|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: How can anyone be so consistantly wrong? posted by morricab on August 26, 2006 at 17:24:56:
"The acoustics and decay of instruments in a real space is easily heard on recordings. How is possible that this information is NOT on the recording??"Only a small percentage of the reverberation heard in the audience gets on the recording, what is there is inseparable from the direct sound from the instruments and, very importantly it is missing at least one of its most critical aspects, vectorization. In the audience, 90% of the field or more comes from the acoustics. On a recording it's usually far less than 50%, even far less than 25%. This is because the microphones are much closer to the instruments than the audience sits in a live performance and are often highly directional having a cardiod pattern and pointed directly at the musicians. If this weren't true, playing a recording which actually had that much reverberation such as a binaural recording made in the audience through one pair of speakers would make it sound like the performers are inside a tunnel. Most important of all, the recording contains reverberation in two scalar fields, the real reverberation is a vector field. My experiments show that humans are relatively but not completely insensitive to percepion of vertical differences in direction as opposed to horizontal differences to which they are very sensitive. If this were not true, the minimum criteria for reproducing reverberant fields would be eight auxilliary channels, not four and the minimum number of speakers would be 16, not 8. My current setup uses 16 auxilliary speakers in 4 lateral quadrant channels, a previous prototype used 20. The radiating patterns for the reverberant field are very different from the direct field in order that their source be undetectable. (Your friends can't help you out on this one, I literally wrote the book on this problem...so far only a small part of it has been published as part of my patent.)
"Information retrieval is crucial to creating an accurate acoustic space of the original recording, whether you have 2 or 10 speakers."
Most of the information just isn't there on the recording, there's nothing to retrieve. As for playing sound softly, most audio systems can do that. That's not the hard part.
"Again and again you are confusing the real thing with reproduction"
And again and again you are clueless.
"The only way to have a truly correct reproduction of a venues acoustic is to have zero contribution from the room you put the stereo system into. "
That's not possible...unless you live in an anechoic chamber. NOBODY DOES.
"IMO, puttnig more speakers all around the room could possibly exaccerbate the problem by exciting more room modes and generating even a greater contribution of the listening rooms own acoustical properties"
Wrong again and if you don't, you cannot duplicate the concert hall's critical function of directing multiple reflections at the listener from different directions. This is so critical that special architectural techniques are used to diffuse them by providing many convex surfaces as one example of many critical aspects of good acoustics.
"Nobody follows up your link because it is simply irrelevant to reproduced music"
Nobody here listens to Leo Beranek's lecture because they are morons. They have the opportunity to actually learn something from one of the greatest acousticians in the world who studied and designed concert halls over a lifetime and they pass it up preferring instead to yammer on about their imbecillic nonsense about wires and vacuum tubes. They reveal not only their ignorance but their determination to stay that way. Me? I've heard this lecture at least 10 times and learned something new about concert halls every single time.
"I know AR speakers from the past...."
This is a non sequetor. This has nothing to do with AR speakers or anyone elses. In fact this invention was born, experimented with, and patented many years before I even owned an AR speaker.
"it was ahead of its time and maybe if you are lucky it will be rediscovered"
Yes it was far ahead of its time. When I discovered the principles behind it and invented it, the technology to fully exploit it was beyond the cutting edge of technology as digital audio processing was still far too primitive and expensive to take advantage of it. The earliest prototypes used multiple tape delays and analog mixers. At this time, nobody is particulary really interested in it anymore. This is an industry which has died not only from lack of any new ideas but from a loss of interest in and knowledge of music itself. It will likely remain nothing more than a curiousity for those who know me personally and get a demo of whatever prototype I care to show them. I've decided that's the way I want it to stay, at least for the time being. There is a certain satisfaction in having something in this world than nobody else can have.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: How can anyone be so consistantly wrong? - Soundmind 04:39:29 08/27/06 (1)
- Re: How can anyone be so consistantly wrong? - morricab 13:44:17 08/27/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]