How is 2 channel "live" music

[WMcD]

The way this thread was started annoyed me a little bit. Smile.

It reminded me of Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Those mindless critics even attack my little dog, Checkers. But don't worry; Pat (with a respectable Republican cloth coat) and I will keep Checkers, no matter what they say.

It is rhetorically unfair to allude to unidentified, vague, and vitupritive critics; then ask for sympathy. (Maybe I'm too harsh in this characterization.)

In reality folks appreciate their old sources (LP, CD, someday DVD-A and SACD). They hang on to them.

Rational people also embrace the future without giving up on the media at hand. That seems to be going on.

Okay, I'm not as annoyed any more. Smile.

Gil

[DrWho]

Here's another article y'all might find interesting:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/live/oldsoundman/zdm/zdm.php

For anyone in the industry, you really gotta read this guy's stuff (http://www.prosoundweb.com/sr/osm)

To be honest, I have no clue what "zoned dual mono" is but I have a pretty good idea and it sounds interesting. It's not entirely relevant but interesting nonetheless.

[dodger]

Greetings:

If ever there was a thread that had the input of people such as Dave, Dr Who, Sean and others that was truly a learning interchange - no flames, no put downs, no jump on what the other said this was it.

I feel bad because of my usual leaving to go eat and because I did more than I had as of late, I fell asleep. I came right here instead of Crossing Jordan - those that know me know what that does mean.

I want to thank Dave, Sean and DR WHO along with the starter of this thread (and a welcome to the Forum) for what I have always believed this Forum is - Professional, great people, no-one trying for the ego trip. Readable and good summaries from Colter and Gil.

This made me feel years younger, and it was great to hear from, and inter-act with Dave. I've missed him.

So as corny as anyone wants to think I am, this dialogue though somewhat rare is what this Forum is about, along with a sense of Family.

My Thanks and great feelings,

dodger

[jacksonbart]

"Remember, though, that such space and imaging in DTS is entirely dependent upon the skill of the engineers."

Not that I disagree with much has been said so far, but is not an engineer involved in a stereo recording as well? I would say yes, so perhaps your argument is that multi channel recordings so new that engineers don't know how to mix them?

[Mallette]

Alright, I've had enough of this sweet, lovey, one-big-happy-family crap!

You multi-speaker freaks probaly have ears on the back of your heads. If God meant us to have more than two channels, he'd have given us 7.1 ears. As to digital, you are as likely to get a chicken from powdered eggs as anything useful from it. LP's? Fatally flawed by tracking error.

As for me and my house, we are sticking with the Good Book and the only perfect music storage medium, the cylinder!

Ok, one serious comment. Of course, there is an an engineer in conventional stereo recordings as well, and you are correct that far more experience has been accumulated in that medium. Even then, one is still occasionally confronted with the 20 foot wide piano and similar gaffs. It was actually the 20 foot wide piano issue I first confronted in my latter-day recording career. In 1998, I found myself with the opportunity to record Stewart Wayne Foster, first winner of the Dallas Internation Organ Competition, in a piano recital. After reviewing all my piano recordings of the greats, I found that many of the stereo recordings suffered from this syndrome, and that I generally preferred mono recordings of the solo instrument, though I missed the sense of "space." After pondering the problem, I finally place a vintage RCA BK3 equidistant from the strings and as close as possible to the soundboard. I placed a Beyer ribbon off the end of the instrument...and at an angle of 90 degrees, i.e., pointed directly at the instrument. This arrangement yielded what many of my audiophile friends have said is the most realistic piano recording they've ever heard. Most of the direct sound comes from the left channel, but with hall and ambience from both.

The point is that even two channels can be problematic, and every time you add one the problems go up exponentially when it comes to accurately recording a moment in acoustic space-time. Hence my quest to provide some ground rules. Bear in mind here my goal is to capture a moment in space-time (Virtual Presense), not create a "happening." My rule that "mixing=editorializing" is not a criticism of mixing at all, unless it is done in an "end run" attempt to get around the difficulities in accurately capturing Virtual Presense.

Dave

[dodger]

Greetings:

As with Dave I have the Good Book and an Edison Home Cylinder Phonograph with witch's hat and 36"

Horns plus a modificatition - a Fireside horn.

That said, I believe we did note that ther may be some lack of experience or that as time goes on and more experience is gained the quality may improve.

But in response to what you quested, Jackson, yes an Engineer is involved in stereo recordings.

I may extend to some thing alluded to in an email last night, the actual Recording Equipment for multi-channel is still be perfected, developed, experimented with and learned to use.

Assignment of material to each channel to try to either have a signature sound or a sound as life-like as possible is being perfected with each Recording.

But for some learning to listen to multi channel and like it is a factor as are the limitations of the home equipment and the home environment.

Good point to bring forth separately.

dodger

[Mallette]

"Assignment of material to each channel to try to either have a signature sound or a sound as life-like as possible is being perfected with each Recording."

For the specific purpose of achieving an accurate recording and reproduction of a specific acoustic event from a specific point in a space, the rules I have developed for my own use eliminate the issue of "assignment." SoundCube is placed at the point I wish to place in stasis for reproduction.

"But for some learning to listen to multi channel and like it is a factor as are the limitations of the home equipment and the home environment."

Placing the speakers in accordance with the sixcard doctrine goes as far as possible in eliminating the issues of the home environment. Brief anecdote to illustrate.

My first "serious" piece of gear was a Concord 727 reel-to-reel with built in amp and detachable speakers. My first commercial RR release was the soundtrack to "Dr. Zhivago." It sounded pretty good considering the amp and speakers were, though well ahead of our GE consolette, hardly high end. However, I found that if I dismounted them, laid on the bed, then leaned them against each other like a tent on either side of my head, the sound was awesome! Lots of bass (proximity effect), and total isolation from the environment. That was the "root" of the speaker placement concept that is the reproduction portion of the sixcard. While not entirely eliminating the room, it comes as close as you are going to get without headphones.

As to "listening to surround and liking it" I find it hard to imagine not liking it if it trully offers an accurate sonic event on demand.

Dave

[SilverSport]

...this IS an interesting thread...I have 2 channel AND just got into HT since January...I have listened to 2 channel music through the Outlaw in 5 Channel Stereo...through Heresys and an Academy along with my rear KSF-S5 surrounds...it sounds FULL but it also sound STRANGE to me...is this because I am predisposed to 2 channel music through 2 speakers??? I grew up listening to 1 channel monaural so I am not sure but I PREFER listening to the Heresys sing out of 2 speakers...and I don't think the Academy is a slouch for a singing voice either...for me, music from 2 speakers and movies well...

Bill

[sfogg]

Bill,

"...I have listened to 2 channel music through the Outlaw in 5 Channel Stereo...through Heresys and an Academy along with my rear KSF-S5 surrounds...it sounds FULL but it also sound STRANGE to me...is this because I am predisposed to 2 channel music through 2 speakers???"

5 channel stereo is just duplicating the L/R info into the surrounds. Anyone can do that with a pair of Y cables.

That isn't the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Try DPLII Music on the 950. I think it gives the full controls for it to allow you to adjust how it sounds. You can basically alter your front to rear position as well as control how much steering is employed in the center channel. There is also a setting which will tend to give more of a wrap around effect.... you may or may not like that.

Spend some time with it, don't make up your mind after 5 minutes of listening.

Shawn

[dodger]

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

On 3/23/2005 11:12:33 AM Mallette wrote:

"Assignment of material to each channel to try to either have a signature sound or a sound as life-like as possible is being perfected with each Recording."

For the specific purpose of achieving an accurate recording and reproduction of a specific acoustic event from a specific point in a space, the rules I have developed for my own use eliminate the issue of "assignment." SoundCube is placed at the point I wish to place in stasis for reproduction.

"But for some learning to listen to multi channel and like it is a factor as are the limitations of the home equipment and the home environment."

Placing the speakers in accordance with the sixcard doctrine goes as far as possible in eliminating the issues of the home environment. Brief anecdote to illustrate.

My first "serious" piece of gear was a Concord 727 reel-to-reel with built in amp and detachable speakers. My first commercial RR release was the soundtrack to "Dr. Zhivago." It sounded pretty good considering the amp and speakers were, though well ahead of our GE consolette, hardly high end. However, I found that if I dismounted them, laid on the bed, then leaned them against each other like a tent on either side of my head, the sound was awesome! Lots of bass (proximity effect), and total isolation from the environment. That was the "root" of the speaker placement concept that is the reproduction portion of the sixcard. While not entirely eliminating the room, it comes as close as you are going to get without headphones.

As to "listening to surround and liking it" I find it hard to imagine not liking it if it trully offers an accurate sonic event on demand.

Dave

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

The above is written by one who is both genius and humble.

Dave's methodology will hopefully be adopted by many. There will always be the rogue or the ones that will think I can do it better.

In noting the home environment, he takes the factors into account, as those attempting the best playback should do. I used to have a long sig that included factors, but even I became tired of seeing that on my posts.

Being the "old man on the Board" - in the discussion and in comparison in age to colleagues posting yesterday it has been a lot to learn regarding multi channel Recording. Most have been polite and said they thought it sounded good. I would like to say that I will compare, but I feel there is still more to lean. There are still advances in equipment.

Eventually, I'll sit back, listen to something, read who Engineered the Recording and say well we had a great chat on the Klipsch Forum. And I learned.

But it will be different listening to the Rogues, the egos and to Dave. I don't think that I'll have trouble picking them out.

In the spirit of the thread, I still enjoy 2 channel, and I know that I am better Engineering 2 channel than multi. You get set in your ways, but putter.

I'll definitely be willing to try Dave's ideas. Where we differ is that I like to record Electric Blues. Maybe I can be taught.

In the mean, 2 channel still resides with me. And the Blues don't throw in the towel.

Nice to know that we're not going to have a Recording Shoot-out in multi-channel. HHmmm a run up the keys on a Hammond B-3 in multi....I think I might like that.

Keep in touch Dave, hope the throats healing DR WHO, and take care Sean. Let's keep this going and revived every once in a short.

Win dodger

[D-MAN]

Well, as I often find myself arguing from an indefensable position, here goes another one!

The "intent" of a stereo recording is to present the entire orchestra as uniformly as possible, that is, each instrument or section is balanced (more or less) with the others, soloes notwithstanding, of course. Where this gets tricky is that certain engineered mixes of the multitudes of microphones involved amount to recording the spacial information between the various microphones within the overall volume recorded.

This effect is something like one would experience in an audience, rather than being in the orchestra itself, where proximity to certain instruments and sections would determine the loudness of them.

The soundstage presented in stereo is more-than-likely capable of reproducing some of the spacial queues recorded and can fool the listener into imagining the locations and distances to the respective orchestral "sections" (when well done, of course). Some engineers and labels are better at this than others.

The British have a tendancy to prefer the simple-yet-highly-effective approach of mounting a single pair of high quality microphones on "stands" placed in front of the orchestra to effectively capture the ambiance of the recording space and the effect of the orchestra in it.

Recordings done in this manner tend to have an extremely stable soundstage with most of the spacial queues intact.

This really is quite a bit like sitting in the audience.

Hence, the way it was "intended"...

DM

[D-MAN]

I am reminded of the first stereo record that I ever heard...

It was the Beatles with Yeah, Yeah Yeah on it.

Instruments on one channel and vocals on the other.

I guess that they were into the novelty of 2 different channels. It was probably the more serious afficianadoes who noticed that there Red Label RCA stereo orchestral recordings were faking them out with an apparent soundstage.

I did not own a stereo setup capable of producing an acceptable soundstage until about 10 years ago.

Now I got one in spades, and THAT soundstage is what I live for music-wise, without it I might as well be watching TV.

So to me, the stereo soundstage is the BEST-EST part of the hobby, and everything I do to the system is intended to result in the most believable 3-D illusion of location and space that I can get. That pretty much sums me up!

DM

[Mallette]

Win: Lord, what kind comments. My personal experience is more in line with "Experience is a dear teacher, but a fool will have no other."

D-man: These comments apply to both your thoughtful posts.

As to an orchestra, I had the privilege of regular attendance at the first 8 seasons of the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas (before the birth of my daughter ended such frivolity), considered by those far beyond my simple talents as one of the great halls of the 20th century. What I found there was that if you could localize anything more than the violins from the basses, you were way too close. At the best seats in the house, you hear a, well, "symphony," a "philharmonia." The sound envelopes you, primarily from the front, but still with a marvelous sense of space that none of the excellent Delos stereo recordings made their truly captures. Again, this formed part of my learning curve leading to my current attempts to improve on stereo methodology.

Our die-hard 2 channel crew represents by far and away the most experienced and hard to please bunch of ears on the planet. They've heard attempts at surround, and it fails to perform. In many cases, it is like your second post which referred to what the mono diehards of 196X referred to as "pingpong" sound. Heavy-handed, manipulated, not at all indicative of any real acoustic experience.

It took over a decade before stereo was fully accepted by the hardcore audiophile, and another decade to get it to where it is today when done properly...able to do an outstanding job of providing an accurate image of half the information present in a pure acoustic space-time event. That is awesome in itself. However, now we can add the rest, if we are careful to lay some ground rules up front and stick to them until we understand what we are doing well enough to break them.

That is what I am trying to do.

Dave