SO ... HOW do we measure soundstage???

[Cbdb2]

Nice scientific work. But for what is crosstalk cancellation good for? Mastering in the recording studio is mostly done with listening via loudspeakers and thus natural left/right crosstalk through the air.

What? You want to hear it the way the musicians, engineers, producers, and masterers heard it? Are you nuts.

 

[SSS]

Would you limit the quality of your playback to all the other shortcomings of the systems used to monitor any given recording?

The quality of playback systems are anyway limited and I do not monitor recordings. I listen for enjoying the music I like. And yes there may be flaws from my stereo setup with which I have to live with since I cannot afford a specific audio room.

 

[SSS]

What? You want to hear it the way the musicians, engineers, producers, and masterers heard it? Are you nuts.

No, I am not. My comment is only regarding natural crosstalk.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The quality of playback systems are anyway limited and I do not monitor recordings. I listen for enjoying the music I like. And yes there may be flaws from my stereo setup with which I have to live with since I cannot afford a specific audio room.

I was talking about the shortcomings of the systems used for monitoring not your system. A lot of great recordings were monitored on very colored systems.

If you listen for enjoyment why would you limit yourself the the smaller, shallower, shorter sound stage with inferior imaging?

 

[Cbdb2]

No, I am not. My comment is only regarding natural crosstalk.

I was being sarcastic, the wink.

 

[Thomas_A]

With respect to widening the scene; two-channel audio is not restricted to spatial resolution between the speakers - especially for ambient sounds (with complex phase relations) that can reach outside these borders both laterally and vertically (q-sound is a another special case). Then we have the cross-talk elimination methods and three-channel audio, which naturally broaden the front scenery. For stereo - removing room reflections is actually detrimental for such spatial impressions since cross-talk is not diffused by other reflective signals.

 

[slaweks]

With respect to widening the scene; two-channel audio is not restricted to spatial resolution between the speakers - especially for ambient sounds (with complex phase relations) that can reach outside these borders both laterally and vertically (q-sound is a another special case). Then we have the cross-talk elimination methods and three-channel audio, which naturally broaden the front scenery. For stereo - removing room reflections is actually detrimental for such spatial impressions since cross-talk is not diffused by other reflective signals.

Cross-talk is increased by room reflections, obviously.

 

[Thomas_A]

Cross-talk is increased by room reflections, obviously.

They are different though 250 µs from typical L-R ear and by masking from Keele, p11, section 1.3.

"Current studio monitoring design techniques tend to accentuate the detrimental effects of interaural crosstalk.
This is particularly true for designs based on Live-end Dead-end (LEDE) and reflection-free-zone techniques [7],
[8], [14].

In the traditional stereo playback setup used in the home, generally no attempt is made to control reflections, either early or late. In this type of situation, the rich, early reflection environment tends to mask the comb-filtering effects of interaural crosstalk."

One could also argue that phantom imaging would not work at all just because of interaural crosstalk. But it does.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

They are different though 250 µs from typical L-R ear and by masking from Keele, p11, section 1.3.

"Current studio monitoring design techniques tend to accentuate the detrimental effects of interaural crosstalk.
This is particularly true for designs based on Live-end Dead-end (LEDE) and reflection-free-zone techniques [7],
[8], [14].

In the traditional stereo playback setup used in the home, generally no attempt is made to control reflections, either early or late. In this type of situation, the rich, early reflection environment tends to mask the comb-filtering effects of interaural crosstalk."

That is most definitely incorrect

One could also argue that phantom imaging would not work at all just because of interaural crosstalk. But it does.

Not nearly as well as without it.

 

[Thomas_A]

That is most definitely incorrect


Not nearly as well as without it.

Well...

 

[goat76]

Have you ever heard it with and without?

Yes, I did use the demo of uBACCH for a couple of weeks and compared a lot of music productions in different genres including my own mixes, with and without crosstalk cancellation. It can sound impressive for some recordings while others sounded completely broken, and I can tell you I would have panned the instruments in my own mixes completely differently if they were meant to be listened to with crosstalk cancellation.

If crosstalk was a general fault, every music production out there would benefit from the cancellation. That is definitely not the case.

 

[goat76]

But since you asked https://3d3a.princeton.edu/bacch™-filters-optimized-crosstalk-cancellation-3d-audio-over-two-loudpseakers

I think you are completely aware that I asked you to provide information about the ground idea of stereo, and when and where it was said that the left loudspeaker's sound is meant to be heard by the left ear, and vice versa for the right channel. That may be true if you want to create the same sensation as binaural recordings made for headphones, which also need specially made recordings for that purpose. But for normal 2-channel recordings, it will either be a hit or a total miss as that content is made for normal playback, where some elements in the mix are highly dependent on the crosstalk to sound as they are supposed to sound.

So I ask you again, do you know of any documentation about normal stereo reproduction that explains that the sound coming from the left speaker should optimally just reach the left ear, and the sound from the right speaker should optimally just reach the right ear?
I would like to know where you got this idea from as that has never been the intention or the idea of using two speakers in a stereo configuration. No sound in the real world would be canceled out from the right ear just because it comes from the left side of you, so why would that be anything to strive for when it comes to stereo reproduction?

 

[goat76]

Would you limit the quality of your playback to all the other shortcomings of the systems used to monitor any given recording?

In a normal stereo mix, every decision made while mixing the music was done while hearing the natural crosstalk, it's not a "shortcoming", it's just how our hearing normally works and a sound panned all the way to the left speaker should also sound as if it's coming exactly from that point in the stereo field. And yes, we would hear that sound coming from that direction with both our ears, we would not all of a sudden be deaf in the right ear.

 

[Thomas_A]

In a normal stereo mix, every decision made while mixing the music was done while hearing the natural crosstalk, it's not a "shortcoming", it's just how our hearing normally works and a sound panned all the way to the left speaker should also sound as if it's coming exactly from that point in the stereo field. And yes, we would hear that sound coming from that direction with both our ears, we would not all of a sudden be deaf in the right ear.

One thing though is that placement of image is dependent on ITD/ILD of L/R in a crosstalk cancellation setup, and can be wider that the speaker angle. I agree however that is should also be mixed so to use it maximally. Somehow we have got used to the crosstalk since imaging can be done despite ≈250 us R<->L delay (though with the ”head shadow filter”!). So perhaps it is supressed in our brain? @j_j have probably talked about this but I have not made a search…

 

[EERecordist]

If I were approaching this from an engineering view, I would use a binaural microphone head and use the Klippel processing approach to remove the room. I would use a reference recording as the source, measure the response at the head microphone, and analyze the difference. Then, Klippel-style, I would produce listening angle graphs of something?

As an engineer, and recording engineer, I believe the source recording and speaker/listening position/room are the unmeasurable definition of today.

In the production and mastering world, the position of instruments, synthetic instruments, and by bus mastering are managed that audiophiles may not be aware of.

 

[audiofooled]

As an engineer, and recording engineer, I believe the source recording and speaker/listening positions are the unmeasurable definition of today.

Things considering loudspeaker design and room acoustics are all measurable. We can also measure weather the setup is located, aimed and spaced correctly. Within stereo capabilities and limitations, I believe that there's pretty much nothing that's unmeasurable if we are looking at what's the job loudspeakers in rooms need to perform. But I also believe that, if hopefully most things are done right, we can just appreciate music for what it is. An art.

When it comes to soundstage, assuming that you have the right setup, there are recordings, even live recordings that can create an illusion that you are transported to the venue. Also with imaging that is very well defined so that you feel like you can point and use a simple tape measure to describe where they are located. But what you measure would have absolutely no meaning to others. People first have to agree what is the measuring unit and what it defines... or even, what soundstage really is, for that matter. Is it a brain construct? Or perhaps a real and measurable quantity of a sound field? And if so, which one?

