Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#321
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote: So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings? No, but a good argument can be made that one should not invest money in their production which could be better spent on more lucrative investments like Ukranian yoghurt futures. Mmmm... Ukranian yoghurt... Mmmm... "The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only reason we have high-fidelity recording and playback is that the people who designed the equipment wanted it. |
#322
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
I think there is still a small market for realistic recordings that are designed to be listened to rather than listened through. I agree that the market is small and shrinking but I don't think it's zero yet. Small, yes. Shrinking... I don't know. Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become the hi-res format for serious listeners. It will, perforce, include surround programs. Whether people will actually listen to those programs is something else. |
#323
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything. I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people consume media other than people who attend live acoustic performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones. So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings? It might not hurt you to get out a little more... All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. Blaise Pascal. I don't know if that's true, but it's worth thinking about. By yourself, in a quiet room. -- Les Cargill |
#324
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything. I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people consume media other than people who attend live acoustic performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones. So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings? It might not hurt you to get out a little more... I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it. |
#325
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 12/29/2014 3:20 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ... This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing listener preference gives you useful information about the /quality/ of sound reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this. Why are you conflating "preference" with "quality"? See above. I'M NOT. Do you (meaning everyone reading this) see why I get so exasperated -- ANGRY -- at people's illiteracy -- their utter inability to read and understand plain English? READ THAT PARAGRAPH OUT LOUD. What does it actually say? Was your above "stand-alone" paragraph the only comment you presented, it would probably have been ignored as another pointless diversion. However, in context, it is clear that *you are the only one in this discussion* that is using the statistical results of the presentation to infer something about audio quality. NONE OF THE REST OF US ARE DOING ANYTHING OF THE KIND. On 12/29 @ 6:51 AM, William wrote, and the inference in question began: "I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you know something is wrong. Badly wrong." No one but YOU asserted such nonsense, and its intent is unmistakable. The rest of your comments in that post only strengthen the inferred relationship between preference and audio quality, and Luxey's comments in that post and my follow-up posting clarified that the statistical results simply reflect the preferences of the sample group. THAT IS THE CONTEXT of your "stand-alone" paragraph, above. As expected, the result was yet another ridiculous attempt at obfuscation. Got more? Bring it. -- best regards, Neil |
#326
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically reproduce anything. I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people consume media other than people who attend live acoustic performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones. So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings? It might not hurt you to get out a little more... I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it. There's little doubt of that. I am thinking that the problem would be more one of having a culture or subculture that supports it - which might actually be a solvable problem. I just despair of what passes for entertainment these days. I got a Facebook link of a camera video. Not only was it out of focus, the audio was just a blur. I am pretty sure it was of human performers using some variation on Western diatonic tonality, but that's about all I could say. I'm pretty sure that 1) the "videographer" paid to be there and 2) probably heard about what the video sounded like. Lotta *THOOM* now and again. I presume it was a "kik drum" synthesis of some sort. Coulda been mortar fire for all I could tell. But Blu-Ray burners and multichannel formats are available, so there's nothing to prevent a "maker" movement towards this. I am, frankly, just not the guy to ask about this sort of thing. I have, uh, Queen records Not my wheelhouse. -- Les Cargill |
#327
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject...
Neil, you are an illiterate, self-deluded jerk. As far as your education is concerned, you are a trained monkey. You know a great deal, and understand nothing. Your idea of "truth" is what you think is true. And you never question it. |
#328
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject... Neil, you are an illiterate, self-deluded jerk. As far as your education is concerned, you are a trained monkey. You know a great deal, and understand nothing. Your idea of "truth" is what you think is true. And you never question it. Stooping to ad-hominem attacks when your ability to argue fails so miserably does not speak well of you, William. But, surely you know that such insults are meaningless? If not, that's really sad, and in spite of your venomous attitude, you have my sympathy. -- best regards, Neil |
#329
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings? Well, having just stepped out of the shower, I'm not one of them at the moment at least. I classify *most* surround rather like 3D movies or TV. Something which crops up regularly when the equipment makers need to sell a 'fresh' idea, but which doesn't stand the test of time. -- *For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#330
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: "The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only reason we have high-fidelity recording and playback is that the people who designed the equipment wanted it. Nonsense. In the UK at least the desired for high fidelity was very much enthusiast lead - including enthusiasts in the broadcast/recording industry. -- *Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#331
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become the hi-res format for serious listeners. Only for those conned by advertising. And, of course, makers of such things who may well take proper care etc when producing them. But the format offers no true advantage for the end user. -- *DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#332
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
-snips- I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it. There's truth in that; but it's also often more complicated. Sometimes the public (and even the "professionals") are never exposed to "something better", and exposed in such a way that truly reveals "something better." Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should radio transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth? This was a big deal, because upgrading that crude broadcast network to 50-15K would be difficult and expensive. One camp said, correctly, that human hearing is much wider than 5K, and we ought to support that for more realistic reproduction. The other camp said, also correctly, that we've tried it and it sounds terrible so why spend all that extra money? It took visionaries, thinking outside the box of the day, to devise an experiment that could show what was going on. (This might have been Avery Fisher wanting to sell higher fidelity audio equipment who did this; don't remember.) A live orchestra played in a setting where special baffling could be quickly dropped in such that a narrow or wide band experience was possible. IIRC, the stage included an acoustically transparent front scrim lit such that deployment of the HF absorbers could not be seen and thus bias the listeners. Of course, hands down, the wide-band presentation won over everybody, including the nay-sayers. Then the search was on to find out why this worked, even though wideband experiments with radio gear had yielded awful results. Turned out that much of that primitive gear in the signal path was full of all sorts of distortions mercifully masked by the narrow bandwidth. A wide-band system revealed those distortions. Once those distortions were peeled back a few orders of magnitude, indeed wider band reproduction was a Good Thing. This all seems so obvious now. But at that the time, there was a debate, experiments up to that point were flawed, and the public really didn't care because they'd not been exposed to wider band radio. (They might have even complained about the terrible sound of high-distortion wideband. Remember, back in those days many more average folks were musicians to some degree or were exposed to much more live, acoustic music.) Pick your pet idea. If it really is something better, it probably needs an experiment of some drama (such as the above) to bring it to life. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#333
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
Frank Stearns wrote: Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should radio transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth? This was a big deal, because upgrading that crude broadcast network to 50-15K would be difficult and expensive. One camp said, correctly, that human hearing is much wider than 5K, and we ought to support that for more realistic reproduction. The other camp said, also correctly, that we've tried it and it sounds terrible so why spend all that extra money? I don't quite understand this. In the UK, AM radio transmissions (until long after FM arrived) were not all restricted to 5 kHz. That came later by international agreement as the AM bands got overcrowded. The individual radio receiver, however, very likely did restrict the bandwidth to 5kHz or less. But those wishing high quality radio reception used FM anyway - not only for the wider frequency response, but better signal to noise ratio, and being less prone to interference. When TV started in the UK in the mid 1930s, one of the advantages stated was the higher quality sound offered by going to short wave rather than MW. But still AM. -- *If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#334
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , William Sommerwerck wrote: "The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only reason we have high-fidelity recording and playback is that the people who designed the equipment wanted it. Nonsense. In the UK at least the desired for high fidelity was very much enthusiast lead -- including enthusiasts in the broadcast/recording industry. Well, yes -- that was the point I was making. How much of the //general public// knew about wideband sound reproduction and demanded it? 1%? |
#335
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" writes: I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it. argument about wideband versus narrowband snipped It took visionaries, thinking outside the box of the day, to devise an experiment that could show what was going on. (This might have been Avery Fisher wanting to sell higher fidelity audio equipment who did this.) It was Harry F Olson, at RCA, who performed the experiment you describe. Listeners had shown an overwhelming preference for narrowband phono reproduction. Olson guessed that this was because wideband recording and playback suffered from unacceptable levels of noise and distortion. His test showed that people did prefer wideband sound. He used to be called "the man who save high fidelity". |
#336
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject... Any bets on how many more posts Willie will spew on this thread? He's usually good for a dozen or more after he declares his "final". |
#337
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , Frank Stearns wrote: Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should radio transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth? I don't quite understand this. In the UK, AM radio transmissions (until long after FM arrived) were not all restricted to 5 kHz. That came later by international agreement as the AM bands got overcrowded. The individual radio receiver, however, very likely did restrict the bandwidth to 5kHz or less. But those wishing high quality radio reception used FM anyway - not only for the wider frequency response, but better signal to noise ratio, and being less prone to interference. This is a complex story. Suffice it to say that AM in the US was always "narrowband", simply to make room for the stations needed in such a large country. There were exceptions. WQXR -- a classical AM station -- had 10kHz bandwidth for many years (it probably still does), and was located at a frequency where its sidebands wouldn't cause much interference with distant stations. FM is inherently wideband and quiet. Not surprisingly, the head of RCA, David Sarnoff (a man of debased rottenness arguably greater than that of the Waltons and the Kochs combined), wanted to block or even destroy FM. He assumed that low-noise, high-fidelity sound would destroy the AM infrastructure he had worked to build -- and that was not permissible. * Part of his efforts included driving Edwin Armstrong -- the man who developed wideband FM -- to suicide. You can read about this in a number of books, and draw your own conclusions. * He apparently overlooked the fact that FM radios were -- and for many years would remain -- expensive, putting them beyond the average listener's reach. |
#338
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , William Sommerwerck wrote: Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become the hi-res format for serious listeners. Only for those conned by advertising. I guess I wasn't wearing my aluminum-foil cap when Blu-ray was introduced. But the format offers no true advantage for the end user. No, none at all. Certainly not... Up to 7.1 channels of discrete surround sound. High sampling rates and increased bit depth. The ability to put the equivalent of a dozen CDs on a single disk. No, those aren't advantages -- especially "true" ones -- for the end user. Hey, let's go back to 78s -- in convenient changer sequence, of course. |
#339
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: But the format offers no true advantage for the end user. No, none at all. Certainly not... Up to 7.1 channels of discrete surround sound. As I said, no true advantage. High sampling rates and increased bit depth. As I said, no true advantage. The ability to put the equivalent of a dozen CDs on a single disk. You need 15 hours worth of uninterrupted music on one disc? -- *I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#340
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article , William Sommerwerck wrote: I classify *most* surround rather like 3D movies or TV. Something which crops up regularly when the equipment makers need to sell a 'fresh' idea, but which doesn't stand the test of time. The movie industry has never been able to make 3D "stick". The problem isn't so much that people have to wear glasses, it's that 3D doesn't generally add anything that enhances one's enjoyment of the film. It isn't inherently gimmicky, but it's often used in a gimmicky fashion. Its presence draws attention to itself -- which could be considered pointlessly distracting. * There was a similar argument in the 1920s about whether color motion pictures were artistically acceptable. The apparent reason for the argument was that all the practical systems (including the original Technicolor) used only two primaries, which made for a narrow (and ultimately unappealing) color gamut. Once three-strip Technicolor was introduced, the arguing largely stopped. So the issue with surround sound is, basically, whether it enhances or distracts. Or, if you like, it sounds natural or artificial. I'm not going to rehash the arguments about ambient surround, whether natural or synthesized. The fact is that it can greatly enhance one's listening pleasure, because it brings one closer to the sound of a live performance, without becoming audible. Anyone in this group is welcome to stop by for a //proper// demonstration of both approaches, and decide for themselves. (I agree that Ambisonics is the gold standard here, ** but well-made "discrete" recordings are acceptable.) So what happens when you immerse the listener within the performers or instruments? You're now asking him to pay attention to something that's hardly ever heard in real life. How is one supposed to react to instruments all-around? Some people like this, simply for the added acoustic complexity. (I do.) Others find it irritating, probably because there's no way to decide what one should pay attention to. *** The listener might feel "battered". And then there's the psychoacoustics of hearing sounds from behind you. The mechanisms that control rear localization are not those that control frontal localization. You can confirm this simply by turning around while playing a recording with good imaging. It doesn't sound the same. Most notably, sounds seem to come out of the speakers, rather than forming a continuous image. Center-rear sounds can appear to be inside your head. For this type of immersive surround to work well, the mix has to be closely monitored. In particular, the rear channels should be limited to "discrete" sources, not used to create a panoramic image. There are current classical recordings that immerse the listener in this fashion. In the Jacobs' "Nozze", the dancers and associated musicians enter from the front and takes places around the listener. In the Jacobs' "St Matthew Passion", the work is performed in a church with the choirs split front and rear, //as it was in Bach's time//. The rear singers sometimes appear to be localized at the speakers, rather than forming a plausible spatial image (as the front singers do). A similar problem occurs with the Rilling "War Requiem", which attempts to duplicate the spatiality of a live performance. I suspect a larger listening room would let me better position the speakers to reduce these effects. (I have large planar speakers, each driven by a bulky amplifier.) It's time to give it serious thought. Regardless... Anyone testing listener perceptions of surround sound ought to be aware of these problems, which necessarily interfere with drawing valid judgments. Dr Rumsey's presentation gives no indication of how he handled them -- or if he was even aware of them. * I was impressed with the understated way "Up!" used 3D. But if it's so natural you aren't aware of it -- why use it? ** Ambisonics is simply a better way of recording than any two-channel system. It resolves a lot of the problems of conventional stereo. This is one of the reasons why I got so upset at Dr Rumsey's ill-drawn conclusions. *** I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the quad version of DSM. |
#341
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
... I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the quad version of DSM. I don't yet have a surround system set up, but when I do, Alan Parson's quad DSM mix is my targeted first experience, for sure. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and DSM is one of my all-time favorite albums. I have both the SQ LP and the surround SACD of a decade ago. (The mixes are slightly different, aren't they?) It has always been a model of how to do this sort of thing well. I have several Elton John surround SACDs -- the original recordings of which were /not/ conceived for surround -- and they sort of sit there and die. Simply having a multi-track master is not enough to guarantee an interesting surround mix. |
#342
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
One of the best things about having a surround SACD of DSM -- for a classical
listener -- is that I always have something to play for the rock listener. Most people have never heard anything remotely like it, and are usually wildly impressed. |
#343
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: "Jeff Henig" wrote in message ... I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the quad version of DSM. I don't yet have a surround system set up, but when I do, Alan Parson's quad DSM mix is my targeted first experience, for sure. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and DSM is one of my all-time favorite albums. I have both the SQ LP and the surround SACD of a decade ago. (The mixes are slightly different, aren't they?) It has always been a model of how to do this sort of thing well. I have several Elton John surround SACDs -- the original recordings of which were /not/ conceived for surround -- and they sort of sit there and die. Simply having a multi-track master is not enough to guarantee an interesting surround mix. At some point, I think I'd enjoy working with surround for the creative opportunities it presents. But I think I need to, ahem, master conventional recording first. The thing about Dark Side of the Moon is that it wasn't intended to be mixed to surround, but it was intended to be open and have a wide sense of large spaces, so the tracks were made with that in mind. The thing about surround is that you don't actually have to use it. You can put instruments in the surrounds, you can put ambience in the surrounds, or you can consciously decide not to put anything back there at all. Just because you have all these channels doesn't mean you have to do anything with them. They're there if you want, but people feel obligated to cram them full of stuff so they feel they're getting their money's worth. It's like how once we had 24 tracks everybody had to put more instrumentation on because they couldn't waste all that tape area.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#344
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 12/31/2014 2:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The thing about surround is that you don't actually have to use it. You can put instruments in the surrounds, you can put ambience in the surrounds, or you can consciously decide not to put anything back there at all. Just because you have all these channels doesn't mean you have to do anything with them. That speaks to the heart of the issue; the artist &/or producer has a concept that they represent in the final product. What is the best way to experience their intent? I prefer a system that adds as little coloration or alteration of the original sound as possible. There is a marked difference between the "bootleg" version of the "Let it Be" album and the final commercial release, and although the audio quality of the former is far below the latter, it is a more enjoyable experience to me. Others prefer systems that have a "character" that pleases them or that add to the presentation with sub-woofers or spatial effects like hall synthesis. That's OK... just not what I'm interested in. They're there if you want, but people feel obligated to cram them full of stuff so they feel they're getting their money's worth. It's like how once we had 24 tracks everybody had to put more instrumentation on because they couldn't waste all that tape area.... Yes, there is that, too. But, some of those people have produced the same thing with lesser equipment, whether it be Specter's "wall of sound" or Les Paul and Mary Ford's many overlays. In those cases, their artistic concepts connected well enough. -- best regards, Neil |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ping Scott Dorsey, The New Stereo Soundbook, Time | Pro Audio | |||
Ping Max | Vacuum Tubes | |||
ping Les | Car Audio | |||
Ping Ned | Vacuum Tubes | |||
>Ping Tim W. | Vacuum Tubes |