[gregorio]

[1] Personally, I recognize the limitations of using only 2-mics. They can only pick up (attenuate) a limited range of dynamics. If we had mics as sensitive as our ears..well then binaural would be much different.
[2] What was the particular myth or claim about binaural again? Whether it was effective or commercially viable?

1. Actually, I see mic dynamic range/sensitivity as one of the least of binaural's problems. The Shostakovich 5 you linked to for example is probably an accurate capture of the sound waves (including the dynamic range): The noise of the audience is very present and relatively loud, the orchestra is rather distant, poorly defined and separated and with a rather small dynamic range. But, this is NOT a limitation/problem with mics, the mic's have done their job and captured the sound waves. The problem is with perception or rather, the lack of it! As I've stated before, although this may be an accurate representation of the sound waves, it is NOT an accurate representation of what one would likely experience, due to human perception, which binaural recording cannot represent at all. As a consequence of human perception (the brain's processing), the actual experience sitting in this same location would likely have been; much less audience noise, less room reverb, more clarity, definition and separation of the orchestra and a somewhat larger dynamic range. We can represent this experience using multi-mic recording and mixing but we can't with a binaural recording.

The other recordings display other typical binaural recording problems, due to relatively close binaural mic'ing, poor balance and also accurate but undesirable positioning (hard panning). That hard panning could of course be alleviated by moving the mics further away from the musicians but then you run into the greater distance Shostakovich recording problem again; too much noise/reverb and loss of clarity, separation, etc. This highlights the problem of any (near) single point stereo pair recording, namely, that there often is no single point which solves these problems. The only solution is typically multi-mic'ing, which allows a mixer/producer to correct for positioning, separation, clarity, balance between the instruments, dynamic range and the balance between the direct and reflected sound, to more accurately represent what we would experience, expect or desire.

2. As explained above, typically neither!

[1] Before proceedenig any further, I would first like you to listen particularly to this video highlighting the importance of placing the binaural microphone :
[2] Please review and comment the above - it may well prove to be a steep learning curve, both for yourself and all the participants in this thread regarding binaural.

1. Mic placement is always of vital importance, whatever mic'ing scheme is being employed, binaural is no different to any other mic'ing scheme/technique in this regard.

2. Hmm, are you sure the steep learning curve isn't yours? Have you really listened or are you only concentrating on certain aspects of the binaural effect? Really listening and evaluating ALL the aspects is a MUCH steeper learning curve! For example, while some of the mic positions in the piano vids are better than others, they all have their strengths AND weaknesses, can you hear them all? Even more difficult, can you identify them? Sometimes the piano is effectively a single mono sound source, sometimes it's a wide stereo sound source, sometimes we get a great deal of room noise, sometimes we get noises created by the the pianist, sometimes we get too little room reverb, sometimes a bit too much, sometimes the balance and/or clarity between the high and low end of the piano is not quite right, etc. Probably there is no single point the binaural mic could be placed which would be ideal. A professional would take advantage of the strengths of the various positions and minimise the weaknesses: So for example, a stereo pair close to or actually inside the piano would allow for excellent balance and clarity between the high and low end of the piano, as much or little stereo width as desired from the piano itself and inside the piano would reduce room and musician noise and then another stereo pair (probably an A/B pair) much further away to record the room ambience/reverb and also avoid musician noise. Then of course all these mic's would be mixed together with an appropriate balance. We would gain; lower noise, better balance and more clarity/separation and we would loose what? Some small amount of absolute spatial coherency which could only be perceivable on headphones and will only be perceived as a fatal flaw by a tiny fraction of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise, better balance and more clarity.

