What exactly is "imaging" ?

[darrenyeats]

You can stop exerting yourself with these mental gymnastics. Linkwitz of course did include height in his use of "3D".

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/accurate stereo performance.htm
AS=auditory scene
"Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo, but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height of the AS. The height is perceived at a greater distance than the loudspeakers and not as above the listener, because he "looks" into the AS in front of him."

https://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The-Magic-In-Stereo.pdf
"Typical Stereo Reproduction Auditory scene Focused lateral imaging. Depth? Height of scene = Height of speaker boxes. Auditory scene is hard-bounded by the speakers. Like listening to headphones at a distance. Scene collapses into nearest speaker. Aware of listening to 2 speakers in a room.
...
Optimal Stereo Reproduction Auditory scene Focused lateral imaging. Depth. Height of scene much greater than Height of speaker boxes. Auditory scene is soft-bounded by the speakers. Like being at the performance venue. Scene is viewed from off-center seat without collapsing. Not aware of listening to speakers in a room."

 

[darrenyeats]

Before you get excited about the first quote, note he wrote SOME recordings. Some recordings have these cues and some don't. As per last quote of my previous post i.e.

https://www.linkwitzlab.com/music.htm
"I find these transmissions very revealing of what the recording engineer or producer has decided to capture and transmit. In particular the real or unreal spatial context for a particular piece of music, the 3D aspects in the recording, are readily recognized ..."

 

[tuga]

eight information is not intentionally recorded in stereo, but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height of the AS.

This is what I have been saying all along. Height is not the result of stereophonic mechanism.

 

[adamdea]

Before you get excited about the first quote, note he wrote SOME recordings. Some recordings have these cues and some don't.

Darren I note what Linkwitz says and do not really disagree with what he says in the first quote. Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo," -yup
"but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height" - that is exactly what I am saying. And yes I do read that he said SOME recordings. I think you are reading this backwards in a desperate diesire for it to mean what you want it to. He is saying that you cannot intentionally encode height information but the brain will make some height inferences from some recordings.Note an "impression of height" not "perceive the relevant spatial relationships in the height dimension."

 

[darrenyeats]

Do you agree with the second quote?

 

[Tony L]

This is what I have been saying all along. Height is not the result of stereophonic mechanism.

Though, unlike your previous rigid/absolutist argument, you now concede cues as to height can end up recorded and reinterpreted by the listener as height information, i.e. exactly what I and others were saying all along?!

 

[tuga]

Though, unlike your previous rigid/absolutist argument, you now concede cues as to height can end up recorded and reinterpreted by the listener as height information, i.e. exactly what I and others were saying all along?!

I still don’t think that cues will give you instrument height nor location in the vertical plane.
But they may provide sense of depth, but a different mechanism not stereo

 

[tuga]

Mot real stereo but can anyone locate the organ on the 2L recording sample no cheating by watchongthevideo or the photos:

Arnesen: MAGNIFICAT 4. Et misericordia
Nidarosdomens jentekor & TrondheimSolistene

http://www.2l.no/hires/

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Darren I note what Linkwitz says and do not really disagree with what he says in the first quote. Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo," -yup
"but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height" - that is exactly what I am saying. And yes I do read that he said SOME recordings. I think you are reading this backwards in a desperate diesire for it to mean what you want it to. He is saying that you cannot intentionally encode height information but the brain will make some height inferences from some recordings.Note an "impression of height" not "perceive the relevant spatial relationships in the height dimension."

I don't think any of us who say we perceive height in stereo images have argued anything different to this. Our point, all along, has been that height cues can be captured as part of the recording process, and some systems are capable of reproducing them sufficiently that the brain perceives the height in the image. That has, until Linkwitz acknowledges it, been roundly dismissed by some as more subjectivist, over-imaginative self-delusion.

 

[AndyU]

that height cues can be captured as part of the recording process,

How are height cues captured? How are they encoded? How are they reproduced?

