Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
I have been a recording glutton of late. I have a Zoom H2n, as you know, and
have been exploring its surround sound capabilities. I walked around our local First Friday event downtown to search for "soundscapes" to record in surround. Not a lot of luck, because there weren't many musicians that night. Next, went to my daughter's Youth Orchestra performance at church during a service. They are conducted by the symphony conductor, who is a member of that church. Very good music from their strings, plus the bonus of the organ and the faithful singing all around me. Went to a dance band event at a local hall, put up three Audio Technika 2050s for the front sound, used the Zoom for the rear sound. But there wasn't all that much rear sound, and the hall was not real good. Finally, today I decided to get lazy and put the Zoom on a Jam Stand all by itself and let it record the Lakeland Concert Band with its internal mikes in surround, on Concert AGC setting. The AGC on this recorder is very good, not pumping or splashing on the first loud note at all. So far the sound quality seems very good. Tomorrow I will play it loud in surround and see if I think it could use any EQ at all. There are no published response curves for this recorder. It's really wonderful how long the batteries last in this thing. Another plus is that the front channels are recorded in MS, adjustable as to the amount of Mid and Side - or even recordable raw, so you can mix the Mid and Side in post. Very easy to make a DTS disc in discrete surround for myself, and just use the MS front channels for a stereo copy for others. I encode the surround sound with the Zoom encoder, available at Vorteczoom.com. You just plop the front channels into one window and the rear channels into another, and press DTS and it creates a discrete surround mix that is playable through any home theater receiver with Dolby Digital and DTS decoding. I burn to CD, and play on my Blu Ray DVD player. Anyone out there care about any of this? Want more info on encoding discrete surround? Who else records surround sound? I am evaluating the advantages vs the extra trouble. Also, whether you want a single point surround recorder or if it might be better to use extra mikes placed further back in the hall. Gary Eickmeier |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
I used to make live recordings, and occasionally recorded in quad or
Ambisonics. I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)? Ambisonics is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly, playback sounds as if you're at the mic position. For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for me to recognize what I might have been doing wrong. The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- not towards the back of the hall. Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns, isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics, or further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either. Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
I have recorded in the equivalent of dance halls, etc., and found
that in these casual places, the battle was to almost (but not entirely) exclude the acoustics of the space itself. That's not a surprise. I was fortunate to own Pearl (Milab) TC-4v mics. Their pattern was continously variable, and I had to fiddle with the pattern to get a "reasonabl" balance between direct and ambient sound for each venue. So I envy your quad experiences, and would like to hear more about the particulars. It's been a long, long time. Time has erased most of the details. The best recording I ever made was of a church choir split front and back, with the organ pipes behind the front group. I miked it with a discrete Ambisonic W / X / Y array. In playback, it was as if I were standing at the mic position. I could twist my head and (acoustically) "look at" individual performers behind me. When Ambisonics works (it doesn't always), it is the closest thing to actually being there. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I used to make live recordings, and occasionally recorded in quad or Ambisonics. I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)? Ambisonics is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly, playback sounds as if you're at the mic position. Hi Bill - or do we stick with William - It's a long story, but there may be good reason to not believe that stereo or surround is a head-related system like binaural. In stereo, for example (two channel) recording techniques are not limited to two, or single point, or anything that has to do with the number of ears on your head or even your position in the hall. We place mikes closer to the orchestra because it will be played back on speakers at some distance from you, in another acoustic space. We can use any number of microphones, and for various purposes. I am fond of three spaced omnis. For surround, I am wondering if single point does any good, because the sounds at that same point are so similar for both the front and the rear mikes. I'm thinking if I could place a stereo pair - even a spaced pair - further back, they would gather sound that was occuring back there behind me and would give a more discrete effect for the total surround picture. For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for me to recognize what I might have been doing wrong. The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- not towards the back of the hall. The side sound is pretty much taken care of in the careful miking of the frontal soundstage. In Mid/Side, you can even get more "room" if you want, which means the side sound. Add some rear side sound from the rear mikes, and you have plenty. And don't forget that the center channel up front is extremely important. Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns, isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics, or further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either. Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater. I guess so. I am trying it, anyway! Do the experiment! Get in there and do the work, the man said. So I am finally trying a few things, to solidify my audio ideas. My basic question in this thread is about the importance of surround for music. We all think that surround sound will give us more of the feel of the original hall, especailly for live recordings with audience. I have always hated hearing the audience applause folded back behind the performers up front. But hey - all we may be accomplishing is putting more coughs and chatter and A/C noise etc into the total sound. I enjoy it for trains and thunderstorms tho.... I continue to experiment. If anyone wants a disc of some of this, just beg. Gary Eickmeier |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
I disagree with a number of your points. I have to review an SQ LP (!!!) for
rec.music.classical.recordings, so I don't have time right at the moment. This afternoon, perhaps. Yes, I would like to hear your recordings. I can play multi-ch SACD and 7.1 Blu-ray audio. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I disagree with a number of your points. I have to review an SQ LP (!!!) for rec.music.classical.recordings, so I don't have time right at the moment. This afternoon, perhaps. Yes, I would like to hear your recordings. I can play multi-ch SACD and 7.1 Blu-ray audio. Sound is recorded on ordinary CDs, as DTS files made from 16 bit 44.1 K. I play it thru my DVD player simply because that is the only player that has Toslink digital out. What I am struggling with right now, production-wise, is the balance of front and rear channels. Do I leave them as recorded, or should I normalize them both to sound the same volume (in general), or what? I have noticed that in my home system the rear channels were always too weak to decode my recordings effectively. BUT - do I adjust my playback settings or do I add 4 or 5 dB to my rear channels during editing? I have done a little of each, but my goal is to have my system set so that it will play most material correctly. If I have that calibrated by ear just right, then I will produce to that standard and see where the chips lie. I suspect that I will want all channels of generally equal volume, such that if I record some outdoor ambience it will be equal in all directions. I must see if the AGC on the Zoom will do that automatically, or does it favor the front. What would be a good natural pink noise for me - a waterfall? An audience applause? Naw - you always get these "pop clappers" that try to be the loudest. Please do write about your disagreements with some of my points. I love to talk about this stuff. Gary Eickmeier |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Over time, you'll reinvent close micing.
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
I wanted to respond to your remarks about surround sound, but carelessly
discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember. Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can never -- ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church, what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be /correctly/ presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does not do this, it /cannot/ do this. Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one of the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the orchestra, rather than in front of it. So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural and Ambisonics. Neither became popular. The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees of the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct sound (in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral sound, because it /isn't/. As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed decoder can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders are not optimum for ambience reproduction. I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly like to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:16:57 AM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater. _____________ I would love to hear some of these projects! I still have an original JVC Dolby Pro-Logic receiver, fine condition, not the DPL-II or anything. Would they sound acceptable or good enough on it? -CC |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
wrote in message news:25255955.613.1334678745816.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yntt13... On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:16:57 AM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote: Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater. _____________ I would love to hear some of these projects! I still have an original JVC Dolby Pro-Logic receiver, fine condition, not the DPL-II or anything. Would they sound acceptable or good enough on it? No - I am not talking about matrixed DPL surround, I am doing discrete DTS surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder. I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do. Gary Eickmeier |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Luxey" wrote in message news:13022115.2095.1334648050417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18... Over time, you'll reinvent close micing. Nope. I don't even like mice. Gary Eickmeier |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I wanted to respond to your remarks about surround sound, but carelessly discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember. Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can never -- ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church, what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be /correctly/ presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does not do this, it /cannot/ do this. Rather than bore the group with a repeat of my blather, I would like to send you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other paper. Have you seen it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says that the problem is that there still is no model, or paradigm, for the process of the facsimile reproduction of auditory perspective. I have proposed one. What you are saying is very true, and the reason is that the stereo process - any process actually - changes the spatial nature of the original to that of the reproduction system. In other words, the complex original sound field has been reduced to, and squeezed through, those two miserable stereo speakers, making it impossible for it to sound anything like the original. Surround sound is a partial remedy and a step in the right direction, but you still don't have quite enough channels to do it, and the room is still there - and needs to be there by the way. Floyd Toole told me an interesting experience. He was visiting a demo of Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber. Like most of us, he wondered if this would be an "ear opening" experience - after all, no more interference from the room, and near perfect encoding of all directions, even periphony. What he experienced was In Head Localization, much like with headphones! This surprised me, because I thought that if you could turn your head you wouldn't get this. The answer must be that without SOME real reflections to clue you in to a real space, the perspective is still FIXED as with binaural. Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one of the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the orchestra, rather than in front of it. By "too much," what you really are saying is that we cannot make it come from an evenly spaced, correct set of incident angles, just from near the speakers, so there is what is interpreted as too much reverb. So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural and Ambisonics. Neither became popular. There are still problems with binaural. Not sure why Ambisonics didn't catch though, it is after all just another surround system, and surround has caught on big time in home theater. The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees of the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct sound (in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral sound, because it /isn't/. My image model attempts to array the sound in a way that models the reproduction after the original. As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed decoder can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders are not optimum for ambience reproduction. I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly like to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types. Thank you very much for retyping all of that. I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right first so you can report on how I did. I will have one disc in stereo, one in DTS surround of the same concert. A second disc is a few of the "soundscapes" that I recorded to test the Zoom's surround capabilities. Might also include a third one of spaced omni with AT-2050s. Gary Eickmeier |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:38:39 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message news:13022115.2095.1334648050417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18... Over time, you'll reinvent close micing. Nope. I don't even like mice. Gary Eickmeier How about Mike, than? Maybe Mick? Gotta love his lips and tongue. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Luxey" wrote in message news:10576738.252.1334734725973.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvi18... On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:38:39 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message news:13022115.2095.1334648050417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18... Over time, you'll reinvent close micing. Nope. I don't even like mice. Gary Eickmeier How about Mike, than? Maybe Mick? Gotta love his lips and tongue. So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why did you write it that way? Gary Eickmeier |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
.. . "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Rather than bore the group with a repeat of my blather, I would like to send you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other paper. Have you seen it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says that the problem is that there still is no model, or paradigm, for the process of the facsimile reproduction of auditory perspective. I have proposed one. By all means send it along. What you are saying is very true, and the reason is that the stereo process - any process actually - changes the spatial nature of the original to that of the reproduction system. In other words, the complex original sound field has been reduced to, and squeezed through, those two miserable stereo speakers, making it impossible for it to sound anything like the original. Surround sound is a partial remedy and a step in the right direction, but you still don't have quite enough channels to do it, and the room is still there - and needs to be there by the way. Floyd Toole told me an interesting experience. He was visiting a demo of Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber. Like most of us, he wondered if this would be an "ear opening" experience - after all, no more interference from the room, and near perfect encoding of all directions, even periphony. What he experienced was In Head Localization, much like with headphones! This surprised me, because I thought that if you could turn your head you wouldn't get this. The answer must be that without SOME real reflections to clue you in to a real space, the perspective is still FIXED as with binaural. I don't know if this is true. Nor do I understand why anyone would demonstrate any kind of sound reproduction process in an anechoic chamber. The best demos of Ambisonic playback I've heard were in large rooms on the neutral-to-dead side. I set up one of these in a huge meeting room at NPR in DC. It was perfect, in particular the way the image did not collapse toward the nearest speaker as you moved around. And the "looking into the concert hall from the gods' perspective" effect from outside the array was perfect. As the room was deadish and had long early reflections, this is strong evidence that such characteristics are not antithetical to Ambisonic reproduction. Quite the contrary. I'm in no position to gainsay Count Floyd on this particular issue, but I don't trust his opinion on /anything/. He is not a good scientist. Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one of the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the orchestra, rather than in front of it. By "too much," what you really are saying is that we cannot make it come from an evenly spaced, correct set of incident angles, just from near the speakers, so there is what is interpreted as too much reverb. Yes. The same amount of reverb /from the correct directions/ wouldn't be considered "too much". It's interesting that adding ambience to the room with a hall synthesizer /does not/ produce a "swimming in reverb" effect, and sometimes sounds /less/ reverberant than the recording by itself. So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural and Ambisonics. Neither became popular. There are still problems with binaural. Not sure why Ambisonics didn't catch though, it is after all just another surround system, and surround has caught on big time in home theater. Ambisonics has multiple practical problems, the principal of which are that it requires phase-matched speakers which are not too-close to the walls in a not-very-live room in more-or-less strict layout. I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right first so you can report on how I did. Which I will. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
No - I am not talking about matrixed DPL surround, I am doing discrete DTS surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder. I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do. Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear PCM surround tracks. Not much money either. They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why encode if you don't have to? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
