|
|
|
Out of interest, how is live music recorded for both multi-channel and stereo? 1. How are microphones placed with relation to hwo the musi cwill be reproduced at home?
2. How is it decided where the best seating position is to recreate teh effect of being there?
3. What medium is used on-site to record the music to in high-resolution and/or high-sampling frequency? I guess hard drive these days??
4. Any other details out of interest.
I am after general info just to satisfy my curiosity. Does anyone on this forum do this profesionally?
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 3, 2007 (72 of 113)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Personally, our ears hear surround sound, so we should reproduce in surround.
sorry but you ears (two of them) basically hear a monoural sound twice and your brain recreated a spacial dimension to these two sets of mono signals.The fact that you pick up loads of reflected sounds generally very poorly compared with UP FRONT varies from person to person.This is dependant upon varying factors including your brain.As I said in an earlier reply, surround sound systems gives you the oportunity to Doctor these reflected sounds to suit yourself and artificial enhance it.There are many add on processors that can mimick these effects and the science is well documented..
However when I buy a performance of a work I only want the minimum amount of addition unless it enhances the sound and its clear from LSO reviews that this is disputed.
As has been proved, a correct 3d image is obtained via 2 channels and I dont need artifical engineered add ons.Im happy to listen to the music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
However when I buy a performance of a work I only want the minimum amount of addition unless it enhances the sound.As has been prooved a correct 3d image is obtained via 2 channels and I dont need artifical engineered add ons.Im happy to listen to the music
SORRY - What boshhh
Reread the post by Tailspn.
What it appears the very conscientious engineers at Telarc, Polyhymnia, Sound Mirror, LSO live and other studios are trying to do with multi-channel is create for loudspeakers that same realism that can be accomplished with mics located in a dummy's ears to realize the spatial characteristics that would be heard by a listener sitting in the location of that dummy when played back through headphones. "Dummy" here is to describe a manikin and is not a pejorative. "Binaural" is the type of recording I am referring to.
As I indicated in my earlier post, if the Calrec Soundfield microphone were capable of flat frequency response, then, when reproduced by point source loudspeakers, surround recordings made that way would be mathematically impeccable. The use of omni-directional mikes is what screws it up (makes it less than perfect) but IsoMike technique improves on this and we may expect other refinements, perhaps to the Calrec concept to occur. The basic concept however, is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
sorry but you ears (two of them) basically hear a monoural sound twice and your brain recreated a spacial dimension to these two sets of mono signals.The fact that you pick up loads of reflected sounds generally very poorly compared with UP FRONT varies from person to person.This is dependant upon varying factors including your brain.As I said in an earlier reply, surround sound systems gives you the oportunity to Doctor these reflected sounds to suit yourself and artificial enhance it.There are many add on processors that can mimick these effects and the science is well documented..
However when I buy a performance of a work I only want the minimum amount of addition unless it enhances the sound and its clear from LSO reviews that this is disputed.
As has been proved, a correct 3d image is obtained via 2 channels and I dont need artifical engineered add ons.Im happy to listen to the music.
My point was simply that live sounds come from all around you, so to set up an artificial sound field using just two front speakers is surely going to be less convincing, and require a lot more trickery-pokery than setting up a multi-channel soundfield. This simple and indisuptable(?) logic dictates a multi-channel soundfield as an imperative!
No?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
This simple and indisuptable(?) logic dictates a multi-channel soundfield as an imperative!
No?
Yes!
|
|
|
Post by RobM December 3, 2007 (76 of 113)
|
|
I listen to stereo and doubt that I will ever invest in a multi-channel "surround" system anytime soon. The hardware costs would purchase a lot of software.
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 3, 2007 (77 of 113)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
My point was simply that live sounds come from all around you, so to set up an artificial sound field using just two front speakers is surely going to be less convincing, and require a lot more trickery-pokery than setting up a multi-channel soundfield. This simple and indisuptable(?) logic dictates a multi-channel soundfield as an imperative!
No?
You are correct with your closing word.
Listening in a concert Hall the source of the majority and origin of the sound is in front of you.No the walls surrounding you dont create a sound of their own.They reflect and absorb frequencies depending on various factors.The same as your own listening room.
These sounds are captured in normal stereo recordings.As I said earlier.The recoding engineer sets the position of the Image.He can only set it at approx one depth or numbers of rows from the front seat.If he wants more of the room accoustic he basically moves further back.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that thee is NO one correct position for stereo or surround. The reverse of your sttement is true.Setting up surround is always tricker using MORE microphones and their carefull positioning is harder.Please read what some of those engineers said about the process.
As I said earlier, logic would dictate that we have 10.2 channels if any of what you says was correct..
Please also read the other post about how the engineers deliberatly create a special spot and it tells you that the surround mixes require the jiggery pokery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
You are correct with your closing word.
Listening in a concert Hall the source of the majority and origin of the sound is in front of you.No the walls surrounding you dont create a sound of their own.They reflect and absorb frequencies depending on various factors.The same as your own listening room.
These sounds are captured in normal stereo recordings.As I said earlier.The recoding engineer sets the position of the Image.He can only set it at approx one depth or numbers of rows from the front seat.If he wants more of the room accoustic he basically moves further back.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that thee is NO one correct position for stereo or surround. The reverse of your sttement is true.Setting up surround is always tricker using MORE microphones and their carefull positioning is harder.Please read what some of those engineers said about the process.
As I said earlier, logic would dictate that we have 10.2 channels if any of what you says was correct..
Please also read the other post about how the engineers deliberatly create a special spot and it tells you that the surround mixes require the jiggery pokery.
Actually the reason I asked hwo they choose a seating position was by way of acknowledging that there IS not correct seating position, so less of the patronising attitude, please. I'm only asking because I want to know, not because I have certain preconception I wish to push.
As for jiggery pokery, using more speakers obviously is going to have an effect on, and cause difficulties on recreating accurate sound as you have 5 speakers and the room effects thereof, to worry about instead of just 2. However the point is, when you hear sounds live (as it were), you hear them reflected from everywhere around you. And, yes, the more speakers the better in my opinion in trying to recreat that 3-D sound wall. And if you ahve to use advanced,modern computer processign techniques like, e.g. Audyssey, to re-align the phase and amplitude from each speaker to compensate for room acoustics, then so be it. I'm all for using processing power and more speakers to get closer to the live performance.
What I meant before that you need more jiggery pokery in stereo than surround was processign to CREATE an immersive sound from 2 channel. The extreme example being movie surround sound from 2 channels. Which, as we all know, is absolutely pointless.
I think purists, as ever, are too restrained in embracing the next new thing. I'm sure in the future - the near future - our whole walls and ceilings will be sound panels, shoudl we so choose as audiohpiles. And peopel will giggle at the thought of how they used rudeimentary wooden boxes with moving cones to reproduce sound.
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 3, 2007 (79 of 113)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
I think purists, as ever, are too restrained in embracing the next new thing. I'm sure in the future - the near future - our whole walls and ceilings will be sound panels, shoudl we so choose as audiohpiles. And peopel will giggle at the thought of how they used rudeimentary wooden boxes with moving cones to reproduce sound.
Well I try to embrace anything new that comes around in the development of hifi and electronics.Far more than most.
I do SO often see old ideas spouted as the Emporers new clothes.eg a piece of wood with a big hole in it tunes to alter the sound a mic picks up that works especially for surround and a certain type of speaker.Engineers HAVE called ths mechanical filtering and its been used by nearly everybody who records with mics.I suspect the next version will be some exotic material like carbon fibre..very impressive as it filters RFI?.Having been around the block too many times I know these ideas can be utilized but are spouted usuually by the un initiated.
Sometimes these NEW ideas are created by sales people to keep the momentum going.They just look at old hifi mags.Re package them.
Generally speaking improvements are made in componont design and its a lot of very small steps.Seldom does the "Market" want to pay for improved parts.Usually untill the price comes down.
As regards loudspeakers.
Boy does the world need an alternative to the pretty innaccurate and variable items that are currently available.Dont expect too much from anything you know about nowadays except dont fall for the hype.
Ive worked with everything from Lowther horns ,conventional cones ,flat panels and electrostatics and ribbons and for too many years..All have plusses and minuses.All will have some appeal to different people.Its no use using most of them with a Rock Band.
Some cause problems for amplifier designs.I even remember one which gave off ozone? It was excellent at high frequencies ironically.
It also wouldnt be so bad if the surround sound sacd players had top quality parts in all the surround circuit,Let alone the stereo side,OOPS ANOTHER REASON TO STAY STEREO?. then some of the ideas spouted about how the best surround sound works would indeed be worth discussion.
As stated in an earlier working of this subject..THE VAST MAJORITY OF SURROUND RELEASES ARE EITHER ARTIFICIAL ENGINEERED CREATIONS OR POORLY DONE.
I am happy that some people want the additional midrange caused by having 5 speakers non of which is linear and the supposed extra clarity that they crave.I dont need it.You could of course just create a mixer to add midrange and say..I can hear the hall much better now.Yes I had people do that blind tested as well......No.Im listening to the stereo presentation.
I WONT BE BUYING ANY SACDS OF ROOM ACCOUSTICS EITHER.WITH OR WITHOUT MUSIC.
Next?
|
|
|
Post by Sam December 3, 2007 (80 of 113)
|
|
Allen said:
volume, the simple recording volume is way too low comparing with the same titles from other labels. Using the B9 as example, the volume is about 70% lower. When I tried to compare their B9 with older sacd (stereo) and many 1980's cds, I can not imagine how they can get volume this wrong. So, I have to increase the playback volume 25% - 30% just to have a fair comparison. This can not be blamed on the music hall at all.
"Low volume" is good. It means you're getting uncompressed sound.
|
|
