gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,880
- Likes
- 4,122
He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.
I dispute that he's making stuff up now ... he's been making stuff up all along!
G
He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.
Or perhaps deluded? Believing the stuff he's making up? And yes, G, it's been going on quite a while.Read the first post in this thread. Buck the trend of most of the people posting in it!
He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.
On a short-hike with @slankoe I mentioned the recent discussion of the topic of 'binaural' on this thread with regarding the discussion surrounding binaural.
I think both of us were a bit amused/perplexed. When binaural is done properly it is so incredibly "obvious, life-like and amazing "! ? No? Maybe for some perhaps not or less so.
Or perhaps deluded? Believing the stuff he's making up? And yes, G, it's been going on quite a while.
By who?. I demand to see their data!. Was their a full moon at the time?. Was Mars in line with Venus, if not the data is useless.CD mats have been conclusively proven ineffective as a contraceptive.
I just hope locating and posting the pictures he’s promised don’t once again hold up posting the result “proving” CD mats improve audio reproduction. We’ve been promised those for years....
Artificial is a my take but that's obviously only a concern if you're not looking for that live acoustic experience. Using ORTF mics on even something like a vocal sounds more natural than single mic-ing. That's in no way to imply that studio technics are wrong. They simply serve a different need. One that natural space recording also can't accomplish.What I've been gathering from this discussion is that recording pros seem to have entirely different priorities from me as an individual consumer. Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me. Like I mentioned earlier, there are also some multi-miked recordings that convey a good sense of spatial realism in my book, however those examples are rare. The vast majority of "traditionally" recorded stuff, when listend to with IEMs, conveys no "realistic" kind of soundstage to me.
Of course, multi-miked recordings tend to have a clearer and more separated sound than, for example, the binaural recordings I got from @analogsurviver. But here's where different priorities come in, because from my pov, that doesn't necessarily make them more realistic. Let me explain... as a (former) regular concertgoer, I love the room acoustics of venues like Vienna's Musikverein, or even a church. Personally I'm absolutely not averse to the reflected/reverberant/blended sound there. To the contrary, it still let's me focus on individual instruments if I want to, but most of the time, I can just relax and indulge in the blended/holistic concert experience.
So, to get back to the topic of priorities, for example an extremely clear and separated sound isn't that high on my personal list. To the contrary, it may even sound distracting/fatiguing to me, when overdone.
Bottom line, I've been following the discussion with interest and I got where the recording pros are coming from.But as an individual consumer with specific listening habits and preferences, I don't necessarily share their views on binaural.
"Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon.
I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...
[1] What I've been gathering from this discussion is that recording pros seem to have entirely different priorities from me as an individual consumer.
[2] Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, [2a] but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me.
[3] Let me explain... as a (former) regular concertgoer, I love the room acoustics of venues like Vienna's Musikverein, or even a church. Personally I'm absolutely not averse to the reflected/reverberant/blended sound there. To the contrary, it still let's me focus on individual instruments if I want to, but most of the time, I can just relax and indulge in the blended/holistic concert experience.
[4] But as an individual consumer with specific listening habits and preferences, I don't necessarily share their views on binaural.
I'm putting the following forward as benchmarks for attainable gear and a consistent way of recording and mastering binaural / stereo media.
1) Do you have a Focal Utopia or HD800*?
Thanks...but my point is when you come in here from the "outside"and read SS threads the first thing a lot of people do is check to see what equipment posters are using...for context.....when nothing is listed it's easy to assume posters are frugal or sour grapes ect.I think you might get more interest in here if "outsiders" could see thats not the case and perhaps even be familiar with reference equipment used by posters.I'm happy to explain it... The equipment I use isn't why my system sounds good. It sounds good because of the way I've implemented it. I've calibrated the EQ, dealt with room acoustics, experimented to find more effective placement of my speakers, combined different equipment to bring out the best in everything, etc. You could go out and buy the same equipment and it might sound awful because you haven't put it all together the way I have. You can ask me what I use and I'll tell you. But a better question is, "What have you done to make your equipment sound better?"
I've auditioned systems that cost more than a house. Not all of them sounded great. There are lazy audiophiles who aren't interested in optimizing sound. They look at their system as a status symbol that they go out and put on display. They glow with the McIntosh aqua color and the equipment is smack dab in the middle of the front wall staring at you. If you walk into my listening room You won't notice any equipment other than the speakers. It's all in the back and the show is the music and movies up front. That's the way it should be. The whole point is music and movies.
I hired a guy to run wires for me, but I would never hire someone to put together my whole system for me. I've known people who have done that and the second the guy leaves, they pick up the remote control and tie the whole thing up in knots because they don't have the faintest idea how it all works together. I've built my system from the ground up for 40 years now. The learning and evolution is part of the process. You can't just hire someone else to jump you to the end game and think that you are going to be able to maintain it. The first problem you hit, you have to hire the guy to come out and fix it again.
There's very little correlation between sound quality and money in electronics. And in the proper sort of room, reasonably priced speakers work well too. If you're willing to EQ, you can save hundreds of dollars on headphones. That is the kind of smartness I admire... people who get the most out of their equipment and don't just throw money at it. If you spend a lot of money, I'll just hold you to a higher standard. I've been in screening rooms that cost a fortune. I would LOVE to live there! They do it right and they can play any format... film, video, audio. There is where I would spend more money if I was rich, not buying overpriced amps and DACs and sterling silver cables.
Is that clearer?
Yeah, it's a tough thing to search for. Might take years. Or seconds. You pick."Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon.
What an odd pursuit. Searching for "more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay". It's like searching for more ways a disease can kill us, when the disease only kills one in 10 million.I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...
Whoa, big fella. So you've seen a "square wave" on an LP, but only when played without RIAA EQ? Well, then...you haven't seen a square wave on an LP. RIAA EQ, as you MUST know, is a two-ended, essentially encode/decode, pre-emphasis/de-emphasis system. If you take one away, the entire response of the system is altered. If you have to do that to see your square wave, then it's not actually recorded and reproduced in the system, and what you have done is a cheat!
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense unless we define, very carefully, what you mean by a "square wave". We already know we cannot use the actual definition (because it's impossible), so you have clearly re-defined what you're calling a "square wave". If you use a frequency low enough, but not too low, you can get something that sort of resembles some aspects of a square wave through an LP system, tape, and digital, but none of them actually can record and reproduce a real square wave. All are bandwidth limited, some on both extremes. But what you get out of any of those is not a real square wave. But it doesn't matter a wit, since there are no square waves in actual audio. Even the electronic instruments that actually generate them end up with a signal without much resemblance once it's been transduced--even once.
That's getting closer to what clearly is your own fictitious re-definition of a "square wave". Put one of them side by side on your dual-trace scope with a REAL square wave, and none of the above will resemble anything like a square wave either in appearance or spectral content. If your'e going to work with fictitious definitions, you will come to fictitious conclusions. And you have.
Stopping you right there...nope, you evidently don't understand the process nor the physical limitations of cutting a groove, and I'm starting to doubt you have a clear understanding of how the LP works at all. The underlined statement above cannot be correct without much more information. You can cut signals way above 27kHz (it was done with CD4), but you can't even cut 27kHz at any reasonable modulation level. And cutting square waves is physically impossible, though a rough approximation may be a semi-useful test signal in some way. However, the REAL problem here is the "almost square wave looking signal"...that's your ficticious re-definition. Almost? Sure, if you band-limit the top and bottom along with attendant slew limit, throw in some in-band resonances, distortions, and keep the level WAY down, but it's not a square wave!
What the heck means "waaaaay above 20kHz"? Oh don't bother. I've already checked the spectrum of LPs, that super ultrasonic crap you see in the spectrum are distortion products and just plain noise. Confirmed. All you have to do is check the spectrum of a high frequency, highest possible level sine wave, you'll see plenty of "ultrasonic content" up there, but it's not real, and not part of the original signal.
Yeah. Perhaps.
Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me.
Thanks...but my point is when you come in here from the "outside"and read SS threads the first thing a lot of people do is check to see what equipment posters are using...for context.....when nothing is listed it's easy to assume posters are frugal or sour grapes ect.I think you might get more interest in here if "outsiders" could see thats not the case and perhaps even be familiar with reference equipment used by posters.
And, please, do not try to teach me regarding analog record recording and frequencies that can be put on the analog disk master.