Studio Monitors & The Circle of Confusion- What We Know/Don’t Know

[kyuu]

I'm not him but here is a good presentation on the subject.

I enjoy experiencing it and not just in stereo so I am using surrounds that dig deeper. If I didn't care I could still cross over at 80 hz and not have any problems so I'd prefer the folks doing the recording preserve it for the folks who enjoy it. I can't see a downside from an end users perspective to wanting this in the recording process, no one has to take advantage of it but more options (to me) are a good thing.

The whole "auditory envelopment" thing is different than the topic of actually localizing sounds under 80Hz.

 

[JRowland]

The whole "auditory envelopment" thing is different than the topic of actually localizing sounds under 80Hz.

I glossed right over that localization part, my apologies.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

The whole "auditory envelopment" thing is different than the topic of actually localizing sounds under 80Hz.

 

[kyuu]

As expected from you, zero useful discussion to be had. I'll go back to ignoring your contributions, thanks for the reminder.

 

[tmuikku]

I have argued in my books that the ITU and EBU documents are seriously in need of revision. For the website of the upcoming 4th edition (publication date Oct 28) I wrote the article I attach for your information and thoughts. It is long - lots of words - which takes the fun out of it, but I sense that there are some serious minds in this forum, and I would like to hear your reactions.

Hi, here is a quote from the paper and a comment on it.

In closing, it seems evident that one room design cannot satisfy all needs. Professional
recording engineers have perspectives that deserve recognition. There are two distinct
needs, one for the mixing operation, which seems to be well served by these
recommendations, and the other for the mastering and evaluation operation, involving
consideration of what customers may hear, which seems not to be a good match. There
need to be discussions, and intelligent options provided for users who are focused on
the minutiae of mixing, and those concerned with how the final product is likely to be
heard in typical listening environments. They are different and both are important.

I've been trying to promote on the forums that it's possible to have both perceptions in one room, one just needs to change listening distance to toggle between the two. Difference of the two seems to be in auditory system, and how it makes the perception appear. But since my experience on professional rooms is non existent I'm not sure whether it's this particular case I'm confusing with something else. I'd be happy if you have comment on this!

Anyway it's what David Griesinger has been writing and calling Auditory proximity and Limit of localization distance. His work is mainly in concert hall context, but it's in auditory system which we also carry in stereo playback listening, which he also uses to test it in one of his papers. It's about how auditory system works, whether all sound is bundled into one neural stream, or whether an important sound gets promoted into it's own foreground neural stream while all the rest gets into another background neural stream. Change between the two seems to happen at some listening distance from speakers, depending on directivity and room acoustics.

This seems to be quite sudden change perceptually, like on/off switch you can trigger by moving one step, and I think it's key to learn to listen our own auditory system, and key to listen given system and room by using your own auditory system as an AB test tool. This reduce circle of confusion a bit as well identifying our own auditory system makes a difference, at least on comprehending forum threads

I think this transition and how to utilize it is what is missing from your work. You have extensive text about both the "nearfield" (studio) and "farfield"(domestic) perception, but the actual transition between the two is never mentioned I think, perhaps I've missed it.

Finding the transition between the two in any room and setup is something I can root my perception to, and moving myself at the transition enables AB test the early reflections for example, do logic with perception, and quickly evaluate the situation.

Most importantly one learns to indirectly affect auditory system to produce perception one prefer. Both sounds are available at will, just by changing listening distance a bit, so one can enjoy either sound, which ever feels better at any given moment for any given record.

I think it's the perceived difference between studio nearfield sound and typical domestic sound, and speculate both are available almost in any sensible domestic room and speakers. One could put listening chair about at where the perceived transition seems to happen with any given setup, lean back for typical home sound, lean forward for studio nearfield experience.

Very smooth directivity low diffraction speaker enables this quite nicely but I'd say this is possible at any given situation because it's not about speakers or room, but auditory system we all share through evolution.

What do you think about it, does it make any sense to you?

Thank you for your great contribution to audio society, and being out here reachable in public!