[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/1/2013 12:06 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

...snip...

That's a long way of saying, simply, that I am not going to try
monophonic recording for a while until I learn what sound is.

First you learn to record mono, I by design started with that back when I
taught myself to record, next that using a spaced cardioids I needed to also
deploy a center omni. I got something right with those first recordings and
got seriously stung by an incompetent engineer who failed to grasp
Sennheisers diagrams for wiring a -N and a -HL so that I ended up recording
with one microphone out of phase.

Eventually I joined a tape recordists club and found out about how to deploy
closely spaced cardioids. Sat in on a lot of recordings and learned what
happens when you do what with the main pair and eventually also learned to
trust only myself. While I do think that you need to listen more, to your
setup and to suggestions, I also kinda think it is right that you do what
you durn well want. What I mean is that you need to learn what is good about
what other folks here advocate before you settle on your style of sound
reocrding.

Nuff' said.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However, keep in
mind that
Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated, captivated, enchanted,
fascinated,
and beguiled by the spatial aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of
many
other aspects. When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back
and see the
full picture.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However,
keep in mind that Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated,
captivated, enchanted, fascinated, and beguiled by the spatial
aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of many other aspects.
When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back and see the
full picture.

I can't agree. One should try to understand things in terms of basic
principles. Personal taste should not be an important factor.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However,
keep in mind that Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated,
captivated, enchanted, fascinated, and beguiled by the spatial
aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of many other aspects.
When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back and see the
full picture.

I can't agree. One should try to understand things in terms of basic
principles. Personal taste should not be an important factor.

While I may agree, in this situation Gary hangs all established
principles on his own thornbush of personal taste.

Sucessful recordists for the most part can set aside their personal
taste to deliver work that translates nicely for both a wide range of
playback systems and a broad spectrum of personal tastes.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However,
keep in mind that Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated,
captivated, enchanted, fascinated, and beguiled by the spatial
aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of many other aspects.
When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back and see the
full picture.

I can't agree. One should try to understand things in terms of basic
principles. Personal taste should not be an important factor.

While I may agree, in this situation Gary hangs all established
principles on his own thornbush of personal taste.

Sucessful recordists for the most part can set aside their personal
taste to deliver work that translates nicely for both a wide range of
playback systems and a broad spectrum of personal tastes.

Are you guys saying that you do your work in a sort of paint by numbers
textbook manner, rather than using your ears and judgement and feedback?

Gary Eickmeier

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/1/2013 12:47 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Ron C" wrote in message
...

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However,
keep in mind that Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated,
captivated, enchanted, fascinated, and beguiled by the spatial
aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of many other aspects.
When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back and see the
full picture.

I can't agree. One should try to understand things in terms of basic
principles. Personal taste should not be an important factor.

Wait, are you saying that you don't agree that Mr. Eickmeier is
so infatuated with the spacial aspects that he can't see the forest
for the trees?

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C wrote:
I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However, keep in
mind that
Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated, captivated, enchanted,
fascinated,
and beguiled by the spatial aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of
many
other aspects. When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back
and see the
full picture.

Unfortunately it's not just Mr. Eickmeier. I think the obsession with
imaging is very common in the high end community and that the marketing
of high end products goes far to feed that obsession.

And it's interesting in part because very small changes in tonality can
wind up causing huge imaging changes; if you can't get tonality right,
you won't ever get good imaging.

Also, there are a lot of individual cues that can fool you into thinking
you're hearing real imaging even with a mono recording, which goes to
confound issues that much more.

This summer I heard a speaker system that employed two huge fibreglass
exponential horns with old Altec compression drivers. The manufacturer
kept raving about how wonderful the imaging was, but it was hard to notice
anything beyond the massive narrowband horn resonances.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George Graves]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Ron C wrote:
I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However, keep in
mind that
Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated, captivated, enchanted,
fascinated,
and beguiled by the spatial aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion of
many
other aspects. When you're that deeply in love it's hard to step back
and see the
full picture.

Unfortunately it's not just Mr. Eickmeier. I think the obsession with
imaging is very common in the high end community and that the marketing
of high end products goes far to feed that obsession.

And it's interesting in part because very small changes in tonality can
wind up causing huge imaging changes; if you can't get tonality right,
you won't ever get good imaging.

Also, there are a lot of individual cues that can fool you into thinking
you're hearing real imaging even with a mono recording, which goes to
confound issues that much more.

