Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gorging on Sound
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 16, 2012, 1:53:18 AM4/16/12
to
I have been a recording glutton of late. I have a Zoom H2n, as you know, and
have been exploring its surround sound capabilities. I walked around our
local First Friday event downtown to search for "soundscapes" to record in
surround. Not a lot of luck, because there weren't many musicians that
night. Next, went to my daughter's Youth Orchestra performance at church
during a service. They are conducted by the symphony conductor, who is a
member of that church. Very good music from their strings, plus the bonus of
the organ and the faithful singing all around me.
Went to a dance band event at a local hall, put up three Audio Technika
2050s for the front sound, used the Zoom for the rear sound. But there
wasn't all that much rear sound, and the hall was not real good.
Finally, today I decided to get lazy and put the Zoom on a Jam Stand all by
itself and let it record the Lakeland Concert Band with its internal mikes
in surround, on Concert AGC setting. The AGC on this recorder is very good,
not pumping or splashing on the first loud note at all. So far the sound
quality seems very good. Tomorrow I will play it loud in surround and see if
I think it could use any EQ at all. There are no published response curves
for this recorder.
It's really wonderful how long the batteries last in this thing. Another
plus is that the front channels are recorded in MS, adjustable as to the
amount of Mid and Side - or even recordable raw, so you can mix the Mid and
Side in post. Very easy to make a DTS disc in discrete surround for myself,
and just use the MS front channels for a stereo copy for others.
I encode the surround sound with the Zoom encoder, available at
Vorteczoom.com. You just plop the front channels into one window and the
rear channels into another, and press DTS and it creates a discrete surround
mix that is playable through any home theater receiver with Dolby Digital
and DTS decoding. I burn to CD, and play on my Blu Ray DVD player.
Anyone out there care about any of this? Want more info on encoding discrete
surround? Who else records surround sound? I am evaluating the advantages vs
the extra trouble. Also, whether you want a single point surround recorder
or if it might be better to use extra mikes placed further back in the hall.
Gary Eickmeier
have been exploring its surround sound capabilities. I walked around our
local First Friday event downtown to search for "soundscapes" to record in
surround. Not a lot of luck, because there weren't many musicians that
night. Next, went to my daughter's Youth Orchestra performance at church
during a service. They are conducted by the symphony conductor, who is a
member of that church. Very good music from their strings, plus the bonus of
the organ and the faithful singing all around me.
Went to a dance band event at a local hall, put up three Audio Technika
2050s for the front sound, used the Zoom for the rear sound. But there
wasn't all that much rear sound, and the hall was not real good.
Finally, today I decided to get lazy and put the Zoom on a Jam Stand all by
itself and let it record the Lakeland Concert Band with its internal mikes
in surround, on Concert AGC setting. The AGC on this recorder is very good,
not pumping or splashing on the first loud note at all. So far the sound
quality seems very good. Tomorrow I will play it loud in surround and see if
I think it could use any EQ at all. There are no published response curves
for this recorder.
It's really wonderful how long the batteries last in this thing. Another
plus is that the front channels are recorded in MS, adjustable as to the
amount of Mid and Side - or even recordable raw, so you can mix the Mid and
Side in post. Very easy to make a DTS disc in discrete surround for myself,
and just use the MS front channels for a stereo copy for others.
I encode the surround sound with the Zoom encoder, available at
Vorteczoom.com. You just plop the front channels into one window and the
rear channels into another, and press DTS and it creates a discrete surround
mix that is playable through any home theater receiver with Dolby Digital
and DTS decoding. I burn to CD, and play on my Blu Ray DVD player.
Anyone out there care about any of this? Want more info on encoding discrete
surround? Who else records surround sound? I am evaluating the advantages vs
the extra trouble. Also, whether you want a single point surround recorder
or if it might be better to use extra mikes placed further back in the hall.
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Apr 16, 2012, 8:16:57 AM4/16/12
to
I used to make live recordings, and occasionally recorded in quad or
Ambisonics.
I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is
at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the
place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)? Ambisonics
is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly, playback
sounds as if you're at the mic position.
For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other
into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for me
to recognize what I >>might<< have been doing wrong.
The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at
the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This
suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- >>not<< towards the
back of the hall.
Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns,
isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics, or
further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either.
Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the
overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
Ambisonics.
I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is
at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the
place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)? Ambisonics
is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly, playback
sounds as if you're at the mic position.
For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other
into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for me
to recognize what I >>might<< have been doing wrong.
The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at
the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This
suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- >>not<< towards the
back of the hall.
Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns,
isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics, or
further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either.
Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the
overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 16, 2012, 9:37:33 AM4/16/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jmh2i8$9ni$2...@dont-email.me...
> I used to make live recordings, and occasionally recorded in quad or
> Ambisonics.
>
> I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings.
William, I am also. But suitable venues are very rare, unless there is a
> Ambisonics.
>
> I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings.
participatory crowd that adds to the value of "being there."
Taking responsibility for possible misattribution, JA told me that in NYC,
ambient noise was such a problem that the majority of his recordings in
concert halls were made with ORTF supplemented with spots.
I have recorded in the equivalent of dance halls, etc., and found that in
these casual places, the battle was to almost (but not entirely) exclude the
acoustics of the space itself.
So I envy your quad experiences, and would like to hear more about the
particulars.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Apr 16, 2012, 10:23:13 AM4/16/12
to
> I have recorded in the equivalent of dance halls, etc., and found
> that in these casual places, the battle was to almost (but not
> entirely) exclude the acoustics of the space itself.
That's not a surprise. I was fortunate to own Pearl (Milab) TC-4v mics.
> that in these casual places, the battle was to almost (but not
> entirely) exclude the acoustics of the space itself.
Their pattern was continously variable, and I had to fiddle with the pattern
to get a "reasonabl" balance between direct and ambient sound for each
venue.
> So I envy your quad experiences, and would like to hear more
> about the particulars.
The best recording I ever made was of a church choir split front and back,
with the organ pipes behind the front group. I miked it with a discrete
Ambisonic W / X / Y array. In playback, it was as if I were standing at the
mic position. I could twist my head and (acoustically) "look at" individual
performers behind me. When Ambisonics works (it doesn't always), it is the
closest thing to actually being there.
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 16, 2012, 10:27:38 AM4/16/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jmh2i8$9ni$2...@dont-email.me...
>I used to make live recordings, and occasionally recorded in quad or
> Ambisonics.
>
> I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is
> at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the
> place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)?
> Ambisonics
> is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly,
> playback
> sounds as if you're at the mic position.
Hi Bill - or do we stick with William -
> Ambisonics.
>
> I was and remain a great believer in single-point recordings. Your head is
> at one position in the hall; why should the mics be spread all over the
> place (unless you're recording spaced performers or instruments)?
> Ambisonics
> is a single-point system and gives superb results. Done correctly,
> playback
> sounds as if you're at the mic position.
It's a long story, but there may be good reason to not believe that stereo
or surround is a head-related system like binaural. In stereo, for example
(two channel) recording techniques are not limited to two, or single point,
or anything that has to do with the number of ears on your head or even your
position in the hall. We place mikes closer to the orchestra because it will
be played back on speakers at some distance from you, in another acoustic
space. We can use any number of microphones, and for various purposes. I am
fond of three spaced omnis.
For surround, I am wondering if single point does any good, because the
sounds at that same point are so similar for both the front and the rear
mikes. I'm thinking if I could place a stereo pair - even a spaced pair -
further back, they would gather sound that was occuring back there behind me
and would give a more discrete effect for the total surround picture.
>
> For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other
> into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for
> me
> to recognize what I >>might<< have been doing wrong.
>
> The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at
> the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This
> suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- >>not<< towards the
> back of the hall.
The side sound is pretty much taken care of in the careful miking of the
> For quad recordings, I set up two mic pairs, one facing forward, the other
> into the hall. I was never fully pleased with them. It took 25 years for
> me
> to recognize what I >>might<< have been doing wrong.
>
> The ear and brain characterize a hall principally by the lateral sound at
> the listening position. Therefore, that's what you should record. This
> suggests two cardioid mics pointing left and right -- >>not<< towards the
> back of the hall.
frontal soundstage. In Mid/Side, you can even get more "room" if you want,
which means the side sound. Add some rear side sound from the rear mikes,
and you have plenty. And don't forget that the center channel up front is
extremely important.
>
> Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns,
> isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics,
> or
> further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either.
>
> Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
> acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall,
> the
> overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
I guess so. I am trying it, anyway! Do the experiment! Get in there and do
> Whether one should use cardioid, hypercardioid, or even figure-8 patterns,
> isn't clear. And whether the ambience mics should be near the main mics,
> or
> further back in the hall (heresy!) isn't clear, either.
>
> Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
> acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall,
> the
> overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
the work, the man said. So I am finally trying a few things, to solidify my
audio ideas.
My basic question in this thread is about the importance of surround for
music. We all think that surround sound will give us more of the feel of the
original hall, especailly for live recordings with audience. I have always
hated hearing the audience applause folded back behind the performers up
front. But hey - all we may be accomplishing is putting more coughs and
chatter and A/C noise etc into the total sound. I enjoy it for trains and
thunderstorms tho....
I continue to experiment. If anyone wants a disc of some of this, just beg.
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Apr 16, 2012, 10:48:52 AM4/16/12
to
I disagree with a number of your points. I have to review an SQ LP (!!!) for
rec.music.classical.recordings, so I don't have time right at the moment.
This afternoon, perhaps.
Yes, I would like to hear your recordings. I can play multi-ch SACD and 7.1
Blu-ray audio.
rec.music.classical.recordings, so I don't have time right at the moment.
This afternoon, perhaps.
Yes, I would like to hear your recordings. I can play multi-ch SACD and 7.1
Blu-ray audio.
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 17, 2012, 1:08:16 AM4/17/12
to
news:jmhbf2$sfn$1...@dont-email.me...
Sound is recorded on ordinary CDs, as DTS files made from 16 bit 44.1 K. I
play it thru my DVD player simply because that is the only player that has
Toslink digital out.
What I am struggling with right now, production-wise, is the balance of
front and rear channels. Do I leave them as recorded, or should I normalize
them both to sound the same volume (in general), or what? I have noticed
that in my home system the rear channels were always too weak to decode my
recordings effectively. BUT - do I adjust my playback settings or do I add 4
or 5 dB to my rear channels during editing? I have done a little of each,
but my goal is to have my system set so that it will play most material
correctly. If I have that calibrated by ear just right, then I will produce
to that standard and see where the chips lie. I suspect that I will want all
channels of generally equal volume, such that if I record some outdoor
ambience it will be equal in all directions. I must see if the AGC on the
Zoom will do that automatically, or does it favor the front.
What would be a good natural pink noise for me - a waterfall? An audience
applause? Naw - you always get these "pop clappers" that try to be the
loudest.
Please do write about your disagreements with some of my points. I love to
talk about this stuff.
Gary Eickmeier
play it thru my DVD player simply because that is the only player that has
Toslink digital out.
What I am struggling with right now, production-wise, is the balance of
front and rear channels. Do I leave them as recorded, or should I normalize
them both to sound the same volume (in general), or what? I have noticed
that in my home system the rear channels were always too weak to decode my
recordings effectively. BUT - do I adjust my playback settings or do I add 4
or 5 dB to my rear channels during editing? I have done a little of each,
but my goal is to have my system set so that it will play most material
correctly. If I have that calibrated by ear just right, then I will produce
to that standard and see where the chips lie. I suspect that I will want all
channels of generally equal volume, such that if I record some outdoor
ambience it will be equal in all directions. I must see if the AGC on the
Zoom will do that automatically, or does it favor the front.
What would be a good natural pink noise for me - a waterfall? An audience
applause? Naw - you always get these "pop clappers" that try to be the
loudest.
Please do write about your disagreements with some of my points. I love to
talk about this stuff.
Gary Eickmeier
Luxey
Apr 17, 2012, 3:34:10 AM4/17/12
to Gary Eickmeier
Over time, you'll reinvent close micing.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 17, 2012, 9:09:29 AM4/17/12
to
I wanted to respond to your remarks about surround sound, but carelessly
discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember.
Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can never --
ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church,
what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall
ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be /correctly/
presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does not
do this, it /cannot/ do this.
Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the
mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one of
the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt
told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions
that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the
orchestra, rather than in front of it.
So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording
technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds
/correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural and
Ambisonics. Neither became popular.
The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in
playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard
specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees of
the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce
lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct sound
(in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral
sound, because it /isn't/.
As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they
were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed decoder
can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders are
not optimum for ambience reproduction.
I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly like
to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types.
discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember.
Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can never --
ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church,
what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall
ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be /correctly/
presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does not
do this, it /cannot/ do this.
Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the
mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one of
the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt
told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions
that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the
orchestra, rather than in front of it.
So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording
technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds
/correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural and
Ambisonics. Neither became popular.
The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in
playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard
specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees of
the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce
lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct sound
(in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral
sound, because it /isn't/.
As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they
were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed decoder
can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders are
not optimum for ambience reproduction.
I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly like
to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 17, 2012, 10:10:44 AM4/17/12
to
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XT6jr.51226$fv4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> What I am struggling with right now, production-wise, is the balance of
> front and rear channels. Do I leave them as recorded, or should I
> normalize them both to sound the same volume (in general), or what?
This document has a suggestion:
> What I am struggling with right now, production-wise, is the balance of
> front and rear channels. Do I leave them as recorded, or should I
> normalize them both to sound the same volume (in general), or what?
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_Shared_Assets/English_PDFs/Professional/L.mn.0002.5.1guide.pdf
"When mixing for television or music in small mixing rooms (e.g., remote
recording
trucks), the surround channel is generally set 2 dB lower than the front
channels (for
example, 80 dB in front and 78 dB in back). This takes into account the
short distance
to the surround speakers."
"Experience has shown that this setting makes the sound in the home
environment
very close to the sound heard by the mixer."
But this suggestion is relative to what the mixer hears. It says nothing
about mike levels. My choice would be to adjust the levels so that it sounds
best to me in my mixing suite, and then follow the quoted guidelines for the
delivered mix.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-651
ckoz...@snet.net
Apr 17, 2012, 12:05:45 PM4/17/12
to
On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:16:57 AM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
> acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the
> overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
_____________
>
> Recording in surround is very much worth the trouble. If the hall's
> acoustics are good, and you're at an "appropriate" position in the hall, the
> overall naturalness and realism of the sound will be signficantly greater.
I would love to hear some of these projects! I still have an original JVC Dolby Pro-Logic receiver, fine condition, not the DPL-II or anything. Would they sound acceptable or good enough on it?
-CC
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 17, 2012, 11:38:05 PM4/17/12
to
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:25255955.613.1334678745816.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yntt13...
surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can
convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems
should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can
easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These
discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white
noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder.
I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 17, 2012, 11:38:39 PM4/17/12
to
"Luxey" <lux...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13022115.2095.1334648050417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18...
> Over time, you'll reinvent close micing.
Nope. I don't even like mice.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 18, 2012, 12:15:22 AM4/18/12
to
news:jmjq0m$r97$1...@dont-email.me...
you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other paper. Have you seen
it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says that the problem is that there
still is no model, or paradigm, for the process of the facsimile
reproduction of auditory perspective. I have proposed one.
What you are saying is very true, and the reason is that the stereo
process - any process actually - changes the spatial nature of the original
to that of the reproduction system. In other words, the complex original
sound field has been reduced to, and squeezed through, those two miserable
stereo speakers, making it impossible for it to sound anything like the
original. Surround sound is a partial remedy and a step in the right
direction, but you still don't have quite enough channels to do it, and the
room is still there - and needs to be there by the way.
Floyd Toole told me an interesting experience. He was visiting a demo of
Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber. Like most of us, he wondered if this
would be an "ear opening" experience - after all, no more interference from
the room, and near perfect encoding of all directions, even periphony. What
he experienced was In Head Localization, much like with headphones! This
surprised me, because I thought that if you could turn your head you
wouldn't get this. The answer must be that without SOME real reflections to
clue you in to a real space, the perspective is still FIXED as with
binaural.
from an evenly spaced, correct set of incident angles, just from near the
speakers, so there is what is interpreted as too much reverb.
