Concert Hall sound

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, STC said:

...nor does it work while using loudspeaker units, as the acoustics of this arrangement distort the channel separation via natural crosstalk...

Looks to me like you've been hoisted by your own petard!

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

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

 

Yeah, I noticed it. The title says "Concert Hall Sound" I see no reference to ambience or surround in that heading. To me "concert hall sound" is recreating an accurate soundstage through speakers. If you had specified ambience or surround, I probably wouldn't have entered the discussion. 

[Rt66indierock]

15 hours ago, STC said:

 

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? 

 

Pet Sounds is a reference album and I'm happy with the versions I like. If I'm listening to Brian's music I want hear what he wants me to hear. On another reference album Waiting for Columbus I like hearing the Rainbow Theater and Lisner Auditorium. I don't feel the need to change ambiance to make it sound like a favorite venue on the West Coast. 

 

In the context of this site I'm a studio person and  like the process of mixing and mastering generally.

[Brinkman Ship]

22 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Pet Sounds is a reference album and I'm happy with the versions I like. If I'm listening to Brian's music I want hear what he wants me to hear. On another reference album Waiting for Columbus I like hearing the Rainbow Theater and Lisner Auditorium. I don't feel the need to change ambiance to make it sound like a favorite venue on the West Coast. 

 

In the context of this site I'm a studio person and  like the process of mixing and mastering generally.

Has it been noted here that Pet Sounds was a big flop when released...of course it is now the holy grail...but another validation of the saying, "never underestimate the stupidity of the masses..."

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Looks to me like you've been hoisted by your own petard!

 

Yeah, I noticed it. The title says "Concert Hall Sound" I see no reference to ambience or surround in that heading. To me "concert hall sound" is recreating an accurate soundstage through speakers. If you had specified ambience or surround, I probably wouldn't have entered the discussion. 

George - There is no textbook definition of "concert hall sound".  But, it seems clear to me that you have redefined it in a way that is narrow and caters to your own viewpoint and recording technique.  The phrase is not "concert sound", but is specifically "concert HALL sound".  I think the first few pages of this thread made that clear.  So, if you jumped in late and did not bother to read the entire thread, you have been going off on a tangent that suits only your own personal mindset. 

 

I think it is fair to understand concert hall sound as the sound heard by members of the audience in the hall, not just those few close to the soundstage. Maybe you just always sit close  and don't hear what most of the audience hears.   I think we all agree, the soundstage is just the area up front where the performers perform.   But, if you are saying the acoustic ambiance and sonic immersion caused by the reflections that surround the typical listener in the hall from all directions are unimportant because you do not record that way, what can I say.  The undeniable reality is both direct sound from the frontal soundstage and reflected sound from  the hall at an infinite number of spatial angles for most of the audience in the hall.

 

People have been recording the performers in the frontal soundstage in stereo for decades with varying degrees of success.  Perhaps your own recordings are as good as you claim, perhaps not.  But, it is clear from your descriptions that your technique does not capture or reproduce the enveloping ambient or acoustic effects of hall reflections heard naturally live, and it does not capture the spatial spread of those reflections in all directions, including to the sides and rear of the listener.  

 

And, no, the short reflection paths of your listening room are simply not physically capable of adding back natural hall reflections from a large hall using just 2 speakers, even one for chamber concerts.  This has already been discussed here.

 

You cannot talk about concert hall sound without talking about hall ambience and the spatial surrounding nature of hall reflections which affect all sounds the majority of the audience hears live.

 

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

George - There is no textbook definition of "concert hall sound".  But, it seems clear to me that you have redefined it in a way that is narrow and caters to your own viewpoint and recording technique.  The phrase is not "concert sound", but is specifically "concert HALL sound".  I think the first few pages of this thread made that clear.  So, if you jumped in late and did not bother to read the entire thread, you have been going off on a tangent that suits only your own personal mindset. 

