Concert Hall sound

[STC]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

The best center channel is XTC stereo. That should be ideal but if the center channel is based on mono recording than the mono center channel speaker is the best.

[STC]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

If one wanted an accurate recreation of another space in one's listening room one would have to first, remove one's listening room!

 

It will be easier to understand about the listening room, if we understand the definition of space.  Room's signature is all about first reflection and late arrival (reverberation) . This provides the cues about the size of the room and envelopment. In virtual concert hall ambience creation, the room's own "space" will be swarmed with the bigger "space". It is hard to explain in words. This room's reflection now will be perceived as early reflection that you get from the seats, heads, floor, pillar and other objects closer to you in a concert hall.

[semente]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

It will be easier to understand about the listening room, if we understand the definition of space.  Room's signature is all about first reflection and late arrival (reverberation) . This provides the cues about the size of the room and envelopment. In virtual concert hall ambience creation, the room's own "space" will be swarmed with the bigger "space". It is hard to explain in words. This room's reflection now will be perceived as early reflection that you get from the seats, heads, floor, pillar and other objects closer to you in a concert hall.

 

This (bold) is your best description of immersive sound so far.

 

I have a couple of questions in line with @gmgraves has been saying regarding a quasi-anechoic  listening room:

 

How does the DPS engine use listening room reflections to create virtual ambience perceived as "early reflections", do you point the "surround" speakers against the walls?

 

If this is not the case, aren't those "surround" speakers reproducing the synthetic "early reflections", in which case the listening room reflections (and even its reverberance or decay) are just a complement but not a necessity?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

You re reading far to much into this. My postulation was simply a thought experiment. I was just "thinking out loud", as it were.  If one wanted an accurate recreation of another space in one's listening room one would have to first, remove one's listening room!  That's as far as my thought experiment went except that the only room I've heard of that had no character of its own is an anechoic (or nearly anechoic) chamber. Yeah, I suspect it would be expensive to do either of those things, and no, it's not at all practical, and for most, downright impossible. But like I said, I was merely contemplating a "what if".

Glad we got that cleared up. But, rest assured, Mch works quite well in typical listening rooms as long as the speaker layout can be accommodated.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 

The best center channel is XTC stereo. That should be ideal but if the center channel is based on mono recording than the mono center channel speaker is the best.

In modern discretely recorded Mch, which is 5.1 or 7.1, there is a mono mic front dead center, which picks up the sound from that perspective.  It is not simply L+R.  So, best playback is achieved with a matched center channel speaker.  

 

Ideally, the center speaker is identical to front L and R, but as long as it is well matched, very good results can be achieved.  That includes even some horizontal center channels for mounting above/below video displays and which often use the same drivers as main LR speakers.

 

The center channel speaker also  can significantly improve dialog articulation with video vs. phantom center imaging.

[semente]

This is Siegfried Linkwitz experimenting with surround and multi-channel over a long time span, and speaking about the centre channel in particular, worth reading the whole piece in my opinion ( link )

 

 

My center speaker prototype uses ORION midrange and tweeter channel electronics, except that the 120 Hz highpass filters and midrange delay circuits are bypassed. The DPR 1001 is set up for a "Small" center speaker. The cabinet dimensions follow the drawings in the ORION documentation, except that the dress panel is lengthened for cosmetic reasons. I decided not to build a fully finished unit before finding out whether I would keep a center speaker.

 

I have now spent a good amount of time listening with and without the center speaker. Actually, this speaker blends in its tonality so well with left and right speakers that I often had to walk right up to it in order to tell whether it was on or off. My conclusions after listening are not completely what I expected. 
First, the one time where the center speaker was of benefit occurred during the Mahler Symphony #4 recording of the San Francisco Symphony. The words sung by the soprano in Davies Symphony Hall were slightly better to understand. 
Secondly, recordings that did not use a center channel (Chesky) were not recognizable as such. Only by touching the speaker cone did it become apparent that I was listening to a phantom center. 
Third, switching between actual and phantom center on recordings that used the center channel did not produce significant audible differences. If anything, I preferred the phantom center and the associated smoothness of soundstage spread.  
Fourth, the side speakers should have some bass output and not be "Small". The sense of acoustic space and ambience depends strongly on the frequency range below 500 Hz. I used two of my surround speakers on each side in "Large" mode to keep distortion low. The distortion became noticeable on large choral pieces. 
At this point I am not convinced that a center speaker in my system is worth it, even if it is placed out of sight most of the time. Sitting in front of such speaker is visually highly distractive and its benefit for multi-channel sound is marginal, given the satisfying sound stage that is set up by the ORION.

 

(...)

 

My overall assessment for the need of a center channel with the ORION has not changed. If I sit for my critical or fully involved listening in the stereo 'sweet spot', the apex of an equilateral triangle, then the contribution from the center speaker - as compared to a phantom center - is marginal. I only found it worthwhile for the historic RCA recordings. If I listen from a greater distance, then the reverberant sound in the room becomes too dominant for the center speaker to make a significant difference. If I sit off to one side, then the sound is pulled less strongly to the near speaker, but that does not turn it into a place where I would sit to listen attentively, because the sound stage is too distorted.

 

A further observation may illustrate the pro and con of a center speaker. I was listening to the wonderful SACD recording of Mahler's Symphony #2 by the San Francisco Symphony - of an outstanding performance which I had actually attended - and I noticed that the sound of the large chorus became more aggravating during loud passages than I am used to from 2-channel choral recordings and live performances. When I disconnected the center speaker and set the receiver to produce a phantom center, the sound and sound stage became smoother. The slight loss in intelligibility of the center stage soloists was compensated for by a generally more musical and believable image presentation without lump. In 2-channel playback there is crosstalk from the left speaker to the right ear and from the right speaker to the left ear, which results in comb filtering due to time delays. The center speaker adds additional signals at the ears that are not necessarily time coherent with the other two speakers' signals, because of the overlap in the three microphone pickups. This may have caused the effect that was observed.

For the time being I will leave the center speaker in my listening room rather than return it to the garage. I have moved it off to the right where it is mostly out of sight. I can easily place it back in the center should the need arise. But I suspect a center setup will not last.

 

Indeed, it did not last, and  I prefer the ORION without it.

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/surround_system.htm

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, STC said:

Friends? Were we enemies before?  

Oh, no, I never considered us enemies, but the debate got so hot for a while there that I was beginning to think that you consider me one. That;s what posed me to apologize for anything that I might have said to anger you. 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

It will be easier to understand about the listening room, if we understand the definition of space.  Room's signature is all about first reflection and late arrival (reverberation) . This provides the cues about the size of the room and envelopment. In virtual concert hall ambience creation, the room's own "space" will be swarmed with the bigger "space". It is hard to explain in words. This room's reflection now will be perceived as early reflection that you get from the seats, heads, floor, pillar and other objects closer to you in a concert hall.

That makes sense. Perhaps in a practical way, that's all that is required. Still, I would love to read where somebody had at least tried my thought experiment in the real world so that he could tell us how well or how poorly it worked.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

In modern discretely recorded Mch, which is 5.1 or 7.1, there is a mono mic front dead center, which picks up the sound from that perspective.  It is not simply L+R.  So, best playback is achieved with a matched center channel speaker.  

 

Ideally, the center speaker is identical to front L and R, but as long as it is well matched, very good results can be achieved.  That includes even some horizontal center channels for mounting above/below video displays and which often use the same drivers as main LR speakers.

 

The center channel speaker also  can significantly improve dialog articulation with video vs. phantom center imaging.

 

Thanks I'm thinking of using an identical center speaker and having it carefully matched to my existing pair of home speakers.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

21 minutes ago, semente said:

This is Siegfried Linkwitz experimenting with surround and multi-channel over a long time span, and speaking about the centre channel in particular, worth reading the whole piece in my opinion ( link )

 

 

My center speaker prototype uses ORION midrange and tweeter channel electronics, except that the 120 Hz highpass filters and midrange delay circuits are bypassed. The DPR 1001 is set up for a "Small" center speaker. The cabinet dimensions follow the drawings in the ORION documentation, except that the dress panel is lengthened for cosmetic reasons. I decided not to build a fully finished unit before finding out whether I would keep a center speaker.

 

I have now spent a good amount of time listening with and without the center speaker. Actually, this speaker blends in its tonality so well with left and right speakers that I often had to walk right up to it in order to tell whether it was on or off. My conclusions after listening are not completely what I expected. 
First, the one time where the center speaker was of benefit occurred during the Mahler Symphony #4 recording of the San Francisco Symphony. The words sung by the soprano in Davies Symphony Hall were slightly better to understand. 
Secondly, recordings that did not use a center channel (Chesky) were not recognizable as such. Only by touching the speaker cone did it become apparent that I was listening to a phantom center. 
Third, switching between actual and phantom center on recordings that used the center channel did not produce significant audible differences. If anything, I preferred the phantom center and the associated smoothness of soundstage spread.  
Fourth, the side speakers should have some bass output and not be "Small". The sense of acoustic space and ambience depends strongly on the frequency range below 500 Hz. I used two of my surround speakers on each side in "Large" mode to keep distortion low. The distortion became noticeable on large choral pieces. 
At this point I am not convinced that a center speaker in my system is worth it, even if it is placed out of sight most of the time. Sitting in front of such speaker is visually highly distractive and its benefit for multi-channel sound is marginal, given the satisfying sound stage that is set up by the ORION.

 

(...)

 

My overall assessment for the need of a center channel with the ORION has not changed. If I sit for my critical or fully involved listening in the stereo 'sweet spot', the apex of an equilateral triangle, then the contribution from the center speaker - as compared to a phantom center - is marginal. I only found it worthwhile for the historic RCA recordings. If I listen from a greater distance, then the reverberant sound in the room becomes too dominant for the center speaker to make a significant difference. If I sit off to one side, then the sound is pulled less strongly to the near speaker, but that does not turn it into a place where I would sit to listen attentively, because the sound stage is too distorted.

 

A further observation may illustrate the pro and con of a center speaker. I was listening to the wonderful SACD recording of Mahler's Symphony #2 by the San Francisco Symphony - of an outstanding performance which I had actually attended - and I noticed that the sound of the large chorus became more aggravating during loud passages than I am used to from 2-channel choral recordings and live performances. When I disconnected the center speaker and set the receiver to produce a phantom center, the sound and sound stage became smoother. The slight loss in intelligibility of the center stage soloists was compensated for by a generally more musical and believable image presentation without lump. In 2-channel playback there is crosstalk from the left speaker to the right ear and from the right speaker to the left ear, which results in comb filtering due to time delays. The center speaker adds additional signals at the ears that are not necessarily time coherent with the other two speakers' signals, because of the overlap in the three microphone pickups. This may have caused the effect that was observed.

For the time being I will leave the center speaker in my listening room rather than return it to the garage. I have moved it off to the right where it is mostly out of sight. I can easily place it back in the center should the need arise. But I suspect a center setup will not last.

 

Indeed, it did not last, and  I prefer the ORION without it.

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/surround_system.htm

I thought you said you didn't want to pay much attention to others' subjective opinions.  That is all Siggy is offering.  Recording engineer/audiophile Peter McGrath also dislikes a center channel and records in 4.0.  There are others, as well.  I have followed their discussions for quite some time.

 

Meanwhile, long before Siggy chimed in, the industry adopted the ITU standard for music recording, which includes a center channel captured by a center mic.  There was much experimentation and industry consensus in that decision.  Many thousands of Mch recordings have been produced that way.  But, as with Siggy, if you prefer using 4.0, like Quad did, with center channel signal mixed into L and R, you are, of course, free to do so. 

 

BTW, the angular position of Siggy's surround speakers is also seriously out of agreement with the ITU standard, distorting the spatial presentation as captured in the hall per ITU.  He seems to prefer something more like the old, failed Quad 4.0 standard.

 

I have tried center imaging both ways and I totally disagree that a phantom center is in any way advantageous, myself.  You might try that comparison yourself with an open mind.  You might also read Toole's latest book, which has much science-based information on the subject, unlike Siggy's subjective opinion.  

 

On the other hand, Toole is a big fan of Mch for music and movies, has reviewed the research and done his own objective experimentation.  He concludes based on empirical evidence that the center channel is a good thing, both for music and for movie dialog. Many others independently agree.

 

Neither Linkwitz nor Toole are infallible or walk on water.  However, Toole, unlike Siggy, uses much more evidence based information, corroborated independently by other researchers. But, believe as you wish.  Listening yourself, however, may convince you otherwise.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Glad we got that cleared up. But, rest assured, Mch works quite well in typical listening rooms as long as the speaker layout can be accommodated.

It's been a long time since I fiddled with surround. Back in the mid '90's, I had a seven channel system from Philips. It was two chassis; one contained 7 -100 watt amplifiers and the other was a surround processor (Dolby Matrix). It was designed as part of a cinema surround system but this was before DTS and Dolby digital 5.1 and the video switching was pure composite video! The surround unit had a DSP based reverb unit in it and one could switch through a number of different profiles: Stadium, concert hall, church, cathedral, night club, etc. I remember one Christmas, the American Public Television Network was presenting an evening of carols from the Kings College at Cambridge University in England. The Carolers, were, as I recall, men and boys. The room they were singing in was a huge gothic space  with towering vaults and a very long nave. The carolers were seated along the nave and facing each other. As I sat down to watch it, it occurred to me that since the broadcast was stereo, I could run it through the surround processor in the "cathedral" setting and get a semblance of surround sound where the side and rear channels were just ambience. Artificial ambience to be sure, but it sounded glorious! It was the best presentation of that kind of sound field augmentation that I've heard before or since.  Alas the lack of ability to switch HDTV signals made the Philips units redundant when I bought my first HDTV in 1999. I also bought an expensive 7-channel A/V receiver from Harmon Kardon to replace the phillips units. This one did digital surround (DTS, Dolby) and had component (PbPrY) inputs for early analog HDTV sources. But HDMI made that setup redundant as well. It too had a built-in surround synthesis via DSP from Lexicon (a Harman International company, just like Harman Kardon). It had the various different "venue signatures" just like the Philips unit and I enjoyed it occasionally for DVDs with surround tracks and for surround music from SACD and the occasional audio Blu-ray, but I never had another surround experience like the Kings College Choir. When I moved out of state to my present digs, I sold the Pioneer Elite rear projection 60" "HDTV". the H-K receiver, and the Athena Surround speakers (except the Athena subwoofers which I brought with me). That was my last brush with surround sound, and although it worked for multi-channel SACDs and audio-only blu-rays, it was mostly optimized for video 5.1 sound. I don't really miss it. 

[semente]

27 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

On the other hand, Toole is a big fan of Mch for music and movies, has reviewed the research and done his own objective experimentation.  He concludes based on empirical evidence that the center channel is a good thing, both for music and for movie dialog.

 

I've found these photos of Toole's listening room.

The first thing I noticed was that the listening spot distance to the speakers seems excessive given the height of the ceiling. Some people would probably suggest that speakers should be brought into the room to improve the perception of depth.

Then there's the strange location of the centre speaker, a lot lower than the tweeters of his L and R speakers and with a large, highly reflective, tiled surface in between it an the listener. Side walls are very asymmetric in nature and furnishings and the pitch of the ceiling isn't flattering either. The TV seams to be the focal point, and I am left wondering how that this is primarily an AV system. I much prefer Linkwitz's line of reasoning.

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, semente said:

This is Siegfried Linkwitz experimenting with surround and multi-channel over a long time span, and speaking about the centre channel in particular, worth reading the whole piece in my opinion ( link )

 

 

My center speaker prototype uses ORION midrange and tweeter channel electronics, except that the 120 Hz highpass filters and midrange delay circuits are bypassed. The DPR 1001 is set up for a "Small" center speaker. The cabinet dimensions follow the drawings in the ORION documentation, except that the dress panel is lengthened for cosmetic reasons. I decided not to build a fully finished unit before finding out whether I would keep a center speaker.

 

I have now spent a good amount of time listening with and without the center speaker. Actually, this speaker blends in its tonality so well with left and right speakers that I often had to walk right up to it in order to tell whether it was on or off. My conclusions after listening are not completely what I expected. 
First, the one time where the center speaker was of benefit occurred during the Mahler Symphony #4 recording of the San Francisco Symphony. The words sung by the soprano in Davies Symphony Hall were slightly better to understand. 
Secondly, recordings that did not use a center channel (Chesky) were not recognizable as such. Only by touching the speaker cone did it become apparent that I was listening to a phantom center. 
Third, switching between actual and phantom center on recordings that used the center channel did not produce significant audible differences. If anything, I preferred the phantom center and the associated smoothness of soundstage spread.  
Fourth, the side speakers should have some bass output and not be "Small". The sense of acoustic space and ambience depends strongly on the frequency range below 500 Hz. I used two of my surround speakers on each side in "Large" mode to keep distortion low. The distortion became noticeable on large choral pieces. 
At this point I am not convinced that a center speaker in my system is worth it, even if it is placed out of sight most of the time. Sitting in front of such speaker is visually highly distractive and its benefit for multi-channel sound is marginal, given the satisfying sound stage that is set up by the ORION.

 

(...)

 

My overall assessment for the need of a center channel with the ORION has not changed. If I sit for my critical or fully involved listening in the stereo 'sweet spot', the apex of an equilateral triangle, then the contribution from the center speaker - as compared to a phantom center - is marginal. I only found it worthwhile for the historic RCA recordings. If I listen from a greater distance, then the reverberant sound in the room becomes too dominant for the center speaker to make a significant difference. If I sit off to one side, then the sound is pulled less strongly to the near speaker, but that does not turn it into a place where I would sit to listen attentively, because the sound stage is too distorted.

 

A further observation may illustrate the pro and con of a center speaker. I was listening to the wonderful SACD recording of Mahler's Symphony #2 by the San Francisco Symphony - of an outstanding performance which I had actually attended - and I noticed that the sound of the large chorus became more aggravating during loud passages than I am used to from 2-channel choral recordings and live performances. When I disconnected the center speaker and set the receiver to produce a phantom center, the sound and sound stage became smoother. The slight loss in intelligibility of the center stage soloists was compensated for by a generally more musical and believable image presentation without lump. In 2-channel playback there is crosstalk from the left speaker to the right ear and from the right speaker to the left ear, which results in comb filtering due to time delays. The center speaker adds additional signals at the ears that are not necessarily time coherent with the other two speakers' signals, because of the overlap in the three microphone pickups. This may have caused the effect that was observed.

