The Hindenburg Syndrome

[Ski Bum]

 

Yes, it does. I am sitting on over 2000 pieces of music software with no idea what I am supposed to do with them. When someone can supply a better answer than I gave, I'll probably try it. Let's make sure I describe the problem adequately.

 

Problem Statement

 

- 2000 pieces of software that have been recorded with systems I know nothing about, in environments I know nothing about.

- A selection of hardware from over 10,000 choices, all of which claim to be the right choice.

- A room built for entertaining guests, coffee klatches, knitting, watching TV, reading books. e.g not a recording studio.

- An interest in music entertainment as a non-musician. That means intellectual and emotional and historical.

- An interest in the gears as a hobby

 

So, what should I do?

 

 

I think you already answered this a couple posts back.  I expect you would decorate your home with sonic art similarly to how you decorate with visual art, or how you cook, etc, with good taste, the results indicating a respect for the music as interpreted by your own collection of goals/limitations/expectations/WAF and other factors.

 

After all the ups and downs of being in the industry, is it not ultimately the love of the music that makes you want to explore OB speakers, or take a dive into hi rez audio?  I'm not sure I would grant it artistic status, but it's fun, right?

 

As for that hi res thing, it's all about the production quality, not the bits, IME, and I would posit it's the same with everything else in your collection of 10,000 choices, with their mysterious production or artistic intent.  PWK was absolutely correct about quality source material being of utmost importance, and Dave is right to complain that there is not enough of it these days.

 

Interesting discussion.  I'm off to stuff some foam in my horns, be back later. 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Ski Bum

[Mallette]

Okies, gents. Need to clear up a few things. First, a couple of comments:

 

1. No compassion for those who whine about having to get a couple of more speakers and amps.  I'm old enough to remember the same issue with stereo.   The stuff is much cheaper now, and if you have a passion for high fidelity not a problem.

 

2. Room issues are GREATLY reduced with these recordings.  I have experience this.  When the sound field is from all directions the issues you have with only front sound are pretty much swamped with the direct field. 

 

3. Studio produced music is another subject.  I address ONLY natural sound fields and acoustic instruments. 

 

I've updated and edited my original piece on the subject from 2004 and it is attached. 

 

Dave

 

sixcard.pdf

[tube fanatic]

Since this discussion includes comments about whether high fidelity really exists and, if it does, how to achieve it, how about this take by mastering engineer Bob Katz:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/let-freedom-ring

 

As all know, I'm totally committed to 2 channel listening using a near-field arrangement.  For me, it provides enough immersion to forget where I am and become part of the music.  I've never heard any kind of multi-channel surround arrangement (including the quad systems of the 70s) which I found enjoyable.

 

Maynard

[Mallette]

Mark, what you are saying is pretty hard to follow.  Nothing "new" is needed except a universal multichannel binding format and players that can play it back.  Most HT systems either automatically or can easily be set to playback 4 or 4.1. 

 

Most folks, including audiophiles, don't need anything...that's the whole point. 

 

I am proposing an engineering procedure, not a new format.  

 

I can play this back easily with my Roland recorder into an old Panny HT receiver I've set up in my library.  No big deal, no big investment.  REAL high fidelity sounds better to me on small speakers than half the information on my Klipschorns. 

 

At least when somebody coughs or rattles a program it's behind me instead of coming from the stage.  My belief is that people have learned to put up with the absurd.

 

Dave

[muel]

Tell us more about the playback procedure and possibilities.  

[Mallette]

Simple, Muel.  There are, I am told, one or more digital file formats that can bind more than 2 channels.   I've done this in Audacity and played them back.  However, when I loaded it to J. River, a reasonably mainstream media player, it only loaded the stereo.  I've not been able.

 

Point is, most have everything they need to listen already if you have an HT system.  If that system is half smart, if you load a 4 channel file it will play it back in 4 channels.  If it doesn't, they can be easily set to ignore the center channel...which, of course, will destroy an image of the type I propose recording for acoustic music performances. 

 

Point is, the user should have to do nothing they don't do already.  Download, play. 

 

Perhaps I get too techie...though I really attempted to avoid it...in the pdf file.  Sounds come from all directions.  If you record all directions seamlessly, your brain will decode the information...including overhead...nicely.  I've demonstrated this.  I have developed NOTHING new.  I simply applied the same thing that produces the best recordings of all time in stereo by adding the back channels using mikes precisely reversed from those in the front.

 

No claims of "Genius!" here at all.  Simple common sense, but not used for reasons that elude me, by the big boys.  Bear in mind very few of them use the 2 mike stereo setup, even though the majority of the most acclaimed recordings ever were made that way.  Danged if I know why!  It still works.

 

Dave

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mallette

[Mallette]

What is new about multi-channel?  I'm not sure about how to explain it.  It's been around for a decade or more.  My suggestion is simply a mike plan that provides 360 degree coverage and what the brain needs to localize and build an image of a space.  The whole "Where can I get it?"  thing is the issue with various media and file formats.  I can't help with that.  I can make the recordings but I can't deliver them.  Therein lies the problem. 

 

If you want to experience it, come visit. 

 

Dave

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mallette

[Mallette]

Agreed.  But the issue is so easy.  I can provide you the experience...but unless some young nerd with time on his or her hands provides a file format and the player people support it, no cigar.  Absolutely infuriating as it is so simple.  I can make the recordings, but I can't deliver them in a format that's easy to access. 

 

Dave

[russ69]

Okies, gents. Need to clear up a few things. First, a couple of comments:

 

1. No compassion for those who whine about having to get a couple of more speakers and amps.  I'm old enough to remember the same issue with stereo.   The stuff is much cheaper now, and if you have a passion for high fidelity not a problem...

 

Dave

Darn it Dave, I don't want to spend another 20,000 on a second pair of speakers or another 8,000 on an amp and I still wont have a center channel. You got to feel my pain on that one?

[Marvel]

Dave - In what format do you export your four channels? What encoding do you use/ bit rate, etc. I'm curious... very curious.

 

Bruce

[Mallette]

Russ69:  My four channel rig uses 4 Frazier Mark IV speakers I paid less than 400.00 for driven by a Panasonic SA XR 57 HT receiver at 150.00.  Playing material recorded via SoundCube it's more immersive and realistic than my main system with Klipschorns, tubes, etc at a lot more.   Hardly breaking the bank!

 

Bruce:  The whole point is to avoid encoding, just as with a stereo CD or bound stereo wav file.  My opinion is that the encoding schemes for multi-channel as played back on Dolby and other electronic steering systems are part of the issue.  I encoded some of my test files as DVD-A a few years ago and the results were blurred compared to the discrete files. 

 

Audacity allows multi-channel binding in FLAC and when played back in Audacity the results are excellent.  But you can't expect everyone to go to the extra trouble to  load Audacity and such.  I am looking for a player that will load the files properly instead of just the front channels. 

 

What I WANT is simply a multi-channel version of the current 2 channel format. 

 

Dave

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mallette

[Marvel]

The 2 channel format is interleaved. Do you know how Audacity binds the channels/tracks together? I've always hated Audacity, but I may have to revisit it. They don't explain much on the website.

 

I did read that jriver (among others) can handle DSD512 (22.5792 MHz) playback.

 

Bruce

[Mallette]

They don't explain much on the website.

 

Agreed.  However, it has a lot of functionality and, IMHO, is the best free editor available.  You have to spend quite a bit to get much better.

 

Rather than do a bad job of explaining (to others...you probably know this already) here is a good, short explanation of file binding:

 

"Stereo soundfiles can be organized as interleaved, where the sample bytes of respective channels alternate in a single stream (LRLRLR, etc), or as two separate files called split stereo, where one file contains the LEFT channel samples and another file contains the RIGHT channel samples. By convention, these are usually labeled with the same name with a .R or .L suffix (ex. myaudio.L, myaudio.R). Most programs will simultaneously open both files by default. Many programs, such as MOTU's Digital Performer and Digidesign's Pro Tools, work only with split stereo files—when importing an interleaved file, they will automatically split it into two files. However, some CD burning programs will burn only interleaved stereo files, so the separate files must be "bounced to disk" and then exported as an interleaved file to be burned."

 

Point is that they remain discrete, not "encoded" in the sense of multi-channel formats like DVD-A and when loaded to an editor or player they are "pure" and simply need to be sent to the correct speaker with no steering circuitry required.  THAT is what I am looking for.

 

Dave

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mallette

[Marvel]

Gotcha... You just want to do the same with four files instead of two. I'll have to think about this for a while.

 

Thanks,

Bruce

[Mallette]

I guess I don't understand the question.  Please explain. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

I'll have to think about this for a while.

 

Please do.  I've been hunting the answer for years.  HDTT claims to sell a multi-channel downloadable format, and maybe I should buy one to analyze.  They don't much explain how to play them.

 

Dave

[kevinmi]

I used to have a multi channel set up based on DVD-A and SACD playback. Some of the mixes were fantastic, but many were just gimmicky. Of couse, that was at least ten years ago, and I'm sure there has been great improvement in multi-channel music since then.

  Since I prefer vinyl as my choice of source material, I have gone back to stereo listening, without missing the multi-channel set up. 

I do remember those quad vinyl lp's, and the expense of the hardware to play them. I think the law of diminishing returns comes into play somewhere here. Being left to it's own resources, the human brain will hear music in a fashion that is pleasing without the use of multiple speakers. Just my 2 cents.

[Travis In Austin]

Since this discussion includes comments about whether high fidelity really exists and, if it does, how to achieve it, how about this take by mastering engineer Bob Katz:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/let-freedom-ring

 

As all know, I'm totally committed to 2 channel listening using a near-field arrangement.  For me, it provides enough immersion to forget where I am and become part of the music.  I've never heard any kind of multi-channel surround arrangement (including the quad systems of the 70s) which I found enjoyable.

 

Maynard

Bob Katz is great.  One of the three best mastering engineers of all time in my opinion.  He wrote "the book" on mastering and has been a leading proponent of getting the use of compressors/expanders under control in the industry.

 

Thanks for linking this great reply article.

[Travis In Austin]

From experience, I am proposing a new syndrome. 

 

I am calling it the "Hindenburg Syndrome" as it proposes this as recurring under a variety of circumstances:

 

Group of people are discussing advanced concepts in environmentally sound, efficient, safe, means of moving people and freight.  One suggests giant airships built with modern technology.  They might carry 600 or more persons at 150mph quietly and efficiently while requiring much less infrastructure than jets or high speed rail.  They could also deliver large objects to places otherwise not accessible, etc, etc, etc...

 

Everyone listens politely, then after a bit of uncomfortable silence, the conversation moves on. 

 

Why?  The science is totally sound and proven.  The reason is the Hindenburg.  Less than a third of those on board killed, but a death blow to a proven technology that was the 129th of her kind and victim of an accident that still may well have been sabotage and in any event was highly unlikely and would have been impossible if we'd provided the requested helium.  Nonetheless, it was fatal.  Why?  Hard to tell.  Certainly had to do with the Nazi's, US arrogance in getting enthused about the concept then refusing to learn how to fly them from the masters who built them, the onset of WWII, and such.  Regardless, the image of that burning ship totally destroyed all interest in this extremely effective, safe, and flexible means of transporting people and freight.  After all, 99% of the lift was from a non-consumed source.  Logical, but people aren't always logical. 

 

I can put this "syndrome" to the test with self-driving cars, the existence of inexhaustible resources only 300 miles away in space, fusion, and any number of other things...but here it's audio.

 

Precisely that same thing happens at this "table" when multi-channel is brought up.  The surround sound crowd is immersed in processed, steered movies and rock.  The 2 channel sound is, well, "immersed" really doesn't work because it's only in the front, but basically they hear only from the front so it's OK. 

 

Even though the basics of the concept are simple enough:  If two microphones deliver the best 180 degree soundfield, how can it be argued that two more won't deliver a 360 degree soundfield?  Do the math.

 

But, just as only a tiny percent of the population is still alive who actually witnessed the Hindenburg disaster yet the effect lives on, only a third or so of audiophiles remain with us who experienced the quad disaster of the 70s...but it lives on. 

 

Dave

The Hindenburg Syndrome is a a reflexive fear of hydrogen.  Airships went out of military vogue in the US because our helium airships, the Akron and the Macon crashed due to weather, that and improvements in power plants significantly reduced the power to weight ratio to the point where the advantages in airships over fixed wing aircraft, and rapidly developing rotary wing aircraft, became negligible.  I remember reading about the US government investing in airships for shipping needs a couple of years ago.  It looks like they are making significant progress.  http://gizmodo.com/the-aluminum-airship-of-the-future-has-finally-flown-1301320903

 

In terms of sound, I never heard the Quad of the 70s.  It required so much money it wasn't even a remote possibility to me.  Two extra speakers, a new real to real player.  Mallette, if you have a four track R2R I can send you some prerecorded tapes to check out that I have picked up over the years.

 

My impression, after the demise of Quad, is that multichannel sound has tracked movie sound, not audio, and that is going to be the way it is going to continue for the foreseeable future.  Bell Labs had developed 8 channel recording as far back as the early 1930s.  It never took off even though people were astounded by it.  Digitial technology allowed for multichannel format to be easily stored on a DVD to be used in the home.  

 

We went from 2 channel VCR to DVD with 720 resolution and 5.1, to HD 1080p and 7.1 and 9.1 in Blue Ray, now we are at UHD 4K and the 11.1 system, and right around around the corner is 8K and Hamasaki 22.2.  The digital multichannel audio components, SACD and DVD-A, don't seem to have taken off with multi-channel, it is all in HT equipment.  I am not sure if digitial audio downloads, regardless of quality, will embrace multichannel.

 

Obviously the technology is there, I don't think it is a Hindenburg Syndrome because Quad crashed so terribly, I think it is SACD, DVD-A crashed and burned.  Analog guys are never going to go for it because there will never be 4 channel records again, or tape.  

 

For good multichannel audio to happen, you are going to have to be either able to download it, or be able to play in on your DVD/Blue Ray/ or 4K player.  If it takes off in that domain I would think that there would be a market for the audio world to take a look at it.  Right now, it seems to me to be that people are at two extremes, they wear ear buds during the day and watch a multichannel movie on their HT system.

 

I am perfectly happy with 2 channel when it comes to music listening.  It looks like hydrogen cell vehicles are about a year or two away.  I am much more afraid of an Ford Pinto gas tank then I am of hydrogen.

[WMcD]

I don't think the Hindenburg killed the airship, it was just the last nail in the coffin. I looked at Wikipedia on just the Zeppelins. There is a long history of them blowing up, blowing away, and breaking up. On inference is that they had a lot of native appeal to continue in production despite the long history of accidents. People aren't gun shy over a single incident. And it seems to me they have limited usefulness because of weather issues. But this is a bit beside the point.

I don't know if Quad was the cause of reluctance to adapt multichannel. It is just a technology and art which was not worth the effect. There is plenty of other technology which had some merit but was short-lived such as 8-track, 45 rpm, pre-recorded reel-to-reel, and enhanced FM radio schemes. Some blew up, but most just blew away. Few people are quick to be early adopters of anything because they've seen a lot come and go.

I can see that a present issue is a multi-channel digital format which is moving toward mainstream status. Let me ask: What is used in recording studios? You'd think that if the studio system uses a specific digital format, it is easily adoptable by domestic listeners.

WMcD