Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Dr. Chesky's Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc - Head-Fi TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dr. Chesky's Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc - Head-Fi TV - Page 9

post #121 of 178

I've listened to the previews on HDTracks and I find that Chesky applies too much mastering. I suspect they do it to fit the bulk of mid/hi end headphones rather than make it truly high end. I really prefer music to be as close to original as possible, with all the dynamics and textures. Chesky never really fits that bill..

post #122 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicoguy View Post
 

I've listened to the previews on HDTracks and I find that Chesky applies too much mastering. I suspect they do it to fit the bulk of mid/hi end headphones rather than make it truly high end. I really prefer music to be as close to original as possible, with all the dynamics and textures. Chesky never really fits that bill..

 

I politely disagree.  As close to the original would be to stand in the studio with the performers, which is what I perceive listening to many of his tracks.  I understand your preference for music being closer to the recording you first heard of the music.

post #123 of 178

Well I believe to clearly hear audio alteration. Be it stereo enhancing, slight dynamical compression, some equalizing or smoothing.. I've heard far more 'analog', raw recordings from dummy heads more preserving naturality.. It's either DSP, editing or the kind of gear they use for the recording.. But that's my humble conviction.

post #124 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicoguy View Post
 

I've listened to the previews on HDTracks and I find that Chesky applies too much mastering. I suspect they do it to fit the bulk of mid/hi end headphones rather than make it truly high end. I really prefer music to be as close to original as possible, with all the dynamics and textures. Chesky never really fits that bill..

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicoguy View Post
 

Well I believe to clearly hear audio alteration. Be it stereo enhancing, slight dynamical compression, some equalizing or smoothing.. I've heard far more 'analog', raw recordings from dummy heads more preserving naturality.. It's either DSP, editing or the kind of gear they use for the recording.. But that's my humble conviction.

 

Wait.  Are you judging this from listening to the streamed sample tracks via your internet browser, or did you download the actual files and listen to those?

 

So what recordings are IYO closer to sounding "real" and "unprocessed"?  Mappleshade?  Others?

 

Regarding Chesky's recordings, for the most part I don't always like the "room" or space that they have been recorded in (it's too "big" and "echoey").  For my tastes, they are all usually a bit too reverberant, with too much of the "room ambiance" captured.  I prefer a bit more intimate, or maybe "close-mic'd" sound with just enough of the "room" included to identify the space.

 

That extra reverb or room ambience may be accurate to the actual space the performance was recorded in, but IMO, when you are listening to a live performance, your brain can somewhat "filter out" a lot of that reverb information to concentrate on the more intimate details (maybe because of actual visual cues?).  But I find it more difficult to "filter" the room reverb/echo when listening to a recording.

 

However, for most of Chesky's spatial/imaging demonstration tracks, that room ambiance or "space" is necessary to the demonstration.  Maybe it's just the mics he uses, the mic preamps, or just the placement of the mics?  Or maybe (when listening with headphones) the HRTF of the dummy head that was used is just very different from your own?  Mark (immersifi) may be able to expand on that aspect.

 

Just my .02, though I may be crazy, LOL.

 

EDIT:  Look for the gearslutz link that Mark (immersifi) provided in Post #106.  :)


Edited by bbfoto - 5/22/14 at 8:32pm
post #125 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfoto View Post
 

 

Wait.  Are you judging this from listening to the streamed sample tracks via your internet browser, or did you download the actual files and listen to those?

 

So what recordings are IYO closer to sounding "real" and "unprocessed"?  Mappleshade?  Others?

 

Regarding Chesky's recordings, for the most part I don't always like the "room" or space that they have been recorded in (it's too "big" and "echoey").  For my tastes, they are all usually a bit too reverberant, with too much of the "room ambiance" captured.  I prefer a bit more intimate, or maybe "close-mic'd" sound with just enough of the "room" included to identify the space.

 

That extra reverb or room ambience may be accurate to the actual space the performance was recorded in, but IMO, when you are listening to a live performance, your brain can somewhat "filter out" a lot of that reverb information to concentrate on the more intimate details (maybe because of actual visual cues?).  But I find it more difficult to "filter" the room reverb/echo when listening to a recording.

