[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 25, 2:34*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Apr 24, 1:09 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in
...
On Apr 22, 10:45 am, wrote:
If one had a way, electronics and speakers etc. to fill a hall with
sound, and the played any stereo recording of any orchestral work, it
still wouldn't in any significant way sound like the original
performance, so how and why would it do so in any listening room using
any speaker system (under the sun)?

This is another misunderstanding of the system. We aren't always and only
trying to transport the listener to the concert hall. With binaural we
are,
yes, but not with field-type systems. It's a sort of continuum in which
we
might try for that effect (like with classical sometimes) and we might
just
sometimes want to transport the performance to our listening room.

That is exactly what Edgar Vilchur was doing with his live vs recorded
demos
at A.R. If you close-mike an instrument and play it back next to the real
instrument, you can fool the listener quite easily, because both sounds
take
on the acoustics of the playback space. If you do that with several
instruments, then arrange the speakers in similar geometric positions,
you
can have a little "player orchestra," something like a player piano -
perhaps the ultimate in electronic realism!

Not quite sure if this is for my benefit or for general information,
if the former, you are preaching to the choir. Since I'm totally
convinced that no recording can ever transport me into my seat at the
Met, it might as well do something yet better and which it's even more
capable of doing. Use multi-miking, compression, 'spot-lighting' and/
or I really coudn't care less whatever trick it requires, but allow me
the chance of *better listening to the musically significant part of
any performance. This requires clever and intelligent engineering, and
thankfully in more recent times, (and BTW no thanks to MCH) I'm
hearing more of this.

I am not sure why you feel you have to diss MCH. *Frankly, as many of us
know through actual experience, a well recorded MCH performance is much more
"realistic" in presenting acoustic cues than virtually any stereo
recordings. *Moreover, using ambience decoding can make stereo sources sound
much more realistic than they ever do in stereo. *At this point I listen to
my LP's, my CD's, my Stereo FM....all with ambience retrieval. *It is
interesting to watch an NPR broadcast of voices activate only the front
three channels, and then hear their musical interludes come on and have all
five channels snap to life, reproducing the musical ambience from what are
very ordinary musical sound sources


Perhaps as (I indicated) it's because I don't look for recordings or
broadasts, etc. to reproduce "musical ambience" or an experience from
a hall seat. I prefer not to hear air, ambience or anything else which
would result in diluting the sound as it occurs close to points where
it leaves its source. I most certainly don't want to hear sound from
my back-side(s)! :-( With knowledgable and sensitive engineering
(multi-miking, compression, spotlighting, and all those other nasties)
I can acquire a better appreciation of the details of an artist's
performance than I ever possibly could by adding empty air or even
from a great hall seating location. I listen to dipoles in a room
which contribtes its own and sufficient ambience. Often times I find
myself going almost near field to minimize even that ambience.