Concert Hall sound

[gmgraves]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Why part of what recreation of ambience is difficult for you to understand? The original playback is not alter. What’s altered is the room. All the ambiance speakers with convolution using a real concert hall is a separate sound entity that just layers on the original recording. 

STC, this looks like a complete non-sequitur to me. What does it have to do with "Holt's Law"? (which I was responding to Semente's comment on how most audiophile discs have less than preprocessing performances.

[gmgraves]

44 minutes ago, STC said:

 

George, I know you since the days you were known as Audio Empire . Instead of being skeptical and and making one line comment why not you start to offer something solid. Perhaps you can start with a sample recording of you which you often claim capable of making them 3D.  It is hard to believe , that all this years you have no samples of your own to show. 

 

If you disagree, please start giving your insight about the wrongs in the various research papers submitted by Farina, Glasgal and others. Maybe, you can start with the thesis that I linked earlier. 

I'm sorry STC, But I don't know what you are talking about. When I say 3D, I mean that on a good system, true stereo recordings will give the listener cues that establish right, left, center, depth and height. IOW, one can close their eyes and pick out exactly where each instrument is in space. That is to say, not just left to right, one can pan-pot individually miked instruments into those positions. But only true stereo can do pinpoint left-to-right and give cues that put some instruments behind others and some instruments up on risers in the extreme back of the ensemble with triangles floating over the heads of the percussion section on the left, just as they sound at a concert. I don't deal with ambience because I'm strictly a two-channel man whatever ambience is present in my recordings is picked up by the main microphones. 

I don't have any problems these various research papers you cite because I haven't read them. And I do have samples of recordings of my own that I could post If I so desire. And I have done just that for several members of this forum. But not everybody. 

Frankly I have no Idea what your beef is with me, and to be honest, while I'm sorry that you harbor Ill will toward me, that's as far as it goes. I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it. 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Yeah, you're right. It was gorgeous piece of modern furniture. And it still looks good. But how did it sound? I've never heard one. 

I am afraid that my exposure to it was too long ago for any substantive recall.  I do remember it sounding better than I expected at the time.

[STC]

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

STC, this looks like a complete non-sequitur to me. What does it have to do with "Holt's Law"? (which I was responding to Semente's comment on how most audiophile discs have less than preprocessing performances.

 

I was commenting about equating what's in recording and hall ambiance. The part of diverting this post to an irrelevant subject. The idea of adding ambiance surround is to make any kind of recordings to sound more realistic than what they are.

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I'm sorry STC, But I don't know what you are talking about. When I say 3D, I mean that on a good system, true stereo recordings will give the listener cues that establish right, left, center, depth and height. IOW, one can close their eyes and pick out exactly where each instrument is in space. That is to say, not just left to right, one can pan-pot individually miked instruments into those positions. But only true stereo can do pinpoint left-to-right and give cues that put some instruments behind others and some instruments up on risers in the extreme back of the ensemble with triangles floating over the heads of the percussion section on the left, just as they sound at a concert. I don't deal with ambience because I'm strictly a two-channel man whatever ambience is present in my recordings is picked up by the main microphones. 

I don't have any problems these various research papers you cite because I haven't read them. And I do have samples of recordings of my own that I could post If I so desire. And I have done just that for several members of this forum. But not everybody. 

Frankly I have no Idea what your beef is with me, and to be honest, while I'm sorry that you harbor Ill will toward me, that's as far as it goes. I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it. 

 

Which part don't you understand? My reference to  Audio Empire? If that's so let me know so that I can be more specific.

 

On your other part of your explanation,  about 3D sound, you can never hear 3D over the speakers without crosstalk cancellation.  So when equating 3D sound with eyes closed is just a poor description of the real sound of someone who never heard of real 3D sound.

 

Let's forget about sound over loudspeakers so that you get the proper description of the 3D sound. Firstly, a 3D sound is the real sound. You should able to hear them as they are without the need to close your eyes. A binaural recording is a 3D sound but it can be accurately reproduced (more or less but never exactly) via headphones only. It can never sound 3D over stereo loudspeakers unless you use crosstalk cancellation. Can we at least agree that whatever description of 3D sound you claim are capable of making cannot exist because it can only be made with binaural microphones?

