loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, the OP stated that headphones could never
produce as good a stereo image as loudspeakers. I disagreed.

Perhaps you'd define 'image'. If you mean the ability to purely identify a
left and right signal, then you're correct. Ping-pong, anyone?

But for the nuances of a soundstage, you're totally and utterly wrong.


Well we reach an impasse then because I am certain the opposite is true.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
Then why is there a difference between binaural and coincident pair etc
when listened on headphones or speakers?

Becuase binaural recordings are *designed* to be heard on phones not
speakers.

Binaural recordings are *designed* to get round the deficiencies of
listening to stereo on headphones. That's the whole point of them.

No they are designed to make best use of the *advantages* of headphones.


Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there
are no stereo mics.

I know and I agree they are processed to sound best on two speakers.

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room.
It's chalk and cheese on most recodings. Of course headphones may well
sound better than poor speakers in a poor room, but that's not the
point I'm making.

Your original point was that headphones have some inherent limitation
that means thay cannot create as good a stereo image as headphones.
This is wrong. I agree material designed for two speakers sounds best
on them but that is not a deficiency on the part of headphones. Equally
binaural recordings sound better on headphones.

Binaural recordings can sound 'interesting' when heard on a good speaker
and room combination.

And regular stereo recordings sound 'interesting on headphones.


But still - even via headphones - can't provide the same 3 dimensional
sound stage as good loudspeakers in a good room.


Indeed, they can provide a much better one.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
Then why is there a difference between binaural and coincident pair etc
when listened on headphones or speakers?

Becuase binaural recordings are *designed* to be heard on phones not
speakers.

Binaural recordings are *designed* to get round the deficiencies of
listening to stereo on headphones. That's the whole point of them.

No they are designed to make best use of the *advantages* of headphones.


Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there
are no stereo mics.

I know and I agree they are processed to sound best on two speakers.

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room.
It's chalk and cheese on most recodings. Of course headphones may well
sound better than poor speakers in a poor room, but that's not the
point I'm making.

Your original point was that headphones have some inherent limitation
that means thay cannot create as good a stereo image as headphones.
This is wrong. I agree material designed for two speakers sounds best
on them but that is not a deficiency on the part of headphones. Equally
binaural recordings sound better on headphones.

Binaural recordings can sound 'interesting' when heard on a good speaker
and room combination.

And regular stereo recordings sound 'interesting on headphones.


But still - even via headphones - can't provide the same 3 dimensional
sound stage as good loudspeakers in a good room.


Indeed, they can provide a much better one.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Err, who's talking about using room properties as a trick?

What would you call it? the sound isnt originating anywhere near where
it was originally (I suppose technically that makes all recording a
trick, but at least with a typical stereo setup sounds are *really*
comming from in front of you...

Surely the idea is for the speakers to reproduce what the mics are
'hearing'?

And with, say, a classical piece, to near reproduce what an audience would
hear in the hall? And in that hall, you'd hear the main sound from the
stage, but other sounds - audience, reverberation etc from other than the
front? If you aren't interested in this information, why not just stick to
mono?

In a good room with good speakers listen to a good recording made with
a good coincident pair. You'll clearly hear what's on the front of the
mics and what's on the back.

I didnt deny the trick works...

It's no trick, but a function of using directional mics, or a mic layout
that can mimic this. I'm sure Jim Lesurf could point to where the basic
maths could be found.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Err, who's talking about using room properties as a trick?

What would you call it? the sound isnt originating anywhere near where
it was originally (I suppose technically that makes all recording a
trick, but at least with a typical stereo setup sounds are *really*
comming from in front of you...

Surely the idea is for the speakers to reproduce what the mics are
'hearing'?

And with, say, a classical piece, to near reproduce what an audience would
hear in the hall? And in that hall, you'd hear the main sound from the
stage, but other sounds - audience, reverberation etc from other than the
front? If you aren't interested in this information, why not just stick to
mono?

In a good room with good speakers listen to a good recording made with
a good coincident pair. You'll clearly hear what's on the front of the
mics and what's on the back.

I didnt deny the trick works...

It's no trick, but a function of using directional mics, or a mic layout
that can mimic this. I'm sure Jim Lesurf could point to where the basic
maths could be found.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there
are no stereo mics.

So what the heck id your point then? its not 'real' anyway, so
headphones create as realistic an effect as speakers...

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room.

I hope you're not sugegsting my Radford monitor 1's are poor speakers?

The speakers are perhaps less important than the room for stereo imaging -
assuming reasonable speakers.

Put it this way. A well recorded voice played over speakers at a natural
level might well fool you into thinking that person was in the room with
you. With headphones? Never in a month of Sundays.


On the contrary, I have a recording made by a chap in Australia of a local
diesel train going past. On speakers it sounds very ordinary. On
headphones the sense of 3D space and motion of the train is truly
astounding.
Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there
are no stereo mics.

So what the heck id your point then? its not 'real' anyway, so
headphones create as realistic an effect as speakers...

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room.

I hope you're not sugegsting my Radford monitor 1's are poor speakers?

The speakers are perhaps less important than the room for stereo imaging -
assuming reasonable speakers.

Put it this way. A well recorded voice played over speakers at a natural
level might well fool you into thinking that person was in the room with
you. With headphones? Never in a month of Sundays.


On the contrary, I have a recording made by a chap in Australia of a local
diesel train going past. On speakers it sounds very ordinary. On
headphones the sense of 3D space and motion of the train is truly
astounding.
Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Put it this way. A well recorded voice played over speakers at a
natural level might well fool you into thinking that person was in the
room with you. With headphones? Never in a month of Sundays.

On that point we'll have to disagree... of course, finding a decent pair
of headphones these days...

You hear voices in the middle of your head? ;-)

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Put it this way. A well recorded voice played over speakers at a
natural level might well fool you into thinking that person was in the
room with you. With headphones? Never in a month of Sundays.

On that point we'll have to disagree... of course, finding a decent pair
of headphones these days...

You hear voices in the middle of your head? ;-)

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:43:31 GMT
"Wally" wrote:

And a 'normal' stereo recording is 'adjusted' to make up for the
deficiencies of its typical playback medium - stereo speakers.

What's a 'normal' stereo recording, and how is it adjusted for
playback on speakers?

I'll tell you that if you tell me what a normal recording for
headphones is ;-)

Not my drum.


but seriosuly, most stereo recordings are (as others have pointed out)
intended for listening to on speakers. hence during the recordign that
is the playback scheme that the engineers will be trying to make the
recording sound 'right' on.

I don't think you've answered the question - what and how?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.