|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 29, 2019 10:46:13 GMT 10
@david, I guess my point about LSD was that, through it's mimicking of some neurotransmitter chemicals (serotonin?), it effectively amplifies the synaptic responses - this could be seen as a change in the normal perceptual filtering system we use on a daily basis. These "normal filters" have been amplified & pruned through our everyday experience & exposure - becoming more set as we get older. In some ways these hallucinogens seem to reinvigorate the neuronal pathways that have been in abeyance since the "filtering" has been established throughout our development.
Yes but touted therapeutic use of psychedelics is not new. As aforementioned Leary championed LSD and other hallucinogens in the 60s as a legitimate form of "mind expansion". Yes, mystical and spiritual but at least implying neuroplastic phenomena. If one hypothesizes an effect due to serotonergic or other neurotransmitter mechanism it has to be considered that there are safer and less prone to abuse conventional medications available that act on these pathways. The advent of SSRIs and SNRIs affecting serotonin and serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake have much better documented efficacy and side effect profiles.
Central nervous sytem modulation continues in later life, both amplification and suppression and affects the hard wiring in both spinal cord and brain. Perceptual narrowing and broadening are terms generally reserved for the early years of life so I would avoid them in the usual context that we are talking about.Notwithstanding people have also used such terms referring to the effects of attention and concentration in adults resulting in "perceptual narrowing".....focus - nothing to do with developmental or other neuroplasticity concepts. It is an interesting theory that psychedelics may reinvigorate developmental perceptual pathways but to my mind just a theory.
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 11:06:01 GMT 10
I have a workmate who did a bit of drugs in the 80's and 90's and who is into music (not an Audiophile though - good for him). He maintains that you can't fully enjoy music unless you are under the influence of certain psychotropic drugs. He has commented that it removes "barriers" to enjoyment. I guess that might explain some of the link between drug taking and the music industry. Note, I said "some"
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 29, 2019 18:58:07 GMT 10
@david, I guess my point about LSD was that, through it's mimicking of some neurotransmitter chemicals (serotonin?), it effectively amplifies the synaptic responses - this could be seen as a change in the normal perceptual filtering system we use on a daily basis. These "normal filters" have been amplified & pruned through our everyday experience & exposure - becoming more set as we get older. In some ways these hallucinogens seem to reinvigorate the neuronal pathways that have been in abeyance since the "filtering" has been established throughout our development.
Yes but touted therapeutic use of psychedelics is not new. As aforementioned Leary championed LSD and other hallucinogens in the 60s as a legitimate form of "mind expansion". Yes, mystical and spiritual but at least implying neuroplastic phenomena. If one hypothesizes an effect due to serotonergic or other neurotransmitter mechanism it has to be considered that there are safer and less prone to abuse conventional medications available that act on these pathways. The advent of SSRIs and SNRIs affecting serotonin and serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake have much better documented efficacy and side effect profiles.
Central nervous sytem modulation continues in later life, both amplification and suppression and affects the hard wiring in both spinal cord and brain. Perceptual narrowing and broadening are terms generally reserved for the early years of life so I would avoid them in the usual context that we are talking about.Notwithstanding people have also used such terms referring to the effects of attention and concentration in adults resulting in "perceptual narrowing".....focus - nothing to do with developmental or other neuroplasticity concepts. It is an interesting theory that psychedelics may reinvigorate developmental perceptual pathways but to my mind just a theory.
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong Yes, it's just a theory, an interesting thought (to my mind), a discussion point. You have more experience & knowledge in this area than I & I take your point that there are safer & more directed chemical intervention to achieve the something similar. I have no experience of these so can only ruminate about what I have experience of from my past.
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Aug 29, 2019 20:00:22 GMT 10
Right & to take this further, I believe that the difference between a very good audio playback system & good playback system is about this ability to relax into the music without distraction. What I mean is that there are flaws in audio reproduction which aren't yet being measured correctly but yet our auditory perception is picking them up subconsciously & these flaws cause us to expend more energy in trying to make sense of the auditory scene (see Auditory Scene Analysis thread). We sense this when a system plays all the notes in the correct order but is somehow flat & doesn't hold our attention in the same way as a very good system does I'm definitely with you on that. Most notable when used to listening to a certain recording of familiar music or simply via a system of certain quality and to then listen to a lesser recording of the same peice or on a less capable system. The sound will be dull, flat, uninvolving or worse still, scratchy and nasty.
Although our little noggins have a very short memory for actual differences in sound quality they do remember detail heard, general tone and 3D effects of the soundstage, thence our enjoyment level.
I was also aware of Davids point of music used medically, "Music hath charms to soothe the savage beast.", although only a literary quote bares truth in medicine for part of a treatment regime of mental illnesses, whether they manifest as mental or physical abnormalities/disabilities, working as either stimuli or blockers.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 29, 2019 21:18:12 GMT 10
cj66, I'm of the opinion that we have reached a stage in our audio devices where by & large they most have no significant amplitude or frequency issues as seen on measurements and it's correct that most systems that are designed to these metrics probably mostly sound the same but IMO we want more from our audio playback then all the note sin the right place - we want our systems to provide an illusion which is more realistic. This is a difficult area to talk about as we are talking about a couple of different art forms whose ultimate goal is to provide an auditory representation of the agreed approach between performers & recording engineer. So it's not usually a simple recording, using a single microphone, of a performance in a room, in real time - it has many different approaches with microphone configurations, multiple recordings & mixing possibilities to achieve a particular result. We don't have the same room or speakers or playback equipment as is used in the final mix so we can never be sure what the final mix should sound like. We are playing back this recording in a different room, using different speakers & playback system which Toole refers to as the "cone of confusion". Where I find clarity in this confusion is by falling back on ASA & our innate ability to judge what sounds are realistic. Realism is not a binary thing in auditory perception - something sounds more real (according to the way I understand ASA) when it ticks more of the expected attributes that we have learned represent how sounds behave in the real world. To take an exaggerated example, if we play back in reverse the sound of a bell being struck, we perceive it is not the way that the sound behaviour of bells in the real world - all the frequencies are the same, just the sound envelope is reversed - that attack is at the end & the decay is at the beginning of the sound - we may not even recognise it as a bell?. So the sound envelopes are the defining characteristics of sounds & in music it probably becomes more complicated & how sound envelopes relate & maintain their relationship over time become factors in how realistic we find the sound. So my thinking is that we have all this internal library of models/rules/etc for the world of sound. Now here's where I believe our playback systems can work at a higher level, providing more realism to the played back sound. If all these internal relationships are stable & correctly maintained, then more realism results. On the other side of this, if there are instabilities in these factors then our processing system tries to resolve these incongruous aspects & we are less relaxed. All this is happening below consciousness & one of the main indicators of this is that we are not interested in listening to music over a longer period - it is not as relaxing as we know it to be in real life. We don't need long-term memories to know when some systems allow us to relax more into the music & makes it more realistic compared to other systems. I also find the better reproduction systems provide more pleasure in listening to the same tracks. I recently tried a very well measuring DAC & all seemed to sound fine. But when listening to a track I know well & I compared it to what I recognise as a better sounding DAC, I noticed that the tremelo in a female singers note holding was just more realistic through the better DAC - hard to put my finger on it exactly but it seemed the better DAC had a clarity, the sound of a real singing voice - the other DAC seemed to have this too but not to the same degree of clarity. As I said difficult to put my finger on it exactly but it did effect the whole enjoyment of the track
|
|
STC
Junior Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by STC on Aug 29, 2019 23:14:35 GMT 10
IMO we want more from our audio playback then all the note sin the right place - we want our systems to provide an illusion which is more realistic. This is a difficult area to talk about as we are talking about a couple of different art forms whose ultimate goal is to provide an auditory representation of the agreed approach between performers & recording engineer. So it's not usually a simple recording, using a single microphone, of a performance in a room, in real time - it has many different approaches with microphone configurations, multiple recordings & mixing possibilities to achieve a particular result. We don't have the same room or speakers or playback equipment as is used in the final mix so we can never be sure what the final mix should sound like. We are playing back this recording in a different room, using different speakers & playback system which Toole refers to as the "cone of confusion". Hello all, I am ST and this my first post. My interest is 3D audio. Just my two cents on the above quote. The definition of realistic sound ( I am confining to musical reproduction) is different from real sound in nature. Stereo creates phantom images. Phantom is an illusion to trick us to believe a non existent source between the two speakers. We can continue to design, buy new equipment or record them in hirez but the sound will never be natural. To most of the audiophiles they may perceive it to be the exact replica of the real event but if you do side by side comparison then you would immediately able to tell the difference. This is hard to explain because we have grown and familiarize with stereophonic sound that so much so that we accept them as real. A good example is headphones listening. The very first time you used them you would have felt disoriented as the sound emerges inside the head. As we get used to it we now feel them to be natural and accurate. For a sound to be real, it should match with the natural cues of spatial hearing. As long as any one cue is missing a recording no matter accurate it will always be "incorrect" to the brain. Btw, Toole call it circle of confusion.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 29, 2019 23:40:44 GMT 10
