Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Gorging on Sound

Over time, you'll reinvent close micing.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] ckozicki@snet.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Home Studio Sound treatment/Sound Proofing Question GarageGuitar Pro Audio 27 March 20th 08 12:34 AM
TrueHD passing sound cards or video/sound card combos out there? markm75 High End Audio 0 February 21st 08 01:36 AM
A background rumble appears in a sound from microphone in Sound blaster Live. D Pro Audio 62 October 30th 07 08:18 PM
A background rumble appears in a sound from microphone in Sound blaster Live. D Pro Audio 6 October 16th 07 09:19 PM
[OT] Sound measure software with equivalent sound level meter? jd Pro Audio 2 March 21st 04 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"