This is all nice stuff, but whats the context? what room acoustics, are you listening close or far regarding the transition?
I suspect the info is from the far side of transition, in which case I speculate narrower coverage would actually yield the best sound But because I cannot say such thing with lack of experience I think it is extremely helpful and informational for everyone to try and hear the transition by them selves. It would help to understand which context you listen at and what properties in the speaker matter and how. Shrink your stereo listening triangle until you have nice clarity and envelopment and width and any other stereo qualities you know. There doesn't seem to be too much magic to it, either you have it or don't, brain locks in or doesn't, it is involuntary attention grabbing ment for surviving in wild, and essential for very good sound.
Again, listen mono signal for strong phantom center, white noise or spoken word. Too bog stereo triangle and the center is hazy, close enough and its clear, speakers seem mute even if you look at them. Assuming speakers are good enough, frequency responses quite closely matched so the clear phantom center can happen in the first place.
Last edited:
The thing is that when you close your eyes at the concert hall, there is nothing really sharp or detailed in the sense that you may get in some stereo systems... its rather an other effect and its described better as "presence" and "weight" perhaps..
//
Your condescension was anticipated thus lowering the blow lol... you tease a ******* match on who can hear best or judge what they hear better.... at least learn to mix and master lol 🥱 I know you don't have to be a cook to judge food... its just that a life long cook has better taste, regardless.... or something to that effect haha. Better insight, foresight, etc
Last edited:
I feel like I got sucker'd into your trap with my comment... because I would normally include the notion, "better for me"...
Your position is "what you want to hear is better than what I want to hear".... my position is simply "the closer the signal at the listening position resembles the electrical signal, the more accurate the reproduction is"....
Because of the short falls of recording, an idea you brought up yourself btw.... theres no reason why a faithful loudspeaker system will try to make up for it. Theres no reason a highly accurate 2 channel system will make one believe they are at Royal Albert Hall if the recording doesn't cater to it no less, surround sound is the only way to accurately emulate other acoustical environments. If you were to have a system surrounding you symmetrically with many channels... you will start to get closer to being fooled... and at the point, deadening the room will improve the illusion of being there.
It sounds as if you intend to use the room to fill jn the void were the other surrounding channels would be... to me that's sloppy as the acoustics of the room will never match Royal Albert Hall...rather, some other place that still brings you pleasurable results. Nothing wrong with that, its just not as accurate.
I bring up a good point, an highly accurate 2 channel system will expose flaws... including the lack of spacial cues from the rest of the vectors of the room... because you are not really there lol... and because your system can only do so much with just 2 channels, hence the invention of surround sound in the first place 🤔
People tune the room to their liking, and that character is imprinted on every thing they listen too, except, not every band plays in Royal Albert Hall...so if one goes to far in one direction they may loose the ability enjoy records that sound better in another room...
Your position is "what you want to hear is better than what I want to hear".... my position is simply "the closer the signal at the listening position resembles the electrical signal, the more accurate the reproduction is"....
Because of the short falls of recording, an idea you brought up yourself btw.... theres no reason why a faithful loudspeaker system will try to make up for it. Theres no reason a highly accurate 2 channel system will make one believe they are at Royal Albert Hall if the recording doesn't cater to it no less, surround sound is the only way to accurately emulate other acoustical environments. If you were to have a system surrounding you symmetrically with many channels... you will start to get closer to being fooled... and at the point, deadening the room will improve the illusion of being there.
It sounds as if you intend to use the room to fill jn the void were the other surrounding channels would be... to me that's sloppy as the acoustics of the room will never match Royal Albert Hall...rather, some other place that still brings you pleasurable results. Nothing wrong with that, its just not as accurate.
I bring up a good point, an highly accurate 2 channel system will expose flaws... including the lack of spacial cues from the rest of the vectors of the room... because you are not really there lol... and because your system can only do so much with just 2 channels, hence the invention of surround sound in the first place 🤔
People tune the room to their liking, and that character is imprinted on every thing they listen too, except, not every band plays in Royal Albert Hall...so if one goes to far in one direction they may loose the ability enjoy records that sound better in another room...
