Concert Hall sound

[esldude]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

Agreed. The fact that I don't record that way and don't have multi-channel playback system is mostly because my "clients" are mostly musicians and they just want a two channel copy of their performance. There's really no reason for me to go to the expense and trouble of recording in multi-channel when the people I record for don't want it, can't use it, and I can't play it back! That doesn't mean that I am against MC, quite the contrary. I believe that it would have great potential to bring new realism into the home audio system. But before one can have the acoustic signature of Carnegie Hall, or Royal Albert Hall, or La Scala or any other renowned concert environment, one must first either get rid of or severely suppress the (usually) negative acoustic signature of the average home listening room. I don't see how that's possible in any practical way. Also most people doing recording today, in my estimation, can't even do two channel stereo right, and so most of the MC recordings I have heard are no more than curiosities in my estimation and do not do what I think a MC recording needs to do nor do they do what I would hope the MC fans on this forum, STC and FitzCaraldo 215, are looking for as an Ideal. Then of course, there's popular taste. Classical music is a tiny niche market these days and I simply cannot see how pop music, almost exclusively recorded in a sound deadened studio could possibly benefit from "concert hall ambience". Sure, artificial ambience could be piped into the rear channels in a MC environment, but what good is that? That could just as easily be done with a DSP reverb setup like one from Lexicon in the listener's home environment. From a commercial standpoint I can't see the recording companies seeing any added value to MC. Can they charge more for it? I don't think so. Interest in MC seems to be a niche wishing a niche. Those of you who have it and enjoy it, Good for you, I'm happy that you have found an area in the overall audiophile market that you like. But it's just not for everybody

 

 

That too is a good point with which I totally agree.

 

 

I've seen the same issue.  Musicians just aren't caring about multi-channel in general.  Stereo over mono.  Yes very much.  MCH over stereo, nope the overwhelming majority have zero interest. 

 

I actually would like to do some MCH recording of smaller groups. 

 

As for the center channel, I once had the idea two really good front speakers didn't need help in the center.  And certainly it can be very good.  Even when good right and left speakers are in use a center channel is an improvement.  

[STC]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

How many professional or even semi-professional recordings have you made STC? 

 

Thousands, but I more strict than you when it comes to sharing them with anyone. I don't even let my imaginary clients listen to them.  

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I've seen the same issue.  Musicians just aren't caring about multi-channel in general.  Stereo over mono.  Yes very much.  MCH over stereo, nope the overwhelming majority have zero interest. 

 

I actually would like to do some MCH recording of smaller groups. 

 

As for the center channel, I once had the idea two really good front speakers didn't need help in the center.  And certainly it can be very good.  Even when good right and left speakers are in use a center channel is an improvement.  

If you'd like to try some MC, I can suggest the aforementioned Zoom H6. At less than $400, It's cheap, sounds pretty good, and has XLR inputs for attaching rear microphones with cables for your ambience . It even phantom powers attached condenser mikes! 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Thousands, but I more strict than you when it comes to sharing them with anyone. I don't even let my imaginary clients listen to them.  

God but you are a nasty bit of business, aren't you? 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Thousands, but I more strict than you when it comes to sharing them with anyone. I don't even let my imaginary clients listen to them.  

Come on now, both of you guys are getting over-heated toward each other. 

 

Both have something useful to offer.  Don't burn bridges or use a scorched earth approach. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Remember to use the Ignore User feature if you don’t get along with someone. 

[STC]

48 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I have a device that will do that called a Zoom H6, but I've never had an opportunity do it and it reduces my available record options to 16-bit/44.1KHz. I prefer to record 24 or 32-bit/96 for the added headroom. I've only used the H6 for my own pleasure, BTW, capturing jazz ensembles for my own use.   

 

I use the lower version of Zoom H5 and thinking of buying H6 but I am surprised that it couldn't do multichannels at 96kHz. The manual said it could. Interesting....interesting....

[esldude]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

If you'd like to try some MC, I can suggest the aforementioned Zoom H6. At less than $400, It's cheap, sounds pretty good, and has XLR inputs for attaching rear microphones with cables for your ambience . It even phantom powers attached condenser mikes! 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I've gear to do it, just haven't had a project where I've had the chance recently.  

