I don't think it expensive in high end parameters to get a vertical image. Also a solid center image does not require a center channel. I do think the Ampex three channel recordings were exceptional for the most part.
Well, there was this regularly proposed explanation:
Price wasn't mentioned, but it was implied, and by quite an authority on the subject of price in hifi.
Let's not get distracted by that, though. I agree it is a fine thread, and also agree that we're on the verge of a revolution in high-fidelity verisimilitude, through the possibilities offered by multi-channel playback.
To that point, why place the speakers around ourselves when they could all (say seven) be in front of us, where we are used to performances coming from?
I agree it is a fine thread, and also agree that we're on the verge of a revolution in high-fidelity verisimilitude, through the possibilities offered by multi-channel playback.
To that point, why place the speakers around ourselves when they could all (say seven) be in front of us, where we are used to performances coming from?
Well, there was this regularly proposed explanation:
Price wasn't mentioned, but it was implied, and by quite an authority on the subject of price in hifi.
Let's not get distracted by that, though. I agree it is a fine thread, and also agree that we're on the verge of a revolution in high-fidelity verisimilitude, through the possibilities offered by multi-channel playback.
To that point, why place the speakers around ourselves when they could all (say seven) be in front of us, where we are used to performances coming from?
Now we're talking. Get some real height information going on and compare. That would be instructive. I'd go for eight, though, not seven; high/low L/C/R and two subs. A lot could be done with that. How do you see the seven being configured, Soundproof?
Tim
Tim, I appreciate your honesty more than you know. Many props go to you for even acknowledging it, you are a man amongst men with this thread. Thank you.Point well taken. The price of achieving a vertical image, or even the notion that it is a particularly expensive thing to achieve had not been mentioned. I know it always goes there, though. If in no other way it eventually comes down to the idea that those who don't "hear" some phenomenon or another are missing it because their systems lack the quality, not because, using this example, there is no electro-mechanical means of achieving what is being "heard." Give it long enough, it will get there. Review. It has probably already been there. But specific mention of price? You're absolutely right. I was the first one to bring that up. My bad.
Tim, I appreciate your honesty more than you know. Many props go to you for even acknowledging it, you are a man amongst men with this thread. Thank you.
To dispel the theory of cost in relation to height, might I entertain you with this? I have heard a pair of DCM Time Window bookies not so very long ago produce a vertical image well beyond the tops of the cabinets. It was more like 3 feet above the cabinets and very clear and precise as to where the image came from [above the fireplace mantle, slightly off to the right]. What I am referring too was the lead singer. There were other aspects of that recording that offered the same thing, though I can not recall them to precise detail months later. My apologies for that.
Thing is, my buddy purchased these speakers for $10.00 at the local Goodwill. Tim, what I'm saying here is that if it goes "there"? Just reference this post. Cost means quite a bit in this hobby, while at the same time, cost can mean jack s__t. Things are what they are.
If you Google -- microphone "height information" -- a lot comes up, some saying that you can't get height with 2 mics, but then mentioning Soundfield, Okatava, Eiginmike, and Ambisonics, of course. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=w8kXMVKOsY0C&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=microphone+%22height+information%22&source=bl&ots=nojkGyBYVh&sig=Q3jP3MwnUu_XBeHPXb4lLbbFdMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_TZAT-aAIMiuiQePsonSBA&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCA , The Microphone Book, by John Eargle looks interesting ...
Frank
So I take it you didn't try the link I inserted in that post, or didn't find it worthwhile ...Yeah, I know how to run a Google search, and did. I was hoping you might point me to the place you saw audio engineers specifically talking about capturing height information with multiple mics, so I wouldn't have to spend an hour opening and reading hits looking for something you already seem to have found.
Tim
Soundproof, the argument was about whether microphones could capture height information; how that information is then conveyed through to the listener is another story. The obvious technique is to use extra speakers, but it has also been mentioned that you can mix in the extra information with the normal channels to increase spaciousness. And how accurate or realistic any of these techniques are for audiophiles, rather than than just creating HT experiences, is yet again a point for debate.Maybe you should read a bit about this yourself, then, Frank?
Ambisonics, for instance, captures vertical data, replays same through speakers designed to recreate it - and is a system created because regular stereo can't recreate such height information.
Soundproof, the argument was about whether microphones could capture height information; how that information is then conveyed through to the listener is another story. The obvious technique is to use extra speakers, but it has also been mentioned that you can mix in the extra information with the normal channels to increase spaciousness. And how accurate or realistic any of these techniques are for audiophiles, rather than than just creating HT experiences, is yet again a point for debate.
Ultimately the debate is whether the phase information that creates the illusion of height can come from a single speaker, or requires multiple speakers ...
Frank
So I take it you didn't try the link I inserted in that post, or didn't find it worthwhile ...
Frank
That radiation pattern for the cello is absolutely remarkable! Would you have links to information explaining the reasons for this behaviour; I'm also intrigued at how sharply defined the boundaries are, surely the falloff isn't as dramatic as indicated here? The implication is that a cello will sound like a set of completely different instruments if played in an open space, depending upon where you're listening from...
The trickery about phase interference effects is that that is the technique the mechanism of the ear uses to make sense of direct and reverberant sound, how it "understands" what the complex pattern of air vibrations means in terms of the space in which the sound originated.
Frank
I'm beginning to think I"m communicating badly and understanding worse, because I don't think we're clear on this point at all. I think there are people here who are arguing the opposite of this obvious, fundamental truth.
Here, this ended up in the wrong thread. It's really all I have left on the subject:
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |