Blue or red pill?

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It most certainly does exist and done right, it's palpable and exciting.

Yes, yes, I know. Only you can do it right, and you can't let anyone else hear your recordings.

[Ralph Glasgal]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

If I understand it correctly there's no need to capture the impulse response unless you wish to use digital processing in order to "add" ambiance or 3D-ness to a two channel recording. Is this wrong?

 

And if that's the case, using an Eigenmike to record live music would allow you to reproduce the original acoustics through the use of a dedicated mic+speaker channel covering 360°, whilst processing a 2-channel recording will only superimpose some kind of "enhanced" sense of depth which is not really representative of the original sound - you will still get direct sound from the rear speakers.

I'd rather have @Ralph Glasgal corroborate or challenge my opinion instead of yourself though...

This is not an easy technology to grasp and there are a lot of options so I am not sure I understand the issues above.

 

For existing 2.0 media like LPs or CDs you can place such recordings in a domestic concert hall by using 3D impulse responses to drive a large number of surround speakers.  Nothing is added to the front speakers.  However if you crosstalk cancel the front pair you will get a much wider/deeper stage and much flatter frequency response to go with the surround speakers.  There is no way to add ambience to the front channels in recording or at home without the risk of getting the sewer effect.  That is why 2.0 recordings ate made with the stereo mic at the conductor or close to the players, well within what is called the critical radius where the direct sound equals the reverberant sound.  Also the brain will not accept frontal hall ambience as real.

 

For any frontal pair in LPs, CDs, and 4.0/5.1 media you can enhance frontal stage envelopment by a process I call Envelophonics using two speakers conveniently behind the listening area.  These speakers emit a crosstalk cancelled flat version of the frontal pair and eliminate a static listening room reflection problem and a pinna localization cue bias.  Tutorials on all this as will as free 3D IRs at ambiophonics.org.  So there is some direct sound at these optional rear speakers but the effect is a wider, deeper, more natural front stage.  e-mail me at [email protected] if you wish.

 

So the ideal for reproducing 2.0 media is to use a frontal and an enveloping rear pair for direct sound and a set of 3D hall IRs for side/rear surround ambience.  The ideal method for reproducing 4.0 media like SACDs, 5.1/Auro/Atmos/DTS/etc. is as for 2.0 but adding one more XTC pair for the rear direct sound stage.  If the rear pair of a concert SACD is hall ambience, then the third rear XTC pair will provide a full half circle of rear hall sound and you don't need to have additional surround speakers.  In the case of movies, sometimes it does sound more realistic if the hall surrounds are operating.   If you are into height reverb then you can use these speakers with both music and movies. 

[semente]

9 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

This is not an easy technology to grasp and there are a lot of options so I am not sure I understand the issues above.

 

For existing 2.0 media like LPs or CDs you can place such recordings in a domestic concert hall by using 3D impulse responses to drive a large number of surround speakers.  Nothing is added to the front speakers.  However if you crosstalk cancel the front pair you will get a much wider/deeper stage and much flatter frequency response to go with the surround speakers.  There is no way to add ambience to the front channels in recording or at home without the risk of getting the sewer effect.  That is why 2.0 recordings ate made with the stereo mic at the conductor or close to the players, well within what is called the critical radius where the direct sound equals the reverberant sound.  Also the brain will not accept frontal hall ambience as real.

 

For any frontal pair in LPs, CDs, and 4.0/5.1 media you can enhance frontal stage envelopment by a process I call Envelophonics using two speakers conveniently behind the listening area.  These speakers emit a crosstalk cancelled flat version of the frontal pair and eliminate a static listening room reflection problem and a pinna localization cue bias.  Tutorials on all this as will as free 3D IRs at ambiophonics.org.  So there is some direct sound at these optional rear speakers but the effect is a wider, deeper, more natural front stage.  e-mail me at [email protected] if you wish.

 

So the ideal for reproducing 2.0 media is to use a frontal and an enveloping rear pair for direct sound and a set of 3D hall IRs for side/rear surround ambience.  The ideal method for reproducing 4.0 media like SACDs, 5.1/Auro/Atmos/DTS/etc. is as for 2.0 but adding one more XTC pair for the rear direct sound stage.  If the rear pair of a concert SACD is hall ambience, then the third rear XTC pair will provide a full half circle of rear hall sound and you don't need to have additional surround speakers.  In the case of movies, sometimes it does sound more realistic if the hall surrounds are operating.   If you are into height reverb then you can use these speakers with both music and movies. 

 

Thanks for making it a bit clearer.

 

I have one question that perhaps you can answer: do the rear (and side) speakers reproduce the direct sound made by the instruments in the original musical event, or is this only coming from the front speakers as it would live?

[STC]

28 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

This is not an easy technology to grasp and there are a lot of options so I am not sure I understand the issues above.

 

For existing 2.0 media like LPs or CDs you can place such recordings in a domestic concert hall by using 3D impulse responses to drive a large number of surround speakers.  Nothing is added to the front speakers.  However if you crosstalk cancel the front pair you will get a much wider/deeper stage and much flatter frequency response to go with the surround speakers.  There is no way to add ambience to the front channels in recording or at home without the risk of getting the sewer effect.  That is why 2.0 recordings ate made with the stereo mic at the conductor or close to the players, well within what is called the critical radius where the direct sound equals the reverberant sound.  Also the brain will not accept frontal hall ambience as real.

 

For any frontal pair in LPs, CDs, and 4.0/5.1 media you can enhance frontal stage envelopment by a process I call Envelophonics using two speakers conveniently behind the listening area.  These speakers emit a crosstalk cancelled flat version of the frontal pair and eliminate a static listening room reflection problem and a pinna localization cue bias.  Tutorials on all this as will as free 3D IRs at ambiophonics.org.  So there is some direct sound at these optional rear speakers but the effect is a wider, deeper, more natural front stage.  e-mail me at [email protected] if you wish.

 

So the ideal for reproducing 2.0 media is to use a frontal and an enveloping rear pair for direct sound and a set of 3D hall IRs for side/rear surround ambience.  The ideal method for reproducing 4.0 media like SACDs, 5.1/Auro/Atmos/DTS/etc. is as for 2.0 but adding one more XTC pair for the rear direct sound stage.  If the rear pair of a concert SACD is hall ambience, then the third rear XTC pair will provide a full half circle of rear hall sound and you don't need to have additional surround speakers.  In the case of movies, sometimes it does sound more realistic if the hall surrounds are operating.   If you are into height reverb then you can use these speakers with both music and movies. 

 

You are always a gentleman.

 

Despite, you clearly answering the question another cycle will continue because one reads not to understand but to find ways to critize. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Just commenting on the practicality of a system that would require 30 speakers, thirty amplifiers, and from somewhere, 30 separate channels of information. I made no comment about the quality of such a system. I suspect that it would probably get the ambience right for about any venue in the world. It's not just a very practical system and dead cinch certainty to be a commercial failure (if anyone tried to implement such a system).

 

Commercial failure is thousands of golden recordings and not one for sale. 

 

So too some recording techniques that can be done better now.  

 

This is is a free upgrade so @Ralph Glasgal is not in for the money. Stick to the original point. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, yes, I know. Only you can do it right, and you can't let anyone else hear your recordings.

I don't know where you got the notion that "only I can do it". I certainly never said that because it simply is not true. There are lots of people who can do it. In fact, I'd venture so far as to say that anyone can do it. All one needs to do is buy something akin to a Zoom H6, with it's choice of M-S or X-Y microphone modules (it comes with both) and, set it to record 24/96 and you can get real stereo from either mike configuration. The results might not be of pro quality, but even a rank amateur can get results that sound better than 95% of what can be had commercially, even if the performances are less than stellar.

And I have let several people here have copies of my recordings. But these people exhibited to me an open mind, so I felt fine sending them some samples. On the other hand, you have exhibited a very negative and skeptical attitude. I know other people who exhibit your attitude and it's a damn cinch certainty, that such attitudes guarantee that you will refuse to hear the 3D palpability even before you play the recording as you have already decided that these characteristics don't exist. So, I don't really see any advantage to sending samples of my work to those who have your pre-conceived notions  and thus open myself to your almost certain ridicule.

In other words, while there are people here who I wanted to hear my work, unfortunately, you aren't one of them. Sorry. Nothing personal. It's just the way it is.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Real stereo sound is never 2D by definition. It always has width, depth and height. OTOH, pan-potted studio produced two-channel sound is always 2D because it only has width (i.e. right to left placement). 

 

You're determined that only recording techniques such as you use can allow a sense of space and realism to pervade the playback. Luckily, you're completely wrong! "Palpable and exciting" is the nature of all recordings - and it only requires a certain standard of replay for that experience to be had. The reason the reproduction has to be of a very high standard is that the ear/brain needs all the cues to be in place "to get the message" - and unless the recording methodology went to some effort to deliberately reinforce those clues, as your way of recording does, then the inadequacy of normal playback blurs the critical information. Meaning, 2D sound - the mind can't make sense of what it needs to, and just interprets what it hears as being a flat projection.

 

Pop productions are the most miraculous of all - they can go from a confused cacophony to an extremely rich, complex, immersive 3D world - depending upon how creative the producer was, what ideas he had. Very few people ever appreciate the fascinating tapestries of sound that exist on "ordinary" recordings - because their systems are not up to resolving what's there.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, yes, I know. Only you can do it right, and you can't let anyone else hear your recordings.

 That is NOT correct.

 I am not the only one to have heard one of George's recordings ripped from the original CD made some time back.

It is an excellent recording with a very good depth of image, and sounds every bit as good as the better commercially available Classical CD releases.

George is not able to make these recordings available to others, as they are clients' property.

George trusted a couple of members enough to make sure that this recording went no further.

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You're determined that only recording techniques such as you use can allow a sense of space and realism to pervade the playback. Luckily, you're completely wrong! "Palpable and exciting" is the nature of all recordings - and it only requires a certain standard of replay for that experience to be had. The reason the reproduction has to be of a very high standard is that the ear/brain needs all the cues to be in place "to get the message"

- and unless the recording methodology went to some effort to deliberately reinforce those clues, as your way of recording does, then the inadequacy of normal playback blurs the critical information. Meaning, 2D sound - the mind can't make sense of what it needs to, and just interprets what it hears as being a flat projection.

Thankfully one of us can hear (hint: it isn't you ). Because you can't get accurate soundstage from multi-mike/multi-channel productions. It isn't captured and it's not there. And no attempt has even been made by the recording engineers/ producers to capture that information. They aren't even looking for that kind of effect! It's that simple.

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Pop productions are the most miraculous of all - they can go from a confused cacophony to an extremely rich, complex, immersive 3D world - depending upon how creative the producer was, what ideas he had. Very few people ever appreciate the fascinating tapestries of sound that exist on "ordinary" recordings - because their systems are not up to resolving what's there.

Gee, you must access to pop recordings that no one else has, because I certainly have never heard a modern pop recording that wasn't so overproduced that it sounds like shit!. I have heard such recordings that weren't awful , but that's just damning with faint praise.

[semente]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"Palpable and exciting" is the nature of all recordings

 

Your optimism is only matched by that of my wife's late grandfather who lived to be 104. 

[STC]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

George is not able to make these recordings available to others, as they are clients' property.

George trusted a couple of members enough to make sure that this recording went no further.

 

If these recordings are now clients’ property than only the clients could distribute or share them and not the maker without the consent of the owner. 

[Ralph Glasgal]

46 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Thanks for making it a bit clearer.

 

I have one question that perhaps you can answer: do the rear (and side) speakers reproduce the direct sound made by the instruments in the original musical event, or is this only coming from the front speakers as it would live?

My pleasure and this is a good question.  Any side speakers are those producing hall ambience from hall IRs so they never have any direct sound.  If the rear speakers are using the Envelophonics protocol then they do reproduce direct frontal sound but you cannot hear this, only a sense of envelopment.  Otherwise the same or a different rear pair is producing the rear pair of a 4.0/5.1 recording.  In 2.0 file reproduction the brain does need to have a rational field of early reflections coming from directions that are not frontal and these very early reflections, like those from heads, and seatbacks, need to have directional cues intact, thus you need XTC for this rear pair.  I know, this is not easy to get used to. 

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If these recordings are now clients’ property than only the clients could distribute or share them and not the maker without the consent of the owner. 

 

 That is correct, and although in this case it was only a single sample track from a very old recording , George shouldn't have let me hear it.

I guess that George is fed up with the constant snide remarks about his expertise in this area, and just wanted someone else to know that he does has proven expertise in this area. 

 

Sorry George, I should have kept my big mouth shut  in this case.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Your optimism is only matched by that of my wife's late grandfather who lived to be 104. 

 

Not optimistic, pragmatic ... when I first heard competent replay, I was bowled over by the experience - this is bloody amazing!!!, I thought. Most respectable recordings did well - but I had a good stack of 'duds' which I presumed could never deliver a better presentation.

 

Well, I was wrong ... over the years I kept learning what needed to be considered, and experimenting with new ideas on optimising - and lo and behold, some of the duds suddenly came good - but not others. And then further down the track some more moved to the good pile ... . Eventually I got the message, - and just gave myself a motto, "There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - and that's been a very reliable guide.

[mansr]

40 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don't know where you got the notion that "only I can do it". I certainly never said that because it simply is not true. There are lots of people who can do it. In fact, I'd venture so far as to say that anyone can do it. All one needs to do is buy something akin to a Zoom H6, with it's choice of M-S or X-Y microphone modules (it comes with both) and, set it to record 24/96 and you can get real stereo from either mike configuration. The results might not be of pro quality, but even a rank amateur can get results that sound better than 95% of what can be had commercially, even if the performances are less than stellar.

Can you name one commercially available recording (something I can buy on disc or download today) that meets your criteria for "real stereo"?

 

40 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And I have let several people here have copies of my recordings. But these people exhibited to me an open mind, so I felt fine sending them some samples. On the other hand, you have exhibited a very negative and skeptical attitude. I know other people who exhibit your attitude and it's a damn cinch certainty, that such attitudes guarantee that you will refuse to hear the 3D palpability even before you play the recording as you have already decided that these characteristics don't exist. So, I don't really see any advantage to sending samples of my work to those who have your pre-conceived notions  and thus open myself to your almost certain ridicule.

In other words, while there are people here who I wanted to hear my work, unfortunately, you aren't one of them. Sorry. Nothing personal. It's just the way it is.

I see. Only those you're certain will hear what you tell them to hear are allowed to listen. Reminds me of Alex's magical test files.

[semente]

9 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

My pleasure and this is a good question.  Any side speakers are those producing hall ambience from hall IRs so they never have any direct sound.  If the rear speakers are using the Envelophonics protocol then they do reproduce direct frontal sound but you cannot hear this, only a sense of envelopment.  Otherwise the same or a different rear pair is producing the rear pair of a 4.0/5.1 recording.  In 2.0 file reproduction the brain does need to have a rational field of early reflections coming from directions that are not frontal and these very early reflections, like those from heads, and seatbacks, need to have directional cues intact, thus you need XTC for this rear pair.  I know, this is not easy to get used to. 

 

Let's see if I understood this correctly.

The impulse response gives you reverb and reflection characteristics of a hall which you then use to "process" the sound. With a 2.0 file both channels have direct sound; does this mean that you don't use side speakers with 2.0 recordings?

I also don't understand why one wouldn't listen to direct sound from the back speakers from a 2.0 recording.

 

Thanks,

Ricardo

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - and that's been a very reliable guide.

 

 Any recording that has a large amount of obvious audible peak level clipping, as can also be verified by a Sound Editing program IS a bad recording !

[Archimago]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Any recording that has a large amount of obvious audible peak level clipping, as can also be verified by a Sound Editing program IS a bad recording !

 

Absolutely. See, we agree on some thing...

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

I see. Only those you're certain will hear what you tell them to hear are allowed to listen. Reminds me of Alex's magical test files.

 

 All you need to do is ask esldude to send you a MAM Gold CD-R of my comparison .wav files, that was designed to be played directly, NOT ripped, via a decent CD player and a better than average system ,although Barry D. could still hear some differences after ripping to HDD with the CD-R that I supplied him.

The availability of these CD-Rs has been mentioned in C.A. quite a few times already, yet not a single member appears to have asked Dennis to forward one to them.

I  did however originally state that it would be a waste of time sending one to any member whose playback equipment he considers is mediocre, or who has demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are highly unlikely to hear any differences, because they have a 100% expectation that there are no audible differences. 