Last edited:
You haven't defined your definition of "real"... my first thought was that the electrical signal is a real source in its own light... do you want to hear more of it, less of it, or a balance between it, and your room...
Theres no right answer, so I'm not in your way of chasing your version of "real".
"We" know that measured accuracy is not = sounding real" - that doesn't sound correct to me but I'm sure you have a deeper meaning
If something measures identical to the source it will sound like the source. The source is the "truth"
You did comment about favor towards omnidirectional speakers.... all this does is make it sound like the source is literally in your room... which will never resemble Royal Albert Hall, if it is a living room. Meaning the room energy is high.... in effect, a reverb on top of a reverb. A surround system in a dead room will actually sound like you in Royal Albert Hall.. a Omnidirectional 2 channel system in a living room will sound like the recorded reverb mixed with the rooms reverb.
Theres no right answer, so I'm not in your way of chasing your version of "real".
"We" know that measured accuracy is not = sounding real" - that doesn't sound correct to me but I'm sure you have a deeper meaning
If something measures identical to the source it will sound like the source. The source is the "truth"
You did comment about favor towards omnidirectional speakers.... all this does is make it sound like the source is literally in your room... which will never resemble Royal Albert Hall, if it is a living room. Meaning the room energy is high.... in effect, a reverb on top of a reverb. A surround system in a dead room will actually sound like you in Royal Albert Hall.. a Omnidirectional 2 channel system in a living room will sound like the recorded reverb mixed with the rooms reverb.
Last edited:
Binaural recordings can sound amazingly real. But to re-create that sensation you first need to be very accurate in strictly technical terms. With loudspeakers in rooms it's just a lot more complicated, but the core of it is still technical stuff that can and must be measured for accuracy first. It's just not a simple one-dimensional signal.
LP is 2.7 meters from the speakers, base is 3.2 meters wide. Slight toe in of 10 degrees. There is no treatment appart from a deep-pile rug and furniture.
I cannot confirm this. The center is rock solid and I could even extend the base if the room would allow it, without a relevant loss of phantom center quality (sadly, there is a door provibiting it). I have not experienced hazyness at all, only a dimishing of imaging when the speakers were not toed in and early reflections from the side wall increased.
Sitting closer does increase envelopment, but I dont mind the clarity of almost pure direct sound. Further, I assume the increased envelopment is a result of the changed relation LP <-> speaker distance / base width, making the the stereo angle shorter, virtually increasing base width.
It will truly be once we have a system design that has a chance to recreate a truthful listening experiance. Until then, to lose one self in technical nitty gritty details is in the current state of affairs not grounded in realty - as I see it.
Jus to be clear - I'm all for a technical solution - but like in software - without a good system architecture, it docent help with good programmers - the system will be for sure be poor. I come from a telecom system design background... hence the analogy....
//
Your source seem to be the electrical signal. The problem is in the recording and how it fits the replay part of the system... They dont match and thats why recreating the electrical signal from the disc isnt enough for a thruhtful sound - truth for me being the trumpet in the back row of a symphonic orchestra as you heard it from 8th row.
//
Unlesss it is first recorded from, the 8th row, its already an up hill battle... So the problem remains in the recording, if the signal was never meant to sound as such.
Recordings are post engineered to play on 2 channel systems, unless it isn't... but 2 channels is the generic installment. Sound engineers meticulously manicure the recordings to a presentation meant for technically correct approach of a stereo systems. With that in mind, material designed to play on a stereo system, match a stereo system following technically correct approaches within a norm... like different versions of an equilateral triangle listen position with tweeter at ear height perhaps... instead of an unequal-lateral triangle listening triangle.
The issue with trying to get the room to respond like that of the concert hall is that there are no ways to change reflection timings. They will stay consistent with room dimensions vs listening position. There are ways to get the room to sound more diffuse but I personally don't see myself being convinced that a living has the acoustics of a very large concert hall... theres too much info that will be changed in the living room... another point... if you play a recording of the concert band, inside the large concert hall it was originally recorded in, it still doesn't match the original timbre.... you could take an anechoic recording of the trumpet place a speaker where trumpet was recorded and then go sit in the 8th row.... realistically for your home, you could quiet the room energy with room treatment and high di, full range, surround speakers and play a recording meant for that type of system....this is superior at emulating another environment in your living room compared to any 2 channel system within any passive room treatment approach...
