Jump to content

STC

  • Posts

    4398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Malaysia

Retained

  • Member Title
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Klang Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

7922 profile views
  1. ssstwitter.com_1710656369315.mp4
  2. I think this is about music sharing server. A feature which was introduced many years ago. It was never part of JRiver version earlier. Unless I am wrong. Never used it. In fact, I stopped upgrades since 25 and only recently upgraded to FW32 simply to support a wonderful media player.
  3. Crosstalk cancellation deals with the sound waves arriving at the other ears within microseconds and when speakers are place closely it will be less than 100 μs. The earliest reflection usually within milliseconds so I am not sure how the room reflection really affects the XTC. During the early days of Ambiophonics some laptops and Amplifers didn’t work with XTC. These was observation by Ralph’s research team. I remember one particular Mac laptop and some boutique amplifers being mentioned. It could be due to the internal sound card and phase accuracy of some amplifiers. My own experience with XTC and various speakers in normal non treated rooms showed that XTC still worked so I don’t think room reflection is an issue. It can slightly render the cancellation ineffective but it should work just like how we localize real sound in a non treated room. Reflection can affect the accuracy of localization but not to the extent XTC not working with loudspeakers. Having said that, those trying speakers with the conventional 60 degrees may find that the effect more compromised that the typical 20 degrees or less placement. Usually, with such position and reflective situation, the cancellation signal now becomes a phase manipulation due to users wanting to hear the effect rather than cancel the XTC and naturally the phase effect will be audible making some track unpleasant. BACCH users are facing such issues. RACE is adjustment of delay and attenuation by user while BACCH is measurement based. My own observation, most of the values based on measurements didn’t work effectively with RACE. I don’t know about BACCH.
  4. Chesky’s The blackest Crow released in 2019 wasn’t a binaural. While binaural is capable of capturing the scene exactly like how you heard them in situ, it will not be the same for different users. If you are the lucky ones without too sensitive direction finding ears of individuals then you get the realistic 3 dimensional sound and that too when used headphones. Choeueri says only 30% of people can perceive 3D with binaural. Chesky was convinced by Choueiri to do the binaural recordings with the offer of the correction filter for the B&K mics and dummy head. This was perhaps the early stages of BACCH 3D to be developed which supposed to be sold by Chesky. In a way, it was a great strategy by Choueri because you now have a recordings that’s made exactly how the playback system would interprete them as all the cues already known when designing of the correction filter where that information can be incorporated for the crosstalk cancellation of loudspeaker playback. But along the way, Chesky started using Neumann K100 dummy head which came with its own correction filter which was meant for loudspeakers playback also. I think that too was dropped as now reference to binaural + in the Chesky record labels no longer lists them. I understand the technical reasons why binaural + was dropped but just curious of the move to a new label by Chesky himself instead of releasing the new records under the well known and loved Audiophile label, i.e., Chesky Records?
  5. That’s correct. One mastered for headphones and another loudspeakers.
  6. @Archimago wrote in his blog about David Chesky new label company called The Audiophile Society. Is DC finally admitting that you cannot have one format that can be equally best for both? https://positive-feedback.com/interviews/interview-with-david-chesky-on-music-and-his-new-venture-the-audiophile-society/ This is an old news but I can’t find it being mentioned here. Please delete or merge if this a duplication.
  7. Howard Kneller is one lucky guy because he was the one the last few who got a chance to visit Ralph before its closure. Now, Kneller is using BACCH SP which was setup by Choueiri himself. I am just posting the listening take of his of the two systems. You can read the full article from the links. I hope Soundpimp and HomeAudioFidelity could get him review his. I am keen to hear about coloration complaint. BACCH SP “I eagerly turned to my collection of electronic music. Here, as with recordings of acoustic instruments, the BACCH-SP adio reproduced aural images with remarkable solidity and depth, those images now appearing far from my speakers, and with greater apparent space between synths. In any track on Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories (16/44.1 FLAC, Columbia), electronic sounds danced around robotic, auto-tuned voices, spanning the soundstage with a palpability that made every other system’s reproduction of them seem diffuse, lacking in air, and two-dimensional. Low-frequency pulses radiated far along the room’s sidewalls.” Ambiophonics “Palpable 3D voices and instrumental sounds moved within a 360-degree radius of the listening position. When called for by the recording, those sounds sometimes seemed to be only inches from my ear. Further, the soundstage extended well beyond both the walls and speakers to an extent simply not possible with traditional stereo playback systems. What was also striking was the way in which the system recreated hall ambience and reverberation. Traditional systems simply cannot as effectively recreate the room or venue in which the recording was made -- and the difference is not subtle…..The demo indicated that Ambiophonics is much more effective and operationally linear than is Carver’s Sonic Holography, which I have also auditioned. I’ve also heard numerous high-end multichannel systems, all of which couldn’t hold a candle to what we heard. Furthermore, Ambiophonics’ cost-to-performance ratio is through the roof. Yes, 24 channels of audio should be highly immersive. “ I have skipped the binaural recordings review. https://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/equipment-menu/913-theoretica-applied-physics-bacch-sp-adio-3d-sound-processor https://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/blogging-on-audio/201-howard-kneller/858-a-day-with-ralph-glasgal-founder-of-the-ambiophonics-institute
