[kwkarth]

I guess then most, if not all of you have ever heard a proper Binaural demonstration.

 

[robert]

Quote:

Originally posted by kwkarth I guess then most, if not all of you have ever heard a proper Binaural demonstration.

i have: Le Scare du Printemps Pasadena Symphony Newport. for my ears, not an out of head experience. tried it both with the hd600 and ety4s. from what i've read, the response to binaural is as much a function of the human's hearing (both in the ear and in the brain) as it is of the process.

 

[Mallow005]

ok I didn't read all the posts, so this may be redundant..

The ER6 used to be my main pair of headphones before I got the W1000s, I really liked the ER6s. I'm happier with the W1000s, much happier. I know what you mean about the HD600s and their distant sound, it sounds like you're in a stadium or something. I guess it's good if you just want to put the music in the background, but that's not what I like to do. The W1000s are very much like the ER6s in presentation. The W1000s are a huge improvement though, so if you have the money, source, and amp, go for it.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by robert i have: Le Scare du Printemps Pasadena Symphony Newport. for my ears, not an out of head experience. tried it both with the hd600 and ety4s. from what i've read, the response to binaural is as much a function of the human's hearing (both in the ear and in the brain) as it is of the process.

True, phychoacoustics plays a big part in any sound reproduction venue.

For most listeners, a properly executed binaural recording/playback experience perfectly recreates the same acoustic "space" for the listener as they would have heard in the live performance from exactly the same spot as the original microphone placement. It would not sound like the recording was "made in a cave." It actually sounds extremely lifelike.

If however, one were to play a binaurally recorded piece through speakers rather than headphones, it might inded sound very echoy/cave like.

 

[Geek]

robert,

Is detail soundstage? It seems you are equivocating the terms detail (the nuances of a recording) with soundstage (feeling of realistic spaciousness, accurate placement of said instruments at most accurate location relative to listener).

Just pondering.

Cheers,
Geek

 

[robert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Geek robert, Is detail soundstage? It seems you are equivocating the terms detail (the nuances of a recording) with soundstage (feeling of realistic spaciousness, accurate placement of said instruments at most accurate location relative to listener). Just pondering. Cheers, Geek

i wouldn't say equivocating. you really can't have soundstage (as most folks understand it) without detail (see marc arbot recordings). in order to get soundstage placement you have to have close (compared to audience position) miking. once you do that, you get detail that would never be heard from the audience. which is the chicken, which the egg?? one of my favorite recordings is "A Meeting by the River". you can see the mikes in the liner notes. they are not where anybody would (or could if not a contortionist) sit. but it isn't spot miking, either.

yes, the pure blumlein approach as used in the 1950s by RCA and Mercury yielded some really good recordings. i do have this memory of the RCA folks using some spot miking for soloists, but that could be a false memory. the soundstage and detail are vague by today's standards. i happen to like those recordings. but if i'm listening to a jazz recording (up to a quintet, say), i expect to be able to place each instrument, at least left to right. if i attend an acoustic performance of such, i'm not going to be able to place the players just by ear. but i don't have to; i can see them.

i recommend the chesky disc as an experiment. endress is on mike from two feet back to, i think, 12 feet. the echo at 12 feet is pronounced. i can't say that i've ever heard such on a commercial recording. safe to say that a concert audience is at least 12 feet from the players.

the other point is that a microphone doesn't hear the way the ear/eye/brain do. in particular, humans filter out delayed reverb; mikes don't.

oh yeah. read a story years ago that either Carnegie Hall or Symphony Hall (Boston, of course) had installed mikes, amps and speakers to "reinforce" the sound because the big bucks subscribers complained that the concerts didn't sound as good as the records. this was before CD, that long ago.

go figure.

 

[Bongo]

Interesting thread. For the most part I want to listen to a recording "row 7 center". But at times I want to be that "Fly on the wall"... not literally on"the wall" but weaving in and out of the orchestra... Yes, listening to the bow w/rosen. Yes, hearing the snort and cough. That's what (I believe) makes our headphones unique tools. ... and the reason that I wish I had (many) different cans ... each wtih its unique soundstage.