accuracy is subjective
post-13336958
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 69

johncarm

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
274
Reaction score
13
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
274
Likes
13
If we define accuracy in audio playback as "how close something is to the original," then we have to ask "what is the original?" and "what are we comparing it to?" The original is a sound field experienced by a human being. The reproduction is a sound field experienced by a human being.
 
These two sound fields are never the same, as current audio technology does not reproduce 3-D sound fields. So suppose we have an original sound field A, and two different reproductions B & C. How do we decide which is closer to A? 
 
I claim that there is no way to do that without involving an individual human decision. For some people B is closer. For some people C is closer.
 
Therefore accuracy is subjective.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Yuri Korzunov
post-13337047
Post #2 of 69

spruce music

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
555
Reaction score
342
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Posts
555
Likes
342
Well.......No! 
 
The recording good or poor becomes the reference.  We also know that in two channel stereo the Blumlein miking technique with appropriate playback is most accurate.
 
So once past that you are mistaking the idea that what sound is most preferred is also most accurate.  Sorry, but such is not the case.
 
So subjective evaluation will not always agree with most accurate to the original. 
 
Plus with some studio developed music there is no actual original aural event.  Only a synthetic event which has no basis in reality.   You are down to preference at that point and not accuracy.   That does not mean accuracy is subjective.  Subjectivity is about preference and not accuracy. 
 
So sorry, so wrong.  Try again.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Karlthehusky721
post-13337105
Post #3 of 69

kiseido

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
4
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Posts
4
Likes
11
When thinking of accuracy in modern audio reproduction system, 
I first draw a line from the series of microphones used to record the sound field, through all of the intermediary steps, to my playback device.
Once there, accuracy becomes a measurement of how perfectly my equipment can reproduce the constantly variable sinusoidal wave dictated to it.
The data I feed into my playback device was very likely modified by an audio engineer to sound good coming out of their speakers.
From what I have heard, they will usually use fairly poor quality speakers, in an attempt to emulate how the majority of their audience will hear it, and thusly so they can tune it to sound good on this decidedly non-audiophile grade reproduction equipment.
 
Whether I actually like what comes out of my chosen reproduction device does not affect the accuracy of the system.
 
Now, going back and reading your post I think I may have deviated from your line of inquiry.
 
I disagree on what you are choosing to compare,
the original was not experienced by a human, unless someone invents a way to record data from our ear nerves,
the reproduction may well be experienced by a human, but it is generated by technology.
 
I would also go on to argue that some current technologies are intended to, and do reproduce 3-dimensional sound fields.
5.1 'surround' sound systems are quite common and rather popular for doing just that.
Taking a step further, some systems have as much as 14 speakers plus subs, essentially two 7.1 systems, one set mounted to the ceiling, one set slightly below normal.
Since we are on a forums dedicated to heapdhones, I would be remiss not to mention sets with multiple drivers per ear, supposedly designed in such a way to emulate the formerly mentioned 'surround' systems.

You may also be interested to learn of object-based audio, where in, various audio streams, their positions in 3d space (and potentially effects to apply), are given to reproduction equipment, the equipment then looks at where its speakers are in relation to those audio streams and the listeners, then using that data, attempts to more accurately reproduce said 3d sound field for the listeners.

Edit: I still feel like I'm missing the topic, I'll be blaming that on posting at 4am.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13337401
Post #4 of 69

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
2,053
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,033
Likes
2,053
  [1] I first draw a line from the series of microphones used to record the sound field, through all of the intermediary steps, to my playback device.
[2] Once there, accuracy becomes a measurement of how perfectly my equipment can reproduce the constantly variable sinusoidal wave dictated to it.
[3] From what I have heard, they will usually use fairly poor quality speakers, in an attempt to emulate how the majority of their audience will hear it, and thusly so they can tune it to sound good on this decidedly non-audiophile grade reproduction equipment.
 
[4] I disagree on what you are choosing to compare,the original was not experienced by a human, unless someone invents a way to record data from our ear nerves, the reproduction may well be experienced by a human, but it is generated by technology.
 
1. I'm not quite sure how you've managed to draw that line? Microphones do not choose, position and balance themselves, recording engineers do. The sound-field recorded is therefore defined by the engineers in the first place.
 
2. Agreed.
 
3. I've absolutely no idea where you heard that? Commercial music studio control and mastering rooms employ the very best speakers available. I agree though that they are "decidedly non-audiophile", they are generally far, far superior to audiophile speakers because unlike the vast majority of audiophile speakers they are designed for accuracy and employed in an environment custom built to ensure that accuracy. Studios/Mastering engineers do typically also have some deliberately poor quality speakers which they use to occasionally reference the mix, to try and end up with a master which sounds as good as possible on both the best professional systems in the world and relatively poor quality consumer systems.
 
4. The original is devised by humans and then recorded, mixed and mastered by humans based on the feedback those humans receive from their monitoring environments! What we end up with, the master/s, is therefore the result of a large number of entirely subjective decisions made by humans (in other words; "art"). You appear to be confusing the judgement/measurement of art, which is entirely subjective, with the accuracy of the reproduction of that art, which is not subjective. We have an input signal, defined by the master, and an output signal from the reproduction system, by comparing the two we can objectively measure the reproduction system's accuracy, as you've stated in #2 above.
 
G
 
     Share This Post       
post-13338032
Post #5 of 69

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
4,291
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,948
Likes
4,291
  If we define accuracy in audio playback as "how close something is to the original," then we have to ask "what is the original?" and "what are we comparing it to?" The original is a sound field experienced by a human being. The reproduction is a sound field experienced by a human being.
 
These two sound fields are never the same, as current audio technology does not reproduce 3-D sound fields. So suppose we have an original sound field A, and two different reproductions B & C. How do we decide which is closer to A? 
 
I claim that there is no way to do that without involving an individual human decision. For some people B is closer. For some people C is closer.
 
Therefore accuracy is subjective.

you have the right to set your own point of reference. if you wish to get the sound like you would from a chair in the studio, then this is your reference and any notion of fidelity would be based on this. of course then the only valid reference would be somethnig like the sound recorded from mics in your own ears at the studio while the band was playing. something that doesn't exist so it begs the question, is it even worth considering such a reference?
while many audiophiles somehow dream of a playback system that would output the reference you're talking about, it's a fact that recording professionals in their vast majority do not care about that and prioritize other matters.  for example most will record instruments in mono, and when using several mics, it's usually to be able to mix them in a pleasant way. not to reproduce a 3D position. aside from binaural stuff and a few specific methods that are a niche market, the "soundstage" is made up in post processing. 
 
IMO when it comes to albums, the artistic element doesn't stop at the band making sound. so of course I don't set my reference that soon in the recording process. ideally I'd like to have the same sound as the record engineer listening to the final master in his studio in his chair. but even that is a difficult reference because I didn't go to those studios and don't know what they sound like. so in practice I settle for the sound of the media I bought, as transparent as I can get with my cheap gears, on my speakers(as the album was most likely mastered using speakers), which are corrected with DSP to measure ok at my sitting position in my non studio room were I only did very basic attempts at improving the room's acoustic.
poor reference, but it's the only one I really have to work with.
and for headphones, I use the sound of my speakers as reference, which leads me to always think that headphones without DSP suck real bad when it comes to accuracy. but of course that's because of the reference I have set for myself. I'd like to add that at this point, a good deal of my corrections are indeed subjective, because they're based on my body(head size and stuff). as the headphone bypasses part of the acoustic impact of my body that is included in 100% of my real life experience of sounds, I wish to have that impact added back to the headphone's sound. (and it's easier said than done, which is why I can't wait to fool around with the Smyth realiser for that exact purpose).
 
so I sort of agree with your conclusion, because we can all aim for a specific reference and as such, accuracy is subjective. or because headphone listening is a special thing. but your "original" just doesn't exist so that's a serious problem. and people thinking they are getting closer to an original that was long lost anyway, don't actually have a proper reference to make sure they are assessing accuracy and not basic personal taste. as such I don't think accuracy is the right term to express what most audiophile are chasing after. without proper reference, we're just talking personal taste for the most part. and that certainly can be subjective ^_^.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13338694
Post #6 of 69

johncarm

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
274
Reaction score
13
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
274
Likes
13
I thought it was obvious I was talking about acoustic music. Yes, there has to be an original event. 
 
I could talk about what I think is the most accurate equipment or mic techniques, etc., but let me give an example. I once communicated online with a conductor. She has spent a couple of decades in front of orchestras and is very familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments. She is familiar with the sounds that are created when they blend. She is familiar with how the timbres change as the dynamic levels change. She is perceptive of tiny nuances of expression.
 
So, she found that vinyl was much more accurate than a typical CD player. In vinyl playback, the instruments sound a lot like themselves. For instance, a trombone has the right quality of overtones. The E string of a violin is bright and powerful without being harsh, just as in real life. 
 
As well, in vinyl playback, the instruments blend properly. That is important if you want recordings to be useful for studying conductor technique.
 
I AM AWARE THAT SOME AUDIOPHILES OR RECORDING ENGINEERS DISAGREE. Some find CD to be more accurate, generally.
 
Therefore, accuracy is subjective.
 
J
 
     Share This Post       
post-13338749
Post #7 of 69

icebear

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
1,640
Reaction score
359
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Posts
1,640
Likes
359
Here a post about a live concert which I also have as a recording (a CD for that matter):
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/4425#post_12825760
 
Ultimately the last bit of accuracy doesn't really matter unless you are doing some scientific study/measurements.
What is important that you enjoy listening with your set up. Does the reproduction convey the emotions of the artist and does it stir some emotions in you while listening or does it do nothing in this respect?
The emotional involvement is the most important part, at least for my experience. Emotions are subjective at the core.
I am pretty certain that accuracy can be measured, therefore it is not subjective.
Just my $0.02.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13338778
Post #8 of 69

johncarm

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
274
Reaction score
13
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
274
Likes
13
  Here a post about a live concert which I also have as a recording (a CD for that matter):
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/4425#post_12825760
 
Ultimately the last bit of accuracy doesn't really matter unless you are doing some scientific study/measurements.
What is important that you enjoy listening with your set up. Does the reproduction convey the emotions of the artist and does it stir some emotions in you while listening or does it do nothing in this respect?
The emotional involvement is the most important part, at least for my experience. Emotions are subjective at the core.
I am pretty certain that accuracy can be measured, therefore it is not subjective.
Just my $0.02.
 
Yes, emotional involvement is one key and often something that certain listeners find to be present in analog and not so good with a typical DAC (**). Emotional involvement doesn't have to be completely mysterious, because some expert musicians can identify the tiny details and nuances that create that sense of involvement. They can judge if a playback system reproduces those details/nuances in a realistic way. After all, musicians spend a lot of their time listening to such details and exploring different ways of producing them with their instruments, so they not only are familiar with the sound of them, but also know how changes in the nuances affect the overall sense of expression.
 
(**) Of course a high end DAC might beat a low-end turntable.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13339349
Post #9 of 69

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
4,291
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,948
Likes
4,291
  I thought it was obvious I was talking about acoustic music. Yes, there has to be an original event. 
 
I could talk about what I think is the most accurate equipment or mic techniques, etc., but let me give an example. I once communicated online with a conductor. She has spent a couple of decades in front of orchestras and is very familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments. She is familiar with the sounds that are created when they blend. She is familiar with how the timbres change as the dynamic levels change. She is perceptive of tiny nuances of expression.
 
So, she found that vinyl was much more accurate than a typical CD player. In vinyl playback, the instruments sound a lot like themselves. For instance, a trombone has the right quality of overtones. The E string of a violin is bright and powerful without being harsh, just as in real life. 
 
As well, in vinyl playback, the instruments blend properly. That is important if you want recordings to be useful for studying conductor technique.
 