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Thankfully one of us can hear (hint: it isn't you ). Because you can't get accurate soundstage from multi-mike/multi-channel productions. It isn't captured and it's not there. And no attempt has even been made by the recording engineers/ producers to capture that information. They aren't even looking for that kind of effect! It's that simple.

 

 

Yes, they're not looking to create such an effect - they're after a certain sound, and they use various production methods to give an overall impact; the result is that a whole lot of information is embedded in the track, which on competent replay all makes sense - the mind can unscramble what's going on; and it's a delight to the ears.

 

I think sometimes the creators get a buzz from inserting Easter eggs, a sort of private whim, which "only they know about" - I'm thinking here of some "Crystal Shop CDs" I picked up - full of synthesizer noodling for meditation, etc; buried deep in the tracks, at very low levels, far in the distance, are short bursts of interesting "things" happening - like an animal suddenly scurrying from one burrow to another, in a seemingly empty landscape. So, these "incredibly boring throwaways" are now fascinating to listen to, waiting for the next "animal" to pop its head up.

 

Quote

Gee, you must access to pop recordings that no one else has, because I certainly have never heard a modern pop recording that wasn't so overproduced that it sounds like shit!. I have heard such recordings that weren't awful , but that's just damning with faint praise.

 

Depends what you call modern - my favourites are from decades ago. Yes, the recent "Top 40" stuff is severely overcooked, but I listen for the musical ideas which the makers can't help but put in - I'm tuning into everything that the young crowd ignores; because the creativity is always there, if you listen for it.

[sandyk]

Just now, Archimago said:

 

Absolutely. See, we agree on some thing...

 Archimago

 I am not against appropriate measurements, and do also use test equipment wherever possible,

although due to my age (79) , I have given much of my remaining gear away.

 However, I do not believe that we yet know everything that needs to be measured in  some cases.

It could be very difficult for example to compare the analogue output of a DAC with 2 checksum identical musical files such as one via a Regen , and another without a Regen, where audible differences are confirmed via non sighted listening, without another A/D conversion which will almost certainly degrade subtle ( or not quite so subtle ) differences.

 

Alex

[psjug]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It could be very difficult for example to compare the analogue output of a DAC with 2 checksum identical musical files such as one via a Regen , and another without a Regen, where audible differences are confirmed via non sighted listening, without another A/D conversion which will almost certainly degrade subtle ( or not quite so subtle ) differences.

 

If you use an MQA ADC then it won't degrade; it will improve.  Seriously, though, you won't accept comparisons from an ADC if top notch equipment is used?

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Any recording that has a large amount of obvious audible peak level clipping, as can also be verified by a Sound Editing program IS a bad recording !

 

Peak level clipping is a whole interesting area of discussion in its own right - there are so many ways to "cook" a recording, to make it "impossible" to listen to - and obvious, visual clipping may be a culprit here, or it may not. Modern production techniques can squash everything hard against the top - but technically never does the signal ever clip - I have also seen very ordinary tracks, with good dynamic range, which regularly clip through the piece; the clipping in the latter is so transient that well done playback completely masks the event.

 

Whether the clipping, or compression is "audible", or disturbingly unpleasant to hear, depends enormously on the playback rig - in the worst cases, the damage can be repaired so that the listening doesn't suffer.

[Archimago]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Archimago

 I am not against appropriate measurements, and do also use test equipment wherever possible,

although due to my age (79) , I have given much of my remaining gear away.

 However, I do not believe that we yet know everything that needs to be measured in  some cases.

It could be very difficult for example to compare the analogue output of a DAC with 2 checksum identical musical files such as one via a Regen , and another without a Regen, where audible differences are confirmed via non sighted listening, without another A/D conversion which will almost certainly degrade subtle ( or not quite so subtle ) differences.

 

Alex

 

Sure. Nothing's perfect and not everything is known about the human auditory system and neural processing.

 

I just think we know and can measure much more than the secrets that remain in terms of magnitude of the perception.

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, psjug said:

If you use an MQA ADC then it won't degrade; it will improve.  Seriously, though, you won't accept comparisons from an ADC if top notch equipment is used?

 No, I won't accept any further A/D conversions.

 I have been readily able to hear the differences of copying a ripped file to a different location on another internal HDD , or as Cookie Marenco says .(below)