The "audio reference" idea and/or music reproduction, what is your opinion?

[amirm]

Wrong. Yes, it may vary between individuals because of how their hearing works, but I have had the confirmation of those who are also listening in the room that the sound from just the two speakers is "doing the job". Step 1, increase the volume so that the reflections from all the surfaces in the room are adding to the mix - if this just makes the sound, well, sound "bad" then the system has flaws which are too obvious. A highly competent system can be pushed to "ridiculous" intensities of sound, in the room, without displaying any audible problems - there will be point where the average energy of the sound will just be too much, psychologically - and you'll start to feel exhausted, the emotional hit has gone on for too long - and you'll need to chill out, for a while ...

Nope. Research shows that the level of reflections you get in domestic listening room is insufficient for feeling of envelopment. See this summary graph for example from Dr. Toole's book:

The solid bold dots on the left are the levels of delay in typical home listening spaces. The spreader bars show the prefered delays/levels by listeners. Since sound travels one millisecond per foot, to have 50 millisecond of delay alone would require a 50 foot reflection path. And then you have to assure the level is high enough and it won't be because the sound pressure level drops a lot across that distance.

Multi-channel solves this problem since the direct sound coming out of the rear/side speakers can be planned (in the music produced) to have those delays electronically.

To the topic of this thread, Dr. Toole writes:

And:

 

[dallasjustice]

Wrong. Yes, . . .there will be point where . .. too much, psychologically - and you'll start to feel exhausted, the emotional hit has gone on for too long - and you'll need to chill out, for a while ...

Are you talking about heroin or music?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, if you take Toole as gospel perhaps ... however, my ears had never heard of Toole and his ideas before hearing envelopment, in the flesh - he didn't have a chance to indocrinate me against dangerous thinking!

Sounds to me that Toole has never ever heard a competent system in full cry - you can only build theories upon what you know at the time ... .

You can build theories on whatever you wish including experience, conjecture, imagination whatever. You then have the opportunity to go and test those theories to see if they hold up. One need not have heard something to develop and test a theory about how a given aspect of sound works.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Ray - agreed totally. But, many audiophiles think nonetheless that their room is doing precisely what it cannot do as Toole states. But, even so, man, if you sit in the huge space of a concert hall and then you sit in your small listening room, isn't that obvious? Some of this, I am sure, goes back to what I call the Bose Fallacy. Dr. Bose promised the sonic envelopment of the concert hall when listening, merely by bouncing much more sound off the walls (8:1) than most speakers do with his 901s. The results were unspectacular if you ask me.

I think the real underlying point is that an understanding of the importance of reflected energy as it affects sound both in the concert hall and in the listening room seems over the heads of most audiophiles today.

 

[amirm]

Well, if you take Toole as gospel perhaps ...

What I showed was psychoacoustics listening test results performed by by two researchers (Ando, Devantier). It is not an opinion to dismiss. To counter it you must have your own controlled listening tests that show otherwise.

however, my ears had never heard of Toole and his ideas before hearing envelopment, in the flesh - he didn't have a chance to indocrinate me against dangerous thinking!

I can't replicate what you heard or think you heard. I can replicate what the researchers did since it is published and peer reviewed work.

Sounds to me that Toole has never ever heard a competent system in full cry - you can only build theories upon what you know at the time ... .

Again, these are characteristics of human perception. It has nothing to do with systems. The research aims to characterize and quantify of effect of reflections which are delayed and lowered in volume direct sounds. Unless you are a different species than the rest of us , you are subject to those rules. No way no how can any stereo system make you feel you are completely enveloped in sound in domestic listening rooms.

 

[fas42]

Are you talking about heroin or music?

Guess! ... with current, highly compressed pop the intensity of the sound is overwhelming; one can only take it in small doses, because it constantly pushes the rev, rev, rev buttons in one's brain - five minutes of this, and you don't want music, any music, for a decent stretch ..

 

[Cosmik]

We seem to be missing any mention of virtual surround sound. Some recordings are already encoded with this. Two channels can provide total immersion. Presumably the effect can be total, or partial.

Under the right conditions, multichannel virtualizers score on two counts. They need only two speakers to create an experience superior to that of standard multispeaker surround systems. (The speakers are placed as they would be for standard stereo, but set flat, parallel to the wall, instead of at an angle.) And they can deliver surround sound to the huge number of consumers that do not have, and are not interested in obtaining, full surround systems.