 

However, for most of Chesky's spatial/imaging demonstration tracks, that room ambiance or "space" is necessary to the demonstration.  Maybe it's just the mics he uses, the mic preamps, or just the placement of the mics?  Or maybe (when listening with headphones) the HRTF of the dummy head that was used is just very different from your own?  Mark (immersifi) may be able to expand on that aspect.

 

Just my .02, though I may be crazy, LOL.

 

EDIT:  Look for the gearslutz link that Mark (immersifi) provided in Post #106.  :)

Well...

 

I've touched upon some of the topics in this post elsewhere in this thread (I think, or perhaps another forum...), but I'll touch upon a couple of points.

 

First, I think it's fair to say that in a binaural recording, like all techniques, one must make a fundamental aesthetic choice: realism, or something that is 'more pleasing'?

 

Mind you, these are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonymous. I can say that having worked with binaural for around 23 years now (both in product sound quality and recording), and various clients, that sometimes the goal is in fact realism - deliberately not altering, or sweetening, or mastering the recording in such a way that would make it sound any less realistic. Conversely, I have had clients ask that I do just the opposite. In the end, binaural, as with stereo or multi-channel....microphone placement is everything. That is, one can always bias the mics to a far less reverberant location to minimize room effects, and then add reverb in post; the best reverb is always natural, but a very close second can be achieved with convolution reverb based on the impulse response of the space in which the recording was made

 

When I recorded Sam Roberts Band for the second time (which was the first time that I recorded them at The FIllmore Detroit), Sam and I had an interesting conversation backstage before the show. Sam was interested in doing another binaural recording because he (paraphrasing) "wanted a live recording of the band that captured the performance - mistakes and all". He went on to say (again, paraphrasing) "what I dislike about almost every live record is that they are not truly live; parts are overdubbed, parts are tweaked, pitch-transposed etc...that is, the multi-track approach is only the starting point, but this approach (binaural)...it's the way that the show went down"

 

So, one is always doing a dance of sorts - in any recording approach for that matter, between realism (which I personally define as the band sounding as they did, at that microphone location, with no real tweaks or add-ins. Yes, I have EQ'd some of my binaural tracks, but this has always been done as a means to correct (for example) a very common issue - problematic room modes. Simply put, you don't always get to put mics (whatever variety) where you want them, and quite often, a room has some really problematic low to mid-bass modes, and if left un EQ'd, pther parts of the mix are affected. By simply applying a gentle notch filter at key regions of the spectrum, the mix can be transformed into something that sounds far better (aesthetically). Does this make it less real? Probably so - certainly from the standpoint of preserving realism.

 

On the other hand, if we go back to my other example - recording very dry (very close mic'd) and then adding judicious amounts of impulse response-based reverb, one can arrive at an end result whose reverberant qualities sound much more realistic (because they are based upon the space in which the recording was made as opposed to canned reverb presets available in many DAWs). So this begs the question...is this less real? Again, in the strictest of terms, yes - because you have manipulated the signals in such a way to achieved a desired aesthetic. On the other hand, by using the room's response, then you're actually (if done properly) adding in real (if modeled) reverb - so you could argue that this is a very 'realistic' approach. In terms of mathematical correctness, this would seem to be the best compromise between sheer realism (close mic'd almost totally dry and no room sound), and full on room sound (microphones placed past the critical distance).

 

One of the things that often happens with binaural (regrettably) is that often times, people feel the need to exaggerate the boundary conditions of the recording, and you end up with tracks that border on "parlor tricks". Yes, a match that is struck close to a mannequin head's ears makes for a great demo (mainly because of its temporal and spectral aspects, which greatly influence imaging - especially when the source is so close to the ear). On the other hand (and let me stress this - by no means was I denigrating Chesky's and others' works in the previous sentence), a binaural mannequin head microphone, in the hands of a really competent recording engineer (who also understands architectural acoustics) can return remarkably good results - the 'perfect (IMO) blend of direct and reverberant sound; check out some of the work who guys by the handle "Plush" on Gearslutz (Hudson Fair - the guy does great binaural work in particular). Plush recorded a few classical pieces performed by the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra (made using the Neumann KU 100 mannequin head - the same type that I use for all of my binaural work). I think you can download the tracks in 320 mp3, though for a time they were available in flac as well (not sure if they are any longer).

 

As I have said for years, and seen many, many time over:

 

Give a really talented recording engineer even run-of-the-mill gear and watch what he or she can accomplish in comparison to someone who is poorly acquainted with the theory, practice, and physics - but is given 'state of the art' (however you choose to define that) equipment. Guess which individual will achieve a better-sounding end result?

 

Here's the thing: if a room is awful (sounding), then you're going to hear every bit of that in a binaural recording, and you can't really fix most of the issues like you would handily do using multi-track, where you may have 16, 24, 48...any number of tracks. In that respect, and not unlike the direct to disc vinyl records that were done in the 80's, everything  has to be working right, or the result, while realistic, won't be very pleasing. Again, if your goal is to hear how good (or bad) a room sounds, then by all means, put the head (or mics) where you want them, record, and create the track - no limiting, no EQ, no effects. However, this really (in the case of a bad-sounding room) serves more of the didactic side of things, as in "man...that's a room that's really perfect for chamber music...but not rock and pop". Or... "hmmm...I had no idea that the people in this part of the audience had such a good (or bad) version of the house mix, just because of where they were seated".

 

Honestly, binaural for all its simplicity, is also a very, very complicated approach when you start looking at how the HRTF influnces what you hear in the finished product. I'm not even going to attempt to discuss the myriad points, but for those who are interested, who like math, and have an inquisitive mind, I strongly urge you to pick up Begault's text ("3D sound for Virtual Reality and Multimedia"  http://www.amazon.com/3D-Sound-Virtual-Reality-Multimedia/dp/0120847353/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400820015&sr=1-1&keywords=Durand+Begault+3d+sound   ), or Mme Rozenn Nicol's AES Monograpoh on Binaural Technology  (  http://www.aes.org/blog/2010/4/aes-publishes-monograph-on-binaural-technology  ), or Hartmann's text "Sounds, Signals, and Sensation" (  http://www.amazon.com/Signals-Sensation-Modern-Acoustics-Processing/dp/1563962837  ).

 

Seriously...I urge you to pick these up, start reading...thinking, and drawing your own conclusions.

 

Sorry, it's late, and I'm rambling...but I hope in some way that helped to address, at least in part, some of the issues that have been discussed here. Again, these are merely my opinions - no more, and no less.

 

Mark

PS: I think this is the link to the post which bb had referred in his comments:

 

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/9413218-post17.html

 

PPS: @ bb - thanks for asking me to chime-in in this.

 

PPPS: If you're interested in a general discussion about the measurement of headphone transfer functions, here's a pretty good thread from the Perceptual Audio discussion forum:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3722860&type=member&item=95923893&qid=84a8f9fc-9990-44ca-bc84-3322cbfc13c5&trk=groups_items_see_more-0-b-ttl

 

Also, there is another thread in there, the title of which presently escapes me, that speaks to the issue of differences in HRTFs and how this may / may not affect certain aspects of how binaural recordings are reproduced given the electro-acoustical parameters of the headphones. If I find THAT thread, I'll update this post with the URL.


Edited by immersifi - 5/23/14 at 10:31am
post #126 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfoto View Post
 

 

Wait.  Are you judging this from listening to the streamed sample tracks via your internet browser, or did you download the actual files and listen to those?

 

So what recordings are IYO closer to sounding "real" and "unprocessed"?  Mappleshade?  Others?

 

Regarding Chesky's recordings, for the most part I don't always like the "room" or space that they have been recorded in (it's too "big" and "echoey").  For my tastes, they are all usually a bit too reverberant, with too much of the "room ambiance" captured.  I prefer a bit more intimate, or maybe "close-mic'd" sound with just enough of the "room" included to identify the space.

 

That extra reverb or room ambience may be accurate to the actual space the performance was recorded in, but IMO, when you are listening to a live performance, your brain can somewhat "filter out" a lot of that reverb information to concentrate on the more intimate details (maybe because of actual visual cues?).  But I find it more difficult to "filter" the room reverb/echo when listening to a recording.

 

However, for most of Chesky's spatial/imaging demonstration tracks, that room ambiance or "space" is necessary to the demonstration.  Maybe it's just the mics he uses, the mic preamps, or just the placement of the mics?  Or maybe (when listening with headphones) the HRTF of the dummy head that was used is just very different from your own?  Mark (immersifi) may be able to expand on that aspect.

 

Just my .02, though I may be crazy, LOL.

 

EDIT:  Look for the gearslutz link that Mark (immersifi) provided in Post #106.  :)

OK, now on to the HRTF bit...

 

First of all, it is fair and accurate to say that the HRTF of any mannequin head out there is different than the HRTF of any human. Differences in morphology, and the same of each individuals' ears plays a significant role.

 

I don't know if it still exists, but once upon a time, there was in ISO standards committee that dealt with this thjis rather political-meets-technical issue, that is... what ear shape is the 'most correct' ear shape?

 

It's an honest question, but here's the thing...if I am not mistaken, several of the members on the committee had ties or worked for vendors of mannequin head microphones, and pretty much all of these have established and esteemed businesses which service the NVH / Sound Quality arenas, but also, the recording sectors. I say "political" because deciding on one "most correct" ear shape has ramifications in terms of perceived technical competence. As you might imagine, mannequin head microphones, which tend to be rather expensive are sold with perceptual accuracy in mind. Thus, whatever "most correct" ear shape resulted from said work is bound to have specific elements of "Company A" s implementation, and perhaps elements of "Company B' s and so on. If any one existing shape were to be chosen as the correct shape, you can see how the other mannequin head + ear designs would immediately be 'wrong'. Considering the expense of these mannequin head mics, there's a lot riding on such a decision, thus, the political aspects of the process. My guess is that out of necessity and decorum, whatever ear shape is deemed 'most correct' will be a neutral design (i.e. not borrowing strongly from any one particular manufacturer's design parameters).

 

So, this still doesn't answer the question about differences in the HRTF difference between mannequin and end user; this is the point of such an undertaking.

 

The thing is, most mannequin heads have silicone ears that are removable, so should such a 'most correct' ear shape ever result, then in theory, new molds could be made to allow the new reference shape to be incorporated into the existing 'skull' of the mannequin head. Mind you, this would automatically mean that the equalization(s) for the head(s) would need to be re-done, because changes in the morphology of the ear would affect the HRTF. Just how much this would affect a given, existing mannequin head mic of course comes down to how similar the 'new' is as compared to the 'old. Winners and losers will result, but my guess is that each will still lay claim to the overt import, or lack thereof depending upon in which camp each company finds itself.

 

While equalization (as discussed in the GS post) can and will affect the timbre, the overall geometry plays a huge role in the HRTF. That is, the directivity as a function of frequency and angle. I suspect that for those individuals whose ears are similar in shape to an existing shape would find the biggest changes with a new 'standard' ear shape - even if the issues surrounding EQ were corrected.

 

Now, as far as how we listen to binaural...that is another huge topic. However, I'll try to hit the highlights.

 

Moeller and others have suggested that for binaural, the 'best' headphone choice is likely to be one that has the best acoustical impedance match to free-air (the normal condition for your ear - it 'sees' an acoustic impedance of the air ). There are other parameters as well (most notably the PDR) that are related to the acoustic impedance of the headphones - and we've not even talked about how the headphones are equalized.

 

So what, in theory should be the most like free air? I would argue that electrostatic or similar open-back dynamic phones having similar acoustical impedance. The way I see it, the 'ideal' headphone for binaural would be one that basically allows your ear to sense as though it is not encumbered in any way, which is why I say that open-back (i.e. very, very low noise reduction (or isolation if you prefer)) would seem to be the logical choice.