Surely you've made a simple error about the "binaural" orchestral recording (Arturo Marquez), like posting a link to the wrong video? Despite there being a dummy head right next to the conductor, presumably with binaural mic's attached, the sound on the video is OBVIOUSLY not from those binaural mics, it's from a stereo mic on or connected to the camera! This is a video of an orchestra rehearsing with a dummy head, not the actual recording from that dummy head! To be honest, I'm at a loss for words, I can't even imagine how is it possible to be so sensitive to the relative minutiae of absolute spatial coherency and yet so completely insensitive to massive differences in balance, positioning and aural perspective? Please tell me you've made a mistake, otherwise your learning curve is shockingly steeper than I could even have guessed!!

G

 

[RRod]

I'll check those videos out when I get a chance, but for the life of me I don't know why there should be a steep learning curve for how to listen to the sound of music. I can see that understanding music itself might be challenging, but sound mixes should be clear and present the music directly.

I'm beginning to think that binaural is like 3D images. It works better from a very close perspective. The further away you get, the flatter it gets. If you shove something right into the mike or camera, it starts to get the effect. If you shoot or record at a distance, it evens out to flat. That's why 3D tends to cheat long shots by moving the lenses further apart to accentuate the 3D effect and make things seem smaller.

It also may be that this effect just doesn't work on me. When I hear real surround sound, I can pinpoint sources all around me. When I listen to binaural, it flattens out and shapes all around my head randomly. I'm playing with my new Oculus Go which has head tracking and directional sound, and it doesn't work well either. Stuff right behind me to one side or the other pops to one ear or the other. Tonight I heard a live Steely Dan song playing in a chat room and the sax solo was directly in back of me, but I'm sure it wasn't supposed to do that. It seems awfully random.

Isn't one of the 800 lb white gorilla-elephants in the room that pretty much any speaker, when placed somewhere, will sound like it's coming from there, unless you do some really specific stuff to the signal? I highly doubt that I could go into the mixing/mastering room of a label that regularly does surround, put sound in the back speakers, and think 'eh, that doesn't sound really behind me'. Ditto with the front speakers. The philosophy calibrates the environment for everyone.

 

[analogsurviver]

[QUOTE="gregorio, post: 14241699,



1. Mic placement is always of vital importance, whatever mic'ing scheme is being employed, binaural is no different to any other mic'ing scheme/technique in this regard.

2. Hmm, are you sure the steep learning curve isn't yours? Have you really listened or are you only concentrating on certain aspects of the binaural effect? Really listening and evaluating ALL the aspects is a MUCH steeper learning curve! For example, while some of the mic positions in the piano vids are better than others, they all have their strengths AND weaknesses, can you hear them all? Even more difficult, can you identify them? Sometimes the piano is effectively a single mono sound source, sometimes it's a wide stereo sound source, sometimes we get a great deal of room noise, sometimes we get noises created by the the pianist, sometimes we get too little room reverb, sometimes a bit too much, sometimes the balance and/or clarity between the high and low end of the piano is not quite right, etc. Probably there is no single point the binaural mic could be placed which would be ideal. A professional would take advantage of the strengths of the various positions and minimise the weaknesses: So for example, a stereo pair close to or actually inside the piano would allow for excellent balance and clarity between the high and low end of the piano, as much or little stereo width as desired from the piano itself and inside the piano would reduce room and musician noise and then another stereo pair (probably an A/B pair) much further away to record the room ambience/reverb and also avoid musician noise. Then of course all these mic's would be mixed together with an appropriate balance. We would gain; lower noise, better balance and more clarity/separation and we would loose what? Some small amount of absolute spatial coherency which could only be perceivable on headphones and will only be perceived as a fatal flaw by a tiny fraction of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise, better balance and more clarity.

Surely you've made a simple error about the "binaural" orchestral recording (Arturo Marquez), like posting a link to the wrong video? Despite there being a dummy head right next to the conductor, presumably with binaural mic's attached, the sound on the video is OBVIOUSLY not from those binaural mics, it's from a stereo mic on or connected to the camera! This is a video of an orchestra rehearsing with a dummy head, not the actual recording from that dummy head! To be honest, I'm at a loss for words, I can't even imagine how is it possible to be so sensitive to the relative minutiae of absolute spatial coherency and yet so completely insensitive to massive differences in balance, positioning and aural perspective? Please tell me you've made a mistake, otherwise your learning curve is shockingly steeper than I could even have guessed!!

