1951: High Fidelity

[Blumlein 88]

hey, I had a 50/50 chance...

I think it is 50/50. I started a thread about in head vs out of the head imaging and binaural on head-fi once years back. Some people raved about how good binaural recordings are. Just as many had my experience. Fleeting moments mostly well to the side sound sort of out there real. Anything else moves inside the head and upward. I think it has to do with whether or not pinna shapes are similar to dummy heads or not.

Almost everyone who has done binaural using tiny mikes in their own ear canal report excellent realism. If someone hasn't already, they need a set of test signals or way to measure you outer ear or something to do some DSP on binaural recordings so they sound like you used your own ears.

 

[watchnerd]

I think it is 50/50. I started a thread about in head vs out of the head imaging and binaural on head-fi once years back. Some people raved about how good binaural recordings are. Just as many had my experience. Fleeting moments mostly well to the side sound sort of out there real. Anything else moves inside the head and upward. I think it has to do with whether or not pinna shapes are similar to dummy heads or not.

Almost everyone who has done binaural using tiny mikes in their own ear canal report excellent realism. If someone hasn't already, they need a set of test signals or way to measure you outer ear or something to do some DSP on binaural recordings so they sound like you used your own ears.

Isn't that what HRTF is for?

 

[tomelex]

I think it is 50/50. I started a thread about in head vs out of the head imaging and binaural on head-fi once years back. Some people raved about how good binaural recordings are. Just as many had my experience. Fleeting moments mostly well to the side sound sort of out there real. Anything else moves inside the head and upward. I think it has to do with whether or not pinna shapes are similar to dummy heads or not.

Almost everyone who has done binaural using tiny mikes in their own ear canal report excellent realism. If someone hasn't already, they need a set of test signals or way to measure you outer ear or something to do some DSP on binaural recordings so they sound like you used your own ears.

The system I listen to the most is a nearfield fed by ss or SET or headphones fed from ss or sometimes the SET. I spend about half time in each case, and actually am pretty content with headphones. For some the center image is a bit toward the front on their inner head, for others, like me, its a bit toward the back. In any case, I have a true binaural cd from Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and it is really very nice even though MP3 quality. A friend from the audio club got it for me years ago. I find it superior to anything in two channel stereo in headphones by far. In the headphone world, you just "know" you are dealing with an illusion just because you mounted those headphones on your ears, so psychologically you know you are in for an "artificial illusion" and I think it helps you lighten up on expectations and enjoy "bringing you to the actual event" vs stereo trying to "bring the event to you".

I think like in anything audio, you either like things or you don't or varying shades of gray, lucky for me I can dig headphones or speakers, actually near field listening kind of dovetails into headphone listening in general.

 

[fas42]

The system I listen to the most is a nearfield fed by ss or SET or headphones fed from ss or sometimes the SET. I spend about half time in each case, and actually am pretty content with headphones. For some the center image is a bit toward the front on their inner head, for others, like me, its a bit toward the back. In any case, I have a true binaural cd from Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and it is really very nice even though MP3 quality. A friend from the audio club got it for me years ago. I find it superior to anything in two channel stereo in headphones by far. In the headphone world, you just "know" you are dealing with an illusion just because you mounted those headphones on your ears, so psychologically you know you are in for an "artificial illusion" and I think it helps you lighten up on expectations and enjoy "bringing you to the actual event" vs stereo trying to "bring the event to you".

I think like in anything audio, you either like things or you don't or varying shades of gray, lucky for me I can dig headphones or speakers, actually near field listening kind of dovetails into headphone listening in general.

These sorts of replies are telling ...

Optimum playback on any sort of system, or type of headphone/speakers ends up being the same - the illusion thrown up by the source capture dominates how you actually hear it; you're always "brought to the actual event" - with the laptop playback, I lower my head over the keypad, internal speakers on either side - voila, the "headphone experience", with the relatively okay SQ of that.

Headphones I do not like, full stop. I have yet to hear any do a good enough job of "getting out of the way"; a capable speaker system is so superior in every area, the closed off world of headphone listening offers nothing in return.

 

[watchnerd]

These sorts of replies are telling ...

Optimum playback on any sort of system, or type of headphone/speakers ends up being the same - the illusion thrown up by the source capture dominates how you actually hear it; you're always "brought to the actual event" - with the laptop playback, I lower my head over the keypad, internal speakers on either side - voila, the "headphone experience", with the relatively okay SQ of that.

Headphones I do not like, full stop. I have yet to hear any do a good enough job of "getting out of the way"; a capable speaker system is so superior in every area, the closed off world of headphone listening offers nothing in return.

Wait...what?

Speakers are the same as headphones are the same as laptop speakers?

Seriously, WTF?

Not even my most audio ignorant friends would agree to that.

 

[Thomas savage]

Wait...what?

Speakers are the same as headphones are the same as laptop speakers?

Seriously, WTF?

Not even my most audio ignorant friends would agree to that.

Come on mate, put your head between the laptop speakers and it all will make perfect sense.... go on...

 

[Cosmik]

I think he also showed that the objectivist approach works as good in audio as in other sciences, even if audio is part physics and part psychology (7 senses stuff).

I think he has just confirmed the right commonsense answers - the answers he 'knew' beforehand - using circular methods of selection-training-testing of listeners. At the end of the day, we are still at the position of two linear (as far as we can make them) channels. There was no mystery and there still isn't. People have been aware of the common sense of keeping dispersion uniform for at least 40 years. Some people have even done something about it: using wide, smooth baffles or actively creating a cardioid response.