This summer I heard a speaker system that employed two huge fibreglass
exponential horns with old Altec compression drivers. The manufacturer
kept raving about how wonderful the imaging was, but it was hard to notice
anything beyond the massive narrowband horn resonances.
--scott

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often, in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George Graves wrote:

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's
not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical
recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the
only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging
front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially

Yes, height information! - it is probably an illusion, but it is when the
image leaves the monofilament between the loudspeakers and happen above and
outside them and you hear the room behind you that you got stereo right and
then you sit and wonder what 5.1 is all about

Of course the Carlson bins made it happen all the time ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

George Graves wrote:

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's
not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical
recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the
only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging
front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially

Yes, height information! - it is probably an illusion, but it is when the
image leaves the monofilament between the loudspeakers and happen above and
outside them and you hear the room behind you that you got stereo right and
then you sit and wonder what 5.1 is all about

Of course the Carlson bins made it happen all the time ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

To be honest, all stereo is an illusion. but I'm continually amazed at what an impressive illusion is possible with just a couple of good, well placed microphones. Image height is captured, One can close their eyes and pick out, in space, each instrument in the ensemble even when many instruments are playing together. One can hear that the brasses are behind the woodwinds, and the triangle "floats" over the left side of the orchestra, just like it does in the concert hall. Sure it's an illusion, but it can be a damned good one!

George Graves

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

George Graves wrote:

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's
not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical
recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the
only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging
front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially

Yes, height information! - it is probably an illusion, but it is
when the image leaves the monofilament between the loudspeakers and
happen above and outside them and you hear the room behind you that
you got stereo right and then you sit and wonder what 5.1 is all
about

Of course the Carlson bins made it happen all the time ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

To be honest, all stereo is an illusion. but I'm continually amazed
at what an impressive illusion is possible with just a couple of
good, well placed microphones. Image height is captured, One can
close their eyes and pick out, in space, each instrument in the
ensemble even when many instruments are playing together. One can
hear that the brasses are behind the woodwinds, and the triangle
"floats" over the left side of the orchestra, just like it does in
the concert hall. Sure it's an illusion, but it can be a damned good
one!

No, image height is not "captured." Neither the ears nor the microphones
have any mechanism to detect height. It is strictly a pinna effect wherein
certain frequencies seem to sound above where they should be. At the live
event you don't hear this because your eyes override the effect. On
playback, it often sems like the horns are higher than the rest of the
instruments.

Someone made a test record that was supposed to test your system's height
imaging ability. The test tone was supposed to rise up and go over the top
and back down to the other speaker. Something like that. If your speakers
couldn't do it you weren't doing it right.

I was never real concerned about it.

Another great one is a flamenco recording where the foot stomping is heard
unmistakably to be coming from the floor of your listening room. I have
heard it many times, but I know it is a psychoacoustic effect. Still,
enjoyable.

If you have some stereo test records with outdoor scenes, you hear the birds
as coming from above. Same for airplanes. Trains stay level, but it sure is
hard to get them to pass in a straight line as they go off into the
distance.

Gary

[George Graves]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:43:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Graves wrote:

In article ,

"Peter Larsen" wrote:



George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,

in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's

not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical

recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the

only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging

front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially



Yes, height information! - it is probably an illusion, but it is

when the image leaves the monofilament between the loudspeakers and

happen above and outside them and you hear the room behind you that

you got stereo right and then you sit and wonder what 5.1 is all

about



Of course the Carlson bins made it happen all the time ...



Kind regards



Peter Larsen



To be honest, all stereo is an illusion. but I'm continually amazed

at what an impressive illusion is possible with just a couple of

good, well placed microphones. Image height is captured, One can

close their eyes and pick out, in space, each instrument in the

ensemble even when many instruments are playing together. One can

hear that the brasses are behind the woodwinds, and the triangle

"floats" over the left side of the orchestra, just like it does in

the concert hall. Sure it's an illusion, but it can be a damned good

one!



No, image height is not "captured." Neither the ears nor the microphones

have any mechanism to detect height. It is strictly a pinna effect wherein

certain frequencies seem to sound above where they should be. At the live

event you don't hear this because your eyes override the effect. On

playback, it often sems like the horns are higher than the rest of the

instruments.

Then perhaps you can tell me why multimiked recordings of symphony orchestras
NEVER exhibit that phenomenon, but true minimalist stereo recordings always do?

George Graves

[Scott Dorsey]

George Graves wrote:

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often, in mode=
rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not. It also =
doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or in most c=
ommercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real image spec=
ificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just isn't done t=
hat much, commercially

And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s, which add
artificial phase cues in there.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:

Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in mode= rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings
it's not. It also = doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel
classical recordings or in most c= ommercial jazz recordings. True
stereo (the only way to get real image spec= ificity, image height
and imaging front-to-back layering) just isn't done t= hat much,
commercially

And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s,
which add artificial phase cues in there.
--scott

No, I have tried to explain to you that there is more to speaker sound and
imaging than frequency response. Most engineers have a hard time thinking in
spatial terms, but the effects of the 901's radiation pattern are spatial,
not "phase" or "comb filtering" or any other nonsense that you can measure
with a microphone. They are spatial effects, caused by the radiation pattern
and its interacction with the room surfaces.

The easiest way to understand the spatial nature of sound is to make an
image model drawing. This is a technique from architectural acoustics in
which you draw the reflected sound as virtual sources on the other side of
the rerlecting surfaces, rather than ray tracing. It gives you a bird's eye
view of the entire horizontal early reflection situation. Using this
technique you can more easily see the effects of speaker positioning,
especially for multi-directional speakers. Very instructive.

Gary Eickmeier

[George Graves]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:04:10 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often, in mode=

rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not. It also =

doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or in most c=

ommercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real image spec=

ificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just isn't done t=

hat much, commercially



And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s, which add

artificial phase cues in there.


Gotta say. I've NEVER been a fan of the 901s (or for that matter, any of Amar Bose' products).

George Graves

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:04:10 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in mode=

rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not.
It also =

doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or
in most c=

ommercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real
image spec=

ificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just
isn't done t=

hat much, commercially



And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s,
which add

artificial phase cues in there.


Gotta say. I've NEVER been a fan of the 901s (or for that matter, any
of Amar Bose' products).

George Graves

No you don't gotta say George. What you gotta do is try and absorb what I am
telling you. It has nothing to do with any particular product, it is about
the spatial nature of sound and the differences encountered between the live
and the reproduced.

Suppose I mocked you for using your dipolar speakers. They have this
innacurate backwave that splashes reflected sound all over the room, don't
you know what a fool you are, and on and on. What defense could you come up
with for such ignorance? You would be left holding the bag, put in your
place by a pack of children kicking your ankles.

You have decided to pile on to me with these guys for some reason, whereas
in the past we have been friends. You act as if oh ya, we all agree on how
to record music and Gary doesn't know ****, ha ha Bose 901s, miking
experiments, hard headed about recording strictly with spaced omni when you
just received a disc I made with closely spaced cardioids. Don't you realize
that some of these guys use the multi-miking that you despise?

I am not worried about the lumps I have taken here. But I do hope that your
past friendship was sincere and you are not an opportunist professional
social climber shoving me under the bus to impress the others. I think that
Bill Sommerwerck is an honest man who expresses in another thread that he
doesn't understand everything. He got mad at me in a previous thread and
said he was never talking to me ever again. Then he came back.

I had to leave my audio club because one of the founding members, a "friend"
of some 20 years, called me a lunatic and a whack job after I proved him
wrong by winning the Linkwitz Challenge with my cheap little prototype
speakers. I will never speak to him again in this lifetime.

I guess there will be a party tomorrow when I get the H6 from UPS. Or maybe
not.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Suppose I mocked you for using your dipolar speakers. They have this
innacurate backwave that splashes reflected sound all over the room, don't
you know what a fool you are, and on and on. What defense could you come up
with for such ignorance? You would be left holding the bag, put in your
place by a pack of children kicking your ankles.

Suppose you just stopped being so full of yourself and **** at the same
time? Just suppose€¦

You can't get a decent recording. You've told us that. You refuse to
listen to suggestions as to why that might be, beginning with your
****ed up "monitor" system and ending with your ****ed up mental
processes.

There is no way you can be helped. You already know it all. You've had
your head up your ass for so long that you've come to thiunk darkness is
light.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think the obsession with imaging is very common in the
high-end community and that the marketing of high-end
products goes far to feed that obsession.

This obsession might go back to the DQ-10.

One aspect of "imaging" is that a good recording contains directional cues --
both gross and subtle -- and reproducing them not only adds to the sense of
realism, but indicates that the speaker is generally accurate.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ron C wrote:

I totally agree that one should learn to walk first. However, keep in
mind that
Mr. Eickmeier is totally enamored, infatuated, captivated, enchanted,
fascinated,
and beguiled

I don't want to comment so that it can be read as commenting on Mr.
Eckmeier. However I check imaging on a very different stereo setups, one
needs at least three in at least two rooms or to bother friends and family
with "can we hear this on your fine system, please".

by the spatial aspect of sound, perhaps to the exclusion
of many other aspects. When you're that deeply in love it's
hard to step back and see the full picture.

At a surround sound event of some kind in the Danish AES chapter two
interesting things happened, one was that it dawned on me that the term
correlation/decorrelation not only applies to a 5.1 mic rig, but that it is
the only relevant distinction also between stereo setups.

That was the positive outcome, the negative outcome was that a lecturer said
that with 5.1 it is so much easier to hear everything that the mix matters a
lot less. It is a longhanded way of actually saying that "ya can't record if
ya can't record mono", the gruesome part being that he didn't realized it
and thought that he was better at recording and mixing now that he worked in
5.1.

Well recorded mono has perspective and layering and working in mono shows
how critical other parameters, like level and tonality/eq are as tools to
control it. What the good rock mixers I have met have taught me, especially
Henrik Steen Nielsen of Alrune Rod, is that "it is all about center image",
it is the cake, left and right are just the icing.

Oh, the R44 offers mono monitoring as well as pairing of two machines btw.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen