Home
»
Audio Banter forum
»
UK Audio Newsgroups
»
uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi)
Frequency response of the ear
Author Name
Remember Me?
Password
Site Map
Home
Register
Authors List
Search
Today's Posts
Mark Forums Read
Web Partners
uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi)
(uk.rec.audio) Discussion and exchange of hi-fi audio equipment.
Frequency response of the ear
«
Head wear query
|
Huuuum
»
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Prev
Next
#
11
(
permalink
)
May 2nd 09, 05:10 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Rob
external usenet poster
Posts: 187
Frequency response of the ear
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 13:42:31 GMT,
(Don Pearce) wrote:
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
Here's how it works. Quick speech recording, played against a constant
reverb impulse (a local church, in fact), repeated five times with the
ratio of direct and reverberant sound changed each time - final one is
reverberant only.
Obviously greatly exaggerated for illustration.
http://81.174.169.10/odds/depth.mp3
d
Which is a similar sensation I'd experience when valves are in the
amplification chain. I know (before you start!) that that doesn't
compute. It gives me a very believable notion of instruments (etc) and
spatial perspective.
Rob
Rob
View Public Profile
View message headers
Find all posts by Rob
Find all threads started by Rob
«
Head wear query
|
Huuuum
»
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode
Threaded Mode
Posting Rules
You
may not
post new threads
You
may not
post replies
You
may not
post attachments
You
may not
edit your posts
vB code
is
On
Smilies
are
On
[IMG]
code is
On
HTML code is
Off
Trackbacks
are
On
Pingbacks
are
On
Refbacks
are
On
All times are GMT. The time now is
08:06 AM
.
-
Contact Us
-
AudioBanter Home
-
FAQ
-
Links
-
Privacy Statement
-
Top
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by
vBSEO
3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2025 Audio Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
LinkBack
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks