loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:29:41 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
This is a common fallacy. This is why speakers sound worse than
headphones. The ear uses this imformation to determine that the sound is
really coming from two point sources, the speakers. headphones do not
have this limitation.

So headphones aren't point sources? Perhaps you'd say what they are, then?

Hes got a point. headphone drivers are (usually) at least as big as the hole in the ear, and RIGHT NEXT TO it.

to give an anology, here on earth, the sun it, to all intents and purposes, a point source of light.

I wouldnt suggest you ask a person standing on mercury if they considered the sun a point source. it'd be considerably bigger looking than the moon from there, I'd guess.

--
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 21:40:52 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

But a binaural or dummy head recording doesn't provide infinite separation
of left and right. Common units use omni mics separated by a plastic disc
which will only provide separation of perhaps somewhat under 20dB, and
only at mid and high frequencies.

ina typical listening room, bass wavelengths wont even fit in the room so theres no directionality in that case either...

--
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 21:40:52 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

But a binaural or dummy head recording doesn't provide infinite separation
of left and right. Common units use omni mics separated by a plastic disc
which will only provide separation of perhaps somewhat under 20dB, and
only at mid and high frequencies.

ina typical listening room, bass wavelengths wont even fit in the room so theres no directionality in that case either...

--
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 21:37:13 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Absolutely. Headphones create unnatural positioning effects. No sound in
reality could only reach one ear.

put your ear up against a hole in a wall. (something I could imagine being a possibility in (say) a film, and hence also its soundtrack...)

you might at least *try* to think of a scenario before denying the possibility...

--
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 21:37:13 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Absolutely. Headphones create unnatural positioning effects. No sound in
reality could only reach one ear.

put your ear up against a hole in a wall. (something I could imagine being a possibility in (say) a film, and hence also its soundtrack...)

you might at least *try* to think of a scenario before denying the possibility...

--
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
 

Ian Molton 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?


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

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton 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?


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

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

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 ;-)

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.

--
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 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 ;-)

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.

--
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
 

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:
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.

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.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Forget loudspeakers or headphones. Clamp your head rigidly and try
positioning live sounds with your eyes closed. Then try again without
the clamp. The small natural movements of the head helps position
sounds by measuring tiny phasing and level changes. This can't happen
with headphones.

How are you suggesting these 'small movements' work when the sound is
comming from speakers - two point sources ?

But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Forget loudspeakers or headphones. Clamp your head rigidly and try
positioning live sounds with your eyes closed. Then try again without
the clamp. The small natural movements of the head helps position
sounds by measuring tiny phasing and level changes. This can't happen
with headphones.

How are you suggesting these 'small movements' work when the sound is
comming from speakers - two point sources ?

But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
If it's a 'left' signal it will have to be bled to the 'right' channel
- as well as delayed - if headphones are to approximate to speakers.
And of course neither the bleed or the delay are fixed but vary
according to several parameters. That's why I've tried to keep things
simple.

Sorry, but if someone is talking to the left of me, some of that sound
is arriving at my right ear too.

Agreed.

Thats what recordings made for headphones are about - they record the
sound in such a way as the left and right channels are what would
actually be heard by that ear (you can simplify, so can I).

But they don't, since all the interpretation of the various parameters is
done by the brain. And a dummy head does not record pure left and right to
feed pure left and right to the headphones which feed pure left and right
to your ears - to leave the brain to do the interpretation.

You might want to 'bleed' some signal from one channel to another in
order to 'convert' a recording to a headphone recording, but as you
point out this isnt going to be easy, as you've already lost some
positional information simply in the original recording process.

I didn't point that out. I merely said - or meant to say - that *level*
isn't the only thing that determines positioning - indeed it may be one
of the *less* important things for natural sounding stereo as any purely
pan potted recording will show.

be fair, compare like with like, none of this bleeding rubbish.

'Bleed' is an accepted term for injecting a non defined part of a signal
into another. Bleeding hell, I thought everyone knew that.

With a headphone-optimised *recording* no bleeding is needed, it will
have been picked up as it actually happened, by the recording equipment.

Yes - a dummy head will have more crosstalk between channels than most
coincident pairs.

you wouldnt be suggesting that speakers can make a good image of a
binaural recording, so dont do the reverse.

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.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
If it's a 'left' signal it will have to be bled to the 'right' channel
- as well as delayed - if headphones are to approximate to speakers.
And of course neither the bleed or the delay are fixed but vary
according to several parameters. That's why I've tried to keep things
simple.

Sorry, but if someone is talking to the left of me, some of that sound
is arriving at my right ear too.

Agreed.

Thats what recordings made for headphones are about - they record the
sound in such a way as the left and right channels are what would
actually be heard by that ear (you can simplify, so can I).

