot be done is clear. What concerts sound like in general terms is
                    also quite clear. But it is perhaps important to realize that the
                    soundfield in a home listening room with say omni speakers in it is
                    not really at all the same as the sound in a concert hall. The timing
                    of the room reflections in the two cases is quite different.
                    To a not very critical listener, perhaps a big fuzzy sound is just a
                    big fuzzy sound. But in reality, a clear direct arrival followed by a
                    lot of room sound later on is a quite different thing from a direct
                    arrival followed by much earlier reflections and a lot of earlier
                    room sound.

                    What one likes is personal, what happens literally is a matter of
                    fact. But of course one-point stereo is not perfect ,either. But it
                    seems to me a quite good approximation of what one would hear if one
                    were there--provided one plays it back correctly.

                    Incidentally, I have discussed these matters(by correspondence) a lot
                    with the people who worked on the BandO speaker. They believe in what
                    they are doing and they are doing it well. But that does not mean it
                    is necessarily the thing you want.

                    REG
                  • Goran Finnberg
                    ... Any time I hear phase locked coincident stereo being reproduced I too can get at the exact spot in the middle that elusive sweet spot....... However this
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      REG:

                      > What one likes is personal, what happens literally is a matter of
                      > fact. But of course one-point stereo is not perfect ,either. But it
                      > seems to me a quite good approximation of what one would hear if one
                      > were there--provided one plays it back correctly.


                      Any time I hear phase locked coincident stereo being reproduced I too
                      can get at the exact spot in the middle that elusive sweet spot.......

                      However this same thing is impossible to do in real life listening
                      situation as my ears don´t hear phase locked stereo due to my ears not
                      occupying the exact same spot as a coincident stereo microphone.

                      It would seen to me that the Stereo mic outputs something that does not
                      excists in real life to me or how I hear in real rooms.

                      Spacing the capsules a la ORTF always makes me smile in relief as I get
                      enough decorrelation to avoid that horrible sensation that the sound is
                      wrong wherever I sit when I listen to phase locked stereo unless I am
                      sitting in the dead center or the magic sweet spot and when I arrive
                      there I get that horrible sense of phasiness that will never go away
                      unless I am within microinches of exact delay for centrally placed
                      sources......which spaced stereo removes entirely and now I am free to
                      sit anywhere in the room and the sense of the room is so much better to
                      me.


                      --
                      Best,

                      Goran Finnberg
                      The Mastering Room AB
                      Goteborg
                      Sweden

                      E-mail: mastering@...

                      Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
                      make them all yourself. - John Luther
                    • Fred
                      Robert, In your correspondence with B&O who learned most? Fred. ________________________________ From: Robert Greene To:
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Robert,
                        In your correspondence with B&O who learned most?
                        Fred.


                        From: Robert Greene <regonaudio@...>
                        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, 30 November, 2008 18:05:27
                        Subject: [regsaudioforum] stereo


                        Clearly, there are (at least) two uses for two speakers in a room.
                        One use is to fill the room with some sound that is pleasing over a
                        wide area. It is obvious from counting "degrees of freedom" that an
                        exactly controlled sound cannot be produced over a wide area with two
                        speakers. But the results can be quite agreeable..

                        The other use is quite different. It attempts to create the original
                        soundfield but at only one listening location. This works remarkably
                        well--at that one location. The (horzontal part of the) soundfield at
                        one point has two degrees of freedom if one discounts the pure
                        pressure comnponent, and the speakers each give a degree of freedom
                        and bingo--for horizontal sound only. Not perfect of course--no
                        height, no sound from behind, etc. But good.

                        The two different ideas have been present since stereo started.
                        They still are. The difference goes back to Blumlein one point
                        miking versus Bell Telephone Labs(as they were then) spaced omnis.
                        The difference has never left. It never will go away until stereo is
                        no longer used.

                        There is no use in carrying on polemically about this. What can and
                        cannot be done is clear. What concerts sound like in general terms is
                        also quite clear. But it is perhaps important to realize that the
                        soundfield in a home listening room with say omni speakers in it is
                        not really at all the same as the sound in a concert hall. The timing
                        of the room reflections in the two cases is quite different.
                        To a not very critical listener, perhaps a big fuzzy sound is just a
                        big fuzzy sound. But in reality, a clear direct arrival followed by a
                        lot of room sound later on is a quite different thing from a direct
                        arrival followed by much earlier reflections and a lot of earlier
                        room sound.