>
> So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording
> technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds
> /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural
> and
> Ambisonics. Neither became popular.
There are still problems with binaural. Not sure why Ambisonics didn't catch
though, it is after all just another surround system, and surround has
caught on big time in home theater.
reproduction after the original.
>
> As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they
> were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed
> decoder
> can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders
> are
> not optimum for ambience reproduction.
>
> I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly
> like
> to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types.
Thank you very much for retyping all of that. I am trying to prepare some
discs for you, but I want to get it right first so you can report on how I
did. I will have one disc in stereo, one in DTS surround of the same
concert. A second disc is a few of the "soundscapes" that I recorded to test
the Zoom's surround capabilities. Might also include a third one of spaced
omni with AT-2050s.
Gary Eickmeier
>I wanted to respond to your remarks about surround sound, but carelessly
> discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember.
>
> Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can
> never --
> ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church,
> what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall
> ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be
> /correctly/
> presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does
> not
> do this, it /cannot/ do this.
Rather than bore the group with a repeat of my blather, I would like to send
> discarded the original e-mail. Here goes with what I remember.
>
> Conventional two-channel stereo is fundamentally incomplete. It can
> never --
> ever -- sound like what you hear in a concert hall, jazz club, church,
> what-have-you. The basic reason is that it isn't enough to record the hall
> ambience -- it has to be recorded in a way that allows it to be
> /correctly/
> presented to the listener in playback. Two-channel stereo not only does
> not
> do this, it /cannot/ do this.
you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other paper. Have you seen
it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says that the problem is that there
still is no model, or paradigm, for the process of the facsimile
reproduction of auditory perspective. I have proposed one.
What you are saying is very true, and the reason is that the stereo
process - any process actually - changes the spatial nature of the original
to that of the reproduction system. In other words, the complex original
sound field has been reduced to, and squeezed through, those two miserable
stereo speakers, making it impossible for it to sound anything like the
original. Surround sound is a partial remedy and a step in the right
direction, but you still don't have quite enough channels to do it, and the
room is still there - and needs to be there by the way.
Floyd Toole told me an interesting experience. He was visiting a demo of
Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber. Like most of us, he wondered if this
would be an "ear opening" experience - after all, no more interference from
the room, and near perfect encoding of all directions, even periphony. What
he experienced was In Head Localization, much like with headphones! This
surprised me, because I thought that if you could turn your head you
wouldn't get this. The answer must be that without SOME real reflections to
clue you in to a real space, the perspective is still FIXED as with
binaural.
>
> Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the
> mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one
> of
> the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt
> told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions
> that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the
> orchestra, rather than in front of it.
By "too much," what you really are saying is that we cannot make it come
> Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the
> mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one
> of
> the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt
> told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic positions
> that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the
> orchestra, rather than in front of it.
from an evenly spaced, correct set of incident angles, just from near the
speakers, so there is what is interpreted as too much reverb.
>
> So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a recording
> technology that actually captures the direct and reflected sounds
> /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems, binaural
> and
> Ambisonics. Neither became popular.
though, it is after all just another surround system, and surround has
caught on big time in home theater.
>
> The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in
> playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard
> specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees
> of
> the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce
> lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct
> sound
> (in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral
> sound, because it /isn't/.
My image model attempts to array the sound in a way that models the
> The most-important component of the ambience is the lateral sound, and in
> playback, it /must/ come from the sides. (This is why the ITU standard
> specifies that the rear or side speakers be located within +/- 15 degrees
> of
> the listener's sides.) This means that you can never correctly reproduce
> lateral sound from the front speakers. It is mixed in with the direct
> sound
> (in a way that colors it), and the brain will never hear it as lateral
> sound, because it /isn't/.
reproduction after the original.
>
> As for the rear levels... In theory, they should be at the same level they
> were recorded. If they are at such a low level that a logic-directed
> decoder
> can't handle them -- well, that's the way it is. Logic-directed decoders
> are
> not optimum for ambience reproduction.
>
> I could talk more about this, but I don't have the time. I'd certainly
> like
> to hear the views of others who've made surround recordings, of all types.
discs for you, but I want to get it right first so you can report on how I
did. I will have one disc in stereo, one in DTS surround of the same
concert. A second disc is a few of the "soundscapes" that I recorded to test
the Zoom's surround capabilities. Might also include a third one of spaced
omni with AT-2050s.
Gary Eickmeier
Luxey
Apr 18, 2012, 3:38:45 AM4/18/12
to Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 18, 2012, 8:11:58 AM4/18/12
to
news:10576738.252.1334734725973.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvi18...
So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why
did you write it that way?
Gary Eickmeier
did you write it that way?
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Apr 18, 2012, 9:17:06 AM4/18/12
to
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xbrjr.733$bz4...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jmjq0m$r97$1...@dont-email.me...
> news:jmjq0m$r97$1...@dont-email.me...
> Rather than bore the group with a repeat of my blather, I would like
> to send you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other
> paper. Have you seen it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says
> that the problem is that there still is no model, or paradigm, for the
> process of the facsimile reproduction of auditory perspective. I have
> proposed one.
By all means send it along.
> to send you a .pdf of my Image Model Theory and maybe one other
> paper. Have you seen it? May have been in the BAS Speaker. It says
> that the problem is that there still is no model, or paradigm, for the
> process of the facsimile reproduction of auditory perspective. I have
> proposed one.