G[/QUOTE]
1.) Of course the mic placement is of paramount importance, with any recording technique possible. I simply chose the best "off the shelf" recordings available on YT that could be found in reasonable time; after all, people who have not been at the recording and have no visual cue, will usually have trouble guessing in just what kind of acoustical environment the binaural recording has been made - UNLESS they heave a considerable experience under their belt. I was quite amazed with the precision of descriptions of my binaural recordings by @hrklg01 - during my visit to him, particularly of the recording he liked the best; best possible without showing him the photos or videos of the actual recording - which actually confirmed his initial impression to the letter. So, for the uninitiated, video helps a lot - and I used the best I could find without recording/filming/uploading it by myself..

2.) The same answer as the last sentence from 1.)
Regarding miking an acoustical piano - MANY possible choices. DPA used to distribute CD/SACD ( obviously, CLEARLY feeling the CD not being capable of accurately conveying the differences among various DPA mikes used for the same positioning ) with the same piano being recorded simultaneously with quite a few ( 8 or 16 ...? ) different microphone pairs and/or positions - and you can multiply that by the number of the better mic manufacturers, divide by say 4 to cater for actual "average" number of models suitable for piano recording by each respective mic manufacturer, multiply by the number of studios/recording engineers using said microphones ... in short, very BROAD selection to choose from, without even counting binaural as an option.

I may have most likely the same magnitude of experience with positioning the binaural as you may have in multimiking and consequent "mixing". By no stretch of imagination were the positions of the binaural mic shown in video all possible or even merely the most desirable - but they did convey the general idea of the importance of mic positioning very effectively.

Yes, you can - most definitely - count me into the group of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise - but not necessary this does always mean we have to sacrifice better balance and more clarity; my opinion is that exactly the opposite to what you claim can also be achieved trough binaural recording.

Regarding the Arturo Marquez recording; again, I chose one that most closely corresponded to the intent of my post. If you check their YT channel, there are all kinds of various possible uses for binaural recording - even recorded within the orchestra, etc. With all due respect to the basic R&D research in binaural/Kunstkopf by the Germans, they - on the other side - are not *exactly* champions of its practical usage. I will check the recording again, as it has been like 04:00 AM at the time of posting.I will try to find a better example of binaural symphonic orchestra recording already available online.

I do have binaural recordings from within the various sections of the symphonic orchestra - strings, wodwinds, brass, percussion, etc ; to the regular listener/concert goer, such recordings come as a shock - and surely raise the question how the hell they can make so good music given the sound they have available on stage.

I also have binaural recordings of various orchestras recorded in large churches ( far better place to record the binaural than say the hall used in the Marquez recording ) - and wish I had the permission to share those. Regrettably, I do not ; since I am a free lance recording engineer, the recordings are owned by whoever paid for them.

 

[bigshot]

Castle, I'm not talking about oddball tube amps. Everyone knows that. And if you have IEMs with specific impedance requirements, of course you need an amp designed to meet that requirement. Used with the headphones the amp was designed to work with, it will be transparent. I'm talking about is your typical solid state amp used by people here on head fie that they have properly matched with the impedance of their own particular cans. You can go to Amazon and buy an amp and not be at all out of line to expect it to perform transparently for the purpose it was created for.

Constantly pointing to largely irrelevant exceptions to the rule just confuses people. It's great to let people know that impedance matters. But that is a factor that is 100% the IEMs, not the amp. An impedance mismatch doesn't mean the amp isn't transparent. It just means you're using it wrong.

Used for the situation it was designed to be used with, I think you would have a very hard time finding a headphone amp that isn't transparent. If a manufacturer is making one that isn't transparent, people deserve to know about it. Point one out and we'll do that.

