|
Classical Court From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here. |
|
|
|
Classical Court From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here. |
|
In Reply to: OK I will rephrase it. posted by Analog Scott on September 6, 2019 at 15:54:34:
Just go ahead and keep repeating the same things - you're not making any more sense this time around either.
I've already explained (TWICE) how we perceive distance and depth on a recording. Here it is for the third time: a sound which is further away from the microphones (or our ears for that matter) will lose more of its high frequencies by the time it gets to the microphones, compared to a sound which is nearer by. In addition, there will be more reflected sound in mixed with the source which is further away from the microphone compared to a source which is nearer by. This is the gist of the two excerpts from the technical/scientific articles I quoted. So even though your speakers are equal in distance to you, they are playing back sounds which, because they include the characteristics I just described earlier in this paragraph, allow us as listeners to apprehend depth in a recording, This is such common knowledge that I can't believe you're even trying to argue against it!
As for multi-miked recordings: surely you cannot be unaware of the the vast number of complaints which many audiophiles leveled at these types of recordings - they were described as having left to right information only, and were, as you suggest, a "complete disaster", or, as Timbo likes to remind us, panned multiple mono recordings not even deserving the "stereo" description. It's only more recently, with the advent of delays and other sophisticated digital tools, that multi-microphoned recordings have achieved a modicum of acceptability (or sometimes, even more than that). In any case, these types of recordings fall into the "synthesized in the studio" category and therefore are less interesting to me as a basis for a discussion of accuracy vs. euphony.
We do kind of agree agree when you say that "actual depth is completely dependent on where one would sit at the venue". (It's actually the PERCEIVED depth which changes depending on where we sit!)
as I have pointed out before, our real sense of depth in any decent concert hall is dictated by visual cues because of the high ratio of reflected sound to direct sound that is reflected throughout the concert hall
Yes - awe-struck by the McGurk demo as you are, you keep pointing it out, and you keep being wrong! As long as we can close our eyes, depth is not being dictated by visual cues. (That's true of the McGurk demo too!) So how do you explain the fact that we can still perceive depth with our eyes closed?
Further more it is easy to demonstrate that with colorations one often gets with vinyl playback there will be an enhanced sense of depth
Oh yeah? Well if it's so easy, prove it! ;-)
But wait! Is it possible that you're talking about depth in the sense of bass resonance or low frequencies? That's definitely NOT the kind of depth I've been talking about - which is in the sense of some sound sources being deeper on stage, further from the microphone. (And, frankly, I doubt if resonance and low frequencies are the the kind of depth you've been talking about either.)
Your last couple of sentences make no sense at all to me.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Maybe your aural memories are vague, but mine are not ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 09/7/1901:26:47 09/7/19 (3)
- Right, who should I believe science or Chris????? - Analog Scott 13:19:05 09/7/19 (2)
- You flatter yourself if you think your opinions are science - Chris from Lafayette 19:15:09 09/7/19 (1)
- RE: You flatter yourself if you think your opinions are science - Analog Scott 09:36:40 09/8/19 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