 

 

With a proper setup with crosstalk cancellation and surround ambiance, 3D sounds like the first 30 seconds in this video over the loudspeakers. Yes, that's how it sounds in my system if I play any ordinary good natural stereo recording. Can you see the difference before talking about 3D sound that you hear with your eyes closed?

 

I am talking about mono, stereo or any known format. Don't get confused. I am telling I can make your own recording to sound better than how it sounds in your system because I am playing them in an ideal room where I could control the reverbs to match the real RT of the venue you record plus with XTC, it is binaural over loudspeakers. So please don't say your recording sound 3D because a 3D supposed to sound like how a binaural recording sounds over the headphones. Your reference of 3D sound is mere ignorance. It is like reviewers describing the Sony Trinitron colour television in the 70s that the display is lifelike and 3 dimensional. They actually advertised so.

 

I have no ill harbour against you or anyone. I will usually let go of the disagreement the moment I exits this thread. I am just pointing out that you are still stuck in the past and making comments without knowing what 3D is about. It is as old as your stance during the Audio Empire era.

 

 

[STC]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

But what if you been around this kind of research into sound as I have and you still prefer corner located stereo placement? Paul Klipsch wrote the proof in 1958. I learned about in 1970.  Ken Kessler considered it a massive rebuttal to everything audiophiles hold dear in his review of the Paul Klipsch biography in Listener 2002.

 

I am not. I am just interested in the many research done specifically for musical reproduction. My interest is just to bring the realism. Some say change cables.-I did. Change player - I did. Change power supply - I did. Float the cable - I did.  I can carry on and say I did to almost anything suggested here.

 

I also talked about lifelike performance with stereo. I have said it sounded so real that I have said I turned my head to see if so someone really came into the room. Yes, all the 3D sound some claim to exist in the stereo over loudspeakers was also perceived by me at one stage of my life. Then the reality sank in. It was never real enough. I heard proper binaural recordings and realized stereo will never sound like a binaural recordings (only when listened with headphones and not to be confused listening them over loudspeakers). 

 

Going back to your question, why are you saying that I prefer corner located stereo placement? Please point to me where I said that. The picture in the avatar of mine would showed that my speakers are in the middle and appear as one.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I knew someone once in the late sixties who had a gorgeous oiled walnut pair of classic Klipschorns corner horns. I agree that the soundstage could be breathtaking and the bass was prodigious, but unfortunately, the Klipsch-es didn't sound very good. In the early seventies i met a guy who would become a good friend, who had a pair of ElectroVoice Corner enclosures. They were not folded horns like the Klipsch, but were, rather, bass reflex. In spite of  15" woofers, they didn't have much bass below about 40 Hz. and they had an 8" midrange(!), an upper mirage exponential horn and a horn tweeter. He drove the speakers with a pair of 25-Watt Heathkit Williamson circuit power amps and a pair of those ugly gold painted early Heathkit preamps - a true dual-mono system! Again nice soundstage, Pretty poor sound. In those days, the worlds best speakers were probably the Quad ESL57s the KLH ESL model 9s and the AR 3-Ax and the KLH knockoffs of the AR acoustic suspension principle. Not terribly much quality or choice. Not like today. Of course if you had the coin, you could buy one of those beautiful Altec Lansing oiled-walnut Danish modern cadenza-like system with the curved "panoramic" front on it called the Paragon. But even in 1964, that puppy was around US$2000 (that would be $20K or more in today's worthless currency)!. Never heard one though. but it sure was beautiful:

 

Well when I stopped being a consultant in the broadcasting industry 30 years ago I got a pair of Heresy II speakers for my home system and haven't looked back since.  The JBL Paragon sounded pretty good as I remember.

[Rt66indierock]

25 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I am not. I am just interested in the many research done specifically for musical reproduction. My interest is just to bring the realism. Some say change cables.-I did. Change player - I did. Change power supply - I did. Float the cable - I did.  I can carry on and say I did to almost anything suggested here.

 

I also talked about lifelike performance with stereo. I have said it sounded so real that I have said I turned my head to see if so someone really came into the room. Yes, all the 3D sound some claim to exist in the stereo over loudspeakers was also perceived by me at one stage of my life. Then the reality sank in. It was never real enough. I heard proper binaural recordings and realized stereo will never sound like a binaural recordings (only when listened with headphones and not to be confused listening them over loudspeakers). 

 

Going back to your question, why are you saying that I prefer corner located stereo placement? Please point to me where I said that. The picture in the avatar of mine would showed that my speakers are in the middle and appear as one.

 

I'm saying I prefer corner locations not you sorry for any confusion. Here's where I start. Play Pet Sounds. If it doesn't come at you as wall of sound I'm done. I'm writing an article about the MQA version Pet Sounds failing to do this.

[STC]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I'm saying I prefer corner locations not you sorry for any confusion. Here's where I start. Play Pet Sounds. If it doesn't come at you as wall of sound I'm done. I'm writing an article about the MQA version Pet Sounds failing to do this.

 

I will listen to them and let you know later. Never played them for a few years.

 

But again, you are still describing the best sound of a conventional stereo playback. I know it is hard to believe or visualize how different it could be but the difference is as I showed in the video a couple of post ago. 

[Rt66indierock]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I will listen to them and let you know later. Never played them for a few years.

 

But again, you are still describing the best sound of a conventional stereo playback. I know it is hard to believe or visualize how different it could be but the difference is as I showed in the video a couple of post ago. 

 

My point is I don't want Pet Sounds to sound different. I want it as Brian Wilson intended. One of the problems of our conversation is much of the music I like was not created live it is series of tracks mixed together.

[STC]

8 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

My point is I don't want Pet Sounds to sound different. I want it as Brian Wilson intended. One of the problems of our conversation is much of the music I like was not created live it is series of tracks mixed together.

 

That's what I have been advocating. We the listeners should have control to make them to sound as how it was intended to sound or how to we prefer them. You should have the option.  You should have the option to hear them in a perfect stereo, or mono or with XTC, or all of these combination with different room ambience. One recording - but with your preferred option. Put the option there and choose whatever floats your boat. If you think that Brian Wilson's preference should be imposed on you than that how you should listen to them. If you prefer it slightly different than that's your right. The point is don't limit yourself with one option. Have the different options and choose what's best to you and NOT what's best for Brian. Are you listening for your satisfaction or for Brian's satisfaction? 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

My point is I don't want Pet Sounds to sound different. I want it as Brian Wilson intended. One of the problems of our conversation is much of the music I like was not created live it is series of tracks mixed together.

 

It's interesting that musicians themselves often seem to be a lot less doctrinaire than their fans (Miles Davis recorded Cyndi Lauper and Michael Jackson songs; John Lennon enjoyed disco and co-wrote a funk tune - Fame - with David Bowie).

 

I like both Smokey Robinson and John Lennon singing You Really Got A Hold On Me.  I love Pet Sounds in the original mono, and in a couple of the (I thought very well done) remastered stereo versions that have come out.

 

But that's me, you're you, and de gustibus non disputandum est.

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, Jud said:

 

It's interesting that musicians themselves often seem to be a lot less doctrinaire than their fans (Miles Davis recorded Cyndi Lauper and Michael Jackson songs; John Lennon enjoyed disco and co-wrote a funk tune - Fame - with David Bowie).

 

I like both Smokey Robinson and John Lennon singing You Really Got A Hold On Me.  I love Pet Sounds in the original mono, and in a couple of the (I thought very well done) remastered stereo versions that have come out.

 

But that's me, you're you, and de gustibus non disputandum est.

 

I'm not doctrinaire I just prefer the wall of sound versions when that's what the original release was. A just for fun I got McCoy Tyler's Neighbors on my computer speakers instead of my office system. I still get chills when he sings "who really cares what the neighbors all think." 

[STC]

Can't help noticing that why audiophiles are so obsessed with assuming that the setup must reflect what the producer intended. Never heard anyone playing without tweeters because that's how Beethoven would have perceived the sound  during the middle period due to his deafness. And probably no sound for his last few composition where he was almost deaf. 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Of course if you had the coin, you could buy one of those beautiful (Altec Lansing) oiled-walnut Danish modern cadenza-like system with the curved "panoramic" front on it called the Paragon. But even in 1964, that puppy was around US$2000 (that would be $20K or more in today's worthless currency)!. Never heard one though. but it sure was beautiful:

 

 

 

To skip the boring bits, go to 14:00 ...

 

[esldude]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I knew someone once in the late sixties who had a gorgeous oiled walnut pair of classic Klipschorns corner horns. I agree that the soundstage could be breathtaking and the bass was prodigious, but unfortunately, the Klipsch-es didn't sound very good. In the early seventies i met a guy who would become a good friend, who had a pair of ElectroVoice Corner enclosures. They were not folded horns like the Klipsch, but were, rather, bass reflex. In spite of  15" woofers, they didn't have much bass below about 40 Hz. and they had an 8" midrange(!), an upper mirage exponential horn and a horn tweeter. He drove the speakers with a pair of 25-Watt Heathkit Williamson circuit power amps and a pair of those ugly gold painted early Heathkit preamps - a true dual-mono system! Again nice soundstage, Pretty poor sound. In those days, the worlds best speakers were probably the Quad ESL57s the KLH ESL model 9s and the AR 3-Ax and the KLH knockoffs of the AR acoustic suspension principle. Not terribly much quality or choice. Not like today. Of course if you had the coin, you could buy one of those beautiful Altec Lansing oiled-walnut Danish modern cadenza-like system with the curved "panoramic" front on it called the Paragon. But even in 1964, that puppy was around US$2000 (that would be $20K or more in today's worthless currency)!. Never heard one though. but it sure was beautiful:

I've heard K-horns sound pretty awful and horn-like in the worst sense a few times. 

 

I've heard them sound excellent in 4 given setups.  One was an older historical home with 12 ft ceilings in a wide deep living room.  The speakers could be properly placed in the corners, and you could sit rather far from them.  Nice not holographic soundstage.  Not much evidence of honk or horn sound at all.  Most impressive dynamics with a sense of huge power with no strain.  

 

Another someone had gutted their entire basement and finished it for these speakers.  9 ft ceilings in a 34 x 72 ft listening room on a concrete floor and all below ground level with concrete walls.  Sounded much like the description above. 

 

Another a fellow put a double wide trailer in his backyard emptied except for his K-horn based audio system.  So a long narrow large listening area.  He had built reinforced corners for the speakers.  This was a strange solution.  The fellow had a upscale home with a double-wide in the back for his music room.  

 

The 4th one was different.  A discotheque had a very tall ceiling.  4 K-horns properly placed in large corners of the ceiling (hidden behind black grill cloth).  Powered by a NAD receiver and sounding pretty terrific.  But the clean, strain free dynamics were most noticeable.  

 

In two of those I was able to use a Tact Room EQ just to see what would happen.  All the good attributes were there, all traces of horn sound (which wasn't much) were completely gone.  I would say the K-horns lacked the smoothness to let inner detail shine forth.  Using the EQ fixed that.  You had a highly detailed, powerful, dynamic speaker without too many complaints.  I would even say it gave sound that subjectively seemed to have exceptionally low distortion this way.  

 

I know the market for Horns is not one that is amicable with DSP.  Horns could be made much better with DSP.  

[semente]

 

AMBIPUR - making stereo great again!!!

[semente]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

ve heard K-horns sound pretty awful and horn-like in the worst sense a few times. 

 

Klipsches are a bit crude as horns go.

But building a pair of improved khorns is a project that I am saving for retirement.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, STC said:

Can't help noticing that why audiophiles are so obsessed with assuming that the setup must reflect what the producer intended. Never heard anyone playing without tweeters because that's how Beethoven would have perceived the sound  during the middle period due to his deafness. And probably no sound for his last few composition where he was almost deaf. 

But Beethoven's intentions weren't to hear it as he did.  He still had in mind how it would sound to other people.  And wrote his music in that context.  

[esldude]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Klipsches are a bit crude as horns go.

But building a pair of improved khorns is a project that I am saving for retirement.

Yes they are, but they do work in a basic sense.  I think the DSP cleaned up some of the rough edges.  Better horn contours and such would of course reduce or eliminate the need to clean it up.  

 

So what are some improvements you envision?

[STC]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

But Beethoven's intentions weren't to hear it as he did.  He still had in mind how it would sound to other people.  And wrote his music in that context.  

 

And some insist to hear them like how they intended it to sound. I am still trying to figure it out how is that even possible. I can place the instruments and expect such to reproduced approximately what I hear. But everything else is just should be just approximation. That reminds me one producer things that the accurate sound can only be reproduced used the same Genelac speakers used for the production. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

And some insist to hear them like how they intended it to sound. I am still trying to figure it out how is that even possible. I can place the instruments and expect such to reproduced approximately what I hear. But everything else is just should be just approximation. That reminds me one producer things(thinks?) that the accurate sound can only be reproduced used the same Genelac speakers used for the production. 

Well if you go that far you'll need to recreate his studio too.  

 

It is like some musicians do classical music with only old instruments available back then or in a tuning other than 440 hz because it was the custom when certain pieces were written.  There is room for all kinds.  

 

Yet most musicians care about none of that.  Any hifi that more or less gets the 100-5khz range sort of close so they can hear the music and the musician is all they need or care. 

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

I was commenting about equating what's in recording and hall ambiance. The part of diverting this post to an irrelevant subject. The idea of adding ambiance surround is to make any kind of recordings to sound more realistic than what they are.

My comment to Semente was merely an aside to his off-subject remark about the quality of so-called audiophile recordings. There's no intention to "hijack" the thread. And that still doesn't address your confusing and non-sequitur remark to that post 

Quote

 

 

Which part don't you understand? My reference to  Audio Empire? If that's so let me know so that I can be more specific.

I don't understand your belligerence to others who don't have any real interest in multi-channel surround sound.

Quote

 

On your other part of your explanation,  about 3D sound, you can never hear 3D over the speakers without crosstalk cancellation.  So when equating 3D sound with eyes closed is just a poor description of the real sound of someone who never heard of real 3D sound.

Tell that to all the people who have heard my recordings on my system and had their jaws drop at the palpability of the sound stage and image specificity. 

Quote

 

Let's forget about sound over loudspeakers so that you get the proper description of the 3D sound. Firstly, a 3D sound is the real sound. You should able to hear them as they are without the need to close your eyes. A binaural recording is a 3D sound but it can be accurately reproduced (more or less but never exactly) via headphones only. It can never sound 3D over stereo loudspeakers unless you use crosstalk cancellation. Can we at least agree that whatever description of 3D sound you claim are capable of making cannot exist because it can only be made with binaural microphones?

One doesn't need to close one's eyes, it just helps one to focus on what the sound stage where the musicians are looks like, Some people who visit me close their eyes and other don't. It's irrelevant really, But if it helps with people's illusion (thats all reproduced sound, at best, anyway: and illusion,)

 

No we can't agree "that whatever description of 3D sound you claim are capable of making cannot exist because it can only be made with binaural microphones?" because Binaural sound is for headphones. On speakers it doesn't image right at all. I have a pair of JVC binaural mikes embedded in a flocked styrofoam head. I've made many binaural recordings. I stopped because you can't get the recordings to sound right over speakers.

Don't believe me? Go to:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3

Scroll down to the 2018 Proms. Scroll down to "show all" link and the scroll down to PROMS-1 and look for the headphone icon and listen to Vaughan Williams "Toward the Unknown Region" and listen first binaurally on headphones, and then again listen to the same binaural recording on speakers. You should get what I'm talking about. 

 

Quote

 

 

With a proper setup with crosstalk cancellation and surround ambiance, 3D sounds like the first 30 seconds in this video over the loudspeakers. Yes, that's how it sounds in my system if I play any ordinary good natural stereo recording. Can you see the difference before talking about 3D sound that you hear with your eyes closed?

Bah, eyes closed or open, it's the same thing. Why don't you try listening to a stereo track made with some kind of true stereo pair. Doesn't matter: Blumlein, A-B, X-Y, ORTF, Mittle-Seit (MS) it makes no difference, Just don't try it with spaced-omnis ala Mercury or early stereo RCA Red Seal This does not give a phase coherent recording.  

Quote

 

I am talking about mono, stereo or any known format. Don't get confused. I am telling I can make your own recording to sound better than how it sounds in your system because I am playing them in an ideal room where I could control the reverbs to match the real RT of the venue you record plus with XTC, it is binaural over loudspeakers. So please don't say your recording sound 3D because a 3D supposed to sound like how a binaural recording sounds over the headphones. Your reference of 3D sound is mere ignorance. It is like reviewers describing the Sony Trinitron colour television in the 70s that the display is lifelike and 3 dimensional. They actually advertised so.

I have been recording classical music and jazz for more than 30 years. Don't insult me by telling me that what I call 3D sound isn't. 3D is defined as height-width and depth. Stereophonic, is from the Greek words "stereos" meaning solid and "Phonos" meaning sound - "solid sound" Solids have three dimensions: height-width, depth! consequently, real stereo recording are 3D in the purist sense of the word and will give me that illusion. I have some commercial recordings that will do that too, but not many. For some reason commercial recording engineers like lots of microphones and lots of channels. IMHO, it's wrong, but what are you gonna do?

Quote

 

I have no ill harbour against you or anyone. I will usually let go of the disagreement the moment I exits this thread. I am just pointing out that you are still stuck in the past and making comments without knowing what 3D is about. It is as old as your stance during the Audio Empire era.

Seems to me that I know exactly what 3D sound is. I gave you the classic definition above. And by that definition, YOU are the one who seems to not know what 3D sound is! I am one of those people who does not do extra channels of ambience, because I think decent 2-channel stereo is difficult enough to do right (it must be, so few commercial releases are done that way). If I'm stuck in the past, so be it. I have never had a client come to me after I've delivered the CD(s) to them and had a one of them say: "This is nice but I wished you had recorded the performance in surround sound." As long as my recordings satisfy me and my clients the opinions of "arm chair critics" like you don't mean much to me.  I'm glad that you have found a niche area in the audio hobby that pleases you, but I'm simply not interested at this point in my life. So go play with your Ambiphonics my friend, and leave me out of your surround discussions. Thanks. All other posts from you responding to me are welcome, no matter how critical.

[STC]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Tell that to all the people who have heard my recordings on my system and had their jaws drop at the palpability of the sound stage and image specificity. 

 

I guess it is our loss since you don't make them available to public. The jaw dropping is exclusive for a few select ones.  

 

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I have a pair of JVC binaural mikes embedded in a flocked styrofoam head. I've made many binaural recordings. I stopped because you can't get the recordings to sound right over speakers.

 

This sentence alone is enough to tell that you do not know anything about binaural. Sorry to use caps but you seemed to be missing one important point which is :

 

Once recorded, the binaural effect can be reproduced using headphones or a dipole stereo. It does not work with mono playback; nor does it work while using loudspeaker units, as the acoustics of this arrangement distort the channel separation via natural crosstalk (an approximation can be obtained if the listening environment is carefully designed by employing expensive crosstalk cancellation equipment.) Randomly plugged of the net. Far too many citation repeating the same.

 

Probably, you should revisit Chesky recordings about how to make their binaural + series converted for loudspeaker playback. 

 

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

.....and leave me out of your surround discussions. Thanks. All other posts from you responding to me are welcome, no matter how critical.

 

Did you miss noticing that I started this thread? This thread is about ambiance and surround in concert hall. 

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes they are, but they do work in a basic sense.  I think the DSP cleaned up some of the rough edges.  Better horn contours and such would of course reduce or eliminate the need to clean it up.  

 

So what are some improvements you envision?

 

I think I'd just use/copy the low frequency folded horns, low pass them into a pair of tapped horns, then use tractrix horns with an elliptical mouth for midrange. Not sure I'd keep any Klipsch drivers (I'd have to measure and listen) and would probably go active.

[gmgraves]

Never mind.