[paul packer]

Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

Oh, the music. Well, it's kind of atonal, but in a sneaky kind of way,
like you wonder why it's annoying you until you realize it keeps
sliding off the note and there hasn't been a tune in the last ten
minutes. I hope Jenn has heard this music--I'd like her to explain it
to me. I usually like John Williams, but this is music only a mother
could love.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

Oh, the music. Well, it's kind of atonal, but in a sneaky kind of way,
like you wonder why it's annoying you until you realize it keeps
sliding off the note and there hasn't been a tune in the last ten
minutes. I hope Jenn has heard this music--I'd like her to explain it
to me. I usually like John Williams, but this is music only a mother
could love.
==================================
Paul says:

This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

I do not know why you would expect an improvement listening to a
multichannel recording on two channels.

The essence of SACD is its surround effect. To my knowledge no one
claims any other improvement for it per se.
Ludovic M.

[paul packer]

On 21 Oct 2006 19:13:40 -0700, "
wrote:


The essence of SACD is its surround effect. To my knowledge no one
claims any other improvement for it per se.
Ludovic M.



I certainly understood that its benefits comprised more than the
number of channels. If not, then it was never going to be of much use
to a sizable proportion of the listening public.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
paul packer wrote:
Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony
Classical SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello
Concerto/Elegy for cello etc. Trouble is, the music's
horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as many of my
CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm
disappointed. Admittedly I can only listen in stereo,
but surely I should be hearing some improvement. Anyone
else got this disc?

Oh, the music. Well, it's kind of atonal, but in a
sneaky kind of way, like you wonder why it's annoying
you until you realize it keeps sliding off the note and
there hasn't been a tune in the last ten minutes. I hope
Jenn has heard this music--I'd like her to explain it to
me. I usually like John Williams, but this is music
only a mother could love.
==================================
Paul says:

This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I
should be hearing some improvement. Anyone else got this
disc?

Wow, some counterpoint to Jarry's SACD uber alles posturing?

I do not know why you would expect an improvement
listening to a multichannel recording on two channels.

The essence of SACD is its surround effect. To my
knowledge no one claims any other improvement for it per
se.


Don't read Harry's post much, Ludo?

Or is it that you don't properly comprehend them?

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:59:47 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

I have it and it is mediocre. However, you are judging SACD by one,
unfortunately, very poor example. First, it is an old performance
which is limited by the older recording technology that was used to
record it. Second, it was recorded in multichannel of an entirely
difference technique/channel alignment than is used today and which
required remixing to create an artificial mix. Third, you are in
2channels (but are you listening to the stereo and not the MCH
track?).= I don't see how all that is representative of what SACD can
do.

Kal

[paul packer]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:06:31 -0400, Kalman Rubinson
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:59:47 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

I have it and it is mediocre. However, you are judging SACD by one,
unfortunately, very poor example.

Actually I'm not at this stage. That's why I wanted feedback.

First, it is an old performance
which is limited by the older recording technology that was used to
record it. Second, it was recorded in multichannel of an entirely
difference technique/channel alignment than is used today and which
required remixing to create an artificial mix. Third, you are in
2channels (but are you listening to the stereo and not the MCH
track?).= I don't see how all that is representative of what SACD can
do.

Kal


All this is useful---thanks. I certainly sustected this disc was not
the acme of SACD. As for what I'm listening to, SACD comes up in the
display (Pioneer universal player), and in any case this is an
SACD-only CD. I tried it in a CD player and it doesn't work.

[Harry Lavo]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:06:31 -0400, Kalman Rubinson
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:59:47 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

I have it and it is mediocre. However, you are judging SACD by one,
unfortunately, very poor example.

Actually I'm not at this stage. That's why I wanted feedback.

First, it is an old performance
which is limited by the older recording technology that was used to
record it. Second, it was recorded in multichannel of an entirely
difference technique/channel alignment than is used today and which
required remixing to create an artificial mix. Third, you are in
2channels (but are you listening to the stereo and not the MCH
track?).= I don't see how all that is representative of what SACD can
do.

Kal


All this is useful---thanks. I certainly sustected this disc was not
the acme of SACD. As for what I'm listening to, SACD comes up in the
display (Pioneer universal player), and in any case this is an
SACD-only CD. I tried it in a CD player and it doesn't work.

Paul. You like any Beethoven symphony? If so, purchase it by Haitink/LSO
(CD Universe has, almong others). You'll hear first rate native DSD/SACD
sound in either multichannel or stereo. Hint: it is absolutely "natural" in
multichannel.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:08:43 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Lately, I've been hearing that SACD multichannel has virtue, and you
mentioned an ITU standard for speaker placement.

I would appreciate web links or publications.

The full designation is ITU-R BS.775-1 and you can Google it for tons
of info about it. Unfortunately, the document itself costs $ to
download.

Kal

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:35:34 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Thank you. Are there any free sources of information on the changes in
recording technique you mentioned, or are they best covered in the document?

Neither. The original techniques used in the referred to recording
placed the listener in the center of four channels with the performers
spread in a full circle all around. That was used in most of the old
"Quadrophonic" recordings. For info on that, there's an active forum
at www.quadrophonicquad.com

Newer recordings, of course, have the performers up front with
ambience in the rear. Thus, Sony/CBS had to remix/remaster the old
stuff to simulate the new expectations.

This Friday evening, I'm recording a vintage jazz group in a club in the
Village with very fine equipment. It occurs to me that I could make a stab
at producing masters suitable for multichannel at a later point -- if I knew
how to do it. The plan is to record four channels at 88/24, but it could be
expanded to six without too much additional overhead.

Is there anything I could quickly grab ahold of?

Not by me. I have never made recordings.

Kal

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:08:43 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Lately, I've been hearing that SACD multichannel has virtue, and you
mentioned an ITU standard for speaker placement.

I would appreciate web links or publications.

The full designation is ITU-R BS.775-1 and you can Google it for tons
of info about it. Unfortunately, the document itself costs $ to
download.

Kal

Thank you. Are there any free sources of information on the changes in
recording technique you mentioned, or are they best covered in the
document?

This Friday evening, I'm recording a vintage jazz group in a club in the
Village with very fine equipment. It occurs to me that I could make a stab
at producing masters suitable for multichannel at a later point -- if I
knew how to do it. The plan is to record four channels at 88/24, but it
could be expanded to six without too much additional overhead.

Is there anything I could quickly grab ahold of?

As a starter, set up an ORTF or XY pair (the ORTF would be better, if
equally convenient) on a stand right behind (e.g. one or two feet) the main
microphones and facing rearward, pointing up at about a 45 degree angle to
face the "null" towards the front of the room. Record the pair to separate
tracks. Mix and match to taste.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:27:56 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Paul. You like any Beethoven symphony? If so, purchase it by Haitink/LSO
(CD Universe has, almong others). You'll hear first rate native DSD/SACD
sound in either multichannel or stereo. Hint: it is absolutely "natural" in
multichannel.


Not into Beethoven. However, if you have any Vaughan Williams or
Shostakovitch recommendations I'm all ears....er, eyes.

[Harry Lavo]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:27:56 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Paul. You like any Beethoven symphony? If so, purchase it by Haitink/LSO
(CD Universe has, almong others). You'll hear first rate native DSD/SACD
sound in either multichannel or stereo. Hint: it is absolutely "natural"
in
multichannel.


Not into Beethoven. However, if you have any Vaughan Williams or
Shostakovitch recommendations I'm all ears....er, eyes.

If you can find it, Shastokovich's Jazz Suites on Naxos are available in
SACD, as well as on DVD-A. They were recorded in the Soviet Union as 48/24
multitrack, and so don't represent the ultimate in SACD. But the sound is
excellent.

I cannot recommend the Shostakovich Symp #1 and 5 with Masur and the London
Philharmonic....dull, dull, dull.

If you like Smetana, there is a teriffic Ma Vlast by Sir Colin Davis, on the
LSO label. Like the Beethoven, this is a recent DSD recording with
excellent sound, and the performance is quite good.

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:08:43 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Lately, I've been hearing that SACD multichannel has virtue, and you
mentioned an ITU standard for speaker placement.

I would appreciate web links or publications.

The full designation is ITU-R BS.775-1 and you can Google it for tons
of info about it. Unfortunately, the document itself costs $ to
download.

Kal

Thank you. Are there any free sources of information on the changes in
recording technique you mentioned, or are they best covered in the
document?

This Friday evening, I'm recording a vintage jazz group in a club in the
Village with very fine equipment. It occurs to me that I could make a
stab at producing masters suitable for multichannel at a later point --
if I knew how to do it. The plan is to record four channels at 88/24,
but it could be expanded to six without too much additional overhead.

Is there anything I could quickly grab ahold of?

As a starter, set up an ORTF or XY pair (the ORTF would be better, if
equally convenient) on a stand right behind (e.g. one or two feet) the
main microphones and facing rearward, pointing up at about a 45 degree
angle to face the "null" towards the front of the room. Record the pair
to separate tracks. Mix and match to taste.
That's a very interesting idea. I was thinking of a second XY mic, but
you're right, the ORTF would provide additional spaciousness. However, in
the case of cardioid, as opposed to a hypercardioid, the null is directly
rearward of the mic, which seems to imply it should face directly away
from the performers. It is the hypercardioid which has the null off the
mic axis. Would you care to clarify on this point?

You are right...I was thinking hypercardioid because they are more popular
nowadays. But the classic ORTF is cardiod, of course, and if that is what
you have...face straight back. I might still keep it pointed up slightly
depending on how high you are flying them, because most cardioids have an
elevated high end, and you don't want to "focus" too much on clinking
glasses, rowdy conversation, etc. But nulling should be the first and
foremost consideration.

[Eeyore]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

This Friday evening, I'm recording a vintage jazz group in a club in the
Village with very fine equipment. It occurs to me that I could make a
stab at producing masters suitable for multichannel at a later point --
if I knew how to do it. The plan is to record four channels at 88/24, but
it could be expanded to six without too much additional overhead.

Is there anything I could quickly grab ahold of?

As a starter, set up an ORTF or XY pair (the ORTF would be better, if
equally convenient) on a stand right behind (e.g. one or two feet) the
main microphones and facing rearward, pointing up at about a 45 degree
angle to face the "null" towards the front of the room. Record the pair
to separate tracks. Mix and match to taste.
That's a very interesting idea. I was thinking of a second XY mic, but
you're right, the ORTF would provide additional spaciousness. However, in
the case of cardioid, as opposed to a hypercardioid, the null is directly
rearward of the mic, which seems to imply it should face directly away from
the performers. It is the hypercardioid which has the null off the mic axis.
Would you care to clarify on this point?

If you want to make a realistic sounding recording of a live perforamnce you'd
be well advised to capture some 'ambience' too.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
Was "lucky' enough to find some John Williams on a Sony Classical
SACD-only disc for just AU$5.00--Cello Concerto/Elegy for cello etc.
Trouble is, the music's horrible and the SACD sound is not as good as
many of my CDs, This is my first taste of SACD and I'm disappointed.
Admittedly I can only listen in stereo, but surely I should be hearing
some improvement. Anyone else got this disc?

Oh, the music. Well, it's kind of atonal, but in a sneaky kind of way,
like you wonder why it's annoying you until you realize it keeps
sliding off the note and there hasn't been a tune in the last ten
minutes. I hope Jenn has heard this music--I'd like her to explain it
to me. I usually like John Williams, but this is music only a mother
could love.

Dear Paul,

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.

I'll bet if you ask Arny how nicely, he will tell you how to make silk
out of this sow's ear.

Might I recommend this unit to you:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ADC-Sound-Shaper...QQcmdZViewItem

This unit will also improve the musical performance.

Best,

Shhhh!

[paul packer]

On 23 Oct 2006 23:55:52 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


Dear Paul,

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.


Why the hell didn't I think of that? I needn't have started this
thread. Thanks, Shhhh!

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.

I've tried this with one particular 'singer'.

It's beyond redemption ! He sounds the same through any rig. A bit like rocks being crushed in fact whilst poor animals are thrashed to within
inches of their lives.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.

I've tried this with one particular 'singer'.

It's beyond redemption ! He sounds the same through any rig. A bit like rocks being crushed in fact whilst poor animals are thrashed to within
inches of their lives.

Thnask m.r Yeeyore for admittting you do not undrestand the propre
usage of the ':how to' of poper EQ usage properly mR yeehaw.

We're impressed with your fine knowlege my eeyone Not!

tRy having a clue sometime mr eyesore Not!

Add a goodly amount of db added to the band centered aroung 8k for a
goodly surprise. set the EQ blindly. I do not understand why I waste my
time with you mr eekstone.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
On 23 Oct 2006 23:55:52 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


Dear Paul,

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.


Why the hell didn't I think of that? I needn't have started this
thread. Thanks, Shhhh!

Think nothing of it. And I do mean think nothing of it.;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:08:43 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Lately, I've been hearing that SACD multichannel has virtue, and you
mentioned an ITU standard for speaker placement.

I would appreciate web links or publications.

The full designation is ITU-R BS.775-1 and you can Google it for tons
of info about it. Unfortunately, the document itself costs $ to
download.

Kal

Thank you. Are there any free sources of information on the changes in
recording technique you mentioned, or are they best covered in the
document?

This Friday evening, I'm recording a vintage jazz group in a club in
the Village with very fine equipment. It occurs to me that I could
make a stab at producing masters suitable for multichannel at a later
point -- if I knew how to do it. The plan is to record four channels
at 88/24, but it could be expanded to six without too much additional
overhead.

Is there anything I could quickly grab ahold of?

As a starter, set up an ORTF or XY pair (the ORTF would be better, if
equally convenient) on a stand right behind (e.g. one or two feet) the
main microphones and facing rearward, pointing up at about a 45 degree
angle to face the "null" towards the front of the room. Record the
pair to separate tracks. Mix and match to taste.
That's a very interesting idea. I was thinking of a second XY mic, but
you're right, the ORTF would provide additional spaciousness. However,
in the case of cardioid, as opposed to a hypercardioid, the null is
directly rearward of the mic, which seems to imply it should face
directly away from the performers. It is the hypercardioid which has the
null off the mic axis. Would you care to clarify on this point?

You are right...I was thinking hypercardioid because they are more
popular nowadays. But the classic ORTF is cardiod, of course, and if
that is what you have...face straight back. I might still keep it
pointed up slightly depending on how high you are flying them, because
most cardioids have an elevated high end, and you don't want to "focus"
too much on clinking glasses, rowdy conversation, etc. But nulling
should be the first and foremost consideration.
Your sugggestion is most plausible, but may I ask, have you actually tried
this?

A very quick experiment back in 2002 with a grand piano in a good sounding
room...but it seemed to work okay.

Here's my concern: The distance between the direct mike and the ambient
mike is very close. Quoting the Three-to-One Rule invented by Lou
Burroughs, from "The New Stereo Sound Book":
"If two or more microphones are used to pick up two or more subjects, each
microphone must be at least three times the distance from any other
microphone as it is from its own subject."

The three-one rule assumes that the mics are either omni or cardiods both
facing the same sound source. It's purpose is to avoid comb filtering of
high and upper mid range frequencies, which make your recording sound as if
it is being done on kazoos, or via a tissue paper stretched over a comb
(believe me, you will recognize it if you get it). Because you are
"nulling" both the rear and the front mics when you properly positioning the
rears, you are reducing their output relative to one another by about
20-30db. This basically avoids or dramatically reduces the comb filtering
by iteself. If at all possible, some time to experiment with your exact mic
placement would be useful. You could try to move the mics from 2' to about
6' back behind the front mics and judge the sound by mixing back and front
channels temporarily. Nobody has yet "written the book" on multichannel
recording techniques, other than the work done on ambisonics.

This, of course, assumes that the two microphones are mixed in at equal
levels, the purpose to ensure that comb filters are 10 dB below the
unmixed levels. Perhaps the ambient mic is to be mixed at a lower level.
However, for any level of the ambient mix, an adjusted variant of the
Three-to-One Rule applies.

The final mixing level is something that needs to be done with a control
room or monitor setup approximating the ITU standard. But recorded at the
same level as the front mics, the sound of the rears will automatically be
reduced in level because it will largely be simply picking up reflected
sound and ambience. If audience noise is too great you will want to reduce
it though, in all probability.

If it doesn't work for you, you can always just eliminate the rears, or mix
them in at very low levels to a straight stereo recording.



Comments welcome.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:24:05 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

If you can find it, Shastokovich's Jazz Suites on Naxos are available in
SACD, as well as on DVD-A. They were recorded in the Soviet Union as 48/24
multitrack, and so don't represent the ultimate in SACD. But the sound is
excellent.

For Shostakovich, I would add the 8th symphony on Capriccio (Kitaenko)
or LSOLive (Rostropovich).

I cannot recommend the Shostakovich Symp #1 and 5 with Masur and the London
Philharmonic....dull, dull, dull.

Yup.

For Vaughan Williams, try A Sea Symphony on Telarc (Spano)

Of course, my suggestions are based on auditioning these in MCH. I am
not making any recommendations of the stereo DSD tracks because I have
not heard them.

Kal

[Sander deWaal]

Now look here, I'll show you one last time how it's done properly:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.


no reply from mr. Shhhhh, as expecxted


I've tried this with one particular 'singer'.

It's beyond redemption ! He sounds the same through any rig. A bit like rocks being crushed in fact whilst poor animals are thrashed to within
inches of their lives.


Thnask m.r Yeeyore for admittting you do not undrestand the propre
usage of the ':how to' of poper EQ usage properly mR yeehaw.


Thank's mr. Hissss for admittiong you're preferneces are, just as
invalid as you're knowlege about, audio, LoT;S! ;-)


We're impressed with your fine knowlege my eeyone Not!


Red hearing noted mr. S'HHH.


tRy having a clue sometime mr eyesore Not!


Asked and asnwered, LoT:s! LOL!


Add a goodly amount of db added to the band centered aroung 8k for a
goodly surprise. set the EQ blindly. I do not understand why I waste my
time with you mr eekstone.


Its like, if mr. Sh never actually knew an ohm from a vlot, he'd not
have been there done, that mr. Hsss! NoT! ;-(

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Sander deWaal wrote:
Now look here, I'll show you one last time how it's done properly:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Just EQ the **** out of it. It will then sound wonderful.


no reply from mr. Shhhhh, as expecxted


I've tried this with one particular 'singer'.

It's beyond redemption ! He sounds the same through any rig. A bit like rocks being crushed in fact whilst poor animals are thrashed to within
inches of their lives.


Thnask m.r Yeeyore for admittting you do not undrestand the propre
usage of the ':how to' of poper EQ usage properly mR yeehaw.


Thank's mr. Hissss for admittiong you're preferneces are, just as
invalid as you're knowlege about, audio, LoT;S! ;-)


We're impressed with your fine knowlege my eeyone Not!


Red hearing noted mr. S'HHH.


tRy having a clue sometime mr eyesore Not!


Asked and asnwered, LoT:s! LOL!


Add a goodly amount of db added to the band centered aroung 8k for a
goodly surprise. set the EQ blindly. I do not understand why I waste my
time with you mr eekstone.


Its like, if mr. Sh never actually knew an ohm from a vlot, he'd not
have been there done, that mr. Hsss! NoT! ;-(

LOL

I'll work on it.:-)