Listening Exercise: Not ANYTHING about Cables!

[dtel]

Thank's Dave

I will tell you now, didn't want to add any BS before BUT I really have no idea which files I copied ! When I went to download them to the computer I had problems, it did one fine but the other would load but the computer said it couldn't try to burn because it couldn't find an end to the file. I tried both sets and finally got the second one. But with all the trying I have no idea which 2 I loaded...if there is even a difference ?

I know I got 2 different files but I don't know which two, or one of each ? but that was what I thought of the two I copied. Of the two I heard I still liked yours best , by far.

If there is any to be downloaded anywhere I would like to hear a recording you made of some pipe organs ?

Edited February 15, 2014 by dtel

[Ski Bum]

The microphone's-eye view of Robert Silverman

What you should hear: I positioned the microphones so as to place the image of Robert Silverman at the left loudspeaker. This means that the image of the piano should extend from just inside the left speaker all the way to the right loudspeaker position. Although this does mean that the piano is positioned a little right of center, this is what you would have heard in real life had you been sitting on the hall's center line.

Found here:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/istereophilei-test-cd-3-tutorial-tracks-data-compression-binaural-demonstrations

[Mallette]

Not at the moment, dtel. But maybe I'll remedy that...

Dave

[dtel]

Or sell disc The bicycle avatar would make a nice cover.

[Mallette]

Well, $tereophile was getting good bucks for theirs while I've been giving that recital away...

BTW, the Clair de Lune from that recital is on the blog piece for download.

Dave

Edited February 15, 2014 by Mallette

[dtel]

Of course pipe organs recitals, I can see it now, also......Nature Sounds , swarming insects, waves crashing, thunder storms and rain, frogs and other natural sounds along a river.......

I was looking for recordings like this the other night, couldn't find much

Edited February 15, 2014 by dtel

[Mallette]

dtel - yer screwed, just like me. Just listen to the experts on the list. It can't be done, and stereo is good enough.

None of those things can be done in 2 channel successfully. They require surround, and that is precisely why I am not ready to take "...can't be done" for an answer. AAMOF, you have my personal shortlist in that post and we are audio blood brothers, my friend.

Dave

Edited February 15, 2014 by Mallette

[dtel]

Darn, my dumbness I've been fooled all these years.

I'm really confused now, what is all this talk about soundstage width and depth, almost sounds like a 3d image being described ?

[Mallette]

Do you understand my definition of acoustic space/time event, dtel? Music, natural environments, or a crowded mall don't all come from the front. The bulk of our "two channels are what God intended" devotees listen to mixer-produced and front-centric (say, a folk group, Irish band, or chamber music ensemble) material which can be reproduced reasonably well by that method.

Let's go with the locust (cicada or whatever) and/or night bullfrog/cricket symphony. Part of the grandeur and glory of those experiences is the total immersion in a soundfield that swirls in all directions without any favoritism. For the first decade or more after stereo was introduced sound recordings of passing steam engines, babbling brooks, thunderstorms and such were very popular. It wore off not because these things don't make great listening experiences but because the novelty wore off and they weren't truly "high fidelity."

In my case, it's no secret I am a pipe organ lover. Organs and the space they are in are inseparable and in a stereo recording they are NEVER accurately recorded. Plus, many have antiphonal or other separated divisions. Freiburg Cathedral has 4 separate divisions. Recording any of these things in stereo is not only inaccurate it's just plain wrong.

Several highly respected and knowledgeable Forum members tell me it's impossible and I am wasting my time. My personal experience differs. The last SoundCube experiment I did was about 8 years ago in front of my home here in Seabrook. My sainted daughter provided evidence to the contrary on both the practicality and complexity of surround. SoundCube is s simple device using 4 microphones to cover a 360 degree sound field. That day, I was just recording ambient sound. A helicopter flew over left front to right rear. As I played this back in my listening room and the chopper roared over, my sweet daughter looked up at the ceiling PRECISELY were the acoustic ghost of that chopper was crossing. In my case, I had already noted that there was a strange sense while listening that the ceiling had disappeared. Personally, I believe these tests prove that surround is not hard if you apply simple logic to the problem. I believe it also suggests that room issues can be nearly eliminated with such a surround recording played back at "realistic" levels. Not saying it doesn't impact but that impact is rendered pretty much irrelevant when the field is truly realistic.

In any event, I really hope to get back to those experiments in the not too distant future.

Dave

[dtel]

Do you understand my definition of acoustic space/time event, dtel?

No I didn't understand it, I had no idea what the SoundCube did, is it 4 channels or 4 mics into 2 channels ?