 

[bigshot]

Isn't one of the 800 lb white gorilla-elephants in the room that pretty much any speaker, when placed somewhere, will sound like it's coming from there, unless you do some really specific stuff to the signal?

Yeah, that is the point. 5.1 isn't doesn't have to synthesize directionality and depth. It has natural directionality and depth.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

I think if the message that's heard is "all amps are audibly transparent" that people will be disappointed... as you've acknowledged, there are conditions that need to be met, and it's not actually rare for them to not be met. Keep in mind that the average listener actually doesn't understand impedance matching at all, and so is likely to run into a situation where (from their point of view) a headphone amp isn't audibly transparent. Take it from someone who has worked customer service for a mainstream consumer audio company... people using things wrong is more the rule than the exception.

 

[Phronesis]

A thought: given the variability in people's hearing ability and how important they perceive differences to be, there may be a self-selection process where people tend to gravitate towards products where they perceive significant differences which are real. This doesn't rule out high false positive rates due to bias and misperception but, if valid, the hypothesis should lower our estimates of those rates.

 

[bigshot]

I think if the message that's heard is "all amps are audibly transparent" that people will be disappointed... as you've acknowledged, there are conditions that need to be met, and it's not actually rare for them to not be met. Keep in mind that the average listener actually doesn't understand impedance matching at all, and so is likely to run into a situation where (from their point of view) a headphone amp isn't audibly transparent. Take it from someone who has worked customer service for a mainstream consumer audio company... people using things wrong is more the rule than the exception.

I agree. I just think it's being more useful to focus advice to people on using their amp correctly, not making them think that there is something wrong with the amp because they aren't. That is what confuses people in forums where one guy who is using his amp correctly says "this amp sounds great!" and someone using it incorrectly says "this amp sucks, avoid it at all costs". The truth is that the amp is just fine. The problem is how the user is using it. Better to correct that than correcting the statement that amps are almost always audibly transparent. Because used properly, they are.

A thought: given the variability in people's hearing ability and how important they perceive differences to be, there may be a self-selection process where people tend to gravitate towards products where they perceive significant differences which are real. This doesn't rule out high false positive rates due to bias and misperception but, if valid, the hypothesis should lower our estimates of those rates.

I tend to gravitate towards dealing with issues I perceive to be real, and I don't waste my time dealing with problems I can't hear. I think that is a very practical way of addressing problems. Deal with the big stuff first, and don't sweat the little stuff that doesn't matter.

The goal is achieving a kick ass home audio system. It's beyond me how people can drift away from that simple goal, but audiophiles seem to fly off into pointless tangents at the drop of a hat.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

I would agree with the headline message being "If your amp isn't transparent someone (probably you) has screwed up somehow".

 

[bigshot]

OK. That is good. I'll use that. I just added it to my sig.

 

[bigshot]

It was not without reason why I *chose* you to embark on the steep learning curve regarding for how to listen to the sound of music - using binaural example only as a vehicle. For a plethora of reasons that are - according to your comments so far - way above your scope of understanding and/or appreciation at the time of this writing.

Before I embark on this course, I would like to see the syllabus. The course outline isn't doing much to convince me that it's worth taking. Frankly, it reeks of hot air.

If you want to teach, please be clear, be organized and be concise. That is how you communicate effectively. Irrelevant sidetracks into phono cartridges won't help. Neither will resorting to overblown elocution designed to puff up your own ego. Just cut to the chase and tell me what I need to do to get the effect to work and when I have experienced it and I'm impressed with it, explain to me why it wasn't working for me before. That should be two nice clear concise paragraphs. Easy peasy.

One quick question before I listen to those clips.... Just the preview image makes me wonder who the hell is engineering this stuff. If your head shape and shoulders can affect the way sound works, WHY IN THE LOVE OF GOD WOULD YOU PUT A HIGHLY DIRECTIONAL MIKE SETUP SQUARELY RIGHT BEHIND THE CONDUCTOR'S BACK? Is this conductor audibly transparent? Maybe the reason it's so quiet is because someone is standing right in front of the mike and blocking the sound!