As virtualizers continue to improve, they should ultimately be heard as on a par with, or even superior to, multispeaker systems.

Famously, Roger Waters' Amused to Death features an early version of this.

Amused To Death was originally mixed using QSound, a virtual surround sound, enhancing the spatial feel of the music along with the various sound effects sprinkled throughout the album.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

We seem to be missing any mention of virtual surround sound. Some recordings are already encoded with this. Two channels can provide total immersion. Presumably the effect can be total, or partial.

Famously, Roger Waters' Amused to Death features an early version of this.

Well, they found it necessary to subsequently remaster and reissue Amused to Death as a normal 5.1 SACD. I have heard it and I was at the Princeton whistlestop on their promotional tour for the new SACD release a few years ago.

I do not think there is any viable or extensive commercial discography using any "virtual surround sound" method delivered via two channels such as what you describe. Also, binaural recodings are extremely rare as are purist coincident pair -Blumlein, Ortf, etc - 2 channel recordings. Then, of course there is the moribund Ambisonics. These attemps at recreating a more realistic sense of space are all commercial flops, just like the failed attempts at Quad from the two-channel LP were in the 70's.

Meanwhile, the commercial discography of discretely recorded Mch discs in 5.1/7.1 on SACD and BD keeps growing. As I mentioned, I have thousands. I am not kidding. There is no longer a need to cut corners trying to shoehorn Mch or recordings with improved spatial accuracy into compromised 2-channel containers. Today's digital technology and media can handle the added discrete channels easily and without compromise. Actually, I have also heard demos of music BDs encoded with 14+ discrete channels of Auro 3D, though not on my own system, of course.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you listen to competent playback, with a blindfold on, in a small room - then you will hear the huge space of a concert hall, if that is what's on the recording. Nothing your ears are picking up, and what the brain has to work on, interpreting that data, is "giving the game away" ... that's how good the illusion can be thrown up.

With high energy, rock sound there is totally immersive "swamping", with complete clarity - blows the typical quality you hear at an outdoor rock concert right out of the water ...

I can do recordings with a pair of mics and get lots of room sound. It does increase a bit of envelopment yes. It doesn't seem capable of envelopment the way good surround can manage. In those systems that have been setup to maximize the effect there is usually a deficit in other desirable qualities.

Now of course you are simply going to say you have heard it otherwise and I must not have heard a good set up.

As for outdoor rock concerts, well there aren't so many reflections are there? The old demos of live musicians vs recorded playback that were successful in fooling people were done with instruments recorded outdoors and playback done outdoors so those pesky reflections aren't part of the deal.

 

[Blumlein 88]

We seem to be missing any mention of virtual surround sound. Some recordings are already encoded with this. Two channels can provide total immersion. Presumably the effect can be total, or partial.

Famously, Roger Waters' Amused to Death features an early version of this.

I have a copy of that CD. It is capable of positioning sound in any location around you. Though it seems only a given sound. I have not had the experience of it providing total immersion in the enveloping sense of space from two channels. It may be capable of that I don't know. It wasn't really used that way in the Amused to Death CD or the other Qsound realease I have heard. I have heard some of the processing that was common on DVD players also place many sounds well beside or behind you with stereo though again not in the way 5 channels can. It also seemed much less accurate at that than Qsound was.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, they found it necessary to subsequently remaster and reissue Amused to Death as a normal 5.1 SACD. I have heard it and I was at the Princeton whistlestop on their promotional tour for the new SACD release a few years ago.

I do not think there is any viable or extensive commercial discography using any "virtual surround sound" method delivered via two channels such as what you describe. Also, binaural recodings are extremely rare as are purist coincident pair -Blumlein, Ortf, etc - 2 channel recordings. Then, of course there is the moribund Ambisonics. These attemps at recreating a more realistic sense of space are all commercial flops, just like the failed attempts at Quad from the two-channel LP were in the 70's.

