Concert Hall sound

[fas42]

 

 

12 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Didnt you read the post about near field listening?  The same applies to headphones listening. The room equation is removed. It is still there ( over loudspeakers) but the level is different and just like a microphone within the critical distance the bad room may not sound bad at near field listening. Sometimes it can be nice provided there is no unusual peaks in the reverbs/reflection. 

 

The point about achieving convincing SQ is that the "room equation is removed" - subjectively, the room you're actually in disappears - and is replaced by the spaces of the recording. Which mean that you can be on a football ground - or squashed in a tiny recording booth; what you're listening to is in control of the ambience. In fact, it will be a major effort to register a sound in the listening area at all - if a phone happens to ring you will very likely miss it completely - this has happened to me often.

[STC]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

 

The point about achieving convincing SQ is that the "room equation is removed" - subjectively, the room you're actually in disappears - and is replaced by the spaces of the recording. Which mean that you can be on a football ground - or squashed in a tiny recording booth; what you're listening to is in control of the ambience. In fact, it will be a major effort to register a sound in the listening area at all - if a phone happens to ring you will very likely miss it completely - this has happened to me often.

 

 

Why not just use headphones? They will sound alike irrespective of the room acoustics. 

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

Why not just use headphones? They will sound alike irrespective of the room acoustics. 

 

Unfortunately, headphones don't do it for me - I was lent a pair of pricey Sennheisers for a while - could only take it for about 5 minutes. And the quality wasn't there - the loudspeaker experience is far superior, in every area.

[STC]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Unfortunately, headphones don't do it for me - I was lent a pair of pricey Sennheisers for a while - could only take it for about 5 minutes. And the quality wasn't there - the loudspeaker experience is far superior, in every area.

 

 

Especially, the Philips HTbox set speakers. They are unbeatable when it comes to SQ. Is India still supplying their drivers?

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

Especially, the Philips HTbox set speakers. They are unbeatable when it comes to SQ. Is India still supplying their drivers?

 

Actually, this was when some Technics Phase Linear speakers, that late 70's step back style of thing, ruled the roost. The story is, what the speakers are matters for very little once the playback chain is sorted - the content of the recording dominates the subjective experience; a particular recording will "always sound the same".

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Unfortunately, headphones don't do it for me - I was lent a pair of pricey Sennheisers for a while - could only take it for about 5 minutes. And the quality wasn't there - the loudspeaker experience is far superior, in every area.

 

Sounds like your rig's not there yet. On a fully debugged and sorted system, even the cheapest earbuds sound better than loudspeakers.

[fas42]

Tsk ...

[STC]

Looking at some of the comments here, I think it is not about sound reproduction but audiophile is about someone’s belief. 

 

About a decade or so, if I were to say that a DVD classical video sounded more realistic compared to CD sound, I would probably laughed at. Even now, I could hear the murmur. 

 

But for people like Kal and Fris... , can relate to them because they have probably setup both system and heard the difference. For most, any opinion of sound different from their traditional 2.0 is affront to their long held belief that stereo is perfect. 

 

Is this some sort of mind conditioning? 

[Blackmorec]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Sounds like your rig's not there yet. On a fully debugged and sorted system, even the cheapest earbuds sound better than loudspeakers.

That’s absolutely not my experience and I’ve had some pretty fancy headphone systems during the time my daughter was studying and didn’t want my music interfering. Rigs included Stax with tube energiser, some German tube amp (with lots of Perspex so you could see the glow), AKG K1000 Earspeakers etc. They all sounded lovely but really could not creat the quality of sound I get from my loudspeakers

[Blackmorec]

3 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Hit quote instead of edit so this is a duplicate. Is there a delete key somewhere

 

[Kal Rubinson]

11 hours ago, STC said:

Why not just use headphones? They will sound alike irrespective of the room acoustics. 

And consistently distort the acoustical presentation unless one uses something like the Smyth Realiser (see another thread).

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, STC said:

Is this some sort of mind conditioning? 

Yes, plus resistance to increase in cost and complexity plus a likely lack of exposure to the alternative.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

And consistently distort the acoustical presentation .....

 

Subjective. If we can accept crosstalk in stereo then why not the flaws in hp. 

[Kal Rubinson]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

Subjective. If we can accept crosstalk in stereo then why not the flaws in hp. 

Because I cannot.  I find the inherent flaws of headphones in soundstage/imaging intolerable.

[STC]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Because I cannot.  I find the inherent flaws of headphones in soundstage/imaging intolerable.

 

I don’t use headphones except for testing and blind tests. And occasionally for late sitcoms in the bedroom. 

 

I still remember my first experience when I put on the headphones when I was a kid. It was so unnatural and I was looking up because the sound was inside my head. However, after 50 years of being familiar how they sound inside the head, the inside the head sound is not very obvious nowadays. We tend to adjust somehow. 

[firedog]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Sounds like your rig's not there yet. On a fully debugged and sorted system, even the cheapest earbuds sound better than loudspeakers.

I assume that you were making a funny/sarcastic comment to Frank about his "perfect" setup. But headphones are just a matter of taste. Just like tubes/solid state, PCM/DSD, etc.  Some people prefer one, some the other. 

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

That’s absolutely not my experience and I’ve had some pretty fancy headphone systems during the time my daughter was studying and didn’t want my music interfering. Rigs included Stax with tube energiser, some German tube amp (with lots of Perspex so you could see the glow), AKG K1000 Earspeakers etc. They all sounded lovely but really could not creat the quality of sound I get from my loudspeakers

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I assume that you were making a funny/sarcastic comment to Frank about his "perfect" setup. But headphones are just a matter of taste. Just like tubes/solid state, PCM/DSD, etc.  Some people prefer one, some the other. 

 

Of course I was. Unlike Frank's equipment, my components are subject to the laws of physics.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Duplicate post.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 hours ago, semente said:

If you look closely those " Mch recordings are simply ignored in favor of" 2-channel recordings.

 

To me, immersive 3D audio is a gimmick just like 3D video. Mch is too expensive and the material is let's be honest scarce.

 

The reason I discussed mic and speaker arrays is because they would be the closest you'd get to the real thing though we'd probably have to ignore problems caused by the interaction of so many drivers.

 

Finally, as @gmgraves  @cookiemarenco  and others with recording experience would attest, tampering with the signal will reduce its quality and ultimately realism.

As for 3D Immersive formats, amplifying what I said,  if they can demonstrate audible benefits that bring us closer to concert hall sound as well as commercial viability for music, they might be of interest.  Otherwise, not to me.  Gimmick?  I don't see that in Auro, which was developed by a major European music recording studio.  But, for music, Atmos and DTS:X do not seem suitable, though they might succeed with cinema.  However, I have heard diminished returns from an added height dimension in auditions of Auro simply because our ears naturally have diminshed spatial acuity in that dimension vs. X-Y.

 

The question of whether existing 5.1/7.1 Mch is too expensive is a personal decision.  Since clearly you have not heard it and its degree of improvement over the limitations of stereo, you seem to be relying on blind prejudice rather than experience in judging it.  Also, the spherical recording/playback technique you espouse strikes me as even more complex and costly than, say, 5.1 Mch on both the recording production and playback sides.  We have no idea whether the proposed benefits of spherical arrays are worthwhile or not.

 

Incidentally, 5.1/7.1 is not scarce at all.  It seems you have not looked for such releases.  Certainly the catalog is not as extensive as stereo CD, which has existed for decades longer than Mch formats.  But, as I said, I have thousands of such Mch recordings on my NAS, and they continue to be released on SACD, BD-A, BD-V and downloads.  Discs are easily available from Amazon and numerous other retailers.  A simple search for Mch recordings at this site might reveal how extensive the catalog is:

 

https://www.hraudio.net/

 

Your mindset seems dead against more than two mics.  Good luck finding recordings that fit your ideal, and I am willing to wager that they are vastly outnumbered by discrete Mch recordings.  Even in the '50's, RCA, Mercury and others were using 3 mics, which BTW sound noticeably better on their SACD remasters in 3.0 than in 2.0.   And, if additional mics for Mch in the hall are capable of capturing reflected hall ambience with proper directional cues, why are they a bad thing?  If they overcome stereo's known limitations to providing concert hall sound by providing more of the natural sonic information from the venue, why dismiss them? 

 

Ok, you have not heard these Mch recordings on a proper Mch system, so you imagine faults they must have simply because the idea offends you.  You are fully entitled to your views, as are we all, but yours would have more credibility if they were based on actual listening experience.

 

 

 

 

[semente]

47 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

The question of whether existing 5.1/7.1 Mch is too expensive is a personal decision.  Since clearly you have not heard it and its degree of improvement over the limitations of stereo, you seem to be relying on blind prejudice rather than experience in judging it. 

 

I have no doubt about the advantages of multi-channel just as I have no doubt that it's implementation is more expensive.

It's got nothing to do with personal decisions. Imagine a budget of say 10k; isn't it obvious that if you have to buy twice as many speakers and amplification these will be of lower performance? A Mch system will also need more floorspace than what is commonly available in European homes.

 

47 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

Your mindset seems dead against more than two mics.

 

 

I'm just being realistic. I can buy a better 2-channel system for the same amount and even though I'm a classical music listener I doubt that more than 2% of my ~2500 albums exists in Mch. Some (maybe a lot) or the music does exist but not the recordings of performances by my favourite artists.

It's OK for you because you only listen to recent recordings but I value artistic over sound quality.

[audiventory]

On 8/3/2018 at 10:59 AM, STC said:

as you can see here the so-called reverberation that can be constructed in the brain as you suggested requires external aid from many directions with aid of many speakers. 

 

I don't consider speakers. It's only tool to form wave rays. Number of speakers depend on speaker kind and room configuration and materials.

 

Anechoic room, like in the video by @semente makes task significantly easier. Main problem here, that each speaker radiate infinite number of rays in all directions. We can't capture and reproduce each ray. We can capture and radiate group of rays.

 

It is like monitor resolution.  If the sperical microphone will have infinite number of sub-microphones and speaker sphere will have infinite number of sub-speakers, we solve the sound hologram task almost ideal way.

Almost because radiated rays will re-bounced from speakers and listener. So speakers and listener should be unechoic. The spere in this case will closed/solid.

 

To solve the sound hologram creation task, we should not pay attention to channel number. I think, the task will solved other way on other physical bases.

 

 

 

 

On 8/3/2018 at 9:47 AM, STC said:

I have no idea what you referring to.  Have you listened to Amused to Death?  Looks like we are on a different wavelenght because most of what you have written is contrary to what I have read and implemented. Do you have a proper citation of the points you are trying to make here?  

 

The rays is one of bases to traditional wave theory of physics. It is universal for different wave kinds: electromagnetic, acoustical. I think, that wave theory get new development further, after new discoveries.

 

For sound capturing and reproduction we can consider acoustical oscillation spreading as the traditional rays.

 

Wave length define wave phase spread along the rays. Lesser frequency = longer length of oscillation period along ray.

 

Unfortunatelly I can't recommend good (easy for understanding) sources by wave theory, because I learn it so long time ago. Keywords "wave theory physics", may be "wave spreading".

 

Now I'm don't know how to implement acoustic hologram accuratelly. Even with professional manufacturing equipment.

 

It is subject of serious invention.

 

Closest task here is optical hologram. I'd recommend to learn it too.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I have no doubt about the advantages of multi-channel just as I have no doubt that it's implementation is more expensive.

It's got nothing to do with personal decisions. Imagine a budget of say 10k; isn't it obvious that if you have to buy twice as many speakers and amplification these will be of lower performance? A Mch system will also need more floorspace than what is commonly available in European homes.

 

 

I'm just being realistic. I can buy a better 2-channel system for the same amount and even though I'm a classical music listener I doubt that more than 2% of my ~2500 albums exists in Mch. Some (maybe a lot) or the music does exist but not the recordings of performances by my favourite artists.

It's OK for you because you only listen to recent recordings but I value artistic over sound quality.

Yes, cost is an absolute number, and often a Mch system would cost more than a stereo.  But, $10k to you might have very different significance to me.  In Annie Hall, the shrink asks Annie how many times a week they have sex.  Annie's says, oh, all the time, like 3 times a week.  Same shrink asks Woody, and he says, hardly at all, like 3 times a week. So, in that sense it is personal.   Also, if you look at things in terms of value - perceived benefits minus cost - it becomes even more of a subjective personal issue.

 

Long, long story: I have been a dedicated classical music lover, recording collector and audiophile for decades.  I was always seeking higher fidelity, a better replica of live concert hall sound.  I upgraded and upgraded trying to achieve that, but I always felt something was missing and that the upgrades were at best incremental, and something was still missing.  I also had some good friends who are prominent equipment reviewers for major magazines.  I heard their > $100k rave  review rigs, but something was still missing.  I attended limited VIP demos personally supervised by Dan D'Agostino,  Dave Wilson, etc., etc.  Same problem.  I have listened to $millions worth of stereos just over the past 20 years, but good as they were, they were still quite short of the elusive goal of concert hall sound.

 

Just over 10 years ago, my own stereo had an MSRP of over $50k using carefully selected and auditioned components.  But, I was ready to add HiDef TV, Bluray and Mch sound to make my system a hybrid stereo music system plus home theater.  I planned to continue music listening via stereo CD, but with added center + surround channels only for Mch from videos.  The main front channels would be shared, but my old stereo component chain would be unaffected by an HT prepro and universal player for video.

 

Just after system setup, I wanted to see how the Mch audio was sounding.   It was excellent with movies, but what about with music?   My  $169 Oppo player was intended for video, but it could also play SACD, in Mch even.  So, I bought a few SACDs for the first time, including the Mahler 6th with the Philadelphia Orchestra under Eschenbach.  I had been in the audience when it was recorded live a year or so earlier.  

 

I have heard many audiophiles extol some miraculous experience from upgrading their audio, but never completely credibly.  But, it did not take 30 seconds to realize I was hearing by far the greatest sonic improvement I have ever heard in my life, and by a huge margin.  I was so excited and almost speechless for days. All of a sudden, that missing element, an incredibly good replica of that ever elusive concert hall realism was there for me to enjoy.

 

My life changed dramatically as a result.  Listening to my old CDs via my old, pricey stereo frankly did not compare in listening trial after trial.  It was right there, side by side for AB testing, in the same room using the same amp and speakers as my new Mch rig.  I voraciously acquired hirez Mch discs, and I abandoned CD stereo.  I haven't bought one in over a decade.  My stereo-only front end - Levinson, Audio Research, Theta Digital, etc.  was all sold.  Miraculously, those sales yielded about the same $10k that the Mch audio upgrade had cost!  But, it would have easily been worth it to me in terms of sonic improvement even without recouping any of my investment in Mch.

 

Many things were learned in this upgrade.  Of course, the main thing was just how good Mch was, even from an incredibly cheap Oppo player.  The extraordinary power of DSP Room EQ - Audyssey then, Dirac Live now - was built into my HT prepro, another absolutely indispensable discovery of huge significance.  But, I also learned once and for all in spades that spending big bucks on stereo was just not achieving any significant strides toward better reproducing concert hall sound.  I have the good fortune to be able to continue to listen to prestige, high cost stereos.  They do not compare, in my view, to even much more modest Mch systems with discrete Mch source material.  Mch gives a plausible replica of live concert hall sound.  Stereo simply does not.

 

And, BTW, old, classic Reiner on RCA, Dorati on Mercury, etc.  do sound noticeably better in 3.0, as recorded, than as 2.0, as mixed down.  However, recordings made over the past 15 years or so in discrete hirez Mch are simply the best by far sonically 

I have ever encountered.

 

But, if you are stuck on old performances, meaning old recordings, then aspiring to live concert hall sound is just not gonna happen.

[GeneZ]

On 7/23/2018 at 5:03 AM, STC said:

We have seen many videos of audiophiles listening room. But the real sound recorded at you listening position in concert hall will sound like the video below. Ideally, our listening room too should sound like that when recorded at our sweet spot. Can this be done?

 

 

 

 

The only way you will experience the sensation of actually being in a concert hall will be to recreate the effects of a concert hall in your room.  

 

Its not about surround sound.  Its about having speakers behind you that will play the same music heard up front with its high frequencies abated, and having the sound reaching your ears at adjustable set delayed time from what you hear in front of you.  

 

Suddenly .. when done well... you will feel engulfed in what feels like one feels in a concert hall, or in a good sounding club room.  Two speakers in front can not produce that sensation.  At best, two speakers can only tell you that you are missing out on the concert hall effect.

 

Audio Pulse review.....   http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_12-1976_time-delay.html

[look&listen]

39 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

The only way you will experience the sensation of actually being in a concert hall will be to recreate the effects of a concert hall in your room.  

Recreate music & hall acoustics with good recording & good audio system  

 

40 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

Audio Pulse review.....

Sorry, hall sound already in good recordings, silly to push artificial effects over true sounds recording.

Only problem is sound of listening room. Care & treatments can minimize room effects. Then audiophile ear edit out room to focus attention on recorded sound.

 

[GeneZ]

46 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Recreate music & hall acoustics with good recording & good audio system  

 

Sorry, hall sound already in good recordings, silly to push artificial effects over true sounds recording.

Only problem is sound of listening room. Care & treatments can minimize room effects. Then audiophile ear edit out room to focus attention on recorded sound.

 

  I used sell high end audio.....   You have no idea what it feels, and sounds like, standing in a room and thinking you are at a live concert at the Fillmore East.  I am not going to argue with you about this.