I AM AWARE THAT SOME AUDIOPHILES OR RECORDING ENGINEERS DISAGREE. Some find CD to be more accurate, generally.
 
Therefore, accuracy is subjective.
 
J
 CD is more accurate than vinyl as a media. this is a fact, a demonstrable, repeatable, unequivocal fact. people thinking otherwise are not subjective, they're just wrong.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: old tech
post-13339413
Post #10 of 69

johncarm

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
274
Reaction score
13
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
274
Likes
13
   CD is more accurate than vinyl as a media. this is a fact, a demonstrable, repeatable, unequivocal fact. people thinking otherwise are not subjective, they're just wrong.
 
So you're saying that a professional conductor doesn't know what instruments sound like?
 
     Share This Post       
post-13339585
Post #11 of 69

Don Hills

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
404
Reaction score
200
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Posts
404
Likes
200
   
So you're saying that a professional conductor doesn't know what instruments sound like?
 
A professional conductor knows what instruments sound like on systems as basic as a clock radio. There's only at best a weak correlation between musicians / non musicians and the quality of their sound systems. In other words, a musician is no more likely to have a high quality sound system than a non-musician.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13339615
Post #12 of 69

johncarm

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
274
Reaction score
13
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
274
Likes
13
   
A professional conductor knows what instruments sound like on systems as basic as a clock radio. There's only at best a weak correlation between musicians / non musicians and the quality of their sound systems. In other words, a musician is no more likely to have a high quality sound system than a non-musician.
 
That's totally irrelevant, as musicians have all sorts of reasons for buying the systems they do, including lack of money.
 
A violin doesn't sound anything like itself through a clock radio.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13340097
Post #13 of 69

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
2,053
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,033
Likes
2,053
  [1] Emotional involvement doesn't have to be completely mysterious, because some expert musicians can identify the tiny details and nuances that create that sense of involvement.
[2] They can judge if a playback system reproduces those details/nuances in a realistic way.
[3] After all, musicians spend a lot of their time listening to such details and exploring different ways of producing them with their instruments, so they not only are familiar with the sound of them, but also know how changes in the nuances affect the overall sense of expression.
[4] (**) Of course a high end DAC might beat a low-end turntable.
 
1. Not only expert musicians, any musician! That's effectively the definition of a musician, it's what separates a musician from an instrumentalist. How well they achieve "that sense of involvement" largely dictates how good a musician they are (or are not).
 
2. There are exceptions but generally, no, they can't! Sure, they can subjectively judge how much they like the recording, how close the recording is to how they want it to sound and in these two regards, they know this better than anyone else can but as far as accuracy is concerned, they generally have relatively little idea/poor judgement.
 
3. Again, not really. A musician is of course intimately familiar with the sound of their instrument but, it's the sound of their instrument from their ears which are just a few inches away and from being physically connected to the instrument, which is very significantly different from how the instrument sounds from the audience's perspective. Of course, a musician is always thinking in terms of what the audience hears but generally that is just an educated guess and even highly experienced musicians occasionally get it wrong and are surprised by what they hear on a recording or the feedback they get from those whose hearing they trust.
 
4. That all depends. As I said previously, you are confusing subjective judgements of the art with "accuracy" measurements of the signal. From the perspective of the former, due to the non-linearities of vinyl, the consequences of mastering to compensate for these non-linearities and the skill of the engineers involved, vinyl can introduce euphonic artefacts which by definition, sound more pleasing. Whether an individual finds those euphonic artefacts enough to outweigh the other deficiencies of vinyl, crackles and other noise for example, is a subjective opinion of that individual. If we're talking about the latter though (accuracy), then no, even a low-end DAC should beat a high-end turntable!
 
  [1] So you're saying that a professional conductor doesn't know what instruments sound like?
[2] I AM AWARE THAT SOME AUDIOPHILES OR RECORDING ENGINEERS DISAGREE. Some find CD to be more accurate, generally. ... Therefore, accuracy is subjective.
 
1. In a sense, yes. Give a conductor or a classical musician a euphonically distorted recording and a near perfectly accurate recording and generally they'll prefer the distorted recording. Furthermore, they'll then fall into exactly the same trap as most audiophiles and assume the more pleasing (distorted) recording must be the more accurate one. This brings us back to what I've said before, this discrepancy between subjectively pleasing and accurate is largely irrelevant to pro classical musicians and conductors, whose job it is to concentrate on what is subjectively pleasing. However, this is not the job of a reproduction format or system, which is to reproduce as accurately as possible the audio signal (which contains all the art of the musicians/engineers) being input into the system. This is where some audiophiles and most audio engineers disagree because some/many audiophiles feel that audio nirvana is a system which sounds best to them at a particular point in time/location, regardless of how it maybe distorting the signal (changing the art of the musicians/engineers).
 
2. No! Just because many fall into the trap of confusing pleasing with accuracy does not mean that accuracy is subjective, it just means that those who've fallen into this trap are confused/effectively ignorant! Accuracy is objective and relatively easy to measure to a very high degree, pleasing is subjective and pretty much impossible to measure to any degree!
 
G
 
     Share This Post       
post-13340835
Post #14 of 69

jgazal

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
728
Reaction score
133
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Posts
728
Likes
133
Website
www.head-fi.org
of course then the only valid reference would be something like the sound recorded from mics in your own ears at the studio while the band was playing.

something that doesn't exist so it begs the question, is it even worth considering such a reference?

while many audiophiles somehow dream of a playback system that would output the reference you're talking about, it's a fact that recording professionals in their vast majority do not care about that and prioritize other matters.

for example most will record instruments in mono, and when using several mics, it's usually to be able to mix them in a pleasant way.

not to reproduce a 3D position.

aside from binaural stuff and a few specific methods that are a niche market, the "soundstage" is made up in post processing.

(...)

as the headphone bypasses part of the acoustic impact of my body that is included in 100% of my real life experience of sounds, I wish to have that impact added back to the headphone's sound. (and it's easier said than done, which is why I can't wait to fool around with the Smyth realiser for that exact purpose).

Does not exist, but can we listen to something that was recorded with cues close enough to achieve a fair horizontal spatial effect?

13 Is the 3D realism of BACCH™ 3D Sound the same with all types of stereo recordings?

The stereophonic recording technique that is most accurate at spatially representing an acoustic sound field is, incontestably, the so-called “binaural” recording method 15, which uses a dummy head with high-quality microphone in its ears 16. Until the recent advent of BACCH™ 3D Sound, the only way for an audiophile to experience the spectacular 3D realism of binaural audio was through headphones. Many such recordings exist commercially, and more have recently been made thanks to the iPod revolution.

BACCH™ 3D Sound shines at reproducing binaural recordings through two loudspeakers and gives an uncannily accurate 3D reproduction that is far more stable and realistic than that obtained by playing binaural recordings through headphones 17.

All other stereophonic recordings fall on a spectrum ranging from recordings that highly preserve natural ILD and ITD cues (these include most well-made recordings of “acoustic music” such as most classical and jazz music recordings) to recordings that contain artificially constructed sounds with extreme and unnatural ILD and ITD cues (such as the pan-potted sounds on recordings from the early days of stereo).

For stereo recordings that are at or near the first end of this spectrum, BACCH™ 3D Sound offers the same uncanny 3D realism as for binaural recordings 18.

At the other end of the spectrum, the sound image would be an artificial one and the presence of extreme ILD and ITD values would, not surprisingly, lead to often spectacular sound images perceived to be located in extreme right or left stage, very near the ears of the listener or even sometimes inside of his head (whereas with standard stereo the same extreme recording would yield a mostly flat image restricted to a portion of the vertical plane between the two loudspeakers).

Many of well-made popular music recordings over the past two decades have been recorded and mastered by engineers who understand natural sound localization and construct mostly natural-like stereo images, albeit artificially, using realistic ILD and ITD values. Such recordings would give a rich and highly enjoyable 3D soundstage when reproduced through BACCH™ 3D Sound.

