3D lifelike sound and impeccable measurements - mutually exclusive???
I have not heard a system that was exceptional that was not in a room where the audiophile spent considerable effort. I have heard good systems, but none that were exceptional. The exceptional ones were all a work of love and acoustic performance.Very true .... It takes me 2 years full time to create my acoustical settings... But it was the most rewarding job i have ever done.... |
clarinetmonster2 OP198 posts03-28-2021 11:44pmReally only one or two people have answered my question and made suggestions of brands that they believe both measure very well AND offer an immersive musical experience in their opinion. That’s really all I’m looking for. How hard is that? You are asking an impossible question, hence why your answers will be all over the place. You like the Chord DACs, which also measure well. Others prefer a different DAC sound and would consider the Chord analytic not matter how good. Soundstage is recording, room, and speakers, with somewhat minor influence from other components, though there can be synergy between components and recordings that can bring brief moments of glory, forever chased if you don't get a handle on the basics. I have not heard a system that was exceptional that was not in a room where the audiophile spent considerable effort. I have heard good systems, but none that were exceptional. The exceptional ones were all a work of love and acoustic performance. |
"Great post.... We dont know very well how the ears works...Then figuring out how to use our ears in a room is a deeper problem than most think it is...My mechanical equalizer inspired by Helmholtz was the solution i created to adress only one of this acoustical problem with an imprevisible result and very successful experiment.... The map is in front of us.....But the reality is not the sketchy map we have drawn.... Not only do we not understood all the relation between physical acoustic and neurophysiology of hearing; but here in audio most think that it is electronical engineering the key to audio perceived experience... The level of prejudices is huge coming from the market.... Audio perceived experience is mostly acoustically dependent.... In a nutshell almost all amplifiers will sound bad in a bad room, same thing for dac or speakers...The difference between them will not be commensurate to their transformation by being put in a well controlled room acoustically...The difference will be day and night.... Then we have some claiming, no problem, trust us, we understand hearing in electronics design, and we have on the other hand a crowd waiting for the next upgrading plaster to their acoustical wounds.... The stupidest are those who dont trust their own ears to take the journey... Sorry.... Question to them : if you dont trust your own ears how are you supposed to learn concrete acoustic in a specific room with specific ears ? With a computer program simplifying acoustic and reducing it to precise tested frequency response? |
"
Absolutely wrong. Are you referring to the response of the tympanum? Basilar membrane? Hair cells? Auditory nerve? Inferior colliculus? Medial geniculate nucleus? Primary auditory cortex? Secondary auditory cortical areas? Association cortices? Striatum/limbic system? |
So its no surprise that people still think that excellent specs and really 3d musical sound are mutually exclusive because the examples that disprove this are a minority in the high end audio world. We certainly have the ability to measure what's important- although the will to do so is an entirely different matter! It is a common problem. People want to be comfortable in their bubble, not told they are not wearing any clothes. |
Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.I'm going to contest this. The measurements aren't the problem- we can easily measure what we need to (at least insofar as electronics are concerned) to know that the electronics will have both good distortion figures **and** also sound musical. But for the most part the industry does not do that. As a result the spec sheet becomes the Emperor's New Clothes. Often super low THD is associated with a 'neutral' amplifier that sounds bad. When this is the case there's been a bit of slight-of-hand. If you know of an example of this, look at the **frequency** at which the distortion measurements were made. You'll see that its only 100Hz. This is important- at 100 Hz most solid state amps made in the last 60 years have enough feedback to allow for excellent reproduction. This is why solid state amps have had 'good bass' for so long. But those same amps otherwise sound bad because they are bright and harsh. This is also why tubes are still around and it comes down to the same thing: Those amps have increased distortion at 1KHz or 10KHz! IOW the distortion production rises with frequency. The ear interprets the higher ordered harmonics as brightness and harshness; if the 7th is present in enough amplitude from a 1KHz fundamental the amp is going to sound bright because the ear assigns brightness and harshness to the 7th harmonic (as well as other higher orders). The slight of hand is that to get around this problem the industry measures at 100Hz and calls it good. So if you want to hear an amp that has both low distortion and sounds like music, look for one in which the distortion at 100Hz, 1KHz and 10KHz is exactly or nearly the same. Manufacturers don't usually show that in their measurements but they should. One reason that they have not is an engineering problem called Gain Bandwidth Product. GBP is to feedback in electronics what gas is to a car. When you run out