Even that may fall short, just proving you never really made it there with 2 channels anyway. And to come full circle... if it wasn't recorded from the 8th row nor did post sound design aim for the presentation... we are still at a loss, surround sound or not.
Recordings are post engineered to play on 2 channel systems, unless it isn't... but 2 channels is the generic installment. Sound engineers meticulously manicure the recordings to a presentation meant for technically correct approach of a stereo systems. With that in mind, material designed to play on a stereo system, match a stereo system following technically correct approaches within a norm... like different versions of an equilateral triangle listen position with tweeter at ear height perhaps... instead of an unequal-lateral triangle listening triangle.
The issue with trying to get the room to respond like that of the concert hall is that there are no ways to change reflection timings. They will stay consistent with room dimensions vs listening position. There are ways to get the room to sound more diffuse but I personally don't see myself being convinced that a living has the acoustics of a very large concert hall... theres too much info that will be changed in the living room... another point... if you play a recording of the concert band, inside the large concert hall it was originally recorded in, it still doesn't match the original timbre.... you could take an anechoic recording of the trumpet place a speaker where trumpet was recorded and then go sit in the 8th row.... realistically for your home, you could quiet the room energy with room treatment and high di, full range, surround speakers and play a recording meant for that type of system....this is superior at emulating another environment in your living room compared to any 2 channel system within any passive room treatment approach...
Even that may fall short, just proving you never really made it there with 2 channels anyway. And to come full circle... if it wasn't recorded from the 8th row nor did post sound design aim for the presentation... we are still at a loss, surround sound or not.
It's all about the two pressure responses at your eardrums. In my experience, reproduced trumpets can sound especially life-like. I really don't see what the fundamental problem should be.
- Close your eyes sometimes in a concert hall for a while and be amazed how drastically reduced is the perception without the vision. And ask yourself a question - is that so different than what I'm able to recreate at home? For me the answer is always no. If it doesn't sound comparable (comparably rewarding), there must be something wrong somewhere - most probably the room and the setup (I'm assuming loudspeakers to be flawless - no reason why they shouldn't be in 2023).
- Close your eyes sometimes in a concert hall for a while and be amazed how drastically reduced is the perception without the vision. And ask yourself a question - is that so different than what I'm able to recreate at home? For me the answer is always no. If it doesn't sound comparable (comparably rewarding), there must be something wrong somewhere - most probably the room and the setup (I'm assuming loudspeakers to be flawless - no reason why they shouldn't be in 2023).
Last edited:
The real technical nitty gritty is in the details of the tools and techniques used for production, and reproduction of the intended aural illusion. Both production and reproduction may need technical accuracy but the situations are not necessarily the same. In fact, they are often quite different. Production and reproduction need to complement each other – not be the same. Ex. – microphone placement in production may be far different from where and how a sound is perceived in reproduction.
There are too many variables between production and reproduction to avoid the ‘circle of confusion’. There are no universal reference standards for a production/reproduction complement; just guidelines with a need for the user to make adjustments.
I just want to hear what an artist intends to the best of my ability, with as little compromise as possible. In production, tools are used like paint. Reproduction should be a photograph. Photographic reproduction tends to transfer poorly between different production techniques.
When was the last time you mic'ed an instrument from the physical place you want it to be perceived in the mix? I know a few tools that can get close - think PZM or Holophonic mics.
Some holophonic recordings -
https://www.youtube.com/user/HolophoneTV
Last edited:
I would say that I have my eyes closed 75% of the time. That add upp to say 12 hours a year. 😃 Answer is - yes, impossible with today's architecture.
//
My guess would be: if a system is able to emotionally move me to such an extent as in a live performance, then I regard the system outstanding. That does not mean the presentation is the same as 'live' and may sound different. It is the emotional involvement that has been well translated that counts the most for me. It is the recreation of the emotional content, how to achieve that is the proverbial can of worms.