SDA effect

F1nut

Yo Russ

K_M

Will try this again.....

From the SDA white paper:

"suppose we go to a concert and put a microphone at each of our ears to record exactly what we are hearing. Those recorded sounds contain all of the characteristics of the instruments and voices in the performance. But it is the differences between the sound recorded at our left ear,compared to what is recorded at our right ear, that contains all of the information about the positions of the instruments, the size of the concert hall, etc"

That is true for sure, but again, what about MOST recordings that are not made this way, the white paper never explains WHY, it would be beneficial to create a new wider soundstage from a recording that was made with an artificial soundstage intentionally?

Im not bashing ON SDA, but instead of getting mad about me bringing this up, I want to see a real explanation as to WHY the white paper mentions a recording technique very rarely used, but no mention of the effect on normal studio made recordings....

Almost all modern day recordings are creations that place the instruments and vocals in specific locations artificially. There is no recording hall or big room with 2 mics, but simply separate tracks that are panned, eqed and phase shifted to create a virtual soundstage.

If there is no actual recording venue or hall or room, how is it making it more accurate, if there was no real acoustic space to begin with?

gmcman

Here's another angle... why does it have to be setup with two mics? Treat each of your ears as a microphone and let your brain create the image. The more spatial detail, the more of an "image" your brain can create.

So if you are standing in front of a single player, a band, an orchestra, either way, your brain will use both of your ears if there's hearing in both ears.


SDA speakers will not do everything right every single time. Same as saying non-SDA speakers will not do everything right every time.

There's no dismissing many recordings are captured in a mono format. There's also no dismissing even more are recorded in a stereo format.

Imagine looking at something in 2D, pretty much like closing one eye for a few minutes, then opening your other eye and you now have depth.

SDA speakers give me a more dramatic soundstage REGARDLESS of whether or not someone sat behind a mixer thinking.... "I'm not going to mix this for SDA speakers."

SDA speakers cancel out the information that pull the image close together on most regular speakers.

If I'm listening to someone play whatever instrument in whatever venue, I like to hear that through the speakers to get the width and depth of the venue....or at least try. Most speakers I have heard cannot do this, it becomes crowded around the center.

IMO, that's what makes my SDA speakers sound good to me.

delkal

K_M wrote: »

Will try this again.....

From the SDA white paper:

"suppose we go to a concert and put a microphone at each of our ears to record exactly what we are hearing. Those recorded sounds contain all of the characteristics of the instruments and voices in the performance. But it is the differences between the sound recorded at our left ear,compared to what is recorded at our right ear, that contains all of the information about the positions of the instruments, the size of the concert hall, etc"

That is true for sure, but again, what about MOST recordings that are not made this way, the white paper never explains WHY, it would be beneficial to create a new wider soundstage from a recording that was made with an artificial soundstage intentionally?

Im not bashing ON SDA, but instead of getting mad about me bringing this up, I want to see a real explanation as to WHY the white paper mentions a recording technique very rarely used, but no mention of the effect on normal studio made recordings....

Almost all modern day recordings are creations that place the instruments and vocals in specific locations artificially. There is no recording hall or big room with 2 mics, but simply separate tracks that are panned, eqed and phase shifted to create a virtual soundstage.

If there is no actual recording venue or hall or room, how is it making it more accurate, if there was no real acoustic space to begin with?

I often wondered about this. I once read a review on an expensive upgrade where one listener claimed he could hear the guitarists moving around on stage and changing positions after he got it..........I called BS since they were both playing electric guitars!

Most "imaging" in modern recordings is mixed in artificially. They don't just have 2 microphones in a recording room mimicking your ears. Most tracks are straight off of a direct feed into the recorder. It is the mixers job to make it sound right. If they are good it works but it is not the same as two microphones recording acoustic instruments and vocals from a live recording.

If a two microphone recording is done right and played on a good system you can definitely hear the difference. Not only can you hear where everyone is you can get an idea of the size of the room.

My favorite recording to demonstrate this is the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's "Will the Circle be Unbroken". It is a totally raw recording where they got a bunch of early bluegrass legends to jam and they recorded everything in one take. No dubbing or mixing, just a couple of microphones and everyone playing acoustic instruments.

If you can listen to early country / bluegrass give it a try and see what I am talking about.

nooshinjohn

It should be pointed out here that K_M is mis-reading the white paper. The microphone in this case are placed where your ears are for the purposes of capturing what you hear and NOT how a particular event was recorded when it was performed.

Each ear hears things from a slightly different perspective, if only by milliseconds. That is how you are able to perceive spatial ques such as distance, height, depth and a host of other information. The microphones in this white paper example represent your ears and not how something was actually recorded.

Once again K_M shows their genius is vastly over-rated.

delkal

nooshinjohn wrote: »

It should be pointed out here that K_M is mis-reading the white paper. The microphone in this case are placed where your ears are for the purposes of capturing what you hear and NOT how a particular event was recorded when it was performed.

Each ear hears things from a slightly different perspective, if only by milliseconds. That is how you are able to perceive spatial ques such as distance, height, depth and a host of other information. The microphones in this white paper example represent your ears and not how something was actually recorded.

Once again K_M shows their genius is vastly over-rated.

I totally agree a human ear can pick of the very slightest subtleties. But it can also be fooled. My question was what are you really listening too in a modern mixed recording?

A performance where the subtleties and crosstalk of everything bouncing around the room like you were listening to a live performance?

Or when you hear one performer slightly to one side of the others........But it is only because the mixer turned a knob of the mono recordings track one way or another.

F1nut

nooshinjohn wrote: »

It should be pointed out here that K_M is mis-reading the white paper. The microphone in this case are placed where your ears are for the purposes of capturing what you hear and NOT how a particular event was recorded when it was performed.

Each ear hears things from a slightly different perspective, if only by milliseconds. That is how you are able to perceive spatial ques such as distance, height, depth and a host of other information. The microphones in this white paper example represent your ears and not how something was actually recorded.

Once again K_M shows their genius is vastly over-rated.

John is 100% correct on all accounts.

audioluvr

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Each ear hears things from a slightly different perspective, if only by milliseconds. That is how you are able to perceive spatial ques such as distance, height, depth and a host of other information. The microphones in this white paper example represent your ears and not how something was actually recorded

Correct. The brain uses visual cues combined with these audio cues to calculate soundstage. Without visual the brain is forced to guess based on memory of previous events. SDA helps unmuddy these cues and allows the brain to create a visual picture. Is this tricking the brain? Yes.

gmcman

"One of my Turns" from The Wall.....the first 50 seconds as the woman walks around the apartment speaking from different rooms. Her voice clearly goes deep into the background as well as left to right. There is a HUGE sense of depth and spaciousness with my 2.3 TL's. On regular speakers I've heard this track many times and can get a sense of the spaciousness, but not as large as the SDA's. This isn't overly large, but sounds right.