________

15 The accuracy is due to the fact that binaural audio preserves not only the correct ILD and ITD cues discussed in Q&A10, but also contains so-called “spectral cues,” which are the effects the torso, head and ears have on the frequency response and which the brain uses, in addition to ILD and ITD cues, to locate sound, especially at higher frequencies.

16 The spatial accuracy of dummy head recording is only surpassed by recordings made with microphones placed in the listener’s own ears - alas, a rare commodity that would have benefits upon playback for only that listener.

17 This is because binaural playback through headphones or earphones is very prone to head internalization of sound (which means that the sound is perceived to be inside the head) and requires, in order to avoid this problem, an excellent match between the geometric features of the head of the listener and those of the dummy head with which the recording was made (this problem has been recently surmounted by the Smyth headphones technology http://www.smyth-research.com/). Pure Stereo does not suffer from this problem as the sound is played back though loudspeakers far from the listener’s ears.

18 The 3D realism is the same although the ability of reproducing a sound source at a location that accurately corresponds to the original location is relatively decreased due to the absence of spectral cues.

https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/

Well, there's a number of things you have to understand before I give an answer.

First, I am used to hearing live sound as I played the violin and piano as a kid, played in a children's orchestra, and restarted the piano again about 4 years ago. Live sound in my experience varies - a lot. Further, I do not consider myself a critical listener, and I am not a connoisseur of small differences. Generally speaking when someone points out a difference to me I can hear it, but it's usually not a big deal to me. In other words, I probably tolerate (ignore?) small differences in sound more than many (most?) audiophiles, and don't really differentiate readily between pieces of equipment.

I am not a bass freak, a detail freak, and don't give a damn about sound staging. The ONLY time in over 35 years of listening to hi fi systems I have ever had a "way ahead in sound quality" experience was the first time I heard Quad electrostatics, which I have owned since the 1980s.

BTW my first headphones were Stax SR-5s, which I still have. I have heard TOTL speakers like the Infinity IRS, Apogees, Musicos and Avant Gardes, among others, and none of them impressed me over the Quads the way the Quads impressed me over anything I had heard before.

More bass, more highs, louder, yes. Better, as in, more like live music? Meh.

Frankly I think there is a lot of hype in high end audio (or as someone called it, hind end audio), and reviewers make a living exaggerating differences.

Here's the thing - Quads were introduced in 1955, cost around $1800/pair when they were discontinued, and when they are demonstrated at Hi Fi shows in the 2010s, they still make top ten best sounding room lists. That says a lot about diminishing returns.

In my experience, nobody has broken the law of diminishing returns in audio, and nobody has ever produced a system that sounds like the real thing.

Especially true for headphones, since nobody has heard a real live orchestra in their head, or even around their head - no, sitting in an orchestra is NOTHING like listening to one on headphones. My definition of, "way ahead in sound quality" means that I can notice a difference in the first minute, without straining to hear a difference or stopping to analyze it, and that has only happened to me once, so you probably see where this is going.

One weird effect of the HE-1s was that for whatever reason the soloist on one piece of music I tried was located toward the back of my head, which I have not heard with any other headphone. Since nobody else has noticed this presumably it was unique to me or the way I was wearing the headphones.

That seems binaural recording with a microphone that does not match your HRTF and playback transducers angled in a way in which the externalisation is perceived at the back of the listener head.

Before my question, please consider these quotes about a dsp engine:

In regards to prirs for ceiling channels, I have something in mind.

What I realized is that, once back home, the only set I liked was the AIX one, because all the others sounded like weird echo / the reverb was intrusive.

So for me at least, even though the standards are such that you should have some reverb / avoid direct field from the surround channels in regular setup, I actually seem to prefer PRIRs taken in rather dry room (so I need the personalized xfeed but not so much the acoustic imprint of the room).

So to my idea: am wondering if it would make sense to get my own "PRIRs" (more like hrtfs) with the speaker rather close and stuffing the room walls to attenuate reflections as much as possible so that direct field dominates.

Then, I'd "simply" rotate the head to get the various headings, including elevation channels. The angle might not be accurate but, as long as the head is steady during the recording, it would be fine perhaps.