Hello all, I am ST and this my first post. My interest is 3D audio. Just my two cents on the above quote. The definition of realistic sound ( I am confining to musical reproduction) is different from real sound in nature. Stereo creates phantom images. Phantom is an illusion to trick us to believe a non existent source between the two speakers. We can continue to design, buy new equipment or record them in hirez but the sound will never be natural. To most of the audiophiles they may perceive it to be the exact replica of the real event but if you do side by side comparison then you would immediately able to tell the difference. This is hard to explain because we have grown and familiarize with stereophonic sound that so much so that we accept them as real. A good example is headphones listening. The very first time you used them you would have felt disoriented as the sound emerges inside the head. As we get used to it we now feel them to be natural and accurate. For a sound to be real, it should match with the natural cues of spatial hearing. As long as any one cue is missing a recording no matter accurate it will always be "incorrect" to the brain. Btw, Toole call it circle of confusion. Welcome ST & glad you posted this as it helps to clarify things Yes, I agree & have stated as much - stereo is an illusion - a piece of art But illusions can be more or less realistic & what I was talking about in my example was the sound of a female singer's voice on a particular track - the differences between two different DACs in how her holding of a note is more realistic through one DAC than another - there's a small but natural vibrato in her voice that one DAC seems to realistically portray & the 'lesser' DAC seems to somewhat curtail. So even before we get to 3D audio, soundstage & the limitations of 2 channel stereo, I'm talking about the portrayal of individual sounds & how realistic this is. Thanks for the correction about Toole's phrase - yes, "circle of confusion" rather than "cone of confusion" - I think I was mixing it up with Get Smart's "cone of silence"
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 30, 2019 12:51:36 GMT 10
I think what we can all agree upon is that playback of recorded sound tends to be a facsimile of the real thing. The real thing has a startling and mesmerising characteristic that we instantly perceive as real. When listening to a playback system we can suspend disbelief at times and certainly the illusion of a real performance can create magic moments. For me that is when the system which includes the room in the gear and everything else gets out of the way and you can be totally immersed in the music. Everything is in the service of the music. This doesn't mean music cannot be enjoyed over a transistor radio. The lure of this hobby for many however is the heightened pleasure that music can bring with a more realistic rendering. I should put aside discussion here of "better than real", synthesised sounds and heavily processed studio produced sounds which are an art form all in themselves, but not really what I'm talking about. It is my belief that there are probably many different ways of achieving more realistic sound. I submit that today's best Stereophonics sound has come such a lot closer to that being there experience. If your system is good enough you can experience this if the recording is good enough and in turn the processing and mastering is done well. 90% of the game is in the recording in my opinion and 10% in the playback which also has to be of exemplary standards. Very probably Barry bdiament won't like me dragging him into this but his recordings on a good playback system is about as close as you're going to get to the real thing that we have today. The illusion at times is frighteningly close. Now there are those that believe getting your playback system well-organised and in synergy is the ticket to realism and Frank fas42 certainly appears to argue along these lines. Some will argue that surround sound is the ticket. Some are invested in clean power and less jitter Others suggest an approach that better integrates known psychoacoustics and the perceptual cues that underpin the brain's ability to recognise sounds. I think this in itself is multifactorial. Yes, I agree with John jkenny that ASA probably has a role to play. I am also aware that STC STC is a great advocate of ambiophonics and the psychoacoustics research behind it. No doubt there are cues yet undiscovered. My take is that at the end of the day music is a multisensory perception involving different modalities, cross modal sensory perception, and the interplay of different areas in the brain, way beyond just auditory areas, and triggered by a myriad of cues that cannot be distilled into one simple solution. I think it is worthwhile to explore all possibilities rather than championing any one approach. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong
|
|
STC
Junior Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by STC on Aug 30, 2019 13:36:34 GMT 10