 

I think it is fair to understand concert hall sound as the sound heard by members of the audience in the hall, not just those few close to the soundstage. Maybe you just always sit close  and don't hear what most of the audience hears.   I think we all agree, the soundstage is just the area up front where the performers perform.   But, if you are saying the acoustic ambiance and sonic immersion caused by the reflections that surround the typical listener in the hall from all directions are unimportant because you do not record that way, what can I say.  The undeniable reality is both direct sound from the frontal soundstage and reflected sound from  the hall at an infinite number of spatial angles for most of the audience in the hall.

 

People have been recording the performers in the frontal soundstage in stereo for decades with varying degrees of success.  Perhaps your own recordings are as good as you claim, perhaps not.  But, it is clear from your descriptions that your technique does not capture or reproduce the enveloping ambient or acoustic effects of hall reflections heard naturally live, and it does not capture the spatial spread of those reflections in all directions, including to the sides and rear of the listener.  

 

And, no, the short reflection paths of your listening room are simply not physically capable of adding back natural hall reflections from a large hall using just 2 speakers, even one for chamber concerts.  This has already been discussed here.

 

You cannot talk about concert hall sound without talking about hall ambience and the spatial surrounding nature of hall reflections which affect all sounds the majority of the audience hears live.

 

 

As long as you use one adequately positioned mic per channel I agree that Mch will potentially produce a more convincing illusion than just a pair of speakers.

 

But I think it is important to distinguish reproduction of hall ambience and sonic surround; here I agree with @gmgraves that two channels are enough to capture and reproduce hall ambience and a sonic snapshot of the players. It's not as involving as surround.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

As long as you use one adequately positioned mic per channel I agree that Mch will potentially produce a more convincing illusion than just a pair of speakers.

 

But I think it is important to distinguish reproduction of hall ambience and sonic surround; here I agree with @gmgraves that two channels are enough to capture and reproduce hall ambience and a sonic snapshot of the players. It's not as involving as surround.

OK, you, like George, are a minimalist mic fan.  Does that mean that stereo recordings must also use only 2 mics to produce a convincing illusion?  Or, does stereo get a pass, whereas Mch must be constrained to 1 mic/channel?  Good luck, by the way, finding many 2 mic stereo recordings in classical music, especially of full orchestra. 

 

Much as I judge a performance on its musical merits, I also judge a recording for its sonic quality.  I am not a stickler or a snob, though.  I don't always know an engineer's mic technique when I listen.  I do know that I have some recordings that are true, simple 5-channel, others add a few more mics but tend toward minimalist miking, and some go more heavily multimiked.  For the rest, I just do not know.  

 

I have heard very fine sonic results achieved in all these ways.  So, it does not strike me as something where there is simple cause/effect relationship and other engineering considerations may be more significant.  What I seldom seem to hear in the Mch recordings I have, mostly dating from the past 15 years, is the old DGG multiple mono effect in stereo with its hopelessly distorted sense of spatial characteristics due to too many spot mics.  

 

Channel Classics and BIS, from what I read, tend toward minimalist miking, but they may judiciously add spot mics in the orchestra.  I think they achieve consistently very excellent results.  But, so does the Sound/Mirror team, extensively multimiking in Boston, Pittsburgh, at the Mariinski and elsewhere. So, could it possibly be that recording engineers have learned a thing or two over the years so they can do a consistently better job, studying and avoiding many mistakes of prior generations of recordings?  Nah, they are just a bunch of morons who know less than us armchair guys.

 

2 Channels enough?  Of course, that is a personal, subjective judgement.  But, of the many classically-oriented visitors who know and love the sound of live concerts and who have heard my system both in stereo and Mch, few agree with you.  And, I sure don't.

[semente]

29 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

OK, you, like George, are a minimalist mic fan.  Does that mean that stereo recordings must also use only 2 mics to produce a convincing illusion?  Or, does stereo get a pass, whereas Mch must be constrained to 1 mic/channel?  Good luck, by the way, finding many 2 mic stereo recordings in classical music, especially of full orchestra. 

 

Much as I judge a performance on its musical merits, I also judge a recording for its sonic quality.  I am not a stickler or a snob, though.  I don't always know an engineer's mic technique when I listen.  I do know that I have some recordings that are true, simple 5-channel, others add a few more mics but tend toward minimalist miking, and some go more heavily multimiked.  For the rest, I just do not know.  

 

I have heard very fine sonic results achieved in all these ways.  So, it does not strike me as something where there is simple cause/effect relationship and other engineering considerations may be more significant.  What I seldom seem to hear in the Mch recordings I have, mostly dating from the past 15 years, is the old DGG multiple mono effect in stereo with its hopelessly distorted sense of spatial characteristics due to too many spot mics.  

 

Channel Classics and BIS, from what I read, tend toward minimalist miking, but they may judiciously add spot mics in the orchestra.  I think they achieve consistently very excellent results.  But, so does the Sound/Mirror team, extensively multimiking in Boston, Pittsburgh, at the Mariinski and elsewhere. So, could it possibly be that recording engineers have learned a thing or two over the years so they can do a consistently better job, studying and avoiding many mistakes of prior generations of recordings?  Nah, they are just a bunch of morons who know less than us armchair guys.

 

2 Channels enough?  Of course, that is a personal, subjective judgement.  But, of the many classically-oriented visitors who know and love the sound of live concerts and who have heard my system both in stereo and Mch, few agree with you.  And, I sure don't.

 

Why are you always so defensive?

Did you read what I wrote, or just assumed that I thought bad of Mch?

 

2 mics are better for 2-channel but hardly ever work for orchestral music.

 

4-channel (2-front 2-rear) are more enveloping than 2-channel if your room can accomodate the extra speakers  as I've mention before, or if your budget is considerable because you'll end up with 4 poor speakers instead of 2 good ones. Not everyone can buy a 10k system... Enveloping, as many have testified, is important but not essential. But this is how you do it, 1 mic per speaker, not with DSP.

 

I don't think that the centre channel is a good idea.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

37 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Why are you always so defensive?

Did you read what I wrote, or just assumed that I thought bad of Mch?

 

2 mics are better for 2-channel but hardly ever work for orchestral music.

 

4-channel (2-front 2-rear) are more enveloping than 2-channel if your room can accomodate the extra speakers  as I've mention before, or if your budget is considerable because you'll end up with 4 poor speakers instead of 2 good ones. Not everyone can buy a 10k system... Enveloping, as many have testified, is important but not essential. But this is how you do it, 1 mic per speaker, not with DSP.

 

I don't think that the centre channel is a good idea.

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.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Has it been noted here that Pet Sounds was a big flop when released...of course it is now the holy grail...but another validation of the saying, "never underestimate the stupidity of the masses..."

 

Brink I've  used it as a reference from 1973 to 1988 to test and verify repairs in the broadcasting industry. That modern high end audio

struggles with it is a humorous bonus.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour 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.

 

Add Bell Labs and Paul Klipsch's research into center channels as well. I'm thinking of experimenting with one in 2019 in my office.

[STC]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Looks to me like you've been hoisted by your own petard!

 

 

I was expecting a rebuttal with substance but your response is a reflection of what people in total denialism do when they were caught with with pants down for their ignorance.

 

Firstly, is it so hard for you to accept the known fact based on measurements that you cannot play binaural recording over the speakers and expect the same result as heard over the headphones. Maybe, literatures on this subject will overwhelm you with detail but I will try to explain them to my best abilities.  See... I am not resorting to insults!  because science will back me up and so too those who listened to the different formats would know so.

 

Anyway, the obsession of flat frequency response with equipments, although desirable for standardization, is not very use for practical reasons. Firstly, the sound that reaches our eardrums go through complex frequencies compensation and adjustments of the FR where it can be as high as 10dB or more at certain frequencies.

 

A binaural recording that makes recording of sound waves reaching the microphones inside your ear canal are modified. With microphones in open air do not face this problem of pinna/ ear canal equalization. Technically, as far as timbre concerned the sound captured in open will sound accurate compared to binaural recording over the loudspeakers. This is a known problem that I think that goes back to close a century. 

 

Chesky makes binaural recordings that sounds good over loudspeakers because they know the science behind it. THEY EQUALIZE THE BINAURAL RECORDING WHICH YOU DID NOT DO BECAUSE YOU WERE ARE IGNORANT OF THE CONCEPT. Yet, you went to make a judgment about how crappy it sounded and pass an opinion authoritatively as you are the final word when it comes to recordings. 

 

Real successful recordist interview explaining why your binaural recording sounded bad over the loudspeakers. ( BTW, I would like to thank the god for showing David Chesky the way to share his precious recordings to the world. I also thank you my beloved god that you never put the evil thought in his mind not to allow his work only to be experienced by a select few. )

 

And the excerpt of the interview.

 

S+V: How does what you do differ from standard binaural recording?
DC: Normal binaural you can't play on speakers because of the inherent equalization of your ear. But we figured out how to do both.

In audio we live in this world of crosstalk corruption. Sound from the right will sound different to your left ear; it'll be delayed versus your right ear, and be lower in level, and the shape of your head and ears will change the sound, too. With headphones, it's no problem because the left ear can't hear what's going in the right ear, and vice-versa. But if you have two speakers in front, you hear both at same time, and this corruption screws up the stereo cues.

S+V: How do you process the recording so it plays back on speakers?
DC: We add a diffuse EQ filter so that you can play it back on speakers. Without that filter, the sound will rip your head off, it'll be ridiculously bright. We do it in Sonic Solutions. We have a filter algorithm that was supplied by Edgar. This makes it theoretically flat again.

S+V: Do you optimize the sound for headphones, or for speakers, or for some sort of happy in-between?
DC: I don't think it's a happy in-between. I think the filter improves both. Since the ear on the binaural recording head doesn't match your ear, we have to make it theoretically match.

Read more at https://www.soundandvision.com/content/interview-david-chesky#D5TWDWvxCcsfd0DG.99

 

Do you want actual research papers to back up? Or why not show me one real recording engineer who will agree with your view about binaural recording. Real means that can back up their opinion with known principles and not to talk like some shaman that he is right because some of disciples witnessed or heard them.

 

I am making this post colourful because sometimes that will attract some people. Maybe, I should add cartoon as well. Perhaps, next post.

 

 

[gmgraves]

 

5 hours ago, semente 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

 

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

But I think it is important to distinguish reproduction of hall ambience and sonic surround; here I agree with @gmgraves that two channels are enough to capture and reproduce hall ambience and a sonic snapshot of the players. It's not as involving as surround.

 

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

 

 

[STC]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Pet Sounds is a reference album and I'm happy with the versions I like. If I'm listening to Brian's music I want hear what he wants me to hear. On another reference album Waiting for Columbus I like hearing the Rainbow Theater and Lisner Auditorium. I don't feel the need to change ambiance to make it sound like a favorite venue on the West Coast. 

 

In the context of this site I'm a studio person and  like the process of mixing and mastering generally.

 

I understand that. I am unable to find the Pet Sounds CD and will comment about it when get a chance to listen to it so that I can understand your POV better when discussion about it.

 

Can you clarify something for me please? To my understanding form the information I gathered so far, Pet Sounds was recorded in mono and mastered for mono playback. It was Mark Linett who made the stereo version of it. A mono recording that was converted to stereo. Do you think that will be a good reference for this discussion about concert hall ambience?  Can this ever be considered as reference of the real performance example?

[STC]

4 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

So, could it possibly be that recording engineers have learned a thing or two over the years so they can do a consistently better job, studying and avoiding many mistakes of prior generations of recordings?  Nah, they are just a bunch of morons who know less than us armchair guys.

