recording method vs sound reproduction

[徐中銳]

Incidentally, a few hours before you, in a parallel Forum I started Polyhymnia : "Phillips Classics legacy" Thread.

 

You might specifically like to read polyhymnia.com/studios-equipment (and then try contacting them for further insights). An extract as quick example :

Polyhymnia has a rich tradition, dating back 50 years, of building and modifying our own recording equipment. In fact, for many years all of the equipment used by PolyGram recording studios worldwide was built in Baarn. Some of this equipment is still in frequent use...

 

Studio 3 in Baarn:

[徐中銳]

Recalling the following, June 2009, Post by Robert (von Bahr, CEO, BIS Records and eClassical) :

Here's an answer from Ingo Petry, the most senior of our recording engineers/producers.

May I suggest that someone actually takes him up on his offer towards the end. We'd be delighted to show how it is really done!

Best - Robert

 

 

Ok but only brief...

 

Example of a typical BIS microphone setup for large orchestra:

 

Main mics: spaced omnis, for example TLM 50 or KM 130 (all Neumann), if also surround sometimes an additional Center mic mostly of the same type as the AB configuration.

 

Surround mics: could be anything from omnis to figure of eight, depending very much on the hall and the music.

 

Spot mics: KM 143s, 184s, TLM 149s and other members of the Neumann family depending on instruments and/or musical content and/or hall specifics.

 

Distances, angles etc. run within a certain frame but are adjusted to the acoustical environment one has to cope with :-)

 

This is of course only a 'shopping list' and if further interested can be cooked into a meal within a more private conversation but definitely not on this Forum!

Let me use this opportunity to say that real relevant questions like microphone placement and types etc. are so much more rewarding to discuss than the lately slightly overblown recording format dispute...

 

The reason that many people think that BIS has a rather high score in 'good sound' is simply that we at BIS agree on certain fundamental sound ideas. That includes also the importance of certain elements which may lead towards a good recording. Terms like 'openness, no coloration, impact, smoothness, personality, naturalness etc.' are all words we try to commit ourselves to.

 

And I must totally disagree with anybody who claims that just because a recording is not done all the way in the DSD domain, it cannot live up towards that goal. Just because one is believing in something very strongly doesn't make it more true...

 

Anyway, this discussion is an endless one and the positive thing I can still see with some of these strongly minded opinions within this Forum is that as long there is a discussion there is an interest and somebody who cares! And that is definitely the case for BIS and all its contributors!

 

At last some idea for people who are willing to look a bit behind the scenes before making all these assumptions and black-and-white comments. I strongly recommend to try to come to a recording session (any label not just BIS) and see first-hand what is it all about! For our label not so difficult because we do recordings in almost any possibe (or impossible) place on this planet.

 

See you there,

 

Ingo Petry,

Record producer, sound engineer, BIS Records

I find that Petry can be contacted at Take5 Music Production, [email protected]

[徐中銳]

And a somewhat companion (same snapshot of 2009 BIS) reply to Petry's :

Here is the email from BIS in response to my question "What PCM format do you use?":

 

 

"We record everything 44.1kHz 24 bit. Of course in post production we also use 32bit as a recording format when applying level changes.

 

About 5 years ago we decided to embrace the SACD as an Audio Format for mainly 3 reasons:

1. By far superior sound quality than CD no matter what High Resolution Format you choose.

2. the only existing (surviving) carrier for Surround Sound - this is really a huge benefit in our opinion

3. Hybrid disc allows backwards compatibility with ordinary CD Players. thus we produce only one carrier

 

In the beginning we had generous technical Support from SONY, who wanted to push the format. but the logistics did not work for the large number of SACD recordings we intended to do. And the machinery was far too complicated - especially when honoring the fact that we do all our chamber music recordings with only 1 person. Orchestras we usually record with a team of 2.

 

You could argue that recording in a higher sample rate would make sense. At least 88.2 kHz or 96, if not 352.8 like a few others do.

We did try to do that, but we had to discover a limiting factor in the necessary computer technology.

 

The main point is that some of the tools we need to create the best possible (and natural sounding) mix simply will not work at sample rates over 96 kHz. And at 96kHz they already do not have enough Inputs and Outputs, thus forcing us to make other compromises which will become far more audible than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96kHz.

