The Hindenburg Syndrome

[Mallette]

Correct, Minermark, to a point.  See above.

 

Dave

[wvu80]

Very interesting and philosophical topic, Dave, I read every word.  Nice job. 

+++

 

I'd like to think about it some more before I chime in with some additions or arguments to your ideas.

 

I would tell you I don't conceptualize things the way you do.  I translate into ideas I am more familiar with, especially the people component.  For instance, I take all people as individuals.  There is no single concept upon which we call all agree, it will almost always be a matter of degree.  I have known for a long time, as I am sure you know was well, that there are two basic types of audiophiles; those who listen to music, and those who listen to speakers.  Then there is also a growth component, a maturing if you will, to listening to music.

 

I have a wide acceptance of diversity of people and ideas.  It's all good to me. 

[derrickdj1]

And you arrived at this abosolute by what scientific method? Dave

 

Speaking only for myself, it is virtually impossible for me to know what a cut sounded like in the actual studio.  What I can do is have equal presentation: loudness, phase, and arrival time the same on playback.  This will yield a small sweet spot and allow excellent imaging.  Two ch. system suffer due to the small sweet spot.  For most of us that is not a concern but, if you add people to the room, one guy is sitting in the money spot.

[muel]

 

And you arrived at this abosolute by what scientific method? Dave

 

Speaking only for myself, it is virtually impossible for me to know what a cut sounded like in the actual studio.  What I can do is have equal presentation: loudness, phase, and arrival time the same on playback.  This will yield a small sweet spot and allow excellent imaging.  Two ch. system suffer due to the small sweet spot.  For most of us that is not a concern but, if you add people to the room, one guy is sitting in the money spot.

 

 

Lucky for me in my house I'm the only one who cares about the sweet spot.  Kids are either dancing around or one of them has their head inside a La Scala (funny sight) and the wife is almost always working on something near by.  

 

I thought it was an interesting idea, Dave.  

[Mallette]

Speaking only for myself, it is virtually impossible for me to know what a cut sounded like in the actual studio.

 

Artificially created music, as you observe, has no special component unless artificially created.  It was never part of what I was talking about.  I am talking about acoustic space/time events.  

 

I love good 20th century technology based music, but it is a tiny part of music as a whole there is no event to recreate with it. 

 

Dave

[russ69]

Dave, let me continue to entertain you. I have no apology for preferring two channel sound. Of the handful of great systems I have heard, they were all two channel. The Infinity RS1B, the Infinity Servo Static IIA, Magnepan 3.7s with RS1B woofers, Sanders Model 10, and a couple of others. Few of those systems would be suitable for multichannel listening on the budget I feel comfortable with. If and when that changes, I'd still would not have any music to play as stereo is still the most popular format and the bulk of my music collection. Nothing about past experiences (Hindenburg syndrome) is holding me back from changing to multichannel sound, except I have never heard a multichannel system as good as the best two channel systems that I am familiar with. Two channel is thriving, it's a great time to be in the hobby.   

[muel]

I think this is a "build it and they will come (maybe)" scenario... so get to recording, build your format and a compatible player.  I will cheer you on.

For now, I'll go back to my Amazon shopping cart to delete a few purchases so I can save up for the new equipment I'm going to need.

[Mallette]

So, let me focus this.  Forget about Pink Floyd for a minute, and just move to another thread if you can't.  Let's talk about the great 1968 recording done with E. Power Biggs, the Fort Worth Boys Choir, and the Edward Tarr Brass Ensemble...and some others: The Glory of Gabrieli. 

 

Take a look at the plan view of St. Marks below.  Reverb time is about 3.5 seconds with choir lofts in all 4 points from the crossing.  Imagine what it is like to hear instruments, multiple organs, and choirs in lofts and in the side chapels all at once performing Gabrieli or Monteverdi. 

 

Now, record it with two microphones and collapse it to 180 degrees in front.  High fidelity?  Hardly.  Technologically insurmountable?  I can make the recording myself with a couple of thousand dollars worth of gear. 

 

You don't care?  Fine...no argument.  But don't tell me you really love high fidelity. 

 

There are plenty more examples to go with.  It doesn't have to be what many of you may consider irrelevant and esoteric renaissance music.  That's fine.  I'd love to be able to record and hear the sounds I hear line dancing in the 1970s at a big barn built especially for one dance night a week in Big Spring, Texas.  About a third of the band were survivors of Bob Wills band and their children.  They occupied a stage at one end, and the huge wooden floor would RESOUND with boots as they played.  That isn't coughing and rattling programs...it's part of the experience.

 

I honestly don't know how many care about the interaction of music and the space it occurs in...but I dam sure do and without that there is no high fidelity in my life.  I've experimented directly and proven to myself and others that it isn't hard, and needn't be expensive.  Virtual presence is not only possible, it's stupidly easy to the point it can't be patented.

 

Dave
 

 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mallette

[minermark]

Well it does not look good for quad coming back anytime soon, however there is this guy overseas that has this idea...

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mallette

[Mallette]

Minermark, you have a PM.

 

Dave

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mallette

[JJkizak]

When PWK and Bell Labs went to the center channel that's all it took for me to comply. Then there is PLIIx. 