But they don't, since all the interpretation of the various parameters is
done by the brain. And a dummy head does not record pure left and right to
feed pure left and right to the headphones which feed pure left and right
to your ears - to leave the brain to do the interpretation.

You might want to 'bleed' some signal from one channel to another in
order to 'convert' a recording to a headphone recording, but as you
point out this isnt going to be easy, as you've already lost some
positional information simply in the original recording process.

I didn't point that out. I merely said - or meant to say - that *level*
isn't the only thing that determines positioning - indeed it may be one
of the *less* important things for natural sounding stereo as any purely
pan potted recording will show.

be fair, compare like with like, none of this bleeding rubbish.

'Bleed' is an accepted term for injecting a non defined part of a signal
into another. Bleeding hell, I thought everyone knew that.

With a headphone-optimised *recording* no bleeding is needed, it will
have been picked up as it actually happened, by the recording equipment.

Yes - a dummy head will have more crosstalk between channels than most
coincident pairs.

you wouldnt be suggesting that speakers can make a good image of a
binaural recording, so dont do the reverse.

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.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman 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.


You are totally and utterly wrong.

If you listen on headphones to a dummy head recording of a voice,
it sounds much more like the person is in the room than does a
conventional recording on speakers.
And what's more, you can recognise which room it was recorded in.

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman 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.


You are totally and utterly wrong.

If you listen on headphones to a dummy head recording of a voice,
it sounds much more like the person is in the room than does a
conventional recording on speakers.
And what's more, you can recognise which room it was recorded in.

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Old Fart at Play 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.


You are totally and utterly wrong.

If you listen on headphones to a dummy head recording of a voice,
it sounds much more like the person is in the room than does a
conventional recording on speakers.

Not to me, it doesn't.

And what's more, you can recognise which room it was recorded in.

You know all the places such recordings are made personally? Perhaps
you'd tell us what part of the industry you work in?

But seriously, hearing a recording room acoustic clearly is simply a
function of good reproduction and listening room acoustics when using
speakers.

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Old Fart at Play 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.


You are totally and utterly wrong.

If you listen on headphones to a dummy head recording of a voice,
it sounds much more like the person is in the room than does a
conventional recording on speakers.

Not to me, it doesn't.

And what's more, you can recognise which room it was recorded in.

You know all the places such recordings are made personally? Perhaps
you'd tell us what part of the industry you work in?

But seriously, hearing a recording room acoustic clearly is simply a
function of good reproduction and listening room acoustics when using
speakers.

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

snip



Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.


I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on this
point I am with you 100%.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

snip



Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.


I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on this
point I am with you 100%.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:16:41 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

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'?

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said many
times now..

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?

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.

--
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 23:16:41 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

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'?

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said many
times now..

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?

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.

--
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 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:46:16 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people
will spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room
acoustics. I call it the B & O syndrome.


I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on
this point I am with you 100%.

I agree also, but its not entirely wrong to do that. for example,
removing a chimneybreast is NOT a cheap thing to do, and you'd probably
have to bin a lot of your furniture...

I guess some people just figure they'll ge the best equipment they can,
if they cant do anything about the room

--
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 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:46:16 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people
will spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room
acoustics. I call it the B & O syndrome.


I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on
this point I am with you 100%.

I agree also, but its not entirely wrong to do that. for example,
removing a chimneybreast is NOT a cheap thing to do, and you'd probably
have to bin a lot of your furniture...

I guess some people just figure they'll ge the best equipment they can,
if they cant do anything about the room

--
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 23:19:47 GMT
"Wally" wrote:

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?

Stuff like the positioning of the mics when recording classical music,
at, say, a concert, or the fact that engineers probablyuse a pair of
monitors when mixing 'pop' or other similarly recorded stuff.

--
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 23:19:47 GMT
"Wally" wrote:

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?

Stuff like the positioning of the mics when recording classical music,
at, say, a concert, or the fact that engineers probablyuse a pair of
monitors when mixing 'pop' or other similarly recorded stuff.

--
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 23:19:53 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

How are you suggesting these 'small movements' work when the sound is
comming from speakers - two point sources ?

But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

And when the voice is 'supposed' to be imnaged directly in front of you - the centre... what then?

in 'real life' your little head movements might help but on a pair of speakers you are SOL - the voice is comming from far away on each side.

--
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 23:19:53 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

How are you suggesting these 'small movements' work when the sound is
comming from speakers - two point sources ?

But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

And when the voice is 'supposed' to be imnaged directly in front of you - the centre... what then?

in 'real life' your little head movements might help but on a pair of speakers you are SOL - the voice is comming from far away on each side.

--
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 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.