For the time being I will leave the center speaker in my listening room rather than return it to the garage. I have moved it off to the right where it is mostly out of sight. I can easily place it back in the center should the need arise. But I suspect a center setup will not last.

 

Indeed, it did not last, and  I prefer the ORION without it.

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/surround_system.htm

The three spaced microphones (I'll bet they were omnidirectional mikes too!) Shown in the illustration above is the way virtually all of the Mercury Living Presence recordings were made as well as most of the RCA Living Stereo recordings from about 1954 through the early sixties by engineer Louis Leyton. It works but the stereo it provides is not phase coherent like a coincident stereo recording. Like I said in another thread,  Mercury released a few of the classic mercury recordings as SACDs. The surround portion of the discs was arranged so that only three of the 5.1 channels were used. Instead of the normal 5.1 surround. these Mercuries consisted of the master tape's right-center-and-left channels just like the picture above. I was at a Hi-Fi show in San Francisco in the early 2000s and somebody had set up a demo (might have been Magnepan, I don't recall)  where there were three identical speakers (I think they were MG-1.6s) lined up across the front of the room and they were playing a number of three channel recordings, including some from Mercury. The one I most remembered was "The Firebird" with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony. I think that three discrete channel stereo is much better than mixing the center channel equally into the left and right as Mercury and RCA did for their stereo releases but it still isn't as good as coincident stereo miking (IMO). The reason for the center channel in the first place was to compensate for a shortcoming of widely-spaced omnis. Since they are not phase coherent, they can't be mixed together for mono. In the early days of stereo, the stereophonic release of any LP was a niche market. The big money was still monaural LPs. Because a monaural cartridge, in those days, would ruin a stereo record instantly, record companies were obliged to produce a dual inventory for every title. Mercury and RCA solved this problem with 1/2-inch, 3-track, Ampex 350 tape recorders and three microphones. the center one was destined as the source for the monaural record release and the spaced omnis on either side was for the stereo release. Soon they decided that blending the mono track equally into each of the two spaced microphones helped alleviate the sometimes "hole-in-the-middle" effect (depending on the acoustics of the recording venue) and it became general practice. If only Bob Fine and Louis Leyton (not to mention Robert Woods of Telarc) had heeded Alan Blumlein and stuck with a coincident pair to do stereo, the third channel would never have been necessary in the first place.   

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I've found these photos of Toole's listening room.

The first thing I noticed was that the listening spot distance to the speakers seems excessive given the height of the ceiling. Some people would probably suggest that speakers should be brought into the room to improve the perception of depth.

Then there's the strange location of the centre speaker, a lot lower than the tweeters of his L and R speakers and with a large, highly reflective, tiled surface in between it an the listener. Side walls are very asymmetric in nature and furnishings and the pitch of the ceiling isn't flattering either. The TV seams to be the focal point, and I am left wondering how that this is primarily an AV system. I much prefer Linkwitz's line of reasoning.

 

 

 

I think you are right. This system seems to be set-up primarily for video. Since in a 5.1 video surround system, the center channel is voice only, the position of the tweeter would not be as important as it would be were the system optimized for music.  

[STC]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Oh, no, I never considered us enemies, but the debate got so hot for a while there that I was beginning to think that you consider me one. That;s what posed me to apologize for anything that I might have said to anger you. 

 

Don’t worry about it, George. Some of the things I said was rather uncouth and uncalled for. My sincere apologies to you too, friend. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

In modern discretely recorded Mch, which is 5.1 or 7.1, there is a mono mic front dead center, which picks up the sound from that perspective.  It is not simply L+R.  So, best playback is achieved with a matched center channel speaker.  

 

Ideally, the center speaker is identical to front L and R, but as long as it is well matched, very good results can be achieved.  That includes even some horizontal center channels for mounting above/below video displays and which often use the same drivers as main LR speakers.

 

The center channel speaker also  can significantly improve dialog articulation with video vs. phantom center imaging.

 

Center channel became the main stream mantra due to cinema dialogue and HT. How much it is relevant for the accurate reproduction of music is subjective.

 

The best reference for proper AB comparison is the 2L album. For movies, the role is different and we will never come to a conclusion as we both deal mch (5.1) differently. I even have some disagreement with the inventor of Ambiophonics on the level of the centre channel routed to the front LR for XTC. With Ralph, it is easier to discuss because he could verify them and correct me because we have control of the channels due to DAW in our system to compare and understand each other. 

 

I also saw many reference to the old research of LRC. I was made to understand that the research was originally intended for Omni Mic. 

 

There is also the issue of comb filtering when using more than one center speakers. This discussion will lead to other topics. The question is the role of centre channels for classical music. I am approaching this subject with the firm believe that stereo itself is inherently flawed due to crosstalk and apply crosstalk cancellation. My examples with always be XTC stereo and centre channel. While I can see your POV, it will be a little difficult for you to see my POV as it requires you to implement XTC and then compare the role of centre channel for concert hall sound. 

 

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That makes sense. Perhaps in a practical way, that's all that is required. Still, I would love to read where somebody had at least tried my thought experiment in the real world so that he could tell us how well or how poorly it worked.

 

This is going to lead to another round of aimless, cross purpose posts. 

 

Firstly, in the context of an recorded concert hall sound, do you accept that not the full ambiance is captured?  

 

Secondly, that ambiance comes from all directions and so too must be reproduced so that it will come from all direction. 

 

We have get this point cleared up first. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I've found these photos of Toole's listening room.

The first thing I noticed was that the listening spot distance to the speakers seems excessive given the height of the ceiling. Some people would probably suggest that speakers should be brought into the room to improve the perception of depth.

Then there's the strange location of the centre speaker, a lot lower than the tweeters of his L and R speakers and with a large, highly reflective, tiled surface in between it an the listener. Side walls are very asymmetric in nature and furnishings and the pitch of the ceiling isn't flattering either. The TV seams to be the focal point, and I am left wondering how that this is primarily an AV system. I much prefer Linkwitz's line of reasoning.

 

 

 

Well, obviously, the guy is a total moron who knows nothing about acoustics, room or speaker measurements, etc.  It is guaranteed to sound horrible, as we can clearly discern from the photos and our fertile imaginations. No need to measure or listen.   It's obvious.  It must have been some ghost writer who wrote and published all that highly influential, sciencey stuff using his name.

 

So, obviously, you know much better how to set up a Mch or any system,  just by eyeballing it, while your esteemed buddy Linkwitz is busily reinventing '70's 4.0 Quad by ear alone.

 

BTW, did you notice his main Revel Studio II's are upside down?  What kind of idiot does that?  He is obviously not smart enough to have thought that might put the tweeter axis closer to the height of the listener's ear.

 

But, seriously, unless you have actually heard it, you are just speculating.

 

 

[semente]

32 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, obviously, the guy is a total moron who knows nothing about acoustics, room or speaker measurements, etc.  It is guaranteed to sound horrible, as we can clearly discern from the photos and our fertile imaginations. No need to measure or listen.   It's obvious.  It must have been some ghost writer who wrote and published all that highly influential, sciencey stuff using his name.

 

So, obviously, you know much better how to set up a Mch or any system,  just by eyeballing it, while your esteemed buddy Linkwitz is busily reinventing '70's 4.0 Quad by ear alone.

 

BTW, did you notice his main Revel Studio II's are upside down?  What kind of idiot does that?  He is obviously not smart enough to have thought that might put the tweeter axis closer to the height of the listener's ear.

 

But, seriously, unless you have actually heard it, you are just speculating.

 

Do you even read?

I wrote that the centre channel was too low: the centre tweeter is about 65cm from the floor and the main speakers' tweeters are about 115cm from the floor.

 

"Siggy", "moron", "buddy", "idot". Is that insecurity or are you just touchy when someone criticises what you like?

I give up, it's impossible to debate anything with you.

 

Channel Classics make faultless recordings, Mch is perfect and Toole is god. Happy?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Center channel became the main stream mantra due to cinema dialogue and HT. How much it is relevant for the accurate reproduction of music is subjective.

 

The best reference for proper AB comparison is the 2L album. For movies, the role is different and we will never come to a conclusion as we both deal mch (5.1) differently. I even have some disagreement with the inventor of Ambiophonics on the level of the centre channel routed to the front LR for XTC. With Ralph, it is easier to discuss because he could verify them and correct me because we have control of the channels due to DAW in our system to compare and understand each other. 

 

I also saw many reference to the old research of LRC. I was made to understand that the research was originally intended for Omni Mic. 

 

There is also the issue of comb filtering when using more than one center speakers. This discussion will lead to other topics. The question is the role of centre channels for classical music. I am approaching this subject with the firm believe that stereo itself is inherently flawed due to crosstalk and apply crosstalk cancellation. My examples with always be XTC stereo and centre channel. While I can see your POV, it will be a little difficult for you to see my POV as it requires you to implement XTC and then compare the role of centre channel for concert hall sound. 

 

 

I question all of your assumptions.  Except, yee

 

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

Center channel became the main stream mantra due to cinema dialogue and HT. How much it is relevant for the accurate reproduction of music is subjective.

 

The best reference for proper AB comparison is the 2L album. For movies, the role is different and we will never come to a conclusion as we both deal mch (5.1) differently. I even have some disagreement with the inventor of Ambiophonics on the level of the centre channel routed to the front LR for XTC. With Ralph, it is easier to discuss because he could verify them and correct me because we have control of the channels due to DAW in our system to compare and understand each other. 