I've got some microphones that could do coincident multi-channel, and would like to try that along with some of the more conventional surround variations. 

[esldude]

http://www.mee.tcd.ie/~gkearney/MCAT/MAT_Lecture_5_Surround_Recording_1.pdf

 

First half of this has good info on 3 channel stereo. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Come on now, both of you guys are getting over-heated toward each other. 

 

Both have something useful to offer.  Don't burn bridges or use a scorched earth approach. 

 

It is getting bit tired why a few regularly like to cite irrelevant topic of what they do or heard and impose that view on something which they have never heard.

 

Frankly, I don't have anyone with similar setups except for 4 setups spread around the world. I think I am probably the first one managed to do this inside a listening room.The difference can only be known if you try it for yourself. It is complicated and tedious. Last Sunday, a reviewer who listened the setup for the first time never expected the experience.  I am not sure if he is going to publish them as it affect his regular clients. It is hard for them to say, it is not in the recordings but in the ambience, it is not in cables, not in the format, not in the amplifier. It is all in the ambience that you can get instant upgrade. So the fear and resistance is understandable. I am not selling; I am sharing. Please feel free to criticize but at least base them on facts. Not on unsubstantiated and often erroneous understanding of a concept which the person have not heard. Making comment that binaural recording is not natural is a crime. It is not natural because you do not know how to make them correct to sound over the speakers. I have been repeatedly explaining that. You cannot just put on the binaural microphone and replay them over the loudspeakers. It will sound bright. The timbre will wrong.

 

Will make on attempt again to explain the whole concept. 

 

This is your ideal recording, setup and room.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting any changes in your current setup. I am referring to multichannels of another dimension that's not related to the two images above.

 

I am making a virtual space. A virtual space that is only relevant for musical playback and not for VR or the binaural haircut effect. No it won'tl do that even with RACE XTC but with BACCH -yes.

 

The virtual space which is created is independent of your perfect setup. 

 

 

Once you created this space, your perfect setup is now shifted to a virtual hall where you have absolute control of the acoustics. The playback will transform as :- 

 

 

 

 

How difficult is this to understand? When you turn off the ambience surround the read box and speakers disappear. Adjust the level and it will become bigger. It will not be smaller than your room because there your room acoustics determine the RT.

 

 

[STC]

REAL-TIME MANIPULATION AND CONTROL OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOUND FIELDS . Bruce Wiggins (Doctor of Philosophy) University of Derby. 

 

Methods considered in this thesis inclusive of all those referred to in this thread and more. This a 370 page document and extensively discuss many methods to create 3D soundfield.  I am quoting the relevant part of my project here and you can read the rest from the link. Most likely to some it will be TL;DR.

 

Quote

Using the Ambiophonics technique many of the cues needed for the 
localisation of sound and perception of a real space are met, with particular 
attention paid to the accuracy of the reverberation. That is not to say that the system must sound exactly like a real hall, but that the auditory cues present in the reverberation of the material are psychoacoustically very accurate will sound like a realistic hall. 

 

 

[esldude]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be51/5c49c1b61b79284427f8b8d7011e5a10b954.pdf

 

The Bruce Wiggins 370 page document in pdf form for download. 

[STC]

That’s the same link in my post....am I missing something?

 

 

[esldude]

The link didn't work for me.  Even though it appears to be the same one I posted. ?

[STC]

11 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Pet Sounds recreates the image of a large group of musicians in a small space so yes it would be good reference for at least me because my reference points are small venues in the Pacific Northwest.

 

Yes, something is different about the recording. It is fills the entire front stage. The slight elevated stage is bit different from a rich and full orchestra sound. Not bad. Thanks for bringing to my attention. 

[semente]

15 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Just trying to clarify for those other innocent ears out there who might still be paying attention to this thread.

 

The point is if Mch, in your words, "needs"  to be constrained to 1 mic/channel, which comes out of nowhere and zero experience on your part, the folly of that is exposed when the same criterion is not also applied to stereo.  Trust me, I have a lot of experience with Mch, with stereo, with comparisons between the two on really good systems, as well as tons of recordings going back many decades in most all formats.  You lack knowledge of Mch, so spouting speculative theories based on no actual listening experience is not credible.  That bothers me, because it does not get to the truth of the matter.  The record needs to be corrected.

 

Center channel?  OK, you don't THINK its a good idea.  But, you have not read Floyd Toole's latest book that clearly shows empirically that it is.  But, more importantly, you again have exactly zero experience on the subject.  

 

So, opinions based on no experience are worth less than a dime a dozen.  You spout yours pretending you actually know what you are talking about.  I will then present mine, based on rather more experience and reading about the topic. Readers can then decide for themselves.

 

You assume that listening experience is mandatory apparently ignoring that people are capable of significant reasoning through logic and common sense. I have been accused by STC of making up a theory regarding the recording and reproduction of an instruments soundfield yet I have recently found and posted a presentation which proves my idea wasn’t that far-fetched:

 

 

One doesn’t have to drive a 3-wheeled car to know that it will fail.

 

 

 

Also, even though it’s natural to feel compelled to defend the technology which produces what we consider the (for us) “better” results, can we leave out personal preference/taste and just discuss this without entrenched beliefs or abandoning reason?

 

 

True Stereo consists in making a sonic (or visual) snapshot of a soundscape using two mics (or lenses) slightly offset from one another then reproducing the recorded signal in a way that will produce, in the brain, the illusion of spatial depth, sound-source relief and the ambience of the venue.

 

  – stereoscopy

 

 

When you use more mics than channels (multi-track) then you're no longer performing a documental register or snapshot but something more akin to a collage or a composite image. Ambience mics will provide the scenic soundscape and spots mics for each section and soloist instruments will provide a closer-than-natural/real perspective of each of them which is then superimposed to the spatial information.
This is what Channel Classics, Pentatone or RR are doing in their orchestral music recordings.

 

  – collage

 

 

Finally, we have DSP which creates an immersive synthetic ambience experience from either stereo or multi-track recordings. You are completely envoleped in sound but there's no real ambience reconstruction, just an articifial, surrealist effect.

 

To accurately reconstruct the ambience you need a spherical mic array and a spherical speaker array cage in an anechoic chamber.

 

 

To my understanding and experience, true Stereo will provide the most realistic representation of the acoustics and the most solid imaging of the original event but I completely agree that fails to envelop or immerse the listener in the same way as he would have been if he sat in the audience.

[semente]

12 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Interesting. I have tried every microphone technique available for orchestral music except a microphone in front of every instrument - which is a bit impractical for someone like me. I haven't the resources. But I've tried two spaced omni mikes, three spaced omni mikes, then repeated the experiments with cardioids. Then I've tried two microphones on a stereo "T" bar, in the following configurations: A-B, XY, ORTF and M-S. A number of years ago, I obtained a single-point stereo microphone and have been using that for larger ensembles like orchestras and wind ensembles. My experience tells me that  a two microphone stereo arrangement is the ONLY way to get real stereophonic sound. All else is just multi-channel mono. So per your statement above, I'd say that 2 mikes are always better for orchestral music. Where they may not work so well is small ensembles like string quartets and jazz trios through sextets. They need an intimacy that overall stereo miking doesn't provide.   

 

I actually like 2-mic recordings of piano & solo cello/violin solo and also of string quartets. I'm not sure I've ever listened to 2-mic jazz. Pawnshop is multi-mic'ed.

 

My favourite orchestral music recordings are, as far as I know, 2- mic(sometimes 4-mic affairs), but using just 2 mics makes is difficult to get the right balance between direct sound and ambience and also between front and back of orchestra, which is why some engineers add an extra pair for ambience of which they add just a touch to the mix. But then you add another mic for the percussion and for the clarinet solo part and you've made a mess of it, also because these spot mics change timbre and the level of detail to something very different than what one hears in the audience...

 

The portuguese classical radio channel plays live broadcasts of orchestras from different european radios (via Eurovision) usually on Wednesdays. These often sound ,in my opinion, more realistic and naturally balanced than most commercial multi-track recordings and a lot of them just use a pair of mics hanging from the canopy over the maestro.

[semente]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

As for the center channel, I once had the idea two really good front speakers didn't need help in the center.  And certainly it can be very good.  Even when good right and left speakers are in use a center channel is an improvement.

 

Genuine question: an improvement in what sense?

 

Crosstalk is already a problem with 2 speakers, then there's dispersion interference...

[semente]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

http://www.mee.tcd.ie/~gkearney/MCAT/MAT_Lecture_5_Surround_Recording_1.pdf

 

First half of this has good info on 3 channel stereo. 

 

The primary advantage of the center channel is for directional stability over an enlarged listening area.

 

This only makes sense if you need an enlarged listening area. How many audiophiles do?

 

The second advantage concerns sound quality. It is found in a number of studies that the discrete three-channel system is preferable in comparison to the two- channel system in terms of “clarity” and “sound colour” of the center image, even when the listener sits precisely on the center line and does not move his head. It is presumed that this preference arises because the center loudspeaker is “easier” to listen to and that center phantom images principally cause some coloration and require “greater attention”.

 

I care more about “clarity” and “sound colour” than I do about imaging. If I understand correcly that the centre channel causes some coloration and require “greater attention” then I am not interested.

I am also suspicious of these studies based on subjective preference (i.e. Toole) as they will only provide information on what a certain sample likes or dislikes. But taking into account the imperfections of recording and reproductions we will ultimately have to decide acording to our personal taste.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Agreed. The fact that I don't record that way and don't have multi-channel playback system is mostly because my "clients" are mostly musicians and they just want a two channel copy of their performance. There's really no reason for me to go to the expense and trouble of recording in multi-channel when the people I record for don't want it, can't use it, and I can't play it back! That doesn't mean that I am against MC, quite the contrary. I believe that it would have great potential to bring new realism into the home audio system. But before one can have the acoustic signature of Carnegie Hall, or Royal Albert Hall, or La Scala or any other renowned concert environment, one must first either get rid of or severely suppress the (usually) negative acoustic signature of the average home listening room. I don't see how that's possible in any practical way. Also most people doing recording today, in my estimation, can't even do two channel stereo right, and so most of the MC recordings I have heard are no more than curiosities in my estimation and do not do what I think a MC recording needs to do nor do they do what I would hope the MC fans on this forum, STC and FitzCaraldo 215, are looking for as an Ideal. Then of course, there's popular taste. Classical music is a tiny niche market these days and I simply cannot see how pop music, almost exclusively recorded in a sound deadened studio could possibly benefit from "concert hall ambience". Sure, artificial ambience could be piped into the rear channels in a MC environment, but what good is that? That could just as easily be done with a DSP reverb setup like one from Lexicon in the listener's home environment. From a commercial standpoint I can't see the recording companies seeing any added value to MC. Can they charge more for it? I don't think so. Interest in MC seems to be a niche wishing a niche. Those of you who have it and enjoy it, Good for you, I'm happy that you have found an area in the overall audiophile market that you like. But it's just not for everybody

 

 

That too is a good point with which I totally agree.

 

 

George - I agree with most of what you say.  Sonic perspective is critical in recording and playback.  It is understandable that some, like musicians, prefer a closer (but not too close) perspective, and that is what you aim for, as is now clear.  Even a small minority of Mch recordings aim for a center of the ensemble perspective.  But, I don't like those and I avoid buying them.

 

So, like most listeners, I much prefer an audience perspective which resembles what we hear live from a seat in the hall.  And, that requires capturing and reproducing the frontal soundstage within the enveloping, surrounding reflective acoustic of the hall.  While stereo can succeed in capturing the frontal soundstage, sometimes extremely well, it cannot provide suffienient cues of the diffuse reflective ambiance of the hall while retaining their directional properties from sides, rear and points in between.