  8. I am reposting some quotes in reference to Chesky’s Binaural + and Choueiri’s role in developing the pinna correction filter. The binaural + recordings were not mastered with XTC because it would defeat the purpose of binaural recording. XTC during playback is to deliver all the encoded cues in the recordings and the best method to preserve such cues is to use binaural recordings. Unfortunately, when you play them on speakers they would sound too bright which Choueiri calls as colouration which is actually pinna frequency shaping. See Moller measurements how a flat response changes at ears due to pinna. Neumann dummy head comes with such correction filter. I think their earlier version used Kemar measurements and the later dummy head with Choueiri’s filters. DPA binaural mics which I use do not have such filters built in but if one want they correction filter is available for correction so that they sound tonal wise natural when played with speakers. Quote:- “Yet Chesky recently decided to discard recording techniques he developed over decades in favor of binaural recording, a method that uses microphones placed inside the ears of a dummy head. Binaural recording is intended for playback on headphones, which of course are ultra-hot right now, but Chesky has worked with Princeton University researcher Prof. Edgar Choueiri to develop methods of delivering the binaural experience through conventional speakers, a technique he calls Binaural+.” Full interview here. https://www.soundandvision.com/content/interview-david-chesky Here is the video by Choueiri himself explanation the filter he developed for Chesky’s binaural +. it for nothing to do with XTC.
  9. I have to go back on my word and reply this because it is full of misinformation. Please don’t quote something that you do not understand. There are a lot of misinformation there. The so called proof you posted is someone quoting Jason Serinus. (Unless you think Serinus is an authority on XTC). The biggest joke is that guy can’t even tell the difference between Ambisonics and Ambiophonics. And I quote from your own so called proof “ David Chesky explains how crosstalk filters in the binaural + technology which enables it to be played back accurately on speakers. "Ralph Glasgal has a place called the Ambisonics Institute, where he's been working on crosstalk filters from a theoretical perspective. Choueiri went from there, and developed the BACCH [Band-Assembled Crosstalk Cancellation Hierarchy] filter, an amazing filter that operates to audiophile standards.” (Serinus, 2012)”. Chesky ‘s video is not the whole fact about the filter. Crosstalk cancellation that he talked there is BACCH. The crosstalk filter involved in binaural + is also made by Choueiri. It is just an EQ to correct binaural recordings. There are other EQ’s available for similar correction provided by the binaural microphones manufacturer. There is another full video of David Chesky can be found where there are people hearing his recordings. Watch that video and then you will understand the selective quote of David in the Soundstage video that you shared. For someone claiming to have been following XTC would by now should have spotted the misinformation in the selective quotes of Soundstage as it is not possible to hear certain attributes he described there even with XTC.
  10. The question is self explanatory if you understood the purpose of XTC. It is self explanatory if you understood what involves in the process of panning. It is self explanatory because you were presented with the information specially dedicated for recording engineers how mastering would benefit them with XTC where Ralph personally gave you the link in his website. And you thank him by calling Loony Toon. It is self explanatory, that headphones mastering is XTC. It is self explanatory, no matter how well it is mastered with XTC, the end user must also use XTC to reap the benefit. Otherwise, it is just a stereo playback with added advantage of correct timing difference. It is self explanatory - because you also pan an object just using level difference with timing information encoded in them.
  11. I am afraid your question shows you do not know what XTC meant to do. You can master a system with XTC and there are some doing it. When you master them with XTC, you still need XTC to reap the benefit otherwise you will be still hearing the 220 μs comb filtering like effect with conventional stereo. It has been answered very clearly before. And the AES papers already explained it. Again, what do expect recording mastered with XTC to sound like? If you know the answer then your question is self explanatory.
  12. What kind of difference you expect to hear? Maybe, I could answer them more correctly. If I really can figure out what you really want to know. I have even referred to Chesky’s binaural plus which is ideal for XTC. How and why David Chesky even wanted to take the path of of binaural + and Choueiri’s involvement there is rooted in XTC. In short, you will find your answers in 2001 AES paper.
  13. Actually, almost all the tracks I play are multi miked. There are very few true stereo with single mics made. Chesky’s used to make the “binaural plus” version, Waterlily Acoustics, PlayClassics and Clarity Recordings. All of them sound great but vast majority of the recordings are multi miked. In fact, the whole research of XTC long before Ralph were all used multi miked recordings.
×
×
  • Create New...