What is audio meant to do?

[Guermantes]

They are doing a variation on something I mentioned earlier. They have basically 3 cardioids. They record each separately into the 3 channels. After the fact or during it as well, you can create most of the possible microphone types and directionalities. Back to back cards are an omni if in phase and a figure 8 if out of phase. In fact you can take the output mix it both ways and recombine later for other patterns.

Though teardowns seem to indicate it could it be 4 cardioids: 2 for X/Y and 2 in the Figure 8 capsule.

Though the Zoom website indicates an X/Y + separate M-S configuration. 5 cardioids? Or simply 3 cardioids and 1 Figure 8?

 

[RayDunzl]

I've never heard a recording taken in an anechoic chamber

There are some to try...

Scroll down to the samples: https://research.cs.aalto.fi/acoust...ment-and-analysis/85-anechoic-recordings.html

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2936008

Acoustic Guitar Video

Trumpet (maybe onlly the first few seconds)- https://www.samplemodeling.com/en/products_trumpet.php

Researchers at Aalto University in Finland have developed a method that allows accurate comparisons of concert hall acoustics. - Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-06-method-accurately-concert-hall.html#jCp

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=archengfacpub

Google anechoic recordings

 

[Blumlein 88]

Though teardowns seem to indicate it could it be 4 cardioids: 2 for X/Y and 2 in the Figure 8 capsule.

Though the Zoom website indicates an X/Y + separate M-S configuration. 5 cardioids? Or simply 3 cardioids and 1 Figure 8?

You could do the same thing I described with 4 cards. X/Y and M-S would only need 4 microphones. And if set up right you could synthesize the result with only 3 recorded channels.

 

[Thomas savage]

Carry musical beats of ones choosing that stimulate us in the way we expect and sometimes in ways we don’t .

Also gives those lacking any identity of their own a chance to latch onto ideas that serve to carry them rather than the music.

Though sometimes it’s just used to locate submarines, well that’s what I gather from watching the documentary ‘ hunt for the Red October ‘.

 

[Thomas savage]

The goal is the Absolute Sound of being there.

However, we now understand that is an impossibility with straight stereo. So even the perfect fidelity to a stereo signal won't get the job done.

Of course, there is just put a smile on my face, let me enjoy the music, and make my foot tap. Not very much fidelity at all may accomplish that. Different goal.

The goal is whatever you say it is. And that will always be subjective.

what if the ‘absolute sound’ was compromised acoustically are we then to condemn all those who enjoy the resulting recording the vast majority of whom not witnessing the original event to suffer for the few that want this ‘ absolute sound’?...

I think Faithfull reproduction is a unnecessary self imposed limit that makes no sense as a ambition.

Why not make it ‘better’ , or if there’s limits in mic and recording technology just make it satisfyingly diffrent .

 

[Cosmik]

I think Cosmik meant recorded in an anechoic chamber.

While stereo may have exploded hifi popularity. You can't say the same for multi-channel. I understand your position, and agree. But multi-channel has been met with an overwhelming "who cares" in the mainstream hifi market. It has been that way for a generation. It may grow some, but I think that will be due to VR use rather than music or hifi.

Trying to interest some of the amateur musicians I've recorded in surround recordings has proven futile. Will it matter over headphones? Will my car/suv do surround? I've got a soundbar for the TV, but its not much good for music. I don't have any way to play surround recordings. If we ever do a video we'll do that. So on and so forth. They care very much that you record them in stereo. Multi-channel even when they've heard it and liked it just doesn't gain any traction with them.

Yes, I realise that a single pair of mics doesn't usually cut it when it comes to recording an ensemble, and the earlier points about live ambience versus recorded (not enough information for the listener to 'hear through' the venue) are perfectly reasonable.

Ultimately, a recording is going to be a creative composite of close-up mics, 'ambience' mics, spaced omnis, etc. Envelopment with surround channels can even be added later through creative production methods.

The dream of the 'sonic hologram' captured with a single mic cluster and played over speakers is not here.

If there's one interesting thing from Blumlein, though, it is that the humble pan pot is the correct way to place a mono source's L-R position over stereo speakers.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I think Cosmik meant recorded in an anechoic chamber.

While stereo may have exploded hifi popularity. You can't say the same for multi-channel. I understand your position, and agree. But multi-channel has been met with an overwhelming "who cares" in the mainstream hifi market. It has been that way for a generation. It may grow some, but I think that will be due to VR use rather than music or hifi.

Trying to interest some of the amateur musicians I've recorded in surround recordings has proven futile. Will it matter over headphones? Will my car/suv do surround? I've got a soundbar for the TV, but its not much good for music. I don't have any way to play surround recordings. If we ever do a video we'll do that. So on and so forth. They care very much that you record them in stereo. Multi-channel even when they've heard it and liked it just doesn't gain any traction with them.

I don't disagree that Mch is a tiny niche in the traditional "hi fi" market, meaning for music listening. But, you are ignoring the "home theater" market, and my impression is that it dwarfs the hi fi market. Yes, of course the mass HT market is dominated by relatively inexpensive stereo soundbars. But, if you look at high volume electronics marketers, like Best Buy, Crutchfield, etc., you will find tons more AVRs and AVprepros dominating the shelf space or web catalog, with hardly any plain stereo gear in sight. Also, many, though not all, formerly stereo-only hi end boutiques have shifted gears and devoted much demo space to Mch home theater along with their declining investment in hi end stereo. There are countless barometers of that among dealerships in my home town area, and specialist hi fi only shops are almost non-existent.

This is not new, and it has been going on for well over a decade, more or less coincident with the rise of Bluray and universal players. Also, CES, which used to have some balance between hi end audio and video/home theater is now totally dominated by the latter. And, increasing numbers of HT buyers use their systems as multimedia systems for music too, as I do, though most probably still listen to music in stereo, unlike me. Equipment-wise, however, Mch audio will survive and continue to prosper on the coattails of HT.

There is also no secret about the fact that Mch is not well represented at all among popular music releases. Pop music production and engineering are pretty much locked into a stereo-centric paradigm, starting with multitrack recording of individual performers artfully mixed in dead studios. I foresee little change to that in the near future. Mch, like Blumlein or other techniques focused on more accurate spatial imaging, have little to no benefit for pop music as we know it.

So, yeah, Mch music is a tiny niche, largely within the small classical music niche and almost entirely ignored by the hi end audio press, except for Kal, of course. But, all that has nothing to do with reproduction quality. It is almost a miracle that the niche of Mch music even survives, but survive it does. New Mch releases keep coming from the few dozen small, mainly European labels dedicated to top quality classical music production. Mass popularity is not their objective, otherwise they would not be recording classical music at all.

Let's also not forget that we now live in a globalized, internet connected world. Specialized market niches can survive and prosper in this economic climate, unlike the difficult days when most everything had to come from local brick and mortar stores.

I don't mind being in a niche. The water is fine over here. I have collected more Mch music recordings in 10 years than I ever did on LP and CD combined in the many decades before - thousands. And, the sound is easily the best and most satisfying of my decades-long wanderings in the wilderness of audio.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't disagree, but sometimes living in a niche blinds you to bigger realities. One thing that is a bigger reality is with internet connectedness and the ability with modern digital products to make many variations for many needs a niche doesn't have to be very large to be viable. It can work at markets so small they would never have survived in years past. Good for us. Not always the most cost efficient, but good otherwise.

But there is also this remark:

I asked Sonos product manager Tom Cullen what he thought about the future of the home theater receiver, and he replied very bluntly, “the receiver business is history.” Cullen went on to explain his point, saying that the AV receiver is too complicated, uses too much power, is poorly designed and costs too much money (remember, the Sonos PlayBar costs $700). Why does he say this? Because the PlayBar “plays everything, is easy to control,” and sounds great (paraphrased). The guiding principle of the digital age, he says, is simplicity managing abundance.

Simplicity managing abundance...............that seems about right.

Soundbars look like the big winner from the statistics below.
With most current TVs and Bluray players they manage sources from all over the world, and locally most simply. A category not shown below, but one likely to grow is the smart connected speaker like the Apple thing, google thing and FireTV things.

Now quality systems are never mainstream. And of necessity somewhat more complex. Though even there simplicity managing abundance in a relative sense guides where and what type of satisfying and successful products will be found. And mainstream markets for content are not a tail wagging the dog situation. The niches have to make use of what is available under market conditions from the mainstream mostly.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/688675/us-home-theater-audio-market-by-category/

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I don't disagree, but sometimes living in a niche blinds you to bigger realities. One thing that is a bigger reality is with internet connectedness and the ability with modern digital products to make many variations for many needs a niche doesn't have to be very large to be viable. It can work at markets so small they would never have survived in years past. Good for us. Not always the most cost efficient, but good otherwise.

But there is also this remark:

I asked Sonos product manager Tom Cullen what he thought about the future of the home theater receiver, and he replied very bluntly, “the receiver business is history.” Cullen went on to explain his point, saying that the AV receiver is too complicated, uses too much power, is poorly designed and costs too much money (remember, the Sonos PlayBar costs $700). Why does he say this? Because the PlayBar “plays everything, is easy to control,” and sounds great (paraphrased). The guiding principle of the digital age, he says, is simplicity managing abundance.