 

However, I think you overstate the need to totally neutralize the listening room's acoustic signature.  Yes, it needs to be controlled and minimized, especially in bass frequencies where narrow modal variations in frequency response become quite large.  But, that is just as true for stereo as well.  And, as previously discussed, we don't want to make the listening room anechoic.  However, sufficiently controlling the room signature is doable with proper measurements and adequate tools - active via DSP, and/or passive via absorption/diffusion.  Toole's latest book also emphasizes the importance of well controlled speaker directivity to minimize frequency distortion in room reflections.  Not too many speakers do this, even very costly ones.

 

As long as frequency distortions from listening room reflections are sufficiently down in level, the recorded directional cues and hall acoustic can override the listening room to a sufficient extent.  Since no system and listening room is ever perfect, and our ear-brain hearing can quite naturally  "hear through" and tune out many, but not all,  listening room issues, absolute perfection is not necessary to achieve the desired effect of a "you are there" replica image of the sound of performers on a sound stage in a large concert hall.  It works for me and quite well without drastic, costly and ugly passive  room treatments.

 

Incidentally, like you, I use Martin Logan electrostat dipole hybrids, but 7 of them carefully positioned relative to walls in the ITU standard Mch angular configuration.  I also use Dirac Live room EQ with great success.  It delivers much better measured control over the room/speaker response, including in the time domain, as well as obvious subjective sonic improvements in comparative AB switching. 

 

As for popularity, yes, discrete Mch recording is a niche within the classical niche.  That does not bother me in the least.  And, yes, it has little benefit for pop studio recordings, hence there are many fewer pop Mch releases.  But, dozens of small, mainly European classical labels are very loyal to it offering fine performances by some top artists and ensembles.  So, new releases keep coming to supplement the thousands of Mch recordings I already have.  I have collected more Mch recordings in the last 10 years than I did LPs and CDs combined, also thousands, in many decades before.  And, Mch is just as widely available today as stereo recordings through Amazon and many other retailers, plus downloads, though not via streaming.  In addition, there are many very fine, live concert BD videos in Mch.  That is an exceptional medium for opera in particular.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

Yes, something is different about the recording. It is fills the entire front stage. The slight elevated stage is bit different from a rich and full orchestra sound. Not bad. Thanks for bringing to my attention. 

 

You are welcome. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

The primary advantage of the center channel is for directional stability over an enlarged listening area.

 

This only makes sense if you need an enlarged listening area. How many audiophiles do?

 

The second advantage concerns sound quality. It is found in a number of studies that the discrete three-channel system is preferable in comparison to the two- channel system in terms of “clarity” and “sound colour” of the center image, even when the listener sits precisely on the center line and does not move his head. It is presumed that this preference arises because the center loudspeaker is “easier” to listen to and that center phantom images principally cause some coloration and require “greater attention”.

 

I care more about “clarity” and “sound colour” than I do about imaging. If I understand correcly that the centre channel causes some coloration and require “greater attention” then I am not interested.

I am also suspicious of these studies based on subjective preference (i.e. Toole) as they will only provide information on what a certain sample likes or dislikes. But taking into account the imperfections of recording and reproductions we will ultimately have to decide acording to our personal taste.

 

I always thought Bell Labs and Paul Klipsch explained the advantages on the objective reasons for a center channel quite well. 

[semente]

14 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Toole's latest book also emphasizes the importance of well controlled speaker directivity to minimize frequency distortion in room reflections.  Not too many speakers do this, even very costly ones.

 

Most Toole-school type of speakers do, Infinity, JBL, PSB, Revel, as do Elacs and Kefs.

 

14 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

ncidentally, like you, I use Martin Logan electrostat dipole hybrids, but 7 of them carefully positioned relative to walls in the ITU standard Mch angular configuration.

 

How far do you keep the MLs from the wall behind and do you use any kind of treatment?

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I always thought Bell Labs and Paul Klipsch explained the advantages on the objective reasons for a center channel quite well. 

 

Do you have links to those papers?

 

P.S.: you can attach PDFs if you have them.

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, semente said:

 

Do you have links for those papers?

 

You should know me better than that by now. Look in Bell Labs original research about stereo and their demonstrations. The short version of Paul's thoughts are in his biography.