 

I also saw many reference to the old research of LRC. I was made to understand that the research was originally intended for Omni Mic. 

 

There is also the issue of comb filtering when using more than one center speakers. This discussion will lead to other topics. The question is the role of centre channels for classical music. I am approaching this subject with the firm believe that stereo itself is inherently flawed due to crosstalk and apply crosstalk cancellation. My examples with always be XTC stereo and centre channel. While I can see your POV, it will be a little difficult for you to see my POV as it requires you to implement XTC and then compare the role of centre channel for concert hall sound. 

 

 

Well, yes, cinema dialogue had a lot to do with the move to a center channel from 4.0.  It is greatly improved by a center channel.  But, the ITU standard also contained a center channel, and it was adopted by most all Mch music recording teams.  They did not have to use it for music,  and a small minority did not.  There was no gun to anyone's head, though.  The center channel was used because each of those recording teams evaluated it and they found it better, almost universally.  But, again, those know-nothing morons are so far behind us armchair hobbyist geniuses, even though their professional careers may critically depend on decisions like this one.

 

But, honestly, sound is sound - movies, music, etc.  As long as you are adhering to suggested standards for playback, like speaker angular placement and channel count, there is no difference.  And, as it turns out, the ITU standard for 5.0/.1 and Dolby and DTS standards for their lossless BD codecs are all quite congruent.  There is no such thing I can see about "optimized for music vs. movies".  Look up those standards and see for yourself.  They all fit together perfectly.

 

I do not know which 2L album you are referring to.  And, no disrespect to you, but you are in a realm considerably off the track of commercial, discrete Mch recording.  You are into crosstalk elimination and massive artificial Mch synthesis.  I am not.  Those ideas are just not of interest to me.   I want to play back discrete Mch recordings as faithfully as I can to the master, channel by channel.  Therefore, I stick to the ITU speaker layout, unaugmented in any way.  I also, FWIW, do not even apply any Mch upmixing to stereo recordings for the same reason.  It is quite satisfying to me as is,  so I don't know why I would want to go down your path.

 

I am very happy, but I hope you are too with your approach,  though incompatible with mine.  So, no XTC, etc. for me.  I would rather listen to the most undistorted and natural recording of the mic feeds from all channels, including the center.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

Don’t worry about it, George. Some of the things I said was rather uncouth and uncalled for. My sincere apologies to you too, friend. 

No worries STC. We're all only human. I said some things that I shouldn't have said either. It happens. no animosity intended. Be well my friend!

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, STC said:

Firstly, in the context of an recorded concert hall sound, do you accept that not the full ambiance is captured?  

 

Of course.

5 hours ago, STC said:

Secondly, that ambiance comes from all directions and so too must be reproduced so that it will come from all direction. 

As someone who has recorded in every kind of environment from people's homes to nightclubs to concert halls to large churches and cathedrals, absolutely!

[STC]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I question all of your assumptions.  Except, yee

 

Well, yes, cinema dialogue had a lot to do with the move to a center channel from 4.0.  It is greatly improved by a center channel.  But, the ITU standard also contained a center channel, and it was adopted by most all Mch music recording teams.  They did not have to use it for music,  and a small minority did not.  There was no gun to anyone's head, though.  The center channel was used because each of those recording teams evaluated it and they found it better, almost universally.  But, again, those know-nothing morons are so far behind us armchair hobbyist geniuses, even though their professional careers may critically depend on decisions like this one.

 

But, honestly, sound is sound - movies, music, etc.  As long as you are adhering to suggested standards for playback, like speaker angular placement and channel count, there is no difference.  And, as it turns out, the ITU standard for 5.0/.1 and Dolby and DTS standards for their lossless BD codecs are all quite congruent.  There is no such thing I can see about "optimized for music vs. movies".  Look up those standards and see for yourself.  They all fit together perfectly.

 

I do not know which 2L album you are referring to.  And, no disrespect to you, but you are in a realm considerably off the track of commercial, discrete Mch recording.  You are into crosstalk elimination and massive artificial Mch synthesis.  I am not.  Those ideas are just not of interest to me.   I want to play back discrete Mch recordings as faithfully as I can to the master, channel by channel.  Therefore, I stick to the ITU speaker layout, unaugmented in any way.  I also, FWIW, do not even apply any Mch upmixing to stereo recordings for the same reason.  It is quite satisfying to me as is,  so I don't know why I would want to go down your path.

 

I am very happy, but I hope you are too with your approach,  though incompatible with mine.  So, no XTC, etc. for me.  I would rather listen to the most undistorted and natural recording of the mic feeds from all channels, including the center.

 

Quote

 The center channel was used because each of those recording teams evaluated it and they found it better, almost universally.  But, again, those know-nothing morons are so far behind us armchair hobbyist geniuses, even though their professional careers may critically depend on decisions like this one.

 

I thought we are having a discussion and I never suggested the ITU standards were set by morons. That's your assumption. Your words. I don't think I can go far with this topic as we are talking from different perceptive. 

 

I started off my response with a reference to music reproduction for multi-channel and 2L recordings. I hardly make any post or get into extensive subject matter if I could not demonstrate my point with my setup. I hope you will give me that benefit of doubt and consider that I have your type of standard ITU setup and one with XTC and without center speaker (but the center channel is fed to the front LR). 

 

Let's understand why our POV is diferrent assumming you have also listened to the 2L Magnificat recording and done a proper blind test with and without center speaker (NOT to be confused with center channel). Unless we use same reference recording, we may never see eye to eye on this matter.

 

1) If you have relied with the built-in function of AVR or JRiver where you can tell the player that you are not using center channel, then YOU ARE RIGHT.  This method doesn't sound correct. 

 

2) If you have not done XTC (not some online sample) then you are right again. 

 

3) For music, as far as I am concerned with the 2L Magnificat, the non use of the center channel requires me to deviate from the standard ITU level. This is another area where we can only discuss if we both have the opportunity to listen to both in an instantaneous AB comparison. I can demo that and let the listeners decide for themselves.

 

 

I tried my best to avoid XTC in this thread as I am now aware that most users experience with XTC is not favourable. The implementation is difficult requires fine tuning by the listeners. So suggest me a way we can have this discussion in a constructive way by comparing apples to apples.

 

I hope this article which is all about ITU setting helps you to question whether you current setup itself taken all this into consideration.

 

For the release of film materials on television, various standards state that the operating mixing level should be somewhat lower. Then the low-level dialogues which are easily heard in a quiet and acoustically well treated control room are mixed on a slightly higher level. This is to ensure that when replayed in a home theatre, which has typically higher background noise level, dialogues will still be clearly heard. However, for music mixes, there are no standardised levels – as with stereo – because each engineer chooses the level based on personal need and taste, very much like the levels chosen by end users. Thus, one absolute reference level is not yet really applied to all multichannel surround sound applications. Several methods can be used to calibrate the frequency response of each loudspeaker as well as their combined system response. Generally, individual loudspeaker frequency responses must be calibrated before adjusting speaker output levels. Furthermore, there is no point in trying to calibrate the loudspeaker frequency responses if there are fundamental acoustical problems in the room. Those should be solved first. Level calibration is the last step once all other issues have been resolved. The acoustical response of the main speakers together with the subwoofer should be flat and linear over the full audio spectrum. If measuring equipment is available, MLS type impulse response will provide excellent information for detailed and precise speaker calibration. If no MLS measuring system is available, there are two other coarse alternative level adjustment methods. The accuracy of these methods depends greatly on the quality and frequency response of an SPL meter.

 

https://www.genelec.com/documents/publications/MultichannelControlRoomAcousticsandCalibration.pdf

 

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Of course.

As someone who has recorded in every kind of environment from people's homes to nightclubs to concert halls to large churches and cathedrals, absolutely!

 

Since you are agreeing with, then by now you should able to to see that your recorded sound contains only the information of the frontal stage. Substitute the recording for real instrument. This instrument will sound different in different rooms because the room acoustics determine the final sound that reaches your ears. A recording too, is similar to the instrument; if you play them in anechoic chamber it will only be accurate reproduction of what is in the recording but will never sound correct because of the missing ambience outside the microphones.  

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Since you are agreeing with, then by now you should able to to see that your recorded sound contains only the information of the frontal stage.

I don't really understand why you are asking. I have NEVER asserted otherwise. What "ambience" gets into the my recordings generally "leaks" into the stereo mikes from the room. Generally it's just a "bloom" around the soundstage. But you are possibly overlooking the fact That I don't do "recording dates" in empty venues. I almost always record live performances. There are people out there in the audience, and people are generally noisy. I want to exclude them from the sound of the audience as much as possible. In fact I need to exclude them.  The Orchestra management or the conductor doesn't want to hear people talking, programs rustling and people coughing and sneezing.  Since excluding the audience also, unfortunately, excludes the room ambience (I know of no way to separate them, do you?)

1 hour ago, STC said:

Substitute the recording for real instrument. This instrument will sound different in different rooms because the room acoustics determine the final sound that reaches your ears. A recording too, is similar to the instrument; if you play them in anechoic chamber it will only be accurate reproduction of what is in the recording but will never sound correct because of the missing ambience outside the microphones.  

Yes, I know that. But if you record the ambience on multiple tracks and play it back on multiple channels in an anechoic environment, would you not hear the ambience as it was recorded, as well?