loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:33:16 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Binaural recordings can and do sound good on speakers in again a good
room. You'd get best results by sitting closer to the speakers or moving
them apart further than normal, though.

I dont think we're going to get anywhere here...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:00:05 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at a
different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound on
headphones provides no input to the right ear.

Of course - No-one doubts this.

the point is that a recording made for headphones will take this into account and the left-based sound will be on the right channel as well, at the appropriate amplitude and delay...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:00:05 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at a
different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound on
headphones provides no input to the right ear.

Of course - No-one doubts this.

the point is that a recording made for headphones will take this into account and the left-based sound will be on the right channel as well, at the appropriate amplitude and delay...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


1) Relative times of arrivals at the two ears.

2) Effects of diffraction/scattering from the ear-lobes being
direction dependent.

It is possible in principle to process the sound so that these effects
are pre-applied - hence some of the 'dummy head' recordings. However
with most stereo recordings and broadcasts the sound will be produced
on the assumption that you're listening via a pair of loudspeakers.

Slainte,

Jim


Exactly. And not one of these factors is inherently missing when
listening on headphones

I would disagree.

When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at
a
different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound on
headphones provides no input to the right ear. Hence there is quite a
distinct difference in what arrives at the two ears between headphones and
loudspeakers even if we negelect things like room reverberation.



Agreed and I would suggest that this effect enables 'soundstage' to be
perceived much like stereo vision enables distances to be 'perceived'. Minor
movements of the head and body in a good, clear stereo soundfield enable a
single source to be pinpointed and a 'relative distance' can be perceived.
This can be confirmed by a major movement (ie moving from one side of the
room to another) where, with a bit of luck, the 'pinpointed' instrument,
say, will appear to remain fixed in the soundfield. As has been stated
elsewhere, this effect is entirely negated by the wearing of headphones when
head movements can produce an uncomfortable effect of 'unreality'!

An extreme and somewhat clumsy example (which might be easy to visualise) is
the early Beatles stuff with the 'band' on the left and vocals on the right,
where it is easy to go stand in front of the 'music' or go over and stand in
front of the voices. Going very close up to the speakers will demonstrate
this to the point of absurdity - neither the voices or the music go away in
either extreme, but one'll definitely be a damn sight closer than the other!

This isn't ******** - it can easily be checked for oneself, but the
recording needs to be a very good one (no pianos swishing from right to left
and back again for instance) and the type of music is important - this is
much harder to determine with large, complex music like a full symphony
orchestra which usually has a massive amount of 'distance' to start with. A
better example is a comparatively small Jazz combo with a few, well defined
different instruments playing.

There is a *lot* more to good stereo than a simple 'ping-pong' effect!
Having said that, although the soundfield tends to follow one around more,
it is also a fallacy to think that mono reproduction isn't capable of
producing the effects of 'left and right', depth and spatiality, but I will
address this elsewhere.

Also, dare I say it? - the choice of media and type of amplification is very
important to get the best demonstration of the above effects. Ignoring
detail and sweetness of tone for a moment, the vastly superior, er,
'vastness' of the soundstage and the much better impression of space and
distance are important reasons why a number (many, once you get off this ng)
prefer 'non digital' and 'non SS' !! Given the extra hassle and expense, why
TF do you think we bother with it?? (Others, of course, simply don't 'get
it' and probably never will.....)

This has given me a handy 'theme' for tonight's visit from my 'audiophile'
friend who, I have to admit, has got very good hearing and is a very
experienced 'listener' (sells hifi gear). We will check this all out and I
will report back here if what I have said falls on its arse. It will be
interesting as I know he is already fairly well ingrained to expect and
appreciate the 'high and wide' (but extremely planar) sound of CD and yet
comes round on a regular basis to get his, er, 'non digital' fix.......!!

:-)

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


1) Relative times of arrivals at the two ears.

2) Effects of diffraction/scattering from the ear-lobes being
direction dependent.

It is possible in principle to process the sound so that these effects
are pre-applied - hence some of the 'dummy head' recordings. However
with most stereo recordings and broadcasts the sound will be produced
on the assumption that you're listening via a pair of loudspeakers.

Slainte,

Jim


Exactly. And not one of these factors is inherently missing when
listening on headphones

I would disagree.

When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at
a
different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound on
headphones provides no input to the right ear. Hence there is quite a
distinct difference in what arrives at the two ears between headphones and
loudspeakers even if we negelect things like room reverberation.



Agreed and I would suggest that this effect enables 'soundstage' to be
perceived much like stereo vision enables distances to be 'perceived'. Minor
movements of the head and body in a good, clear stereo soundfield enable a
single source to be pinpointed and a 'relative distance' can be perceived.
This can be confirmed by a major movement (ie moving from one side of the
room to another) where, with a bit of luck, the 'pinpointed' instrument,
say, will appear to remain fixed in the soundfield. As has been stated
elsewhere, this effect is entirely negated by the wearing of headphones when
head movements can produce an uncomfortable effect of 'unreality'!

An extreme and somewhat clumsy example (which might be easy to visualise) is
the early Beatles stuff with the 'band' on the left and vocals on the right,
where it is easy to go stand in front of the 'music' or go over and stand in
front of the voices. Going very close up to the speakers will demonstrate
this to the point of absurdity - neither the voices or the music go away in
either extreme, but one'll definitely be a damn sight closer than the other!

This isn't ******** - it can easily be checked for oneself, but the
recording needs to be a very good one (no pianos swishing from right to left
and back again for instance) and the type of music is important - this is
much harder to determine with large, complex music like a full symphony
orchestra which usually has a massive amount of 'distance' to start with. A
better example is a comparatively small Jazz combo with a few, well defined
different instruments playing.

There is a *lot* more to good stereo than a simple 'ping-pong' effect!
Having said that, although the soundfield tends to follow one around more,
it is also a fallacy to think that mono reproduction isn't capable of
producing the effects of 'left and right', depth and spatiality, but I will
address this elsewhere.

Also, dare I say it? - the choice of media and type of amplification is very
important to get the best demonstration of the above effects. Ignoring
detail and sweetness of tone for a moment, the vastly superior, er,
'vastness' of the soundstage and the much better impression of space and
distance are important reasons why a number (many, once you get off this ng)
prefer 'non digital' and 'non SS' !! Given the extra hassle and expense, why
TF do you think we bother with it?? (Others, of course, simply don't 'get
it' and probably never will.....)

This has given me a handy 'theme' for tonight's visit from my 'audiophile'
friend who, I have to admit, has got very good hearing and is a very
experienced 'listener' (sells hifi gear). We will check this all out and I
will report back here if what I have said falls on its arse. It will be
interesting as I know he is already fairly well ingrained to expect and
appreciate the 'high and wide' (but extremely planar) sound of CD and yet
comes round on a regular basis to get his, er, 'non digital' fix.......!!

:-)

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote


snippage


mono can still reproduce reverberation from the back. in fact its not a
bad time to point out that if you are claiming a stereo pair can produce
rear sounds, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a mono
speaker ought to be able to image both left and right in the same manner. of
course it can, but I doubt anyone here would recommend it as a decent
listening experience.


Are you kidding? I've got hundreds of mono records I could play to you which
are a superb 'listen' and, FWIW, you would *never* guess they weren't
stereo! (40s, 50s and 60s Bands and Jazz mostly.)

'Phantom centre channel' mono (ie played on a stereo system with a pair of
speakers) can give a superb perception of 'left and right', depth and
spatiality with individual sounds (particularly 'audience participation')
being firmly place 'off centre', to the left or right. The 'soundstage'
doesn't remain 'fixed' as with good stereo reproduction (as I have said
elsewhere) and tends to 'follow one about' a bit, but this isn't always to
the detriment of the sound.

It's fairly obvious that much (most) mono stuff will come from 'non silver'
disks which actually aids the fact that clarity and detail in good mono
recordings can appear better than it does in stereo stuff. (I have to admit
I have no way of making direct, A/B comparisons here, however.) You've only
got to factor in 'non SS' amplification to get the full benefit of a decent
mono recording - in spades! Tell you one thing - I've never heard an
'enhanced for stereo' record that sounded any better than its mono
'brothers'!

Strikes me that too many people are a bit too quick to dismiss the various
modes of audio reproduction based on personal bias and being too damn quick
to snap up 'technological advances' simply because they are new. Voices and
solo instruments poorly reproduced in stereo are a farce and 'bands' poorly
reproduced in 'surround sound' (known locally as 'squirty sound') are a
travesty and uncomfortable to listen to. Conversely, complex cinema sounds
(battle scenes mostly) can/would sound a bit lame reproduced in mono (single
speaker or a pair) however loudly they were played!

Headphones have their obvious uses but they ain't my preferred listening
method - I don't like the 'claustrophobia' for a start and the wires are a
little nightmare of their own!

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote


snippage


mono can still reproduce reverberation from the back. in fact its not a
bad time to point out that if you are claiming a stereo pair can produce
rear sounds, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a mono
speaker ought to be able to image both left and right in the same manner. of
course it can, but I doubt anyone here would recommend it as a decent
listening experience.


Are you kidding? I've got hundreds of mono records I could play to you which
are a superb 'listen' and, FWIW, you would *never* guess they weren't
stereo! (40s, 50s and 60s Bands and Jazz mostly.)

'Phantom centre channel' mono (ie played on a stereo system with a pair of
speakers) can give a superb perception of 'left and right', depth and
spatiality with individual sounds (particularly 'audience participation')
being firmly place 'off centre', to the left or right. The 'soundstage'
doesn't remain 'fixed' as with good stereo reproduction (as I have said
elsewhere) and tends to 'follow one about' a bit, but this isn't always to
the detriment of the sound.

