loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.



I think you got that the wrong way round.

Not at all. The ears rely on positioning things by more than just
different levels on left and right. Headphones remove this on a recording
made in the normal ways and balanced on loudspeakers.

Binaural recordings are designed to be listened to on headphones, but
these are not that common outside radio drama.

Of course, many domestic rooms have appalling acoustics for stereo due to
things like the current fashion for wood floors and minimal furnishings.
To really have good stereo imaging you need good speakers and a good room
- as near 'dead' as possible. Few have heard this, and it's an absolute
revelation.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


Only if it's one of Dr. Bailey's long wool socks.
Which speaker was it anyway?

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


Only if it's one of Dr. Bailey's long wool socks.
Which speaker was it anyway?

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!

I'm quite familiar with binaural, but it's pretty uncommon on commercial
recordings given its extremely limiting effects on modern production
techniques. It also doesn't IMHO give good compatibility with how most
listen - on speakers.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!

I'm quite familiar with binaural, but it's pretty uncommon on commercial
recordings given its extremely limiting effects on modern production
techniques. It also doesn't IMHO give good compatibility with how most
listen - on speakers.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways.

The original BBC design omitted the HF unit, but I doubt many of these are
around domestically. It also had a most noticeable mid range 'suck out'
which the BEEB favoured in those days.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways.

The original BBC design omitted the HF unit, but I doubt many of these are
around domestically. It also had a most noticeable mid range 'suck out'
which the BEEB favoured in those days.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

two sonically independant drivers (ie. no sound leaks across from one
ear to the other)

But the ear positions sounds by more than just relative levels - and this
is lost on a conventional recording when listened to on headphones.

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

It might give an impressive sound, but accurate it's not, unless special
recording techniques are employed specifically for headphones which then
degrades the result on speakers.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

two sonically independant drivers (ie. no sound leaks across from one
ear to the other)

But the ear positions sounds by more than just relative levels - and this
is lost on a conventional recording when listened to on headphones.

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

It might give an impressive sound, but accurate it's not, unless special
recording techniques are employed specifically for headphones which then
degrades the result on speakers.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

Some of the finest imaging I ever heard was from flush-mounted
speakers. Think about it - there *is* no diffraction smear from the
baffle in a flush-mounted speaker.

We'll have to differ, then. I've never heard any flush mounted speakers
that compare to the same basic design free standing. Doesn't stop plenty
of recording studios fitting them, though. But the final positioning will
be done on near fields in this situation.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn