Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
=DEann 20/06/2011 03:19, skrifa=F0i Gary Eickmeier:
Hey group - I am a little baffled by how we can tell anything about what we are buy ing -how it was really reocorded and mastered, whether it has a real solid center channel or phantom, real .1 subwoofer feed or not, discrete surround recording or upmix, on and on. That is what music magazines are for, distributing information like that=20 although classical labels and audiophile labels usually have some sort=20 of info on their homepages and sometimes on the cover as well. And of course a new improved format will require a hardware or a=20 software upgrade, in the case of an SACD both the conversion process and=20 the basic media are very different from a standard CD, however almost=20 all SACD disks have a compatibility layer that allows you to play the=20 disk back on a standard CD player. And SACD does nor require a dedicated=20 player but a compatible player, quite a number of DVD players can play=20 back SACD's although they tend to be more expensive. The Dolby True HD and DTS-HD are more common on Blu-rays than on DVD's,=20 most music DVD's use a slightly improved version of the MP3 format=20 (usually an AAC variant branded either Dolby or DTS) that is compressed=20 in a loss inducing way (i.e. data is thrown away) and are not considered=20 hi-fi for that reason. DTS-HD, Dolby T-HD, the now defunct DVD-A format and SACD's all use=20 lossless data compression, i.e. no data is thrown away. The difference=20 is that DTS-HD, Dolby T-HD and DVD-A are PCM formats while SACD/DSD is=20 delta-sigma, and Telarc and the other classical labels actually record=20 in DXD, which is D-S with twice the sampling rate of DSD, this is then=20 transcoded to DSD for SACD, 16 bit linear PCM for CD or 16/20/24 bit=20 lossy PCM for DVD. (not mixed BTW as you stated, in most cases mixing=20 happens either in the DXD format itself for quality reasons or after=20 transcoding to PCM if the decision to record in DXD was due to archival=20 issues rather than current quality issues) You did not play LP's on a wind up 78 RPM gramophone even though the=20 formats were similar .... You Said: "...Telarc and the other classical labels actually record in DXD, which is D-S with twice the sampling rate of DSD..." That's not exactly correct. DXD is a Sony editing format that is used within their DSD editing suites. It is never used for DSD mastering because it is a PCM-like format (rather than a DSD format) with 24-bit resolution sampled at 352.8 KHz. I've heard some recording engineers say that DSD recordings edited using DXD don't sound as good as the raw masters. * According to Robert Woods (who was Telarc's founder and record producer until 2009), they master using DSDIFF (File extension .dff) at 2.8224 MHz. *There are two other DSD formats, but they aren't used very much (if at all) for commercial recording. One is a Sony proprietary format that was used in some Sony 'VAIO" personal computers and is called DSF, and another is WSD which stands for Wideband Single-bit Data and is defined by the "1-bit Audio Consortium" . Most DSD recorders will do any of these three file formats. Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release rate of 2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5.6448 MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be used for capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SACD disc is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple of recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage space as does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it. Audio_Empire |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to
the new article. -- dsr ] On a more practical level.... Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are they 3 front channels, or just two? Are they surround or just front sound? Do they release these in the newer Dolby True HD on Blu Ray disc, or are there no audio only Blu Ray discs? I realize how iggerant I am, but I'm trying... Gary Eickmeier |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:02:14 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): [ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to the new article. -- dsr ] On a more practical level.... Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are they 3 front channels, or just two? Are they surround or just front sound? Do they release these in the newer Dolby True HD on Blu Ray disc, or are there no audio only Blu Ray discs? I realize how iggerant I am, but I'm trying... Gary Eickmeier I have a large collection of SACD releases, including many Telarcs. All Telarc SACDs have a surround layer. I have never listened to the surround layers in my own system as it's only two-channel. Some of the Philips produced Mercury recordings released in the SACD format are indeed three channel (the way they were originally recorded - right, center, left), but again, you need three identical speakers and three channels of amplification to correctly present those recordings, and I don't have that either. I have heard them in a stereo store, but never in my own system. I must say that soundstage is impressive. Especially for a three-spaced-omni mike arrangement, which I deem to be wrong-headed. My impression of SACD releases, in general, is pretty much the same as Meyer & Moran's conclusion in their oft-cited paper on SACD vs CD. SACD releases generally sound better than regular CD releases because they seem to use less compression and limiting in their production. I suspect that if regular CDs were mastered in the same way as the SACDs, that there would actually be little to choose between them sonically. There are a few True-HD audio-only Blu-Ray discs (I have a couple from a company in Norway called "2L") Other than a very few independent releases from specialty labels, I haven't seen much activity on that front. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
Žann 24/06/2011 15:06, skrifaši Audio Empi
Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release rate of 2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5.6448 MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be used for capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SACD disc is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple of recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage space as does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it. You mean DXD as "Digital eXtreme Definition", I thought that format was no longer used since we got proper DSD editing software, and I may have been confusing terms, but unless I misheard the gent from Pentatone, DXD versus DSD is how he differentiated between 64 and 128 frame recording but thinking about it it may have been DSX versus DSD, they and most of the other European Classical labels that (not Chandos I think, but not sure) use 128 and have done for years. As for your ability to hear a difference I cannot possibly comment, especially in the light of the extremely comical discussion you are having on cables concurrently ..... |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
Žann 24/06/2011 17:02, skrifaši Gary Eickmeier:
[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to the new article. -- dsr ] On a more practical level.... Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are they 3 front channels, or just two? They are usually 4.1 or more seldom 6.1 in other words 2 front channels but many still have a summed or mixed signal for the centre channel (making it sort of 5.1 and 7.1), the reason for not utilising the centre channel is that some manufacturers of centre channel speakers limit their frequency range to be more intelligible for voice applications and the simple fact that the typical centre channel placement does not help much in establishing spatial awareness and may in fact hinder, the centre channel is there for making dialoge appear to come from the screen after all and not intended for music per se. Some labels like Pentatone have released old quad recordings from the 70's as 4 channels and some American re-releases have surfaced of recordings originally recorded on Ampex triples have been released as 3 channel recordings but those 3 channel releases are not surround sound per se, and you may or may not hear an improvement from a stereo mix and may need to play with your set-up for optimal use Some of these old 3 channel recordings have sounded superb however, especially a couple of the Mercury recordings, the old Philips quad mixes are also an interesting listen if only to hear the tendency to emphasise the quad much like happened in the early days of stereo, and the sound quality is surprising as well. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:25:24 -0700, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote
(in article ): =DEann 24/06/2011 15:06, skrifa=F0i Audio Empi =20 Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release r= ate of 2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5= ..6448 MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be u= sed=20 for capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SA= CD=20 disc is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple = of recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage spa= ce as does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it. =20 You mean DXD as "Digital eXtreme Definition", I thought that format was= =20 no longer used since we got proper DSD editing software, and I may have= =20 been confusing terms, but unless I misheard the gent from Pentatone, DX= D=20 versus DSD is how he differentiated between 64 and 128 frame recording=20 but thinking about it it may have been DSX versus DSD, they and most of= =20 the other European Classical labels that (not Chandos I think, but not=20 sure) use 128 and have done for years. DXD does, indeed stand for Digital eXtream Definition, and you are correc= t,=20 it is obsolete (I think that I said that I don't believe it's used much a= ny=20 more and it it never was used for SACD capture).=20 You must have heard wrong because DXD isn't a DSD format at all, it's mer= ely=20 24-bit PCM at 352.8=A0kHz sampling rate (8Fs). While some record companie= s=20 might have done capture at one time or another at DSD128, the release dis= c=20 was usually down-converted to DSD64. (Some SACD players, apparently can p= lay=20 5.6 MBPS (which is different from DSD128) recordings uncompressed, but th= ey=20 are few and far between AFAICS. As for your ability to hear a difference I cannot possibly comment,=20 especially in the light of the extremely comical discussion you are=20 having on cables concurrently ..... What's there to hear? DSD64 is flat to 50 KHz. DSD128 is flat to 100 KHz.= =20 Otherwise, they are exactly the same. Now unless you have bat ears, which= I =20 doubt, I simply don't believe that you (or anyone else) can hear the=20 difference between these two recording formats. Therefore I'm going to le= ave=20 it to you to explain to me what possible audible advantage there could be= =20 between a format that goes to 50 KHz and one that goes to 100 KHz, when m= ost=20 18 year-old humans (with undamaged hearing) struggle to hear 20 KHz? =20 |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:48:42 -0700, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote
(in article ): Žann 24/06/2011 17:02, skrifaši Gary Eickmeier: [ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to the new article. -- dsr ] On a more practical level.... Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are they 3 front channels, or just two? They are usually 4.1 or more seldom 6.1 in other words 2 front channels but many still have a summed or mixed signal for the centre channel (making it sort of 5.1 and 7.1), the reason for not utilising the centre channel is that some manufacturers of centre channel speakers limit their frequency range to be more intelligible for voice applications and the simple fact that the typical centre channel placement does not help much in establishing spatial awareness and may in fact hinder, the centre channel is there for making dialoge appear to come from the screen after all and not intended for music per se. Some labels like Pentatone have released old quad recordings from the 70's as 4 channels and some American re-releases have surfaced of recordings originally recorded on Ampex triples have been released as 3 channel recordings but those 3 channel releases are not surround sound per se, and you may or may not hear an improvement from a stereo mix and may need to play with your set-up for optimal use. Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound. Some of these old 3 channel recordings have sounded superb however, especially a couple of the Mercury recordings, the old Philips quad mixes are also an interesting listen if only to hear the tendency to emphasise the quad much like happened in the early days of stereo, and the sound quality is surprising as well. Certainly, the "quad" is over-emphasized in a lot of these, but remember, the S-Q and Q-S matrix systems that were used limited the separation between two of the channels (front to rear with S-Q and right to left with Q-S) to only 3 dB (without logic steering). 3 dB is barely audible, so they had to do something to make the quadriphonic effect seem to be adequate. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
Audio Empire wrote:
Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound. Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious, why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than Blumlein's patent? Gary Eickmeier |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound. Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious, why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than Blumlein's patent? Gary Eickmeier The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches apart. Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't phase coherent. The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel spaced omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which both a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One couldn't just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more stable center image. It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent stereo recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better imaging but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility afforded by using cardioids. Some record companies such as British Decca and DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and for a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three spaced ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable from a flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced omnis were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and didn't want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real hall sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But this only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a live event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough and program rustle. There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made. Just because someone works in the business professionally and successfully, doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel, microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra. I said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no depth, and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for a group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual instruments must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or microphones) and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments captured close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance. Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound, he was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed attitude like that? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound. Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious, why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than Blumlein's patent? Gary Eickmeier The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches apart. Well, my shocking retort is that stereophonic sound has nothing to do with the number of ears on your head or the spacing between them. Your M/S and Blumlein techniques are also not spaced as the human ears are. In other words, stereo is not a head-related system like binaural, it is a field-type system. The goal is not ear signals, but rather reconstructing a sound field in another room. Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't phase coherent. OK stop for a minute. So what? Who says they need to be? Where does that come from? The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel spaced omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which both a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One couldn't just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more stable center image. It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent stereo recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better imaging but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility afforded by using cardioids. For some contrarian reason I don't have much sympathy for the ability to sum to mono. What I do have is some (I believe) valid theoretical reasons that 3 or more spaced omnis are more correct for stereo. Some record companies such as British Decca and DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and for a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three spaced ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable from a flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced omnis were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and didn't want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real hall sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But this only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a live event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough and program rustle. There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made. Just because someone works in the business professionally and successfully, doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel, microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra. I said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no depth, and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for a group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual instruments must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or microphones) and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments captured close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance. Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound, he was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed attitude like that? I would agree with you there. The only way he could justify his technique would be to play back his recording in as big a hall as it was made in, and with as many speakers as microphones. Two things: I wrote an entertaining article about the difference between a head-related system and a field-type system that tries to get to the heart of this discussion. I don't remember if I sent it to you. It is called An Audio Fantasy: The AES Goes to Mars. I could zap it to anyone who is interested as a PDF. Number two, I have been making some 3 spaced omni recordings of my own to test out my audio theories from recording to playback, and I have had some success both in my system and in critical acclaim in three other people's systems. I made a shorter demo version that I would be glad to send to anyone interested, if you just Email me your address. Gary Eickmeier |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:22:00 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound. Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious, why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than Blumlein's patent? Gary Eickmeier The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches apart. Well, my shocking retort is that stereophonic sound has nothing to do with the number of ears on your head or the spacing between them. Your M/S and Blumlein techniques are also not spaced as the human ears are. In other words, stereo is not a head-related system like binaural, it is a field-type system. The goal is not ear signals, but rather reconstructing a sound field in another room. I said that was the smart-ass answer. From that you should have understood that I was kidding. Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't phase coherent. OK stop for a minute. So what? Who says they need to be? Where does that come from? I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by a combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis locate sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left only. The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a spaced omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not nearly as annoying) The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel spaced omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which both a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One couldn't just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more stable center image. It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent stereo recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better imaging but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility afforded by using cardioids. For some contrarian reason I don't have much sympathy for the ability to sum to mono. What I do have is some (I believe) valid theoretical reasons that 3 or more spaced omnis are more correct for stereo. See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does point out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and it shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To me it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable, almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling while the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous. My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any conclusions. It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for it and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from actual experience, what kind of results they all yield. Some record companies such as British Decca and DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and for a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three spaced ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable from a flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced omnis were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and didn't want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real hall sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But this only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a live event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough and program rustle. There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made. Just because someone works in the business professionally and successfully, doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel, microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra. I said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no depth, and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for a group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual instruments must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or microphones) and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments captured close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance. Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound, he was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed attitude like that? I would agree with you there. The only way he could justify his technique would be to play back his recording in as big a hall as it was made in, and with as many speakers as microphones. Two things: I wrote an entertaining article about the difference between a head-related system and a field-type system that tries to get to the heart of this discussion. I don't remember if I sent it to you. It is called An Audio Fantasy: The AES Goes to Mars. I could zap it to anyone who is interested as a PDF. Number two, I have been making some 3 spaced omni recordings of my own to test out my audio theories from recording to playback, and I have had some success both in my system and in critical acclaim in three other people's systems. I made a shorter demo version that I would be glad to send to anyone interested, if you just Email me your address. But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old Mercury Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound very good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup instead of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging! |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by a combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis locate sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left only. The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a spaced omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not nearly as annoying) Not to be argumentative - I agree with your basic points about experimenting - but just food for thought. No, I don't need to study too much more about how we localize sounds. I have been at this for some 25 or 30 years now, at an amateur level. Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear. When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase, doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted multimike techniques. I must look that article up again. See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does point out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and it shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To me it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable, almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling while the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous. My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any conclusions. It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for it and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from actual experience, what kind of results they all yield. I have only begun doing just that. I recorded my current batch with both the spaced omnis and a single point stereo mike. But I was so thrilled with the spaced omni results that I never did do my comparison. The impetus for my acquiring the R16 multitrack recorder and enough mikes to make the experimental recordings was my experience with the single point mike. It just didn't have enough space or stereo spread to it - almost a mono recording. But besides that, in my basic paper on stereo I reasoned at the end of it that since my ideal playback system was three spaced speakers attempting to reconstruct the image model of the live sound field, and since the playback image model was an orthographic projection within the rectangular space, the correct way to capture the live model of direct and early reflected sounds that exist in the concert space would be to position microphones near those images. I suggested some simple math that tells me how close I can position the three mikes to the performers to get a perfectly even spread all across the soundstage. You could also use 5 spaced omnis to get even more differentiation. The main point, however, is that in order to get all of the direct and reflected sounds onto the recording, the recording engineer must remember that he is making two stereo recordings at the same time: the musical instruments themselves and their early reflected sounds. But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old Mercury Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound very good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup instead of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging! But yes, I have, but haven't carried the experiment all the way through yet. I am going to record a chamber orchestra on the 7th of next month - my daughter's orchestra camp has a final concert every year. It will be in an ideal medium size room. I hope to get a piano trio or quartet somewhere, somehow, in the near future to try it on that as well. Eargle used omnis outboard of the center stereo mikes to get some space into his recordings. I generally agree with your approach of experimentation. I don't have as much experience recording as you do, but I imagine another difference is our playback systems. Do you lean toward a direct field approach with your speakers? One last, annoying point. The simplest thought experiment I can offer is three performers across the soundstage, positioned as your speakers will be. Example A, suppose you close-miked them and played them back on their respective speakers. Each speaker represents a single performer on your soundstage. Imaging is quite perfect, because there they are right where they belong, unmistakably coming from right, center, and left, listened to with your natural human hearing just fine. Phase has nothing to do with it. Example B, suppose we use three spaced omnis to record them. Not much difference, and still no problem with "phase." Each mike will record some leakage from the other performers, but that leaked sound will be later in time, and so will not hurt the imaging from that performer's primary microphone a bit. I may be able to do some experimental voice tests next time as well, with me calling out my position on the stage and moving around. I live and learn. Gary Eickmeier |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:28:50 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by a combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis locate sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left only. The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a spaced omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not nearly as annoying) Not to be argumentative - I agree with your basic points about experimenting - but just food for thought. No, I don't need to study too much more about how we localize sounds. I have been at this for some 25 or 30 years now, at an amateur level. Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear. When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase, doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted multimike techniques. I must look that article up again. See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does point out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and it shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To me it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable, almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling while the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous. My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any conclusions. It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for it and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from actual experience, what kind of results they all yield. I have only begun doing just that. I recorded my current batch with both the spaced omnis and a single point stereo mike. But I was so thrilled with the spaced omni results that I never did do my comparison. The impetus for my acquiring the R16 multitrack recorder and enough mikes to make the experimental recordings was my experience with the single point mike. It just didn't have enough space or stereo spread to it - almost a mono recording. Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid or figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get mono. But besides that, in my basic paper on stereo I reasoned at the end of it that since my ideal playback system was three spaced speakers attempting to reconstruct the image model of the live sound field, and since the playback image model was an orthographic projection within the rectangular space, the correct way to capture the live model of direct and early reflected sounds that exist in the concert space would be to position microphones near those images. I suggested some simple math that tells me how close I can position the three mikes to the performers to get a perfectly even spread all across the soundstage. You could also use 5 spaced omnis to get even more differentiation. The main point, however, is that in order to get all of the direct and reflected sounds onto the recording, the recording engineer must remember that he is making two stereo recordings at the same time: the musical instruments themselves and their early reflected sounds. But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old Mercury Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound very good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup instead of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging! But yes, I have, but haven't carried the experiment all the way through yet. I am going to record a chamber orchestra on the 7th of next month - my daughter's orchestra camp has a final concert every year. It will be in an ideal medium size room. I hope to get a piano trio or quartet somewhere, somehow, in the near future to try it on that as well. Eargle used omnis outboard of the center stereo mikes to get some space into his recordings. That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as long as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the corners. The space was palpable. I generally agree with your approach of experimentation. I don't have as much experience recording as you do, but I imagine another difference is our playback systems. Do you lean toward a direct field approach with your speakers? No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart. One last, annoying point. The simplest thought experiment I can offer is three performers across the soundstage, positioned as your speakers will be. Example A, suppose you close-miked them and played them back on their respective speakers. Each speaker represents a single performer on your soundstage. Imaging is quite perfect, because there they are right where they belong, unmistakably coming from right, center, and left, listened to with your natural human hearing just fine. Phase has nothing to do with it. Example B, suppose we use three spaced omnis to record them. Not much difference, and still no problem with "phase." Each mike will record some leakage from the other performers, but that leaked sound will be later in time, and so will not hurt the imaging from that performer's primary microphone a bit. Yes but that's multi-miked mono. Lots of small jazz ensembles are, essentially miked that way. I may be able to do some experimental voice tests next time as well, with me calling out my position on the stage and moving around. I live and learn. Gary Eickmeier |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear. When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase, doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted multimike techniques. I must look that article up again. When you're wrong you're wrong. Stanley was talking about spaced omnis as being the purist technique, and coincident being the correct technique. Anyway, seems he agrees with you. I have purchased this one again from the AES library, along with one by Ron Streicher and Wes Dooley called "Basic Microphone Perspectives - a Review." I will give a full book report. Gary Eickmeier |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart. Superb. ............... Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid or figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get mono. A single point stereo mike, not omnis. These are usually two coincident cardioids aimed at 90 or 120 degrees. My favorite single point stereo was a Sony M/S, but don't have it any more. That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as long as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the corners. The space was palpable. I would love to palp that! Is it for sale, or could you make a copy for me? Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10 ft wide piano. But in real life we don't usually listen that way. It is usually positioned perpendicular to the audience with the lid open. Sometimes in a pop group it will be mono miked for the reinforcement system, but I am talking live piano. Gary Eickmeier |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:32:22 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart. Superb. .............. Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid or figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get mono. A single point stereo mike, not omnis. These are usually two coincident cardioids aimed at 90 or 120 degrees. My favorite single point stereo was a Sony M/S, but don't have it any more. That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as long as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the corners. The space was palpable. I would love to palp that! Is it for sale, or could you make a copy for me? Part of my agreement with the customer is that i would give her everything, and keep no copies, so alas, no. It was very good too. Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10 ft wide piano. Another result of "wrong thinking". They place a spaced pair of mikes INSIDE of the piano. One at one end of the string sounding board, and one at the other! Of course you'll get a 10 ft wide piano!. The way to do it is to lift the lid on the piano and use a good single point stereo mike (or pair) about 4-7 ft in front of the instrument aimed at the lifted lid. I once did a recording of Phillipe Entremont playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto with a symphony orchestra. I used two Sony C37A mikes at 90 degrees to one another on a 7" stereo "T-bar" and hung about 10 ft above the conductor's head and about 15 ft behind the podium. I didn't highlight the piano at all (which was down-stage left in front of the orchestra and next to the conductor's podium). On playback, the perspective was perfect, with the piano solidly placed on the speaker's soundstage EXACTLY where it was during the concert. Now, that one I will send you! E-Mail me your mailing address. But in real life we don't usually listen that way. It is usually positioned perpendicular to the audience with the lid open. Sometimes in a pop group it will be mono miked for the reinforcement system, but I am talking live piano. Agreed. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:59:29 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear. When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase, doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted multimike techniques. I must look that article up again. When you're wrong you're wrong. Stanley was talking about spaced omnis as being the purist technique, and coincident being the correct technique. Anyway, seems he agrees with you. I have purchased this one again from the AES library, along with one by Ron Streicher and Wes Dooley called "Basic Microphone Perspectives - a Review." I will give a full book report. Gary Eickmeier I thought your description of Stanley's position on microphones sounded odd. Oh, well. Who said memory was perfect? If it was, we wouldn't have so many innocent people in prison because some "eye witness" picked them, mistakenly, from a police lineup. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... Gary Eickmeier wrote: Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10 ft wide piano. Urban myth. Agreed. The sound doesn't come from the keys, it comes from the position on the soundboard that most efficiently radiates that particular group of frequencies, and that often has little to do with the relative key or note position. I've noticed this to be true as I've listened to various parts of the grand piano that I work with much of the time. All of the strings are tightly mechanically coupled to the soundboard, a piece of cast iron which is very rigid. Given the high speed of sound and the rigidity of that piece of metal, my first order approximation would be that it all vibrates as one piece. The strings have minimal coupling to the air in comparison to the soundboard. I suspect that sound from the top of the piano is also primarily sourced by the soundboard. I have noticed that the piano's bass is stronger near the rear leg, but that may be due to a cavity resonance in the sort of boxed in area in the same area. And few people realize that very substantial portion of the sound of a grand piano comes out of the bottom of the intrument, or an an upright, out of the back. That explains why there is a soundboard... doooh! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... (Eickmeier said): Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10 ft wide piano. Another result of "wrong thinking". They place a spaced pair of mikes INSIDE of the piano. One at one end of the string sounding board, and one at the other! Of course you'll get a 10 ft wide piano!. OK OK, this has gone far enough. I didn't say I thought the mikes were recording piano keys. The way to do it is to lift the lid on the piano and use a good single point stereo mike (or pair) about 4-7 ft in front of the instrument aimed at the lifted lid. I once did a recording of Phillipe Entremont playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto with a symphony orchestra. I used two Sony C37A mikes at 90 degrees to one another on a 7" stereo "T-bar" and hung about 10 ft above the conductor's head and about 15 ft behind the podium. I didn't highlight the piano at all (which was down-stage left in front of the orchestra and next to the conductor's podium). On playback, the perspective was perfect, with the piano solidly placed on the speaker's soundstage EXACTLY where it was during the concert. Now, that one I will send you! E-Mail me your mailing address. Done! Thanks. Gary Eickmeier |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: All of the strings are tightly mechanically coupled to the soundboard, a piece of cast iron which is very rigid. Given the high speed of sound and the rigidity of that piece of metal, my first order approximation would be that it all vibrates as one piece. The strings have minimal coupling to the air in comparison to the soundboard. I've seen a LOT of pianos, and I must say I have NEVER seen one with a cast iron sound board. All of them have cast iron frames, put there primarily to keep the frame from collapsing in on itself under the tremendous combined tension of the strings, but that cast iron plays little or no role in the production of sound. The soundboard is, in fact, a larrge piece of joined, quarter- sawn softwaood, like spruce, that, in a piano, is on the order of 1/4" thick, that is genrally parallel to the string band and maybe 1/2 behind it. One end of the strings is coupled mechano-acoustically via the bridge, the other end of the strings runs over the nut on the pin block, which is a very thick piece of wood in which the tuning pins are screwed. The soundboard in a piano serves the same role is constructed in a way that would be very familiar to anyone knowing guitars or violins. The radiation pattern is dictated first by the complex mechanical resonances of the soundboard, and also by the fact that it is a very large, extremely non-uniform radiating surface. But, a cast iron soundboard? Not a chance. Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos. But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a lot of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency dependent. What I know for sure is that if you put two identical mics in most likely places inside a piano, they sound very much alike. I therefore use a PZM that is attached to the underside of the lid and keep the lid shut or on a short stick. It takes a ton of eq to make the feed from the mic sound right, but thats what eq is for. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos. But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a lot of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency dependent. It's nigh on impossible NOT to have many vibrational modes that are both spacially AND frequency dependent. Look at some laser interferometry or even the old talc-based resonance patterns: the vibration patterns are horrifically complex and all over the place from note to note. Are they sufficient to create useful sound quality differences using several mics? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:06:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos. But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a lot of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency dependent. It's nigh on impossible NOT to have many vibrational modes that are both spacially AND frequency dependent. Look at some laser interferometry or even the old talc-based resonance patterns: the vibration patterns are horrifically complex and all over the place from note to note. Are they sufficient to create useful sound quality differences using several mics? That's a good question, and I don't pretend to know the answer (anyone here know for sure?). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile | High End Audio | |||
Why do police criminal interviews/confessions always have such shittyaudio? | Pro Audio |