Simplicity managing abundance...............that seems about right.

Soundbars look like the big winner from the statistics below.
With most current TVs and Bluray players they manage sources from all over the world, and locally most simply. A category not shown below, but one likely to grow is the smart connected speaker like the Apple thing, google thing and FireTV things.

Now quality systems are never mainstream. And of necessity somewhat more complex. Though even there simplicity managing abundance in a relative sense guides where and what type of satisfying and successful products will be found. And mainstream markets for content are not a tail wagging the dog situation. The niches have to make use of what is available under market conditions from the mainstream mostly.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/688675/us-home-theater-audio-market-by-category/

View attachment 14618

There is no disputing the popularity of soundbars on the basis of cost and simplicity. I have one myself which adequately serves to deliver halfway decent sound for watching my bedroom TV, certainly much better than the TV's atrocious builtin speakers. It is an Andrew Jones designed Pioneer costing under $400. But, I don't watch Blurays there, although I could, however I strongly prefer the audio/video quality of my main system.

Tom Cullen's opinion about soundbars is marketing speak, since that is the only market segment he serves. The Sony's, Yamaha's, Pioneer's, etc. all make sound bars, but they also make AVRs and AVseparates in most cases and have been doing so with no signs of withdrawing from those market segments.

I do agree with him that AVRs and prepros are much too complex for the average Joe, however, even if Best Buy's Geek Squad installs them. But, plenty of audiophiles have no problem doing a self install.

But, really, if the question is "what is audio meant to do?", one could read your post as suggesting the answer is just to become most popular in the mass market. As we know, concerns about maximum audio quality are not widely held, so they are not mass market issues. Only a minority of us is concerned, so we ourselves, including everyone in this thread, represent just a niche, actually several identifiable audio niches. And, the niches, large and small, add up to the total audio market. We here and most "audiophiles" are not much concerned about people listening to MP3's via ear buds because we know it is not the path to higher audio fidelity, fringe players though we may be.

 

[Cosmik]

Listening intently without the accompanying visuals is, if you think about it, a slightly odd thing to do. As such, straight audio is usually more of a 'lifestyle' thing - some added atmosphere to a nice living room, where listening intently is perfectly OK, but from which you can at any time drop out and make a cup of tea, etc.

Much more odd, is having a special chamber with a hot seat in the middle of it where you go to listen intently and without any other 'excuse'. Recreating a concert's audio but nothing else, and being strapped into a seat to experience it is something that a tiny, tiny fraction of the population is ever going to be interested in.

 

[Sal1950]

It's been the same old story since the introduction of stereo, the Joe's that have the enthusiasm and the "wife acceptance factor". The "regular Joe's" we speak of are for the big majority, blue collar guys of modest means. They have a small 2000 sq ft home with a living room and maybe a family room in the basement who's space must be shared with the family (read wife). Getting just a stereo pair in a room with proper positioning to create a soundstage at the listening chair was a major feat the rarely was accomplished in the long term. More times than not, Joe would come home one day to find one speaker next to the chair and the other somewhere else in the room, both functioning as end tables.
I had hope that the home theater craze would widen the market for installs that would also stir interest in multch music playback.
Enter the soundbar, and Joe's wife that says, "they sound beautiful, isn't that good enough?", and so much for Joe's 5.1 home theater.
Mainly we end up with a very niche market that consists of crazy single guys like me do what the want, or the more affluent guys with very large homes. They walk into a high end dealer and contract the installation of a $500k build. LOL

An exaggeration but a pretty close overview of why the real hi fi market has remained so small. For whatever reasons we saw a explosion of interest in good sound in the home from around 1960-1990 that will never be seen again. Interested in today's High End audio?, Pick up this months Stereophile. The cover picture and story is about Apple's Homepod Speaker, THAT is the future of High Fidelity.

 

[sergeauckland]

A 2000sq ft home would be considered pretty large here in the UK, where many homes are well under 1000 sq ft, and flats are around the 500 mark.

However, everything you said about soundbars or the homepod apply here in spades!

S

 

[RayDunzl]

Above chart:

Home Theater Audio (I could read that as multichannel for the masses) had a very significant decline in sales.

Due to saturation or don't caredness or spent too much on SmartPhones, can't say. I have a tablet and smartphone, both refurbs, both with "free" service from FreedomPop (200 minutes, 0.5G mobile data - since most use is on WiFi, it works for me).

Listening intently without the accompanying visuals is, if you think about it, a slightly odd thing to do. As such, straight audio is usually more of a 'lifestyle' thing - some added atmosphere to a nice living room, where listening intently is perfectly OK, but from which you can at any time drop out and make a cup of tea, etc.

That's me!

The "without visuals" part lets my imagination roam more freely. Movies will suck me in, audio only leaves me free to type stupid stuff (like now)

When I reach the edge of sleep (late on Audio Buddy Beer Saturday, it happens), with the music being the only remaining barely conscious activity in my brain, it's nice. In those cases I can judge the quality of the sound/song by how long it takes me to realize it has stopped at the end (no, I don't play endless streams, that's the job for the radio DJ).

Much more odd, is having a special chamber with a hot seat in the middle of it where you go to listen intently and without any other 'excuse'. Recreating a concert's audio but nothing else, and being strapped into a seat to experience it is something that a tiny, tiny fraction of the population is ever going to be interested in.

I visited a (literally) single seat room recently, I think I prefer multi use, even if heavily tilted toward audio. I've never dreamed of having a dedicated theater room, either. Having both or all three would be ok.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It's been the same old story since the introduction of stereo, the Joe's that have the enthusiasm and the "wife acceptance factor". The "regular Joe's" we speak of are for the big majority, blue collar guys of modest means. They have a small 2000 sq ft home with a living room and maybe a family room in the basement who's space must be shared with the family (read wife). Getting just a stereo pair in a room with proper positioning to create a soundstage at the listening chair was a major feat the rarely was accomplished in the long term. More times than not, Joe would come home one day to find one speaker next to the chair and the other somewhere else in the room, both functioning as end tables.
I had hope that the home theater craze would widen the market for installs that would also stir interest in multch music playback.
Enter the soundbar, and Joe's wife that says, "they sound beautiful, isn't that good enough?", and so much for Joe's 5.1 home theater.
Mainly we end up with a very niche market that consists of crazy single guys like me do what the want, or the more affluent guys with very large homes. They walk into a high end dealer and contract the installation of a $500k build. LOL

An exaggeration but a pretty close overview of why the real hi fi market has remained so small. For whatever reasons we saw a explosion of interest in good sound in the home from around 1960-1990 that will never be seen again. Interested in today's High End audio?, Pick up this months Stereophile. The cover picture and story is about Apple's Homepod Speaker, THAT is the future of High Fidelity.

One of the best posts in the thread.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Listening intently without the accompanying visuals is, if you think about it, a slightly odd thing to do. As such, straight audio is usually more of a 'lifestyle' thing - some added atmosphere to a nice living room, where listening intently is perfectly OK, but from which you can at any time drop out and make a cup of tea, etc.

Much more odd, is having a special chamber with a hot seat in the middle of it where you go to listen intently and without any other 'excuse'. Recreating a concert's audio but nothing else, and being strapped into a seat to experience it is something that a tiny, tiny fraction of the population is ever going to be interested in.

Yes, yes. Except, listening intently to recorded music without video is part of my DNA, as I discovered even pre-teen from '78's or AM radio on neighbor's systems. Now, I even do it with accompanying video on occasion. I have been hooked forever. I am a junkie and a nutcase. Fortunately, my spouses have been forebearant.

I even bought new homes at huge expense just so that I could have that special, isolatable room to indulge my evil habits. I think I am beyond redemption, and I have spent huge sums on the equipment to feed my habit. But, the love for the exquisite music is what really draws me in, and it holds me. My mind stays focused on it against all distractions. In college even, I learned that I could not listen to music and do homework at the same time.

Others are avidly seeking that deep immersion today via headphones. I did that too way back in high school and college. Fortunately, I can indulge myself and my primal instincts via speakers in a room with HiDef TV whenever I want without the annoying headphones.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A 2000sq ft home would be considered pretty large here in the UK, where many homes are well under 1000 sq ft, and flats are around the 500 mark.

However, everything you said about soundbars or the homepod apply here in spades!

S

In the US many areas have zoning rules with a minimum house size of 1000 or 1200 square feet. I have a friend who built himself a new 320 square foot home last year. It is very nice, but very basic minimal. He lives in an area that is rural or he wouldn't have been given a building permit for it. He's divorced and his children are grown. He is someone who spends most time in other outdoor activities when not working. So this is fine for him. It has a small heat pump and his electrical bills are $15-25 per month depending upon how hot or cold it has been.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snippage

But, really, if the question is "what is audio meant to do?", one could read your post as suggesting the answer is just to become most popular in the mass market. As we know, concerns about maximum audio quality are not widely held, so they are not mass market issues. Only a minority of us is concerned, so we ourselves, including everyone in this thread, represent just a niche, actually several identifiable audio niches. And, the niches, large and small, add up to the total audio market. We here and most "audiophiles" are not much concerned about people listening to MP3's via ear buds because we know it is not the path to higher audio fidelity, fringe players though we may be.

No read my post carefully, and I make sure it is clear I am not saying audio is meant to become most popular. I am saying some level of popularity will heavily influence what is available even in niches. And the most popular approaches influence that the most.

 

[andreasmaaan]

If done properly, and I would assume Boyk and CalTech students know how, the click would be an impulse with all frequencies. Or all that the speaker could reproduce. Some room correction devices use clicks to measure speaker frequency response. They sound like short little high frequency clicks or pops, but have all frequencies.

As to our hearing getting directional info slower at low frequencies I don't think it works that way. At frequencies below 1500 hz or so the signal from the ear recreates the waveform to some extent, and above that it does something like a band analysis rather than sending the brain the waveform itself. Our acuity for timing differences is better below 1500 hz. At higher frequencies we don't hear them for the most part.

Other tests using musicians have been done and similar results are obtained in positional accuracy of various microphone techniques.

Yeh, I wish I could remember the research I was reading to properly answer this. The research I was referring to found that we take longer to recognise lower frequency sine waves due to our brains requiring a certain number of cycles to pass before we can identify a tone (and ofc, this takes longer, the lower the wavelength).

So it makes perfect sense to me that we would identify transients containing full-range content primarily by interaural amplitude differences.

But for held tones (or combinations of tones or noise), especially where the main content is lower in frequency, it would make sense to me that interaural phase differences would play a greater role.

Indeed, this appears to be easily demonstrable in practice by anyone who's tried wiring one of their stereo channels in reverse polarity: the lower frequency content appears more skewed to one channel than the higher frequency content with music, and even more so with noise.

So anyway, it's no surprise to me that a test involving only transient signals (even if these were full-range) favoured the recording method with the greatest emphasis on interaural amplitude differences.

I would prefer to see results of the same test run using held sine waves, noise of various different frequency contents, and/or recordings of real voices and instruments, before drawing too absolute a conclusion from the outcome.

 

[Cosmik]

Yeh, I wish I could remember the research I was reading to properly answer this. The research I was referring to found that we take longer to recognise lower frequency sine waves due to our brains requiring a certain number of cycles to pass before we can identify a tone (and ofc, this takes longer, the lower the wavelength).

So it makes perfect sense to me that we would identify transients containing full-range content primarily by interaural amplitude differences.

But for held tones (or combinations of tones or noise), especially where the main content is lower in frequency, it would make sense to me that interaural phase differences would play a greater role.

Indeed, this appears to be easily demonstrable in practice by anyone who's tried wiring one of their stereo channels in reverse polarity: the lower frequency content appears more skewed to one channel than the higher frequency content with music, and even more so with noise.

So anyway, it's no surprise to me that a test involving only transient signals (even if these were full-range) favoured the recording method with the greatest emphasis on interaural amplitude differences.

I would prefer to see results of the same test run using held sine waves, noise of various different frequency contents, and/or recordings of real voices and instruments, before drawing too absolute a conclusion from the outcome.

I don't think it is flawed as that: stereo imaging from speakers doesn't float around dependent on the frequency content. You might try to make a case that the brain 'latches on' to some content and from then on places the source from that point, but I don't think it is as fragile as that - you will always hear it from the same place wherever in the recording you start.

The thing about Blumlein-style stereo (e.g. pan pot) over speakers - which I intend to investigate further - is that the crosstalk combined with the direct sound for each ear combines to give an actual, physical time-of-arrival difference that is far stronger in effect than a vague volume difference.

Edit: This says it better than I can:

The interaction of the signals from both speakers arriving at each ear results in the creation of a new composite signal, which is identical in wave shape but shifted in time. The time‑shift is towards the louder sound and creates a 'fake' time‑of‑arrival difference between the ears, so the listener interprets the information as coming from a sound source at a specific bearing....

It is not saying that a volume difference is interpreted as a direction, but that the volume difference creates an actual, physical time-of-arrival difference at the listener's ears. The icing on the cake would be if that difference was more-or-less stable with head movement and/or the listener getting up and walking around - in the right way i.e. the source seeming to stay at a fixed place in space even when the listener turns their head.

 

[sergeauckland]

Meridian did something like this with their DSP loudspeakers many years ago. I had DSP5000s for many years, and the balance control didn't affect volume, it was a digital delay which affected the arrival time at the listener, and so slewed the image centre towards the loudspeaker that was acoustically nearer in arrival time terms.

S.