среда, 18. април 2012. 14..11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why did you write it that way? Gary Eickmeier Because of a microphone. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message .. . The best demos of Ambisonic playback I've heard were in large rooms on the neutral-to-dead side. I set up one of these in a huge meeting room at NPR in DC. It was perfect, in particular the way the image did not collapse toward the nearest speaker as you moved around. And the "looking into the concert hall from the gods' perspective" effect from outside the array was perfect. As the room was deadish and had long early reflections, this is strong evidence that such characteristics are not antithetical to Ambisonic reproduction. Quite the contrary. It is possible. Look at the graphic on the cover of Blauert's Spatial Hearing. They have constructed a hotseat with multiple speakers around it to simulate the ambience from all important directions. I have heard of this working in experiments in Philips in Eindhoven as well. Takes about 120 channels. I'm in no position to gainsay Count Floyd on this particular issue, but I don't trust his opinion on /anything/. He is not a good scientist. Whew! What is this all about? I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right first so you can report on how I did. Which I will. They are in the air to you. Let me know if any questions, or discussion about compatibility with your setup. I am basing some of my processing on my playback system, but also setting up my system for most commercial recordings, so it should be somewhere reasonable. But the next best thing to comparing various recording techniques on MY system is comparing on various systems - high quality systems - so let me know. Will send you some of my blather in an Email. Gary Eickmeier |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Gary Eickmeier wrote: No - I am not talking about matrixed DPL surround, I am doing discrete DTS surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder. I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do. Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear PCM surround tracks. Not much money either. They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why encode if you don't have to? But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc? Gary Eickmeier |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Luxey wrote:
с?еда, 18. ап?ил 2012. 14.11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ~е написао/ла: So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why did you write it that way? Gary Eickmeier Because of a microphone. OK - I've had enough of this - who are you? I feel like I'm talking to a Muppet. Gary Eickmeier |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear PCM surround tracks. Not much money either. They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why encode if you don't have to? But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc? By using the DVD-A format which permits linear PCM surround. Or by using the SACD format. Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean, uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple channels distributed to the end listener. There's an enormous amount of throughput available, why compress when you don't have to? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear PCM surround tracks. Not much money either. They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why encode if you don't have to? But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc? By using the DVD-A format which permits linear PCM surround. Or by using the SACD format. Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean, uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple channels distributed to the end listener. There's an enormous amount of throughput available, why compress when you don't have to? --scott Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I briefly checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway, even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc? Currently using Audition 2.0. Gary Eickmeier |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in
a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean, uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple channels distributed to the end listener. That assumes the intended audience doesn't own a Blu-ray player. DVD-A died, probably because few classical labels supported it, and (more-likely) the high cost of DVD-A recordings. I remember seeing Nickrenz-Aubort quad recordings that cost less than $3 on QS LPs, selling for $25 on DVD-A. And there was only one album on the disk! |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear PCM surround tracks. Not much money either. They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why encode if you don't have to? But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc? By using the DVD-A format which permits linear PCM surround. Or by using the SACD format. Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean, uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple channels distributed to the end listener. There's an enormous amount of throughput available, why compress when you don't have to? Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I briefly checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway, even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc? Currently using Audition 2.0. Using the Diskwelder Bronze software which I referred to above as costing "not much money." Most of the newer players now can play DVD-A.... it is the miracle of software that adding features like this becomes relatively inexpensive and easy. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
William Sommerwerck wrote:
That assumes the intended audience doesn't own a Blu-ray player. Sure, but they'll play DVD-A discs, most of them. DVD-A died, probably because few classical labels supported it, and (more-likely) the high cost of DVD-A recordings. I remember seeing Nickrenz-Aubort quad recordings that cost less than $3 on QS LPs, selling for $25 on DVD-A. And there was only one album on the disk! DVD-A died because it took so long for the standard to come out. By the time the standard actually got released, players were already in homes and people were already buying compressed formats. They had real trouble getting labels interested in it. Still, there's no reason not to make the discs yourself, even if they are not a very popular distribution medium. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
четвртак, 19. април 2012. 14.59.59 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
Luxey wrote: OK - I've had enough of this - who are you? I feel like I'm talking to a Muppet. Gary Eickmeier Whats wrong, Gary? You've had enough of what? Is it You've been given an advice, colectivly with your handheld zoom soulmates, one You did not understand? Bummer. Or is it I provided You a straight answer about "mic" word? And who are You, Gary? Sorry, i won't introduce myself, but You can not call me Maurice. You can call me Steve Ignorant, though I'm not of the kind. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... I would like to hear this stuff. Since I have not myself produced a surround recording, it would be only fair to pay you for time and materials. The value of your trials is enough that I'd like to hear it, even with lossy compression. Given that DVD-A has player problems and DTS is tied up in licensing, Dolby Digital is worth a shot, even though the loss of quality is known to be noticeable. An apparently free AC-3 encoder is he http://www.freewarefiles.com/WAV-To-...ram_27165.html Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 Hi Bob - Just Email me your address. I will send some discs. You have DTS? I have downloaded the AC3 encoder and I will see if it works. Thanks! Gary Eickmeier |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
Yes, I have DTS (playback).
I just listened to part of one of Gary's DTS transfers on my Blu-ray player, and it played perfectly. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S. Mine is from Vorteczoom.com and it can encode into DTS, binaural, (probably a Sonic Holography sort of trick) and MP3. I have just used the DTS, and it works great. For Robert and William both, who have requested copies of my recordings: What I hope you will report on is the quality of the mikes in the Zoom H2n, and then my balance of front and rear channels. I am trying to figure out how much gain to put in the rear - same as the front, or lower because the front is the main sound, the rear just the ambience. I have learned a couple of things since starting recording surround. Number one, the balance as recorded with gains set the same for both front and rear channles will usually be too low. Number two, it is a quandary whether to boost the rear channels in the recording or in your sound system. I have always felt my system was too weak in the surround chanels for most commercial discs and movies, so I raised that a tad, then I decided to make the surround signal about equal volume to the front in editing. Seems about right. But let me know on your system. Number three, it may not be correct to adjust these surround levels with test signals and sound meters, but rather with actual program material and your ears. Which program material? Perhaps John Eargle's work with Delos. There are several discs available. With movies you never know. There may just not be any surround effects at any given point in the movie, then when there is they hit you over the head with it. Anyone have a slew of answers on all this? Gary Eickmeier |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:07:11 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: "Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S. Mine is from Vorteczoom.com and it can encode into DTS, binaural, (probably a Sonic Holography sort of trick) and MP3. I have just used the DTS, and it works great. For Robert and William both, who have requested copies of my recordings: What I hope you will report on is the quality of the mikes in the Zoom H2n, and then my balance of front and rear channels. I am trying to figure out how much gain to put in the rear - same as the front, or lower because the front is the main sound, the rear just the ambience. I have learned a couple of things since starting recording surround. Number one, the balance as recorded with gains set the same for both front and rear channles will usually be too low. Number two, it is a quandary whether to boost the rear channels in the recording or in your sound system. I have always felt my system was too weak in the surround chanels for most commercial discs and movies, so I raised that a tad, then I decided to make the surround signal about equal volume to the front in editing. Seems about right. But let me know on your system. Number three, it may not be correct to adjust these surround levels with test signals and sound meters, but rather with actual program material and your ears. Which program material? Perhaps John Eargle's work with Delos. There are several discs available. With movies you never know. There may just not be any surround effects at any given point in the movie, then when there is they hit you over the head with it. Anyone have a slew of answers on all this? Gary Eickmeier That's interesting. I always find the rear sound too high in level - unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it - it is too much. You should only really notice its absence when you turn it off. d |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
DTS is much more acceptable than AC3 to folks like us.
True, perhaps, but I was referring to the disk simply playing, not the sound quality. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
That's interesting. I always find the rear sound too high in level --
unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it -- it is too much. You should only really notice its absence when you turn it off. Correct. The rear-level settings on my hall synthesizer are quite low -- you have to shut the sides/rears off to hear -- retroactively -- their presence. Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and "off". I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not even be aware of it. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gorging on Sound
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and "off". I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not even be aware of it. You may be right, but here was my reasoning: I played several test recordings and noted that most of the time, an effect that was known to come from the rear originally was folding up in the front on me. I don't mean the kind of signal where you go up close to the recorder and announce "this is my rear center channel." I mean the more subtle effects like outdoor ambience (maybe traffic noises, birds, etc) that should form up in an even field around you, not favor one end or the other. Also, obviously, all this depends on your having set your time delays correctly for the rear and side speakers. If there is a precedence effect screwing up the balance, then all bets are off. I agree that in a good hall, you don't really notice the ambience. You DO notice that the applause is not coming from behind the orchestra though.... Gary Eickmeier |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Home Studio Sound treatment/Sound Proofing Question | Pro Audio | |||
TrueHD passing sound cards or video/sound card combos out there? | High End Audio | |||
A background rumble appears in a sound from microphone in Sound blaster Live. | Pro Audio | |||
A background rumble appears in a sound from microphone in Sound blaster Live. | Pro Audio | |||
[OT] Sound measure software with equivalent sound level meter? | Pro Audio |