Page 124 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2474114120121122123124125126127128 ... LastLast
Results 3,076 to 3,100 of 3205

Thread: The Audiophile Thread

  1. #3076
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Think about where locations of sounds should be perceived. If a binaural mix placed instruments at different places across the front of the listener using headphones, the difference in amplitude in each ear would be correlated to location. Equal amplitudes would be perceived directly in front, and if the amplitude was purely in the right side, the location of the instrument would be perceived way off to the right. In order to really replicate how the location of sound sources are perceived with speakers external to the ears, speakers would need to be located at every possible instrument location across the field of listening. Using only two speakers to represent sound from these locations is not accurate unless the instruments are located where the speakers are located.
    This a fallacious. See my explanation above.

    We can discuss "binaural" sometime too. It's not what you think it is.

  2. #3077
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    ... I listen to stereo recording in extended stereo which uses 5.1 speakers ...
    That's what I do, and now I recall that you asked me if I calibrated the speakers. The answer is not really, I only "balanced" volume by ear (which compensates for my hearing which is not perfect since I'm not in my 20's), but minimally played with the delay. BUT now you have me thinking that I should dig up the mic that came with my surround receiver and do that. I do at times get some strange imaging with instruments isolated in the corner of the room or from one of the rear speakers etc. I don't know... the imaging can strange, but I like it, though sometimes it is annoying. I'm not sure it is entirely avoidable given the particulars of the room etc.

  3. #3078
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    I have read that article before, and it's based on a fallacy.


    Here's the fallacy: a stereo recording of a stereo soundfield will already INCLUDE those aural clues as to direction, with the right speaker emitting information from the left channel just a hair delayed and just a hair softer, and vice versa. The audio clues to localization are built-in... that's why it's called a "stereo recording." Out in the wilderness our ears always hear with "interaural crosstalk" -- that's how we localize sounds. And that's why the stereo signal coming out of your speakers should be reproduced as neutrally and accurately as possible, so the clues embedded in the recording can be heard as clearly as possible.

    That said, there are OTHER speaker design issues which can definitely smear the left/right localization cues, what's called the imaging of your speakers... we can launch into that whole discussion if you're interested?


    Actually, the article repeats almost all of the points I made, now that I have re-read it.

    You donít understand the very basic problem with stereo as it does not come close to the stereo imaging provided by headphones.

  4. #3079
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Ya-huh okay.

  5. #3080
    cunning linguist 3LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    You donít understand the very basic problem with stereo as it does not come close to the stereo imaging provided by headphones.
    Don't you mean some headphones or a certain kind of headphones? What do you prefer; closed or open back designs

  6. #3081
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    You donít understand the very basic problem with stereo as it does not come close to the stereo imaging provided by headphones.
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Ya-huh okay.
    I'm going to have to go with @rcarlberg on this.

    I own some quite high end planar magnetic headphones, Audeze LCD-3. And a Lehmann headphone amp to drive them.

    I also own a pair of speakers that are known for their imaging and soundstage preproduction, as well as detail, flat frequency response, dynamics. Set up in a well treated dedicated listening room.

    And for imaging, soundstage, and other spatial cues, I'd much rather listen to my speaker system. Unless I am listening to specialized recordings, with my headphones, the image appears in my head.

    With even average classical and jazz recordings, with my stereo system, the soundstage and image is laid out in front of me, extending from well beyond the outside edges of my speakers, extending far back beyond the wall behind my speakers, and the musicians within that soundstage occupy very well defined spaces. With say, reasonably well recorded chamber ensembles, I can easily imagine walking into that soundstage among the musicians.

    Overall, I am much more likely to get the impression, that I am transported to the venue. I don't get that with my headphones, because everything is happening in my head.

    Not to mention the visceral impact on my entire body, when I listen to my system, which is not there with my headphones. My stereo system moves all the air around me in my room, headphones move less than a teaspoon of air in my ear canals.
    And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

  7. #3082
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Thank you Simon. The idea that you need speakers that remix the music to "fix the stereo problem" seems a little wrong-headed to me.

  8. #3083
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    298
    I'm not a big headphones guy, but the headphones that did the best imaging that I have heard are the Sennheiser HD 800s. Crazy comfortable to wear too. The big downer is that they are very, very bright sounding. Great for detailed listening but kind of fatiguing too. Barring that, I can listen to speakers all day. Unless the headphones are light and comfortable, I'm done in an hour.

  9. #3084
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Rael View Post
    Unless the headphones are light and comfortable, I'm done in an hour.
    Seriously, you might want to check these out:

    https://www.amazon.com/Monster-Boome...08BKZTZNT?th=1




    They're light and comfortable and don't sound half bad. They are a new product category, halfway between headphones and speakers. They actually provide some bone-conduction to your collarbone, giving the IMPRESSION of more bass than you'd expect (though obviously not sub-woofer territory). And the high end and imaging are surprisingly good.
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 12-23-2022 at 08:08 PM.

  10. #3085
    The eons are closing
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY/NJ
    Posts
    3,714
    My Schiit Vidar Class A/B arrived yesterday along with a preamp separate and a DAC.
    So today is for taking apart my old system etc.

    All this to replace my rather excellent but too ginormous NAD C388 Class D integrated amp.
    While I could take the NAD to the basement studio - it would be better to try and sell....
    Death inspires me like a dog inspires a rabbit

  11. #3086
    Member chalkpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    8,217
    Happy birthday Lino!

  12. #3087
    Member chalkpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    8,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Apparently The Pineapple Thief (TPT) has reworked songs and rereleased them in Atmos or 5.1. That would indicate that Bruce Soord of TPT has demoed his capability with Ian Anderson, leading to getting this new JT .....
    I really dislike the remix that Bruce did on the Opeth Deliverance 2015 remix....not good. Drenched in reverb and lost the cohesiveness imo.

  13. #3088
    cunning linguist 3LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    I really dislike the remix that Bruce did on the Opeth Deliverance 2015 remix....not good. Drenched in reverb and lost the cohesiveness imo.
    I can't imagine adding more reverb to multichannel would be a good thing. I would like to think remixing something for multichannel would be a good opportunity to strip music of such artificial coloration. It's why I like a lot of Steve Wilson remixes.

  14. #3089
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    I bought a Polk Audio Magnifi Mini sound bar last April, for $199. It includes a subwoofer which is wireless. I just learned that Polkís SDA technology was incorporated. This sound bar is very short compared to most. I did not expect much from it and was just going to use it on an older TV for sound. Amazing sound and sounds detailed and large. I was elected to provide the sound for a 50 year reunion which was held in a pretty good sized room. The system worked well and I used the Bluetooth interface because the Wi-Fi was google home oriented. Got complaints that it was too loud, and it was someone else that wanted it that loud. I used Apple Music streaming for this DJ role, my first.

  15. #3090
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    3,831
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LockBox View Post
    I can't imagine adding more reverb to multichannel would be a good thing. I would like to think remixing something for multichannel would be a good opportunity to strip music of such artificial coloration. It's why I like a lot of Steve Wilson remixes.
    Using multi-channel reverb is the quickest shortcut to upsampling stereo to 5.1 surround. And of course it sounds terrible. It's almost as bad as people creating Youtube videos of songs, thinking they need to help them out by boosting the bass. Making the videos sound muddy as hell.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  16. #3091
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by progmatist View Post
    Using multi-channel reverb is the quickest shortcut to upsampling stereo to 5.1 surround. And of course it sounds terrible. It's almost as bad as people creating Youtube videos of songs, thinking they need to help them out by boosting the bass. Making the videos sound muddy as hell.
    Yeh, but it is possible as my Pioneer Elite receiver does with calibrated channels and matched speakers, to extend stereo precisely. Thatís how I listen to stereo, but I would not characterize it as reverb. However, itís not a huge effect like a commercial product would have, in order to make something very different. Apparently some people with engineering jobs are just either stupid or lazy when producing 5.1.

  17. #3092
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Yeh, but it is possible as my Pioneer Elite receiver does with calibrated channels and matched speakers, to extend stereo precisely. Thatís how I listen to stereo, but I would not characterize it as reverb.
    Curious about your terminology here. What do you mean, "extend stereo precisely"?

    If not recorded in 5.1 I can't see how you'd get rear channels unless they're either (A) duplicating the front channels or (B) delayed / reverbed from the front channels to simulate a hall effect. Do you have a (C)?

  18. #3093
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Curious about your terminology here. What do you mean, "extend stereo precisely"?

    If not recorded in 5.1 I can't see how you'd get rear channels unless they're either (A) duplicating the front channels or (B) delayed / reverbed from the front channels to simulate a hall effect. Do you have a (C)?
    I can not get a technical description of what that extended stereo mode does. The time delays of all channels are calibrated so the same and amplitude and delay is experienced at a single location. As to the source delays, itís up to the sources. I could say left is in front and left side rear, and analogous for right. However, the question would be how center channel is implemented. If it is Left plus right, then stereo image would suffer perhaps. So I suspect the design is a gain balanced combination of L+R center, g1*(L-R) for left front, g2*(L-R)for left side rear, g1*(R-L) for right front and g2*(R-L) for right side rear.

    Note the sound bar is just stereo with SDA. The 5.1 extended stereo is from my home system, no SDA.

  19. #3094
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    So if youíre talking L-R and R-L youíre talking about remixing the music to remove the center channel. Weíve discussed that above.

  20. #3095
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    So if youíre talking L-R and R-L youíre talking about remixing the music to remove the center channel. Weíve discussed that above.
    Iím guessing. All I know is that I like that listening mode better than normal stereo and nothing Iíve heard before compared and I didnít like processed sound enhancements in the past. I think the accurate channel calibration and DSP is the enabler.

  21. #3096
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    So if youíre talking L-R and R-L youíre talking about remixing the music to remove the center channel. Weíve discussed that above.
    Yes that removes the center channel and at the ear, the front and rear L-R combines with the L+R (read center channel) to produce L at a virtual location between the front and rear speakers. An analogous effect happens for the R.

  22. #3097
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    And if SDA is not what your Pioneer Elite receiver does ó and itís not reverb ó I wonder what it is? Give me the model number, if you wouldnít mind. Iím curious enough to want to look it up online.

  23. #3098
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    And if SDA is not what your Pioneer Elite receiver does ó and itís not reverb ó I wonder what it is? Give me the model number, if you wouldnít mind. Iím curious enough to want to look it up online.
    Good luck, Pioneer Elite SC-LX901
    From the manual: This mode fills the entire listening area with stereo sound from the front, surround, and surround back speakers.

  24. #3099
    cunning linguist 3LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Good luck, Pioneer Elite SC-LX901
    From the manual: This mode fills the entire listening area with stereo sound from the front, surround, and surround back speakers.
    It may be using PFM technology

  25. #3100
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    3,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Yeh, but it is possible as my Pioneer Elite receiver does with calibrated channels and matched speakers, to extend stereo precisely. Thatís how I listen to stereo, but I would not characterize it as reverb. However, itís not a huge effect like a commercial product would have, in order to make something very different. Apparently some people with engineering jobs are just either stupid or lazy when producing 5.1.
    With older recordings, there are few other options for creating a 5.1 mix. They were recorded on only 4 or 8 tracks to begin with. Recording an orchestra with only 2 mics is even more limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3LockBox View Post
    It may be using PFM technology
    Or what we called FM in my Navy Avionics Technician days: "F***ing Magic."
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •