Sanity Check

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Only for the deep bass ... IME this aspect is almost irrelevant; all rigs which have the "big bass setup!" either still don't get it right, or the bass content is ludicrously exaggerated, sticking out like a sore thumb - the result is something nothing like live acoustic sound ...

 

SVS BP-4000 Frequency response: 3 dB down at THIRTEEN Hz, 1200 Watts RMS, $1900! You need two.

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, fas42 said:

I don't agree that "all great sounding systems cost a good deal of money" - most people would be flabbergasted by how impressive ordinary, low cost components can come across if the right amount of attention is given to fixing silly weaknesses - yes, they won't have window rattling bass, nor produce huge SPLs; but in the key areas of presenting a convincing illusion they can do an excellent job.

 

OK, I'll bite, what are these "silly Weaknesses" of which you speak, and what constitutes "the right amount of attention"? By the way, before we start, let me say that I'm not arguing your point. Unlike GUTB and some others here, I agree that very good sounding systems, systems presenting that "extra soupçon" of realism can be had for fairly modest money, if the buyer knows what he is doing. But, having said that, I must also say that to get true state-of-the-art, will cost the big bux !

 

22 hours ago, fas42 said:

I wonder whether you have ever been directly in the midst of musicians producing this, listening just to the raw sound of the instruments, which means the guitar amps only, etc - no PA nonsense!! I've always enjoyed the "hit" of this - to me, it's equivalent to standing next to a brass band going for it, there's a physicality about the experience which is what makes it special.

To answer your question, NO, emphatically, I have not! That's like asking me if I have ever stood in the middle of the production floor at a boiler factory with no ear protection! To me cacophony is cacophony, whether from a bunch of long haired, dope-crazed rockers or a steel mill, it's all the same to me. But, taste is different for different people. I literally hate the sound of solid-body electric guitars like a Fender StratoCaster and the like and will run to get away from it! I'm also not very fond of rock-drum kits either (but I'd like to have Nick Mason's car collection ) and I also can't stand the screaming that seems to pass for vocals in much rock music either! On the other hand, you seem to like it. That's fine, listen to it in good health and enjoy it, I say!

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, STC said:

@gmgraves, I did not see this audacious remark, earlier. Anyway, since you are hearing a 12 foot piano in Mark Waldrep recordings, I listened to three of his tracks and I only hear a 6 foot piano. I reproduce your quote below since you are still thinking about brains and bout of cough when placing the microphones although you did mention about stage and direct/indirect ratio. I wasted some valuable time reading your blog where you never made any reference to reverberation except on two occasion about the built-in reverb in the preamps.   

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time, here. Sigh! I have two of Waldrep's Audio/Video samplers. That's all of Waldrep's recordings I've ever heard and on every track where there's a piano you can literally SEE the mike bar spanning the inside of the grand piano with the mikes pointing at the strings. It results in a piano that stretches all the way across the soundstage with bass notes on one end and treble notes on the other. What that distance is, I would suspect would depend on how far apart ones' speakers were, and whether or not one's speakers throw an image beyond the boundaries of the cabinets. Now whether all of Waldrep's recording are engineered like that or not, I have no way of knowing, but again, all that I have heard are. Also, Waldrep confirmed to me that he puts microphones inside of the piano on purpose because he likes it that way while I think it's preposterous.

 

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this simple concept: Humans have brains connected to their ears, and can THINK about the sounds they hear. They can decide on what to concentrate their hearing in a noisy room; I.E. they can concentrate on what they want to listen to. That's why in a sports bar, you can still converse with your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time! A microphone cannot do that. You put a microphone in a room with twenty or so conversations going at once and record those conversations, when you play them back, you won't be able to understand ANY of them! The reason should be apparent to even the most casual reader, here. The difference is that humans have brains that can discriminate between sounds in a noisy environment, but they have to actually be IN that environment to do so! Those same humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those conversations. That's what I mean when I say that the difference between a microphone setup and a pair of human ears is that that one's ears are connected directly to one's intelligence, and microphone is just a dumb, brainless transducer. The diaphragm merely picks-up sounds that hits it, it doesn't HEAR anything! In a room full of people talking, there is not way to unscramble those many conversations, but a recording engineer, using real stereo miking techniques, and present a symphony orchestra or other musical ensemble in such a way that the listener, sitting in front of his or her speakers can actually point to the individual instruments in the ensemble and name them in their place! "There's the oboe behind the first viola, and there's the first trumpet on a riser in the back row." etc. 

 

I'm sorry that you didn't get anything out of reading my blog. Most people who have read it thought it was very thorough and well written. And you're right about one thing. I didn't cover ambience, because I do two channel recordings using minimalist miking techniques. In those cases, the ambience simply is what it is and with only two mikes, one has minimal control over it. Move your mikes closer to get more direct and less reflected sound, or farther away to get more reflected and less direct sound. That's about it. Also, when recording live, one has the audience to deal with. This is a real concern. Sometimes extraneous audience noise can ruin an otherwise fine recording. So someone like me has to THINK about minimizing those sounds when setting-up microphones. 

[Ralf11]

George, many of us appreciate your perspective.  I hope your frustration in one thread will not cause you to give up on CA completely.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

OK, I'll bite, what are these "silly Weaknesses" of which you speak, and what constitutes "the right amount of attention"? By the way, before we start, let me say that I'm not arguing your point. Unlike GUTB and some others here, I agree that very good sounding systems, systems presenting that "extra soupçon" of realism can be had for fairly modest money, if the buyer knows what he is doing. But, having said that, I must also say that to get true state-of-the-art, will cost the big bux !

 

 

There are at least four areas that always need to be looked at - note, having divisions like this is just a means of sorting the stuff that's relevant, to get a handle on the tasks at hand.

 

First, the connections between the components, and parts within components - the cheaper the gear the worse the quality of the parts being used for plugs and sockets, and how it's mounted - high end gear at least tries to use more "solid" items. I solve this by simplifying the rig, eliminating the connector parts entirely, or treating them with a high conductivity protective substance - the aim is for the whole system to be effectively "hard wired".

 

Then, flimsy mounting of parts, and haphazard routing of cables - stability, stability, stability is the mantra ... people spend silly money on supporting stands and shelves - I dive inside, and stabilise everything I think relevant - things being able to wobble at the slightest touch is a quality killer.

 

Also, poor power supplies - some "straight from the textbook" setup which is the absolute minimum that allows the kit to work, and specs to be met. Upping the engineering of these circuits can easily produce huge gains, in the the important areas.

 

Finally, lousy resistance to interference effects - from wherever. This requires a lot of trial and error, to get the best value for effort return - this is the hardest to fully conquer.

 

Highest integrity of every part of the combo, without changing any more of the 'true' electrical parts than necessary - is the process. Just doing this can take a "cheap nothing" from "unlistenable mediocre" to "Gosh! I just want to keep listening to every recording I have!"

 

Quote

To answer your question, NO, emphatically, I have not! That's like asking me if I have ever stood in the middle of the production floor at a boiler factory with no ear protection! To me cacophony is cacophony, whether from a bunch of long haired, dope-crazed rockers or a steel mill, it's all the same to me. But, taste is different for different people. I literally hate the sound of solid-body electric guitars like a Fender StratoCaster and the like and will run to get away from it! I'm also not very fond of rock-drum kits either (but I'd like to have Nick Mason's car collection ) and I also can't stand the screaming that seems to pass for vocals in much rock music either! On the other hand, you seem to like it. That's fine, listen to it in good health and enjoy it, I say!

 

Well, I'm also talking about the "older stuff" - the Foo Fighters and similar style does nothing, or very little, for me, either. A good compromise would be Status Quo material - the vocals are quite "sweet" on the ear; the drumming is straightforward; the recordings are in good order - but the driving, boogie guitar content is a solid test of playback competence.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 ... That's why in a sports bar, you can still converse with your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time! A microphone cannot do that. You put a microphone in a room with twenty or so conversations going at once and record those conversations, when you play them back, you won't be able to understand ANY of them! The reason should be apparent to even the most casual reader, here. The difference is that humans have brains that can discriminate between sounds in a noisy environment, but they have to actually be IN that environment to do so! Those same humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those conversations. That's what I mean when I say that the difference between a microphone setup and a pair of human ears is that that one's ears are connected directly to one's intelligence, and microphone is just a dumb, brainless transducer. The diaphragm merely picks-up sounds that hits it, it doesn't HEAR anything! In a room full of people talking, there is not way to unscramble those many conversations, but a recording engineer, using real stereo miking techniques, and present a symphony orchestra or other musical ensemble in such a way that the listener, sitting in front of his or her speakers can actually point to the individual instruments in the ensemble and name them in their place! "There's the oboe behind the first viola, and there's the first trumpet on a riser in the back row." etc. 
 

 

The 'argument' is about whether the ear/brain can discriminate individual elements in a group of sound elements, when the latter is on a recording. You're saying "humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those" sounds; I'm saying that the recording has captured the information that allows a listener to just hear  "your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time", in a simple recording of the sound in that room. But this won't be possible unless the playback is of a high enough standard! How do you know if the playback is good enough? Well, by the fact that you can easily distinguish your buddies' voices, in that recording ...

[STC]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I don't know why I waste my time, here. Sigh! I have two of Waldrep's Audio/Video samplers. That's all of Waldrep's recordings I've ever heard and on every track where there's a piano you can literally SEE the mike bar spanning the inside of the grand piano with the mikes pointing at the strings. It results in a piano that stretches all the way across the soundstage with bass notes on one end and treble notes on the other. What that distance is, I would suspect would depend on how far apart ones' speakers were, and whether or not one's speakers throw an image beyond the boundaries of the cabinets. Now whether all of Waldrep's recording are engineered like that or not, I have no way of knowing, but again, all that I have heard are. Also, Waldrep confirmed to me that he puts microphones inside of the piano on purpose because he likes it that way while I think it's preposterous.

 

Looks like we have to agree to disagree. Having said that, at least let's be clear what we are disagreeing to.

 

You are now saying that you based your opinion about the 12 ft piano based on the picture and what Waldrep's told you. You also have only one sampler but you did not name it so that we and other readers could verify your claim. So at least can we agree that Waldrep piano does not sound like a12 foot piano unless you spread out the speakers? I said the same thing and you agreed in the previous post but with a caveat.

 

" gmgraves said: That would be true of some speakers, but many speakers throw an image that stretches beyond the left and right boundaries proscribed by the speaker's physical placement. Even a 6 ft wide speaker is wrong if it is miked so that the bass notes emerge from the left speaker, the mid notes come from the center, between the two speakers and the treble notes come from the right speaker. " Agree or disagree?

 

Tell me which speakers is capable of throwing the image to the side that can double 6 foot width to 12 foot. Maybe a 5 or even 10 degrees is possible but doubling the width? Some Bose could do that but that not included here. Agree or disagree?

 

What Mark told you about placement of mic inside is also what I told you. I also quoted DPA recordings guide. It is something so common that it doesn't require criticism to advocate one method over the other to capture the correct soundstage. It is just a different way of recording. Agree or disagree?

 

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this simple concept: Humans have brains connected to their ears, and can THINK about the sounds they hear. They can decide on what to concentrate their hearing in a noisy room; I.E. they can concentrate on what they want to listen to. That's why in a sports bar, you can still converse with your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time! A microphone cannot do that. You put a microphone in a room with twenty or so conversations going at once and record those conversations, when you play them back, you won't be able to understand ANY of them! The reason should be apparent to even the most casual reader, here. The difference is that humans have brains that can discriminate between sounds in a noisy environment, but they have to actually be IN that environment to do so! Those same humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those conversations. That's what I mean when I say that the difference between a microphone setup and a pair of human ears is that that one's ears are connected directly to one's intelligence, and microphone is just a dumb, brainless transducer. The diaphragm merely picks-up sounds that hits it, it doesn't HEAR anything! In a room full of people talking, there is not way to unscramble those many conversations, but a recording engineer, using real stereo miking techniques, and present a symphony orchestra or other musical ensemble in such a way that the listener, sitting in front of his or her speakers can actually point to the individual instruments in the ensemble and name them in their place! "There's the oboe behind the first viola, and there's the first trumpet on a riser in the back row." etc. 

 

@fas42 answered you quite eloquently about this point.

 

Let me try one last time. Your association of the brain to what's being heard and the reason why the microphone wasn't placed there was made based on wrong reasoning. 

 

(1) Sound that reaches our ears and that reaches the microphone are the same. Agree or disagree?

 

(2) Human could filter out unwanted sound. I agree with you. This is known as Cocktail party effect which you never mentioned before and a very important point to your argument. This phenomenon has been extensively investigated. It is common and used by us all the time. Cocktail party effect applies universally to any sound. Whether it is live sound in the room or the ticks and pops in the vinyl.  As can be seen in this research conducted by MIT Media Lab the cocktail party effect works even with headphones. It is absurd to claim that just because microphone got no brain we suddenly lose the ability to filter out the unwanted sound. The process of filtering takes place after the sound reaches the ears so it doesn't matter if it is in the record or not. At least will you agree with this point? Agree or disagree?

 

 

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I'm sorry that you didn't get anything out of reading my blog. Most people who have read it thought it was very thorough and well written. And you're right about one thing. I didn't cover ambience, because I do two channel recordings using minimalist miking techniques. In those cases, the ambience simply is what it is and with only two mikes, one has minimal control over it. Move your mikes closer to get more direct and less reflected sound, or farther away to get more reflected and less direct sound. That's about it. Also, when recording live, one has the audience to deal with. This is a real concern. Sometimes extraneous audience noise can ruin an otherwise fine recording. So someone like me has to THINK about minimizing those sounds when setting-up microphones. 

 

I am sorry if I slighted you with my remark. It was well written and I am aware of it long before you brought up here. I meant to say the blog did not address the issues of reverberation, critical distance and the scientific reason(s) why a listener location recording would not be correct. I only meant it in that sense I didn't mean to trivialize your contribution in the blog.

 

"gmgrave said: Move your mikes closer to get more direct and less reflected sound, or farther away to get more reflected and less direct sound. That's about it. Also, when recording live, one has the audience to deal with. This is a real concern. Sometimes extraneous audience noise can ruin an otherwise fine recording. So someone like me has to THINK about minimizing those sounds when setting-up microphones. " I agree with this.

 

However, the other important reason why a critical distance is critical:-

 

1) Reverberation is uniform (more or less) no matter where you place the microphone. However, the direct sound changes significantly as you move. The sweet spot is at the listeners spot in a venue usually where this ratio direct and indirect sound is at its the best. (Let's just confined to a solo vocalist for now).  Agree or disagree?

 

2) The difference between a recording and instrument is what actually transmitted  from them that reaches our ears. Even if you take a mono recording played with a single speakers the concept still applies. A recording consists of the direct sound and reverberation. A live solo vocalist voice reaches our ears (direct sound) and the venue's reverberation (early reflection and delayed cumulative reflections) also reaches our ears.Agree or disagree?

 

3) In recordings we not only capture the direct sound but also the indirect ambience (reverberation) although it will always be much much less in level compared to direct sound that we prefer at the listening spot. Although, the reverberation is still the same the level of direct sound is much higher.  You have previously stated so and we both agree with this.

 

4) When you play the recording with the speakers, both the reverberation and the direct sound will react with the room/venue and subject to another set of indirect sound that comes in the form of room reverberation. If you have added more reverberation as what was heard at the best listener's position, the resultant sound in the recording now would reaches your ears with additional reverberation to the direct sound and the reverberation already in the recording. The result would be a muddier recording. Agree or disagree?

 

5) Now, you might ask why then if you were to play the same music with the real reverberation captured at the listener's position in an anechoic room, it still sounds muddy? That's because the reverberation never meant to originated from the same direction as the direct sound. I gave you the research paper on this in my earlier post. You probably didn't read it. The lateral reverberation should always come from the side for realism. This is outside the means of most audiophiles could do but it doesn't matter. It just another step to improve your existing setup. 

 

Maybe, we may disagree but at least let's shake hand and agree to disagree on specific points.  Looking at the number of upvotes you received, you could be very right and all the research and I could be wrong. 

 

Long time ago, I once had some disagreement about some soundstage issue with 12 fellow audiophiles who disagreed with me. I remember emailing one Audio Empire who confirmed with my stand. After investigation, It turned out the triple wiring speakers tweeter were cross connected. How strange we came a full circle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I don't know why I waste my time, here. Sigh! I have two of Waldrep's Audio/Video samplers. That's all of Waldrep's recordings I've ever heard and on every track where there's a piano you can literally SEE the mike bar spanning the inside of the grand piano with the mikes pointing at the strings. It results in a piano that stretches all the way across the soundstage with bass notes on one end and treble notes on the other. What that distance is, I would suspect would depend on how far apart ones' speakers were, and whether or not one's speakers throw an image beyond the boundaries of the cabinets. Now whether all of Waldrep's recording are engineered like that or not, I have no way of knowing, but again, all that I have heard are. Also, Waldrep confirmed to me that he puts microphones inside of the piano on purpose because he likes it that way while I think it's preposterous.

 

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this simple concept: Humans have brains connected to their ears, and can THINK about the sounds they hear. They can decide on what to concentrate their hearing in a noisy room; I.E. they can concentrate on what they want to listen to. That's why in a sports bar, you can still converse with your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time! A microphone cannot do that. You put a microphone in a room with twenty or so conversations going at once and record those conversations, when you play them back, you won't be able to understand ANY of them! The reason should be apparent to even the most casual reader, here. The difference is that humans have brains that can discriminate between sounds in a noisy environment, but they have to actually be IN that environment to do so! Those same humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those conversations. That's what I mean when I say that the difference between a microphone setup and a pair of human ears is that that one's ears are connected directly to one's intelligence, and microphone is just a dumb, brainless transducer. The diaphragm merely picks-up sounds that hits it, it doesn't HEAR anything! In a room full of people talking, there is not way to unscramble those many conversations, but a recording engineer, using real stereo miking techniques, and present a symphony orchestra or other musical ensemble in such a way that the listener, sitting in front of his or her speakers can actually point to the individual instruments in the ensemble and name them in their place! "There's the oboe behind the first viola, and there's the first trumpet on a riser in the back row." etc. 

 

I'm sorry that you didn't get anything out of reading my blog. Most people who have read it thought it was very thorough and well written. And you're right about one thing. I didn't cover ambience, because I do two channel recordings using minimalist miking techniques. In those cases, the ambience simply is what it is and with only two mikes, one has minimal control over it. Move your mikes closer to get more direct and less reflected sound, or farther away to get more reflected and less direct sound. That's about it. Also, when recording live, one has the audience to deal with. This is a real concern. Sometimes extraneous audience noise can ruin an otherwise fine recording. So someone like me has to THINK about minimizing those sounds when setting-up microphones. 

 

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, STC said:

You are now saying that you based your opinion about the 12 ft piano based on the picture and what Waldrep's told you. You also have only one sampler but you did not name it so that we and other readers could verify your claim. So at least can we agree that Waldrep piano does not sound like a12 foot piano unless you spread out the speakers? I said the same thing and you agreed in the previous post but with a caveat.

 

" gmgraves said: That would be true of some speakers, but many speakers throw an image that stretches beyond the left and right boundaries proscribed by the speaker's physical placement. Even a 6 ft wide speaker is wrong if it is miked so that the bass notes emerge from the left speaker, the mid notes come from the center, between the two speakers and the treble notes come from the right speaker. " Agree or disagree?

 

Not "a picture" but two pf Waldrep's AIX records samplers: the 2013 sampler and 2014 sampler. The sampler's are audio/video productions. I have never bought any of Waldrep's commercial productions because I didn't like his microphone placement techniques in either of the two samplers.

 

The actual width of the piano is irrelevant. The point is, that one doesn't put microphones inside of pianos and one doesn't use three (or more) mikes lined up across the width of a piano so that, in the final mix, the left-end of the keyboard ends up in the left channel, the right end of the keyboard ends up in the right channel and the middle of the keyboard emerges from the center of the ensemble because the third (center) mike has been equally mixed into both channels! A piano is one instrument not three. It has it's place in an ensemble of instruments and the image should render as a solid, three dimensional instrument in one place. I strongly disagree that Waldrep's and other's insistence in miking pianos this way has any validity whatsoever. 

 

15 hours ago, STC said:

1) Reverberation is uniform (more or less) no matter where you place the microphone. However, the direct sound changes significantly as you move. The sweet spot is at the listeners spot in a venue usually where this ratio direct and indirect sound is at its the best. (Let's just confined to a solo vocalist for now).  Agree or disagree?

 

Neither agree nor disagree. The best seat in this house is where the music sounds best and that can only be found by trial and error listening. 

 

15 hours ago, STC said:

2) The difference between a recording and instrument is what actually transmitted  from them that reaches our ears. Even if you take a mono recording played with a single speakers the concept still applies. A recording consists of the direct sound and reverberation. A live solo vocalist voice reaches our ears (direct sound) and the venue's reverberation (early reflection and delayed cumulative reflections) also reaches our ears.Agree or disagree?

 

Of course, what else?

 

15 hours ago, STC said:

3) In recordings we not only capture the direct sound but also the indirect ambience (reverberation) although it will always be much much less in level compared to direct sound that we prefer at the listening spot. Although, the reverberation is still the same the level of direct sound is much higher.  You have previously stated so and we both agree with this.

Yes, your point?

 

16 hours ago, STC said:

4) When you play the recording with the speakers, both the reverberation and the direct sound will react with the room/venue and subject to another set of indirect sound that comes in the form of room reverberation. If you have added more reverberation as what was heard at the best listener's position, the resultant sound in the recording now would reaches your ears with additional reverberation to the direct sound and the reverberation already in the recording. The result would be a muddier recording. Agree or disagree?

 

Your train of thought is fairly difficult to follow, here, but if I understand you, what you are trying to say is that since each recording already comes with it's own reverberation signature; that which was picked-up in the recording venue, along with the direct sound of the performer(s), that the addition of of the room acoustics in the space where the recorded performance is being played back can muddy the sound. Is this correct?

I suppose that I agree, theoretically, though in my experience, in most domestic playback situations, the reverb times are so short that in reality, this rarely happens (unless your listening room is some huge ballroom in some erstwhile baronial estate from the "guided age". I am much more concerned about about standing waves and "slap-back" and other anomalies in the listening room than I am in the very short reverb times contributed by the listening room. 

 

16 hours ago, STC said:

5) Now, you might ask why then if you were to play the same music with the real reverberation captured at the listener's position in an anechoic room, it still sounds muddy? That's because the reverberation never meant to originated from the same direction as the direct sound. I gave you the research paper on this in my earlier post. You probably didn't read it. The lateral reverberation should always come from the side for realism. This is outside the means of most audiophiles could do but it doesn't matter. It just another step to improve your existing setup. 

  

That would be true if one were making a surround recording, I suppose. Yes, a two channel stereo recording is not going to recreate the acoustics of the space where the recording was made - EVER! But that's not the point. A two channel recording of a real musical event (as opposed to a studio recording) will contain just enough (in my opinion) of the venue's reverb to keep the ensemble from sounding so dry that the ensemble starts to sound like a bunch of individual instruments all playing at the same time. The reverb helps the performance to coalesce into a single entity. and it's worth adding artificial reverb to a dry venue to achieve that goal. But, beyond that, realistic recreation of the venue's acoustics in one's home is the prevue of those interested in surround sound, and I am not among those people. It's not that I don't care, or that I wouldn't like to have that kind of sonic recreation in my own listening room, it's just that the attempts of the music industry to do this in any practical way, have fallen so far short of even an approximation of this ideal, that it simply is not worth my effort to get involved with it.

16 hours ago, STC said:

Maybe, we may disagree but at least let's shake hand and agree to disagree on specific points.  Looking at the number of upvotes you received, you could be very right and all the research and I could be wrong. 

 

You're not wrong, per se. It's just that your emphasis on reverb retrieval in a performance is somewhat out of the mainstream. And the mainstream opinion (if any audiophile opinion can be considered mainstream) seems to be that just two-channel stereo is difficult enough to get right, and trying to recreate the entire venue's sonic signature in a recording is simply beyond any practical consideration. IOW, while performance reverb is your main interest, mine is an accurate soundstage. I want to paint a sonic picture where from left-to-right, front-to-back, and floor-to-ceiling the listener can point to each instrument in the ensemble with holographic accuracy and name it, just as one can do while sitting in a decent concert hall, listening to a live performance. I know how to do that, and that's what I do, and I get a great amount of pleasure and satisfaction from doing it.  

[STC]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Not "a picture" but two pf Waldrep's AIX records samplers: the 2013 sampler and 2014 sampler. The sampler's are audio/video productions. I have never bought any of Waldrep's commercial productions because I didn't like his microphone placement techniques in either of the two samplers.

 

The actual width of the piano is irrelevant. The point is, that one doesn't put microphones inside of pianos and one doesn't use three (or more) mikes lined up across the width of a piano so that, in the final mix, the left-end of the keyboard ends up in the left channel, the right end of the keyboard ends up in the right channel and the middle of the keyboard emerges from the center of the ensemble because the third (center) mike has been equally mixed into both channels! A piano is one instrument not three. It has it's place in an ensemble of instruments and the image should render as a solid, three dimensional instrument in one place. I strongly disagree that Waldrep's and other's insistence in miking pianos this way has any validity whatsoever. 

 

 

Neither agree nor disagree. The best seat in this house is where the music sounds best and that can only be found by trial and error listening. 

 

You're not wrong, per se. It's just that your emphasis on reverb retrieval in a performance is somewhat out of the mainstream. And the mainstream opinion (if any audiophile opinion can be considered mainstream) seems to be that just two-channel stereo is difficult enough to get right, and trying to recreate the entire venue's sonic signature in a recording is simply beyond any practical consideration. IOW, while performance reverb is your main interest, mine is an accurate soundstage. I want to paint a sonic picture where from left-to-right, front-to-back, and floor-to-ceiling the listener can point to each instrument in the ensemble with holographic accuracy and name it, just as one can do while sitting in a decent concert hall, listening to a live performance. I know how to do that, and that's what I do, and I get a great amount of pleasure and satisfaction from doing it.  

 

Now, it is clear to me that we were talking from different perspective. I took for granted that when recreating a performance with recordings - what you describe as "sonic picture where from left-to-right, front-to-back, and floor-to-ceiling the listener can point to each instrument in the ensemble with holographic accuracy and name it, just as one can do while sitting in a decent concert hall, listening to a live performance"  is vastly different between stereo and binaural perspective. We are not hearing the same thing. I am describing soundstage and depth from the perspective of wearing 3D glasses looking at 3D television and you are describing the 2D television. 

 

This is out of topic and just wanted your POV on what you describes as "solid, three dimensional instrument in one place".

 

Do you really believe the recording in a club as shown in your picture really paints the correct perspective of the real soundstage? As far as I know, almost all club performance are amplified sound. Even if the microphone is not placed at certain instrument they are loud enough to be picked up by other microphones. Under this circumstance, it is hard to be even sure what soundstage we are actually hearing. Just an observation. 

 

 

 

 

 

However, with two microphones on a dummy head gives you exactly the soundstage as where you listen. In this Chesky video, the piano is mostly to your left speakers although the deep bass will fleet to the middle. They are essentially using the same two microphone method you advocate. 

 

 

 

Same here

 

http://download.linnrecords.com/mp3/akd-504/2.mp3

 

 

And this is exactly doing what you are advocating. The piano is to the left and still not one dimension as if you listen carefully if does move left to mid. It doesn't sound as what you said "It has it's place in an ensemble of instruments and the image should render as a solid, three dimensional instrument in one place". 

 

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/mp3/sr004-01.mp3

 

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

51 minutes ago, STC said:

Do you really believe the recording in a club as shown in your picture really paints the correct perspective of the real soundstage? As far as I know, almost all club performance are amplified sound. Even if the microphone is not placed at certain instrument they are loud enough to be picked up by other microphones. Under this circumstance, it is hard to be even sure what soundstage we are actually hearing. Just an observation. 

 

From the standpoint of a stereo perspective OVER SPEAKERS, I don't Believe that it paints a true perspective of the real soundstage, I know it does. I have the recording to prove it! When listening, every instrument in that sextet is exactly where he was when I recorded him The trumpets and drums are on the far right with the drums in back of the xylophonist, the stand-up basist in the center, the electric guitar is left of center and the piano keyboard is on the far right. BTW, the microphone seen on the right, in front of the electronic xylophone, is not connected to the record console, It is a vocal microphone for the P.A. amplifier that the combo xylophonist/trumpet player/vocalist used when singing. 

51 minutes ago, STC said:

However, with two microphones on a dummy head gives you exactly the soundstage as where you listen. In this Chesky video, the piano is mostly to your left speakers although the deep bass will fleet to the middle. They are essentially using the same two microphone method you advocate. 

 

That's binaural and I have the equipment to do that too. And you are right that on headphones it gives uncanny sound stage precision, on speakers, not so much. 

51 minutes ago, STC said:

Same here

 

http://download.linnrecords.com/mp3/akd-504/2.mp3

 

 

And this is exactly doing what you are advocating. The piano is to the left and still not one dimension as if you listen carefully if does move left to mid. It doesn't sound as what you said "It has it's place in an ensemble of instruments and the image should render as a solid, three dimensional instrument in one place". 

 

It looks like it might be a similar setup. But, I can't tell from the picture what microphone(s) the recordist is using. Is that three mikes on that stand? two little ones flanking one larger one? I can't tell. Also I don't know what the recordist is doing with the feeds from the microphones. Traditionally Jazz recordings are three channel, I.E. a left channel a right channel and a center channel (usually phantom). If those are three mikes and he has mixed them to there channel mono (don't ask me how, I'm guessing here as I go along). then of course that 3D imaging would not exist and is not what the recordist in this instance was after.  

[gmgraves]

57 minutes ago, STC said:

And this is exactly doing what you are advocating. The piano is to the left and still not one dimension as if you listen carefully if does move left to mid. It doesn't sound as what you said "It has it's place in an ensemble of instruments and the image should render as a solid, three dimensional instrument in one place". 

 

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/mp3/sr004-01.mp3

 

 

 

OK after studying this picture some more, I realized that the "thing" in the center is not a microphone but is a baffle; a sound absorbent barrier between those tiny left and right microphones. This is usually done when the microphones used are monidirectional mikes. Omnis will not image like cardioids, especially that close together even with a isolation panel between them . Did you take that picture?

[STC]

53 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

OK after studying this picture some more, I realized that the "thing" in the center is not a microphone but is a baffle; a sound absorbent barrier between those tiny left and right microphones. This is usually done when the microphones used are monidirectional mikes. Omnis will not image like cardioids, especially that close together even with a isolation panel between them . Did you take that picture?

 

That picture was taken from the Soundkeepers recording session. They only make two mikes stereo recordings.

 

I was more inclined to refer to the audio samples. If you remove all the frequencies above 500hz, you could as well hear the piano low notes coming from both speakers despite it was placed far to the left. That means, to my ears, it quite normal to hear the piano image to move from left to right or at least to the centre depending on the notes.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

BTW, the microphone seen on the right, in front of the electronic xylophone, is not connected to the record console, It is a vocal microphone for the P.A. amplifier that the combo xylophonist/trumpet player/vocalist used when singing. 

 

I asked about this because it is often in live club performance the sound is amplified and almost all sound will come out from the speakers. In a small venue it is usually a mixture of live instruments and also from the amplified speakers. I wonder how you use your microphones to filter out the sound from the speakers?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

That picture was taken from the Soundkeepers recording session. They only make two mikes stereo recordings.

 

I was more inclined to refer to the audio samples. If you remove all the frequencies above 500hz, you could as well hear the piano low notes coming from both speakers despite it was placed far to the left. That means, to my ears, it quite normal to hear the piano image to move from left to right or at least to the centre depending on the notes.

Omni directional mikes will pickup sounds from all directions, even from the other side of the room. Especially in this case where the two omnis are only a foot or so apart. The barrier on the mike stand between them would only be effective, as you found out, in the higher frequency range. I'd say a few hundred hertz or so, therefore I would expect the results you heard.

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

I asked about this because it is often in live club performance the sound is amplified and almost all sound will come out from the speakers. In a small venue it is usually a mixture of live instruments and also from the amplified speakers. I wonder how you use your microphones to filter out the sound from the speakers?

During the set that I recorded, I ask that the P.A. be turned off. Of course the electronic instruments (xylophone, piano, and guitar) played through their own amps. But I did directly connect the output of the piano and the xylophone to my mixer and barely cracked the level on both while the stereo mike, picked up most of these instruments sound, the direct connection helped fill-in for the speakers' shortcomings and I pan-potted those into their places on "stage". The only electric instrument that I didn't connect directly to my mixer was the guitar. I just picked it up from it's amp via the stereo Mike. It worked quite well and I got a very good "Jazz at the Pawnshop"effect with the cafe noises blended at low level with the music. The stereo mike's cardioid pattern took care of attenuating the patrons.

[STC]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

During the set that I recorded, I ask that the P.A. be turned off. Of course the electronic instruments (xylophone, piano, and guitar) played through their own amps.

 

Here we go again  

 

Doesn't this mean that what you record and what the audience listen during the live performance is entirely two different sound ALTHOUGH, your recorded sound would still sound like the live performance during playback? This is the point I was trying to emphasis; placement of mics could never be at listeners position unless they are binaural. Even with binaural, the sound at listener's location usually lacks bite. 

 

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

...and I pan-potted those into their places on "stage".

 

 

On 2/10/2018 at 7:25 AM, gmgraves said:

I don't record instruments, I record space. I don't mix in a mixer, I let the instruments mix in the air. That's the difference between our methodologies.

 

Isn't pan pot is placements of instrument after the recording process or is it during the recording?

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, STC said:

Doesn't this mean that what you record and what the audience listen during the live performance is entirely two different sound ALTHOUGH, your recorded sound would still sound like the live performance during playback? This is the point I was trying to emphasis; placement of mics could never be at listeners position unless they are binaural. Even with binaural, the sound at listener's location usually lacks bite. 

 

Frankly, in this particular case, one wouldn't want microphones at any of the listener's locations. Such microphones would pick-up mostly audience noise. There would be people all around talking, the sound of eating utensils hitting plates, chairs squeaking, etc. And, in a venue such as that, the perspective would be much too far away for any stereo effect due to the tight grouping of the ensemble. You're right, such distant microphone placement (even binaural) would lack what many in the recording industry call "presence". I have an Ambiphonics recording (on vinyl) of the film music of Dimitri Tiomkin.  Now I don't do ambiphonics, but to me this otherwise nice sounding orchestral recording is miked from so far away, that in stereo it sounds, shall we say distant? Like I, as the concert goer were sitting in the very last row of the concert hall. I've often wondered why they miked it that way.

This cafe recording is not like a concert hall, where the patrons at least TRY to make an effort to be quiet and listen to the music. This is a watering hole/restaurant and many of the people there just want to talk while they drink, and/or have dinner conversation.

13 hours ago, STC said:

Isn't pan pot is placements of instrument after the recording process or is it during the recording?

It's during the recording, of course. I don't like to use auxiliary microphones and I especially don't like direct feeds, but every recording session is different, and good recordists learn to be flexible and not stick to any dogma. In this case, I was presented with three electronic instruments and four acoustic ones. Had I my druthers, I would have preferred that all of the instruments be unamplified, I.E. a real xylophone, an acoustic guitar, and a grand or at least an upright piano. I didn't have that luxury. All three of those electronic instruments had their own (and not very good) amplifier/speaker combos. Sure, there was no way that I could eliminate the sound of those amps from the performance, but I could augment them, which I did by "Y"-ing off of the output of their instruments and plugging the other end of each of their instruments' output cable into an available input on my mixer. I barely cracked the volume level of each mixer input connected to those instruments, so that the lion's share of the sound was still that from the stereo mike. I then turned the pan-pot on those channels to point at the approximate location of that instrument in space with the xylophone on the right of center and the piano on the left of center. The result is that the imaging info comes from the microphone, but the instruments sound somewhat richer, with a wider frequency response than they would have if I had picked-up the instruments from the output of those stage speakers alone. 

Now this is not ideal, I'll warrant. Ideally, the electronic instruments would be electronically attached to the mixer only, and the players would hear themselves through headphones and there would be no instrument amps/speakers in the recordings. But this would then be a studio recording, and I don't do those. This was a live performance for which the musicians were getting paid by the establishment for which they were playing. The audience, of course has to hear these instruments so I have to deal with stage speakers, which, luckily, long experience has taught me to do.    

[STC]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frankly, in this particular case, one wouldn't want microphones at any of the listener's locations. Such microphones would pick-up mostly audience noise. There would be people all around talking, the sound of eating utensils hitting plates, chairs squeaking, etc. And, in a venue such as that, the perspective would be much too far away for any stereo effect due to the tight grouping of the ensemble. You're right, such distant microphone placement (even binaural) would lack what many in the recording industry call "presence". I have an Ambiphonics recording (on vinyl) of the film music of Dimitri Tiomkin.  Now I don't do ambiphonics, but to me this otherwise nice sounding orchestral recording is miked from so far away, that in stereo it sounds, shall we say distant? Like I, as the concert goer were sitting in the very last row of the concert hall. I've often wondered why they miked it that way.

This cafe recording is not like a concert hall, where the patrons at least TRY to make an effort to be quiet and listen to the music. This is a watering hole/restaurant and many of the people there just want to talk while they drink, and/or have dinner conversation.

 

We have been actually talking about the same thing but from a different perspective. The point was, and I quote you "You're right, such distant microphone placement (even binaural) would lack what many in the recording industry call "presence" .  As I said before, even if you were to record the same performance in an audience free venue the microphone placement would still be somewhere around where you had placed them in the picture.

 

BTW, there is no such thing as ambiophonics recordings. I haven't seen one. Ambiophonics is a playback method of your 2 channels stereo files and it just involves the placement of speakers and (physically) preventing the other speakers channel leaking to the opposite ears.The term ambiophonics and ambisonics often gets mixed up. To the best of my knowledge no real XTC Ambiophonics recordings exist because it is impossible to know your speakers arrangement. There used to be some demo tracks using a RACE DSP but it was eventually taken down as most users got confused on how to use the demo files.

 

I would be appreciate if you could share me the details of Dimitri Tiomkin recordings. The term Ambiophonics often used but it got nothing to do with speakers placements or XTC. One example here. https://www.amazon.com/Ambiophonic-Odyssey/dp/B06XG8CH89 which got nothing to do with Ambiophonics. There could be some recordings using Ambiophonics during mixing to pan-pot the instruments location which will make the recording - physical speakers width independent.

 

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, STC said:

BTW, there is no such thing as ambiophonics recordings. I haven't seen one. Ambiophonics is a playback method of your 2 channels stereo files and it just involves the placement of speakers and (physically) preventing the other speakers channel leaking to the opposite ears.The term ambiophonics and ambisonics often gets mixed up. To the best of my knowledge no real XTC Ambiophonics recordings exist because it is impossible to know your speakers arrangement. There used to be some demo tracks using a RACE DSP but it was eventually taken down as most users got confused on how to use the demo files.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

2 hours ago, STC said:

I would be appreciate if you could share me the details of Dimitri Tiomkin recordings. The term Ambiophonics often used but it got nothing to do with speakers placements or XTC. One example here. https://www.amazon.com/Ambiophonic-Odyssey/dp/B06XG8CH89 which got nothing to do with Ambiophonics. There could be some recordings using Ambiophonics during mixing to pan-pot the instruments location which will make the recording - physical speakers width independent.

 

 

This Tiomkin disc was obviously an Ambiphonics release as it was a two channel vinyl record from Great Britain and on a label called Unicorn-Kanchana.The title is "The Western Film World of Dimitri Tiomkin" With Laurie Johnson conducting the London Studio Symphony Orchestra (obviously a pickup ensemble). It also looks as if at one time, this recording was also available on the Musical Heritage Society label (vinyl only). Both are listed on Amazon. 

[STC]

29 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

This Tiomkin disc was obviously an Ambiphonics release as it was a two channel vinyl record from Great Britain and on a label called Unicorn-Kanchana.The title is "The Western Film World of Dimitri Tiomkin" With Laurie Johnson conducting the London Studio Symphony Orchestra (obviously a pickup ensemble). It also looks as if at one time, this recording was also available on the Musical Heritage Society label (vinyl only). Both are listed on Amazon. 

 

It is impossible to make XTC encoded recording in the 50s or 60s or even in the 90s. RACE was only conceived in mid 2000s. Furthermore, Ambiophonics got nothing to do with recordings. It is all about placement and isolation that happens after the sound emerges from the loudspeakers. It needs to be frontal stage and therefore will not work with headphones. If at all somehow this was a real "Ambiophonics" record the 3D sound should emerge when you place the speakers about 20 degrees. 

 

You have spelt it as AMBIPHONICS twice without the "O" and therefore it could be just something else. I can't find further info about this album googling. 

 

edit: - It was stated on the sleeve that it was a AMBISONIC UH - 2 Channel recording. This is NOT Ambiophonics. AMBISONIC requires the Ambisonic decoder and sounds best when used with 4 or more speakers. However, it is playable with normal 2 channel stereo.

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It is impossible to make XTC encoded recording in the 50s or 60s or even in the 90s. RACE was only conceived in mid 2000s. Furthermore, Ambiophonics got nothing to do with recordings. It is all about placement and isolation that happens after the sound emerges from the loudspeakers. It needs to be frontal stage and therefore will not work with headphones. If at all somehow this was a real "Ambiophonics" record the 3D sound should emerge when you place the speakers about 20 degrees. 

 

You have spelt it as AMBIPHONICS twice without the "O" and therefore it could be just something else. I can't find further info about this album googling. 

The cover said Ambi-something, It could be be Ambiophonics, I don't know. I can't put my hands on the record as all my LPs are in storage and even though there's a thumbnail of the cover on Amazon, It's too tiny to read anything on it. I merely brought the subject up as an example of an orchestral recording that's too distantly miked for my tastes. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

The cover said Ambi-something, It could be be Ambiophonics, I don't know. I can't put my hands on the record as all my LPs are in storage and even though there's a thumbnail of the cover on Amazon, It's too tiny to read anything on it. I merely brought the subject up as an example of an orchestral recording that's too distantly miked for my tastes. 

 

Please see my edited post.

 

edit: - It was stated on the sleeve that it was a AMBISONIC UH - 2 Channel recording. This is NOT Ambiophonics. AMBISONIC requires the Ambisonic decoder and sounds best when used with 4 or more speakers. However, it is playable with normal 2 channel stereo.

 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, STC said:

 

Please see my edited post.

 

edit: - It was stated on the sleeve that it was a AMBISONIC UH - 2 Channel recording. This is NOT Ambiophonics. AMBISONIC requires the Ambisonic decoder and sounds best when used with 4 or more speakers. However, it is playable with normal 2 channel stereo.

 

OK, like I said earlier, I don't remember. I just remember that it was Ambi-something. And again, I only brought it up as an example of a recording that is much too distantly miked for my taste. I have fooled with SQ, QS, Dynaco surround, CD4 from JVC (that's the discrete 4-channel subcarrier-based surround system developed for vinyl), as well as Dolby surround, 5.1 and DTS, but never Ambisonics. None of them impressed me nor did anything that I liked or wanted, so, I don't fool with surround any more.

[STC]

20 hours ago, gmgraves said:

This Tiomkin disc was obviously an Ambiphonics release as it was a two channel vinyl record from Great Britain and on a label called Unicorn-Kanchana

 

On 2/15/2018 at 5:41 AM, gmgraves said:

Now I don't do ambiphonics, but to me this otherwise nice sounding orchestral recording is miked from so far away, that in stereo it sounds, shall we say distant?

 

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

And again, I only brought it up as an example of a recording that is much too distantly miked for my taste

 

All thses were your statements. If no discussion took place after the first quote then readers conclusion would have been Ambiophonics would sound too distance. 

 

Readers would not even know that you are not even referring to Ambiophonics and confusing Ambisonic to Ambiophonics. 

 

Your opinions carry weight weight in this forum due to your stature. Even when you are wrong you will have your supporters.  

 

I am disappointed that you never felt it was necessary to retract the far away distance recording statement of a well researched technology ( that’s including BBC).

Your opinion was like someone commenting about stereo’s soundstage after listening with a single loudspeakers because they were ignorant of the fact that  stereo meant to be listened with two speakers. That what you did with the Ambisonic vinyl album. 

 

My policy is simple. We are in CA to learn and improve our system. Opinions can be different and can be corrected. I have no ego nor anything to lose if I am proven otherwise. I don’t avoid answering question which would self incriminate . This is not a trial. 

 

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, STC said:

I am disappointed that you never felt it was necessary to retract the far away distance recording statement of a well researched technology ( that’s including BBC).

 

My stand is that the Tiomkin record is too distantly miked for my taste. Whether all Ambi-whatever records are recorded that way, I have no way of knowing. I have one only. It's too distantly miked for me. That's what I said and that's what I mean. I know nothing about other Ambisonic records, and am not talking about them. Since I have no knowledge of others of it's type, I have no opinion of the technology as a whole.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

My stand is that the Tiomkin record is too distantly miked for my taste. Whether all Ambi-whatever records are recorded that way, I have no way of knowing. I have one only. It's too distantly miked for me. That's what I said and that's what I mean. I know nothing about other Ambisonic records, and am not talking about them. Since I have no knowledge of others of it's type, I have no opinion of the technology as a whole.

 

It probably would since it was not meant to listen like that.  You listened to it wrongly. The instruction was written on the sleeve. Like many good things in life often do not receive the deserving credit due to users ignorance. 

[buonassi]

 

Reading 24 pages of "sanity check" topic probably suits me.  I just posted this in another topic, but it seems fitting for this one as well.  

 

I think the major takeaway is that we audiophiles are all, in fact, insane by "normal people" standards.  Think about it.... how many times have you tried to enthusiastically explain your hobby to someone only to find them looking at you like you're certifiable?  

 

You then try and rationalize your insanity by responding "Well, you watch TV for what... 2-3 hours on NFL sunday, a movie here and there, some news, and you dropped like 2K on it didn't you?  And your wife wanted that 2K bose set to accompany her decor because you guys place aesthetics high on the priority list!  It's the same thing, right?"

 

Faced with your misunderstood logic, they just continue to stare, then struggle to either change the topic or look for an exit.  It's not "the same".  We ARE insane.  And we have a large online community where we essentially encourage one another to become even more crazy.