> What you are saying is very true, and the reason is that the stereo
> process - any process actually - changes the spatial nature of the
original
> to that of the reproduction system. In other words, the complex original
> sound field has been reduced to, and squeezed through, those two miserable
> stereo speakers, making it impossible for it to sound anything like the
> original. Surround sound is a partial remedy and a step in the right
> direction, but you still don't have quite enough channels to do it, and
the
> room is still there - and needs to be there by the way.
> Floyd Toole told me an interesting experience. He was visiting a demo of
> Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber. Like most of us, he wondered if this
> would be an "ear opening" experience - after all, no more interference
from
> the room, and near perfect encoding of all directions, even periphony.
What
> he experienced was In Head Localization, much like with headphones! This
> surprised me, because I thought that if you could turn your head you
> wouldn't get this. The answer must be that without SOME real reflections
to
> clue you in to a real space, the perspective is still FIXED as with
> binaural.
demonstrate any kind of sound reproduction process in an anechoic chamber.
The best demos of Ambisonic playback I've heard were in large rooms on the
neutral-to-dead side. I set up one of these in a huge meeting room at NPR in
DC. It was perfect, in particular the way the image did not collapse toward
the nearest speaker as you moved around. And the "looking into the concert
hall from the gods' perspective" effect from outside the array was perfect.
As the room was deadish and had long early reflections, this is strong
evidence that such characteristics are not antithetical to Ambisonic
reproduction. Quite the contrary.
I'm in no position to gainsay Count Floyd on this particular issue, but I
don't trust his opinion on /anything/. He is not a good scientist.
>> Those of you who've made live stereo recordings know that, even with the
>> mics close to the orchestra, there is too much reverberation. This is one
>> of
>> the reasons for multi-miking, as it suppresses hall sound. J Gordon Holt
>> told me that it usually took many recording sessions to find mic
positions
>> that caught an appropriate balance -- and these were usually above the
>> orchestra, rather than in front of it.
> By "too much," what you really are saying is that we cannot make it come
> from an evenly spaced, correct set of incident angles, just from near the
> speakers, so there is what is interpreted as too much reverb.
considered "too much".
It's interesting that adding ambience to the room with a hall synthesizer
/does not/ produce a "swimming in reverb" effect, and sometimes sounds
/less/ reverberant than the recording by itself.
>> So how does one solve the problem? The ideal way is to use a
>> recording technology that actually captures the direct and reflected
>> sounds /correctly/ at a particular point. I only know of two systems,
>> binaural and Ambisonics. Neither became popular.
> There are still problems with binaural. Not sure why Ambisonics didn't
> catch though, it is after all just another surround system, and surround
> has caught on big time in home theater.
it requires phase-matched speakers which are not too-close to the walls in a
not-very-live room in more-or-less strict layout.
> I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right
> first so you can report on how I did.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 18, 2012, 9:55:30 AM4/18/12
to
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>No - I am not talking about matrixed DPL surround, I am doing discrete DTS
>surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can
>convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems
>should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can
>easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These
>discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white
>noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder.
>
>I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do.
Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with linear
>No - I am not talking about matrixed DPL surround, I am doing discrete DTS
>surround sound, which needs a modern digital receiver or processor that can
>convert the DTS signal into the surround channels. Most home theater systems
>should be able to handle it. I'm thinking the beauty of it is that I can
>easily share my recordings with others cheaply and easily on CD discs. These
>discs are NOT playable on an ordinary CD player. They would sound like white
>noise if they weren't put thru a DTS decoder.
>
>I haven't found a Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder yet, so this will have to do.
PCM surround tracks. Not much money either.
They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and why
encode if you don't have to?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Luxey
Apr 18, 2012, 11:53:55 AM4/18/12
to Gary Eickmeier
среда, 18. април 2012. 14.11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
> So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why
> did you write it that way?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Because of a microphone.
> So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to me. Why
> did you write it that way?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 19, 2012, 8:55:44 AM4/19/12
to
news:jmmeqt$169$1...@dont-email.me...
Hearing. They have constructed a hotseat with multiple speakers around it to
simulate the ambience from all important directions. I have heard of this
working in experiments in Philips in Eindhoven as well. Takes about 120
channels.
about compatibility with your setup. I am basing some of my processing on my
playback system, but also setting up my system for most commercial
recordings, so it should be somewhere reasonable. But the next best thing to
comparing various recording techniques on MY system is comparing on various
systems - high quality systems - so let me know.
Will send you some of my blather in an Email.
Gary Eickmeier
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xbrjr.733$bz4...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> news:Xbrjr.733$bz4...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> The best demos of Ambisonic playback I've heard were in large rooms on the
> neutral-to-dead side. I set up one of these in a huge meeting room at NPR
> in
> DC. It was perfect, in particular the way the image did not collapse
> toward
> the nearest speaker as you moved around. And the "looking into the concert
> hall from the gods' perspective" effect from outside the array was
> perfect.
> As the room was deadish and had long early reflections, this is strong
> evidence that such characteristics are not antithetical to Ambisonic
> reproduction. Quite the contrary.
It is possible. Look at the graphic on the cover of Blauert's Spatial
> neutral-to-dead side. I set up one of these in a huge meeting room at NPR
> in
> DC. It was perfect, in particular the way the image did not collapse
> toward
> the nearest speaker as you moved around. And the "looking into the concert
> hall from the gods' perspective" effect from outside the array was
> perfect.
> As the room was deadish and had long early reflections, this is strong
> evidence that such characteristics are not antithetical to Ambisonic
> reproduction. Quite the contrary.
Hearing. They have constructed a hotseat with multiple speakers around it to
simulate the ambience from all important directions. I have heard of this
working in experiments in Philips in Eindhoven as well. Takes about 120
channels.
>
> I'm in no position to gainsay Count Floyd on this particular issue, but I
> don't trust his opinion on /anything/. He is not a good scientist.
Whew! What is this all about?
> I'm in no position to gainsay Count Floyd on this particular issue, but I
> don't trust his opinion on /anything/. He is not a good scientist.
>
>> I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right
>> first so you can report on how I did.
>
> Which I will.
They are in the air to you. Let me know if any questions, or discussion
>> I am trying to prepare some discs for you, but I want to get it right
>> first so you can report on how I did.
>
> Which I will.
about compatibility with your setup. I am basing some of my processing on my
playback system, but also setting up my system for most commercial
recordings, so it should be somewhere reasonable. But the next best thing to
comparing various recording techniques on MY system is comparing on various
systems - high quality systems - so let me know.
Will send you some of my blather in an Email.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 19, 2012, 8:57:35 AM4/19/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jmmh4i$ahm$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 19, 2012, 8:59:59 AM4/19/12
to
Luxey wrote:
> сÑ?еда, 18. апÑ?ил 2012. 14.11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier Ñ~е
Muppet.
Gary Eickmeier
> сÑ?еда, 18. апÑ?ил 2012. 14.11.58 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier Ñ~е
> написао/ла:
>
>> So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to
>> me. Why did you write it that way?
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> Because of a microphone.
OK - I've had enough of this - who are you? I feel like I'm talking to a
>
>> So how do you read "micing"? Doesn't read anything like "miking" to
>> me. Why did you write it that way?
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> Because of a microphone.
Muppet.
Gary Eickmeier
Scott Dorsey
Apr 19, 2012, 9:09:03 AM4/19/12
to
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Try Diskwelder Bronze, which should allow you to create a DVD-A with
>> linear
>> PCM surround tracks. Not much money either.
>>
>> They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and
>> why
>> encode if you don't have to?
>
>But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc?
By using the DVD-A format which permits linear PCM surround. Or by using
>> linear
>> PCM surround tracks. Not much money either.
>>
>> They also sell some AC3 encoding software, but it's a lot more money, and
>> why
>> encode if you don't have to?
>
>But I DO have to - how else will I get discrete surround on a disc?
the SACD format.
Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in a whole lot of
wrangling and fighting and the standards committee didn't actually come out
with anything until DVD was already an established format. But eventually
they did, and these days a lot of players support it, and it's the easiest
way to get clean, uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple
channels distributed to the end listener.
There's an enormous amount of throughput available, why compress when you
don't have to?
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 19, 2012, 9:37:58 AM4/19/12
to
news:jmp2pf$mnl$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I briefly
checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway,
even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc?
Currently using Audition 2.0.
Gary Eickmeier
checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway,
even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc?
Currently using Audition 2.0.
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Apr 19, 2012, 9:43:48 AM4/19/12
to
> Not all DVD players support DVD-A... the format was stuck in
> a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee
> didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an
> established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot
> of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean,
> uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple
> channels distributed to the end listener.
That assumes the intended audience doesn't own a Blu-ray player.
> a whole lot of wrangling and fighting and the standards committee
> didn't actually come out with anything until DVD was already an
> established format. But eventually they did, and these days a lot
> of players support it, and it's the easiest way to get clean,
> uncompressed audio at high sampling rates and with multiple
> channels distributed to the end listener.
DVD-A died, probably because few classical labels supported it, and
(more-likely) the high cost of DVD-A recordings. I remember seeing
Nickrenz-Aubort quad recordings that cost less than $3 on QS LPs, selling
for $25 on DVD-A. And there was only one album on the disk!
Scott Dorsey
Apr 19, 2012, 9:46:10 AM4/19/12
to
>Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I briefly
>checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway,
>even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc?
>Currently using Audition 2.0.
Using the Diskwelder Bronze software which I referred to above as costing
>checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that many. Anyway,
>even if I had such a player, how would I produce the multichannel disc?
>Currently using Audition 2.0.
"not much money."
Most of the newer players now can play DVD-A.... it is the miracle of
software that adding features like this becomes relatively inexpensive
and easy.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 19, 2012, 9:55:53 AM4/19/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That assumes the intended audience doesn't own a Blu-ray player.
Sure, but they'll play DVD-A discs, most of them.
>That assumes the intended audience doesn't own a Blu-ray player.
>DVD-A died, probably because few classical labels supported it, and
>(more-likely) the high cost of DVD-A recordings. I remember seeing
>Nickrenz-Aubort quad recordings that cost less than $3 on QS LPs, selling
>for $25 on DVD-A. And there was only one album on the disk!
time the standard actually got released, players were already in homes and
people were already buying compressed formats. They had real trouble getting
labels interested in it.
Still, there's no reason not to make the discs yourself, even if they are
not a very popular distribution medium.
Luxey
Apr 19, 2012, 12:42:36 PM4/19/12
to Gary Eickmeier
четвртак, 19. април 2012. 14.59.59 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
Is it You've been given an advice, colectivly with your handheld zoom soulmates, one You did not understand? Bummer.
