[bigshot]

I use the term the way John Culshaw, the engineer who brought the concept to the public used it. I guess since then, audiophiles have attached their own woo to it because they don't really understand what it is. It's really not a complicated concept.

 

[pinnahertz]

I use the term the way John Culshaw, the engineer who brought the concept to the public used it. I guess since then, audiophiles have attached their own woo to it because they don't really understand what it is. It's really not a complicated concept.

It's complicated now that audiophiles have mutated it to suit their purposes. The problem is readers don't know how you're using it, so it can mean anything depending on the definition the reader is familiar with.

I was actually more referring to headstage and soundscape, and soundscape already has another meaning than how you used it. See, when someone synthesizes a new word only they know the intended meaning no useful information is conveyed.

Now I'm off to adjust the glorator vector on my finagleplopper.

 

[barryt]

For the last few months I have

Perhaps it's just me, but I really don't think we need more made-up terminology.

You can get images in more dimensions than 2 with both 2-channel stereo and 5.1 with a bit of special processing, but it's not a solid phantom image, more of an etherial one that takes a bit of acceptance on the part of the listener. Certain speakers can image outside of the line between them quite readily.

I hate the term "soundstage" because it is not defined well. If you define soundstage as the set of positions from which sounds appear to emanate, then every recording, even mono ones, have a soundstage, though of very different dimensions. Pink Floyd then would have a very large and variable soundstage. But it's more a question of definition of terms. Soundstage is one of those audiophile terms that means different things to different people, and that makes it pretty hard to discuss either qualitatively or quantitatively.

Could I offer the suggestion that a review of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

might be in order before you guys start getting to hard on each other.

Combining frequency dependent cross-talk and time delay can yield some rather impressive subjective reproduction qualities when trying to get headphones to sound like speakers and speaker space. As you have observed, it depends a lot on if there is 'space' information in the recording, Is there a soundscape when reproduced on speakers, if so 'speakerizing' headphones will probably be effective and produce the desired illusion of depth and open space. If not the whole exercise is probably futile and it time to hire a live band to get the effect (noted in humor please).

 

[bigshot]

It's complicated now that audiophiles have mutated it to suit their purposes. The problem is readers don't know how you're using it, so it can mean anything depending on the definition the reader is familiar with.

That's why I clearly define the terms so they understand what I'm talking about. If they want to continue to misuse the term after I've pointed out the correct meaning to them, then I don't have to make an effort to understand their misuse of the term. Most of the time when I post in dumb threads like this, I'm speaking past the person I'm replying to anyway. The lurkers are more important than the silly posts I'm replying to sometimes.

Combining frequency dependent cross-talk and time delay can yield some rather impressive subjective reproduction qualities when trying to get headphones to sound like speakers and speaker space.

The first half of your sentence is absolutely correct. It can create a more "open" sound on headphones. But it isn't more localized, in fact it's more diffuse. And it isn't like speakers. You can't localize a soundstage the way speakers do without head movement relative to the placement of the sound objects.

Saying that headphones have soundstage is like saying that a B&W movie is Technicolor because it has good contrast/brightness. Technicolor had good contrast/brightness, but that wasn't what defined it as Technicolor. Headphones can sound more open and full, but that isn't the same as having a defined soundstage with speakers.

 

[barryt]

Traditionally Hi-Fi has used the word 'soundscape' rather than 'soundstage' simply because a recording is not usually done on a stage or 'in situ", It is done in a managed physical environment configured for the convenience of the recording process. This "space" is not usually well managed to coincide with a performance space. Such is the demand for practicality in the profession. There always are the delightful exceptions.

 

[bigshot]

Acoustic Jazz albums almost always have defined soundstage. So do classical. Live albums often do too. There's more real soundstage out there than people know. The term was originally marketed to describe John Culshaw's opera recordings. He placed mikes in front of a stage with a numbered grid on the floor. He would block the scenes so the singers would move around the soundstage according to the stage directions. If you want to hear a really vivid example of that, check out Solti's Ring of the Nibelung, especially Gotterdammerung. You don't have to record on a stage like Culshaw to create soundstage. You can track an album separately and then assemble the sound elements in a soundstage in the mix too.

Even when there are lots of Pink Floyd tricks going on, the rhythm section is usually firmly anchored in a traditional soundstage. The same goes for stuff like Elton John where the piano (and sometimes vocals) are almost always placed in a fixed position intended to be a little to the left in front of you. The stuff that flies around the room are usually fills and guitar solos.

I've always heard the place where mixes take place referred to as the "mixing stage" or "dubbing stage". When they are intended for film or TV work, they even have a stage constructed where the monitors and screen are all arranged in proper placement. Recording booths don't have space in front of the board for the speakers to be at the proper distance for soundstage, but mixing stages usually do.

This raises the question... what benefits from crossfeed more- true soundstage, or Pink Floyd style soundscape?

 

[71 dB]

Soundstage is a presentation of the musicians spread out in front of you like performers on a stage. You can get this with stereo speakers because the speakers are physically in front of you and the two channels join in the center to create a phantom center.

I'm not a sound engineer so I know nothing and I am dumb, but doesn't that illustrate how you can fool spatial hearing to hear sounds from directions and locations here there's no physical sound sources?

Headphones present sound one dimensionally- as a line through the center of the head right through the ears. Call it headstage, because it's all in your head.

If that is true then binaural recordings are useless. Why see the trouble of making a binaural recording, if the resulting "headstage" is all in your head anyway?

Have you bigshot ever heard binaural recordings? I made some test recordings with my diy Jecklin Disk and my parents listened to them and were amazed by the spatiality. My father even turned his head, because he thought he heard sounds behind him. Jecklin Disk is not 100 % binaural, but very close.

 

[71 dB]

Could I offer the suggestion that a review of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

might be in order before you guys start getting to hard on each other.

That's more or less what was teached to me in the university, but it's nonsense according to sound engineers who know best.

 

[71 dB]

Nonsense. That's what you'd think happens if you don't know better.

The illustration rarely works that way, and the actual results of cross-feed are highly dependent on the recording, and listener perception.

1. Soundstange without cross-feed is, if anything, larger than with it.
2. There's no such thing as "distorted ILD".
3. ILD can't become "undistorted" because theres no such thing as "distorted ILD" in the first place.
4. Cross-feed does not create a larger sound-stage, generalized cross-feed, of the 71dB variety, creates a smaller, narrower, flatter, one.
5. Cross-feed, of the 71dB variety, never moves sounds in front! If that's the way it's perceived, it's the listener's active perception, nothing cross-feed has done.
6. Bad/good soundstage/recordings are an entirely subjective matter. Cross-feed doesn't take into account any subjective variable, and thus is, itself, only applicable subjectively, based on preference. It is not universally accepted or desired.

@71 dB So, we're doing this here too? Really? Why?

1. Can you explain me why? Since I didn't learn about spatial hearing properly in the university, maybe I could learn from you?
2. I am so bad at spatial hearing my brain produces bee-like effects when ILD gets over certain levels. I call that spatial distortion, but according to you it's all about the lack of spatial listening skills, nothing more. I learn so much from you and other sound engineers! Why study in university when all you need is to listen to experienced sound engineers online and you'll get real information instead of academic nonsense.
3. I am really starting to understand this! So logical! Thanks!
4. I'm still not understanding this fully, but maybe someday even I get it if I keep listening to the wisdom of sound engineers.
5. Yeah, must be my limited skills in spatial hearing that makes me hear sounds in front with crossfeed.
6. Yeah, only losers like me use crossfeed. Real men don't crossfeed or cry.

This clearly shows that nobody should take seriously the nonsense I have written here. Trust sound engineers. They know this stuff. Don't be a loser and use crossfeed. You lose the artistic intent! You might find crossfed sound more natural and pleasing, but please don't let that fool you to disrespect artistic intent, which is the reason you listen to music, not to enjoy it. I don't know if I can come back from the dark side where people crossfeed and enjoy natural sound to the side of sound engineers where people know better and worship artistic intent and hyper-dimensionality. Those who are just getting into crossfeed have still hope. Good luck!

Hopefully this post showed good attitude from my part. It has been so bad.

 

[Sound Eq]

I have some exp using neutronmp since it lauch. If you care for an app for music on smarphone, my recommend is uapp (usb audio player pro).
Now back to question. Crossfeed in newtronmp have 3 parameters.
. Frequency : set pass freq where over than that is bypass
. Threshold (quite some time no use this app so may be this word differ) in dB set a level which over this value will be process, less than is by pass. So, set 9dB will have LESS effect than a 5dB set.
. Timming in microsecond. Decied process or not a signal.

Exam. Female voice mostly no change if you set 600Hz but works if set 1500Hz.
9dB make more "monoing" than 6dB.
Less than 5dB make too big monoing effect.
Timming : defaul bar shows 20 - 200 but can keyin any value.
Try very small value as 0.5 may be better than defaul.

Favourable is 800-3000 Hz and 6dB - 10dBn timming 0.1-10


Uapp : it have crossfeed too. I like its crossfeed than that of newtron.
Uapp also have parametric eq for INDIVIDUAL R/L. You can add bass to the side you less sensitive. No need to use Balancer R/L bcs it acts to all range

thanks for this write up, i noticed in uapp there is not timming as in neutron

when you say favourable the range you gave from 800 to 3000 is alot, so where should I set it to shift bass more to the left

can you share your exact neutron setting without ranges as the ranges you gave are wide

 

[bigshot]

doesn't that [phantom center in stereo] illustrate how you can fool spatial hearing to hear sounds from directions and locations here there's no physical sound sources?

The phantom center in stereo is just a matter of the dispersion of the speakers. The overlap in the middle fills in the gap. That isn't a new discrete channel coming from a different direction. It's just putting two channels close enough together that they form a seamless whole.

If that is true then binaural recordings are useless. Why see the trouble of making a binaural recording, if the resulting "headstage" is all in your head anyway? Have you bigshot ever heard binaural recordings?

Yes I've heard binaural recordings, and I do think they are kind of useless for music production.

There are two problems:

1) Binaural recording is extremely limiting and inflexible. Since it demands a single microphone position with a specific pattern of sound, it makes just about all other recording techniques impossible. You can't mix different sound elements together. You can't overdub. You can't adjust balances or EQ. You can't edit it. It's basically tying the hands of the engineers and forcing them to just take a "snapshot" of sound. An engineer's job is to create the sound stage or field or scape or whatever... not to just capture a specific moment and place as a static thing. The inflexibility of binaural is its biggest drawback by far. (I've explained this in more detail in previous posts, so I won't go any further than that here.)

2) Binaural miking techniques can create a startlingly realistic atmosphere or presence. But that isn't the same as direction or location. I'll go into a little more detail about directionality and location.

Direction and Location are primarily communicated to us through visual cues (that musician sitting in front of us). Visual cues are extremely powerful. I got vivid proof of that about ten years ago... I was at a public event with my dog in a carrier. The dog barked furiously inside the bag, then an old man standing a little distance away did a big double take on the dog carrier and gave me an irritated look as if to say "make your dog be quiet!" Then I heard a voice in the distance saying "Hey! No dogs allowed!" and the old man swung around and looked behind to look to the direction the call came from. I looked down at my dog carrier and I could see that my dog was lying down asleep. I looked in the distance where the call had come from and no one was there. That's when I recognized the old man. It was Paul Winchell the ventriloquist. The barking and the yell from the distance had both come from him. But I perceived one as coming from the dog carrier, and the other coming from the opposite direction. Why did I perceive it that way? Because he did big double takes and glared at the direction he wanted me to hear the sound coming from. He was visually tricking me into thinking sound was coming from a different direction than where it actually came from. Visual cues are VERY important to how we hear. I know that doesn't sound intuitive, but it's true.

We also perceive location and direction by moving our head or body in relation to the object we're trying to locate to perceive a difference. The closer the object is, the more difference there is. The more distant, the less difference. We perceive things in front or behind us by moving our ears relative to the sound to figure out which ear it's closest to. Deer do this to discern predators. They cock their head and turn their ears back and forth to locate the direction of a soft footfall or the rustle of a bush in the distance that they can only hear and not see. This is also a very powerful way of discerning direction. Again, it may not seem as important as it actually is. It's so ingrained in us that we don't do it consciously, but we do it every waking hour of our life.

Visual cues and moving the head are both primary direction cues. They are the things we rely upon the most to determine sound location. Neither of these things can be recorded with a single microphone. Visual cues require a visual element to pull off. (Natch!) Head movement can be utilized with multichannel sound. As I explained before the number and placement of the speakers dictates whether sound is one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional. The more speakers you use, the more precise your placement can be. I've been told that the orders of magnitude of preciseness are exponential. Two speakers are better than one. Four are better than two. Eight are better than four... and so on. Atmos is state of the art right now, but it still depends on creating a cube of sound the exact dimensions of your listening room. It can't fool you into perceiving depth larger than your room without using Secondary Depth Cues. These are less perceptual than they are impressions simulating depth.

Take for instance the call from the distance when I met Paul Winchell... It sounded like it was coming from hundreds of feet away, but it was actually coming from the old man standing in front of me. He was just constricting his vocal cords to restrict the frequency response of his voice to make it sound like a yell coming from a great distance. When that was added to the visual cue, he totally sold it. There's no way I could have perceived that accurately. When you add secondary cues to primary cues you can work wonders. Examples of secondary cues are room reflections, head simulations, volume level, response narrowing, reverberation, etc. You know all about these things. I don't need to explain them to you. Your cross feed operates on these principles as do DSPs, and engineers use them all the time when they are creating a soundscape by mixing.