                        What one likes is personal, what happens literally is a matter of
                        fact. But of course one-point stereo is not perfect ,either. But it
                        seems to me a quite good approximation of what one would hear if one
                        were there--provided one plays it back correctly.

                        Incidentally, I have discussed these matters(by correspondence) a lot
                        with the people who worked on the BandO speaker. They believe in what
                        they are doing and they are doing it well. But that does not mean it
                        is necessarily the thing you want.

                        REG


                      • Robert Greene
                        Probably neither side learned anything much, except how to remain friends with people one disagreed with. Probably real wisdom consists in observing that all
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Probably neither side learned anything much, except
                          how to remain friends with people one disagreed with.


                          Probably real wisdom consists in observing that all music
                          reproduction is flawed, and indeed people do not even seem
                          to agree(pace, TM) that reproduction is what they want.

                          No one can decide for you what you want. What they can do
                          is help you to find out what sounds like what, how to get what you
                          want.

                          I do agree with GF incidentally, that it is quite possible to over-
                          correct in DSP. Indeed I have written quite a lot about this problem.

                          This is why one needs to DSP correct the SPEAKERS THEMSELVES,
                          not try to fix everything after the fact. Of course the people
                          who make DSP devices know this ,too. Some of these devices make
                          sensible decisions and offer good options. For example, the Sigtech
                          allowed one to adjust the amount(the %) of correction. If you wanted
                          to stop correction at a certain frequency or phase it out, you could.

                          These problems are complicated. And so the solutions need to be
                          complicated, too, and flexible, for ideal results, in spite of how
                          well some of the automatic systems work.

                          REG

                          PS GF was in rate form back there. I am still wondering why he never
                          deals with the fact that since not all mikes sound anywhere close to
                          alike, they can all be perfect in their results....



                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Robert,
                          > In your correspondence with B&O who learned most?
                          > Fred.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: Robert Greene <regonaudio@...>
                          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Sunday, 30 November, 2008 18:05:27
                          > Subject: [regsaudioforum] stereo
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Clearly, there are (at least) two uses for two speakers in a room.
                          > One use is to fill the room with some sound that is pleasing over a
                          > wide area. It is obvious from counting "degrees of freedom" that an
                          > exactly controlled sound cannot be produced over a wide area with
                          two
                          > speakers. But the results can be quite agreeable.
                          >
                          > The other use is quite different. It attempts to create the original
                          > soundfield but at only one listening location. This works
                          remarkably
                          > well--at that one location. The (horzontal part of the) soundfield
                          at
                          > one point has two degrees of freedom if one discounts the pure
                          > pressure comnponent, and the speakers each give a degree of freedom
                          > and bingo--for horizontal sound only. Not perfect of course--no
                          > height, no sound from behind, etc. But good.
                          >
                          > The two different ideas have been present since stereo started.
                          > They still are. The difference goes back to Blumlein one point
                          > miking versus Bell Telephone Labs(as they were then) spaced omnis.
                          > The difference has never left. It never will go away until stereo
                          is
                          > no longer used.
                          >
                          > There is no use in carrying on polemically about this. What can and
                          > cannot be done is clear. What concerts sound like in general terms
                          is
                          > also quite clear. But it is perhaps important to realize that the
                          > soundfield in a home listening room with say omni speakers in it is
                          > not really at all the same as the sound in a concert hall. The
                          timing
                          > of the room reflections in the two cases is quite different.
                          > To a not very critical listener, perhaps a big fuzzy sound is just
                          a
                          > big fuzzy sound. But in reality, a clear direct arrival followed by
                          a
                          > lot of room sound later on is a quite different thing from a direct
                          > arrival followed by much earlier reflections and a lot of earlier
                          > room sound.
                          >
                          > What one likes is personal, what happens literally is a matter of
                          > fact. But of course one-point stereo is not perfect ,either. But it
                          > seems to me a quite good approximation of what one would hear if
                          one
                          > were there--provided one plays it back correctly.
                          >
                          > Incidentally, I have discussed these matters(by correspondence) a
                          lot
                          > with the people who worked on the BandO speaker. They believe in
                          what
                          > they are doing and they are doing it well. But that does not mean
                          it
                          > is necessarily the thing you want.
                          >
                          > REG
                          >
                        • Fred
                          Hi Robert, The ability to argue hard yet amiably is always to be admired.  I had thought your exchange might have yielded duplicate views with new
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Robert,
                            The ability to argue hard yet amiably is always to be admired.  I had thought your exchange might have yielded duplicate views with new directions.  I think B&O correct more in the lower frequency range.
                            I can understand your context of room and speaker correction but the source of course is another matter. 
                            G'nite :-)
                            Fred.
                             

