Last Active
  • Re: interaural effect on some records


    I can see you put a lot of thought into your replies!
    Yes a lot of what you say is true, but you are forgetting one thing I asked you.

    Recordings are not made (most) in the manner Polk or you describe.
    Most of what you say would be true, IF things were how you envision and how Polk describes typical recordings.

    But do we not all know, probably 95% of recordings are multitrack creations at a mixing board, with a soundstage is created by the engineer, not the other way around.
    So in essence there never was/is a real soundstage that requires interaural crosstalk cancellation.
    It is all a studio creation, that has no semblance to a real live event.

    I really like the SDA effect and in theory it should work quite well for sure.

    "Take Five" is an example of something that I think it works great on!
    a lot of Jazz and classical, it truly does sound great, I agree.

    But most music from the 60's forward, you know most pop and rock, it was not intended for that kind of studio created stuff.

  • Re: interaural effect on some records


    No, it is not simple at all.

    In a previous thread in March of this year, I cited work by Dr. Floyd Toole that explained that interaural crosstalk (comb filtering) cannot be compensated for by recording techniques. Techniques such as using the pan pots to exaggerate the sound stage add an effect that was not in the original performance. No matter what tricks the recording engineer uses to manipulate the sound stage, the loudspeakers at the playback end will still produce interaural crosstalk.

    The simple fact that you refuse to accept is that crosstalk cannot be compensated for in the recording process. A pair of conventional stereo loudspeakers will still produce four localization signals rather than the two that were produced by the original sound sources. The only way to compensate for crosstalk signals is to cancel them. There is no way to encode crosstalk cancellation signals in the original recording. This has to be done electronically or acoustically at the playback end.

    If you actually read Matt Polk's 1984 paper, he provides an in-depth technical discussion of SDA design and operation principles and provides mathematical justifications.

    Correction, it does not NEED compensated for at all.

    And yes it absolutely can be done in a recording. But the name will not be "called" SDA. Think about it a bit.

    It is not done in recordings because the crosstalk is inherent to the recording from beginning to end playback, and therefore, it is the intended sound meant to be heard.

    Sound engineers do not create the sound stage with SDA in mind. Normal 2 speaker stereo is the norm. They mix and master with that in mind, and the placement of sounds are intentionally put where they want them.

    Try asking about SDA on pro sound forums.
    The guys that mix and master recordings are not so enamored with SDA.

  • Re: interaural effect on some records

    This is so simple.....

    The "Crosstalk" you mention, is also heard by the Recording Engineer, so therefore, it is automatically compensated for with how he mixes the recording when he places the instruments and sounds within the final product.

  • Re: interaural effect on some records

    Emlyn wrote: »
    Rolling Stones albums released up through 1969 were recorded to be released in the mono format.

    SDA is not an effect, it is a physical acoustic design to basically cancel interaural crosstalk and enhance stereo recordings to reproduce stereo more accurately than standard speakers.

    In theory that sounds like the idea, except recordings are already made with that compensated for.
    So it creates simply a wider than normal stereo image.

    Unless the recording was mixed and mastered on SDA, it is actually creating a much less accurate sound in the end.

    We own a couple pairs, and while it is pleasant and enjoyable, it is obviously artifical, and only works if the recording was Intended to be played back ON SDA speakers.

  • Re: SDA Polyswitches Are Nasty

    K_M wrote: »
    Sorry, 2 wrong assumptions.

    The assumptions were reasonable since low powered, over driven amplification is the most common cause of clipping and since you didn't explain that you were moving a loose power amp connection around while the amp was on.

    In either case, the cause of the clip was a transient energy spike.

    Assumptions can be reasonable, but often wrong.
    Thanks for clarifying.


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


25 LOLs500 CommentsFirst Anniversary25 Likes25 Agrees5 Insightfuls5 Agrees5 Likes5 LOLsFirst Answer100 CommentsPhotogenicName Dropper10 CommentsFirst Comment