 

EDIT: Likewise, these are the same boundary conditions under which a mannequin head microphone operates; the ears of the mannequin head 'see' free-air.

 

From an impedance perspective, and from power transfer principles, the way in which one maximizes power transfer from source to load is to have the load be real (if the source is real). However, when the source is complex (real and imaginary components), then maximum power is delivered when the load impedance is the complex conjugate of the source impedance. A slight diversion here - those familiar with active noise cancellation understand that in essence, you minimize the noise from the source (an exhaust pipe, HVAC duct, or whatever) by minimizing the real portion of the impedance. This is because power can never be dissipated into an imaginary load - and in this case, we're talking about acoustic power. So, what an active silencer does (and yes, this includes active headphones) is to minimize the real portion...or maximize the imaginary portion in a relative sense, thereby minimizing the transfer (source --> receiver) of acoustic power).

 

So, it would seem obvious that the headphone / ear interface is the opposite of the example shown above - we want to maximize the power transfer of the original signal as presented by the headphones. Again, headphones having an impedance that is close to "FEC" (Free-air Equivalent Coupling) would present the most 'natural' boundary conditions for the ear. and in theory would maximize the power transfer as a function of frequency. In essence, assuming the frequency response of the headphones is 'neutral' (I know, a relative term) then this would mean not altering the timbre of what's being presented to the listener's ears.

 

Having said that, I have heard many binaural recordings that sound very good on closed-back headphones - in no way do they sound similar to an open-back set of phones, but it sure would be interesting to break this down further (and it's probably already been done) by matching the EQ of the closed versus open pair. In this way, we'd only be comparing the acoustic impedance that is presented to each ear (because the frequency response would be the same). However, even changes in the size of the radiator will play a role as it's conceivable that though the radiate the same spectral power and shape, differences in the surface are between the two might play a role as well, mainly...because you are so incredibly close to the ear, which is now of a similar dimension as is the very transducer that you are using to reproduce the pressure response (sound). 

 

EDIT: Another thing to consider when discussing headphone types (open versus closed back) is the concept of perceived dynamic range. Let's consider a 'typical' home environment in which one might listen.

 

Let's suppose that you are listening to an a cappella piece with very high dynamic range. It's not uncommon for such pieces to have 40 or even 60 dB of dynamic range (I know this because I have seen this in some of my binaural a cappella recordings). Now, let's think about the fact that open-back headphones by their very nature have very low isolation (noise reduction)...during the quiet passages, you may not hear the quietest passages of the recording because of the poor isolation of the headphones. Paradoxically, these are the headphones that, in theory, are best suited for binaural (i.e those closest to FEC behavior). SO, in order to hear the quietest passages, you turn the gain up to get above the noise floor...problem solved, right?

 

Well, here's the thing...our hearing mechanism is non-linear; this goes back to the work done by Fletcher and Munson all those years ago (and probably earlier, though their work is most often referenced). So, by tuning the gain up, you also alter the timbre, because the ear will now better hear the bottom end than when the gain was lower. This has all kind of ramifications from a psychoacoustic standpoint (masking, upward / downward spread of masking...and on and on and on).

 

Now think about a binaural recording made of a band having significantly lower dynamic rage - maybe 10 dB. In this case, the background noise is probably less important when using open back phones that it was for the high dynamic range piece.

 

Now let's flip it again... let's go back to the closed-back headphones. Since these are far from FEC behavior, one would think that they are the worst thing possible for binaural. However, they offer much better isolation than do open-back variants. SO now, our high dynamic range recording is experienced with more correct dynamic range - but at the expense of being (from an acoustic impedance perspective) nowhere near the FEC criterion.

 

An interesting problem, to be certain.