Welcome ST & glad you posted this as it helps to clarify things. ..... So even before we get to 3D audio, soundstage & the limitations of 2 channel stereo, I'm talking about the portrayal of individual sounds & how realistic this is. Thanks for the welcome. STC is a great advocate of ambiophonics and the psychoacoustics research behind it. No doubt there are cues yet undiscovered. My take is that at the end of the day music is a multisensory perception involving different modalities, cross modal sensory perception, and the interplay of different areas in the brain, way beyond just auditory areas, and triggered by a myriad of cues that cannot be distilled into one simple solution. I think it is worthwhile to explore all possibilities rather than championing any one approach. I may have caused some confusion when I used "3D" in my post. My reference to 3D is to redefine the sound from any source to be received as how stereo intended to reproduce them so that the brain would recognize them as being natural.This is about reproducing the sound exactly as how the microphones heard them so that all the cues are received by the respective ears are as accurate as possible. In stereo the left channel is meant for the left ear and the right channel is meant for the right ear. Stereo microphones receive the left side to one channel and the right right side to the other. However, when you play them over loudspeakers this isolation is corrupted and it can no longer preserve the fidelity of the original sound captured as you will always be hearing a mirage image of the original sound delayed by a constant 250 microseconds causing smearing and distortion of localization. Unless you can do A/B then you wouldn't know about the missing information as we are good at filling in missing cues and substitute information based on prior knowledge. Basically, there are no cues to be discovered. Stereo recordings already got the cues. It is about reproducing a stereo recording to sound like listening to headphones without having the internalization effect of the headphones sound. So basically, it is the sound of headphones but the stage is in front of you. You get the same expansive stage like the headphones, better separation (which improves clarity) and depth than the typical stereo replay. Nothing to do with other aspects of the recordings. Ambiophonics is about making the stereo to sound like headphones minus the short comings of the headphones. I think I am already going OT so I shall stop here.
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 30, 2019 14:56:45 GMT 10
Basically, there are no cues to be discovered. Stereo recordings already got the cues. It is about reproducing a stereo recording to sound like listening to headphones without having the internalization effect of the headphones sound. So basically, it is the sound of headphones but the stage is in front of you. You get the same expansive stage like the headphones, better separation (which improves clarity) and depth than the typical stereo replay. Nothing to do with other aspects of the recordings. Ambiophonics is about making the stereo to sound like headphones minus the short comings of the headphones. I think I am already going OT so I shall stop here. Hi ST
Let me start off by saying I don't always need to understand stuff (as in the universe does not owe me an explanation) and secondly I have not tried ambiophonics, so trying to remain open minded.
I get that in real life auditory objects or scenes (fitting in an ASA reference ) come to us from a localized source. We localize that source with a number of amplitude and frequency cues with HRTF etc. Moving our head around slightly augments this localization.
The stereo reproduction comes from left and right channels and two sound sources ie speakers deliver their respective halves and resulting sound waves blend to create an illusion of an image and stage.
The whole premise (only as I have thus far grasped, not claiming a definitive statement on the matter) of ambiophonics would appear to be that this combining of sound sources causes distortions and specifically due to interaural crosstalk.That the sound from the left speaker should only be heard by the left ear and the sound from the right speaker should only be heard by the right ear.
So, solution is to move the speakers closer together and either place a) place a physical barrier up the middle, extending like a wall or baffle between the speakers all the way up to your face, thus no crosstalk or,b) run a DSP program to eliminate crosstalk. The latter is done by phase inverting the left channel and feeding it into the right channel and vice versa.
I don't get the whole cross talk thing. I do get it on the recording side ie channel separation but not once sound waves are generated in the room. I would have thought engineers are already savvy to this and for example can already produce a very good soundstage and imaging. Yes it will vary depending on the directivity of the speakers and the reflectivity of the listening environment as to whether you get a huge central image stuck in the middle of the speakers or whether you get a smaller image that moves as you move left and right. Point being it can be manipulated.
Secondly, ambiophonics would seem (again never tried, so speculation only) to be a form of spatial enhancement, localization cues similar to in some ways (maybe??) ASA cues for locating and decomposing objects out of a scene.This might have benefits in producing more realistic sound in some way/s but I would imagine only part of the story.
My other prejudice here is a distrust of DSP. I cannot think of an instance that in my hands the result has been to my liking. Obvious answer, I am inept....but just saying.
There was IIRC somewhere a VST plugin for JRiver to try ambiophonics. ST do you have particulars and cost?
Thanks mate Cheers David
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 30, 2019 16:38:05 GMT 10
Toole's Circle of confusion so called: That we use speakers to assess recordings and recordings to assess speakers
The real circle of confusion relates to a photographic lens and the circle where light rays don't focus precisely on one point ( hence a circular area rather than a sharp point) and gives an indication of depth of field
Aural Cone of Confusion relates to a cone shape along the interaural axis where interaural cues cannot be differentiated from left and right ears,so you cannot localize sound
The most important of all is the Cone of Silence
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong
|
|
STC
Junior Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by STC on Aug 30, 2019 17:13:15 GMT 10
Basically, there are no cues to be discovered. Stereo recordings already got the cues. It is about reproducing a stereo recording to sound like listening to headphones without having the internalization effect of the headphones sound. So basically, it is the sound of headphones but the stage is in front of you. You get the same expansive stage like the headphones, better separation (which improves clarity) and depth than the typical stereo replay. Nothing to do with other aspects of the recordings. Ambiophonics is about making the stereo to sound like headphones minus the short comings of the headphones. I think I am already going OT so I shall stop here. Hi ST
Let me start off by saying I don't always need to understand stuff (as in the universe does not owe me an explanation) and secondly I have not tried ambiophonics, so trying to remain open minded.
I get that in real life auditory objects or scenes (fitting in an ASA reference ) come to us from a localized source. We localize that source with a number of amplitude and frequency cues with HRTF etc. Moving our head around slightly augments this localization.
The stereo reproduction comes from left and right channels and two sound sources ie speakers deliver their respective halves and resulting sound waves blend to create an illusion of an image and stage.
The whole premise (only as I have thus far grasped, not claiming a definitive statement on the matter) of ambiophonics would appear to be that this combining of sound sources causes distortions and specifically due to interaural crosstalk.That the sound from the left speaker should only be heard by the left ear and the sound from the right speaker should only be heard by the right ear.
So, solution is to move the speakers closer together and either place a) place a physical barrier up the middle, extending like a wall or baffle between the speakers all the way up to your face, thus no crosstalk or,b) run a DSP program to eliminate crosstalk. The latter is done by phase inverting the left channel and feeding it into the right channel and vice versa.
I don't get the whole cross talk thing. I do get it on the recording side ie channel separation but not once sound waves are generated in the room. I would have thought engineers are already savvy to this and for example can already produce a very good soundstage and imaging. Yes it will vary depending on the directivity of the speakers and the reflectivity of the listening environment as to whether you get a huge central image stuck in the middle of the speakers or whether you get a smaller image that moves as you move left and right. Point being it can be manipulated.
Secondly, ambiophonics would seem (again never tried, so speculation only) to be a form of spatial enhancement, localization cues similar to in some ways (maybe??) ASA cues for locating and decomposing objects out of a scene.This might have benefits in producing more realistic sound in some way/s but I would imagine only part of the story.
My other prejudice here is a distrust of DSP. I cannot think of an instance that in my hands the result has been to my liking. Obvious answer, I am inept....but just saying.
There was IIRC somewhere a VST plugin for JRiver to try ambiophonics. ST do you have particulars and cost?
Thanks mate Cheers David
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong I am afraid this statement is often misquoted based on some explanation on how stereo works. The speakers deliver full sound waves. A speaker is a source of a sound. A sound is still a sound and reaches the ears just like any other sound. Stereo illusion is created by two competing sound reaching the ears with level and timing difference. In live, the same sound reaches the ears from a single source. But in stereo reproduction, you hear two sound which creates 2 sets of timing and level difference. With headphones, you only have one set of level and timing difference which makes it to reproduce a bigger and better separation of instruments. RACE plugin was written by a Peabody award winning filmmaker, audio engineering... Robert E. Miller. Some, like Carver, Polk and Yamaha tried but they were done during the analogue era. Furthermore, early research was based on having the speakers at 60 degrees. This did not produce effective crosstalk cancellation (XTC) because the pinnae ware still locating the speakers at 60 degrees where those locations were the most sensitive direction for pinna to localize a sound direction. In modern times, for most having the speakers at 20 degrees would obstruct the television and therefore there is no real research into this except for Sony's sponsoring Princeton University research which gave birth to BACCH. Unlike RACE, BACCH do not require the speakers to be at 60 degrees. In order to achieve this, they use head tracking camera for XTC where the attenuation is capable of reaching at least 20dB attenuation. In a live orchestra concert, the attenuation is about 8dB and RACE is about 10dB which is more than enough for musical reproduction. No. It is a headphones sound coming from the front unless you call headphones sound is some form spatial enhancement. No DSP is required. Just a partition. I tried with a mattress and took me a long time to DBT between the DSP and the physical partition before deciding that the DSP did not cause any difference when compared the pur ist audiophile physical barrier. You can try the $10 at electro-music.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/114 with JRiver. I was using it for a long time with JRiver before making my own XTC with Reaper. Ideally, have two sets of speakers. One for stereo and one for Ambio. Pick your reference recording and adjust the setting by doing AB comparisons. It gets complicated here because a pan potted stereo recording and a true stereo recording requires different settings. 90% of those tried would give up at this point. This is about getting the best from your existing equipment. It is about sound reaching your ears. IMO, it a natural next course of action after having the best equipment.
