My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Rexp]

4 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Damnit Jud, take this crap to the sacrilege-Fi dungeon. 
 

😉

I suspect you have the vinyl? Apparently the AP sacd sounds just as good (although making a sacd from a 16/44 master seems odd). So important to get a good version. 

[tmtomh]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

And its' virtually impossible to view your post as anything but a self-serving, condescending, egotistical massage, the problem that gave rist to this whole adventure.

 

 

Reported. 

 

 

 

[vmartell22]

22 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Maybe others spotted the obvious sarcasm.. 

 

Dang - maybe read the thread in a too cursory manner - always embarrassing to miss sarcasm - feel dumb - no shame  in admitting it. Reason I should keep lurking

 

v

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

And its' virtually impossible to view your post as anything but a self-serving, condescending egotistical massage, the problem that gave rise to this whole adventure in the first place.

 

 

I thought the problem was civility. I understand that you disagreed with Tom's opinion but he seemed to have expressed it in a civil manner.  

[STC]

2 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

 

I think this is the point - if we are talking about the most realistic recreation of an event (concert, recording session/monitors).  Total immersion by making my listening room sound like the venue.  Wouldn’t a possible method to do that be / require recording at different locations around the venue and the multichannel Playback from speakers at those locations around your listening room?

 

This is what Ambisonic is doing but......even Ambisonic admitted that stereo production over loudspeakers is distorted but it is more believable because the possibilities of many did create channels provide the immersive sound. 
 

 

 

 

Quote

 

It is absolutely amazing and awesome what we have been able to wring out of 2 channel, but with the computing power and bandwidths available now it will be VR for the next generations.

We have an industry that evolved without wanting to admit that stereo recording ( real ) is based on one mic for each ear. So when you capture the sound waves in each microphones the information contained in stereo is the actual sound that you would hear at that location. That is already good enough to create the real sound. 
 

1) BUT... while the microphone only capture one signal for each ear but during playback you have the left microphones sound leaking to the right ear and vice versa. That itself will destroy the illusion of realism. Having said that, it is still capable of delivering the realism when the recordings contain sound of each source confined to each speaker than it would be real enough as we are hearing like how the mics would have ‘heard’ them. This is only possible for a couple of instruments recordings. It will never be real for a concert hall performance where there could be 60 musicians in different position. 

 

2) Next we have to look at what the microphones in stereo capture. As you can see all stereo microphones will be placed within 50 percent of critical radius. The reason is to eliminate most of the venue/room sound in the recording. They only leave the information of the venue just right so that the playback would produce just the right amount to match the direct sound without making the sound muddy. 
 

In short, stereo recordings do not contain ALL the information to reconstruct the live event with 2 speakers. 
 

3). It is a wrong assumption that a hall contains some magic properties that it cannot be recreated artificially. It may be difficult to replicate a sound of another concert hall but whatever difference is usually minimized by listeners preference to sit at a spot to their preference. 

The hall/venue only provides reflected sound. This reflected sound can vary from hall to hall but which one belongs to which hall is not easily determined.  What our brain need is the RT which will provide the cues for spaciousness and envelopment. 

 

Human generally couldn’t  perceive the difference in ambiance unless it is over 50% in RT. 
 

Then it comes to how much reverberation you like?  When a survey was taken, they found that musicians prefer a much closer sitting in concert hall compared to concert goers. 
 

In short, this is about reproducing the recorded sound to be as realistic as it good be. VR, MR, AR, Ambisonics and other immersive format have different meaning and convey different information. But what are you going to do with millions of stereo recordings that already contained the necessary spatial information but not utilized. 
 

I think I will stop here and start a new thread on this topic as this topic do not appeal to most audiophiles and even recording engineers. 

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I suspect you have the vinyl? Apparently the AP sacd sounds just as good (although making a sacd from a 16/44 master seems odd). So important to get a good version. 

 

Go look at the album of the day thread...

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

I suspect you have the vinyl? Apparently the AP sacd sounds just as good (although making a sacd from a 16/44 master seems odd). So important to get a good version. 

 

If the SACD was, in fact, created from a 16/44 master, it's a ripoff. You are paying SACD prices for hi-res DSD and you are not getting it. Years ago, there was a scandal regarding a Norah Jones SACD that was created from the 16/44 CD master.

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

If the SACD was, in fact, created from a 16/44 master, it's a ripoff. You are paying SACD prices for hi-res DSD and you are not getting it. Years ago, there was a scandal regarding a Norah Jones SACD that was created from the 16/44 CD master.

 Allan

 That may not be necessarily correct unless they used the 16/44.1 recording to create the 5.1 version?

On the rear of my Hybrid Norah Jones-Come Away With Me SACD it says produced for 5.1 SACD by Jay Newland and Arif Mardin. Remixed for 5.1 SACD by Jay Newland at Sony Studios NYC

 

Alex 

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

It's a perfect example of the attitude that generates push-back from objectivists on this forum. The form that push-back has taken has at times been out of line - but the push-back itself is entirely justified.

 

Your post is a better example of an objectivist misrepresenting both the intent and content of what I wrote. I will not elaborate further, as I will no longer be a party to your disingenuousness.

[Allan F]

33 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Allan

 That may not be necessarily correct unless they used the 16/44.1 recording to create the 5.1 version?

On the rear of my Hybrid Norah Jones-Come Away With Me SACD it says produced for 5.1 SACD by Jay Newland and Arif Mardin. Remixed for 5.1 SACD by Jay Newland at Sony Studios NYC

 

Alex 

 

Alex

There were two different SACD issues of the Norah Jones album. The later one was a genuine hi-res DSD offering created from the original master. I may be wrong, but I believe that it is the one you have.

[tmtomh]

8 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Your post is a better example of an objectivist misrepresenting both the intent and content of what I wrote. I will not elaborate, as I have no desire to be a party to your silliness.

 

If you were willing or able to articulate what I misrepresented about what you wrote, then it would be possible to give credence to your indignance. As it is, though, you've responded twice to the same comment and have said nothing of substance either time. You have, however, engaged in name-calling and ad hominem attacks, which as you know are now against forum rules more clearly than ever before.

 

@The Computer Audiophile, this is what happens when subjectivist members of the forum get the message that they can respond to any use of logic or reasoning by an objectivist with the claim that the objectivist is just using logic to troll them. It narrows the range of feasible discourse between subjectivists and objectivists to nothing.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

this is what happens when subjectivist members of the forum get the message that they can respond to any use of logic or reasoning by an objectivist with the claim that the objectivist is just using logic to troll them. It narrows the range of feasible discourse between subjectivists and objectivists to nothing.

 

You already have a new special area where you can post your Objective viewpoints and Data without interference from Subjective members, and even demand that they be banned from participating in that area as I have effectively been.

Perhaps Subjective members should also be given the privilege of a special area where Objective demands are not welcome either?.

 

 However this is not what forums are meant to be about. It's about the free exchange of information and experiences that help to improve this hobby !!!

 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

If the SACD was, in fact, created from a 16/44 master, it's a ripoff. You are paying SACD prices for hi-res DSD and you are not getting it. Years ago, there was a scandal regarding a Norah Jones SACD that was created from the 16/44 CD master.

I don't think it's a ripoff if they are open about the source. Some people would prefer the SACD anyway. But they should know what they are buying. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

We aren’t treading new ground here. It’s time to close this thread up so we can move on to audio and use the forum how it’s setup. 
 

Feedback has all been duly noted. My inbox is always open for PMs and emails.