                             

                            From: Robert Greene <regonaudio@...>
                            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups..com
                            Sent: Monday, 1 December, 2008 1:32:13
                            Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: stereo

                            Probably neither side learned anything much, except
                            how to remain friends with people one disagreed with.

                            Probably real wisdom consists in observing that all music
                            reproduction is flawed, and indeed people do not even seem
                            to agree(pace, TM) that reproduction is what they want.

                            No one can decide for you what you want. What they can do
                            is help you to find out what sounds like what, how to get what you
                            want.

                            I do agree with GF incidentally, that it is quite possible to over-
                            correct in DSP. Indeed I have written quite a lot about this problem.

                            This is why one needs to DSP correct the SPEAKERS THEMSELVES,
                            not try to fix everything after the fact. Of course the people
                            who make DSP devices know this ,too. Some of these devices make
                            sensible decisions and offer good options. For example, the Sigtech
                            allowed one to adjust the amount(the %) of correction. If you wanted
                            to stop correction at a certain frequency or phase it out, you could.

                            These problems are complicated. And so the solutions need to be
                            complicated, too, and flexible, for ideal results, in spite of how
                            well some of the automatic systems work.

                            REG

                            PS GF was in rate form back there. I am still wondering why he never
                            deals with the fact that since not all mikes sound anywhere close to
                            alike, they can all be perfect in their results.....

                            --- In regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com, Fred <glenndriech@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Robert,
                            > In your correspondence with B&O who learned most?
                            > Fred.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ____________ _________ _________ __
                            > From: Robert Greene <regonaudio@ ...>
                            > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                            > Sent: Sunday, 30 November, 2008 18:05:27
                            > Subject: [regsaudioforum] stereo
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Clearly, there are (at least) two uses for two speakers in a room.
                            > One use is to fill the room with some sound that is pleasing over a
                            > wide area. It is obvious from counting "degrees of freedom" that an
                            > exactly controlled sound cannot be produced over a wide area with
                            two
                            > speakers. But the results can be quite agreeable.
                            >
                            > The other use is quite different. It attempts to create the original
                            > soundfield but at only one listening location. This works
                            remarkably
                            > well--at that one location. The (horzontal part of the) soundfield
                            at
                            > one point has two degrees of freedom if one discounts the pure
                            > pressure comnponent, and the speakers each give a degree of freedom
                            > and bingo--for horizontal sound only. Not perfect of course--no
                            > height, no sound from behind, etc. But good.
                            >
                            > The two different ideas have been present since stereo started.
                            > They still are. The difference goes back to Blumlein one point
                            > miking versus Bell Telephone Labs(as they were then) spaced omnis.
                            > The difference has never left. It never will go away until stereo
                            is
                            > no longer used.
                            >
                            > There is no use in carrying on polemically about this. What can and
                            > cannot be done is clear. What concerts sound like in general terms
                            is
                            > also quite clear. But it is perhaps important to realize that the
                            > soundfield in a home listening room with say omni speakers in it is
                            > not really at all the same as the sound in a concert hall. The
                            timing
                            > of the room reflections in the two cases is quite different.
                            > To a not very critical listener, perhaps a big fuzzy sound is just
                            a
                            > big fuzzy sound. But in reality, a clear direct arrival followed by
                            a
                            > lot of room sound later on is a quite different thing from a direct
                            > arrival followed by much earlier reflections and a lot of earlier
                            > room sound.
                            >
                            > What one likes is personal, what happens literally is a matter of
                            > fact. But of course one-point stereo is not perfect ,either. But it
                            > seems to me a quite good approximation of what one would hear if
                            one
                            > were there--provided one plays it back correctly.
                            >
                            > Incidentally, I have discussed these matters(by correspondence) a
                            lot
                            > with the people who worked on the BandO speaker. They believe in
                            what
                            > they are doing and they are doing it well. But that does not mean
                            it
                            > is necessarily the thing you want.
                            >
                            > REG
                            >


                          • regtas43
                            Human perception of space is complicated. But it is not unknown, Quite a lot is known about it. But what is known would never be discovered by sitting around
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 29, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Human perception of space is complicated. But it is not unknown, Quite a lot is known about it. But what is known would never be discovered by sitting around listening to records and improvising explanations of what one received as a spatial impression., One has to do controlled analytic experiments--or read about the ones people have already done,. One wonders how many audio reviewers have read, say, Blauert's book or the like.

                              REG

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.