Meanwhile, the commercial discography of discretely recorded Mch discs in 5.1/7.1 on SACD and BD keeps growing. As I mentioned, I have thousands. I am not kidding. There is no longer a need to cut corners trying to shoehorn Mch or recordings with improved spatial accuracy into compromised 2-channel containers. Today's digital technology and media can handle the added discrete channels easily and without compromise. Actually, I have also heard demos of music BDs encoded with 14+ discrete channels of Auro 3D, though not on my own system, of course.

What did you think of the Auro 3D?

 

[fas42]

Should we buy you this T-shirt for Christmas?

Guess it's about time to throw in something like this, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/ ... there are plenty around, if this variation doesn't turn you on ...

 

[RayDunzl]

On the rare occasions I've been to a show, I don't remember concentrating on anything but what was happening up front, or wishing those around me were a little less exuberant when that was a factor.

I attended one Pink Floyd show which was billed as six-channel, and I saw the speakers arrayed around the top rows of the dome, but was seated so close to the front that the sides and rears didn't seem to contribute anything in particular (Texas Stadium 1988). The front was nothing short of spectacular, though. I did take some time to study the soundboard and lighting controllers and associated equipment that occupied the rear half of a widened flatbed semitrailer on about the 50 yard line. I remember being impressed by the automated aspects of it.

I've also never (ok, very rarely) consciously noticed multichannel recording format options for the pitiful music that tends to interest me. Many of them could be purchased on cassette, though. I think I bought one pre-recorded cassette back in the day.

I spend a lot of time sitting where my right surround would be if I had one, which might also dissuade me a bit. Like right now.

I happen to have the QSound Amused to Death. Studying it once, after reading it had QSound, I didn't notice anything special about it beyond a dog bark or phone ring off to the extreme side. That was months ago, maybe I'll listen again. It's been long enough I have no idea what the tunes on it are. Something tells me they weren't particularly memorable.

Straight stereo sometimes wraps 180 degrees here, though, if the engineers have chosen to apply that phase trick. Typically, I just get an unbounded soundfield (if the recording supports it) located somewhere generally south of the couch, if I close my eyes and let my ears do the looking. It seems to be remarkable enough for me. But then, I'm satisfied with my self-propelled lawnmower. The "self" is me, not it. My next door neighbor Lewis just replaced his old no-push mower, with, you guessed it, a "self" propelled one. "It's easier" he said.

Ray - agreed totally.

Not able to accurately identify the reference... Are you sure?

 

[Don Hills]

Guess it's about time to throw in something like this, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/ ... there are plenty around, if this variation doesn't turn you on ...

That one's irrelevant, it's about predictions. Want to try again? Remember, it's you making the extraordinary claim...

 

[fas42]

Irrelevant? Toole is predicting that 2 channel can never deliver enveloping sound, no matter what you do about it - I say, I got that 30 years ago ...

Doctor says, "You'll never walk again" ... patient says, "No, see what I can do ..." and starts to get out of the bed ... doctor, infuriated, pulls out a gun and shoots the patient in the knee - "I told you what you can't do, boy!!" ...

 

[Sal1950]

I attended one Pink Floyd show which was billed as six-channel, and I saw the speakers arrayed around the top rows of the dome, but was seated so close to the front that the sides and rears didn't seem to contribute anything in particular (Texas Stadium 1988). The front was nothing short of spectacular, though. I did take some time to study the soundboard and lighting controllers and associated equipment that occupied the rear half of a widened flatbed semitrailer on about the 50 yard line. I remember being impressed by the automated aspects of it.

I was lucky enough to see Pink Floyd 3 times over the years with the pinnacle being the 1994 Division Bell Tour. The outdoor setup in Chicago's Soldiers Field was an incredible experience sound wise. The surround channels perched high on the side walls of the stadium was kind of a best case for his arrangement. The surrounds were very active in creating a immersive field though out the stadium. Never so loud that I felt the need for ear protection and I've very fussy about that. Definitely one if not the best concerts I ever heard, and I've been to a lot. A perfect night that will last forever in my memory.
IME even the indoor Floyd events I attended were all the very best as far as sound quality. No other group has ever equaled what they achieved in attention to SQ.

 

[Cosmik]

Well, they found it necessary to subsequently remaster and reissue Amused to Death as a normal 5.1 SACD. I have heard it and I was at the Princeton whistlestop on their promotional tour for the new SACD release a few years ago.

I do not think there is any viable or extensive commercial discography using any "virtual surround sound" method delivered via two channels such as what you describe. Also, binaural recodings are extremely rare as are purist coincident pair -Blumlein, Ortf, etc - 2 channel recordings. Then, of course there is the moribund Ambisonics. These attemps at recreating a more realistic sense of space are all commercial flops, just like the failed attempts at Quad from the two-channel LP were in the 70's.

Meanwhile, the commercial discography of discretely recorded Mch discs in 5.1/7.1 on SACD and BD keeps growing. As I mentioned, I have thousands. I am not kidding. There is no longer a need to cut corners trying to shoehorn Mch or recordings with improved spatial accuracy into compromised 2-channel containers. Today's digital technology and media can handle the added discrete channels easily and without compromise. Actually, I have also heard demos of music BDs encoded with 14+ discrete channels of Auro 3D, though not on my own system, of course.

The essential point being, though, that you don't need to physically recreate acoustics in order to make a person hear those acoustics: all you have to do is make sure that what reaches their two eardrums is the same as they would have experienced at the live event. This can be done in a number of ways e.g. the Smyth Realizer that was mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago.

I don't think binaural recordings are automatically the answer, because the mics are stationary - they don't change if you turn your head. Maybe the only way to do it properly is to synthesise the acoustics from first principles derived from the venue's dimensions and materials, with a head tracker.

Maybe 5.1 surround sound is a perfectly good way of getting close enough, giving a large sweet spot, and no unpleasant side effects. But at the same time, it isn't a literal recreation of what would be heard at the live event, and could well be less precise and clearly defined than the stereo version..?

 

[Thomas savage]

The essential point being, though, that you don't need to physically recreate acoustics in order to make a person hear those acoustics: all you have to do is make sure that what reaches their two eardrums is the same as they would have experienced at the live event. This can be done in a number of ways e.g. the Smyth Realizer that was mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago.

I don't think binaural recordings are automatically the answer, because the mics are stationary - they don't change if you turn your head. Maybe the only way to do it properly is to synthesise the acoustics from first principles derived from the venue's dimensions and materials, with a head tracker.

Maybe 5.1 surround sound is a perfectly good way of getting close enough, giving a large sweet spot, and no unpleasant side effects. But at the same time, it isn't a literal recreation of what would be heard at the live event, and could well be less precise and clearly defined than the stereo version..?

Your focusing far too much on spatial perception and not nearly enough on what's musically relevant in terms of artistic integrity and the shared connection between musician and their audience .

To be in a sound field is a curated environment, it's another art.. It can both add to and subtract from the integrity of the music itself.

What should be far more concerning is the preservation of nuance in the artists expression often obliterated in post production.

This thread is largely a sad indictment of technique over substance, missing the point in the most tragic sense.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

What did you think of the Auro 3D?

Eh. The music was not to my liking, Ozark somebody or other with a symphony orchestra. He is a European pop singer of some note over there. But, the recording was engineered by the Auro guys with the demo set up and run by them over a very decent system.

The sound was immersive in a realistic and non-fatiguing way - good, actually. Maybe it was somewhat better than 5/7.1, although we did not hear that comparison. It seemed to support my overall notion of diminished returns in opening up the 3rd dimension for music. It offers at best only a little added "realism" vs. 5/7.1, unlike what those 2D formats offer vs. stereo. I seriously doubt 3D will become something significant for music in my lifetime, although conceptually it makes sense to me.

I am not salivating to upgrade to 3D. There is little available music or video, even, to justify that.

 

[Thomas savage]

I would add we are falsely separating recording ( the artistically appropriate preservation of the intent of the artist) with the playback chain in the home or in a mobile dynamic .

The two are the same, they should carry the same abjective and indeed share similar attributes.

The whole idea one ( the recording) is only the sum to be replicated is false, as only a capture with inherent integrity is worth faultless reproduction..

What's more likely the case is we as listeners argue and wrestle with the only factor we have a sembilence of control of ( the reproduction) all the while totally ignorant of what's been lost or altered .

We neither the knowladge or understanding to know what's really being captured or indeed what's been lost or artificially enhanced beyond the original artistic intent..

Yet we all wax lyrical on the fundamentals of reproduced music.. A most amusing celebration of ignorance if ever there was one.