 

As an aside, my 'other' job involves Managing a Sound Quality and Noise and Vibration Group for a Tier 1 automotive supplier. As such, we do a fair amount of listening studies on product sounds. TYhis is also common in the OEM's Noise and Vibration Groups. The thing is, almost always, open-back headphones are almost always used in conjunction with binaural signals. However, care is always taken to present the sounds at 1:1 loudness as they were recorded. That is, if a sound is 65 dB(L) in situ, it will be presented to the listeners of the sounds likewise at 65 dB(L) (or alternately, some value of loudness in sone). So, in research, care is always taken to present the levels at their actual loudness levels - something almost never done (unless by coincidence) during casual listening.

 

So we have a couple things going on:

 

Limited dynamic range of the sounds

Sounds of a loudness level that are often easily heard in real life

A 'treated' room in which the listening studies take place

 

Companies spend a lot of money to build these listening spaces. Often times they are on isolated flooring / foundations, have walls that afford tremendous transmission loss, and walls that are treated to absorb nearly all sounds. You can see that this is a very expensive proposition, but again, in the interest of perception of product sounds, they really must be presented at 1:1 loudness. Thus, such a space solves the issue of the poor isolation of open-back headphones...but just think what's required to make that true.

 

There are SO MANY aspects to this whole puzzle, and again, my feeling is that for the simple aesthetic purposes, much of this is moot. In the end, what matters is whether or not you like how it sounds. However, in the research world, the import of this and the need for better accuracy is paramount, especially when localization studies and virtual environments are undertaken.

 

Anyway, that's a sort of NON Reader's Digest version of just some of the concerns surrounding (no pun intended) why you perceive certain binaural recordings made with mannequin head X, and auditioned with headphone Y to be so different from one another. Mind you, this sort of thing is, as I mentioned, the topic of much research, but to carry this out with the requisite repeatability and reproducability requires an appropriate lab, with all the appropriate gear - a hefty investment indeed.

 

EDIT: I just found this on the web - the graphic on the home page speaks volumes as to the complexity of the HRTF, and why it is unlike any traditional microphone patterns (cardoid, omni, figure-8 (velocity), hyper-cardoid, etc) that are typically used in two-microphone stereo, or stereo mixes made from multichannel recordings. Yes, how one configures a given pair of mics in two-microphone stereo plays a huge role into the imaging of the end-product (as do many other factors), but just take a look at the surface plot of this particular HRTF; you will see that an HRTF is a function of frequency and azimuth (elevation) but also rotation (not shown in this plot):

 

http://www.ais.riec.tohoku.ac.jp/lab/db-hrtf/index.html

 

Some interesting links within this as well. I hope the graphic helps to make the HRTF concept a bit less nebulous and easier to visualize.

 

Mark


Edited by immersifi - 5/24/14 at 9:43am
post #127 of 178

"Why are front to back confusions so common and only rarely back to front confusions during 3D audio playback using headphones. I mean why is there a bias towards rear perception?"

 

This was a question posted in the Perceptual Audio forum. A lot of what we've been discussing (or better, a lot about that which I have written) is covered in this thread in a lot of detail. There are some pretty insightful comments by some very well known and regarded people in the field of audio and perception. So for those interested in the discussion about binaural and imaging, I strongly suggest that you check this out. I thought about starting this as a new topic, but as it's so binaural-centric, it seemed 'at home' in this thread.

 

Here's the link:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3722860&type=member&item=87708562&trk=groups_search_item_list-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egsm_3722860_1_*2_*2_*2_lna_PENDING_*2%2Egna_3722860

 

Mark

post #128 of 178
Ah, it's good to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks this:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=2934
Quote:
I listened to the Chesky tracks at length and find them lacking…for my personal taste. The balance is off and they are too distant sounding. I understand that they are a flavor but the use of only two microphones requires the balance to be established at the time of the session. I’ve know musicians that recorded for Chesky and sometimes the people are very far apart because of the balance issue. That results in different “proxmities” or presence for each instrument…very disconcerting for these ears. And the DSD thing is a non-starter for me…especially as they are then converted to PCM for mixing, editing and ultimately distribution.
...
Having done my Ph.D. work on binaural audio, I don’t find the Chesky tracks persuasive in getting out of the head. They just sound hollow and distant. That’s my taste. I prefer to take surround mixes and process them as Headphones[xi]

This is 100% what I think about most of Chesky's work. I have a friend who used the Panorama 5 tool to convert a 5.1 multi-channel PCM file to stereo and it sounds far more accurate to me than most of Chesky's works.
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

2L's recordings on the other hand use DXD as the format while recording from my understanding.
post #129 of 178

"Ann Arbor Huron High School Choirs, Summer 2012 (320 kbps mp3 (when downloaded))"

 

NOTE: I originally posted this in the flac dowload forum, but as I mentioned in that post, I had planned on posting the same tracks in 320 kbps mp3 format, and now that's come to fruition.

 

These recordings feature the Ann Arbor Huron High School choirs as recorded one warm summer day back in 2012.

 

One thing to note - in some of the tracks, you will hear (left ear) the sound of a cicada up in one of the trees near the theater.

 

Here's a collection (well, part of a collection) that I recorded back in 2012. This one is mostly binaural, but also has a bit (just a bit) of conventional stereo folded-in. Because it's mostly binaural though, you'll want to use headphones (of course you knew that already...this is, after all, headfi...).

 

The tracks' volumes have been maintained to that the relative loudness, track to track, is maintained. This is why some of the files will be considerably further down from 0 dBFS (full scale) and others will be much closer to 0 dBFS. I wanted to preserve the relative dynamics of these four tracks, which is why I chose not to normalize them.

 

No artificial 'sweetening' has been applied to these recordings (i.e. no artificial or convolution reverb). I did employ a high-pass filter to help minimize the upward spread of masking which would have likely taken place, especially during the pianissimo portions of these tracks.

 

Additionally, these are purely acoustic - no P.A. was employed as reinforcement for these tracks.

 

If you like tracks that have high dynamic range (some of these have, if I remember, somewhere around 50-60 dB dynamic range) and nice left-to-right placement as well as ambience, you'll likely enjoy these (even if a cappella is not exactly your cup of tea as a genre).

 

Lastly, remember, whatever you do, don't stream these; soundcloud's streaming player takes a broadsword to fidelity, so if you really want to hear everything thatw ent into these, be sure to download them and then play those files. Trust me, it's worth it.

 

https://soundcloud.com/immersifi/sets/ann-arbor-huron-high-school-choirs-summer-2012-320-kbps-mp3-when-downloaded

 

I hope you will like what you hear.

 

Mark

post #130 of 178

Part binaural, part stereo...and all for headphones... (just posted these):

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/644595/official-free-flac-file-music-sharing-thread/210#post_10624258

 

Enjoy...

 

Mark

ADDED: Here is the link to the 320 kbps mp3 version of the tracks:

 

https://soundcloud.com/immersifi/sets/the-pioneer-high-school-symphony-band-320-kbps-mp3-when-downloaded


Edited by immersifi - 6/10/14 at 8:07pm
post #131 of 178

Awesome.   On my way to buy it now.  I hope they continue to put out binaural as an ongoing service.  I have to imagine it adds quite a bit of time (cost)  and effort to the recording process.  Talk about turning a corner.  Have you ever heard the Smyth Analyzer A8?  Does it produce similar effects?

post #132 of 178

Fantastic album! Could not recommend this any more. But new? I have had this album for 2-3, maybe 4 months now. :tongue: 

 

Edit: Oops, didn't know that this thread was old. So why is it just now on the front page? :o


Edited by Bansaku - 7/31/14 at 4:06pm
post #133 of 178

Not too interested in some of the music or demonstrations in these tracks as my preferred music is of a different type, but certainly will be going into my reference files when testing out headphone capabilities.

post #134 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bansaku View Post
 

Fantastic album! Could not recommend this any more. But new? I have had this album for 2-3, maybe 4 months now. :tongue: 

 

Edit: Oops, didn't know that this thread was old. So why is it just now on the front page? :o

My exact question

 

I think it popped up on FP earlier this year when it was released, might be a re hashing or an accident

 

either way great album! 

post #135 of 178

I got mine WAV 192/24 , it's fantastic

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Dr. Chesky's Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc - Head-Fi TV