Promising test

[Mallette]

18 minutes ago, Srinath said:

Recone ???? not my method, in fact I cant recone nothing. Re-foam - yes.

Sorry.  Wasn't really thinking technically and I understand what you are saying.  I haven't fully decided what route to take yet.  I am going to query PE about the center to center distance of the mounting holes of the Dayton Audio DC130B-4 5-1/4" woofer.  Has excellent reviews, right specs, and is 18.00. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

4 hours ago, DizRotus said:

Dave-

 

Will the resulting recordings need the Dynaco Quadaptor to be optimized?

Lord, no.  It is ANY type of specialized equipment I am working towards eliminating.  These are discrete channels, not matrixed in any way.  As I've mentioned, I've encoded to DVD-A, Dolby Pro Logic, etc and the results suck when it comes to delivering a true surround experience.  Only discrete channels work for an audiophile as only very pure audio delivered that way can actually fool the brain into thinking it's in another space.  What I want to deliver is a single file in wav or flac that is as easy to play as a stereo file in a free software player like MediaMonkey or a cheap one like JRiver.  Not holding my breath, but if enough such files get out there maybe MS and Apple would add ability to handle more than two channel files. 

 

Love the Quadaptor for what it does for stereo, but it is not a good choice for a universal surround system for a wide variety of reasons both sonic and technical. 

 

Dave

[DizRotus]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, DizRotus said:

Thanks for the detailed answer.

The fundamental procedures for getting great surround have turned out to be the easy part.  Making it a matter of just pointing at a file and playing is the tricky part. 

 

Dave

[DizRotus]

1 minute ago, Mallette said:

The fundamental procedures for getting great surround have turned out to be the easy part.  Making it a matter of just pointing at a file and playing is the tricky part. 

 

Dave

 

Hang in there.  I have great confidence.

[MookieStl]

21 hours ago, Mallette said:

Will have to look beyond PE, as they have nothing that is 5.25".  More world out there, but I trust PE to generally make things easy, reliable, and right priced. 

Dave

As it turns out, I had a Dayton 5.25" laying around and put it in. Fits very nicely. It is the DC130A-8 PE has them in stock $19.30 each. Might still be worth it to try the new surrounds for as cheap as they are, but if that doesn't work, give these a try. All new may be a better route, maybe not. Just held it in place for the photo but screw holes line up just fine.

.

 

[oldtimer]

Pointing at a file?  Isn't there a better way?

[Mallette]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:37 PM, oldtimer said:

Pointing at a file?  Isn't there a better way?

There is another way?  Even dropping a needle on an LP is "pointing at a file." 

Dave

[Mallette]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 6:45 PM, MookieStl said:

As it turns out, I had a Dayton 5.25" laying around and put it in. Fits very nicely.

Woot! Woot!  That's great...  THANKS.

Dave

[oldtimer]

26 minutes ago, Mallette said:

There is another way?  Even dropping a needle on an LP is "pointing at a file." 

Dave

You press it.  I'll play it.

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, oldtimer said:

You press it.  I'll play it.

If you mean vinyl, much as I love it I can't see it ever doing anything like high fidelity.  The JVC quad system doubling the frequencies of the rear channels and then filtering the whole thing sort of worked, but required carts good to 50khz.  I suppose it could happen...bats might fly outta my butt.  But I think discreet digital high res is about as far as I will take this.  I've no commercial interest at all here and am certainly no real engineer...just a passion for real high fidelity that reproduces acoustic space and position as well as the music.  An acoustic space/time event.  

 

Dave

[wvu80]

On 5/5/2017 at 0:28 AM, Mallette said:

I am assuming you might be interested in, and perhaps have not seen in previous posting some years ago, my paper on the subject.  Recently updated, but over a decade old. 

I had read your paper before Dave, and I re-read it just now.  It has very interesting concepts.

 

I wonder, have you ever seen any white papers from the headphones people?  I'm thinking Turtle Beach thinks along the same lines you do, turning two audio sources into something that would "trick the brain" into perceiving 360 degree sound.

 

 

 

[Mallette]

Turtle Beach has been an interesting bunch for 20 years or so.  Like what they are doing, but here are my issues on one run through.

1. The use an implications of the word "processed.'  Violates my own concept that the only processing should be in the brain. 

 

2. The idea that only by eliminating the room can you achieve surround.  Hard as it is for two channel folks to accept, my own findings are that properly recorded and played back surround sound overrides anything in any room I've tried it in. 

 

3.  Visual cues.  The tank demo.  When I closed my eyes the effect was not natural.  Yes, seemed the tank was in the rear, but it did so by a change in sound quality less than by position. 

 

4. Final demo.  Kept my eyes closed PRECISELY because I was instructed to watch the animation.  What I heard was sound varying in distance the MIGHT be interpreted with a visual cue as coming from the rear but I perceived it as only front left, right, and distance. 

 

5.  When he finalized with  "Next time someone says you can't hear surround sound without multiple speaker in each earphone, tell them you know better...it's not magic, it's science"  my BS button popped out. 

 

With good visual cues you can fool the brain.  But I do NOT want to fool the brain.  I want to give it the info it needs to localize precisely as it would in the space the recording was made in.  I want surround that generates visual cues, not sound that is dependent on them.  That is my objective. 