 

Last but not least: The CD layer is still 44.1kHz, so no converting is needed here. Since many (if not most) of the listeners still play the CD layer rather than SACD, we believe that they will at least benefit a little from NOT CONVERTING the recording. While those who listen to SACD layer really receive an excellent product. Converting to DSD is different from converting from 96kHz to 44, many CD players have already 1bit converters, they use similar technology, but the amount of DATA recorded on a CD (16bit) is still the limiting factor.

 

I could have given you a Yes/No answer, but I hope you will understand, that there are a lot of factors behind such a decision. It is not so much the recording format that matters (we are talking on a high level), but rather how you take care to capture sound by placing the microphones in the best possible way and then how you handle the recorded material.

 

If you look at our catalogue, you will see how many SACDs we have managed to release. They are all carefully produced, edited and engineered. We do like to use our own equipment, so we have to ship it around the world. The advantage is, that knowing our tools well keeps our focus on the music and the sound. Handling too complicated or unknown equipment will absolutely distract from the really important things.

 

Thank you for your interest. Since your questions have been quite to the point I am actually curious about your own position on this and how this may have influenced your opinion.

 

Kind regards,

 

Thore Brinkmann"

 

*The email is dated 1/19/09

Brinkmann too is currently of Take5 Music Production

[徐中銳]

BIS has shifted to 96k/24 for the past year or two. I am anything but a sampling rate fascist. BIS recordings, even at 44k/24, are invariably excellent, multi-miked though they may be. Yes, their approach goes more in the minimalist direction, but it includes spot mikes. Listening on a good system, rather than beliefs and mind sets, demonstrates that excellence to a tee.

 

Incidentally, with your esteem of Channel Classics, Jared Sacks (also in 2009) wrote :

It is really not my business to lecture others of which recording medium to use. I can fully understand the barriers for Robert if he is dealing with all his sets plus being compatible with their system back home. Not to forget all the postproduction capabilities which DSD just does not have. Maybe if the SACD was selling to a larger market, he might have invested in the equipment but now is certainly not the time.

 

My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator not knowing what the future will bring by way of format to the consumer. Downsampling is always a better selling point than upsampling!

 

Bis makes great recordings and everyone on this forum always seems to agree so indeed the music comes first and you accept the lower sampling rate for what it is. then whether you or Bis can hear the difference in a blind listening test is not an issue.

And, recently, some thoughts regarding his own approach to recording :

America's problem is actually at the dealer level. For years, they didn't want to deal with SACD, and they didn't want to educate anyone coming in; that has continued to be the problem. So we need magazines and websites to educate the listener. Since what you never hear you do not miss, I organize regular listening sessions at my studio to let people hear what they are missing!

 

 

To me, DSD's superiority has to do with emotion, depth, and how the sound leaves the speaker. It's not a block anymore in the way it dissipates. When you listen to PCM, you can literally hear it as a block of sound coming out of the speaker. That doesn't happen with DSD. There's air around the sound. At the end of the day, we are talking about the air around the sound.

 

In our business, we have to do post-production, but not all the time. I always make a mix-down into stereo. The surround channels go directly to an A/D converter, so they don't go through a mixer, and I try to leave them like that. Then I make a master without going through post-production (without going through the sigma-delta converter again).

 

The moment I have to change levels or do some EQ, I have to go through the mixer, and that means going through the sigma-delta again, which lowers the quality. Of course, it's all high DSD, but you have to go into DXD if you do post-production, and there's really no way around it. This problem will be solved in the future. But we are talking about further research, which costs money, at a moment when there is not much to be made selling to recording companies.

 

When you listen to my raw data, and you compare it to the post-produced recording, there's a difference in the air around the instruments and the depth. There's a degradation of sound. It's slight, but it's there. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing we can do about it, because we have to go into the sigma-delta processor again. As with any other audio signal, if you have to keep on processing, it will change.

 

You may ask, given that, if there is a difference between the sound of 192 and DSD? You have to have a really good system, and it also depends on the repertoire, to hear the difference. I still do, especially because of the dynamic range. When I down-sample to 192, you can hear that it's PCM, absolutely.

[徐中銳]

Yeah, this may irk you :

Dolby Laboratories [on Oct 3, 2013] announced that Metallica: Through the Never, a film based on the ground-breaking rock band, is the first live music performance mixed in Dolby Atmos.

 

Metallica: Through the Never, created by award winning film maker Nimrod Antal, is a music driven feature film that combines a bold narrative and spectacular live-performance footage of one of the most popular and influential rock bands in history; producing a bracing, raw and visceral cinematic experience.

 

Featuring dazzling pyrotechnics, the most elaborate stage ever built and imagery drawn from the band’s trailblazing iconography, combined with the life-like audio of Dolby Atmos, every beat, snare and vocal is heard in perfect clarity.

 

Andreas Spechtler, Regional Vice President, EMEA, Dolby Laboratories, said: “Hearing one of the world’s biggest rock bands in Dolby Atmos allows the fans to feel like they are actually in the stadium experiencing the real deal. It adds an entirely new dimension to cinema sound and showcases the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos in an innovative way with maximum impact.”

 

Ralph Dietrich, CEO of Ascot Elite Entertainment Group, who is at the forefront of independent film distribution and the distributor ofMetallica: Through the Never in Germany, said: “We are incredibly proud that Ascot Elite is releasing the very first concert to ever be mixed in Dolby Atmos. This marks an important milestone for both Ascot Elite and Dolby. We are always innovating and looking for ways to take the next step in film entertainment and Dolby Atmos provides the perfect opportunity.”

www.vimeo.com/74680846

[徐中銳]

Thanks, Willhelm, for the quotes. Yes, I remember you well from sa-cd.net forums and some private emails.

 

Was another forum ago...

 

Here's another something for you to continue with :

Recently' date=' « Ken Ishiwata, a man and his listening room » prompted me to re-read an earlier HFC interview pdf

Well, if we're serious about music reproduction, should we start by considering our own listening room ?

And there's also this :

 

Such a 5-speaker arrangement might be fine for 5.1 Hollywood movies and for 5.0 surround titles, but it's totally wrong for REAL 2-channel stereo recordings. I'm sure it sounds spectacular with the right program material, recorded specifically for that speaker arrangement, but it's of limited use for the wide variety of recordings out there in the real world. On the other hand, what a dream come true such a listening room would be, I daresay for just about any one of us even if our choice of equipment differs significantly (My speaker choice, for instance would be a pair of Martin-Logan Neoliths or perhaps a pair of Martin-Logan CLXs with matching subwoofers).

[徐中銳]

Recalling some strong comments from 7 days ago by Erdo Groot (director, producer & balance engineer) of Polyhymnia International BV :

Then I advise you not to go to opera houses as many instruments are only heard via reflections (they are deep in the orchestra pit) and you often hear them from high up and/or behind. Same happens in many concert halls.

 

The idea with 5 channel speaker set up is to use the sound all speakers reproduce to recreate a soundfield. This is not perfect but for many important quality factors we apprecriate in sound reproduction, it works much better than using only 2 speakers to recreate this impression for the listener.

 

 

But I know people who really only like to listen to old 78's gramophone horn reproduced musical sounds (definetely only music coming from the one side. The front if you face it) What you are used to is often what you like....

Earlier :

To look at rear speakers in a playback system simply as to add something (“subtle background ambience???”) to the front speakers is not doing justice to the potential the combination of 5 (in this case) speakers have to reproduce specifically designed recordings for such a system. You probably (hopefully?) would not regard the left speaker in a 2 channel set up to, only provide some subtle acoustic sounds from sources that are coming from the right loudspeaker? As that is exactly similar to what you are saying about the rears in a surround set up.

 

You have mentioned the demo you did not like before. I was not there and if that is your only experience to make up your opinion on the potential of 5 channel surround sound I feel you deny yourself some good experiences.

 

In most of my recordings you will notice that the recorded volume is almost the same over all channels. And that way you achieve more audio quality when played back over 5 ‘equal loud set up’ loudspeakers, compared to a stereo mix or a bad mixed “rear ambience added on stereo (lazy)” surround recording.

 

If at any time you are in the neighbourhood of Baarn in the Netherlands you are welcome to have a listen in our studio’s (appointment first please)

 

 

I could play you various wonderful Caro Mitis recordings that sound so much nicer even in surround

And :

For you who do not know this one yet: From the primephonic website CM0092004 and

try out track 12 Improvisation and Fugue. with 5 channel surround and equal loudness from your speakers there is sound coming from all speakers, but the piano is in front of you. Yet a vast difference between surround and stereo.....

This track may bring out the limits of your system.

[徐中銳]

The file I sent you is a 320kbps 48kHz LAME MP3 file. (24 MB)

 

To maintain the best audio quality these files are mastered for PlayClassics directly from the 24bit 96kHz studio files. The original file is 346,2MB in size.

 

Happy listening!

 

You've reminded me of Blue Coast Records' graphic :