Sanity Check

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Have you tried the Smyth? A properly setup 5.1 SACD with true multi channel recording will win hands down over a two channel stereo. 

Depends on how well that 5.1 recording was made. I've heard very few that satisfy in that regard. That's why I stick to two channel. That's hard enough to get right (which is why so few do get it right) that, for the most part, going to more channels just multiplies the incompetence of the recording industry in general.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

To reproduce the original soundfield you'd need to be surrounded by loudspeakers. This would not be enough:

 

 

And you'd need a sphere with as many microphones to capture it.

 

Of course we'd have to deal with comb filtering and dispersion interference that would probably be massive with so many sound sources and the room would have to be semi-anechoic.

 

Listening to 2 channel stereo requires a certain degree of abstraction but not more than looking at a photograph or watching TV. I don't need 3D to enjoy a film or a documentary, in fact my experiences with 3D video were quite negative: the 3D-ness detracted from the realism and other, to me more important, aspects of image quality were negatively affected.

For me, music is sound, accurate spatial reproduction is a secondary, almost superfluous, effect.

Agreed. Not very practical, that! And anything less is pretty much unsatisfying and a lot of what passes for surround recordings these days are just travesties. 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It will never be identical to the live event, but if you're after the kick that listening to live instruments can give one, then that is possible. If it sounds like the band is going full bore down the other end of the house, and you walk down, and into the room, and the impact is still fully there, of the real thing - that's the goal. If you go out into the street to listen, it sounds like you have a group "rehearsing" in your home - IOW, all the cues are realised that our hearing system has become attuned to reacting to, and the illusion is not broken.

Go to the Albert Hall (London) when they are playing the 1812. If you buy  the cheapest tickets you  will be high up at the  back and the cannons will be right next to you.

 

When they go off you will know the difference. (You have to do it blind of course or the smoke will give the game away.)

[STC]

29 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Why don't you rethink that a little bit? You put on a recording of a live performance. One that you like. About 15 minutes into the performance, somebody coughs violently. Guess what? Every time you play that recording, there will be that expectational anxiety: "Here it comes!" If you are sitting in a concert hall, listening to a live performance, you can ignore that coughing spell, after all you'll never hear it again. But if it's in a recording, you'll hear it every time and you'll hate it every time. Listening to a recording just isn't the same thing as listening to a live event. I find it more than a little telling that somebody has to explain that to you!

 

If the cough bout is an issue then Why is that even when there is no audience they still place the microphone closer to the performers?

 

Just to be clear I am only referring to reverberation in this discussion. 

 

Let’s also take another example where you said that microphone got no brain and would know what to discard. I don’t understand this point. If the sound at the listeners position could be recorded by the microphone 100% accurate then why the brain is now couldn’t discard the same information when it is played over the speakers   ?

 

You haven’t explained why the distinction. ( although the papers I cited above clearly explains the relevant a if arrival of sound from the reverbs). 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Binaural can work very well, but it still fails to recreate the perceptual cues derived from head movements. It also fails to account for individual differences and asymmetries in head and ear shape.

Well the head movements destroy the illusion. As someone who owns a flocked head (from JVC) and a pair of JVC Binaural microphones to go with it, I can tell you that I have made dozens of binaural recordings and have on CD and SACD many more. I have come to the conclusion that there is another problem at work here, other than just the fact that when the sound source (headphones) follows the head movement of the listener, it destroys that willing suspension of disbelief. That other problem is one that I think is being overlooked - at least I've never seen a discussion of it. That is that everyone has outer ear structural differences that affect the way we, as individuals, perceive sound. If that outer ear structure isn't reproduced by the artificial head containing the binaural microphones, then the binaural illusion is not complete. It is, in my opinion why most binaural recordings do such a lousy job of locating sound sources behind the listener. Seems to me that is part of the reason human's outer ears stick out and why the "funnel" opening on our ears is canted slightly forward. I believe that it's that mechanical part of the outer ear that gives us our sense of directionality. 

 

Opinions, personal experience?

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

If the cough bout is an issue then Why is that even when there is no audience they still place the microphone closer too the performers?

 

You don't pay much attention to what others say, do you? As has been said many times in this discussion (and which you continually seem to ignore) is that reduction of audience noise is only one reason why mikes are placed closer to the performers than they would be if mikes and people "heard" in the same way!

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If the cough bout is an issue then Why is that even when there is no audience they still place the microphone closer too the performers?

 

Just to be clear I am only referring to reverberation in this discussion. 

 

Let’s also take another example where you said that microphone got no brain and would no what to discard. I don’t understand this point. If the sound at the listeners position could be recorded by the microphone 100% accurate then why the brain is now couldn’t discard the same information when it is played over the speakers   ?

 

You haven’t explained why the distinction. 

 

Yes I have explained it. Can't help it if you are too obtuse to understand it, or if you don't want to understand (which I think is more to the point).

[STC]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Yes I have explained it. Can't help it if you are too obtuse to understand it, or if you don't want to understand (which I think is more to the point).

 

You didn’t and you couldn’t because you do not know. 

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Funny, to me the illusion is never completely there to begin with. I've been privy to a lot of really expensive, first rate systems, and none have ever even half convinced me that I'm listening to live music playing in a real space. Oh, don't get me wrong, I have heard many a stereo system that I found satisfying as a listening experience as is my own, but live instruments? Not really. I was listening to Mario Martinez' (PlayClassics.com) recording of Angel Cabrera playing Debussy on a concert grand piano the other evening, and I got glimpses of reality, but that illusion wasn't really very stable and didn't last long. 

 

Well, "really expensive, first rate systems" doesn't guarantee anything - as I've mentioned many times, the slightest weakness in the playback will be enough to disrupt the illusion; and the only certain method that I know of is that someone has gone to a great deal of time and attention to evolve the rig to a high enough standard.

 

No, this is not "glimpses of reality" - this is, "grab you by the short and curlies and drag you along for a powerhouse ride" - this won't happen with a sedate, classical recital, but put on a driving, high energy rock production, say - and the adrenaline rush will be tremendous, . When the latter recordings 'work', then classical albums also fall into place - the dynamics of music are universal, and every style and genre comes to life, if the system gets it right.

[STC]

Sensible explanation from another blog. 

 

“When recording, the first step is to determine at what distance from the instrument to place the microphone. A critical guideline for this is the reverberation radius. Reverberation radius is defined as the point between the microphone and sound source where the direct sound and the diffuse sound are of equal volume. If you place the microphone within this radius, the recording becomes drier and less spatial. Placing the microphone outside of this radius results in a recorded sound that is more diffuse and influenced by the reflections of the room. The exact length of the radius depends on the reverberation time of the room, the directivity of the sound source and the directional characteristics of the microphone.

 

 

The use of ambient microphones is a common technique in audio recording. It allows one to record the room sound separately from the instruments. Ambient microphones are placed outside of the reverberation radius in such a way that they record significantly more of the diffuse sound than the original direct sound signal. After the recording session the two signals, ambient and close, can be mixed together to create the desired balance.”

https://www.sonible.com/blog/reverb-audio-production/

 

No mention of brain. 

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Go to the Albert Hall (London) when they are playing the 1812. If you buy  the cheapest tickets you  will be high up at the  back and the cannons will be right next to you.

 

When they go off you will know the difference. (You have to do it blind of course or the smoke will give the game away.)

 

Most people wouldn't want that intensity of sound, for various reasons ... the most memorable listening experience like that for me was being about 20 feet away from a Chinese New Year "chandelier" of crackers - which lasted for about 5 minutes. My hearing completely closed down - I was deaf for about half an hour after that.

 

Transient intensity is central to live music, but it doesn't have to be OTT to sound right - when it is correct it immediately strikes one as being so.

[STC]

“Moreover, when the reflected sound reached the listener from a direction other than the direct sound direction, the assessors reported more open and enveloping sound.”

 

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.3647866

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

The ear/brain reacts to all the acoustic information it picks up in the natural world around it, and has very little trouble distinguishing various sound sources, and locating them in the 3D world around oneself - all the tiny clues are present, and from a lifetime of hearing experience can make smart guesses, attribute the sounds from certain sources. The acoustic information is minute - right at this very minute there's a group of birds outside, cockatoos, wheeling around and sitting in trees - the doors are closed, the sound is coming through glass - but I can pinpoint where those birds are, with ease; and whether they're coming or going. Now, how clever is our hearing system to be able to do that so easily, with such "poor information" as I'm getting?

 

That information is on the recording to a sufficent degree for our brains to make sense of it - it's been endless times that I've listened to recordings I know well on other systems - and on them the particular audio world on the recording has shrunk down to a miserable cardboard cutout of what's actually there - I might as well have ear protection muffs on, in terms of what I'm getting from that playback ...

 

We are talking about something a bit more complex than mere recognition. Anyone can recognise a familiar voice or a violin or a piano even through a very band limited analogue phone unit from the 40s or 50s...

 

Placing 2 mics in the audience of a classical piano recital picks up both direct and reflected sound.

But when you reproduce the recording both direct and reflected (or ambience) Como from the same  point source in space. This is not accurate.

The next best thing would be to have a pair of mics for direct sound going through the main speakers and several mics positioned in the same audience location facing outwards to the the main reflections played back through surround speakers. Ideally these would not capture direct sound which is of course impossible.

The best scenario is the sphere.

 

http://iosr.surrey.ac.uk/projects/POSZ/

 

I listen mainly to Classical music and I am perfectly happy with 2 channel stereo. And as mentioned previously there are aspects of sound reproduction which I rate much higher than the spatial reproduction. As Wagner once told Nietzsche in Bayreuth "remove your glasses, music is to be listened to".

 

I've never listened to a proper multichannel setup, it is possible that the added surround ambience is a nice bonus but most of my recordings are two channel only anyway.

Then there's the cost of a surround setup (you need to split the same budget over a wider amount of gear which gets you worse gear) and the practical aspects (you need more floorspace and setting up more speakers is more challenging).

Multichannel is definitely a North American thing. The average lounge in a European home doesn't have the necessary space...

[semente]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 

Have you tried the Smyth? A properly setup 5.1 SACD with true multi channel recording will win hands down over a two channel stereo. 

 

Perhaps from a spatial reproduction perspective. But at what cost?

And you need the 5.1 recording in the first place...

[semente]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

I can enjoy music on a terrible radio. I'll probably enjoy it more on a good system. Nevertheless, I'll never experience it the same as being at a live event.

 

Because music is about sound.

[semente]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Why don't you rethink that a little bit? You put on a recording of a live performance. One that you like. About 15 minutes into the performance, somebody coughs violently. Guess what? Every time you play that recording, there will be that expectational anxiety: "Here it comes!" If you are sitting in a concert hall, listening to a live performance, you can ignore that coughing spell, after all you'll never hear it again. But if it's in a recording, you'll hear it every time and you'll hate it every time. Listening to a recording just isn't the same thing as listening to a live event. I find it more than a little telling that somebody has to explain that to you!

It may come as a surprise to you but many audiophiles love this kind of hyperreality, the sound a pop-jazz singer makes when she breathed lightly on the mic or closes her lips, the sound of the fingers sliding down the strings of a guitar and other mechanical noises made by instruments that someone attending a live classical recital hopes will not be audible.

 

In the end it's all about our personal objectives and expectations.

I like my recordings done from a documental perspective from a (sonic) point of view that resembles that of a seat in the audience (no close- or multi-mic'ing).

And I want a system that can reproduce the recorded signal with a high degree of accuracy.

[semente]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, "really expensive, first rate systems" doesn't guarantee anything - as I've mentioned many times, the slightest weakness in the playback will be enough to disrupt the illusion; and the only certain method that I know of is that someone has gone to a great deal of time and attention to evolve the rig to a high enough standard.

 

No, this is not "glimpses of reality" - this is, "grab you by the short and curlies and drag you along for a powerhouse ride" - this won't happen with a sedate, classical recital, but put on a driving, high energy rock production, say - and the adrenaline rush will be tremendous, . When the latter recordings 'work', then classical albums also fall into place - the dynamics of music are universal, and every style and genre comes to life, if the system gets it right.

 

The system I use as reference consists of a bespoke DAC, a highly modified/optimised CD player, bespoke dual-mono amplification and a pair of modified/optimised BnW F801 speakers. I've not listened to it playing rock recordings but it sounds simultaneously soft and bombastic with wide DR orchestral music and very "transparent".

I agree that this is in part the result of optimisation and top electronic design but the fact that the speakers have a 12" woofer in a large sealed bass-bin makes for a lot of that ability.

You can't achieve that with an 8" + tweeter standmount, even if you are using the same electronics...

[semente]

4 hours ago, STC said:

Sensible explanation from another blog. 

 

“When recording, the first step is to determine at what distance from the instrument to place the microphone. A critical guideline for this is the reverberation radius. Reverberation radius is defined as the point between the microphone and sound source where the direct sound and the diffuse sound are of equal volume. If you place the microphone within this radius, the recording becomes drier and less spatial. Placing the microphone outside of this radius results in a recorded sound that is more diffuse and influenced by the reflections of the room. The exact length of the radius depends on the reverberation time of the room, the directivity of the sound source and the directional characteristics of the microphone.

 

 

The use of ambient microphones is a common technique in audio recording. It allows one to record the room sound separately from the instruments. Ambient microphones are placed outside of the reverberation radius in such a way that they record significantly more of the diffuse sound than the original direct sound signal. After the recording session the two signals, ambient and close, can be mixed together to create the desired balance.”

https://www.sonible.com/blog/reverb-audio-production/

 

No mention of brain. 

 

Nothing wrong with that description. But even I who have never recorded had reached the same conclusion just by using a bit of common sense and good judgement.

 

The problem I see with this multi-channel approach is that in my experience as a listener and concert goer the mixing process has a negative impact on sound quality and sonic realism which I rate higher than spatial reproduction.

 

And the immersive sound samples from that website you mentioned a while back affected sound quality and realism in way that I found unbearable, even though I do agree that it does produce a significant amount of three dimensional projection.

[STC]

22 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Nothing wrong with that description. But even I who have never recorded had reached the same conclusion just by using a bit of common sense and good judgement.

 

The problem I see with this multi-channel approach is that in my experience as a listener and concert goer the mixing process has a negative impact on sound quality and sonic realism which I rate higher than spatial reproduction.

 

And the immersive sound samples from that website you mentioned a while back affected sound quality and realism in way that I found unbearable, even though I do agree that it does produce a significant amount of three dimensional projection.

 

Did I link any audio link samples in this thread? I remember my first comment about room treatment takes precedent over speakers. 

 

If you are referring to binaural recordings and headphones, then the very fact that I don’t use them shows I could have better experience with my setup than what those could give. 

 

I don’t know which multichannel system you are referring to. My point is it doesn’t matter whether you are using 2.0, 5.1, ATMOS or whatever, the best possible reproduction closer to realism is when you separate the indirect sound so that they arrive from the side. It is just an extension of room acoustics to stretch to at least RT of 1.5 seconds as no recordings would even have even 1 second reverbs without sounding muddy and you need a room of 20000 cubic meter to have RT60 of 1.5 to sound right. 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, semente said:

Nothing wrong with that description. But even I who have never recorded had reached the same conclusion just by using a bit of common sense and good judgement.

 

That is the truth that’s the reason I posted it. I am puzzled why this is a point of contention. 

[semente]

12 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Did I link any audio link samples in this thread? I remember my first comment about room treatment takes precedent over speakers. 

 

If you are referring to binaural recordings and headphones, then the very fact that I don’t use them shows I could have better experience with my setup than what those could give.

 

The link was posted in another thread, one of the first ones about immersive sound. If I remember correctly there was Mozart in one track...

 

12 minutes ago, STC said:

I don’t know which multichannel system you are referring. My point is it doesn’t matter whether you are using 2.0, 5.1, ATMOS or whatever, the best possible reproduction closer to realism is when you separate the indirect sound so that they arrive from the side. It is just an extension of room acoustics to stretch to at least RT of 1.5 seconds as no recordings would even have even 1 second reverbs without sounding muddy. 

 

In my experience if you are using 2 speakers and a two channel recording there's no way you can "separate the indirect sound so that they arrive from the side". You can create that perception (of space reproduction) but you'll just mess up the sound and I care more about sonic accuracy than spatial accuracy.

With 5.1 you can achieve a more involving or immersive presentation but you'll need a 5.1 recording if you're to get any sonic accuracy.

Heavy processing ruins sound.

 

Eurovision distributes broadcasts of live recordings of orchestral music made by national radios. These are often made with a couple of mics hanging from the canopy and minimal EQ'ing and processing. They sound glorious.

[STC]

36 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The link was posted in another thread, one of the first ones about immersive sound. If I remember correctly there was Mozart in one track...

 

 

In my experience if you are using 2 speakers and a two channel recording there's no way you can "separate the indirect sound so that they arrive from the side". You can create that perception (of space reproduction) but you'll just mess up the sound and I care more about sonic accuracy than spatial accuracy.

With 5.1 you can achieve a more involving or immersive presentation but you'll need a 5.1 recording if you're to get any sonic accuracy.

Heavy processing ruins sound.

 

Eurovision distributes broadcasts of live recordings of orchestral music made by national radios. These are often made with a couple of mics hanging from the canopy and minimal EQ'ing and processing. They sound glorious.

 

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting audiophiles to judge SQ on what’s they hear through Youtube. It was used to demonstrate the difference. Just like it is not possible to record your actual listening experience in concert hall using $75 binaural, it is impossible too with my system as the sound is meant to be listened with as many ambiance speakers and the ambiance should not be in the recording. It was a starting point but I guess it badly backfired as I never thought anyone would think that it will be the representation of true sound of my system playback. 

 

I understands your reservation. It depends whether you understand what is indirect sound, convolution, impulse response. I didn’t move to it and would not even tried if not the for free tool in JRiver DSP. Started with just 90 degrees speakers and was astonished with the results. Then got the proper DSP SIR2 and transformed from there onwards. 

 

Whether it degrades the sound or not can only be judged by you after listening. For the record, every visitors would double check the CD ( or more correctly the rip) to see why there were so much more details in the recordings. For some hearing two voices in Norah jones track was a first. Or probably the other musician singing along in Eric Bibb in Good stuff album also a first. It doesn’t degrade. An instrument sound doesn’t get degraded when played in a concert hall. 

 

And I have a Sony 5.1 SACD player and my speakers sound is reasonably good for stereo and I do demo for those requested. You have not implemented and experienced them in a proper setup and therefore your opinion is prejudicial. 

 

 

 

 

 

[accwai]

2 hours ago, semente said:

Because music is about sound.

 

Profound! Except in Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu says 大音希聲. Translates to something like great music is without sound. Why's that? Wang Bi's Tao Te Ching commentary says:

 

Quote

聽之不聞名曰希，不可得聞之音也。有聲則有分，有分則不宮而商矣。分則不能統眾，故有聲者非大音也。

 

Basically fixating on sound would result in dualistic distinction, which in turn would cause the inability to communicate the universal principle. So while it can be said that music is about sound, in Taoism, great music is about much more than sound.

[semente]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting audiophiles to judge SQ on what’s they hear through Youtube. It was used to demonstrate the difference. Just like it is not possible to record the your actual listening experience in concert hall using $75 binaural, it is impossible too with my system as the sound is meant to be listened with as many ambiance speakers. It was a starting point but I guess badly backfired as I never thought anyone would think that it will be the representation of true sound of my system playback. 

 

I understands your reservation. It depends whether you understand what is indirect sound, convolution, impulse response. I didn’t move to it and would not even tried if not the for free tool in JRiver DSP. Started with just 90 degrees speakers and was astonished with the results. Then got the proper DSP SIR2 and transformed from there onwards. 

 

Whether it degrades the sound or not can only judged by you after listening. For the record, every visitors would double check the CD ( or more correctly the rip) to see why there were so more details in the recordings. For some hearing two voices in Norah jones track was a first. Or probably the other musician singing along in Eric Bibb in Good stuff album also a first. It doesn’t degrade. An instrument sound doesn’t get degraded when played in a concert hall. 

 

And I have a Sony 5.1 SACD player and my speakers sound reasonably good for stereo and I do demo for those requested. You have not implemented and experienced them in a proper setup and therefore your opinion is prejudicial.

I don't know where you got that idea from...

In my previous message I wrote "With 5.1 you can achieve a more involving or immersive presentation but you'll need a 5.1 recording if you're to get any sonic accuracy."

I also wrote that "there's the cost of a surround setup (you need to split the same budget over a wider amount of gear which gets you worse gear) and the practical aspects (you need more floorspace and setting up more speakers is more challenging)."

 

My problem is with heavy processing, not multi-channel per se.

 

I do understand what indirect sound is, as well as you do. I also understand what channel separation is.

 

Yes I have not tried a high performance ambio system but I disagree with your comment that my assessment of what it can do by listening to a youtube video is meaningless (and it wasn't just a youtube video, there was also a site where you would choose different tracks and describe your speaker or headphone layout).

 

By the way, have you tried Ambio or whatever processor you use with a mono recording?

Do/can you listen to mono recordings at all?

[semente]

5 minutes ago, accwai said:

 

Profound! Except in Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu says 大音希聲. Translates to something like great music is without sound. Why's that? Wang Bi's Tao Te Ching commentary says:

 

 

Basically sound would result in dualistic distinction, which in turn would cause the inability to communicate the universal principle. So while it can be said that music is about sound, in Taoism, great music is about much more than sound.

 

We're talking about sound reproduction of recorded music here, not how music affects the listener.

Sound is all that we can reproduce, the rest is up to the listener...

 

Talk about "Sanity Check".