JJK

[tube fanatic]

Dave, if you don't mind, I'll add this as a corollary discussion (will delete if you feel it dilutes your opening post):

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/home-alone

 

Maynard

[Chris A]

Dave-- I recommend a copy of Floyd Toole's book if you are looking for insightful discussions on the subjects that you bring up here.  It's packed with many insights and information that even mortals can understand.  Unfortunately you will find positions from spokesmen here. 

 

Chris

(Matt. 7:6)

[Marvel]

Dave,

You are then speaking of live events. Lots of great performances could be recorded and it would be awesome to hear them done well and be able to place yourself in the venue.

 

I get it with all the contrived, recorded in pieces, music. I know you still listen to some music like that, but focusing on live events is what you want to do.

 

You need to get some programmers and engineers and get a Kickstarter program going..

 

Bruce

Edited January 16, 2015 by Marvel

[tromprof]

  I can do it in Audacity, but it seem proprietary.  Audacity will open and properly place all 4, but J. Rivers, which claims to be multi-channel capable, only opens 2.  It's absurd.  It isn't that hard.  Like recording two good channels with two mikes.  If you can bind 2 channels, you can bind as many as you like.

 

Dave

 

If I understand correctly what you are doing, it can be done. I have access to 4 channel recordings of a group In play in and have made a number of 5.1 mixes using Audacity and they all play fine with JRiver. You just need to save them in a format JRiver can open such as wav or Flac. 

[Chris A]

Dave, if you don't mind, I'll add this as a corollary discussion (will delete if you feel it dilutes your opening post):

http://www.stereophile.com/content/home-alone

I really enjoyed that, Maynard. That's me. I recently wrote here that we are "artists" playing the instrument called a "HiFi" to create the sound we want to hear.

...however diametrically opposed to the goal stated by the founder of the company (his goal is my goal, too, which is probably why I like and use his loudspeakers so much).   

 

Perhaps that's why there are so many disagreements from those that don't really use his loudspeakers as their prime listening source? 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Chris A

[twk123]

Dave, if you don't mind, I'll add this as a corollary discussion (will delete if you feel it dilutes your opening post):

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/home-alone

 

Maynard

 

I think this all depends of the venue and their focus on acoustics. For example, I have seen some shows at Red Rocks that were utterly epic. Then again I have been at shows where there is horrid muddy sound and your surrounded by pushy idiots and spend more time trying not to get into fights than enjoying the music. I actually enjoy going to a good DJ set more than most live bands, especially at places like Beta Nightclub with their insane sound system and hundreds of thousands of dollars of acoustic treatment. Good electronic artists build up the energy then 'drop' the beat and everyone goes crazy enjoying the experience together, in a way you are part of the show rather than simply watching a band. 

[muel]

By your definition of high fidelity it barely exists.  I don’t really agree with your definition that requires speakers behind me for high fidelity to be possible but I don’t mind as long as we can communicate what we mean.  Perhaps I would call what you are describing something else… like ULTRAhigh fidelity or super fidelity? 

 

Certainly, your 2 microphones can capture the sound of that room… all the reverb and sounds that occur in that space are captured in that recording.  I understand that when we recreate that sound from 2 speakers we lose some of that location in space.  I certainly do care about the music as it sounds coming from the space performed as far as live performances go.  My desire is to remove the effects of my room so that can hear the effects of the performance space.  Even if the location of the sound isn’t accurate I want to hear it in the best fidelity possible and I hope that my brain doesn’t notice the location errors.   I spent a lot on equipment to make those 2 channels sound as good as I can possibly afford.

 

As much as I would like to hear what you are describing my DAC can’t support it, nor my preamp, and I’d need two more mono blocks.  I’m not willing to sacrifice any of the quality of my 2 channels so I don’t see how this wouldn’t be really expensive.  Perhaps, if there was enough source material recorded I would be motivated.  What about all my existing recordings ?  This isn’t going to help them much.   Could you explain how what you are discussing could be (or not) addressed better by multichannel home theater technology?  Perhaps I'd need Bel Canto to produce a 4 channel DAC or I can just buy a second one if I had a player that could split 2 channels to one DAC and 2 to another DAC?  Seems like all we have is HT amps to "process" (I hate that word) our sound.

[Chris A]

Dave, if you don't mind, I'll add this as a corollary discussion (will delete if you feel it dilutes your opening post):

http://www.stereophile.com/content/home-alone

I really enjoyed that, Maynard. That's me. I recently wrote here that we are "artists" playing the instrument called a "HiFi" to create the sound we want to hear.

...however diametrically opposed to the goal stated by the founder of the company (his goal is my goal, too, which is probably why I like and use his loudspeakers so much).

Perhaps that's why there are so many disagreements from those that don't really use his loudspeakers as their prime listening source?

I doubt it. Look again at the range and diversity of the comments, and consider most of them are people using Klipsch speakers as the common element.

I did, the results of which lays the foundation for the comment.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Chris A

[Chris A]

One of the subtle differences that Guttenberg puts forward in his article and the comment that you made (Mark), is that Guttenberg seems to be talking about live performances that aren't in very good circumstances especially including amplified concerts with sound effects and autotune vs. studio recordings using less objectionable techniques in practice, sort of like a "lesser of two evils" statement.  Mark, your statement goes much further than Guttenberg's IMHO, which is why I commented.

 

Chris