Do you want REAL surround sound?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am just getting back from touring Todd AO post production facility and the Mann's Chinese theater #6 for a demo of a new theatrical surround system that you will be hearing about more in the future. The sound system is developed by Iosono, and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the future of film audio right here, and what will keep people coming to theaters for years to come.

After this demonstration I have decided(along with my business partners) to have this system installed in one of my own mixing rooms, in two mixing rooms at Disney Orlando, and one at Disney Burbank. I must admit, I have never heard anything quite like this system as demonstrated here, even though we have an installation at Disney World(the haunted house), but we have never mixed specifically for that installation. After this demo, we are going to!

http://iosono-sound.com/

I discovered that even in an audio only application, this technology was stunning in its ability to place instruments so perfectly if you closed your eyes, you could identify every instrument exactly in its place on a stage.

[dakatabg]

Looks very cool but no prices mentioned in the site!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Looks very cool but no prices mentioned in the site!

If you have to ask, you cannot afford it! Just joking. It is around $100-200k+ depending on the size of the auditorium(at least I thought I heard that price, I was talking to the mixing guys). Early adopters probably get a break on the pricing(I'll leave that to my business partners), but the amount of equipment it takes to make the system as effective as it is precludes a cheap price. I am sure they will eventually pare the system down to much smaller modules, and that should reduce the price substantially.

[dakatabg]

I know man, I was just curious

[ForeverAutumn]

I must admit, I have never heard anything quite like this system as demonstrated here, even though we have an installation at Disney World(the haunted house), but we have never mixed specifically for that installation. After this demo, we are going to!

YES! Another good reason to go back to Disney World. Let me know when you're finished mixing...or whatever it is you have to do. :)

[E-Stat]

I am just getting back from touring Todd AO post production facility and the Mann's Chinese theater #6 for a demo of a new theatrical surround system that you will be hearing about more in the future.
It is a logical concept to produce an audio equivalent of a jumbotron. It appears to be a horizontally oriented continuous line array along the entire depth and width of the theater using MTM speakers. I have no doubt that a signal can be panned wherever one desires just as a jumbotron can control the output of the video signal. And it obviates the need for using theater horns. :)

Just think what Dark Side of the Moon sounds like in 100 channel! They will have the clocks circling your head!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It is a logical concept to produce an audio equivalent of a jumbotron. It appears to be a horizontally oriented continuous line array along the entire depth and width of the theater using MTM speakers. I have no doubt that a signal can be panned wherever one desires just as a jumbotron can control the output of the video signal. And it obviates the need for using theater horns. :)

Just think what Dark Side of the Moon sounds like in 100 channel! They will have the clocks circling your head!

rw

We E, they have a system they call the ultimate, and unfortunately the tweeter in that system is horn loaded. Now before you get all audiophile on me(LOL), the sound is pretty damn smooth, it just can play louder than the system you see.

All the speakers behind the screen are horn loaded though.

The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away. They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.

I told my best friend(who happens to be my business partner) that if we didn't get something like this to get us ahead of the business, I was going be impossible to live with. So he went off to negotiate, while I talked to the audio engineer who just happen to graduate from the same film school I did. It's amazing what talent USC film school turns out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

YES! Another good reason to go back to Disney World. Let me know when you're finished mixing...or whatever it is you have to do. :)

Yes mum(bows, and quickly runs out of the room to get busy!)

[E-Stat]

We E, they have a system they call the ultimate, and unfortunately the tweeter in that system is horn loaded. Now before you get all audiophile on me(LOL), the sound is pretty damn smooth, it just can play louder than the system you see.
*Unfortunately* is most likely the appropriate word. I have no doubt that a horn version could play louder, not clearer.


All the speakers behind the screen are horn loaded though.
But not the hundred and fifty or so found in the picture on their website.


The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away.
The magic of panning across hundreds of possible places. :)


They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.
I heard Di Wu play some classical piano works at the university the other night. What struck me most was not the pinpoint imaging accuracy others fawn over, but the natural tonal characteristics of the instrument itself. It is those subtle tonal changes and the timbre of the string's "growl" that fool me into thinking its a live grand piano, not image steering. I was six rows back and the level never exceeded 82 db even when she was playing Ravel briskly. From the position I usually sit at an orchestra, I don't detect that micro positioning sort of thing with other instruments either. There is certainly some notion of left to right and front to back, but not to the extent some say they hear.


I told my best friend(who happens to be my business partner) that if we didn't get something like this to get us ahead of the business, I was going be impossible to live with.
It sounds like a really cool audio enhancement to complement the newer 3D visual technology for film. I know that Todd AO has always been there at the forefront of movie tech.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

*Unfortunately* is most likely the appropriate word. I have no doubt that a horn version could play louder, not clearer.

Not so fast, your prejudice against horns is showing! Actually you are wrong in this case, the Mann Chinese setup is all horn loaded, and it did sound more clear than the Todd AO setup. It is the same driver for both, but the all horn system sounded just a bit clearer, and more natural and at ease when playing back the same demo. You gotta hear it BEFORE passing judgement. That is how amps and speakers work.



But not the hundred and fifty or so found in the picture on their website.

That was the Todd AO setup, not the Chinese Mann setup. One is a mixing room size system, the other is for a theater. All the horn does is focus the energy better, and increase the sensitivity of the system to allow it to play louder. There is no sonic "signature" the horn puts on the signal, and a good horn design does not have a "signature".



The magic of panning across hundreds of possible places. :)

A better word would be almost infinite.


I heard Di Wu play some classical piano works at the university the other night. What struck me most was not the pinpoint imaging accuracy others fawn over, but the natural tonal characteristics of the instrument itself.[/quote]

Hence the difference between listening to an event with your binaral ears, and listening to a stereo RECORDING. The steering you mention is still happening, it is just not happening with a joystick. Steering with our ears is an issue of amplitude and time, with a recording you have to add our rooms reflections into the equation. One is natural, and one is artificial. We also listen to a live event differently than we listen to a recording. A different brain wave activity happens with both as demonstrated at AES about five years ago.



It is those subtle tonal changes and the timbre of the string's "growl" that fool me into thinking its a live grand piano, not image steering.

For others its a different set of parameters. Each not better than the next, but just different parameters.


I was six rows back and the level never exceeded 82 db even when she was playing Ravel briskly.

82db six rows back with a solo instrument. Expect a different result when a full 110 piece orchestra is playing a passage at FFF.



From the position I usually sit at an orchestra, I don't detect that micro positioning sort of thing with other instruments either.

That is because the halls reflections are contributing quite a bit. Reflections, especially the long complex ones in a live event, do influence and effect our perception of direction. It diffuses it quite a bit. A hall has quite a few reflections happening before the sound even leaves the proscenium/stage area.



There is certainly some notion of left to right and front to back, but not to the extent some say they hear.

Near field versus far field listening! Listening in the near field emphasizes these effects much more than far field listening does.



It sounds like a really cool audio enhancement to complement the newer 3D visual technology for film. I know that Todd AO has always been there at the forefront of movie tech.

rw

Todd AO has always used quality tools, and had quality audio mixers that use them. If I was strictly speaking of tech, then the award goes to Disney and Universal. When you have a theme park to support, you always have to be forward thinking in the tech department.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Uh oh... I know where this is going.

:yikes:

[E-Stat]

It is the same driver for both...
Same driver as the dome in this picture?

http://iosono-sound.com/common/files/technik/lautsprecherdetail_jpg_versions/thumbnail_lautsprecherdetail.jpg


That was the Todd AO setup, not the Chinese Mann setup. One is a mixing room size system, the other is for a theater.
Look at that pic from above again. While you cannot see all the speakers, I make out a line of at least twenty or so. That is your "mixing room" size?


Hence the difference between listening to an event with your binaral ears, and listening to a stereo RECORDING.
Difference between what? My two references describe what I hear attending live unamplified events. I did, however, purchase her CD and played it at home afterwards. The piano sounded very much like what I had heard an hour before. Like when my wife plays her baby grand in the living room.


82db six rows back with a solo instrument. Expect a different result when a full 110 piece orchestra is playing a passage at FFF.
I don't choose to listen that close in a symphony environment. It is only for solo performances or small ensembles that I choose to sit that close. Last year, the Katona Twins played a wonderful classical guitar set in the same space. I was on the first row then. You'd be on top of a full symphony at that distance. I've had seats that close before and didn't like the perspective. It was the Carmina Burana at the ASO which indeed was LOUD at row C - not to mention imbalanced with what instruments you heard. You could hear micro details of the string bass from the left side (yes, they reversed the normal stage position), while the violins and violas were comparatively muted.


Near field versus far field listening! Listening in the near field emphasizes these effects much more than far field listening does.
No doubt. I don't choose to listen to a symphony near field. I attempt to reproduce at home the experience I prefer.


I was strictly speaking of tech, then the award goes to Disney and Universal. When you have a theme park to support, you always have to be forward thinking in the tech department.
Go down to Disney World and fix the horrible sound system situated around the lake at Epcot. It is "plug your ears" hard and edgy. :)

rw

[pixelthis]

IS THIS any relation to "beaming" tech, where five different people hear five different things?
Sounds close.
I know its not the same, just thought it might resemble beaming.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Same driver as the dome in this picture?



http://iosono-sound.com/common/files/technik/lautsprecherdetail_jpg_versions/thumbnail_lautsprecherdetail.jpg

It looks more like this.

http://www.iosono-sound.com/technology/wave-field-synthesis/

Look at the top banner



Look at that pic from above again. While you cannot see all the speakers, I make out a line of at least twenty or so. That is your "mixing room" size?

My mixing room would be about a line of 40 or so. They are pretty packed together when you see them live.



Difference between what? My two references describe what I hear attending live unamplified events. I did, however, purchase her CD and played it at home afterwards. The piano sounded very much like what I had heard an hour before. Like when my wife plays her baby grand in the living room.

Minus the different rooms I would take it. I bet your wife's baby grand does not sound the same in your living room as it would have in the concert hall.



I don't choose to listen that close in a symphony environment. It is only for solo performances or small ensembles that I choose to sit that close. Last year, the Katona Twins played a wonderful classical guitar set in the same space. I was on the first row then.

Ahhh, the almighty preference!


You'd be on top of a full symphony at that distance. I've had seats that close before and didn't like the perspective. It was the Carmina Burana at the ASO which indeed was LOUD at row C - not to mention imbalanced with what instruments you heard.

Now you have made a wonderful argument for multi miking a recording. There are not a lot of Directors that are good at balance AND directing a performance. Most all directors are good at one or the other, at least the ones I have worked with. There are a precious few that know how to achieve an instrument balance from the composer perspective let alone the first seven rows. Most of the masters at this have died away, and it is not taught in depth in music schools.



You could hear micro details of the string bass from the left side (yes, they reversed the normal stage position), while the violins and violas were comparatively muted.

A good director would have noticed this, and corrected it quickly. Especially in an unamplified environment where balance is critical.



No doubt. I don't choose to listen to a symphony near field. I attempt to reproduce at home the experience I prefer.

Gotta love that personal preference!



Go down to Disney World and fix the horrible sound system situated around the lake at Epcot. It is "plug your ears" hard and edgy. :)

rw

It is pretty bad huh LOLOLOL. That is an example of SPL's over quality!

[Woochifer]

A little bit out of my price range, but interesting info nonetheless. The setup looks like that rig they used to do the visual effects for The Matrix.

Are they using discrete tracks for this, and how does this setup compare to any of the other approaches that have been attempted with height channels and/or overhead speakers? Off the top of my head I can think of various approaches that Chesky, DMP, and Telarc experimented with. As far as I know only Chesky actually issued anything that consumers could try at home (by switching out the center and subwoofer channels for two addition height channels).

Then there's also the additional ambient channels that some receivers/processors have implemented. This is obviously a very different animal.

[Worf101]

Sir T t T.....

Ah hates you.... (done in best Yosemity Sam growl)!

