"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[esldude]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

 

There's one premise that is overlooked by perhaps every MCH enthusiast as well as perhaps every other type of enthusiast.  Which is, the amount of music information that remains audible at the output i.e. speaker is perhaps only 40 - 60% of all the music info embedded in a given recording and read / retrieved for processing.  In other words, distortions generated along the processing of the input signal raise the overall noise floor of a given playback system so that only a percentage of the music info retrieved and processed remains audible at the speaker.

 

This would explain why a hi-rez format say 24/192 are most always only marginally better than Redbook CD while some even claim there is little or no difference.  Because it's a percentage thing.  If say the music info from a single pluck of a guitar string consumed 1MB in Redbook CD format and a hi-rez version consumed 2MB or even 3MB, any audible difference between the two formats remains somewhat negligable because 50% of a single music note remaining audible at the speaker is 50% regardless of the format.

 

This is why it's impossible for the highly questionable MQA format to come even remotely close to producing music "just as the engineers heard in the studio".

 

This perhaps also explains why many who already went down the MCH path years ago gave up on it.  Multi-channel may generate a sound phenomena to the listener but it did nothing to actually provide a higher resolution of musicality.  It was and is just a fun phenomena that is at best no more accurate than 2-ch stereo.

 

Dare I say this also explais why Redbook CD really is sufficient enough for even the most discrinating ear.

 

As for down-mixing MCH info into 2-ch stereo, this would only seem to generate even more of a phemomena than actual MCH.  Regardless, any form of MCH  in and of itself simply cannot translate into a higher resolution presentation or greater sound quality than simple 2-ch for the very reason MCH does zero (think MQA) to lower the noise floor of a given system such that a greater percentage of the music info retrieved remains audible at the speaker. 

 

You asked for suggestions and comments.  My suggestion is, if you're after a sound quality consisting of a fun phenomena only that has very litte to do with improved levels of musicality, you're already on the right path.  If on the other hand, you seek improved levels of musicality that inch your way closer to the live performance or the absolute sound, your money and time would be best spent elsewhere.

 

 

Your premise on percentages doesn't make sense to me.  Until the speaker very little noise is added at all.  Certainly you aren't losings some tens of percent.  Even the speaker if of decent quality isn't losing much.  5% or less I would say.  So I think you are looking at 90% or more getting thru to the air in the room.  

 

Your 50% being 50% regardless of resolution also seems like an idea that doesn't float.  50% of redbook is less than 50% of 192 if 192 really matters.  

 

Stereo vs MCH, stereo has some inherent limitations.  I agree with Kal downmixing to stereo is always a negative.  Even of poorly done MCH.  MCH can in fact be of much better resolution than the finest stereo because of limitations of stereo reproduction inherent in only using 2 channels.  To think otherwise is bizarre.  

[esldude]

10 hours ago, shtf said:

 

Perhaps you think it bizarre because you're unable to fathom that as in my example of the arbitrary 50% remains 50% regardless of format content volume.  

Yes, this is illogical and unfathomable.  Unless you have some more subtle point that needs more explaining this is simply ridiculous. 

Quote

 

How bizarre is to conceive that an arbitrary 50% of the music info of single guitar note remaining audible at the speaker is still 50% of a single guitar note regardless of format content volume?  That is so long as the distortions induced along the input signal processing path remain unchanged.

It is very bizarre.  It doesn't fit any explanation of how the gear including speakers work.  Or the practical experience of that gear. 

Quote

 

Why is that bizarre?  Throw in an superior pair of interconnects and speaker cables and maybe that arbitrary 50% audibility changes to 54 or 55% remaining audible at the speaker.  Add superior line conditioning and maybe it’s now 66 or 67%.  Or if per chance the replacement is inferior, maybe that arbitrary 50% remaining audible drops to 47 or 46%.

 

If an actual improvement occurs in a system, what exactly do you think is happening to generate that improvement?  I’m reminded of a poli-sci professor who said on the first day of class, “IMO, you’re all A students – and it’s all downhill from here.”  Some of us laughed while others expressed their confusion or concern.  I could easily say the same thing of a transistor radio or SOTA-level playback system.  They are all 100% accurate – until you turn them on and push play.

 

The above is pointless babbling.  

Quote

 

You say my premise makes no sense and is bizarre, yet you, using my same grading example, then say you believe roughly 90% of the input signal retains its fidelity all the way to the speaker.  Although you are far from alone in your thinking, there certainly is no evidence to support such a high percentage.  I think of one gent calling himself the audio expert who claims all cables and all components retain 100% of the input signal's fidelity.  If there was any truth to such claims, perhaps aside from proper speaker positioning, then there would be very few, if any improvements remaining to be made to any playback system.  Comments in perhaps any high-end audio forum would suggest the contrary is true.  That some form of improvement may be found under perhaps every corner of the carpet.

The evidence is being able to measure distortion, noise and other contributions that corrupt the input signal.  They are no where near 50 %.  The entire playback chain from source to speaker input will all add up to maybe 1%.  The speaker may add another percent or three.  Various radiation patterns may do damage which is difficult to put a percentage upon.  Your wire feeding the speaker is NOT going to fix those issues. 

Quote

 

Moreover, if one is intimately familiar with live music and playback music it is not uncommon for them to also realize the rather large gulf that separates the two, even with today's state-of-the-art level playback systems.

Having done some recording I agree.  But for altogether different reasons.  A base level reason is the limitations of stereo recording and playback.  The other is the tiny percentage of recordings that are relatively unprocessed and simple enough to have a chance to show what is possible.  Something far less than 1% of all recordings. 

Quote

 

For example.  Back in a more innocent age:

 

1.  Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound stated in the Mar/Apr 2009 issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm so that much of the music never makes it to the recording."  Paraphrased.  Harley went on to explain that his premise was based on a somewhat silly experiment conducted by Ed Meitner and it was Meitner who actually came to this conclusion and Harley I suppose just went along for the ride.  Meitner (and Harley) was just wrong about the cause but Harley was accurate when he used the word catastrophic to describe the effects.

 

2.  About a year earlier, Jonathan Valin, senior editor of The Absolute Sound wrote, "We are lucky if even our very best playback systems are able to capture 15% of the magic of the live performance."  Paraphrased.  I've known a few who not only agreed with Valin’s statement but went further to say 15% was perhaps a bit too optimistic.  BTW, I translate magic to believability.

 

If you think my premise of an arbitrary 50% remaining audible is bizarre, then what is your explanation for various improvements you read that others encounter or perhaps even you encountered?  Or the only-marginal sonic differences between Redbook CD and hi-rez?  Or why the supposed "hi-rez" MQA format has fallen on its face when compared to its introductory out-of-this-world performance claims?  Why even today some 18 years after the introduction of hi-rez formats, few if any in a high-end audio forum would bat an eye if somebody opened a new thread asking something like, "Is there a sonic difference between Redbook CD and hi-rez?".

Placebo effect plain and simple is the explanation for the bulk of the above.  The loss at the microphone is not very great for the signal that hits the microphone.  The big loss is that sampling two points in a huge space and reproducing that simply has severe limitations to recreate the entire event.  Your microphones aren't that bad, but they aren't capturing all the needed information.  It isn't there to be had in a stereo recording.  

Quote

 

You say MCH is a much better resolution that 2-ch because of the inherent limitations of 2-ch.  Again, there can exist a 5.1 channel recording format or even a 55.7 recording format and yes, there can be some sonic benefit to such configurations.  But 50% audibility at the speaker still remains 50% regardless of the number of channels.  Even if there’s volumes more information being processed.  So I understand there’s a hint of truth to this claim but resolution is definitely not the right word to use. 

You are unhinged about the 50%.  Simple information theory shows more channels of the same quality (even the 50% you babble on about) have the potential for more information than lesser channels.  And listening to the well done recordings in a good MCH setup make that abundantly clear.  You can hear it for yourself. 

Quote

 

Besides, who could possibly make such a claim and maintain credibility?  Meitner?  Harley?  Valin?  IOW, if nobody was even aware that there’s far more music info embedded in a given recording than what we hear at the speaker, how could anybody know the type of presentation a well-thought-out 2-ch system is truly capable of reproducing? 

 

BTW, my premise of accurately retrieving 100% of the music info embedded in a recording but due to distortions inducing a much raised noise floors with only percentages of the original input signal remaining audible at the speaker can explain nearly every last deficiency, known and unknown, in high-end audio. .......snippage of MQA irrelevancy..............

 

Again, although my percentages are a bit arbitrary this is why hi-rez formats (regardless of format content volume) and why more channels like multi-channel actually do little or even nothing to improve real sound quality or get us closer to the live performance.

Most of the above is demonstrably wrong headed.  You make the claim nobody could know what a well thought out 2 channel system is capable of reproducing and yet you couldn't make your claims unless you knew.  You explanation is hung up in some recursive crazy loop here.  

 

I'll also add, that your goofy ideas would point you toward mono.  You can say all the same things and determine in your world that mono is best because no one knows about the arbitrary 50% and the additional channels do nothing to change the arbitrary 50% problem.  Mono is king.  

 

 

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

 

 

Maybe esldude will elaborate on "Simple information theory shows more channels of the same quality (even the 50% you babble on about) have the potential for more information than lesser channels.  "

 

 

In most simple terms, I have pipe of a given size at a given pressure and it flows 1 gallon(liter) per minute of liquid.

If I have two such pipes I get 2 gallons (liters) per minute of liquid. 

If I have 5 such pipes I get 5 gallons (liters) per minute of liquid. 

 

Or take another approach. I have a two channel stereo system setup optimally.  Right and left. 

There are limitations for reproducing hall ambiance.  I add some channels in the rear for hall ambiance and it is coming from a proper direction for that.  It in no way reduces the front two channels, but adds additional info that isn't contained with in them.  Adding this other info into the existing front channels will not be as good.  

[esldude]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Amen. 

 

However, when you do that, you're adding a sort of generic ambience - kind of like those buttons on receivers that promise a "stadium" or "cathedral" or "night club" acoustic. Discreet m-c, done right, gives you a specific venue's ambient signature—the Concertgebouw is different than Mechanics Hall is different than the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, etc. IMO, the "sense of occasion" that a good surround recording can provide derives in part from the evocation of a unique place.

 

Andy Quint

 

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

I was thinking of real multi channel. Not some faux multi channel. So the ambiance would be recorded from the real location.

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Maybe, but it might be better to just fire some microwaves into the eye sockets and vibrate the auditory nerves...

You know the future is wireless.  Why not local in home concentrated high power radar?

[esldude]

12 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I don't want to go into this again, but I'll just say as I've said before that IMO it is needed for accurate transient reproduction. So that you capture and reproduce all harmonics that exist without limiting bandwidth at any point in the channel. That includes microphones too.

 

snip........................

Of course your ears will limit bandwidth.  So if you have an adequate amount of bandwidth beyond the ears it wouldn't matter if you capture less than the full bandwidth of the source as the ears could not be effected.  Now how much more is needed is an issue that could bear some examination, but I'm pretty sure we don't need 100 khz through put in the entire reproduction chain. 

 

96 khz sample rates with 40 khz bandwidth seems plenty considering few practical microphones for music recording can do more.  Few speakers can manage 40 khz on the other end.  

[esldude]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

 

oops double post. 

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I saw 'The Shining' in the theatre when it first came out. When my then girlfriend and I exited the theatre, there was a line for the next showing. Both of us ran up and down that line telling people to save their money and avoid the movie like the plague! I honestly believe that it was one of the worse films I have ever had the misfortune to see! Luckily I don't remember much about it (Other than "Here's Johnny". Put it out of my mind, altogether, I guess). So, if your little rock-'n-roll taunt was based on something in that film, you'll forgive me for not picking up on it.  

I didn't run up and down the line telling people don't go, but had the same experience.  My girl at the time insisted we go see it. She agreed it was horrible.  We saw some people we knew for the next showing and did tell them see something else.  I've never understood the accolades for that film.  It was a waste of some fine actors and actresses. 

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Better safe than sorry, so make productions record everything that exists in real world. And at least as much any speaker or headphone can capture. So about 100 kHz is enough.

 

About 90% of my listening is with headphones, others may have different weightings. With headphones I can hear more into details what DSP algorithms are doing. For speakers you can get super tweeters to help out if the normal tweeters roll off too early.

 

I only listen to headphones when I have no other choice.  

 

I find it hard to believe the difference in an end to end recording with 40 khz bandwidth would be heard by humans as even 1% different than one with 100 khz bandwidth. 

 

 

[esldude]

Just now, Miska said:

 

Do you have any particular reason to artificially limit the bandwidth? I don't find any good reason to do so.

 

Seriously?

 

The expense and difficulty of getting speakers to do 100 khz.  The data increase for those bandwidths.  The chance of other distortions and problems getting into the system by expanding bandwidth.  The limitations and expense of microphones that will do 100 khz bandwidth.  

 

At 100 khz air absorbs sound at about 100 db/ 100 ft.  So recording end and speaker end many/most recordings would have rolled off 100 khz by 30 db or more.  Our ears are put together to respond fairly well to around 15 khz.  The perception onto 20 khz is diminished and simply a side effect because it isn't cut off sharply.  Like many microphones are good to about 20 khz, but have a diminished response into the mid 30 khz range.  

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Do you have any particular reason to artificially limit the bandwidth? I don't find any good reason to do so.

 

I remember lot of people saying that nobody can see difference between SD and 1080p video. And then that nobody can see difference between 1080p and 4K video. And that nobody can hear difference between 128 kbps MP3 and RedBook. Oh yeah.

 

I've never, ever heard anyone say there is no visible difference in SD or 1080.  Nor 1080 and 4k.  The difference is more obvious than 128 kbps MP3 and redbook. 

 

The people who developed MP3 didn't claim it was transparent.  There are those who claim highrate MP3 is close to transparent.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Oh, I remember many claims and magazine articles about this. Just like I remember the same about RedBook vs hires.

I don't believe you.  Not on the video.  I've seen claims that at normal viewing distances 4K and 2k aren't visibly different, and that is possible.  I've seen explanations that beyond some viewing distances SD and HD would have resolution  limited by your eye and distance.  But not that they were not different in general. Of course much 4k also offers higher dynamic range which is a difference of another kind. 

Quote

 

Probably same people will claim that all whisky and red wine tastes the same. I just ignore them, waste of time otherwise.

 

Oh, this gives proper credibility to the rest of your post here.  Whisky and red wine aren't the same.  People claiming other people believe that might be a waste of time.  This is quite ridiculous.  What's with you today Miska?

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Shiraz sux

 

Syrah is what you want

I find I like Argentine Malbec's for something not expensive. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, seriously. You don't need to worry about speakers, just worry about the recording chain. Recording chain needs to be at least as good as any playback chain that exists out there.

 

Developing such systems is just work, the kind of stuff I do every day. 100 kHz is not that much in the end.

 

 

When I play instrument, my hand-to-ear distance is about 0.5m. There's not that much attenuation in that distance. I put microphone on same distance as my ears and then listen the signal from microphone through headphones. It must sound identical to the direct sound. It is pretty simple.

 

I await the full recording of an orchestra done this way.  In ear microphones for each player so you can hear what the musicians hear.  All mixed together so you can know what it is like to hear yourself playing every instrument in the orchestra all at once.  

 

Do you use an artificial ear on your microphone, otherwise directionality effects and such means it can never sound the same. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

But seriously, there's a lot of discussion about OP's topic, but I'm still wondering how many have actually tried it. At least I didn't notice many listening impressions yet.

 

It doesn't hurt much to try it out and giving it a listen, does it?

 

Are you referring to the OOP or the Revised OP?

[esldude]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Hearing loss is common among musicians. HF air damping attenuates the frequencies considerably that very low level would reach the listener. The instruments may contain ultrasonics harmonics buit it doesn't mean that a listener sitting at about 10 meters will perceive them due to air damping. 

 

A close miking recording may have captured the actual level of the instruments but over loudspeakers the ultrasonics would be attenuated compared to headphone listening. Both infra and ultrasonic damages your ears. BTW,  IIRC, Oohashi's research suggested that ultrasonic was not perceived by ears. 

 

I am only answering the part where you ask why would one to limit the bandwidth.  

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf

 

The paper about ultrasonics being conducted into the inner ear via the eye sockets.  I am disappointed it was Oohashi as some of his work seems questionable.  

 

@Kal Rubinson

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

So how is possible to hear hypersonics via headphones. Oohashi did one experiment with a helmet shielding the head except for the ears....can't really remebr what he concluded.

Oohashi's work is uneven.  I forget at the moment the name of the researcher.  But another Japanese researcher has replicated faithfully some of his work and the results don't replicate.  I think some of the work has been repeated by more than two people and no one's results replicated his. 

 

Doesn't mean he is wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time one researcher's results were real and other's failed.  Some unnoticed attention to detail can be the difference.  I do in totality look askance at Oohashi if others aren't getting results to corroborate similar phenomena.