Or is it I provided You a straight answer about "mic" word?
And who are You, Gary? Sorry, i won't introduce myself, but You can not call me Maurice. You can call me Steve Ignorant, though I'm not of the kind.
> Luxey wrote:
>
> OK - I've had enough of this - who are you? I feel like I'm talking to a
> Muppet.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Whats wrong, Gary? You've had enough of what?
>
> OK - I've had enough of this - who are you? I feel like I'm talking to a
> Muppet.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Is it You've been given an advice, colectivly with your handheld zoom soulmates, one You did not understand? Bummer.
Or is it I provided You a straight answer about "mic" word?
And who are You, Gary? Sorry, i won't introduce myself, but You can not call me Maurice. You can call me Steve Ignorant, though I'm not of the kind.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 20, 2012, 8:20:31 PM4/20/12
to
news:%xUjr.136883$qe6....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
recording, it would be only fair to pay you for time and materials. The
value of your trials is enough that I'd like to hear it, even with lossy
compression. Given that DVD-A has player problems and DTS is tied up in
licensing, Dolby Digital is worth a shot, even though the loss of quality is
known to be noticeable.
An apparently free AC-3 encoder is here:
http://www.freewarefiles.com/WAV-To-AC-Encoder_program_27165.html
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
>
>
> Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I
> briefly checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that
> many. Anyway, even if I had such a player, how would I produce the
> multichannel disc? Currently using Audition 2.0.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I would like to hear this stuff. Since I have not myself produced a surround
>
> Because I don't have DVD-A? And neither does anyone else. I think I
> briefly checked which players can play that stuff, and it wasn't that
> many. Anyway, even if I had such a player, how would I produce the
> multichannel disc? Currently using Audition 2.0.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
recording, it would be only fair to pay you for time and materials. The
value of your trials is enough that I'd like to hear it, even with lossy
compression. Given that DVD-A has player problems and DTS is tied up in
licensing, Dolby Digital is worth a shot, even though the loss of quality is
known to be noticeable.
An apparently free AC-3 encoder is here:
http://www.freewarefiles.com/WAV-To-AC-Encoder_program_27165.html
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 20, 2012, 8:44:09 PM4/20/12
to
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:YNCdnd0VQ6rSYAzS...@giganews.com...
> I would like to hear this stuff. Since I have not myself produced a
> surround recording, it would be only fair to pay you for time and
> materials. The value of your trials is enough that I'd like to hear it,
> even with lossy compression. Given that DVD-A has player problems and DTS
> is tied up in licensing, Dolby Digital is worth a shot, even though the
> loss of quality is known to be noticeable.
>
> An apparently free AC-3 encoder is here:
>
> http://www.freewarefiles.com/WAV-To-AC-Encoder_program_27165.html
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
Just Email me your address. I will send some discs. You have DTS? I have
downloaded the AC3 encoder and I will see if it works. Thanks!
Gary Eickmeier
Soundhaspriority
Apr 21, 2012, 1:25:03 PM4/21/12
to
news:uonkr.116289$fv4...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
[snip]
There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a
freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in
countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
>
[snip]
>
> Hi Bob -
>
> Just Email me your address. I will send some discs. You have DTS? I have
> downloaded the AC3 encoder and I will see if it works. Thanks!
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Yes, I have DTS (playback.)
> Hi Bob -
>
> Just Email me your address. I will send some discs. You have DTS? I have
> downloaded the AC3 encoder and I will see if it works. Thanks!
>
> Gary Eickmeier
There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a
freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in
countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Apr 21, 2012, 2:14:48 PM4/21/12
to
> Yes, I have DTS (playback).
I just listened to part of one of Gary's DTS transfers on my Blu-ray player,
and it played perfectly.
I just listened to part of one of Gary's DTS transfers on my Blu-ray player,
and it played perfectly.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 21, 2012, 2:44:22 PM4/21/12
to
news:jmutd9$d9j$1...@dont-email.me...
DTS is much more acceptable than AC3 to folks like us.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 21, 2012, 3:07:11 PM4/21/12
to
news:ye-dnSzChLJ2cw_S...@giganews.com...
> There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a
> freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in
> countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S.
Mine is from Vorteczoom.com and it can encode into DTS, binaural, (probably
a Sonic Holography sort of trick) and MP3. I have just used the DTS, and it
works great.
For Robert and William both, who have requested copies of my recordings:
What I hope you will report on is the quality of the mikes in the Zoom H2n,
and then my balance of front and rear channels. I am trying to figure out
how much gain to put in the rear - same as the front, or lower because the
front is the main sound, the rear just the ambience.
I have learned a couple of things since starting recording surround. Number
one, the balance as recorded with gains set the same for both front and rear
channles will usually be too low. Number two, it is a quandary whether to
boost the rear channels in the recording or in your sound system. I have
always felt my system was too weak in the surround chanels for most
commercial discs and movies, so I raised that a tad, then I decided to make
the surround signal about equal volume to the front in editing. Seems about
right. But let me know on your system. Number three, it may not be correct
to adjust these surround levels with test signals and sound meters, but
rather with actual program material and your ears. Which program material?
Perhaps John Eargle's work with Delos. There are several discs available.
With movies you never know. There may just not be any surround effects at
any given point in the movie, then when there is they hit you over the head
with it.
Anyone have a slew of answers on all this?
Gary Eickmeier
> There is an interesting situation regarding DTS encoders. There is a
> freeware encoder, but the author cautions it is not legal to use in
> countries that recognize software patents, ie., the U.S.
a Sonic Holography sort of trick) and MP3. I have just used the DTS, and it
works great.
For Robert and William both, who have requested copies of my recordings:
What I hope you will report on is the quality of the mikes in the Zoom H2n,
and then my balance of front and rear channels. I am trying to figure out
how much gain to put in the rear - same as the front, or lower because the
front is the main sound, the rear just the ambience.
I have learned a couple of things since starting recording surround. Number
one, the balance as recorded with gains set the same for both front and rear
channles will usually be too low. Number two, it is a quandary whether to
boost the rear channels in the recording or in your sound system. I have
always felt my system was too weak in the surround chanels for most
commercial discs and movies, so I raised that a tad, then I decided to make
the surround signal about equal volume to the front in editing. Seems about
right. But let me know on your system. Number three, it may not be correct
to adjust these surround levels with test signals and sound meters, but
rather with actual program material and your ears. Which program material?
Perhaps John Eargle's work with Delos. There are several discs available.
With movies you never know. There may just not be any surround effects at
any given point in the movie, then when there is they hit you over the head
with it.
Anyone have a slew of answers on all this?
Gary Eickmeier
Don Pearce
Apr 21, 2012, 3:20:43 PM4/21/12
to
unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it - it
is too much. You should only really notice its absence when you turn
it off.
d
Soundhaspriority
Apr 21, 2012, 3:38:06 PM4/21/12
to
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4f93081d...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip]
> That's interesting. I always find the rear sound too high in level -
> unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it - it
> is too much. You should only really notice its absence when you turn
> it off.
>
> d
In the context of a hall with a stage, when there is little contribution to
> unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it - it
> is too much. You should only really notice its absence when you turn
> it off.
>
> d
the "immersive experience" from the audience, I would agree with you.
Years ago, someone (sursound list?) sent me a DTS encoded Ambisonics
recording of a chamber ensemble, decoded in the recording to allow playback
without a decoder. Conventional expectations would suggest adding just
enough surround to give an enveloping feel of hall ambience, perhaps a
restatement of what you say above.
But Ambisonics is different; it is a theory and prescription for sound field
reproduction, perhaps the only one that actually has math at the core of it.
Considering the actual impossibility of recreating the phase relations, it
shouldn't work at all. But demo sent to me performed astonishingly well.
Ignoring the precise prescription of Ambisonics time alignment, I set up
four Radio Shack 5" Linaeums in a rude quadrilateral. I pressed "play"; I
was transported. I was there. So distracted was I by "thereness" that the
imperfections of the RS speakers was not sensed. A performance finished; I
was surrounded by an enthusiastically clapping audience. When I turned off
the back speakers, I was once again in a small room with mediocre speakers.
The experience indicates to me that the acceptable levels of the rears
depends upon the technology used to encode them. Even though the
mathematical legitimacy of Ambisonics is in question at mids and above,
there must be something to it, because it permits and requires high levels
of surround, which when provided by other systems sounds intrusively
unnatural.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Apr 21, 2012, 3:47:42 PM4/21/12
to
> DTS is much more acceptable than AC3 to folks like us.
True, perhaps, but I was referring to the disk simply playing, not the sound
quality.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 21, 2012, 3:51:26 PM4/21/12
to
> That's interesting. I always find the rear sound too high in level --
> unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it --
have to shut the sides/rears off to hear -- retroactively -- their presence.
Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and "off".
I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener
finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not
even be aware of it.
> unnatural. My feeling is that as with most things, if you hear it --
> it is too much. You should only really notice its absence when
> you turn it off.
Correct. The rear-level settings on my hall synthesizer are quite low -- you
> you turn it off.
have to shut the sides/rears off to hear -- retroactively -- their presence.
Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and "off".
I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener
finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not
even be aware of it.
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 21, 2012, 4:41:26 PM4/21/12
to
news:jmv32e$feq$1...@dont-email.me...
> Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and
> "off".
> I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener
> finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not
> even be aware of it.
You may be right, but here was my reasoning: I played several test
recordings and noted that most of the time, an effect that was known to come
from the rear originally was folding up in the front on me. I don't mean the
kind of signal where you go up close to the recorder and announce "this is
my rear center channel." I mean the more subtle effects like outdoor
ambience (maybe traffic noises, birds, etc) that should form up in an even
field around you, not favor one end or the other.
Also, obviously, all this depends on your having set your time delays
correctly for the rear and side speakers. If there is a precedence effect
screwing up the balance, then all bets are off.
I agree that in a good hall, you don't really notice the ambience. You DO
notice that the applause is not coming from behind the orchestra though....
Gary Eickmeier
> Less-experienced listeners often hear no difference between "on" and
> "off".
> I suggested to Gary that he set the rears a little high. If the listener
> finds it too audible, he can lower it. But if it's too low, he might not
> even be aware of it.
recordings and noted that most of the time, an effect that was known to come
from the rear originally was folding up in the front on me. I don't mean the
kind of signal where you go up close to the recorder and announce "this is
my rear center channel." I mean the more subtle effects like outdoor
ambience (maybe traffic noises, birds, etc) that should form up in an even
field around you, not favor one end or the other.
Also, obviously, all this depends on your having set your time delays
correctly for the rear and side speakers. If there is a precedence effect
screwing up the balance, then all bets are off.
I agree that in a good hall, you don't really notice the ambience. You DO
notice that the applause is not coming from behind the orchestra though....
Gary Eickmeier
0 new messages