 

[adamdea]

Do you agree with the second quote?

Yes. But honestly if you re-read what I have been saying all along I can’t see why you would think otherwise. I have never been suggesting that a listener will perceive an infinitely thin horizontal plane. That would be crazy. That’s not how your perceptual system works.
But there are two not (I’m clinging to the Hope) too subtle pairs of distinction here
1) communicated (transmitted and decoded) information vs I guess at some meaning even if nothing to do with whether the same (or any) information was transmitted
2) vague sense of height vs distinguishable variation in vertical plane

 

[chartz]

How are height cues captured? How are they encoded? How are they reproduced?

We only have two ears, don’t we?

 

[Tony L]

How are height cues captured? How are they encoded? How are they reproduced?

Reverberation, reflection, phase, time. We subconsciously process this information using two just ears all day long so suggesting a recording coming out of two speakers can contain sufficient cues to create the illusion at least to some degree is hardly controversial. The fact you can create such spacial effects digitally from scratch (look up Roland QSound and its more modern variants) proves the concept beyond doubt, so that done we just need to deal with individual recordings on a case by case basis. Once you start thinking about this seriously rather than just burping up random textbook excepts you realise you’ll need to deep dive a whole world of microphone positioning, phase, reflection time, phase error etc etc. Early in the thread I cited Miles Someday My Prince Will Come as an interesting case as on many, many systems that album creates a huge image height on the trumpet. I asked why it does that? My best guess is it is down to mic phase error or some reflection artefact, but it sounds amazing so just enjoy it!

PS Gentle hint: remember those beautiful ribbon mics so coveted by the best studios are polar, the back-wave 180 degrees out of phase with the front, the sides largely cancelling.

 

[darrenyeats]

Yes. But honestly if you re-read what I have been saying all along I can’t see why you would think otherwise. I have never been suggesting that a listener will perceive an infinitely thin horizontal plane. That would be crazy. That’s not how your perceptual system works.
But there are two not (I’m clinging to the Hope) too subtle pairs of distinction here
1) communicated (transmitted and decoded) information vs I guess at some meaning even if nothing to do with whether the same (or any) information was transmitted
2) vague sense of height vs distinguishable variation in vertical plane

I have on several occasions perceived instruments coming from a specific point (not a vertical column) that is above the top of the speakers.

Whether this is due to the perceptual cues Linkwitz referenced, I'm not sure. For the purposes of my position in this argument, it doesn't matter.

All that matters is, taking the most recent example,
- it was specific to that recording and localisations above the top of the speakers didn't happen on other recordings played at the same session
- I moved my position during the song, suspecting comb filtering, but the illusion persisted

I don't believe that only the height coordinate was "just my imagination" (it didn't occur with other recordings) and the width and depth coordinates "were the recording".

Is the above compatible with the point you're making?

I get we may be talking at cross-purposes.

 

[tuga]

That has, until Linkwitz acknowledges it, been roundly dismissed by some as more subjectivist, over-imaginative self-delusion.

It's not self delusion but one's imagination.
The stereo illusion is only about hanging phantom images from a clothes line between the speakers.
Then you have ambience cues. The keyword is ambience. Like the acoustics of a church.
This is for captured real stereo.

With a studio mix a lot more is possible, but still in the space between the drivers.

 

[tuga]

Reverberation, reflection, phase, time. We subconsciously process this information using two just ears all day long so suggesting a recording coming out of two speakers can contain sufficient cues to create the illusion at least to some degree is hardly controversial. The fact you can create such spacial effects digitally from scratch (look up Roland QSound and its more modern variants) proves the concept beyond doubt, so that done we just need to deal with individual recordings on a case by case basis. Once you start thinking about this seriously rather than just burping up random textbook excepts you realise you’ll need to deep dive a whole world of microphone positioning, phase, reflection time, phase error etc etc. Early in the thread I cited Miles Someday My Prince Will Come as an interesting case as on many, many systems that album creates a huge image height on the trumpet. I asked why it does that? My best guess is it is down to mic phase error or some reflection artefact, but it sounds amazing so just enjoy it!

