[LAD] Attenuation of sounds in 3D space

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 08:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > On 07/22/2010 08:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > 
> > > As an ape (of course I'm an ape like every human is an ape) and troll (I
> > > don't see myself as a troll) I suspect phasing too, that's why I
> > > overstated argued with the next generation Cochlea-Implant, or needles
> > > in the brain.
> > 
> > that is a bogus statement. phasing happens in the brain as well. just 
> > put on your favourite pair of headphones and wire one side out-of-phase. 
> > instant nausea. (of course, if you keep it on for a few days, your brain 
> > will adapt - presto: you'll be hurling all over the real world when you 
> > finally put them down.)
> > 
> > > Visual 3D, by a surround projection + 3D glasses isn't perfect, but
> > > there is just one picture and not several pictures that needs to be
> > > phase synced in the eye.  Perhaps a week analogy.
> > 
> > a terribly chosen analogy indeed. since when do the eyes care what phase 
> > an incoming photon is? unless you're staring into a laser, each photon 
> > will have totally random phase.
> > next error: there *are* two images, and they do need to be synced. phase 
> > is irrelevant, though.
> 
> That's the problem with this analogy. We have two eyes and ears, but
> most people have better trained eyes, so most people 'see' differences,
> but less people 'hear' differences.
> 
> > 
> > > When having 4 or 8 or more speakers I fear phasing at the position of
> > > the ears. But perhaps it isn't that much. I'll try to listen to
> > > ambisoncs :).
> > 
> > you can get terrible phasing, and not just in the center, but pretty 
> > much everywhere. that's why some people stagger the timings of the 
> > loudspeakers a bit, to smear out the phasing until it is more or less 
> > masked by the content.
> > but it should be noted that stereo has the very same problem.
> 
> As I mentioned before, it's hard to do a good stereo mix, even when the
> speakers are perfectly set up. When you play music on radio, you need to
> check the phases of the recordings, because there are a lot of bad
> recordings. I guess it becomes harder the more channels you need to
> control.

PS:

Not only because of the position of the speakers, but
started with the recoding, resp. master mix, that's why ...

> 
> > now if 
> > method A produces a 60° soundstage with phasing at N units of 
> > obnoxiousness, a method that produces 360° surround is entitled to 6N 
> > UoO phasing. in practice, ambisonics does better than this, but there is 
> > no denying the issue.
> > one thing that often gets overlooked: people have learned to accept 
> > stereo (or, in some circles, 5.1) as the gold standard, and its 
> > shortcomings have grown into desired features. it's very hard to compete 
> > with a method that does a few things very well and doesn't even try to 
> > reproduce most of the auditory cues of, say, a live experience.
> 
> Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very
> limited, but with some training it's good to handle.
> If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it.
> It's funny, regarding to the German Wiki ambisonics is as old as I'm.
> 
> > the main ingredient that makes any sound reproduction system sound good 
> > is your brain. the trick is to nudge it into sympathy with carefully 
> > chosen cues.


...:

> Btw. I 'try' to do stereo mixes that do sound mono as near as possible
> to the stereo mix and mono could be two channels as one or just one of
> the two channels. So I limit stereo to a special functionality, but
> don't use all capabilities. This could be called 'broadcasting
> behaviour'. I know that I need to break this habit for surround sound,
> but when listening and unfortunately working with 5.1, I didn't like it.
> 
> Btw. even some consumers don't like 5.1, but perhaps because they set up
> the speakers completely bad. IIUC they hardly could set up the speakers
> completely bad, if they would use ambisonics. IIUC for large rooms there
> are many speakers needed, perhaps this is the reason that shit like 5.1,
> Dolby surround, Dolby stereo is common. OT: For film on cord Dolby
> stereo anyway is nice for stereo, without Dolby there's hardcore wow and
> flutter ... hm, regarding to wiki it's called dolby digital, doesn't
> matter German filmmakers usually can't pay for Dolby.
> 
> Thanx for the information :)
> 
> Ralf