In article , Rob
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


You bandy words like 'depth' etc without knowing what they mean.


Doesn't it (depth) just mean some sort of spatial representation of
sound? Like an instrument at the front, another a couple of feet behind,
a vocalist over there on the left, towards the back?

....and with a layout that was intended by those making the recording or
broadcast, and that - for relevant types of music - gives the same audible
layout as you would have experienced in the hall. Not just " blur out the
sense of location depth."

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote


They seem to fetch very good money on e-bay..


Yep! Always! No such thing as *bargain Tannoys* on eBay - you've gotta find
'em in someone's....


Seen a pair of Arden's the other day in a lock up garage


.....attic or lock up garage....

Garage .. dunno if you'd get them up in a loft;!..

(Spooky....)


...for peanuts....



just wondering
of I ought...


Of course you bloody *ought* - how will yo know if you don't grab 'em -
provided they are sill cheap. If you don't like them or they need too much
work you can knock them out on eBay. You'll have no trouble selling them
*collected*!!


SWMBO sez we've enough speakers as it is;(...


Sure and life is too short....


;!...

Well, we've just fed the fox and now it's time to try out the new *full HD*
1080 PJ!! Latest Terninator and Star Trek trailers to start with - both
filmed at the Valasquez rocks at some point, I suspect! (Where the Cisco Kid
used to ride!! :-)


Fun...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Rob wrote:
You bandy words like 'depth' etc without knowing what they mean.


Doesn't it (depth) just mean some sort of spatial representation of
sound? Like an instrument at the front, another a couple of feet behind,
a vocalist over there on the left, towards the back?

Indeed. And this comes mainly from the reproduction of stereo information.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rob" wrote


Doesn't it (depth) just mean some sort of spatial representation of sound?
Like an instrument at the front, another a couple of feet behind, a
vocalist over there on the left, towards the back?


Yes, of course, just that - except I can get a convincing representation of
sounds half a mile away! The important thing is that, for serious listening
as it is called in here (frowning, presumably) both the speakers themselves
disappear and also the walls of the listening room!

But I wouldn't bother responding with that to one of Poochie's 'closing
time' posts - not worth the candle...

On 2009-05-02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
You bandy words like 'depth' etc without knowing what they mean.

Doesn't it (depth) just mean some sort of spatial representation of
sound? Like an instrument at the front, another a couple of feet behind,
a vocalist over there on the left, towards the back?

...and with a layout that was intended by those making the recording or
broadcast, and that - for relevant types of music - gives the same audible
layout as you would have experienced in the hall. Not just " blur out the
sense of location depth."

I have recently been thinking about the factors that lead to good depth
perception in stereo systems. I suspect there are depth cues which
can come from mono systems:

- amplitude (relative: quieter = further away)
- timbre (absolute: less HF = further away)

And stereo cues:

- image width (absolute: narrower = further away)

I am wondering if reflections matter, either "original" ones from the
recording venue or introduced ones from the listening room (which may
blur the originals).

Don mentioned 'speaker toe-in earlier. Since the frequency response of
'speakers off-axis tends to fall off at HF faster than at LF I suspect
toe-in matters somewhat in achieving good timbral depth perception.

--
John Phillips

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:

(Bit more interested in Dragonetti atm, tbh! :-)

The double bass composer?


Yes, and ground-breaking virtuoso and nutter - do a Wiki for more.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus



Well, we've just fed the fox and now it's time to try out the new *full
HD*
1080 PJ!! Latest Terninator and Star Trek trailers to start with - both
filmed at the Valasquez rocks at some point, I suspect! (Where the Cisco
Kid
used to ride!! :-)


Fun...


Bloody trailers wouldn't run - my son had burned them onto a BD DVD and had
given me the .iso on my portable hard drive, so I burned a BD-RE proper but
they still would go.

Watched the 'Burn-E' short for a 1080 comparison and wuz *blown away* - vast
improvement on the 720 PJ (no downscaling)* but not possible to photograph
the screen and get a decent picture yet as stills don't freeze razor sharp
on the Samsing player we're using and the settings need tweaking - here's a
quick (handheld Nikon/Voigtlander DSLR) shot of the 'Piracy' screen to give
you an idea:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Piracy.JPG


The screen's only temporary (note the wiggly lines) but that image is 6'
wide atm and will be wider soon - note part obscured by the back of my chair
in the bottom right!!


* These digiclowns that think signals aren't bashed about by processing
should have a look at the damage that can be done by upscaling and
downscaling *video*....

In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
I have recently been thinking about the factors that lead to good depth
perception in stereo systems. I suspect there are depth cues which
can come from mono systems:

- amplitude (relative: quieter = further away)
- timbre (absolute: less HF = further away)

No - as demonstrated by 'pan pot' stereo. It's the time or phase
differential between the two legs which gives depth. A pan potted mono mic
can give quite good positioning across the stage - after all that's how
its settings were arrived at - but unless combined with other information
will not give any true depth.

And stereo cues:

- image width (absolute: narrower = further away)

I am wondering if reflections matter, either "original" ones from the
recording venue or introduced ones from the listening room (which may
blur the originals).

The ones in the listening room matter a great deal. Really for accurate
reproduction the 'deader' the better. Although if you overdo this the
brain can be confused by an unreal acoustic.

It's no coincidence the finest stereo recordings usually come from the
finest halls, etc. Hardly ever studios.

Don mentioned 'speaker toe-in earlier. Since the frequency response of
'speakers off-axis tends to fall off at HF faster than at LF I suspect
toe-in matters somewhat in achieving good timbral depth perception.

Most decent speakers will have a pretty good off axis response - in terms
of the few degrees needed for the sweet spot. And IMHO all decent speakers
have a sweet spot for stereo. Those that don't have severe problems. ;-)

--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02 May 2009 13:17:54 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2009-05-02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
You bandy words like 'depth' etc without knowing what they mean.

Doesn't it (depth) just mean some sort of spatial representation of
sound? Like an instrument at the front, another a couple of feet behind,
a vocalist over there on the left, towards the back?

...and with a layout that was intended by those making the recording or
broadcast, and that - for relevant types of music - gives the same audible
layout as you would have experienced in the hall. Not just " blur out the
sense of location depth."

I have recently been thinking about the factors that lead to good depth
perception in stereo systems. I suspect there are depth cues which
can come from mono systems:

- amplitude (relative: quieter = further away)
- timbre (absolute: less HF = further away)

And stereo cues:

- image width (absolute: narrower = further away)

I am wondering if reflections matter, either "original" ones from the
recording venue or introduced ones from the listening room (which may
blur the originals).

Don mentioned 'speaker toe-in earlier. Since the frequency response of
'speakers off-axis tends to fall off at HF faster than at LF I suspect
toe-in matters somewhat in achieving good timbral depth perception.

The big depth cue in recordings, and which can be adjusted fairly
realistically even in close-miked multitrack, is the ratio of direct
to reverberant sound. Most reverb synthesizers (I use a convolution
reverb, which accepts impulses recorded in real spaces as the source),
and with that I can go from 100% direct to 100% reverb. You can
actually hear the player moving back and forth in front of you as you
change it.

d

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G


How much does that matter in most 'domestic' applications?

Means the two waveforms won't be 'mirro images' so won't null.


An important point.


Again, what odds to anyone prepared only to pay as little as possible
for 'budget' speakers?

None. Just that the user won't be hearing clear stereo imaging.


That's a presumption I presume?



The 'horns' can be shoved into almost any postion (provided there's one
on the left and one on the right somewhere) and the 'image' might move
a bit but it's quite academic - the music exists independently of the
speakers, wherever they are - up to a point, obviously! (Like I said
the other day - my 'sweet spot' is all the way from my room out to the
back door!! :-)

That's fine. But isn't the kind of stereo imaging I have been talking
about, and hear from the main system I use. I would not be without this,
but if you don't need it, it will make your life easier. :-)


Apologies for the snips (time presses) - my observation here is that, as in
all things, there are 'degrees of 'and stereo is a good example of where
'good enough is good enough' for most people.

For myself I can only say I've never heard better stereo than I can get here
whether it's 'very good' or not; I would go onto say I only have to enjoy
the sound and be convinced by the spatiality when it applies. Tbh, I don't
care if it's 'stereo' or not - I have a lot of mono stuff and the
'spatiality' on that is/has been good enough to fool a number of people
here, in the past! Also, I listen to a lot of stuff on the move and, right
now, there's a fairly quiet, peaceful 'cello (R3) way out behind my monitor
somewhere!