Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Mastered my first 24/96X4 DVD-A today using the Asylum Street Spankers recording of 2 years back. It is only fitting, since the Spankers performance, recorded live at the Saxon Street Pub in Austin, was the first test of the MBS-5, and of my "Virtual Presence" methodology. The original was done in 24/192X4 (hey, I didn't know you couldn't do that!), but since the sample rate was precisely twice that of the delivery rate, there is little audible change in quality. There are occasional data drops of hundreths of second or so, but that isn't surprising given the original data rate and my ignorance at the time. The MBS6, now awaiting field testing to begin in 2 weeks, has 4 times the computing power, twice the memory, 10,000 RPM SATA hard drives, and I've picked the brains of every software and hardware engineer whose ear I could bend to tweak buffers, block Microsoft meddling, and such to the point that I think she is going to loaf along at 24/96X4. The same tweaks eliminated such issues in the MBS5, which is still in service doing location stereo work at 24/88.2 flawlessly. Those of you familiar with the Spankers know what a riot their shows are...they are one with their audience and the audience is part of the show. They won't even allow use of a PA mic, much less any electric instruments, which is why they caught my interest. If they had their way, the lighting would be kerosene and the beer on ice! Being out here fighting the home front war at Fort Leonard Wood at the moment, I've only been able to hear the front channels of the DVD-A, but it's enough to set my expectations high for my visit home next weekend where I'll be checking it out with 4 matched Frazier MKIV's arranged according the sixcard for Virtual Presence. So, I finally am able to put my ears where my money went! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Good luck on the recording! If you have the equipment to do it I still think you should capture a center channels info though, even if you decide you don't want to use it later. Better to have it and not use it then not have it and want it. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Sweet! Glad to hear that the Spankers project is finally coming to fruition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Congratulations, my friend. I trust that it will be all that you expect. From you you, I doubt there will be nothing less. You have my email addy- keep in touch. I feel like an Uncle! Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Author Share Posted March 25, 2005 Hmmm...I could have sworn you read the sixcard! First, a center channel is absolutely essential for movies to make sense of the extraordinary layers of mixing and post-production sound effects. Without it, many would not be able to follow the dialogue. Second, it is necessary for many surround pop concert recordings because methodology to insure Virtual Presence is not followed, whether mine or someone elses. In my case, I will never record or need a center channel as I've no idea what I would put on it that would do anything except destroy the sense of space (Virtual Presence) I've labored so long to capture. To make sure I don't catch a flame from someone, I will close by repeating...nothing wrong with a center channel, and it is required for many applications...but it does not nor will it ever apply to the realistic capture of a sonic event from a given perspective in a particular acoustic environment. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 "To make sure I don't catch a flame from someone, I will close by repeating...nothing wrong with a center channel, and it is required for many applications...but it does not nor will it ever apply to the realistic capture of a sonic event from a given perspective in a particular acoustic environment." I can't argue Dave, you are the one who did all the cranial work. All I've done is read about your exploits and wonder about your absence for a couple of months. Good luck! Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Dave, "...but it does not nor will it ever apply to the realistic capture of a sonic event from a given perspective in a particular acoustic environment." I disagree completely. A person in real life singing/speaking/whatever is never heard from two points in space. That single source has effectively two timings (one to each ear) for localization. Part of how a human being localizes sound is through very minute head bobbing.... moving around a little and comparing how timing and amplitude changes at each ear. This mechanism works to localize a single point in space. The single point in space won't comb filter with another. Those two points in space (phantom center channel from a L/R) has four different sources of timing to our two ears. The head bobbing mechanism no longer works because the amplitude and timing differences aren't coming from a single point... but from two widely seperated spaces. The two sources are going to comb filter with each other. All of the above will make it sound less realistic then the original sonic event or from a proper use of a center channel. Center channels aren't new. Some of the very earlist work *ever* in recorded sound (back to the '30s work done at Bell Labs) stressed the importance of a center speaker. Just many either forgot it, didn't know about it or think they can do better. Try this test with your sytem and tell me which sounds more like a 'realistic capture of a sonic event.' Record a friend/relative of yours speaking in mono. Play it back over your L/R right and compare it against the same person in the same room saying the same thing standing between your L/R. Now play it back with your balance control cranked all the way to L or R. Have the same person move next to the same speaker and say the same thing over again. And to be totally unfair do the same and this time move around while performing the test. Dollars to donuts the single speaker presentation is going to have more weight/body, a less phasey sound to it and quite simply sound more like the actual person doing the talking. That is why a center channel is extremely important if someone actually is trying to sound like the real thing. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Dave, Great news indeed! I have been meaning to write to tell you that I am struggling to install multi track software on a linux box. At this point it is all free. Very good looking from what I can tell so far. But most linux stuff is user surly as far as I am concerned. Have a look sometime. Depending on the card (supports quite a few) you get 24bit/192Khz unlimited tracks. Under 5 msec latency. WHew! www.ardour.org Peace, Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 BTW, for some demonstrations of how effective a center channel can be check out the re-released RCA/Mercury Living Stereo SACDs. Many of the original recordings were made as three channel recordings. When they were originally recorded delivery formats weren't available to hold more then two channels. They have been released in their original three channel glory on SACD now. http://classicalcdreview.com/rcasacd.html Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Author Share Posted March 25, 2005 Shawn, there are actually some solid physics that suggest that your mono/stereo experiment is not relevant to what I am attempting to do. I am not going to go into them as I don't want to start a debate, at least not until I've completed another year or two of practical experiments. Instead, let me see if I can do a "nutshell" of at least some of the thinking I've done over the past 35 years or so of searching for reproductive (music, that is ;-)) nirvana. What I've done is return to basics: feed the brain the cues it would recieve if it were "there," and let it do the processing. I am reminded of Dick Burwen. For those of you of tender age, Burwen developed an active post noise reduction system that made him enough money to build his dream system. As I recall, it had 25,000 watts drawn from Phase Linear 700 amps all strapped together. He had concrete horn mouths poured into the end of his basement where 24" Hartley woofers were installed. The control room had every imaginable processor, and a few unique ones of his own design. He was so taken with it he would have a live band play, mike them, and the guests would listen ON HIS SYSTEM! While I am sure it sounded great, this is the equivalent of modern steering circuits and other processes used to try to fool the brain into being in one space or the other. The reason it is done is because movies are the driving force, and the standards for mixdown and playback are set by these forces. For music (and for many movies, for that matter) these "standards" may or may not be implemented correctly, and even when they are the trained ear can detect the manipulation and it impacts our very delicate sense of suspension of reality, that nether region many of us wish to inhabit blissfully when we listen to music. That, my friend, in my humble opinion, is why so many august and learned members of this 2 channel Forum run like hell from multi-channel recordings. You think 7 or 8.1 is the end? How about 12.1? 24.2? With HDDVD and Blu-Ray, limitations on data are about to be irrelevant, and these media are just the beginning. I expect to see laser media players come on the market in the next couple of years with direct .wav playback capability. That will make my, and many other mom-and-pop/garage producers, very happy indeed and will be a boon to audiophiles. No more compression and transcoding! Hooray!!! To summarize this ramble, the sixcard is based on the concept that 4 equidistant sources supply the brain with the closest analogue technology can reasonably provide to the same cues it would recieve in a given space. So far, my experience suggests that is true, and will remain so until we can eliminate loudspeakers and directly stimulate the brain. Of course, that will happen...but that will be my son's job to deal with! Dave P.S. to Marvel: PLEASE share with me your Linux experience. I'd give ANYTHING to be able to get away from Bill Gate's P.O.S. (Pitiful Operating System). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Dave, "What I've done is return to basics: feed the brain the cues it would recieve if it were "there," and let it do the processing. " But that is the whole point, you aren't feeding it the queues it would receive if you were there. On playback you are adding queues that didn't exist in the original space and are missing capturing others. Your brain ends up processing conflicting information. If the single listener is dead in the sweet spot and the actual playback of both speakers exactly matches (unlikely in most rooms) gross amplitude localization says the sound is in front of the listener. Any deviation in FR or amplitude between the two will reduce that localization. But the timing information/head bobbing says there are two sources of sound off to each side up front. That keeps the brain from accepting the information completely and is one of the things that can lead to listener fatigue in some people and a lack of realism. Move just a little off center and everything shifts and falls quickly apart. That most certainly doesn't happen at the original even. Then there is the comb filtering which is altering the FR of what the listener hears. The only way to properly reproduce all the queues regarding something front and center of the listener is to actually reproduce it from front and center. When you do that the listener can also shift positions (or you can have multiple listeners.. imagine that group listening to music... just like at the real thing) and the relative positions on the soundstage are far more stable. You are literally ignoring 70 some odd years of research on recording and playback and human hearing with regards to the use of a center channel. It is not just a 'home theater' thing at all. HT just was what reminded a lot of people about the benefits of a center channel. The work I mentioned in the '30s had to do with recording and reproducing concerts. " and even when they are the trained ear can detect the manipulation and it impacts our very delicate sense of suspension of reality, that nether region many of us wish to inhabit blissfully when we listen to music. That, my friend, in my humble opinion, is why so many august and learned members of this 2 channel Forum run like hell from multi-channel recordings." Like you said, in your opinion. Mine is different. Look how many members of the forum run like hell from multi-channel recordings without ever even hearing any good ones. Many run from it on principal alone with no experience at all in it. Many are afraid of change. They have a lot of experience and learning invested in what works well for a two channel setup. And they may be unwilling or unable to start all over again on the 'ground floor', as it were, in a surround system. Two channel sounds fake. It very much has its own contrived sound that is detached from what actually occurs at the real event. You obviously agree with this since you are trying to improve on the realism of playback. Some two channel die hards have problems 'letting go' of that sound. For example when presented with a system without anywhere near the same level of comb filtering they may say it sounds 'flat' because they aren't hearing the normal phase cancelations that they get in 2 channel. There were numerous people 'afraid' of 2 channel as well. But this is totally irrelevant to the use of a center channel in a recording and in reproduction. "You think 7 or 8.1 is the end?" No, I'd say that isn't even current where some are now. I'm running a 7.2 system because stereo bass down to around 40hz is important to our perception of bass as it relates to what we hear in a hall compared to what we hear in our own rooms. Another case of gross localization not being the whole story behind the perception of something. Michael Gerzon theorized to actually capture/reproduce an acoustic event (what you are hoping to do) would require on the order of a million channels to do. BTW, if you don't know who Gerzon was you should read up on his works. http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Gerzon%20archive.html Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Author Share Posted March 25, 2005 "If the single listener is dead in the sweet spot and the actual playback of both speakers exactly matches (unlikely in most rooms) gross amplitude localization says the sound is in front of the listener. Any deviation in FR or amplitude between the two will reduce that localization. But the timing information/head bobbing says there are two sources of sound off to each side up front. That keeps the brain from accepting the information completely and is one of the things that can lead to listener fatigue in some people and a lack of realism. Move just a little off center and everything shifts and falls quickly apart. That most certainly doesn't happen at the original even." You are correct, sir. I never get up and move around at a concert. Bear in mind that in my paper I specify recording and listening from a single point. It isn't about convenience, it is about simplification. "You are literally ignoring 70 some odd years of research on recording and playback and human hearing with regards to the use of a center channel." Yep, actually a lot more than just the use of a center channel. While there is certainly no comparison implied in either brain power or results, I might point out that Bert Rutan is doing something similar with space travel. "Like you said, in your opinion. Mine is different. Look how many members of the forum run like hell from multi-channel recordings without ever even hearing any good ones. Many run from it on principal alone with no experience at all in it." No data on that, so no comment. However, my opinion of the regulars who have hung out here for yesrs is that they are some of the most highly trained ears on the planet. That's why I am here and not in the HT forum. "Many are afraid of change..." Again, no data to support or refute your claim. "Two channel sounds fake. It very much has its own contrived sound that is detached from what actually occurs at the real event. You obviously agree with this since you are trying to improve on the realism of playback." My own opinion, and, I suspect that of may in this corner of Klipschland, is that 2 channel stereo is the only recording methodology remotely near "perfected" both technically and as an art. I am not about to touch what happens up front...simply add what is missing in the rear using the same approach that has delivered extraordinary sonic satisfaction to untold millions for half a century. "Some two channel die hards have problems 'letting go' of that sound. What a surprise... Best regards, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Shawn, I'd point out that the spoken voice is quite different from a musical performance. The spoken voice generally is best understood WITHOUT spacial queues. And music of practically all sorts is generally best WITH spacial queues, to the point that if they are missing then so is most of the listening enjoyment. However, I agree with your general premise. But it depends IMO on the application, that is, the source material and its purpose. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 " I never get up and move around at a concert. " You don't move your head around at a concert? You keep it locked in one fixed position including the subconscious head bobbing? " Bear in mind that in my paper I specify recording and listening from a single point. It isn't about convenience, it is about simplification." Unless you are deaf in one ear you listen from two points in space. That is the whole point of why phantom imaging will *never* be the same thing as an actual source. "Yep, actually a lot more than just the use of a center channel." Those that don't learn from history..... " my opinion of the regulars who have hung out here for yesrs is that they are some of the most highly trained ears on the planet. That's why I am here and not in the HT forum. " This has nothing to do with HT. "...simply add what is missing in the rear using the same approach that has delivered extraordinary sonic satisfaction to untold millions for half a century" Plenty of people have been unsatisfied with two channel music delivery for a long long time. Look how many here are chasing 'the holy grail' of reproduction specifically because they are not satisfied with some aspect of their systems and looking to improve on it. Paul Klipsch spent his life arguing for music playback with more then 2 speakers up front because he felt it was a large improvement over 2 speakers. Lately a lot of people here have been trying out PWK's 'minibox' and being very surprised with the results even that extremely simple center channel adds. IME more advanced methods yield even better results. The guy who many consider started the 'High End' has spent at least a decade advocating surround... including a center channel. Those Living Stereo reissues I mentioned are getting *raves* from many as it is the first time they have heard the sort of positive benefits a center brings to playback. Those recordings are decades old. Imagine what might be able to be accomplished today. Talk to those who have been enjoying music in surround sound for years (I pointed you to one such forum via e-mail) and the vast majority of them are also seriously going to question your lack of a center channel. Read the reviews of places that review multi-channel music (such as http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ ) and note the common complaints about a lack of a center channel in some of the music. Read the reviews on Gerzon's "Trifield" process and see how beneficial users of that feel the center channel is. The actual Trifield process from Gerzon actually can scale to any number of front channel speakers. Read the many writings of David Griesinger. He not only says 3 speakers up front is a good idea but that 5 sounds better yet. But hey.. it is your method. I simply made a suggestion on how it could be (IMO greatly) improved. You are basically redoing Quad but with a *much* better delivery format. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 DM, "I'd point out that the spoken voice is quite different from a musical performance." Spoken voice is the 'instrument' most everyone is the most intimately familiar with which is why I suggested it or a singing voice works fine too. "And music of practically all sorts is generally best WITH spacial queues, to the point that if they are missing then so is most of the listening enjoyment." Believe me, I'm not suggesting just listening in mono all the time. Remember... I am the quack that listens to all my music in surround sound to get those spacial queues and a better defined acoustic space. What I was suggesting was doing the above so that a person can hear the difference between a phantom center (just L/R up front) compared to how it can sounds with an actual center channel (LCR). A lot of 2 channel people really have never tried this to hear the damage phantom imaging has on something like vocals. One of the big complaints the mono guys had against stereo was it screwed up vocals... and it does. Those are some of the benefits you can get with three speakers up front and a multi-channel format that takes advantage of that. You get other things to like an even more defined soundstage, a *much* wider sweet spot (good sound with proper imaging) for more then a single listener and so on and so forth. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Author Share Posted March 25, 2005 Well, Shawn, your latest response wandered a bit from my comfort zone when it comes to point-counterpoint, especially the comment about "...those who do not learn the lessons of history." I am not trying to change yours, or anyones mind. Just have a bit of fun and perhaps preserve a few sonic moments for history. This is not an academic debate, but a technical dialectic that requires experimentation and evaluation to determine the truth. I will not be the final judge of my efforts, people like you and the other members of this list will. I look forward to that judgement with interest, as I cannot help be learn from it. I've no desire to simply worship "the lessons of history" or any other "fact." I want to find out for myself. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Dave, " I want to find out for myself." The only way to do that is to try it. Something you earlier said "I will never record or need a center channel.." in response to my suggestion of: If you have the equipment to do it I still think you should capture a center channels info though, even if you decide you don't want to use it later. Better to have it and not use it then not have it and want it. I still stand by the suggestion. If you can't get a satisfactory center channel you can always leave it out of your DVD-A and go with the four channels. But maybe you will find out for yourself that the center channel could improve on the result of what you are trying to do. That was all I was trying to point out. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2005 Author Share Posted March 25, 2005 Point taken, and I appreciate your thoughts. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.