[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:25:12 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

This is the second of the posts that didn't get in. FWIW:


"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I find that the recording industry has a hard enough time doing
two
channel stereo correctly, much less four channels, or five or seven....
Now
for movies where the extra channels have explosions and other sound
effects
pan-potted to them, it's fine, but I have yet to hear a music surround
recording where I thought that the surround was any more than a gimmick.

Well, I am in partial agreement with you there. Since starting to record in
surround with my little amateur setup (Zoom H2n, with or without additional
mikes up front) I haven't found a LOT of benefit or audibility of the
enhancement, just mainly audience coughs and pop clappers.

However, there are some recordings that do contain more ambience than most,
and for those it "sets" that ambience more correctly around you. In one of
my recordings, I let the audience applause and ambience of the place open
the recording for about 10 seconds before the music began, and it really
perked my ears up to the location and the "flavor" of that acoustic space,
and I enjoyed the music just a little more.

This goes without saying, however, the key phrase here is "Done Right." It is
really rare. Even Bob Woods of Telarc with his multichannel SACDs didn't do
surround correctly.

A good M/S microphone technique can get about 80% of the way there as well.
One member of our audio society is particularly good at this, but he is now
interested in surround recording because one of his choral groups tends to
perform in the round, and he wants the full effect.

To me that's a gimmick,BUT, if that's the way they perform, then surround IS
the proper way to capture it. I use M-S a lot. If there is no audience, I
tend to use the "M" channel mike in the omnidirectional mode and the "S" mike
in figure-of -eight pattern. If it's a live performance, I use the cardioid
pattern for the "M" mike and figure-of -eight pattern for the "S" mike.

In a live event, in a good hall, you don't "notice" the acoustics of the
hall directly - I mean, it doesn't hit you over the head - you mainly notice
the frontal soundstage, and even then you do not get pinpoint imaging in any
but the closest seats.

True, but since the microphones, in a correctly miked stage performance, are
up on the stage (or hanging over it), that is the perspective that you are
capturing - "the closest seats". I have some British made AmbiSonics
recordings where the mikes are quite distant from the stage. The effect isn't
very appealing

You are also correct that in a concert, the members of the audience are not
aware of the hall acoustics per-se as they blend-in as part of the
performance, but believe me, they'd notice if they suddenly went away!

Sometimes we expect too much in a hi fi situation. In the surround sound
situation, it is usually so subtle that (it has been said) you don't hear it
until it is turned off. That is probably as it should be.

Well recorded surround would be like the ambience in a hall - not noticed in
and of itself, but sorely missed if it went away. Unfortunately, many -shall
we be kind and call them "less sophisticated" listeners?- don't think that
they're getting real surround unless something can be heard coming out of the
rear, that's why recording companies make so-called surround tracks with
instruments playing out of them. And while it might impress and beguile the
"unwashed" (I'm through being kind), I'm neither impressed nor beguiled,
merely disappointed. I have a 5.1 channel SACD player (Sony XA777ES) and a
rear amplifier and speakers, but I rarely turn them on.


Gary Eickmeier