 

Dave

 

[Travis In Austin]

On a slightly different subject but trying to decipher what this is about.

 

http://www.hps4000.com/pages/asa_.html

 

[Travis In Austin]

I cannot reccomend this book highly enough in connection with this awesome project.

 

Living Stereo: Histories and Cultures of Multichannel Sound

 

ISBN-13: 978-1623565169, ISBN-10: 1623565162

 

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/living-stereo-9781623565510/

[DizRotus]

Dave-

 

I know what you're working on is different than binaural recordings, which are, IMO, limited by the need to use headphones for playback.  Nonetheless, Turtle Beach's statement about only having two ears is accurate.  

 

Doesn't  true binaural recording use a dummy head with microphones in each ear in an attempt to record what each ear would hear in the recording space, including reflections, delays and/or decays?  And doesn't such a recording demand playback through headphones, so as to not introduce any new reflections, delays and/or decays?  

 

If I understand correctly, you're recording the space with four mics in such a way that it could be replayed through four speakers, rather than headphones.  Is that correct?

[Mallette]

3 hours ago, DizRotus said:

If I understand correctly, you're recoding the space with four mics in such a way that it could replayed through four speakers, rather than headphones.  Is that correct?

Easiest to think of it as 4 channel stereo.  Fundamental hypothesis is that, give it's established that the very best stereo recordings are those made with two mikes, adding two more completes the coverage. 

 

However, turns out it is "more than the sum of its parts."  Without making any direct analysis which I am not equipped by education to make, I think it not unreasonable to say that 2² = 4, and 4² = 16.  Mentally applied that to what the brain has to work with when listening to 4 channels miked from a coincident position compared to only two.  In fact, it seems to provide even more for the brain to chew on and localize. 

 

I won't comment more on what Turtle Beach is doing.  I am really not qualified to do so.  I wish I had some of the Quad 4 transducer heads from the old days, as I think they would work will with my mike plan.  I don't think anybody makes these anymore.

 

Dave

[wvu80]

@Mallette your recording theory concept might need some refining.  It's hard to fathom one mic setup is the ideal for every recording situation that exists.  Your theory uses the concept of the "ideal listening position,"  one size fits all.

 

You've made live! recordings for concerts.  You might assume the best LP is somewhere in the audience, but I would argue the conductor has the best LP in the house. Which is "ideal?"  There are valid argument to be made either way.

 

The best sound reproduction is not necessarily from the perspective of a a single person sitting in the audience.  Who wants to hear people talking, coughs, squealing, loud clapping or babies crying just because they are sitting near to the MLP?  I don't.  I want to hear the articulation of the instruments or clarity of the vocals, all of which are sometimes generated by large PA speakers.

 

Something to think about.

[Mallette]

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

@Mallette your theory might need some refining.

Ya THINK?   

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

It's hard to fathom one mic setup is the ideal for every recording situation that exists.

Never said that.

 

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Your theory uses the concept of the "ideal listening position,"  one size fits all.

In a given acoustic space, one size DOES fit all for recording, just as it does in a given listening room for a given system.  Few argue the presence of a "sweet spot" in a listening room...seems rational to assume the same principle would apply whether the source of the music is live or from loudspeakers.  Certainly open to argument on these things, as I don't claim to be an expert anything but, perhaps, listener. 

 

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Who wants to hear people talking, coughs, squealing, loud clapping or babies crying just because they are sitting near to the MLP?

Certainly a matter of personal taste.  While coughs, farts, and such are annoying, I much can deal with that better than the alternative, which is to eliminate the hall ambience.  A pipe organ, orchestra, guitar, piano, or whatever stripped of the acoustics of an appropriate room or hall becomes articulate...and far less interesting.  Besides that, most recordings made for distribution don't have an audience. 

 

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I want to hear the articulation of the instruments or clarity of the vocals, all of which are sometimes generated by large PA speakers.

As to listening to acoustic instruments via loudspeakers at a concert, I just say "NO."  Even if these speakers and the mikes employed are the very best, they are still just loudspeakers.  I can listen to loudspeakers at home. 

 

As some who have shown interest in this thread have not seen my original paper on the subject I am attaching it.  It is updated through my most recent experiments. 

 

Dave

sixcard.pdf

[wvu80]

1 minute ago, Mallette said:

14 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

It's hard to fathom one mic setup is the ideal for every recording situation that exists.

Never said that.

Apologies Dave, I didn't mean to mis-characterize your theory.

 

Could you clarify, what is the best, or maybe the most common application of your array as you envision it?

+++

 

It might also help to understand where I'm coming from.  My favorite musical genre is DCI, drum corps.  The stage is a football field, the horns and drums must project onto an audience that is 100 yards wide, 100 rows up. 

 

I do hear the corps, but my #1 pet peeve is having the high school band kids sitting beside me talking through the show.  When I purchase my live recordings from the World Championships in Indy, I don't want to hear the drunken idiots in the audience yelling during the quiet sections of the music.  It's "tradition" to get immortalized on the recordings that way.  All I want to hear is the power of the horns, the crack of the rim shots as if I were standing in front of the drum line.

 

Believe it or not your array makes some sense for recording my favorite genre, IF we could eliminate the extraneous sounds from the audience.