 

That's what some are thinking. Stuck with their limited knowledge and exposure.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

OK, you, like George, are a minimalist mic fan.  Does that mean that stereo recordings must also use only 2 mics to produce a convincing illusion?  Or, does stereo get a pass, whereas Mch must be constrained to 1 mic/channel?  Good luck, by the way, finding many 2 mic stereo recordings in classical music, especially of full orchestra. 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, because the ONLY way to get real stereo is with two microphones on the ensemble.  All else is just multi-channel monaural sound. Believe me, I've tried every technique possible: true stereo miking, spaced miking with both two and three mikes (ala Mercury) as well as one mike per instrument (on small jazz ensembles). And the only thing that results in a real stereo effect is two closely group mikes or a stereo mike. You guys talk about the concert hall sound yet no concert hall on earth sounds like a recording with a forest of microphones covering every instrument or even every group of instruments with their own mike. First of all, Instruments close miked don't sound like instruments from the "best seat in the house" at a concert. Close miked violins for instance sound like a half dozen or so individual violins playing at once, but from the concert seating, they sound like a string section. You have two ears. It stands to reason that you should record an ensemble like an orchestra in a concert hall with two cardioid microphones fairly close together in one of the several stereo configurations. Now, you can put two more in the back of the hall pointing in the opposite direction to the ensemble and capture ambience and you can either mix that into your two channel mix or you can actually record it to two separate tracks. 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.   

[STC]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

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.

 

This is a tricky part. I have not read Toole's latest book but I think whether to use the center channel or not depends much with the recordings" content and playback method. I do you use center channel for my HT but do not use them for movies in my music room. One thing with center channel is the accuracy of placement. During a dialogue of two persons at the extreme edge of the opposite screen will always sounds as if coming from the center which is wrong. In cinema they have multiple centre speakers so the visual cues trick our ears for localization accuracy. This is another complex topic and it is hard to get good feedback with having enough people doing both setup comparison. Whatever, my observation is going to be it is still will be limited as I am comparing the with and without in two different system so the observation will always lack credibility.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I understand that. I am unable to find the Pet Sounds CD and will comment about it when get a chance to listen to it so that I can understand your POV better when discussion about it.

 

Can you clarify something for me please? To my understanding form the information I gathered so far, Pet Sounds was recorded in mono and mastered for mono playback. It was Mark Linett who made the stereo version of it. A mono recording that was converted to stereo. Do you think that will be a good reference for this discussion about concert hall ambience?  Can this ever be considered as reference of the real performance example?

 

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.

[gmgraves]

39 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I was expecting a rebuttal with substance but your response is a reflection of what people in total denialism do when they were caught with with pants down for their ignorance.

 

Firstly, is it so hard for you to accept the known fact based on measurements that you cannot play binaural recording over the speakers and expect the same result as heard over the headphones. Maybe, literatures on this subject will overwhelm you with detail but I will try to explain them to my best abilities.  See... I am not resorting to insults!  because science will back me up and so too those who listened to the different formats would know so.

 

Anyway, the obsession of flat frequency response with equipments, although desirable for standardization, is not very use for practical reasons. Firstly, the sound that reaches our eardrums go through complex frequencies compensation and adjustments of the FR where it can be as high as 10dB or more at certain frequencies.

 

A binaural recording that makes recording of sound waves reaching the microphones inside your ear canal are modified. With microphones in open air do not face this problem of pinna/ ear canal equalization. Technically, as far as timbre concerned the sound captured in open will sound accurate compared to binaural recording over the loudspeakers. This is a known problem that I think that goes back to close a century. 

 

Chesky makes binaural recordings that sounds good over loudspeakers because they know the science behind it. THEY EQUALIZE THE BINAURAL RECORDING WHICH YOU DID NOT DO BECAUSE YOU WERE ARE IGNORANT OF THE CONCEPT. Yet, you went to make a judgment about how crappy it sounded and pass an opinion authoritatively as you are the final word when it comes to recordings. 

 

Real successful recordist interview explaining why your binaural recording sounded bad over the loudspeakers. ( BTW, I would like to thank the god for showing David Chesky the way to share his precious recordings to the world. I also thank you my beloved god that you never put the evil thought in his mind not to allow his work only to be experienced by a select few. )

 

And the excerpt of the interview.

 

S+V: How does what you do differ from standard binaural recording?
DC: Normal binaural you can't play on speakers because of the inherent equalization of your ear. But we figured out how to do both.

In audio we live in this world of crosstalk corruption. Sound from the right will sound different to your left ear; it'll be delayed versus your right ear, and be lower in level, and the shape of your head and ears will change the sound, too. With headphones, it's no problem because the left ear can't hear what's going in the right ear, and vice-versa. But if you have two speakers in front, you hear both at same time, and this corruption screws up the stereo cues.

S+V: How do you process the recording so it plays back on speakers?
DC: We add a diffuse EQ filter so that you can play it back on speakers. Without that filter, the sound will rip your head off, it'll be ridiculously bright. We do it in Sonic Solutions. We have a filter algorithm that was supplied by Edgar. This makes it theoretically flat again.

S+V: Do you optimize the sound for headphones, or for speakers, or for some sort of happy in-between?
DC: I don't think it's a happy in-between. I think the filter improves both. Since the ear on the binaural recording head doesn't match your ear, we have to make it theoretically match.

Read more at https://www.soundandvision.com/content/interview-david-chesky#D5TWDWvxCcsfd0DG.99

 

Do you want actual research papers to back up? Or why not show me one real recording engineer who will agree with your view about binaural recording. Real means that can back up their opinion with known principles and not to talk like some shaman that he is right because some of disciples witnessed or heard them.

 

I am making this post colourful because sometimes that will attract some people. Maybe, I should add cartoon as well. Perhaps, next post.

 

 

Look I have some of Chesky's Binaural recordings and I have binaural recordings from the BBC. In my opinion, while they sound great on headphones on speakers they don't work. And if you think they do.... Well, I'm not going to sink to ad homenim attacks like you did calling me ignorant.

[STC]

25 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

Opinions are just opinions until substantiated. They need to be verified with neutral listening panel. I think you are misunderstanding about MCH here. I am trying hard to recall one SACD example in 5.1 where the original recording was stereo. Someone help me pls.

 

@Fitzcaraldo215 or @Kal Rubinson is referring to the actual records in MCH format, meanwhile,  I am referring to multichannels of the ambience reconstruction of a concert hall. This role of recreating the ambiance of concert hall or any venue is most beneficial for full classical orchestra music. It is not so much useful for small ensemble.  If you were to record a guitarist 30 degree on the left and a sax 30 degree to the right in mono for each channel making a stereo recording. It will sound very good in stereo playback. I think one of Sonny Rollin's album or track was made this way. If you use a stereo microphone, It will still be good. You don't need the concert hall ambience for this kind of recordings. The ambiance will be turned off.

 

The other multichannel recordings such as 5.1 SACD is adding rear ambiance which I am doing with surround ambience by convolution. With 5.1, I am now having another two sets of rear reflection adding to what I already created.

 

I hope at least you will stick to what I raised in this thread.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Add Bell Labs and Paul Klipsch's research into center channels as well. I'm thinking of experimenting with one in 2019 in my office.

Center channels are interesting. A number of years ago Philips (who owns the Mercury masters) put out several SACDs where only three channels were used. They transferred the famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) three track (left - center - right) master tapes to the SACD multi-track format. I heard it once at a hi-fi-show they had three Magneplanar speakers (MG-1.7s, I think) arranged in a shallow ark at the front of the room. With the three channels individually played back on their own speaker, the recordings suddenly had a very decent stereo effect (something the two channel mix-down releases never had in my estimation. Of course the recordings still aren't phase coherent, that's why Mercury used the three-channel spaced array in the first place. The third, center channel was there to make the mono record with since spaced array "stereo" can't be mixed to gather to make mono. Later they decided that mixing the mono center channel into the the right and left channels respectively, got rid of the hole-in-the-middle effect that spaced omnidirectional mikes often gave. 

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

Opinions are just opinions until substantiated. They need to be verified with neutral listening panel. I think you are misunderstanding about MCH here. I am trying hard to recall one SACD example in 5.1 where the original recording was stereo. Someone help me pls.

 

@Fitzcaraldo215 or @Kal Rubinson is referring to the actual records in MCH format, meanwhile,  I am referring to multichannels of the ambience reconstruction of a concert hall. This role of recreating the ambiance of concert hall or any venue is most beneficial for full classical orchestra music. It is not so much useful for small ensemble.  If you were to record a guitarist 30 degree on the left and a sax 30 degree to the right in mono for each channel making a stereo recording. It will sound very good in stereo playback. I think one of Sonny Rollin's album or track was made this way. If you use a stereo microphone, It will still be good. You don't need the concert hall ambience for this kind of recordings. The ambiance will be turned off.

 

The other multichannel recordings such as 5.1 SACD is adding rear ambiance which I am doing with surround ambience by convolution. With 5.1, I am now having another two sets of rear reflection adding to what I already created.

 

I hope at least you will stick to what I raised in this thread.

STC, I really don't need any more of your abuse. Please cease and desist badgering me about this. Can't we agree to disagree like gentlemen and move on? 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Look I have some of Chesky's Binaural recordings and I have binaural recordings from the BBC. In my opinion, while they sound great on headphones on speakers they don't work. And if you think they do.... Well, I'm not going to sink to ad homenim attacks like you did calling me ignorant.

 

Go slow and read the words carefully. I am quoting again the relevant part to your response.

 

S+V: Do you optimize the sound for headphones, or for speakers, or for some sort of happy in-between?
DC: I don't think it's a happy in-between. I think the filter improves both. Since the ear on the binaural recording head doesn't match your ear, we have to make it theoretically match.

 

Can you see it can never be perfect. It also cannot be perfect unless you make a little effort to readjust the speakers as the filters already encoded certain amount of XTC. It will sound great but you cannot just judge without making an adjust correctly. For an example, if you speakers separation is 120 degree, I can bet the Chesky will not sound correct or at least if the were to use pink noise as measurements, it will not measure well. IMO, 120 degree stereo setup is wrong as it will create a hole in the middle but this also depends very much on the person taste, music and room.

 

The manual of Harbeth show a 60 degrees placement. In my setup it sound best around 45 or 50 degrees. I wrote my observation to Alan ( the designer who made the Harbeth speaker) who responded that his bedroom ( or was living room) setup also uses the same 45 degree separation. So is the manual correct, Alan or me?

[STC]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

STC, I really don't need any more of your abuse. Please cease and desist badgering me about this. Can't we agree to disagree like gentlemen and move on? 

 

How to agree with someone who is saying exactly the opposite of what real scientists and recordists telling? We are NOT dealing with subjective issues; we are talking about real issue like the frequency response of binaural recording. What is there to agree or disagree. I cannot agree if you say 1+1 is 3.  Either prove it or accept the truth.

 

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, semente said:

2 mics are better for 2-channel but hardly ever work for orchestral music.

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.   

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

 

How to agree with someone who is saying exactly the opposite of what real scientists and recordists telling? We are NOT dealing with subjective issues; we are talking about real issue like the frequency response of binaural recording. What is there to agree or disagree. I cannot agree if you say 1+1 is 3.  Either prove it or accept the truth.

 

 

I don't have to prove anything. I don't want you to agree with me, I just want you to leave me alone on this subject. I have done every kind of experiment that you can possible imagine within the confines of what one person can do. I haven't formed my thoughts on this matter in a vacuum or by reading books in my armchair. How many professional or even semi-professional recordings have you made STC?