Adding reverb to hi-fi

[[email protected]]

Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.

www.studiospares.com

have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
here?

Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
player's digital output.

[ansermetniac]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:36:49 -0700,
wrote:

>Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
>with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
>classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.
>
>www.studiospares.com
>
>have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
>here?
>
>Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
>player's digital output.


I added reverb to a recording once. Then I got well and never did it
again

Abbedd

[William Sommerwerck]

"That's too much echo... echo... echo... Turn it off... off.. off..." --
Stan Freberg, "Heartbreak Hotel".

Twenty years ago, JVC and Yamaha made consumer reverb units whose programs
were modeled after specific churches, concert halls, and other performance
venues. If you're trying to produce a natural sense of reverbererberation,
this sort of device is what you want.

You should be looking for a Yamaha DSP-1, DSP-3000, JVC XP-A1000, XP-A1010.
I don't remember if the DSP-1 has a digital input; the other models do. The
DSP-1 requires its remote control and is useless without it. The others can
be operated from their front panels but it's a bit clumsy and inconvenient
to do so.

All offer four outputs, two rear and two side. The programs are adjustable,
to match the sound of the synthesized reverb to the ambience of the
recording.

They sometimes show up on eBay. The Yamaha DSP-1 is fairly common, the
others less so. I recently bought a JVC XP-A1010 as a backup to the XP-A1000
I already own. (I also have a Yamaha DSP-3000 and Lexicon CP-3plus.)

You should always run the ambience through added speakers. You should
_never_ mix it with the original. It screws up the sound quite badly.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I added reverb to a recording once. Then I got well
> and never did it again.

There is a difference to adding to the recording, and playing it through
additional speakers. A huge difference.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
>with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
>classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.

This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be
lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed
for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful.

>www.studiospares.com
>
>have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
>here?
>
>Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
>player's digital output.

I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal
is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But
I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not
very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of
the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they
must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what
the artist was aiming for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JP]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:36:49 +0300, > wrote:

> Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
> with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
> classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.
>
> www.studiospares.com
>
> have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
> here?
>
> Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
> player's digital output.
>

if you'd like it more wet then why not. From Studiospares offerings I'd
pick TC M One.

-JP

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Mogens V.]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
>>with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
>>classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.
>
>
> This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be
> lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed
> for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful.
>
>
>>www.studiospares.com
>>
>>have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
>>here?
>>
>>Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
>>player's digital output.
>
>
> I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal
> is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But
> I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not
> very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of
> the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they
> must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what
> the artist was aiming for.

Maybe the OP was thinking about a dry sound in basic two-speaker stereo,
and have a carefully crafted limited reverberated sound from the back
speakers only, attempting to (try to) reproduce some room/ambiance.


Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:20:54 +0200, "Mogens V."
> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
>>>with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially
>>>classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it.
>>
>>
>> This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be
>> lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed
>> for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful.
>>
>>
>>>www.studiospares.com
>>>
>>>have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used
>>>here?
>>>
>>>Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD
>>>player's digital output.
>>
>>
>> I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal
>> is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But
>> I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not
>> very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of
>> the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they
>> must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what
>> the artist was aiming for.
>
>Maybe the OP was thinking about a dry sound in basic two-speaker stereo,
>and have a carefully crafted limited reverberated sound from the back
>speakers only, attempting to (try to) reproduce some room/ambiance.
>
>
>Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though...

I think the op is a shill for the linked dealer


Abbedd

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't like to disagree with Scott, who's generally correct. But there's a
lot more to ambience synthesis than the Fisher SpaceXpander.

There are products that are specifically designed for home use, and "sound
good". Please read my previous posting.

As for ansermetniac's remarks... As he suggests, it's almost always wrong --
both acoustically and aesthetically -- to mix ambience into a recording,
even a dry one.

But that's not what these devices do. They present the ambience through side
and rear speakers, and the results are quite, quite different. You should
hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of stereo ambience is added
to the room. The improvement is drastic.

[Mogens V.]

ansermetniac wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:20:54 +0200, "Mogens V."
> > wrote:
>
>>Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though...
>
>
> I think the op is a shill for the linked dealer

Oh well, maybe, so used to vendor/dealer links I missed it.
Whatever, sometimes some useful knowlege comes out of such posts.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> You should hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of stereo
> ambience is added to the room. The improvement is drastic.

I think you forgot the parenthesis round improvment.

I've yet to hear any decent mono recording improved by adding stereo
ambience - and that includes pro attempts.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Andrew Rose]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good hall
> to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>

I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
complete swamping of almost every recording of 'early' music with
reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
big audio sign was up saying 'this is early music, listen to the reverb'
and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
cathedrals and caverns...

--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical

The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good hall
> to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.

Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings, which is
what the OP was asking about?

[William Sommerwerck]

>> You should hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of
>> stereo ambience is added to the room. The improvement is drastic.

> I think you forgot the parentheses around improvement. I've yet to
> hear any decent mono recording improved by adding stereo
> ambience -- and that includes pro attempts.

Because -- as I repeatedly stated -- you didn't hear it correctly done. You
don't add the ambience to the recording, but through additional speakers.
The results are much different.

I will add one qualification... The recording has to be reasonably good to
begin with. Really old mono recordings sound rather odd with stereo
ambience -- though the oddness is more aesthetic than acoustic.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
>> hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.

> I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
> complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with
> reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
> big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb"
> and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
> cathedrals and caverns...

Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response.

It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most recordings
of the music of any era has added reverb.

I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of
the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
>>> hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>
>> I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
>> complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with
>> reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
>> big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb"
>> and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
>> cathedrals and caverns...
>
>Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response.
>
>It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most recordings
>of the music of any era has added reverb.
>
>I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
>properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of
>the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
>talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
>

I've always had the impression that when a recording is swamped with
reverb either the playing wasn't very good or the producer/engineer
didn't really understand what he was recording.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good hall
>> to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>
>Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings, which is
>what the OP was asking about?

By looking for Bob Fine's name in the credits?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mogens V.]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good hall
>>to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>
>
> Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings, which is
> what the OP was asking about?

Well, a couple points. If it's popular/pop music, one may choose to not
even bother ;) If it's classical, one may choose another recording.

Nevertheles, even though I prefer recordings the way they were made (and
hopefully intended) by the rec engineer, I never opted for a surround
system, to much criticism from friends (a gots-to-have these days).

I'd prefer a good stereo with full range fronts and tonewise matching
rear speakers for pseudo-quadro/surround for films _and_ for a more
spacious experience for at least some music.
I have absolutely no interest in center speakers and subwoofers.

I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here, i.e. a
rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the real
theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to add
what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.

Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that, of
cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.

Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here,
> i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the
> real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to
> add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.

> Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that,
> of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.

> Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D

Not from me.

You can start with a Hafler difference-signal setup while you're looking for
a synthesizer. (The Yamaha DSP-1 shows up all the time on eBay; just be
patient and wait for one with a remote control. If a Yamaha DSP-3000 or JVC
XP-A1000 or XP-A1010 shows up, grab it. JVC still has remote controls,
though they're down to three.)

I should point out that the most-significant ambience is the "lateral" sound
of the hall, not the rear reflections. All the synthesizers I mentioned
produce four channels of ambience, two of which are intended to come from
the sides.

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
>>> hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>
>> I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
>> complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with
>> reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
>> big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb"
>> and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
>> cathedrals and caverns...
>
>Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response.
>
>It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most recordings
>of the music of any era has added reverb.
>
>I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
>properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of
>the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
>talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
>

I have NEVER seen a review in stereophile saying the recording was too
reverberant. Interpret this as you like

Abbedd

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message . ..
>> I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
>> here,
>> i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
>> in the
>> real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
>> effect, just to
>> add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
>> have.
>
>> Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
>> that,
>> of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
>> gear.

One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
absorption and diffusers.

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
to fix your room.


peace
dawg

[Pete Cross]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
> > I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here,
> > i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the
> > real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to
> > add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.
>
> > Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that,
> > of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.
>
> > Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D
>
> Not from me.
>
> You can start with a Hafler difference-signal setup while you're looking
for
> a synthesizer. (The Yamaha DSP-1 shows up all the time on eBay; just be
> patient and wait for one with a remote control. If a Yamaha DSP-3000 or
JVC
> XP-A1000 or XP-A1010 shows up, grab it. JVC still has remote controls,
> though they're down to three.)
>
> I should point out that the most-significant ambience is the "lateral"
sound
> of the hall, not the rear reflections. All the synthesizers I mentioned
> produce four channels of ambience, two of which are intended to come from
> the sides.
>
>
In the 80's I worked for the classical organ centre in Oldham, they used the
Alesis digiverb units in 'dead' churches to liven up the rear speakers,
heard one once on Songs of Praise which was very weird, the organ finished
each verse with this long cathedral like decay but the choir just stopped
dead....... the Alesis is very good though.

Pete

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
>>>> hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
>>> complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with
>>> reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
>>> big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb"
>>> and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
>>> cathedrals and caverns...
>>
>>Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response.
>>
>>It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
>>recordings
>>of the music of any era has added reverb.
>>
>>I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
>>properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of
>>the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
>>talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
>>
>
> I've always had the impression that when a recording is swamped with
> reverb either the playing wasn't very good or the producer/engineer
> didn't really understand what he was recording.
>

My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the
reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.


> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
> recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
> the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
> you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
> in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
> to fix your room.

No, but it does help the recording.

Remember that, no matter how good the room, the reproduced sound comes
mostly from the front -- whereas the spatial impression (SI) of a hall is
determined primarily by lateral sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question
> is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather
> than add more.

Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.

(I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque)
>> music properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts"
>> the acoustics of the relatively small spaces in which these works
>> were performed. (I'm not talking about Vespers of 1610, okay?)

> I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording
> was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like.

I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that have to
do with my observation, one way or another?

[Howard Ferstler]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "That's too much echo... echo... echo... Turn it off... off.. off..." --
> Stan Freberg, "Heartbreak Hotel".
>
> Twenty years ago, JVC and Yamaha made consumer reverb units whose programs
> were modeled after specific churches, concert halls, and other performance
> venues. If you're trying to produce a natural sense of reverbererberation,
> this sort of device is what you want.
>
> You should be looking for a Yamaha DSP-1, DSP-3000, JVC XP-A1000, XP-A1010.
> I don't remember if the DSP-1 has a digital input; the other models do. The
> DSP-1 requires its remote control and is useless without it. The others can
> be operated from their front panels but it's a bit clumsy and inconvenient
> to do so.
>
> All offer four outputs, two rear and two side. The programs are adjustable,
> to match the sound of the synthesized reverb to the ambience of the
> recording.
>
> They sometimes show up on eBay. The Yamaha DSP-1 is fairly common, the
> others less so. I recently bought a JVC XP-A1010 as a backup to the XP-A1000
> I already own. (I also have a Yamaha DSP-3000 and Lexicon CP-3plus.)
>
> You should always run the ambience through added speakers. You should
> _never_ mix it with the original. It screws up the sound quite badly.

I agree about not mixing any additional reverb into the main
channels. There will usually already be enough recorded
reverb already.

The later DSP-A3090 and DSP-A1 integrated amps work well,
too, as does the still later RX-Z1 receiver, although having
their own amps built in kind of limits their flexibility
with complex audio set ups. I assume that the latest RX-Z9
version also does well, although I have never reviewed the
unit. I reviewed the other devices in issues 65 (Sept/Oct,
1997), 72 (Nov/Dec, 1998, and also reviewed the Lexicon DC-1
in that issue), and 93 (Dec, 2002/Jan, 2003) of The Sensible
Sound.

The three Yamaha units mentioned above have a
"Classical/Opera" mode that I find superior to the various
"hall" and "club" simulation modes. While those do not
include a center feed, Classical/Opera does, and it gets the
center info via the usual Dolby Surround, L+R "derived"
center circuitry in the units. Normally, I find the center
feed a tad too loud when it comes to producing a faux center
from a two-channel source, but backing off the center level
about 3 dB widens the soundstage back up and the result
works particularly well if the listener is sitting somewhere
but the sweet spot.

The hall-simulation surround ambiance generated by the
Classical/Opera mode varies in loudness between the three
units mentioned, and with both the DSP-A1 and RX-Z1 I find
it best to back off the surround effects levels by about 3
dB, compared to what the set-up menu offers for the global
movie-sound set-up level. The units make this easy to do,
and the settings can be fixed for any of the surround modes.

I also find that the two front "effects" channels work
better with the front "effects" speakers not in the front
corners as Yamaha recommends, but moved further down the
side walls, and aimed across the room at each other and not
out into the listening area. Also, rather than locate the
rear surround speakers in the back corners as Yamaha
suggests, I find that they work better also mounted on the
side walls, perhaps ten degrees behind directly to the sides.

In all cases, the wider dispersing the surround speakers are
the better they perform. Also, I find that a wider room
(with a long front wall) works better than a narrow one. One
exception involves the Lexicon processor I reviewed, which
works at its best in a shoebox-shaped room, with the
main-channel speakers on the shorter wall.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question
>>is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather
>>than add more.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
> actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.
>
> (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)

No missiles from me. I agree. I once compared a basic stereo
recording of an acoustic jazz ensemble to the same piece run
through the ambiance synthesizing circuitry of one of my
Yamaha surround amps. (This experience involved reviewing
recordings for my first record-review book, High Definition
Compact Disc Recordings, and the comparison was as easy as
pressing a button.) While there was no change in overall
ambiance, there was a change in where the ambiance appeared
to be coming from. It was moved from just up front to all
around me. In addition, the sound from up front actually
GAINED in clarity. I even had my wife give the two versions
a listen and she (who normally considers audio
experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me.

Howard Ferstler

[Mogens V.]

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message . ..
>
>>>I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
>>>here,
>>>i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
>>>in the
>>>real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
>>>effect, just to
>>>add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
>>>have.
>>
>>>Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
>>>that,
>>>of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
>>>gear.
>
>
> One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
> was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
> absorption and diffusers.
>
> Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
> recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
> the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
> you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
> in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
> to fix your room.

Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
Not meaning to sound like a knowitall, but I am aware of just how good
music can sound in a good room with good gear correctly setup.
In most homes I visit, there's hardly even a stereo image. Though my
current (way cheaper than friends) gear isn't yop notch, I still have
good positional definition of instruments in a concerto, have a sense of
depth behind speakers et al.. I just miss something in the other
direction, the room I'm in; it feels like having.. only stereo.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Mogens V.]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here,
>>i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the
>>real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to
>>add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.
>
>
>>Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that,
>>of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.
>
>
>>Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D
>
>
> Not from me.
>
> You can start with a Hafler difference-signal setup while you're looking for
> a synthesizer. (The Yamaha DSP-1 shows up all the time on eBay; just be
> patient and wait for one with a remote control. If a Yamaha DSP-3000 or JVC
> XP-A1000 or XP-A1010 shows up, grab it. JVC still has remote controls,
> though they're down to three.)
>
> I should point out that the most-significant ambience is the "lateral" sound
> of the hall, not the rear reflections. All the synthesizers I mentioned
> produce four channels of ambience, two of which are intended to come from
> the sides.

Now it probably gets a Bit OT, sorry for that.
I understand the lateral part, had to reflect a little on that, though.
But I have a problem understanding mixing the additional lateral setup
with the usual 5/7.1 surround in films.

Do note I don't have such, so I have freedom for a new implementation.
All I want is the full range front, with fidelity for pure music, which
is way more important to me than what's in films.

To this I'm looking at adding the ambiance we discuss here _and_ the
rear part of films - but without ending up with six speakers.
I'm thinking.. since this is for a normal (not oversized) appartment, I
can't offset my couch to have rear speakers truly behind listening pos.
So maybe mounting your mentioned lateral speakers to the sides of my
preferred listening position, further to the sides than normal for rear
speakers, can serve the dual purpose of laterality for music and
rearability for films (does those words even exist?).

Maybe I'm just babbling, dreaming, and will wake up tomorrow ;)

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Howard Ferstler]

Mogens V. wrote:

> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
>>> hall
>>> to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings,
>> which is
>> what the OP was asking about?
>
>
> Well, a couple points. If it's popular/pop music, one may choose to not
> even bother ;) If it's classical, one may choose another recording.
>
> Nevertheles, even though I prefer recordings the way they were made (and
> hopefully intended) by the rec engineer, I never opted for a surround
> system, to much criticism from friends (a gots-to-have these days).

With two-channel audio the engineer, no matter how good he
is, has to make a compromise. With live music, most of the
reverb one hears comes from places other than the soundstage
area. However, with two-channel recordings, all of that hall
reverb comes from up front. The home listening room adds
reverb, of course, but it is much different from what the
hall would deliver. The engineer is stuck with that
situation when making two-channel recordings.

Using a home-based reverb synthesizer (which may take the
mono attribute of a recording and reverberate it to surround
speakers) or a reverb extractor (which may take the L minus
R part of the recorded source material and send it directly
to the surround speakers, usually after applying some delay
and maybe additional reverb) helps to overcome this problem.
This is the case if either technology is well engineered and
the levels are not goosed too much and the room is decent
and the speakers are located properly. The result will get
some ersatz reverb out into the room and help to make a bad
situation a bit better. No system can properly duplicate a
real-world hall, but extracted or synthesize reverb in
combination with two or three channels up front is a much
better approach than basic two-channel stereo.

> I'd prefer a good stereo with full range fronts and tonewise matching
> rear speakers for pseudo-quadro/surround for films _and_ for a more
> spacious experience for at least some music.
> I have absolutely no interest in center speakers and subwoofers.

Well, if one's main speakers are solid bass producers a
subwoofer may not be required, particularly with lighter
weight musical source materials. However, a really good,
really well integrated subwoofer can do several things
better than full-range speakers operating alone.

First, it takes pressure off of the satellite amps. They no
longer have to deal with low bass.

Second, it takes pressure off of the satellite woofer
sections. They no longer have to deal with low bass, which
can be very important if those woofers in the satellites are
not particularly potent.

Third, set up right (close to two or more room boundaries) a
subwoofer helps to eliminate boundary-related suckout
artifacts that one gets with typically set-up satellite
speakers that are positioned well out into the open. With
the proper crossover frequency, the sub operates below its
suckout cancellation point and the satellites operate above
theirs.

Fourth, good subs will get the bottom octave better than
most full-range speakers. Yes, most music does not go down
to 20 Hz, but in many cases hall ambiance does go that low,
or even lower, and so a good subwoofer will do a better job
of simulating the subjective "space" of a good hall better
than most full-range speakers.

As for the center channel, look at it this way. During a
live performance a centered soloist will be generating two
arrival clues: one for each ear. However, with two-channel
reproduction and a "phantom" center a centered soloist
generates four arrival clues: one from each speaker for each
ear. This is abnormal, both in terms of inter-system
frequency-response cancellations and also in terms of focus,
particularly when listening from anywhere but the sweet
spot, and has only been lauded by traditionalists because
they are not aware of just what a centered soloist sounds
like in a real-world hall. Going to a center channel (even
one that involves "deriving" a steered center feed from the
L+R part of a stereo source) gives the listener the more
realistic two arrival clues.

Yes, you still get cancellations and other artifacts between
the center channel speaker and the left and right mains, but
having an additional channel reduces their impact compared
to what they sound like with only two channels.

> Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D

But not lectured in a nasty way, at least by me.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message . ..
>
>>>I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
>>>here,
>>>i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
>>>in the
>>>real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
>>>effect, just to
>>>add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
>>>have.
>>
>>>Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
>>>that,
>>>of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
>>>gear.
>
>
> One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
> was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
> absorption and diffusers.

Well, this may eliminate some of the slap echo and
reflecting hot spots, but the net result is still a
recording that has the reverb mostly coming from up front.
This is not the way it is at a live performance.

> Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
> recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
> the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
> you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
> in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
> to fix your room.

It will not fix it. Nothing can fix it. However, done right
(with the levels not too loud and the timings not too
extreme) putting synthesized or extracted reverb out into
the room (even if that reverb is an ersatz simulation) does
a better job of simulating live sound than having just two
channels up front.

The problem with most surround sound set ups is that the
user will play the surround channels too loud. This
certainly is the case with store demos. I suppose the
demonstrator simply wants the guest to be extremely aware of
the surround channels. However, what you want is for the
listener to NOT be aware of the surround channels.

Howard Ferstler

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings,
>> which is what the OP was asking about?

> The simple solution is: If it ain't good, don't buy it! "Remastering" a
> bad recording won't give you a good recording, remastering a good
> recording will often give you a bad recording.

How do you replace a poor recording of a great performance with a good
recording of the same performance? I don't think even Albus Dumbledore can
do that.

[Mogens V.]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question
>>> is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather
>>> than add more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
>> actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.
>>
>> (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)
>
>
> No missiles from me. I agree. I once compared a basic stereo recording
> of an acoustic jazz ensemble to the same piece run through the ambiance
> synthesizing circuitry of one of my Yamaha surround amps. (This
> experience involved reviewing recordings for my first record-review
> book, High Definition Compact Disc Recordings, and the comparison was as
> easy as pressing a button.) While there was no change in overall
> ambiance, there was a change in where the ambiance appeared to be coming
> from. It was moved from just up front to all around me. In addition, the
> sound from up front actually GAINED in clarity. I even had my wife give
> the two versions a listen and she (who normally considers audio
> experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Interesting, and just about what I replied to Sommerwerck as missing in
a pure front setup.
I'll have to re-read your other (lengthy) post to understand how I may
possibly approximate this for my own more limited situation.
I do have a wider-than-long room; seems to match your claims, even for a
mere front setup.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Paul Stamler]

"ansermetniac" > wrote in message
...
> >It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
recordings
> >of the music of any era has added reverb.
> >
> >I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
> >properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics
of
> >the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
> >talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
> >
>
> I have NEVER seen a review in stereophile saying the recording was too
> reverberant. Interpret this as you like

I did, back when J. Gordon Holt was running Stereophile. Sometime in the
1980s-1990s, perhaps in reaction to the close-miked Deutsche Grammophon &
similar recordings, classical producers began opting for much "wetter"
recordings -- i.e., more reverb -- whether via placing the mics farther back
or adding artificial reverb. This coincided with the shift in audiophile
publications, led at the time by The Absolute Sound in the USA and Hi-Fi
News & Record Review in the UK, toward an emphasis on soundstaging as the
be-all-and-end-all of audio quality, rather than tonal accuracy. (This
reached the absurd point where reviewers were raving about speakers with
utterly skewed tonal response but incredible soundstaging, like the Spicas.)
The recordings followed suit; heck, what's the point of having
super-soundstaging in your playback system and not using it? So now the
recordings are swamped with reverberberberb.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

> Now it probably gets a Bit OT, sorry for that.
> I understand the lateral part, had to reflect a little on that, though.
> But I have a problem understanding mixing the additional lateral setup
> with the usual 5/7.1 surround in films.

You normally wouldn't. The ambience systems I'm describing are for the
enhancement of two-channel recordings.

> To this I'm looking at adding the ambiance we discuss here _and_ the
> rear part of films - but without ending up with six speakers.
> I'm thinking.. since this is for a normal (not oversized) appartment, I
> can't offset my couch to have rear speakers truly behind listening pos.
> So maybe mounting your mentioned lateral speakers to the sides of my
> preferred listening position, further to the sides than normal for rear
> speakers, can serve the dual purpose of laterality for music and
> rearability for films (does those words even exist?).

If you're using the extra speakers only for ambience, they need not be large
or expensive -- merely low in coloration. In addition, small speakers allow
more-flexible positioning.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"William Sommerwerck" > appears to have caused
the following letters to be typed in
:

>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get
>> the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.
>
> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
> actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.
>
> (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)

Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings with too
much phony added reverb?

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how
>>> to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.

>> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting)
>> ambience actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.

> Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings
> with too much phony added reverb?

OUCH!

That expletive (?) comes from someone who was one of the principal
supporters of Ambisonics in the US.

The excessive reverb (and it is excessive) you hear in Nimbus recordings
isn't phony at all -- its the reverb of the hall in which the recording was
made. It goes away when the recording is played though a UHJ decoder and
four speakers.

I've never experimented to see if the addition of synthetic ambience through
added speakers reduces the effect. It should, but I can't say for sure.

[Mogens V.]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

> The problem with most surround sound set ups is that the user will play
> the surround channels too loud. This certainly is the case with store
> demos. I suppose the demonstrator simply wants the guest to be extremely
> aware of the surround channels. However, what you want is for the
> listener to NOT be aware of the surround channels.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Exactly my observation from visits around. Most always I can _hear_ the
center channel and wish they'd reduce it just a tad, not unlike the
approx 3dB you mentioned elsewhere.
Often it's even worse off with the rear speaker levels.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:09:05 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
> wrote:

>"ansermetniac" > wrote in message
...
>> >It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
>recordings
>> >of the music of any era has added reverb.
>> >
>> >I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
>> >properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics
>of
>> >the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
>> >talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
>> >
>>
>> I have NEVER seen a review in stereophile saying the recording was too
>> reverberant. Interpret this as you like
>
>I did, back when J. Gordon Holt was running Stereophile. Sometime in the
>1980s-1990s, perhaps in reaction to the close-miked Deutsche Grammophon &
>similar recordings, classical producers began opting for much "wetter"
>recordings -- i.e., more reverb -- whether via placing the mics farther back
>or adding artificial reverb. This coincided with the shift in audiophile
>publications, led at the time by The Absolute Sound in the USA and Hi-Fi
>News & Record Review in the UK, toward an emphasis on soundstaging as the
>be-all-and-end-all of audio quality, rather than tonal accuracy. (This
>reached the absurd point where reviewers were raving about speakers with
>utterly skewed tonal response but incredible soundstaging, like the Spicas.)
>The recordings followed suit; heck, what's the point of having
>super-soundstaging in your playback system and not using it? So now the
>recordings are swamped with reverberberberb.
>
>Peace,
>Paul
>

I did though, read in Stereophile that Rhino (Bill Inglot) was a
little heavy on the sweetening, when others praised his work. How he
got to the top of the field, in early CD mastering, is sickening. I
called Rhino once, complaining about a relesase and they said "Bill
loves treble"

Abbedd

[ansermetniac]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:10:57 GMT, "Matthew*B.*Tepper"
> wrote:

>"William Sommerwerck" > appears to have caused
>the following letters to be typed in
:
>
>>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get
>>> the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
>> actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.
>>
>> (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)
>
>Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings with too
>much phony added reverb?

Not reaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly


Abbedd

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Jul 6, 9:18 am, "Norman M. Schwartz" > wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>>> IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
> >>>> hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.
>
> >>> I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the
> >>> complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with
> >>> reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this
> >>> big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb"
> >>> and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast
> >>> cathedrals and caverns...
>
> >>Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response.
>
> >>It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
> >>recordings
> >>of the music of any era has added reverb.
>
> >>I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music
> >>properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of
> >>the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not
> >>talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?)
>
> > I've always had the impression that when a recording is swamped with
> > reverb either the playing wasn't very good or the producer/engineer
> > didn't really understand what he was recording.
>
> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the
> reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.
>
> > d
>
> > --
> > Pearce Consulting
> >http://www.pearce.uk.com

You have jogged my memory back to the fifties (those fabulous fifties)
when a buddy of mine had a spring reverb unit in his car. Every time
we drove over railroad tracks there was a huge blang. It was very
dynamic, but not at all like a concert hall.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_]]

>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question
>> is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings,
>> rather
>> than add more.

Acoustically treat your listening environment.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_]]

"Mogens V." > wrote in
message
. dk...
> Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>> message
>> . ..
>>
>>>>I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
>>>>here,
>>>>i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it
>>>>happens in the
>>>>real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
>>>>effect, just to
>>>>add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
>>>>have.
>>>
>>>>Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
>>>>that,
>>>>of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
>>>>gear.
>>
>>
>> One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more
>> audible was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps,
>> broadband absorption and diffusers.
>>
>> Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
>> recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
>> the room is blowing back early reflections from your
>> speakers you are masking the low level detail that provides
>> the reverb in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb
>> is not going to fix your room.
>
> Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can
> provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.

I cant see it either but I sure can hear 3d in stereo
recordings in my treated listening room. Of course some
recordings have more than others but I do not hear any room or
3d with any stereo gear in untreated rooms. I just hear the
untreated room. This is kind of odd but intuitive once one
listens for awhile in a treated room.

Listening to pop music in my treated room I can hear things
like the different reverbs or delays on the individual
instruments and where the effects are returned in the
panorama. I had a hard time telling if there was any reverb in
the untreated room.


peace
dawg

[Steve de Mena]

ansermetniac wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:10:57 GMT, "Matthew B. Tepper"
> > wrote:
>
>> "William Sommerwerck" > appears to have caused
>> the following letters to be typed in
>> :
>>
>>>> My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get
>>>> the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more.
>>> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience
>>> actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant.
>>>
>>> (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.)
>> Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings with too
>> much phony added reverb?
>
> Not reaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly
>
>
> Abbedd

LOL!

Steve

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:33:44 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording
>> was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like.
>
>I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that have to
>do with my observation, one way or another?

It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more
interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than
in considering whether it ought to be there at all :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
> wrote:

>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.

But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.

Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised
resolution of digital :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:22:35 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>I even had my wife give the two versions
>a listen and she (who normally considers audio
>experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me.

Ah, the audiophile's trump card is played yet again! :-)

[Mogens V.]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
>>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
>
>
> But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
> non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.

Yes, I do know what you mean. I wrote in another post I do have good
stereo imaging and spacial definition _behind_ speakers; it's in the
real part of the room _I'm_ in that's missing 3D definition.
It's a new appartment, so I haven't finished the interior, meaning I'm
aware I have some standing waves and reflections to deal with.
It'll probably all fall nicely in place in due time, so I'll 'delay'
looking into artificial arrrangements till then.

I always get so much good info out of you guys'n'girls in here ;)

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:27:54 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:22:35 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>
>>I even had my wife give the two versions
>>a listen and she (who normally considers audio
>>experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me.
>
>Ah, the audiophile's trump card is played yet again! :-)

Trump card? I've always read that as "I've got nothing". ;-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording
>>> was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like.

>> I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that
>> have to do with my observation, one way or another?

> It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more
> interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than
> in considering whether it ought to be there at all. :-)

Ummm... Creamy reverb...

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_]]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
> > wrote:
>
>>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can
>>provide
>>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
>
> But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
> non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.
>
> Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the
> quantised
> resolution of digital :-)

Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if
you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example
of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics
of your room.

No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig
and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning.


peace
dawg

[tony sayer]

In article t>, Deputy
Dumbya Dawg > writes
>
>"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
>message ...
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can
>>>provide
>>>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
>>
>> But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
>> non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.
>>
>> Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the
>> quantised
>> resolution of digital :-)
>
>Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if
>you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example
>of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics
>of your room.
>
>No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
>the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
>acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
>thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
>cant hear anything different.


Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?..

>Like putting Channel
>#5 on a pig
>and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning.

Chanel 5 mon ami;)
>
>
>peace
>dawg
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
> wrote:

>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.

But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope
to an oil-painting"?

[Scott Dorsey]

Norman M. Schwartz > wrote:
>>
>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.

This is true, BUT you won't know what is important and what isn't. With
headphones, the imaging is changed dramatically.

One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are optimized
for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on headphones, But
that's a limited market and there isn't much out there. Which is kind of
surprising given the popularity of portable headphone devices out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
>>>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
>>
>> But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
>> non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.
>>
>> Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised
>> resolution of digital :-)
>
> Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't
> hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your
> system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room.
>
> No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail
> that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It
> amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then
> wonder why they cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a
> pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning.
>
Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.

>
> peace
> dawg
>

[Mogens V.]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.
>
>
> But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope
> to an oil-painting"?

Useful for close listening, but without the room...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Mogens V.]

tony sayer wrote:
> In article t>, Deputy
> Dumbya Dawg > writes
>
>>"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
>>message ...
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can
>>>>provide
>>>>what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
>>>
>>>But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
>>>non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.
>>>
>>>Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the
>>>quantised
>>>resolution of digital :-)
>>
>>Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if
>>you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example
>>of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics
>>of your room.
>>
>>No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
>>the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
>>acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
>>thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
>>cant hear anything different.
>
> Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?..

That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living
room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration
rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways
hidden next to some bookshelf.
Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[tony sayer]

>>>No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
>>>the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
>>>acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
>>>thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
>>>cant hear anything different.
>>
>> Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?..
>
>That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living
>room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration
>rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways
>hidden next to some bookshelf.
>Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still...
>

Come to that any websites advising on the subject?....
--
Tony Sayer

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are
> optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on
> headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out
> there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable
> headphone devices out there. --scott

How do you create multitrack binaural recordings?

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:
>
>> One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are
>> optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on
>> headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out
>> there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable
>> headphone devices out there.
>
>How do you create multitrack binaural recordings?

By using digital gimmickery like the Lake processor to pan discrete sources
around inside a virtual soundstage. The effect is surprisingly good. And,
of course, it falls apart totally on speakers.

There have also been binaural recordings with spot-mikes added as well,
and of course there's Streetnoise...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Carey Carlan" > wrote in message
...
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> :
>
> > One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are
> > optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on
> > headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out
> > there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable
> > headphone devices out there. --scott
>
> How do you create multitrack binaural recordings?

2 tracks at a time, each binaurally miked.

Peace,
Paul

[philicorda[_2_]]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:24:30 +0000, Carey Carlan wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> :
>
>> One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are
>> optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on
>> headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out
>> there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable
>> headphone devices out there. --scott
>
> How do you create multitrack binaural recordings?

Leave the mics in the same place in the same room for every track.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Mogens V." > wrote in message
. dk...
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>>>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.
>>
>>
>> But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope
>> to an oil-painting"?
>
> Useful for close listening, but without the room...
>
And isn't that what he wanted to find out?, what effect his room is having
on recordings?
> --
> Mogens V.
>

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
> > wrote:
>
>>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.
>
> But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope
> to an oil-painting"?

It's useful for your intended purpose which I read to be finding out if your
_listening room_ is adding to or concealing anything from a recording.

[Mogens V.]

tony sayer wrote:
>>>>No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
>>>>the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
>>>>acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
>>>>thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
>>>>cant hear anything different.
>>>
>>>Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?..
>>
>>That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living
>>room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration
>>rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways
>>hidden next to some bookshelf.
>>Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still...
>>
>
>
> Come to that any websites advising on the subject?....

Surely quite a lot, like these ones:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
http://www.realtraps.com/
http://www.whealy.com/drumming/Soundproofing/index.html
http://www.rivesaudio.com/
http://www.soundproofing.org/sales/GreenGlue.htm
http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/
http://www.ymec.com/products/rade/

Not really links to materials, but search for what's mentioned.
Sometimes just pics of how it's been done can be helpful.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Mogens V.]

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
> "Mogens V." > wrote in message
> . dk...
>
>>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of
>>>>headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording.
>>>
>>>
>>>But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope
>>>to an oil-painting"?
>>
>>Useful for close listening, but without the room...
>>
>
> And isn't that what he wanted to find out?, what effect his room is having
> on recordings?

Absolutely, only, the way I see it, headphones tell how the room affects
the flat 2D recording, not providing the (same full) room experience.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[William Sommerwerck]

> No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will
> never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room
> is not acoustically optimized.

This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or contrapositive) is not
true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility of detail if the
electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want both good (that
is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment.

[Mogens V.]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will
>>never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room
>>is not acoustically optimized.
>
>
> This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or contrapositive) is not
> true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility of detail if the
> electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want both good (that
> is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment.

Well, he has a point, despite some choise of phrasings...
'won't hear _all_ detail' and 'acoustically treated' would be better.

If rooms would have to be fully optimized, not many private homes would
have a decent musical experience. I agree that large expenditure on
equipment may be a halfways waste in a less than adequate room, but even
so, it will help - it's just the wrong way around, of cause.


Many years ago I was totally broke and couldn't afford good gear.
All I had was a Kodak Photo CD player into an Aiwa gettoblaster with
somewhat decent amplifier, provided modest listening levels.

I was working in a shop building amps, speakers and lights for band
rental, and grapped hi quality filter components and a set of Wifa
trebles for my set of seemingly crappy Philips speakers with 6½" drivers
and slaves. I modified the drivers/slaves spider suspension, treated the
paper cones against breakups and reinforced the boxes. Put the whole
setup up on mic stands to get it off floor coupling.
The room was quite good with a large carpet and bookshelves to partially
break refelctions. A bass problem in a corner was solved with a large
foam matress wrapped in thick velvet cloth behind a bookshelve.

We had a bunch of hifi freaks in'n'out of the shop. One of them paid me
a visit and was all open mouth in shock over the sound quality from such
crappy gear.
Once I got my used Hieraga class A amp copy, things changed incredibly.

This is of cause nothing but a totally irrelevant (high end wise) story,
but still serves to point out the importance of even just very modest
room treatment and especially decent (modified) speakers.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"Norman M. Schwartz" > wrote in message
...
>> Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and
>> if you don't
>> hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a
>> recording your
>> system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room.
>>
>> No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never
>> hear the detail
>> that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically
>> optimized. It
>> amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new
>> tubes and then
>> wonder why they cant hear anything different. Like putting
>> Channel #5 on a
>> pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the
>> morning.
>>
> Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a
> decent pair of
> headphones and you will know exactly what's in any
> recording.


Except for the imaging part being non existent in headphones
you are right. If you really think that headphones image
please come over to my house cause I want to watch you crap
your pants when you hear my system. I'll get the rubber covers
out.


peace
dawg

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never
>>>>hear
>>>>the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
>>>>acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
>>>>thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
>>>>cant hear anything different.
>>>
>>> Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?..
>>
>>That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a
>>normal living
>>room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor
>>decoration
>>rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive
>>halfways
>>hidden next to some bookshelf.
>>Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still...
>>
>
> Come to that any websites advising on the subject?....
> --
> Tony Sayer

http://www.recording.org/forum-34.html
http://forum.studiotips.com/index.php

peace
dawg
>
>

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message . ..
>> No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will
>> never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your
>> room
>> is not acoustically optimized.
>
> This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or
> contrapositive) is not
> true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility
> of detail if the
> electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want
> both good (that
> is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment.

But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques,
the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the
equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.

peace
dawg
>
>

[William Sommerwerck]

> But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques,
> the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the
> equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.

You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification -- implies
it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better the
setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording
"really" sounds like.

[Bob Lombard]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
>> But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques,
>> the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the
>> equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.
>
> You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification --
> implies
> it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better
> the
> setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording
> "really" sounds like.
>
>
--------
William, you have the habit of quoting the immediately previous post without
attribution. That can be annoying, though not in this case.

Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share at least one
sentiment with 'abbedd': What the recording 'really' sounds like is not of
great importance. I want the music to sound good.

Mr. 'abbedd' and I disagree on specifics, is all.

bl

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message . ..
>> But no matter how good the equipment and recording
>> techniques,
>> the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if
>> the
>> equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.
>
> You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without
> qualification -- implies
> it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that
> the better the
> setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the
> recording
> "really" sounds like.


Perhaps overstated I agree, but my overstatement complements
the understatement that preceded it. My point is, too often
many people search for sonic reality in a very unbalanced way,
heavy on the equipment and light on acoustics. Had I met just
one person in the past who would have impressed the importance
of acoustics on me I would have spent a lot less money chasing
sonic nirvana purchasing equipment and more time enjoying the
equipment I already had for the last 30 years.

I want to be that voice crying in the wind for some people
chasing sonic nirvana here today. Perhaps even some of those
who are or will be mixing music I want to hear over and over
in the future.


peace
dawg

[William Sommerwerck]

> Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share
> at least one sentiment with abbedd: What the recording
> "really" sounds like is not of great importance. I want the
> music to sound good.

This is an aesthetic issue of profound importance, but I'm so busy that I
don't have time to discuss it at length, except to say that it's been my
experience that, the more-accurately a recording is reproduced, the more one
(or at least, I) enjoy the performance. I don't want the music to "sound
good" -- I want to hear the recording, without "editorial comments" from the
amps, speakers, room, etc.

I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction -- what
the recording "really" sounds like. Room treatment is one element of
high-fidelity reproduction.

[ansermetniac]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:04:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>
>I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction

Even against an army of trolls equipped with forked tongues and mouth
flung bovine manure

Abbedd
There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad.
Salvador Dali

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" > wrote
in message
>>
> One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more
> audible was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps,
> broadband absorption and diffusers.
>
> Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
> recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
> the room is blowing back early reflections from your
> speakers you are masking the low level detail that provides
> the reverb in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb
> is not going to fix your room.
>
>
> peace
> dawg

I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my
ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the
recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.

Conversely since I feel the reverb in recordings is first to
be lost in the blowback of an acoustically untreated room it
is only logical to assume that reverb will be one of the first
"WOW sounds" that a listener will benefit from when he
adequately acoustically optimizes his reproduction system.
Listeners can be quoted as saying " I heard this a million
times and I never heard xxxxxxxx before" They will describe
hearing individual sounds that were always there just masked
by the acoustics of the listening room.

This same experience can be obtained in the bass once the room
treatment reaches critical mass, bass instruments become more
tame and musical playing individual notes in there own space.
Impossible in a room with room modes overhanging and
overpowering what is coming out of the speakers.

A professional bass player who listened to Led Zep II a
million times heard it on my system in a treated room and said
about one of the songs " oh that's how it goes". And he heard
it here before treatment.

I hope this helps some people to peruse treating your
listening rooms and perhaps stop wasting time with equipment
upgrades until you get your listening room optimized.


peace
dawg
>
>

[William Sommerwerck]

> I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
> through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
> recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my
> ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
> listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the
> recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in
> recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
> the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
> become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.

Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is
not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the
reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it.

The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the resulting ability to
better appreciate the recording's ambience.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message . ..
>> I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
>> through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
>> recording and listening to the best equipment I could get
>> my
>> ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
>> listening environment is essential to hearing what is in
>> the
>> recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added)
>> in
>> recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
>> the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
>> become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.
>
> Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically --
> reverberant, this is
> not so. The average room's decay time is considerably
> shorter than the
> reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking
> it.
>
> The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the
> resulting ability to
> better appreciate the recording's ambience.

Don't particularly know what the "average room" is but now
that I have become aware of what a rooms early reflections
bearing down on me sound like and what a room that does not do
this sounds like. Now I can easily hear and clearly
distinguish the room sound in untreated rooms. Not only in
playback but I can hear my friends room affecting his voice on
recordings he makes in his studio.

If this is what you mean by better appreciating the
recording's ambience then we agree 100%

I dont care to argue semantics with you but I know that to my
ears I can tell the difference in the reverb, bass, inner
detail of imaging and timbre of instruments and effects used
(what type effect, settings of it, where it is returned in the
soundstage) easily in my treated room where before treatment
they were never audible to me in the same way before.

So again I stress that room treatment be addressed by anyone
serious about really hearing what is in the recordings you
play. Make acoustic treatment your next upgrade quest and
don't futz around with adding reverb to recordings that
already have it.


peace
dawg
>
>

[Anahata]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>the reverb (natural or added) in
>>recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
>>the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
>>become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.
>
>
> Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is
> not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the
> reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it.

In terms of pure decibel levels, yes, but I think this is an area where
the brains's perception mechanism plays an important part. If the room's
acoustic is superimposed on the recording's reverb, the brain's auditory
processing get a confused muddle of sound that it knows cannot
coprrespond to a real physical space. Remove the listening room sound,
and if the recorded sound included the natural reverb of a real room,
suddenly you can hear the "shape" of that room and everything becomes
more realistic.

Just a theory, to try to explain DDD's observation.

Anahata

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"Anahata" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>the reverb (natural or added) in
>>>recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
>>>the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
>>>become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.
>>
>>
>> Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically --
>> reverberant, this is
>> not so. The average room's decay time is considerably
>> shorter than the
>> reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking
>> it.
>
> In terms of pure decibel levels, yes, but I think this is an
> area where the brains's perception mechanism plays an
> important part. If the room's acoustic is superimposed on
> the recording's reverb, the brain's auditory processing get
> a confused muddle of sound that it knows cannot coprrespond
> to a real physical space. Remove the listening room sound,
> and if the recorded sound included the natural reverb of a
> real room, suddenly you can hear the "shape" of that room
> and everything becomes more realistic.
>
> Just a theory, to try to explain DDD's observation.
>
> Anahata

Mission accomplished in the best of ways.

thanks

dawg