of gas the car stops. When your GBP is insufficient, the feedback goes down. Because most of the amplifiers, tube or solid state, made in the last 90 years have had insufficient GBP, they have also had insufficient feedback at the frequencies *where it counts to the human ear*. This is why feedback has gotten a bad rap in high end audio, and why a good number of manufacturers have made zero feedback amplifiers. A zero feedback amp gets around this problem of variable feedback by having none- in this way, as long as its got the bandwidth (IOW well past 20KHz), its distortion will be exactly the same at 100Hz as it is at 10KHz. So if the spectra of the distortion is correct (IOW the 2nd and/or 3rd is prominent enough to mask the higher orders from the ear), a zero feedback amp can be quite musical, even though its distortion is 'high' (THD numbers don't tell the story because to the ear the 2nd and 3rd are nearly inaudible while the ear is keenly sensitive to the higher orders). But this is also true if the amp has feedback, if it has enough GBP to support the feedback properly up to 20KHz. Quite simply it was probably not until sometime in the late 1980s before the semiconductors needed to pull this off even existed. It was some time later before the will to design an amplifier with this vital character of distortion was designed. So its no surprise that people still think that excellent specs and really 3d musical sound are mutually exclusive because the examples that disprove this are a minority in the high end audio world. We certainly have the ability to measure what's important- although the will to do so is an entirely different matter! |
If someone tells you they are watch out.Perceiving and thinking could be the " same" watching out.... This is my point in a nutshell.... To be clearer in intuitive acoustic perceiving IS thinking, and thinking become perceiving.... What is "intuitive acoustic" ? Simple listening experiments What is an experiment? Faith in yourself.... 😁😊 |
The point is that even measurers ultimately rely on hearing to justify their choices - however important measurements may be to them, it still comes right back down to ‘hearing’ for the most intelligent measurers.Good post thanks... This remark of yours is very important... This is the baron de Münchhausen fallacy... A dial cannot read itself he need a human interpreter, but the human interpreter could be voluntarily or by birth deaf for example, he will not be able then to interpret with his ear some sound parameter measurements, BUT he could work with them in creating a speaker very well designed, like a robot, but he will never listen to it...Then we need dials, we need someone with a brain to read the dials, and we need ALSO someone with a brain containing a listening history linked to 2 ears to INTERPRET the dials and not only use them....Any good designer ultimate control test for sure is listening his own design... I verified not long ago that most people dont have a clue about acoustic, even very educated one.... Why? Because acoustic is not only equations or dials readings, something we apply without thinking much, doing only mechanical calculus, acoustic must be ALSO a personal experience with our own ears to make sense of our own audiophile experience....Intuitive acoustic experience in his own room is a personal experience so limited it is, very important, to figure out the deepest acoustical problems... My Helmholtz mechanical equalizer gives me that experience directly, with what is at the foundation of musical or speech experience: the first wavefronts timing perception by each ear and the way the brain analyse and synthetize the physical waves in " time" in a specific room... My greatest personal discovery, well known in acoustic, not well known among audeiophiles or even audio specialist, is that the room is NOT a passive sets of walls waiting for the waves to bounce on them... The room is already a delicately balanced distribution of pressures zones field where the wavefronts for each ear are "sculpted" in a way by damping or enhancing acoustical content, but also by the Helmholtz resonators, my pipes and tubes, specifically located, who act on some definite frequencies and their harmonics...All that finely tuned for a specific unique pair of ears, yours... The different timing events in the audio chain that must be related and translated into one another at the END of the chain are in your room.... There is a timing of bits in a recording session by the recording engineer... There is the timing of waves coming to the microphone from the theater or from the studio where is recorded the original event with all the trade-off implicated by the choices of mic and location...And this timing for the mic is very different than the first wavefronts different timings coming to each ear of each listeners in the original event... The timing of your speakers drivers so to speak is another important timing... There is another set of timing events in your own room coming from each speakers to your ears the first wavefront of sound picked by the right timing of the waves crossing the different pressure zones of the room created by the sound itself and all the content of the room... None of these 5 timing events reduce to one another at all.... The most important one the only one which is at the end and which can be act upon by the audiophile is the timing in his room.... This is the reason why acoustical settings is so important, dac or speakers or recordings so better they could be, will be reduced to a mediocre experience if the room is not adressed... My second discovery is a mechanical equalizer did not have the same limitations than an electronic equalizer....And it cost nothing to create one.... My best to you.... |
“Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.” - realworldaudio Thanks so much for this! It brings home the crucial point that anything in life generally, and in the audiophile world specifically, can only be critically discussed in consideration of the multiple complex relationships specific to the thing, or object, in question, and never as a singularity. clarinetmonster2 - your post has raised very similar issues to that of another discussion that has now been deleted, unfortunately, regarding measurements and hearing. In that discussion, one of the primary contributors, and main proponents of measurements, ‘prof’, was asked if he had a beloved piece of equipment that he later discovered measured badly, if he would let go of the said piece of equipment. The reply was not quite conclusive, but a vital part of it drew my attention - prof has a Conrad Johnson tube amplifier which he said was so evident in better sound quality than ‘lesser’ amps, that he did not need to be reassured by tests regarding its performance. I wish the discussion had not been deleted, so that I could refer to it in verbatim here, but the gist accurately applies, and it was not ascertained if prof had indeed measured his Conrad Johnson for degree of distortion. But in the discussion, he was also quick to dismiss the hearers who said they could distinguish between differences of sound quality in various high end cables, and home tweaks, because he felt that those differences could not be measured. The point is that even measurers ultimately rely on hearing to justify their choices - however important measurements may be to them, it still comes right back down to ‘hearing’ for the most intelligent measurers. Subsequently, as hearing forms the basis of our decisions, and what we hear is the sum total of an entire chain of events that characterises a ‘system’, it is a touch moot to ask what specific piece of equipment measures well, and also sounds good, and the entirety of a system determines this. A decent analogy would be the path a falling leaf takes from its branch to the ground, the leaf being the signal, the branch being its source and the ground being the ear the leaf finally falls on, to decay as sound. Everything in that signal’s path constitutes the equipment that the signal interacts with on its journey; another branch, a cluster of leaves, the bird flying past, the light breeze or sudden gust of wind that took the leaf on its erratic path. Now, audiophiles generally believe that the ‘correct’ and undistorted path the leaf should take, would be the one straight down, directly under the very spot of the very branch the leaf came from. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the ground itself is an entirely different surface or medium from the source itself, the branch. The only thing that is important, is that the leaf lands on a spot that is most conducive to its continuing the food cycle, of wonderful decay, and reconstitution as food for the ground to grow other trees. This in no way means that everything becomes subjective, as we can all agree that a leaf falling on a concrete pavement will not do as well as if it fell on a moist depression of shaded soil. But it does mean there are general places that the leaf will thrive, and under the most nuanced of circumstances, either thrive better, or not so well. Hearing is all about this. There are very very general agreements about what sounds ‘good’; what ground provides acceptable conditions for a dead leaf to decay and contribute, but within this realm is a huge degree of subtle difference. The best listeners I know, have learned the ground upon which the best sound comes, the smallest nuance and difference that generates the most positive impact. They are unable to tell which specific interference in the path of that leaf contributes to its final touchdown, because every single interference had a part, big or small, to play. It does not mean that science becomes subjective hell, because if it were possible to ascertain every single subtle interference of the leaf or signal path, that it would be possible to mathematically determine where the leaf will fall, and how the signal will end. But this is truly beyond science as we currently know it - let’s just call it an objectivity that comes from the deepest known critically subjective observation. But it does necessarily mean that the accurate selection of good equipment through their measurements does not help in the big picture - in the same way that it is virtually impossible to chart the path of a leaf through every single interference it passes on its journey to the ground, there are similarly too many nuanced interferences in the signal path to determine ultimate sound quality through the measurement of interference of a single piece of equipment. The measurement of all the combined relationships are likewise too difficult to ascertain with numbers, because the final product of the entire journey cannot be determined until it emerges from the speakers as sound, and not a mere signal. This final act of ‘measurement’ is what could be called critical hearing. It is what hearers like millercarbon, magister, and many others try to cultivate and build deep foundations on. In friendship. |
@clarinetmonster2 I love the AHB2 and HPA4. I normally use it with the DAC3B but recently more so with the Audio Mirror Tubadour. It is a big difference with the tube DAC. You hear whatever gear you add or remove with the Benchmark gear or the quality of the source you use. Since you hear whatever gear you add I am getting a warmish preamp, the CODA 07x, for a headphone system. However, I will flip it over to my 2 AHB2's connected to my floor standers via a easy XLR change (to mix it up). What I will hear is the CODA dominating the sound not the AHB2. If someone is looking for a MINT condition white AHB2. I sold a 2 week old (brand new) AHB2 to someone a few days ago. He did not like it for his setup and has it up for sale today. |
Koestner ive been very curious to hear the Benchmark amp and preamp as they seem to be the poster children for great measurements- I’ve read mixed things on the sound/presentation . Mostly very positive especially the preamp but some I guess perceive the amp or amp/preamp combo to be lacking in life and others think it’s the best they’ve ever heard. |
lot’s of wandering in the wilderness drilling dry holes, if you are interested in moving the collective ball forward then the answer is listen plus measure plus move forward our understanding of the ear brain... there are many things we have yet to understand, that is perhaps the first step to shedding the ego. Ego sings the praise of something it has yet to hear..... |
Excuse me, but you started with your conclusion, that there is nothing wrong with measurements. But your entire argument was nothing but showing all kinds of things wrong with measurements. Then after explaining exactly what is wrong with measurements you conclude that there is nothing wrong with measurements.Millercarbon read more carefully... He dont speak about measurement the way the "objectivist" speak about them.... You hurry too much on your horse..... He confirm what i said and what IS the scientific meaning of measurement : RELIABILITY....He even confirm your take on measurement.... For example point 4 in particular: Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability. Then he IS NOT an "objectivist" audiophile in the "skeptic scientism sunday club" but a true scientific mind... |
Excuse me, but realworldaudio started with his conclusion, that there is nothing wrong with measurements. But his entire argument was nothing but showing all kinds of things wrong with measurements. Then after explaining exactly what is wrong with measurements he concludes that there is nothing wrong with measurements. And, he calls himself a man of science? But wait, "in professional quality" whatever that means. I know the state of education is so bad these days no one has been taught the first thing about science. But now even professional scientists haven’t a clue? We are doomed. Doomed, I say. |
As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers. Great post! Your post add much to my main points and is clearer than mine... But you are a scientist and you smell science... So to speak! My best to you..... |
Firstly, I am a scientist (in professional quality), so to me there is zero question about the objectivity and importance of measurements. That being said, here we go:1. Industry does not measure all the parameters relevant to sound quality. We do not know what all those parameters are, and of those we know, some are just too hard to measure, or inconvenient. (Analogy: we are measuring blood pressure, weight, height, while we should be doing whole genome sequencing, transcriptome mapping and a metabolome report.)2. We fret greatly about hundredth of a percent of less distortion from an amplifier, and linearity range over a 20+ kilohertz, while the loudspeakers distortion is reaches the tens of percents and instead of a linear range we have a roller-coaster ride. So, if your amp is perfectly flat, you will hear every bump that your speakers add. You should have an amp that cancels out your loudspeakers distortion. 3. Equipment are considered without the effect of the room. The distortion of room + speakers + amp + source should be considered when talking about perceived sound quality, not that of a singled out component.4. Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability. So, there is nothing wrong with measurements, but the applied methodology is lacking, or is just in its infancy to say the least. At the current state of measurement practices measured parameters are perfect predictors of whether the gear performs up to spec or requires maintenance. Also, we can infer many attributes when we know the equipment's topology plus measurements. (Eg the same set of measurements from a SET amp and a solid state amp will result in markedly different sound and loudspeaker compatibility.)As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers. But the only way to tell a great speaker from a good speaker is by listening. (And that applies to other audio gear as well.) |
They aren’t mutually exclusive but I’d say measurements will get you closer than your ears alone.It is the reverse... 😁😊 All piece of gear well designed sound good in principle... In reality they differ...For many reasons linked to many factors out of the narrow family of parameters used in the design creation, or linked to forgotten possible parameters,or unpredictible factors and the fact that this piece of gear so well designed it is, will be embed somewhere with something....And anyway any design is the result of a set of choices function of a trade-off.... Which part of your body will decide that this piece of audio gear is usable or good or bad or anything between all these and decide if the trade-off at the source of the designing process is good for you? Not your brain alone reading schemas, but a brain coupled to your 2 ears in a particular set of acoustic condition called a room.... It is logical because the timing of actual waves event in your room to your ears is necessary for you to make a sound judgement about the resulting potential S.Q. coming from the timing bits coming from the recording process and translated through your dac... Timing of bits is great but in reality equivalence is not equality, and timing of bits are not equal, even if equivalent, to timing of real events...There is a microphone separing the timing acoustical concrete events of the original lived event and the timing bits from the recording choices at beginning... And now there is a speakers/room/ears separating the timing of bits and the timing of events in the speaker/room and in your brain... Because with a recording here we have 2 sets of timing concrete events : one recorded in bits in the dac itself, and one not recorded at all; but emerging in your room for your ears from the active room translating the timing bits through the amplifier/speakers in another timing sets of events... I suppose you play with a dac, but using a turntable will not destroy my argument.... «Numbers on a dial never sing»-Groucho Marx listening to a radio set «2 timing set of events called bodies must synchronize themselves in the act we call making love, and a piece of gear or the galaxy, nevermind which one, must synchronize and the synchronization is not a completely determined part of the initial timing events»-Anonymus Smith studying scaling design... «Why not saying that more simply? A range of play between parts and scales»-Harpo Marx «Are you an astrolog? »-G.Marx |
are there components (specifically amps/preamps and integrateds) are out there that combine great measurements and in your mind also have that organic immersive sound that really helps many of us get more emotionally involved in the music or are these qualities mutually exclusive@clarinetmonster2 No. But which harmonics are dominant in the distortion signature is important. They should be either the 2nd and 3rd or just the 3rd, in sufficient amount (with respect to the higher orders) to mask the presence of the higher ordered harmonics. |
The way I look at this is that any journey has to start somewhere. This hobby is a journey and you have to enjoy every step of that journey also knowing there will be mistakes and frustrations just like life. Then as your journey is progressing you will realize that your journey has no end. You can map it out the best you can but will have many many detours. Measurements are a good starting place but only one small part of the overall equation to get the sound you want. Trade offs will be another component. X=[y+Zxq] but y+z is better minus q. Then you get there and you hear someone else’s system and you are blown away and realize that X is not X but it is Y=[x-z+q] and you start your search for Y and this takes you back to your starting place of measurements. Enjoy the journey and most of all enjoy the music! |
It seems to me that a good soundstage is largely determined by loudspeakers, speaker positioning, and room acoustics. Less so by electronics (unless we’re talking about digital signal processing, maybe.) I’m not aware of any metrics that directly indicate soundstage size or holographic image quality. Thanks it is also my experience..... Does a higher SNR ratio and "blacker background" have some positive impact on the soundstage/imaging? Probably.They impact more and partially the "timbre" experience and perception of the original event recorded by the engineer, but "timbre perception" "imaging" factor, and "listener envelopment" factor and other acoustical factors are linked to the way your actual room RECREATE the recorded acoustical settings in your own room for your ears and recreate the "original" atmosphere using your own room for the "translation" and this is given by real concrete acoustic controls by your specific ears , and not by the electronic design used in your gear only and " per se"... Acoustic is the reality, Fourrier analysis is the map.... The map is not the reality... Why? The reality contain and encompass the map, acoustic phenomena contains Fourrier analysis +your specific ears and many other ears..... You can design knowledge or reduce knowledge to design, you cannot design feeling even with A.I. Only mimic it like map mimic some aspect of reality, sometimes essential one.... My mechanical equalizer, Helmholtz tubes and pipes,are PARTS of the pressure zones of my room....They ARE the room....They are positioned for my ears in this particular room and tuned by them not by frequency but by "timbre" perception ,that is to say by first wavefront perception.... An electronical equalizer is an external analysis of my room with an "ideal" mathematical perspective, modulo Fourrier analysis and "precise tested frequency response used one by one with a mic., for an "ideal" listener that do not exist, the seating location is a millimeter spot and out of it, all run acoustically "amok"..... This is only my limited experience, and no, i am not a scientist, only a listener.....Feel free to correct me.... «If the map is in my head, and if my my ass is in the reality where is my body ? »-Groucho Marx |
It seems to me that a good soundstage is largely determined by loudspeakers, speaker positioning, and room acoustics. Less so by electronics (unless we're talking about digital signal processing, maybe.) I'm not aware of any metrics that directly indicate soundstage size or holographic image quality. So IMO the short answer to the OP's question is "no", 3D lifelike sound and impeccable measurements are not mutually exclusive. But that is mainly because the measurements that are usually available seem to have little or no bearing on soundstage/imaging. Does a higher SNR ratio and "blacker background" have some positive impact on the soundstage/imaging? Probably. I don't know how it would make things worse, everything else being equal (which rarely is the case). |