Now comes the problem with depending on secondary cues alone... If a primary cue conflicts with a secondary cue, it creates confusion and the illusion starts to fall apart. When I listen to binaural recordings, I can hear the realistic ambience, but if I turn my head, it all falls apart. I remember hearing a buzz clipper that was supposed to be behind me. But whenever I moved it would snap from behind me to in front of me, because my ears were expecting that illusion to work with the movement of my head, but it didn't. I could perceive the sound coming from a little distance from my head because it had the proper head simulation going on, but I had no way to determine direction any better than with headphones- one dimensional- just left and right. I suppose if I was strapped into a chair and listened to it enough, I could get used to it enough to like it, but that isn't how I listen to music.

With my 5.1 speaker system, I have both visual and head movement. I can look at a speaker and focus on its output, and then I can locate it in space by moving my head a little bit. If I want to imagine I'm in Notre Dame for an organ recital, it's best to close my eyes and let the secondary cues and head movement create that illusion. At least I have one kind of primary cue. With headphones, I get just secondary cues. Any kind of recording can have secondary cues. Speaker systems are capable of using both kinds of primary cues. That's what sets speakers apart. Cross feed doesn't make headphones sound almost like speakers. It just makes headphones sound better. Speakers have dimension. The more speakers, the more dimension. Put head tracking on headphones with a computer simulation and maybe I can close my eyes and get at least one kind of primary cue. But I haven't tried that myself yet, so I don't know the limitations there. It really doesn't matter because I have a 5.1 speaker system. No need for simulating one. I would love to have Atmos, but unfortunately my room won't work with it.

 

[jgazal]

Although I don’t believe visual cues from real speakers have the weight you attribute to them, I am glad that you consider trying such simulations.

I know my opinion doesn't matter as it is just that, a layman opinion, but I feel releived you wrote it down. My disquietude is appeased.

 

[bigshot]

Visual cues are very important. Humans are primarily visual creatures. Our sight affects all of our other senses.

Whenever I demo my system for friends and a sound comes from the rear unexpectedly, they always turn around and look at a speaker it's coming out of, not the exact direction it's coming from.

I remember a comedy skit (might have been Ernie Kovacs or Benny Hill) where there was a barbershop quartet singing. When the solo part came, the great big guy sang tenor and the little bitty guy sang bass. Instant laugh because of the disconnect between the visual element and the auditory element.

I have a Wagner opera on blu-ray. I watched the whole thing (three hours!) and loved it. Later, I read a review that said that the right and left mains had been accidentally swapped. I couldn't believe it, so I went back and checked. Sure enough, skipping through the opera whenever characters crossed from one side of the screen to the other, it was backwards. I stumbled upon a favorite scene, so I sat down and watched and fell back into it. The ten foot image on the projection screen dominated. Even though the sound was coming from the right, I was perceiving it as coming from the left. I could maintain accurate perception for five or six minutes, but as soon as I fell into watching it, I didn't notice any more.

Here is an absolutely perfect example of how dominant our visual perception is. Magicians can even explain how a trick is done, but when we watch it again, our eyes fool us and we fall right back into believing them again. Penn Jillette can even narrate, telling you exactly what is going on, but you still believe your eyes, not your ears.

 

[jgazal]

Wow, that video is cool!

I agree visual cues are very important.

It is just that having stereo speaker’s at your sight perhaps isn’t as dominant as seeing a real sound source*.

The examples I know are the stereo effect itself, the Bacch processor with an stereo dipole in which the soundstage detaches completely from the speakers and the Realiser.

But please don’t think I am disagreeing completely with what you said. Seeing speakers still have importance.

I asked Smyth Research if they could develop a way to integrate stereoscopic photographs from listening rooms that were measured, so the user could periodically recalibrate visual and sound cues ambiguities by training with a stereoscopic VR headset. But they seem very reluctant to associate their product with any kind of virtual reality.

And Stephen Smyth, Mike Smyth and Steve Cheung also wrote that:

VIRTUALISATION PROBLEMS

Conflicting aural and visual cues

Even if headphone virtualisation is acoustically accurate, it can still cause confusion if the aural and visual impressions conflict. [8] If the likely source of a sound cannot be identified visually, it may be perceived as originating from behind the listener, irrespective of auditory cues to the contrary. Dynamic head-tracking strengthens the auditory cues considerably, but may not fully resolve the confusion, particularly if sounds appear to originate in free space. Simple visible markers, such as paper speakers placed at the apparent source positions, can help to resolve the remaining audio-visual perceptual conflicts. Generally the problems associated with conflicting cues become less important as users learn to trust their ears.

http://www.smyth-research.com/articles_files/SVSAES.pdf

I know that for your daily practice such environments are really not relevant, but thank you for not being angry with my insistence and answering my doubts.

* I would consider mono speakers and hard panned sounds as real sound sources also.

 

[bigshot]

I never become angry! Everything is always fine. (I do punish misbehavior sometimes, but I enjoy that!)