[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:45:35 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 5:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:31:19 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):





On Oct 25, 10:14=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:10:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

=A0 =A0[ snipped for excessive quoting -- dsr ]

=3DA0I see no
evidence that was gathered with the kind of care that should be used =
wh=3D
en
trying to study this kind of far-reaching question.

That's your problem, not mine. I'm not alone in this. Many well-known
professional classical recording engineers of my acquaintance agree wi=
th =3D
me
on this. We didn't invent these phenomena out of thin air. The experim=
ent=3D
s
that I have performed on this phenomenon are pretty valid. It's easy t=
o h=3D
ear,
not subtle at all. Copy a good imaging LP or analog master tape to CD,=
th=3D
e
imaging becomes vague and the soundstage shrinks in virtual size. Copy=
th=3D
e
SAME record or master tape to 24 -bit =3DA0(and again, I use either 96=
KHz =3D
or 192
KHZ for this) and the imaging firms up (you can close your eyes and po=
int=3D
=A0to
the various instruments and can even tell whether instruments are in f=
ron=3D
t or
in back of the ensemble), is indistinguishable from the source and the
soundstage widens appreciably.

I'm guessing that your recorder has anti-aliasing filters on ADC
inputs that are the issue at lower sample rates.

You can also, as I said earlier, hear more
ambience (if it's there in the first place) and one can hear greater
low-level detail. =3DA0

=A0What happens if you record with higher sampling, digitally filter,
and then convert to 16/44? =A0

Does recording via DSD and converting to 16/44.1 count? I've done that wi=
th
the same result.

That would depend on the converter I suppose. It certainly adds an
unnecessary variable to the experiment which may or may not have an
impact on the outcome.

Well, the converter is software. It's called "AudioGate". I have used the
Korg MR1000 DSD recorder for all these experiments. The Korg will master at
DSD resolution (5.6448 MHz, 1-bit) or LPCM resolutions of from 16 or 24
Bit/44.1 KHz resolution all the way up to 24-bit/192 Khz Resolution. I have
tried both LPCM and DSD to capture the analog master tapes and LPs and see no
difference between capture via DSD and down-converting to 24/192, 24/96, and
16/44.1 or capturing via LPCM directly.


=A0I'm not sure the scenario you provide is
valid to condemn 16/44 CD as
a playback medium.

Neither am I, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out-of-hand
either. Most recordings don't have this kind of information in them anywa=
y,
being multi-track (I'd call most commercial recordings made since the
introduction of mult-miking/multi-track recording "overproduced" at best,=
and
a travesty at worst.). I realize that pop music doesn't generally lend it=
self
to real stereo production techniques, so the things that I find "improved=
" by
24-bit/96 or 192 KHz simply don't exist on those types of recordings. And=
,
since most recording done today is pop and rock, I'd say that the improve=
ment
over 16/44.1 would be a difference that makes no difference at all.
Therefore, CD resolution is fine for most music.

Is there a commercially available recording you feel has the kind of
information you're referring to?

Oh yes. Try the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird"
Ballet with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony. Mercury LP# SR90226. Forget
the Phillips released CD of this work. It's a pale shadow of the LP and
images very poorly. There are others, of course. Any DGG recorded in the
early 1960's or late 1950's are wonderful real stereo recordings because they
were recorded using M-S miking technique. Don't have the record number off
the top of my head, but the DGG of Stanislaus Richter with Von Karajan and
the Berlin Philharmonic playing Tchiakovsky's Piano Concerto #1 in B Minor is
a great imaging recording. One thing that really sticks out is that you can
tell a real stereo recording from a multi-track mono recording almost
instantly. British Lyrita recordings are real stereo as are some London
(British Decca -again from the late 50's or early 60's) and many of the
1950's RCA Red Seals are gangbusters in the imaging department. The reason
why most of these recordings are from the late 50's and early 60's is because
the mid-sixties marked the beginning of the "dark ages" of classical
recording when multi-track and multi-mike techniques took over.



I find most studio recordings of pop or even jazz provide a far more
refined illusion of image than any but the most initimate live
venues.

From what you have just said, it sounds to me like you've never actually
heard a true-stereo recording, or if you have, you weren't paying attention.
Multi-track and multi-mike recording techniques such as those used for pop
and jazz do not image realistically at all. The tradition in jazz recording,
going back to the 60's is to do small jazz groups as three-channel mono. IOW,
all instruments are grouped in three channels either on the far left, the
middle, and the far right. There is no depth because each instrument is
generally miked separately and probably to it's own track (although some jazz
recordings were captured directly to three-track tape). Then the record is
cut with some instruments in the left channel, some (the soloist or vocal if
there is one) are potted equally to the left and right channel giving a
center mono image, and some are pan-potted wholly into the right channel.
There is no depth because, in most cases, none was captured. I realize that I
am generalizing here but that's because just about every microphone setup one
can imagine and every recording arrangement from strictly two-track all the
way up to 96 tracks has been done at some point by somebody!

So for the characteristics you mention, it's hard to imagine how
recordings could be further image improved over what already
subjectively has more of the characteristics you describe than live
music.

Studio recordings generally have NONE of the characteristics I am describing.
Pan-potting instruments into position can, at best, place instruments along a
straight-line between the far left and the far right, but gives no depth.
Mostly, instruments are grouped together, left, right, and center. Again,
they have no depth because that combination of phase relationships and level
difference cues that human hearing uses to locate objects in space sonically,
are NOT being captured.

Most of the DVD-A discs I have are improved over the CD to some
degree but still don't measure up to what I consider the best on CD.
So if there is a difference attributable to format, it's still pales
in magnitude to the impact of recording engineers/producers etc.

My point is that when the recording engineer takes the trouble to make a real
stereo recording using either X-Y, MS, ORTF or some other legitimate true
stereo mike setup and either records or releases it in 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD,
much of the stereo information simply doesn't seem to make it through the
process. BUT, analog true stereo recordings transferred to high-resolution
DVD-A, SACD, etc. and digital true stereo recordings recorded using DSD or
high-resolution LPCM DO exhibit the imaging and soundstaging that real,
correctly done stereo permits. When done right, real stereo is actually
spooky. You can turn off the lights, sit in the dark, and with only your
ears, "see" the entire orchestra or ensemble arrayed before you. The strings
on the left, the percussion behind the strings, violas and cellos front
center with the woodwinds behind them and the brass behind THEM (and usually
on risers - yes, you can hear that when it's there)! On the right are the low
brass and the cellos and bass viols. You can actually point at each
instrument in space. It really is exciting and it's what Alan Blumlein
envisioned when he invented stereo miking back in the 1930's.