If the image is panned hard to the left, there would be loudspeakers and setups that would simply "lock" the image right inside the box or localized emanating exactly from the driver. There would also be setups where the same cue would pan the image outside of the boundaries of the left sidewall, with loudspeakers never localized as an apparent sound source. In that regard, IMO trying to find the correct yardstick is somewhat a moot point, considering the amount of variables. So I would agree with your statement.

 

[Anton D]

It's as if we expect gynecology to answer all questions of romance.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yes, I did use the demo of uBACCH for a couple of weeks and compared a lot of music productions in different genres including my own mixes, with and without crosstalk cancellation. It can sound impressive for some recordings while others sounded completely broken, and I can tell you I would have panned the instruments in my own mixes completely differently if they were meant to be listened to with crosstalk cancellation.

If crosstalk was a general fault, every music production out there would benefit from the cancellation. That is definitely not the case.

OK so you tried the entry level SP. you didn’t *like* the effect in some cases. There are two debates going on here.

1. Whether or not room reflections and cross talk are a necessary component for soundstage and imaging or are an inhibitor.

So when you auditioned the U BACCH did the soundstage expand or contract? Was the imaging more ore less convincing?

2. The other debate seems to be about artists’ and recording and mastering engineers’ intent.

I take the position that we can never know those things and even if we could we are not obligated by them

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I think you are completely aware that I asked you to provide information about the ground idea of stereo, and when and where it was said that the left loudspeaker's sound is meant to be heard by the left ear, and vice versa for the right channel.

That is comparable to arguing against the use of jet engines by demanding documentation of the inventors of the airplane advocated their use.

There is plenty of documentation on the ill effects of crosstalk on stereo perception. It’s actually a common measure in stereo components.

Technology advances. Are you interested in adhering just to Bluemlein’s original studies on stereo or are you interested in the studies, development and new technologies that have since followed?

That may be true if you want to create the same sensation as binaural recordings made for headphones, which also need specially made recordings for that purpose. But for normal 2-channel recordings, it will either be a hit or a total miss as that content is made for normal playback, where some elements in the mix are highly dependent on the crosstalk to sound as they are supposed to sound.

An opinion you get to have. An opinion as someone who has actually lived with crosstalk cancelation SP and done 100s of A/B comparisons I don’t share. And I challenge your assertion that there even exists such a thing as a “normal 2 channel recording.” There is no such standardization that we can make that delineation between a “normal” stereo recording and non normal stereo recording

So I ask you again, do you know of any documentation about normal stereo reproduction that explains that the sound coming from the left speaker should optimally just reach the left ear, and the sound from the right speaker should optimally just reach the right ear?
I would like to know where you got this idea from as that has never been the intention or the idea of using two speakers in a stereo configuration. No sound in the real world would be canceled out from the right ear just because it comes from the left side of you, so why would that be anything to strive for when it comes to stereo reproduction?

Do you know of any documentation that specifically cites such a thing as a “normal stereo recording” and states the objective parameters of such a recording so we can objectively identify a stereo recording as normal or non normal?

I can’t cite anything explaining the nature and properties of an undetermined entity.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The issue is an old one. The idea we can re-create truly the original recorded sound space with two channels. You cannot get there from here so to say.

With custom HRTF's and binaural you might get kind of close for headphones or if some advanced DSP can totally remove the room. You still have the issue of we regularly move our heads about a bit, and dummy/binaural doesn't do that. Maybe that can be finessed away with enough computing power and head tracking.

So we are left with a similitude to reality. Since the early days the over-whelming majority of recordings aren't even attempting a recreation as a similitude. Instead they are creating a simulacrum. Something that seems real with no origins in any reality. So any soundstage is a construct without attachment more than very loosely with reality. Mostly in the modern world not any attachment. That has unleashed much musical creativity to create simulacrums that seem real enough that never could be real.

You can obtain a startlingly real result by recording every musician up close or in a deadened chamber, and placing one and only one musician for each speaker. Placing multiple speakers in a room where a musician might be. Even that is not a fully correct representation of any performance elsewhere. But it very, very real. It is however a "they are here" sound rather than a "we are there" sound with there being somewhere outside the listening room. Not so surprising as you are listening to real sound sources. There are no phantoms.