 

[Phronesis]

I tend to gravitate towards dealing with issues I perceive to be real, and I don't waste my time dealing with problems I can't hear. I think that is a very practical way of addressing problems. Deal with the big stuff first, and don't sweat the little stuff that doesn't matter.

The goal is achieving a kick ass home audio system. It's beyond me how people can drift away from that simple goal, but audiophiles seem to fly off into pointless tangents at the drop of a hat.

I fully agree with your general point. At the same time, it's possible that some other people may be hearing and caring about things which you and I don't hear or care about, hence their buying products which seem like a waste of money to us (but not for them). I have no idea how common that might be, but I think it's a factor worth considering.

My own improvement in hearing acuity since I got back into audio several months ago tells me that hearing acuity can improve through training and experience, and I'm also open to the idea that there can be significant genetic differences in both hearing acuity and ability to improve it. In the motorsports world, we commonly see this kind of variability and improvement (or lack thereof) with vision. Another example from medicine is the pattern recognition radiologists develop through their training and experience - and I wonder what the correlation is between doctors having a natural knack for radiology vs going into that field.

 

[bigshot]

If they can hear it clearly in a controlled test and care about it, that's fine. But that doesn't include inaudible stuff that's a result of sloppy comparison tests or expectation bias. No one can really hear stuff that only exists on paper or in their head, and no one should waste their time caring about meaningless or imaginary stuff.

I don't believe in "improvements in hearing acuity". Your ears hear what they hear and that's it. You can be paying more attention now than you used to, or perhaps you have expectation bias to make you think that straining to hear better actually will make you hear better. But if you do actually hear something you didn't hear before, that just means that your earlier impressions were due to sloppy comparison tests and something got by you. When I get a new piece of equipment I make the effort to do a careful comparison test right away. If it passes the test, I don't worry about it any more. So far, I haven't run across any amp, DAC or player that doesn't pass the test.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I fully agree with your general point. At the same time, it's possible that some other people may be hearing and caring about things which you and I don't hear or care about, hence their buying products which seem like a waste of money to us (but not for them). I have no idea how common that might be, but I think it's a factor worth considering.

The differences we are debating about are small enough that we don't even know if anyone actually is hearing things that nobody else can. Don't assume any conclusion that differences are being heard to then trying to determine how common it might be. Where is the evidence to suggest a difference is being heard? Where is the math to suggest it is even likely? I tend to follow the evidence. Some say that Bigfoot exists, but it would seem silly to suggest how much of a factor bigfoot make on any particular environment when it is not clear they exist at all.

 

[Phronesis]

The differences we are debating about are small enough that we don't even know if anyone actually is hearing things that nobody else can. Don't assume any conclusion that differences are being heard to then trying to determine how common it might be. Where is the evidence to suggest a difference is being heard? Where is the math to suggest it is even likely? I tend to follow the evidence. Some say that Bigfoot exists, but it would seem silly to suggest how much of a factor bigfoot make on any particular environment when it is not clear they exist at all.

How do we 'know' the differences are small, to all listeners? That kind of sweeping generalization is speculative, not scientific.

The evidence is anecdotal reports and our personal experiences, which are obviously of varying reliability and subject to biases, but I don't dismiss the entire category for those reasons. I believe some people have also done well on some blind tests, which is strong evidence that it's not all false positives.

And where is the evidence to the contrary? A handful of small studies, usually conducted by hobbyists or amateurs in an amateurish way, which had null results, don't really tell us much, IMO. While biases generate false positives, we don't have good data from which to estimate the false positive rate. If someone says 'I've done lots of blind tests and always got null results', that's sort of anecdotal too.

If we don't *know* things, we should start by admitting that, rather than making assumptions about things we don't know and then going down potentially wrong paths.