It's fairly obvious that much (most) mono stuff will come from 'non silver'
disks which actually aids the fact that clarity and detail in good mono
recordings can appear better than it does in stereo stuff. (I have to admit
I have no way of making direct, A/B comparisons here, however.) You've only
got to factor in 'non SS' amplification to get the full benefit of a decent
mono recording - in spades! Tell you one thing - I've never heard an
'enhanced for stereo' record that sounded any better than its mono
'brothers'!

Strikes me that too many people are a bit too quick to dismiss the various
modes of audio reproduction based on personal bias and being too damn quick
to snap up 'technological advances' simply because they are new. Voices and
solo instruments poorly reproduced in stereo are a farce and 'bands' poorly
reproduced in 'surround sound' (known locally as 'squirty sound') are a
travesty and uncomfortable to listen to. Conversely, complex cinema sounds
(battle scenes mostly) can/would sound a bit lame reproduced in mono (single
speaker or a pair) however loudly they were played!

Headphones have their obvious uses but they ain't my preferred listening
method - I don't like the 'claustrophobia' for a start and the wires are a
little nightmare of their own!

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


1) Relative times of arrivals at the two ears.

2) Effects of diffraction/scattering from the ear-lobes being
direction dependent.

It is possible in principle to process the sound so that these effects
are pre-applied - hence some of the 'dummy head' recordings. However
with most stereo recordings and broadcasts the sound will be produced
on the assumption that you're listening via a pair of loudspeakers.

Slainte,

Jim


Exactly. And not one of these factors is inherently missing when
listening on headphones

I would disagree.

When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at
a different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound
on headphones provides no input to the right ear. Hence there is quite a
distinct difference in what arrives at the two ears between headphones and
loudspeakers even if we negelect things like room reverberation.

We are talking at cross purposes again. I agree that what you hear from
speakers is not the same as what you hear in headphones, even neglecting
room effects.


Also, sounds arriving from a loudspeaker are modified by the scattering
effects of the ear lobes in a manner than depends upon the direction of
arrival at the ear. Sounds from a headphone tend to arrive perpendictular
to the ear, and the effects of the lobes altered by the phone's physical
presence on the ear. Hence here again there is a distinct difference.


versus loudspeakers so the OPs contention that headphones cannot produce
the quality of stereo image that speakers can is false. I agree that
material *designed* to be heard via two speakers ought to sound *better*
on speakers but that was not the point under debate.

The above differences exist, and are measurable. However the degree to
which they affect the perceived result will depend upon circumstances,
including the choce of listener. What is "better" is a matter of
circumstances and personal preference.

Again we seem to be at cross purposes. The OP stated that headphones had
some (inherent) limitation which meant they could not produce as good a
stereo image as speakers. My contention is that, when fed with the right
signal, they can produce at least as good a stereo image a speakers.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


1) Relative times of arrivals at the two ears.

2) Effects of diffraction/scattering from the ear-lobes being
direction dependent.

It is possible in principle to process the sound so that these effects
are pre-applied - hence some of the 'dummy head' recordings. However
with most stereo recordings and broadcasts the sound will be produced
on the assumption that you're listening via a pair of loudspeakers.

Slainte,

Jim


Exactly. And not one of these factors is inherently missing when
listening on headphones

I would disagree.

When you listen to - for example - a 'left only' sound source you hear it
with both ears if listening via speakers, and one ear tends to hear it at
a different time and level to the other. By contrast a 'left only' sound
on headphones provides no input to the right ear. Hence there is quite a
distinct difference in what arrives at the two ears between headphones and
loudspeakers even if we negelect things like room reverberation.

We are talking at cross purposes again. I agree that what you hear from
speakers is not the same as what you hear in headphones, even neglecting
room effects.


Also, sounds arriving from a loudspeaker are modified by the scattering
effects of the ear lobes in a manner than depends upon the direction of
arrival at the ear. Sounds from a headphone tend to arrive perpendictular
to the ear, and the effects of the lobes altered by the phone's physical
presence on the ear. Hence here again there is a distinct difference.


versus loudspeakers so the OPs contention that headphones cannot produce
the quality of stereo image that speakers can is false. I agree that
material *designed* to be heard via two speakers ought to sound *better*
on speakers but that was not the point under debate.

The above differences exist, and are measurable. However the degree to
which they affect the perceived result will depend upon circumstances,
including the choce of listener. What is "better" is a matter of
circumstances and personal preference.

Again we seem to be at cross purposes. The OP stated that headphones had
some (inherent) limitation which meant they could not produce as good a
stereo image as speakers. My contention is that, when fed with the right
signal, they can produce at least as good a stereo image a speakers.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Keith G wrote:
snip


Are you kidding? I've got hundreds of mono records I could play to
you which are a superb 'listen' and, FWIW, you would *never* guess
they weren't stereo! (40s, 50s and 60s Bands and Jazz mostly.)


I can agree with that strongly! If Keith hadn't told me it was mono, I
wouldn't have known!
--
MrBitsy