How is 2 channel "live" music

[Audible Nectar]

I listen to live concert material on a regular basis through both of my systems (theater is an older Krell pre with Mac SS amps and Cornwalls, and 2 channel is Mac tube gear) and find that pauln's assessment is correct. The theater is much better at the effects end of things, where the 2 channel rig is better at the musical aspects. Both systems can be very effective at "getting you there", but as Dodger mentions, this is where the recording engineer takes center stage. There are good and bad 2 channel recordings, and likewise with multichannel. I think multichannel gets lost on many because more often than not, the recordings aren't well done - and multichannel hasn't been around as long. There are MANY bad examples of multichannel mixes, which cause many to ditch the idea all together, but these are just like the LP and CD bins - some good stuff, LOTS of bad stuff. Find the good stuff and your multichannel investment will give you better returns.

I also agree that a recording engineer's job of "making it sound like you are there" is a tough one - especially if he wasn't actually there. Even if he was, how good would his "memory" of just what it sounded like be?

Jon O'Leary, soundman for the String Cheese Incident, handles it like this: He stands at the board (always in a good sonic spot) and mixes the band's house sound, while the event is being recorded. The crowd/ambient sound is mixed with the band on that recording. This allows a comparison of the live hall to the mixed recording while the event is in progress - so adjustments can be made. The result is an excellent sonic snapshot of the event and sonic ambience that is as close as you can get in a 2 channel situation. Only catch is that you will also get the audio of those adjustments too - but those never last long - and almost disappear on the second and third nights at the same hall and the same run of shows. Once they have it "down" at the board, the second night's sound is RIGHT ON for the opening tune.

Those of you Deadheads who collected some of the 1990's "Healymix" tapes know how this sounds/works. Same concept - although SCI's recordings are less "post processed" than the GD stuff was. The SCI stuff is much more raw.....but since the band sounds sooooo good anyway (no rock band sounds more LIQUID and CLEAR), and Jon-O'Leary is one of the best sound people I've ever heard, the minimally processed results really furnish the intended result - making you feel as if you were THERE.

And being there is what it is all about. There is NOTHING like being in the hall when the music is being made. That is when the crowd becomes a part of the show, and the energy feeds back and forth between the musicians and the audience - especially when you have a musically attentive crowd. That's when on some nights, it seems, that "the music plays the band".

That is something that no home system will ever create. It's like the difference between watching the game on TV, or watching, seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting a real game. Unless my theater becomes capable of making my living room smell like weed, mud, and port-o-johns when I play "Woodstock" on the DVD, the "being there" can never be replaced - only attempts at recreating it.

I am amazed at the lack of conversation here about CONCERTS. If not for those, I would probably own bo$e - because it was Klipsch's re-creation of live concert material that got me hooked on Klipsch (and old JBL) for life. I spent too many hours in audio rooms cranking Healymixes trying to get that "sound". The salesmen thought I was nuts - until I found a Klipsch showroom. They understood. And while no system really can truly recreate it, some can come pretty damn close.

But it's all in the recording.

[johnyholiday]

it's a mood thing ,ie female dyes hair

[colterphoto1]

Pauln and Audible- THAT'S IT. well put gentlemen, as an ex engineer who is a frustrated musician (ie tone deaf), I tend to listen to the sounds of the music, not necessarily the musicality of it. Because I don't understand the musicality! Took piano lessons for a few years as a youngster, but never 'got it'.

I can appreciate a four part harmony but cannot sing it, I can pick out Chris Squire's bass line from a complex Yes composition, but could not begin to play it or even know what key it is in. I can understand repeating themes in a classical composition, and was always a winner in our 'music memory' contests in grade school, but can't read a note of it. (you know, I can name that tune in xx notes) Yet I hear the sonic signatures of each sound, the timbre of the instrument, the place in the mix, the evolving melody lines, etc.

There is a great difference in the way our minds process the sounds we hear, which might be in part hereditary (perfect pitch people), part environment (I grew up in a sound engineering arena), part training. Neither approach right or wrong, just different observations of the same sonic/musical event.

Some people run and hide from the thunder outside, I enjoy the change of ions in the atmosphere and shut my eyes to enjoy what I consider the gentle ripping of electrons through the air. It's a beautiful sound field. It's a perceptual thing.

Michael

[anarchist]

When spending so much time analyzing the who, why, what, when, and wheres of music, how do you find time to even enjoy it? I mean really enjoy it.

I have three dedicated systems covering all the bases. A simple Eico, Technics turntable, and Klipsch speakers are able to disappear into the background, surround me with sound, and transport me through time; THAT is the goal and that defines the experience.

Those overly concerned with "specifications" and "format" simply got in the wrong line.

[sfogg]

Gary,

" I've yet to see a multi-channel turntable for us vinyl dinasaurs. "

Last time I checked my 'table it had more then a single channel. BTW, Quad was still a two channel delivery format, it just had additional channels matrixed into the two.

All you need is a two channel delivery format and you can expand that out to a multi-channel listening experience. And the better ways of doing it give the listener control over the experience... so you can very much tune it in to your own personal taste. You don't have to worry about what some gimicky engineer did to the mix and you don't have to worry about rebuying your music collection.

That listening experience might shock the heck out of the two channel die-hards... or it might not.

I *was* a two channel diehard till I heard this myself. The simply envolvement, enjoyment and just plain fun of listening to music (to me) is simply far far greater in surround then I ever had in 2 channel.

Dr Who,

" this feeling always faded instantly when audience noises got into the recording and made me realize that all the sound was coming from the front. If I heard the audience sounds from all around me I think I would have gotten stuck in a permament coma."

Bring your 2 channels recordings to my room. Audience noise and ambiance comes from the proper locations and perspectives while keeping the musicans firmly located on stage.

" I think all music listening should be done in multichannel...I just have a hard time leaving the mix in the engineer's hands (and yet I'm one of those recording engineers!)"

When you expand 2 channel to more then that you have some control over how it is done.

" A lot of the big project churches recently have also been installing surround systems for two purposes: controlling the room acoustics (yes, producing out of phase signals to help reduce the echo and increase intelligibility of the person speaking), and to create ambience"

Lot more then just churches have done this.

http://www.lares-lexicon.com/

http://www.lares-lexicon.com/installations.html

They have even set up a system like this outdoors to give outdoor concerts more of the ambiance of a hall.

http://prosoundnews.com/articles/article_1159.shtml

Pauln,

"Maybe those who are chasing the space ambience, live effect thing have a different focus. To me its about the music. "

It is for me too. And like I said above music if far more emotionally involving in surround then I ever had it in 2 channel.

" I suspect they be a little tone deaf."

Never fails that the 2 channel fans always question the multichannel listers hearing, system, room or whatever.

Shawn

[Colin]

I want it to sound so real that if I close my eyes I can't tell if it is live or Memorex!

So far however, very few recordings are able to do that, but the Khorns come the closest of any speakers I have heard for the money...

[boomac]

On 3/21/2005 11:26:48 PM fini wrote:

Allan,

Kinda like watching porno versus "making love"? I mean, they're both great, but different, especially with good coffee.

----------------

I just saw this Fini and wondered if you've ever considered multi-tasking?

[Mallette]

Alrighty then, this is my kind of discussion. I've read the entire thread. Too many excellent observations to comment on!

In general:

It is not possible for two channels to accurately recreate an acoustic event. The information your brain requires to do this is simply not there.

Those of you interested in my arguments for the above statement can see them at www.mbsdar.com in the paper "The Six Cardinal Rules of Sound Acquisition."

Oh, and feel free to tear into it with anything you've got. If I can't defend it, it isn't worth a darn.

Dave

[dodger]

Well I've kept most of my listening comments to my own taste.

That said, Multi-Channel Recording Engineers need more practice. They're not tone deaf, nor are they poor at their jobs. For many it's a new concept and the only problem is what to assign where. As noted, Recording live is a big help. The reflections, decays, Reverberations can be tested. But some are afraid or not willing to do that.

Klipsch and Concerts - as a friend said though the volume level may be the same, the music sounds small coming from small speakers. I agree - dispersion, throw, focal point all add to the listening experience. All of those are shifted when coming from a small speaker - actual and perceived.

It has been said that the best Engineers are those that do not add themselves to the Recording. That is true.

But once you reach a point in your playback system, it's time to stop lstening to the Components. If an Engineer, one has to stop listening with the how would I do it mentality. Accept.

I know what I do Recording live events, providing Sound for live events - I stay behind the Board after a walk around alone and with someone connected to the Artist.

Some set it and forget it. That's not my style.

But, Klipsch has been my choice in my home for 30 + years. Now I am enjoying listening to music. I lost too much time listening to Components.

We ask too much of our systems. There are things that will be added or left out. They can do their best to try to re-create what we have heard. I believe the memory for Audio is longer than thought.

But there has to be a point where there cost does not even come close to any improvement. It's like looking for a house to buy. When you find one that makes you happy you stop looking, buy add a few things and then maintain.

dodger

[DrWho]

----------------

On 3/22/2005 12:04:58 PM Mallette wrote:

Those of you interested in my arguments for the above statement can see them at www.mbsdar.com in the paper "The Six Cardinal Rules of Sound Acquisition."

----------------

Well I see a few problems with his claims...

First of all, he is trying to record an omnidirectional 1m space in the recording environment...then when the signal gets passed down to the playback system in the listener's environment, the speakers are most certainly in a bigger zone than 1x1 meter. Let's just call it 6x6 meters. This is effectively magnifying the sound. He is also ignoring the fact that the environment of the playback system is introducing new reflections and and ambience that would otherwise never be present at the actual live event. Whether or not his method sounds good is one thing, but he can't claim that it's the most accurate because his method is physically flawed.

Another problem is that he's assuming the artist wants a "live" sound on the recording! Many of the artists I know are going for a sound that they cannot otherwise create in real life and are relying on the magic of the mixer to accomplish that sound. For a simple example, a lot of drummers like it to sound like their kit wraps around the listener and is bigger than life. Close mic'ing and a lot of panning easily accomplishes this. To do this in the live acoustic realm, the drummer would either have to have insanely huge arms or you would have to specifically design an environment build around his kit to arrive there...and then when synth player wants to be off in the background and the vocal wants to be huge and upfront and the lead guitar wants to be here and there and etc etc etc...it becomes entirely impossible to build a room and position every instrument so that this mic'ing technique will arrive at the sound being strived for. Music is art, the real live captured acoustic sounds are merely the paint by which the artists are painting their masterpieces.

I have found that some of the best recordings and most compelling pieces of music come out of the most limiting situations. Heck, my first studio recording made it on the radio and we were using PA gear! I was standing 10 feet from the instruments during the tracking. Let's see, Michelangelo never wanted to paint pictures, Picasso was a freaken screwed up dude, Egdar Allan Poe, blah blah blah....all the great masterpieces come from screwed up people fighting through limitations.

[D-MAN]

Some babbling on "soundstage" and localization effects from stereo...

All of the reflections from a particular recording space CAN be on the recording, and a well-setup pair of high quality speakers and signal chain can reproduce these, imparting the distance and specular reflection queues of the original space as much as is on the recording (more or less). The main problem would be that the LISTENING room has its OWN reflections and absorptions that may degrade the presentation.

Stereo speaker setups are capable of reproducing spacial queues and localization of sound sources within it as well as can be expected, however, the soundstage presentation is relatively planar and does not surround the listener. If it does, there is a reflectivity problem in the listening space. Also, the typically heard "too-forward" presentation complained about with some horn speakers is also indicative of a poor listening space, IMO, but there are other issues that effect this, too, such as the particulars of the employed crossover and such.

The quest for 3-dimensional soundstage information is on-going, with the British providing a vertical and lateral controllable aspect to stereo recordings based on spectoral reflectivities. This is an interesting development for achieving a controlled effect of 3 dimensional soundstaging.

Whereas I enjoy the surround capabilities of music DVDs, for serious listening, I prefer the stereo soundstage.

I for one don't need to be IN the orchestra, but rather prefer to experience it from a seat in the audience, basically the way it was intended to be experienced. The absolute LAST thing I want is for the presentation to be forward of the speakers themselves.

DM

[Mallette]

Hey, Dr. Who, "he" is the cat...

Seriously, thanks for your critique. Just the kind of thing I need!

>He is also ignoring the fact that the environment of the playback system is in

troducing new reflections and and ambience that would otherwise never be present at the actual live event. Whether or not his method sounds good is one thing, but he can't claim that it's the most accurate because his method is physically flawed.

To sentence one, above, I fully agree. That is why the sixcard does not take that which cannot be controlled by the recording engineer into consideration. If you, the listener, does, great. If not, your experience will still be better than before. As to the second, the flaws are not stated as best as I can tell, so I cannot respond. However, I can and do claim that the playback rules are the most accurate if the recording rules have been observed.

All the artists I deal with are acoustic, mostly classical (Asylum Street Spankers were an exception), and want nothing but accuracy both in the balance of their instruments and the space in which they sound. I have specifically excluded electric source and artists who "want" something other than reality as no rules can be specified for human desires.

Thanks again for your thoughtful criticism...and bring on more! I am planning a series of DVD-A recordings beginning with the Camerata Winds, choir(s), and pipe organ (hoping to get Bradley Hunter Welch) under Maestro James Rives Jones to be recorded by 4th quarter. The series title will be "The Exploration of Space" and will attempt to capture both great interior and exterior "space" according to the sixcard. The proof is in the woofin'!

To moderators or anyone else who might be concerned about "commercializing." The odds of any money being made from this project are about as likely as gas getting back to a dollar. The minute any money exchanges hands, I'll be out of here with anything like touting. Until then, this is a purely passionate experiment, I have abolutely nothing to sell, and I need and appreciate the input, support, and criticism of this great group of gentle people.

Dave

[dodger]

In noting any physical flaws, the hearing of the Engineer is a major flaw. As sinus/allergy problems may affect the hearing it must be noted those factors are on a continuous change. Blood Pressure, any of the points in the body which affect hearing.

Granted a certain TYPE of microphone may be called for. But which brand? What changes may be introduced by the selection?

And as I have mentioned, we call upon our systems to reproduce all different sources - though Acoustic a Martin sounds different than an Ovation - in micing an Acoustic Instrument changes in hand position relative to the bridge - the mere act of Electronically Recording an Acoustic Instrument changes elements.

Ideas can slightly change from Engineer to Engineer. Or as stated hearing - Brian Wilson deaf in one ear making stereo recordings.

I will be very interested in what you release as I know you have been working on this for quite a while. And you will not settle for mediocre.

Rules are made to be broken. I am sure that one in the Recording Chain may be broken to achieve the results.

Homes we cannot control but our own.

dodger

[sfogg]

DM,

" I for one don't need to be IN the orchestra, but rather prefer to experience it from a seat in the audience"

That is the way I prefer it too. The surround expansion I'm doing doesn't radically alter the perspective, just far better defines it.

"basically the way it was intended to be experienced. ""

Intent is a slippery slope to argue....

Shawn

[DrWho]

----------------

On 3/22/2005 3:55:58 PM sfogg wrote:

Intent is a slippery slope to argue....

----------------

ah yes, the intended listening place. You meain in the car listening to the radio

[dodger]

DR WHO:

Isn't it actually in the shower with one of the shower radios?

grumble, grumble my wife's wakes me up at 5:45 A.M.

This actually is a good thread, learning some, looking forward to some, and a bit of humour.

Well, time to cook dinner.

How is the throat feeling?

[Mallette]

Yep, great stuff, indeed! Believe it or not, I did not come here to preach, but to LEARN from the greatest audio professors there area.

DODGER: Granted a certain TYPE of microphone may be called for. But which brand? What changes may be introduced by the selection?

An excellent question. I specifiy the PZM for precisely one reason: A natural 180 degree pickup pattern and freedom from phase issues. Spaced as prescribed on the SoundCube, they provide a natural 360 degree 4 channel pattern with abosolutely no phase issues...a pretty neat trick with most mics and the perfect way for the novice recordist to insure results. Personally, I am a ribbon head and most, if not all, the music recordings will be done with four matched Oktava ML-52 ribbon mics. I know these well and how to place them for minimum phase issues and such. For thunderstorms, the firing range (really BIG booms!!!) at Fort Leonard Wood, the requisite steam engine, and other such extremes, I'll use the PZM's. Subtle isn't necessary in such situations...just wind resistance and beaucoups of dynamic range

Shawn: "I for one don't need to be IN the orchestra, but rather prefer to experience it from a seat in the audience"

Not sure where that was quoted from, but I heartily agree as well. I try to find, subjectively, of course, the best seat in the house. I like to spend as much time as possible while the group or artist rehearses wandering around here and there until I really like what I hear. Then, I try to capture that.

"basically the way it was intended to be experienced. "" Intent is a slippery slope to argue....

Not just slippery, utterly impossible. Wouldn't even try...

Dave

[Elydaman]

Great stuff guys! You have taught me plenty.....BUT....I will throw just one example out. Now this may seem a pretty lame audio experience with so many good ones out there, But here goes.... Take a listen to The Eagles Hell Freezes Over in PCM, and then in DTS. There is just no comparison between. You feel that you are IN the Audience hearing it just as it was presented.

Not with standing....nothing matches a studio recorded two channel high quality recording, and it is most impressive with jazz or acoustical music.....but "live" I don't know.

You guys impress the **** out of me.....even with a great cup of coffee.

[Mallette]

Well, for a "Cool Newbie," you start a pretty good thread! I've little doubt the Eagles HFO is as good as you say in DTM. Remember, though, that such space and imaging in DTS is entirely dependent upon the skill of the engineers. There aren't that many any good at it, unfortunately, as the wails of the 2 channel crowd attest. I don't blame the medium, however. The concept is absolutely sound (as it were).

My little treatise is just an attempt to bring some objectivity and order to the subject. I am satisfied intellectually that no 2 channel system can ever recreate a space. It can sound truly awesome, for sure, but it can never recreate a space. Only a system such as I propose, or a great engineer using whatever tools he/she commands, can do that.

JMHO.

Thanks again for starting this great thread.

Dave

[colterphoto1]

Gotta say gang- very gentlemanly discussion. This thread kinda like an old fashioned tennis match, stimulating, but never angry. This is what the Forum is all about. Well started by a cool newbie no less.

Michael