If it sounds amazing, then why would you care how it measures? And if it sounds awful, but measures well, that only makes you distrust your ears. I’ve heard or read numerous interviews with respected designers that may start with measurements initially, but use listening to do the final evaluation and refinement. |
Well I’ll give an example of gear that measures very well and sounds organic, musical and 3D to my ears on the DAC side. The chord DACs I’ve heard have a very analog lifelike quality to them (have heard the qutest and Dave) and measure extremely well. The Dave is expensive the qutest is cheap - there have to be some under 10k components on the amp/integrated side that combine these virtues....I would think. |
This is where the great Pyle amps come in. Measurements be damned, sound be damned! Just GREAT sound that can’t be quantified by name or price! If you want good, not great, sound, ya gotta spend $20,000 at least. |
Charles1dad yes, i appreciate the sentiment and it’s pretty much what I’ve always followed is just my ears not worrying at all about measurements hence why i run Harbeths with a hybrid notorious for measuring poorly and sounding great. But you know how it is, we get bored and want to see what is possible in this hobby. |
op Really only one or two people have answered my question and made suggestions of brands that they believe both measure very well AND offer an immersive musical experience in their opinion. That’s really all I’m looking for. How hard is that? there is a website that is right up your alley, run by a ex microsoft guy who uses measurement as the key yardstick to audio equipment greatness, then he listens to the gear, sometimes, as an afterthought... you can get his greatest hits list and cross tab against opinions here or the recommended lists of stereophile or the absolute sound good luck https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?forums/stereo-and-multichannel-amplifier-reviews.... |
I will say that I’ve only heard one setup so far that would probably satisfy both sides of this equation- it was a pair of higher end magicos with an all Moon front end. Pretty much had everything sonically. Other than that I’ve heard a lot of compromise as tomcy6 referenced, usually when you get that beautiful holographic imaging and organic texture to the music there May very well be some trade offs, it seems until you get to the megabuck gear perhaps. |
No, good measurements and good sound are not mutually exclusive, but good measurements don’t ensure good sound. Poor measurements don't ensure good sound either. For example, Pass Labs preamps and amps measure well and most people think they sound great at their price point, which isn’t cheap but not outrageous these days. Of course other people don’t like the Pass sound. In general, if you want 3D immersive sound without spending a fortune, go with tubes, pre and power. They don’t measure as well as solid state and you can often hear those poor measurements, loose bass, for example. I think tubes is where the sounds good / measures poorly dichotomy can be most readily experienced. |
I have followed this site with, what can best be described with amusement for many years, watching, popcorn in hand, for what may be said next. I must say, I have finally been tempted to answer, at least to the Op, the posted of this question. Let's review what you have done. You have asked a user group, who I will estimate:
I am 99.9% certain that you will receive answers 100% confident, communicated with great gusto, that one could never measure for something such as this. Please see my list above when evaluating the veracity of these comments. I can assure you, that, if, you limit the goal to, as stated, lifelike, and not an individuals interpretation of what they think is lifelike, then indeed measurements will guide you far closer to this goal than any other method. However, the measurements are not simple, and would be almost exclusively in the acoustic domain. We must take a step back at this point, though, and accept that 2 channel audio, the usual way, via speakers, is fundamentally flawed in its attempt to simulate what are normally sounds originating from a single point. There are many tricks that are played, and inherent information in the recording, and those measurements can be used to maximize the effectiveness of those tricks and inherent information to realize your goal. It would be best to start with a goal of an effective 2D lifelike presentation. That fundamental flaw of 2 speakers to create an effective 2D illusion struggles even further with 3D illusion. I think you will find that those who most ardently and likely vehemently disagree with this position, don't possess the knowledge or measurement skills, and unlikely the practical experience of even attempting what your goal is. Fortunately, though, there is a lot of real knowledge, hence why concert halls keep getting better, both with acoustic and amplified performances. That is the result of professionals with experience and professional tools. |
What measured good is a good design for the eyes of the Engineer... What sound good is a wavefront of sound touching the ear of the listener.... Between the 2 there i million years of evolution.... Replace any design that your ears could not love or like and keep your ears open.... Remember only that acoustic is Queen in audio and all working gear are only the replaceable 7 dwarves.... |