Organs and the space they are in are inseparable and in a stereo recording they are NEVER accurately recorded.

Agreed, pipe organs are probably the perfect example for that, to me it would be like trying to separate the Klipschorn from the room. More than other speakers the Klipschorn needs the room for it's design.

Probably what's throwing me off is with a good recording "to me" the sounds from 2 Ch are 75% or more of the multi channel or surround sound. It feels like the only thing I am missing are the back wall reflections or rear sounds. I realize this is important for a more realistic version of what your ears actually hear and with some subjects could be half the experience.

Part of why I like a good 2 Ch is with many multi channel recordings it sounds like there forcing something to be there, especially when it's excessive echo or what even sounds like a little of what should be coming from the front but stuck in back for filler, which is not possible with 2 Ch.

Don't get me wrong I do like multi channel and it's pretty amazing when done well, especially since now we have discrete channels which helps a lot. It seems like to me the better multi channel I have heard are usually in movies.

With concert DVD's the overall quality of the recording is often very good, and on the better recordings you get a little music from the back reflections, this is fine and sounds normal, but also a some crowd noise or an overly reflective effect which sometimes works ok while other times not as much.

After thinking about it one thing that makes me think I like 2Ch more in many cases is my room. It's wide 24' and the seating is 18' back with the speakers wide in the corners. This may be giving me a little more of a 3-D effect from just 2 channels ? The speakers are wide, and not pointed 45 degrees like a klipschorn would be, more forward. also the top horn can be moved so it's pointed to the center of the seating, like if you were to move the top hat on a klipschorn wider than 45 degrees.

?

[Mallette]

Part of why I like a good 2 Ch is with many multi channel recordings it sounds like there forcing something to be there, especially when it's excessive echo or what even sounds like a little of what should be coming from the front but stuck in back for filler, which is not possible with 2 Ch.

Dam right! That's precisely what the quad fiasco as well as the modern attempts sound like. It's my contention that they vastly overcomplicate the process for creating a complete surround recording. I am going to summarize that:

Given: A 2 channel recording of an acoustic space/time event (definition in the attached file, but basically any live performance not involving electricity in a space) can be accurately recorded with a pair of well placed coincident microphones and played back such that all sounds from the front are reasonably imaged as in the actual event pretty close to 180 degrees.

Deduced: Why would not 2 more identical microphones covering the rear of the space from the same position and played back from discrete channels produce a complete image to 360 degrees?

Paper on this attached, with SoundCube images and explanation. It's a bit out of date in some ways, but the basic concepts are still valid.

Dave

sixcard.pdf

Edited February 15, 2014 by Mallette

[dtel]

Paper on this attached, with SoundCube images and explanation. It's a bit out of date in some ways, but the basic concepts are still valid.

Now I understand the idea and it makes perfect sense.

One thing that sticks out is with indoor events that involve music it would seem that the venue is very important, not that it would not sound as it should but it could be distracting as it would be in person but not for making a good recording. The same as any other recording but with the SoundCube and how you do it, with no "adjustments" it would be natural as if you were standing there, in a distracting venue.

Outside it's perfectly designed to give exactly what you would want, 100% natural. Nature sounds would be very interesting.

The SoundCube design is perfectly simple.

Very nicely done description, you have a gift for breaking it down so someone with no knowledge of how a recordings is attempted can get the picture.

Edited February 16, 2014 by dtel

[Mallette]

The same as any other recording but with the SoundCube and how you do it, with no "adjustments" it would be natural as if you were standing there, in a distracting venue.

Well, I am continually told the recording engineer is supposed to somehow improve things. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. You can't fix crap.

Thanks for your thoughts. I have never nor do I feel there is anything unique or revolutionary in that paper. Just common sense. If SoundCube doesn't work, then for reasons that are even more bizarre than any science can explain, simply extending what works for the front to the back is not possible.

That's plum dumb.

Dave

[dtel]

Well, I am continually told the recording engineer is supposed to somehow improve things.

Probably a big part of the problem.

Just common sense.

But where anyone can get the picture, many times not possible even with simple assembly instructions.

[Mallette]

But where anyone can get the picture, many times not possible even with simple assembly instructions.

Yep. I can record surround...but can't deliver it. No format. Still no way to simply bundle 4 discrete channels and provide them to you and everyone in a way that all you have to do is click "play." Dealbreaker. It isn't the concept, it's the fulfillment that fails.

Dave

[jacksonbart]

So when does this thread get angry? Happily surprised that it as not. Nice experiment. Cheers

[Mallette]

So when does this thread get angry? Happily surprised that it as not. Nice experiment. Cheers

Thanks, JB. I try to run a friendly place.

Dave