Concert Hall sound

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Hey, doesn't that result in a better rendition of concert hall sound?

I suppose it's a bit like one of the venues here in town, Southampton Guildhall. Nice building, terrible acoustics. The interior is more or less a cube. Use your imagination.

[STC]

5 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

We agree.  I walked out on an advance demo of Amused to Death conducted by the remastering team in Mch.  The field of crickets was good.  But, the rest was mediocre sonically and, dare I say it, musically.  

 

Probably the the main reason Mch, while huge for home theater, is not more popular for music is because it cannot do much for multitrack mixes from acoustically dead studios or PA equipped concert rock music.  Yes, it can do "artistic" but synthetic panning effects to surround channels.  But, that hardly makes it a must have.  The novelty of that artificial "surround" effect loses luster, as on Dark Side of the Moon, probably the top selling Mch SACD.   I must say, though, that the two Allman Brothers, Quad-era remasters from live concerts - At the Filmore East and Eat a Peach - are really pretty good at capturing the sense of live rock, though from a fairly close in perspective.  They are my favorite Mch rock albums.  Terrific music, too, while the great Duane Allman was still alive.

 

But, looking at the available Mch music recordings on hraudio.net, it is clear that there is relatively much less rock or other genres and a whole lot of classical.  Classical is already a small niche in the market and Mch a niche within the niche.  Yet, discretely recorded classical Mch persists because some dedicated labels with excellent engineering and the small niche audience remain steadfastly loyal to it.  

 

And, the reason, of course, is not gimmicks.  The reason is it captures and reproduces a more faithful replica of live, natural  concert hall sound than stereo through the added sonic information in the additional, carefully arrayed channels.  It captures the hall and its effects on the sound the audience hears, whereas stereo of necessity must truncate and discard much of it, as already discussed.

 

I also wish STC much success and enjoyment in his synthetically augmented 72 channel setup.  I have not heard it or anything like it, except for 14.2 channel, discretely recorded Auro 3D, which was impressive, but not sufficiently so to make me want to embrace it or to change my love affair with 5.1/7.1 Mch.  It simply was not compelling enough to me.

 

Also, the thought of, not to mention the budget for, even a fraction of 72 channels does not appeal.  I don't see why the natural ambiance of the hall as captured by surround mics is insufficient, or how or why we need to synthesize some fantasy in our heads of a more perfect hall than the real thing.  I have no doubt the effect is striking, even if not real.  But, rather than tinkering with the setup and DSP adjustment of such a system, I'd rather be listening to some beautiful 5.1/7.1 discrete recordings with very good reproduction of natural concert hall sound.

 

I posted about QSound for a specific purpose. QSound is more of some sort of sound effect where it move the sound around you. It is pretty much useless for music. The effect and accurate placement of QSound can only materialize in a good stereo setup and a good room where the room’s spatial cues are uniform. The discussion was derailed by other started to comment about it. 

 

I have not heard MCH QSOUND. To my understanding QSound is meant for stereo. One my old receiver had QSurround which was meant for 5.1. It sounded horrible when I use them for non QSurround material. 

 

One the part where you don’t see how convolution ambiance can be more accurate than MCH, i suggest you visualize playing MCH in a better room. I am modifying the room not the source material. Convolution ambiance is all about modifying your environment and NOT the source material. 

[STC]

16 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Yes, without 5.1, I don't think there is any chance of remotely capturing that ambience.

 

Ambience is also in the front channel. Otherwise, people like LInn and Chesky will not be recording in places like a church. 

 

Rear ambiance produced by the rear speakers are just ambiance. It can be the same Hall ambience or another hall ambience. 

 

At least, now I see a few beginning to accept mch and the role of the rear channels ambiance. That’s progress for me. 

[GeneZ]

 

 

The difference...

 

With front speakers only...   we can hear that there is ambiance.

 

With time delay rear speakers?   we can hear and feel the ambiance.

 

With front speakers only...  we can hear it was in a concert hall.

 

With time delay rear speakers? .... we can believe we are in a concert hall. *

 

* (when done right)

[semente]

8 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

 

The difference...

 

With front speakers only...   we can hear that there is ambiance.

 

With time delay rear speakers?  We can hear and feel the ambiance.

Do you sit with your back against the rear speakers?

[GeneZ]

11 minutes ago, semente said:

Do you sit with your back against the rear speakers?

  Not necessarily....   Unless its a very small room, further back would most likely enhance the effect.

 

I listen nearfield at my desk.   If I set it up today?   I would want the speakers at least 5-7 feet behind me.   This is not surround sound. This is adjustable time delay.  The longer the delay is set the larger the room will sound.  But I would want the rear speakers to be further away as to have greater chance to have the "blend in effect" take place.

 

When I lived up north my listening room was different.  It was small.   It was analog and the notion of nearfield was not really in practice.   So I had the speakers about 7- feet away from me, and the delay speakers almost above me in the corners - very close.   I used enough delay to make the room sound large.. But, when you are right on top of the ambiance speakers you tend to hear the electronics more.   Just the same... Tony Bennett sound very much live in his famous Carnegie Hall concert.

[GeneZ]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

You got that right! Seems to me that most recordists these days aren't satisfied placing a microphone in front of the piano about 7-10 ft facing the open lid of a grand piano. NO, they have to put three or four mikes on a compression-pole (like on a pole lamp) and compress the thing inside the piano with he mikes spanning the strings from the bass end to the treble end then they pan those three or four mikes to the left for the bass end , the phantom middle channel for the middle strings and the treble strings are panned into the right channel. The result? Wall-to-wall piano so closely miked as to eliminate any sense of reality! Yeah, I always listen to a piano with my head stuck under the piano's lid, don't you? Doesn't everybody? GAD, do I hate that. Try Mario Martinez' recording of Angel Cabrera Playing Debussy if you want to hear a REAL sounding concert grand piano recorded correctly (the music's great too). 

http://www.playclassics.com/album6

 

 

 

I dislike what close miked instruments can sound like.   Its one reason I tend to dislike studio recordings and always preferred live performances caught on tape... digital.  

 

Back in the day they used to record sometimes with only a few mics in the room... and with tubes.  Those can be surprisingly good.  The records that always made me scratch my head back in the 70's...  Were the Jonathan Richman records on the Beserkley label.   They were the first recordings where I could sense front to back....  I was listening with excellent tube equipment back then (found used). Those records made me learn to like Jonathan.

(he was an acquired taste) ?  what was that?

[semente]

7 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

I dislike what close miked instruments can sound like.   Its one reason I tend to dislike studio recordings and always preferred live performances caught on tape... digital.  

 

Live recordings of rock are close-mic'ed too. There's hardly anything rock or pop that is not close-mic'ed...

Even the vocals of The Trinity Sessions were close-mic'ed then PA'ed into the church hall.

[GeneZ]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yeah, pretty much. Except that most of my music (except for the SACD discs) has been ripped to computer, so I don't generally have to "put a CD on"

My playback system?  Krell KAV300i integrated amplifier (at the moment) or Harman Kardon HK990, Sony SCD- XA777ES SACD/CD deck, Logitech Squeezebox Touch music server client, Benchmark DAC3 DX (at the moment), Schiit Yggdrasil DAC, Schiit Asgard2 headphone amp, JA Michell GyroDec turntable, Jelco JA-750 arm, Grado Master V2 Statement cartridge, Sumiko BlackBird Cartridge, Project Reference phono preamp, 2 - Martin-Logan Vista speakers, 2 - Athena PC-3E Subwoofers, Headphones: HiFiMan HE-1000 v.2, HiFiMan Edition -X v.2, HiFiMan HE-560, HiFiMan HE-400s. Macintosh MacBOOK Pro with 1 TB SSD and 8 gigs of DRAM as a dedicated music system computer, 1- 30-Amp isolation transformer/mains filter.  I think that's everything.

Recording system: Korg MR-2000 desktop DSD recorder, Kong MR1 portable DSD recorder, Otari DTR-8S DAT recorder, Midas DM-16 mixer, Behringer 2222USB mixer, 2- Neumann U-87s, 1-Avantone CK-40 Stereo Multi-Pattern FET Microphone, 2- Behringer Pro-1B microphones. Stereo Pair of Behringer C2 "lipstick" mikes. 2- Røde NT1 microphones, approximately 1200 ft of XLR microphone cable Mostly hand-made using Belden cable and various lengths of Mogami Microphone cable. 1 Pair of Koss PRo-4A isolating monitoring headphones. Assorted euro-stands one Atlas boom stand (for the Avantone Stereo microphone) and various accessories like cable testers, oscillators, transformer matrix system for MS miking. Etc. MacBOOK Pro with Audacity.

No, not all systems are equal! Mine is super revealing and extremely accurate in that my own recordings sound, on my, system as I remember hearing them at the recording venue.  Neither my playback nor my recording system have any "mouse milk" products. No boutique interconnect cables, no fancy big-as-a-baby's arm mains cords, not "audiophile fuses", no fancy XLR cables from Kimber, AudioQuest, Nordost, Crystal et al., no speaker cable elevators, no myrtle-wood blocks on top of amplifiers no cryogenically treated clocks plugged into my mains, 

 

 

 

  That is hardly equal to what others listen with.  

 

I do not believe any two systems sound the same.  Yet, different systems can share attributes when the combination of things luck out.

[GeneZ]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Live recordings of rock are close-mic'ed too. There's hardly anything rock or pop that is not close-mic'ed...

Even the vocals of The Trinity Sessions were close-mic'ed then PA'ed into the church hall.

 

 

These are the kind of recordings I look for....

 

 

 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

 

These are the kind of recordings I look for....

 

 

 

 

Yep, mics all over the stage, very close to the sound sources. I wonder if they use a pair for ambience, doubt it though.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, semente said:

 

Did he listen to your system?

 

No, he listed what he felt was lacking at one stage with the sound of his setup - in terms that I could relate to; this gives me the information to start making suggestions.

 

What can be achieved is that the sense of aliveness is felt with every recording - irrespective of how it was recorded, it is effortless to make a connection with the musicians and musical content therein. The worst thing with how much audio replay sounds is that it's like visiting a dusty old museum of relics - curious artifacts of the past, that never engage one at a strong emotional level - if I can't feel the "guts" in the music then I see no point in the listening.

[GeneZ]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

ROTFL!

 

B&O stuff generally has a very sleek exterior. The interior is another story. Among the messiest I've seen. Like who the hell places the mains transformer on the opposite side from the power lead entry point? And then runs the AC wires not in a straight line, but all the way around the main circuit boards, right past the most sensitive parts.

  

That was circa 1972-78... those days when everyone used zip wire and thin gauged double pronged power cords. And cheap interconnects...  Believe me. Some things sounded better than others.  But,  nothing like today. 

 

Yet, in spite of all that?   I located a used Mac 275 and C20.  Had them refurbished.  Very nice for its day.  But, I prefer what I am listening to today.  Background hum  and hiss was considered as part of the sound in many systems back then!     I forgot. You are not that old..

[GeneZ]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

ROTFL!

  Since you knee jerk stereo type me?  ....  It reflects upon you.  

 

I learned various aspects in how the industry works being on the other side of the door.  Reps helped at times with advice that a salesman would not have... and the advice did not have to be about their own product.

[GeneZ]

14 hours ago, semente said:

 

That's because americans had never heard about football...

 

  That explains why he would be all over the stage awhile moving with the grace of a gazelle.   He was visually as impressive as with his voice ... that delighted us to hear.  Not to mention that the Jeff Beck group was simply jaw dropping great!  I preferred what I heard that night easily over when I heard with Hendrix live.   Their sound man deserved to be on the credits.  Tried finding out who it was but nothing came up.

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, GeneZ said:

OK got it.  Classic equipment... but lousy interconnects?     Ever drive a Mercedes AMG or  BMW3 on store brand tires?    It would be foolish,  wouldn't it.

Yes, that would be foolish, but your analogy is flawed. Cheap, store brand tires might or might not compromise grip, depending on who made them for the store. I remember years ago, Sears & Roebuck's Allstate brand tires were made for them by Michelin and were steel-belted radials. They were considerably cheaper than the exact same Michelin branded tire. But I get your drift. Poor tires can adversely affect a car's handling and perhaps its safety.  On the other hand, Interconnects merely conduct signals from one component to the other. In the lengths that most audiophiles use them (about 2 meters max) they have ZERO effect on the signal passing through them. A cheap, but well made cables from places like mycablemart.com or Blue Jeans will sound exactly a $2000 pair of Nordost Valhalla II. Good thing too. Could you imagine what a can of worms it would open if one spent thousands of dollars on interconnects only to find out that they made their system sound worse?!!! Luckily, our imaginations make sure that all expensive cables improve the sound of most audiophile's systems immensely! Ah the joys of expectational bias. "I spent a fortune on these interconnects, by God and by Jesus, they BETTER sound a lot better than what I'm replacing them with..... and whaddya know, they do! Me, I'll stick with inexpensive, well constructed interconnects that use real RG-59U cable and well fitting gold platted RCAs I get 'em from mycablemart.

7 hours ago, GeneZ said:

A rather expensive system like you have?   The cables should be pennies in comparison.   It does not make any sense.  You are holding back the greatness of what you have based on some stubborn principle?   I would not buy those 200 fuses neither.  I paid 59.00 for what sounds fantastic.  https://www.vhaudio.com/hifi-tuning.html     You will not need better.

Let me restate. In my considerable experience, expensive interconnects, IMHO,  have no sound and are a waste of money. I know that you and others believe otherwise, but I have not found that Interconnects make any difference whatsoever. And those who think that they do, would be better off spending their money on a graphic equalizer. At least then they could really control the sound of their system.

 

The only place that I use balanced cables are my microphone cables and I need too many of them that are too long to be that fussy. I value reliability in my mike cables. Nothing worse than getting ready to make a recording only to find that one of your mike cables has failed! Can't afford to have that happen. 

7 hours ago, GeneZ said:

Here is a picture of my topless desktop when stripped down... look behind the speakers for what looks like plain cheap cord running over to the components.   Click on several times to blow up its size.  Looks like crap. Right?  But sounds wonderfully truthful.

 

Looks do not impress me when I can get sound like litz can uniquely give.  Don't try to use litz as a tone control. They are as neutral as I have ever heard.  Its why I went with WyWires for my balanced cables.   Same simple truthfulness in signal transfer.  I found some used ... scapped them right up!   Entry level Blue version.

That's pretty damned impressive looking. I especially like the monkey bars you have those speakers attached to. What are the speakers and what is that gymnastic set  they are mounted on? I've never seen anything like that before in my life! Do you have subwoofers somewhere else in the room? 

For speaker cable, I'm using Sewell Direct's "Silverback" speaker cables: 12 Gauge, 259 strand, Oxygen-free copper terminated with incredible quality banana plugs. Sewell has a video on their site that shows a guy picking a speaker about the size of those in your photo by the cable, and the banana plugs holding! The banana plugs - on each end - are the only place I still use Stabiant 22A. I figure they can probably use the help. Not that I can hear any difference, but bit does make feel better about the connections. You know, the ol' placebo effect?!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

 

These are the kind of recordings I look for....

 

 

 

That close miking started with Rudy Van Gelder and the dawn of stereo recording in jazz. When rock started recording in stereo about a decade later, they figured that rock was more like jazz than like a string quartet, so they adopted the close-miked three-channel mono methodology of Van Gelder. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, GeneZ said:

I learned various aspects in how the industry works being on the other side of the door.  Reps helped at times with advice that a salesman would not have... and the advice did not have to be about their own product.

 

I was a victim of armchair critics. People who profess expertise without any sort of hands-on experience and often imposing their views based on expertise in a non-related field. In forums, it is hard to share your experience or even suggest something different from the norm as they would be quickly shut off by irrelevant posts and snide remarks. That actually cost me about ten years of my audiophile life chasing the wrong things. Cables didn't help. These armchair critics will always be in this industry as it is hard to rebut them in a very subjective hobby. Often many newcomers either adopt "if you can't beat them join them" strategy or opt out of the forum or the hobby. Some keep them private. 

 

Stereo is never adequate for a full orchestra music. I am only referring to the concert hall sound. ( Armchair critics like to mix up this with studio recordings which actually meant be listen as it is). Anyone with stereo and actual concert hall exposure will know the difference. After years of familiarizing yourself with stereo sound, you somehow have the ability to fill in the missing cues and often feel satisfied with the stereo sound. That is understandable as our hearing evolves and adjust quickly to changes. An example - a neighbour bought a Harley Davidson a couple of years ago. To warm up the bike he usually let the engine running for a few minutes. The sound from the engine/exhaust will reach our home from the right side. It was going on for a couple of days but we couldn't locate the bike as none of the two houses on the right had a bike. Later it emerged, the neighbor who bought the bike was actually on the right side of our house. It was a curious incident for me as a person who loves sound because my ears couldn't localize the sound correctly. So much for the audiophile label. None in the house could but I believe the angle where he parked the bike and the exhaust pointing directly to our outer right boundary wall reflected the sound and made it to appear as if it was coming from the right. However, once we knew where the motorbike was, we now instinctively hear the sound coming from the left and it is no longer heard from the right.  Things are still the same for new visitors, they hear them from the right.

 

To summarize the above para, stereo or multichannel does not contain all the room's cues but due to our past exposure, our brain is just filling in the gaps. It is possible that you may genuinely feel that the playback was capable of recreating the actual event. But what's disappointing is when people who swore that stereo was enough in past but subsequently changed their mind after listening to a proper multichannel format still insisting on being an armchair critic by passing an opinion on why another method would not work. They didn't know what MCH could do before but somehow now they insist other methods would not work. Maybe, when box set of such application becomes a reality then they probably will change the stance.

 

Whatever method I am advocating here wasn't simply pulled off from some dark hole. It was based on proper research and ongoing papers. It is based on science and there are theory and experiment that prove this. Instead of being armchair critics why not address the actual research and the papers itself?  Armchair critics can start here . 

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, GeneZ said:

That is hardly equal to what others listen with.  

You're right it's more natural sounding than most. My recordings sound, on my system, just like the original ensembles sounded when I was recording them. I don't know (or care) about anybody else, but that impresses the hell outa me! Also great recordings such as Mario Martinez' solo recording of Angel Cabrera playing Debussy on a Steinway Concert Grand sounds so real that I have to remind myself that it's a recording and that there is NO steinway in my living room!

 

And looking at your system, as you've listed it, people who live in glass houses, probably shouldn't throw rocks!

[GeneZ]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You're right it's more natural sounding than most. My recordings sound, on my system, just like the original ensembles sounded when I was recording them. I don't know (or care) about anybody else, but that impresses the hell outa me! Also great recordings such as Mario Martinez' solo recording of Angel Cabrera playing Debussy on a Steinway Concert Grand sounds so real that I have to remind myself that it's a recording and that there is NO steinway in my living room!

 

And looking at your system, as you've listed it, people who live in glass houses, probably shouldn't throw rocks!

Not throwing rocks at all.   You just confessed what I was hoping you would admit to.

 

That being...    You are in no position to know what another system will sound like with a change like was being spoken of. 

[GeneZ]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

On the other hand, Interconnects merely conduct signals from one component to the other. In the lengths that most audiophiles use them (about 2 meters max) they have ZERO effect on the signal passing through them.

 On your system its that way.

 

Its not always their imagination when others do hear differences.  That is when  you get very self righteous. Various interconnects can and do sound different in how they effect the signal.  If you want to believe they don't?  Then on your system they don't.

 

Why not simply say? "On my system they make no difference."   I'm fine with that.  But, when you begin saying others are imagining hearing things if they say they do?  I wonder how you can say that?   When you have told us you refuse to try the other cables to know if its true.

 

And, how fuses make no difference when you refuse to try them?  Something is not logical - nor fair - when you denigrate others without any attempt to verify on your part. 

 

For a while I thought maybe you had tried fuses and cables and heard no difference.  Now,  you are letting us know you never bothered.   Then its just prejudice and bigotry in an audiophile sense you manifest towards others. 

 

 

[GeneZ]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That close miking started with Rudy Van Gelder and the dawn of stereo recording in jazz. When rock started recording in stereo about a decade later, they figured that rock was more like jazz than like a string quartet, so they adopted the close-miked three-channel mono methodology of Van Gelder. 

 Close miking to me is when I see the mics right near the top of every drum head..... Its potentially the worst possible place to hear a drum from and requires unnatural muffling to record .  Drums sound most realistic when heard out and away from them in a room.  One exception when recording is close miking a bass drum, because its usually very muffled anyway. 

 

 

 

[GeneZ]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

I was a victim of armchair critics. People who profess expertise without any sort of hands-on experience and often imposing their views based on expertise in a non-related field. In forums, it is hard to share your experience or even suggest something different from the norm as they would be quickly shut off by irrelevant posts and snide remarks. That actually cost me about ten years of my audiophile life chasing the wrong things. Cables didn't help.

 

Cables are the frosting on the cake. Not the cake.  We need to find out how to make the cake right first.

[STC]

22 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

Close miking to me is when I see the mics right near the top of every drum head..... Its potentially the worst possible place to hear a drum from and requires unnatural muffling to record .  Drums sound most realistic when heard out and away from them in a room.  One exception when recording is close miking a bass drum, because its usually very muffled anyway. 

 

 

 The bottom line is to capture the sound so that the playback will sound as natural and realistic as possible. The end product may have gone through many stages of mixing but what matters is how the sound to your ears when the sound from the speakers reaches your ears. I have a DPA SACD of same piano rendition with different mics and position and there is no one correct answer as different person person prefer different mic/arrangements sound.

 

[STC]

8 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

Cables are the frosting on the cake. Not the cake.  We need to find out how to make the cake right first.

 

I am not a cable believer. But now, I would say sometimes it is possible.

 

IMO, based on what I have done and observed, I think the different some users may hear in the system in the first place was usually due using cables with high capacitance or inductance. These cables are usually long together with the amplifier and speakers play a role. With a 12 foot  Audioquest speaker cables with 250Watter Classe Audio amplifier driving the easy to drive Harbeth, I never really heard any difference until I used the same cable and amplifier to drive the low impedance (certain frequencies) Sound Lab electrostatics speakers. I didn't do proper blind test but when I replaced the Audioquest with Kimber or Cardas, it made a different. I then got low inductance Mogami cables about 80cm and the HF improved further. 

 

However, when I need to move the speakers and the 80cm speakers cables were too short, I replaced them with a 14AWG zip cord type off the shelves speaker cables and I did not hear any difference.  In my case, I think it was the unusual characteristic of the cables, length, difficult to drive speakers made the difference. Once again, I didn't do a proper blind test but just stating what could be one of the reasons why some might perceive difference with cables.