PS Gentle hint: remember those beautiful ribbon mics so coveted by the best studios are polar, the back-wave 180 degrees out of phase with the front, the sides largely cancelling.

Perhaps a tall high frequency driver can give an impression of height but I don't see any other mechanism in a speaker that will produce either a tall instrument or varied location of phantom sources in the vertical plane.

The height of the trumpet might be a distortion of some sort other than the result of mic'ing, could be room or even speaker related.
Can you hear it with all your speakers?
Which track in particular are you referring to so I can give it a go?

One thing that one must take into account is expectation bias. I expect a bass drum to be on the floor so I imagine it there.

 

[darrenyeats]

I find it strange to call it imagination if it's in some recordings and not others!

I don't claim the mechanism for the height illusion is the same as for other parts of the illusion, or that it works as reliably or as accurately - just that when it happens it is part of the overall illusion, specific to that recording and therefore not imagination.

 

[tuga]

I find it strange to call it imagination if it's in some recordings and not others!

I don't claim the mechanism of the height illusion is the same as for other parts of the illusion, or that it works as reliably or as accurately - just that when it happens it is part of the overall illusion, specific to that recording and therefore not imagination.

I am sure that with fake stereo it is possible to manipulate phase in order to place images to the outside of the speakers; I've not read about placing an image in the vertical plane above or below the clothes line although Sue Pertwee-Tyr rightly mentioned the rainbow arc test.

It can also be some sort of distortion/artifact as Tony mentioned, mic, room, speakers.

 

[tuga]

Reverberation, reflection, phase, time. We subconsciously process this information using two just ears all day long so suggesting a recording coming out of two speakers can contain sufficient cues to create the illusion at least to some degree is hardly controversial. The fact you can create such spacial effects digitally from scratch (look up Roland QSound and its more modern variants) proves the concept beyond doubt, so that done we just need to deal with individual recordings on a case by case basis. Once you start thinking about this seriously rather than just burping up random textbook excepts you realise you’ll need to deep dive a whole world of microphone positioning, phase, reflection time, phase error etc etc. Early in the thread I cited Miles Someday My Prince Will Come as an interesting case as on many, many systems that album creates a huge image height on the trumpet. I asked why it does that? My best guess is it is down to mic phase error or some reflection artefact, but it sounds amazing so just enjoy it!

PS Gentle hint: remember those beautiful ribbon mics so coveted by the best studios are polar, the back-wave 180 degrees out of phase with the front, the sides largely cancelling.

What about the mute, could it be conflicting somehow with an overly close mic?

I am listening to the album right now.

 

[Tony L]

Which track in particular are you referring to so I can give it a go?

Just listen to and enjoy the album, it is one of his best IMO. I’ll leave you to see what is where on which tracks.

One thing that one must take into account is expectation bias. I expect a bass drum to be on the floor so I imagine it there.

Indeed, and I suspect you won’t hear it. You will just hear your simplistic washing line! That is how expectation bias works.

FWIW the very last place I expected Miles to be was way above the speaker plane! Why would he be there? Likewise when I hear an instrument projected wide beyond the speaker (some of the sax on this album does that), or in front of the speaker plane. I have studio recording experience, I understand how they work practically as a tool, yet there are so, so many things I can’t explain! The difference between us is I actually understand enough to realise I know nothing! As stated my best guess is it is phase/timing caused by having multiple ribbon mics (or any really) in use recording live music in a studio, i.e. there is bleed between all mic sources at different phase-angles etc. Basically your ‘washing line’ snaps in an embarrassing fashion as soon as you move from totally dry electronic test tones. What is actually on a typical record or CD is a whole other thing.

PS Do try listening in the dark with no visual cues. It will help combat your expectation bias! One of the biggest free upgrades in hi-fi IMHO.