As regards the issue of subwoofers, it should be possible to simulate the acoustics of the room and set a computer onto the task of finding the optimum positions for N subs to achieve the (uncontroversial, commonsense) desired outcome. Again, no mystery!

 

[watchnerd]

Come on mate, put your head between the laptop speakers and it all will make perfect sense.... go on...

Or am I supposed to put my head in between two laptops?

Maybe I can get quadraphonic sound.

 

[fas42]

Come on mate, put your head between the laptop speakers and it all will make perfect sense.... go on...

I actually did this as an exercise - set up speakers to mimic what headphones would be like, if you pulled them away from your ears. Consider this as a mental exercise - or do it for real - have speakers running loudly some distance away, in normal configuration; move closer to a normal listening position, dropping the volume as you go; as you get right between the speakers, move them in towards you, tilting them towards your ears, lower the volume accordingly; bring them right up to your ears; and as a final step plug the gaps between the speakers and head with acoustic deadening material ... now, the big question: at what point, and why, did your aural world magically transform from one thing, to another?

 

[Sal1950]

This thing? How, exactly, would you tart it up?

.

I yell PULL, you throw it in the air, and I shoot it.
That's easy.

 

[Sal1950]

A complete issue of "High Fidelity" magazine from 1951:

Great read, thanks for putting it up.
I have a very small collection of various mags, catalogs, tube manuals, and that sort of stuff.
Fun to look at and relive now and then.

 

[Sal1950]

What surprises me is how many people very happy with a soundbar. Some are not terrible now though most people go for the cheaper ones

My hope was that the 5.1 home theater movement would usher back at least a small era of interest in high fidelity reproduction and even include mch playback interest.
But after a short bump it has become apparent that the feeling for most is that any sound system must be as un-intrusive as possible. Today trends in interior design have only reinforced that position throughout the industry. The only exceptions are folks like us that if nothing else maintain a separate "man cave" that we can break convention in and do as we please.

 

[watchnerd]

I actually did this as an exercise - set up speakers to mimic what headphones would be like, if you pulled them away from your ears. Consider this as a mental exercise - or do it for real - have speakers running loudly some distance away, in normal configuration; move closer to a normal listening position, dropping the volume as you go; as you get right between the speakers, move them in towards you, tilting them towards your ears, lower the volume accordingly; bring them right up to your ears; and as a final step plug the gaps between the speakers and head with acoustic deadening material ... now, the big question: at what point, and why, did your aural world magically transform from one thing, to another?

What's the point of this exercise?

 

[fas42]

I yell PULL, you throw it in the air, and I shoot it.
That's easy.

If I held one of these a couple of feet above your head, and dropped it upon you, you wouldn't be saying much for quite a while - mainly the weight of the drivers, quite substantial in the feel of the unit. The silliness of these comments indicates that there is no desire to understand that these are intended to be direct competition to Sonos - and on a value for money basis, beat the latter ...

 

[fas42]

What's the point of this exercise?

That the sound you hear is nearly all about what's in the recording, provided the playback chain is of good quality - how that sound is actually conveyed to your ear is of far less importance; the distance of the driver surface to your ears can be great, or merely a few inches; if the SPL level is adjusted to suit the distance then the subjective difference between extremes of distance should be relatively slight.

 

[fas42]

Since people can't be bothered researching for themselves, it might be worth pointing to something about the top of the line version of the Samsung range, http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-wam7500-r7.

 

[watchnerd]

Since people can't be bothered researching for themselves, it might be worth pointing to something about the top of the line version of the Samsung range, http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-wam7500-r7.

No graphs, no data. Just advertising disguised as a review.

 

[sergeauckland]

No graphs, no data. Just advertising disguised as a review.

I think that's true of pretty much all reviews these days. People's opinions masquerading as facts.

Reviews in the 1970s were a lot better. Firstly, they were mostly objective, with measurements being the main part of the review, a discussion of the design techniques and methods, and comment on any design novelties or compromises.

Secondly, anything that can't and won't make a difference, like cables, weren't reviewed at all. I don't think anybody before Jean Hiraga dreamt of cables making a difference, as everybody else seemed to understand how cables worked and what they did!

With loudspeakers, the subjective part was limited to a comparison with a well-known transfer standard, like the Quad Electrostatic, with statements such as 'The cellos in the XYZ were a little more pronounced compared with the woodwind'. Male speech was used as an arbiter of coloration, something one never sees now in reviews.

I also quote from Percy Wilson's superlative "The Gramophone Handbook" referring to how to listen.
"Do not try to judge a loudspeaker on its reproduction of queer noises, including under this head the noises made by some devices used by Jazz bands. For there is no standard of queerness.... "

Was there ever truer words said?
S

 

[fas42]

No graphs, no data. Just advertising disguised as a review.

These wireless speakers were never designed for the audiophile, or "pro" crowd - only intention is to please people who want convenient, easy to use sound - data can be found, but no more useful than what's given for the majority of gear.

What counts is how they sound - and these deliver, to my ears, the "right stuff" that means they can be improved to decent standards. That is, they will go loud without falling to pieces, and there is an overall 'cleanness' to the quality which show that the basics are pretty good. Remember I went around to every pro music shop and listened to the name brand small active monitors? These Samsungs deliver in the same range of subjective quality - how they measure is just sugar on top.

 

[Wombat]

Since people can't be bothered researching for themselves, it might be worth pointing to something about the top of the line version of the Samsung range, http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-wam7500-r7.

That is an Advertorial if I ever saw one.