|
|
STC
Junior Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by STC on Aug 30, 2019 17:25:29 GMT 10
Aural Cone of Confusion relates to a cone shape along the interaural axis where interaural cues cannot be differentiated from left and right ears,so you cannot localize sound Cone of confusion is related to front/back and vertical localization where the ILD and ITD cues are identical causing confusion in the exact localization. Here with head movements and spectral modification we learn to localize them where the sound originates within the cone of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 30, 2019 17:53:59 GMT 10
The speakers deliver full sound waves. A speaker is a source of a sound. A sound is still a sound and reaches the ears just like any other sound. Stereo illusion is created by two competing sound reaching the ears with level and timing difference. In live, the same sound reaches the ears from a single source. But in stereo reproduction, you hear two sound which creates 2 sets of timing and level difference. With headphones, you only have one set of level and timing difference which makes it to reproduce a bigger and better separation of instruments. Aug 30, 2019 17:13:15 GMT 10 STC said: RACE plugin was written by a Peabody award winning filmmaker, audio engineering... Robert E. Miller. Some, like Carver, Polk and Yamaha tried but they were done during the analogue era. Furthermore, early research was based on having the speakers at 60 degrees. This did not produce effective crosstalk cancellation (XTC) because the pinnae ware still locating the speakers at 60 degrees where those locations were the most sensitive direction for pinna to localize a sound direction. In modern times, for most having the speakers at 20 degrees would obstruct the television and therefore there is no real research into this except for Sony's sponsoring Princeton University research which gave birth to BACCH. Unlike RACE, BACCH do not require the speakers to be at 60 degrees. In order to achieve this, they use head tracking camera for XTC where the attenuation is capable of reaching at least 20dB attenuation. In a live orchestra concert, the attenuation is about 8dB and RACE is about 10dB which is more than enough for musical reproduction. It is a headphones sound coming from the front unless you call headphones sound is some form spatial enhancement. No DSP is required. Just a partition. I tried with a mattress and took me a long time to DBT between the DSP and the physical partition before deciding that the DSP did not cause any difference when compared the pur ist audiophile physical barrier. You can try the $10 at electro-music.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/114 with JRiver. I was using it for a long time with JRiver before making my own XTC with Reaper. Ideally, have two sets of speakers. One for stereo and one for Ambio. Pick your reference recording and adjust the setting by doing AB comparisons. It gets complicated here because a pan potted stereo recording and a true stereo recording requires different settings. 90% of those tried would give up at this point. This is about getting the best from your existing equipment. It is about sound reaching your ears. IMO, it a natural next course of action after having the best equipment. Okay Thanks ST. I will have a go in a couple a weeks when I have more time. I presume for the VST plugin, the speakers need to be at 20 deg, not 60 Cheers
David -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Aug 30, 2019 21:30:43 GMT 10
jkenny In your last reply to me you commented " We don't need long-term memories to know when some systems allow us to relax more into the music & makes it more realistic compared to other systems. " For the sake of this conversation may I pick into that? Using ASA as a basis, as you have, and assuming I have walked away with the correct impression from your post, I would disagree with your comment. To build up a useful "library" of sounds, associated sounds, harmonics, tones etc. the long term memory is required. Without it we simply would not be able to make sense of the mixed sounds around us, they would become jumbled into a cacophany, as can still happen when the auditory sense as a whole becomes overloaded, or has too many unfamiliar sounds not remembered and associated. This confusion has been used in story telling, e.g. a large flock of geese being mistaken for large human gathering in party mode ( thank you Lucille Fletcher ). Someone more familiar with both scenes would have differentiated easily, from the associated sounds held in memory. I digress.
The memory of a sonic impression or clarity of any part(s) of the overall sound that had a certain impact or WHY are all long term. The same as when you hear the first several notes of a song and know what's coming or even able to say that the beginning of song B is so similar to that of song A you almost thought it was but the X was just a snadge different.
I feel the same would apply to comparing HiFi reproduction, you have that long term memory what a piece of music has left as a remembered impression, a group of associated sounds and nuances remembered as, for arguments sake, song alpha, on system beta. However, song alpha via system gamma does not match this remembered impression, whether that results in a negative or positive new impression.
|
|