Cheers,
Arnaud

It's already possible to make a PRIR without crosstalk. You don't have to use Ambiophonics or BACCH. The quotes below explain how I did it. Since then I have added an A/B switch for the microphones.

I recently created a PRIR for stereo sources that simulates perfect crosstalk cancelation. To create it, I measured just the center speaker, and fed both the left and right channel to that speaker, but the left ear only hears the left channel because I muted the mic for the right ear when it played the sweep tones for the left channel, and the right ear only hears the right channel because I muted the mic for the left ear when it played the sweep tones for the right channel. The result is a 180-degree sound field (...).

Binaural recordings sound amazing with this PRIR and head tracking.

To mute it I unplug the left or right microphone from the Y-junction between sweeps. I set the "post silence" to 8 seconds beforehand to give me enough time. To make it easier I plan to hook up an A/B switch.

I actually got the idea from a comment by Timothy Link in this Stereophile article about Dr. Choueiri's BACCH.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bacch-sp-3d-sound-experience

(...)
The group of five faders on the bottom right are a new feature to the Realiser.

These sliders allow the listener to alter the reverberation characteristics of the virtual room in the frequency domain, much like a 5 band graphic equalizer except it is decay time that is altered rather than gain.

This feature has the ability to dramatically improve the quality of any mediocre sound room particularly in the low frequency regions.

(...)

We have added a second HPEQ filter option that uses a causal filter structure that has the potential to generate a cleaner headphone impulse response than our traditional symmetrical FIR approach.

http://smyth-research.com/downloads/additional_KS_info.pdf


arnaud, castleofargh, JimL11 and rrod: do you believe that such dsp engine (with convolution of a PRIR measured in a more and less dead room, no added acoustic - or virtual - crosstalk, decay room equalisation - in time domain -, causal headphone equalisation and tactile transducers, as described in the quotes above) can minimise the filtering effects that we are used to hear from the rest of the chain (mainly from playback room, playback amplifiers and playback transducers) compared to the current standard?

Please consider the spatial accuracy only in the horizontal plane (disregard then spectral cues). I did asked about the comparison between binaural and a third order ambisonics using such DSP engine, but apparently no one in head-fi except the creator has listened both.
 
     Share This Post       
post-13341175
Post #15 of 69

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
4,291
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,948
Likes
4,291
 
   CD is more accurate than vinyl as a media. this is a fact, a demonstrable, repeatable, unequivocal fact. people thinking otherwise are not subjective, they're just wrong.
 
So you're saying that a professional conductor doesn't know what instruments sound like?
that's you're interpretation of the fact I stated not what I said. there are almost limitless ways to end up with the wrong conclusion, I don't pretend to know which one made you or that conductor think that somehow the media vinyl was the reason for more accurate sound.
using the human body as an accuracy tool already shows wrong method IMO. but maybe some of the defects of the vinyl feel like they counter some of the recording and mastering choices( 2 bad making one good, small but non null possibility)? maybe you just had 2 different masters for most of your experiences(aside from the typical EQ and low freqs turned to mono for vinyls, and the very probable loudness war on CDs
), and you just assumed it was the same master so of course your conclusion turned toward the media itself by mistake? maybe you feel like the horrible crosstalk helps glue the instruments together which may feels more realistic? but it wouldn't be hard to also ruin the crosstalk(or go easy on panning) when mastering for CD and get that same result.
IDK why someone is wrong. only that in term of objective fidelity, vinyl can't hold a candle to CD. again that is a fact, not my opinion. it's been verified, can be verified again and the differences in fidelity are big enough not to let a shred of doubt on that specific question. crosstalk in the -25db, noise rarely as low as -60db, distortions pretty much always above 1%, that is the expected "accuracy" of vinyls on good turntables with good settings.
 
all I can suggest is to check for the actual fidelity of both media(because there is no reason to take my claims for granted). and once you're clear on the actual fidelity of both media, take that into account and rethink your conclusion.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: kiseido

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top