Depth Perception

Two eyes a short distance apart and facing the same direction are the key to depth perception. That’s not the whole picture, though. We learn at an early age that when we’re looking at two objects of the same size, but one appears smaller, the smaller one is farther away. We can do that with one eye, but to get the full benefit of depth perception, to get 3D, holographic, stereo vision, we need two eyes. Stereo vision works by parallax : the change in view between the position of the left eye and the right eye. The perspective difference gives us cues to the relative position of various objects indicating which is nearer or farther even if we don’t know the relative size of the objects. It also needs pointing out that the word stereo comes from the Greek word stereos, meaning solid—a solid has width, height, and depth—three dimensions.

Pardon the pedantic opening. It’s to insure that we clearly understand why two eyes are needed for depth perception, and equally important, what stereo means.

View-Master

View-Master

Stereo photography and 3D movies work on the same two-eyes (two views) principle. Take two images of a scene with two lenses 60 mm apart, about the average adult pupillary distance. Feed the left and right image respectively to each eye and you’ll see a recreation of the scene in stereo, as if you were standing there, complete with depth perception. You may remember the View-Master from the 1960s. It was a binocular-like thingy in which you inserted a cardboard disc that had pairs of color photos circling the perimeter. Hold the viewer up to a light source, look through the finder, and you’d see beautiful, lifelike, 3D images of famous sights from around the world.

 

stereo viewer

stereo viewer

You might also recall, from an earlier time period, stereo viewers that held a flat card with two side-by-side B&W images that looked identical. Yet, with the aid of the viewer, its two lenses helping your eyes focus separately on the individual left and right images, your brain would get the information needed to reconstruct the scene in stereo.

Now, imagine taking several images of a scene and mixing them together to make two composite images, one mix for the left eye, one for the right. What do you think you’ll see?

Yes, a confusing mess. Our brains can only process a single view per eye. That’s all we need to mentally assemble a 3D image.

Four view mix of Mendenhall Glacier

Four view mix of Mendenhall Glacier

We have two ears for the same reason—to hear in stereo, to perceive angular location and distance. This is, obviously, what stereo recordings are trying to capture. Take two microphones, approximately ear-distance apart, record the sound from each to a separate channel, and playback via two speakers—voilà, stereo sound—lifelike direction and depth perception.

Again, imagine taking the sound collected from several microphones, then mixing them down into two channels. What do you think you’ll hear?

As you know from experience, since most recordings are done with many microphones mixed down to two channels, it’s not the mess you get visually, but it’s obviously not going to capture 3D. Without the natural amplitude, time, and phase parallax between only two microphones, it cannot capture stereo. It’s merely two-channel. Any depth we might perceive is an artifact of our brain’s auditory processing. Yet for almost as long as stereo recordings have been around, and multitrack recordings started being made early on, no distinction has been made between stereo and two-channel. The word stereo continues to be used for multitrack recordings, each musician separately close miked, often done over many separate sessions, which could be days or weeks apart, and sometimes even at other studios. Later the separate tracks are mixed down into two channels, but still labeled as stereo. Wrong! It’s not stereo. There’s nothing bad about multi-track recordings. They just should not be labeled stereo. This practice has created the erroneous and common belief that stereo and two channels are synonymous.

Audiophiles talk a lot about soundstage and imaging, but most recordings can’t deliver the goods. If you want real, holographic sound, you have to start with a real, stereo recording. Every recording should be clearly labeled for consumer awareness. Until you’ve heard the real thing, you have no idea what you’re missing.

For more depth into how stereo hearing works, here’s a link to a good article on [Sound Location].

 

Posted in Audio, Discover | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

McTee Time

No, don’t even think about that other Mc which is pasted in front of anything we want to denigrate for being common, mass produced, cookie cutter, lowbrow, and low quality. This Mc is Cindy McTee, a composer who’s been around for over 60 years. Huh what? Cindy who? You’ve never heard of her? Well, neither had I. It’s the unfortunate consequence of having an abundance of talented people everywhere you look. The problem is further worsened by the myopic entertainment industry that only breeds celebrity worship and laziness. It’s too easy to simply keep throwing out the same old worn out names. This habit of mass media unmasks their insecurity, and their over concern with ratings. I prefer seeking out the dark horses, to explore the fringes, the under appreciated and little known talent. McTee is definitely one of them.

Her music is not cutting edge. It’s not going to turn your head. But then, it’s not going to make your ears bleed or give you a headache. Despite this, her music is exciting, fun, highly rhythmic, and easy to appreciate. That may even be why she’s not gotten much attention. After all, the art intelligentsia strive to make things difficult, not easy, painful, not fun, and all the while promoting trite, tortured, and absurd art. There’s meaning in McTee’s music, without witless, warped contrivance.

There are clear commonalities among her compositions—driving, incessant, assembly line churning; strong thematic material, generous repetition; pounding rhythms, percussion; sudden contrasts, welcomed surprises. There’s an edginess in her music that, to me, conflicts with her name. Cindy—too cute for a composer whose music is anything but cute. For instance, the first movement of her Symphony #1: Ballet for Orchestra has a multilayered fugal construction mixed with distinctive jazz elements. All too often you’ll read about jazz influences in modern orchestral music, but let’s get real, it’s only glanced at. That’s not so with McTee’s music. She unapologetically borrows jazz harmonies and swing rhythms, none more obvious than in the 4th movement, “Finale: Where Time Plays the Fiddle.”

The second, movement of the symphony, “Adagio: Till a Silence Fell,” is heartfelt, searching, and sorrowful. It’s a deeply expressive piece in stark opposition to the other movements. With all the ease and familiar components in her music, there is additionally a deceptive complexity. That depth is combined with explicit formality. Her academic training, she has a PhD in music composition, is conspicuous, but uncharacteristic for someone with such a level of training, it hasn’t constricted her imagination, or made her music cerebral. That is a rare talent.

I also like the descriptive titles she gives her compositions. The first movement of Double Play, “The Unquestioned Answer,” is a good example. Its opening motif is the questionable answer stated by vibraphone, followed by a discernibly questioning phrase asked by the flute. It segues into the second movement, “Tempus Fugit,” again unambiguously conveying a sense of clock mechanization and frantic feelings of the uncontrolled passage of time.

Listen to a couple of samples.

Symphony #1, Introduction: On with the Dance

Circuits

(||) Rating — Music : A- ║ Performance : A ║ Recording : A ║
 Cindy McTee, Symphony #1: Ballet for Orchestra, Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Leonard Slatkin, Naxos, 2013

 

Posted in Discover, Music | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment