[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Luxey]

Over time, you'll reinvent close micing.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Luxey]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Luxey]

�реда, 18. април 2012. 14..11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/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.