You get to play wit all the purty toys.
You get to buy all the purty toys.
You get to have all the purty toys.....

AND I DON'T!!!!!

Grrrr..... Bastiche!!!!! Pass it around!!! Stop hoggin it!!!! Let us get some of the sonic goodies!!!!

Da "suddenly quite jealous and envious and alike" Worfster

[E-Stat]

Minus the different rooms I would take it. I bet your wife's baby grand does not sound the same in your living room as it would have in the concert hall.
Depends upon where you sit. From a fairly close distance, a solo piano sounds like - well a solo piano with all of its subtle harmonic shadings and percussive qualities.


Now you have made a wonderful argument for multi miking a recording.
Actually, I'll take a minimally miked arrangement like an old Mercury or what Telarc did for decades.


A good director would have noticed this, and corrected it quickly. Especially in an unamplified environment where balance is critical.
There are always consequences of where you sit. There is no way that everyone on a row that seats eighty or so will get the same lateral balance.


Gotta love that personal preference!
For which I am quite aware. My ears don't like 100 db output of anything. Mid to high 80s is plenty LOUD to me (not to mention safer for your hearing).

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Depends upon where you sit. From a fairly close distance, a solo piano sounds like - well a solo piano with all of its subtle harmonic shadings and percussive qualities.

The room the piano sits in ALWAYS plays a role, unless you enjoy a piano recording with the strings closely miked and the top down. That kind of sound is too isolated, and airless for my taste.



Actually, I'll take a minimally miked arrangement like an old Mercury or what Telarc did for decades.

Well, both Mercury and Telarc are history, and there is a reason why minimally miked arrangements are no longer done. They require the conductor to balance his orchestra, and those conductors are largely gone. Michael Tilson Thomas is the only conductor I have worked with in the last five years who is able to do that, but the acoustics of Davies Hall(while much improved) still are not up to snuff to record in a minimal style. Only small ensembles get that treatment, and not that many engineers trust the fact that the ensemble will stay completely balanced during the entire recording, hence why they multi mike. There is nothing wrong with multi miking if it is done right, as a lot of Mercury recordings were done using a Decca tree three mike setup, and all of the living presence recordings were done that way.




There are always consequences of where you sit. There is no way that everyone on a row that seats eighty or so will get the same lateral balance.

Agreed



For which I am quite aware. My ears don't like 100 db output of anything. Mid to high 80s is plenty LOUD to me (not to mention safer for your hearing).

rw

A short time peak of 100db is not going to harm the ears, it is long term exposure that will.
I am now beginning to understand why you like small ensemble recordings.

If you avoid sounds that are loud, close, and for extended period of time you will avoid hearing loss. I have been recording large orchestras, special effects tracks, and re-recording for 25 years, and there is only a 1.5db variance at 600hz between my two ears, and I can still hear clearly up to 16kHz(according to my last test two months ago). In my job short term peaks of up to 100db are pretty common. During re-recording sessions I do wear protection, and I also follow CALOSHA rules so I do not suffer from loud noise induced hearing loss.

[E-Stat]

There is nothing wrong with multi miking if it is done right, as a lot of Mercury recordings were done using a Decca tree three mike setup, and all of the living presence recordings were done that way.
That's exactly to what I'm referring. Minimal miking as opposed to using dozens. We're talking about the same thing!


A short time peak of 100db is not going to harm the ears, it is long term exposure that will.
I still find it uncomfortable.


I am now beginning to understand why you like small ensemble recordings.
Small ensembles up close or - full orchestras from further back. Forget rock concerts altogether. After stuffing my ears with protection, what little resolution was available is now totally gone.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's exactly to what I'm referring. Minimal miking as opposed to using dozens. We're talking about the same thing!

Dozens is a big overstatement you know. However sometimes it takes twelve or sixteen mikes to capture a large orchestra and chorus. Once again this goes back to a lack of a conductor in achieving an in orchestra balance. A good engineer worth his salt does not prejudice himself to one mike technique, he will use whatever he needs to get a good capture, even if that takes ten or twelve microphones. If the ultimate goal is an accurate capture of a performance, two or three mikes isn't always going to cut it.



I still find it uncomfortable.

Understandable



Small ensembles up close or - full orchestras from further back. Forget rock concerts altogether. After stuffing my ears with protection, what little resolution was available is now totally gone.

rw

Since I like all kinds of music experienced from different places I just carry a portable SPL meter and ear plugs. That way I don't have to limit my live music exposure to just classical music concerts.

[E-Stat]

Dozens is a big overstatement you know.
Why then are there 32 and 40 channel mixing boards if there aren't that many discrete feeds used?


If the ultimate goal is an accurate capture of a performance, two or three mikes isn't always going to cut it.
I don't recal Telarc ever using that few. When I assisted with the recording in Atlanta years ago, there were five primary mikes with a couple of fill.


Since I like all kinds of music experienced from different places I just carry a portable SPL meter and ear plugs. That way I don't have to limit my live music exposure to just classical music concerts.
To each his own. As for me, concerts are a musical experience. Some folks enjoy seeing their favorite artists do improvisation and/or dance, but such provides no value for me. For example, I have always been a big Madonna fan. Not necessarily her persona, but her music. The best recordings I have are 12" 45 RPM singles that have minimal compression. They have incredible punch and range. A friend of mine saw Madonna at the Philips Arena in Atlanta. Afterwards, she was listening to the Sound Labs and commented that she hears far more detail and the ability to hear subtleties of her voice in the system that are massacred live. Even with Madonna's huge production budget! She spent $200 per ticket to see the show. The costumes. The elaborate choreography. The effects.

The company I used to work for has annual meetings that are usually held in Las Vegas with about four thousand folks attending. The offer entertainment and one year they had Huey Lewis whose music I've enjoyed for years. It was held at Mandalay Bay and was somewhat more intimate than most concerts with only about two thousand in attendance. That same friend (who is also a co-worker) was there as well. The sound quality was dreadfully hard and shrill as usual. FWIW, they were using JBL line arrays and Crown Macro Tech amps. She went up to the stage with a couple of other girls and danced. Huey went down the line touching each person there at the stage. For many like my friend, it is that kind of experience - not the sound quality that drives concert attendance. As for me, I couldn't care less about those things if it sounds like $hit - which has always the case for me attending quite a few *live* concerts over the past forty years.

rw

[Feanor]

...
Well, both Mercury and Telarc are history, and there is a reason why minimally miked arrangements are no longer done. They require the conductor to balance his orchestra, and those conductors are largely gone. Michael Tilson Thomas is the only conductor I have worked with in the last five years who is able to do that, but the acoustics of Davies Hall(while much improved) still are not up to snuff to record in a minimal style. Only small ensembles get that treatment, and not that many engineers trust the fact that the ensemble will stay completely balanced during the entire recording, hence why they multi mike. There is nothing wrong with multi miking if it is done right, as a lot of Mercury recordings were done using a Decca tree three mike setup, and all of the living presence recordings were done that way.
...
Good as they are, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo recordings are generally overrated, IMO. There plenty of more recent recordings that are a lot better. I have heard these from Telarc, Reference Recordings, Harmonia Mundi, and the SFO (Tilson Thomas), Deutche Grammophon, and Philips, amongst others.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NV6273KHL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://image.allmusic.com/00/acg/cov200/cl400/l470/l4703984a72.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z8inDREkL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G4NZZTZ1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FP9E2YFPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/ef/d8/d7d9d250fca063d9c6f07010.L.jpg

[Ajani]

To each his own. As for me, concerts are a musical experience. Some folks enjoy seeing their favorite artists do improvisation and/or dance, but such provides no value for me. For example, I have always been a big Madonna fan. Not necessarily her persona, but her music. The best recordings I have are 12" 45 RPM singles that have minimal compression. They have incredible punch and range. A friend of mine saw Madonna at the Philips Arena in Atlanta. Afterwards, she was listening to the Sound Labs and commented that she hears far more detail and the ability to hear subtleties of her voice in the system that are massacred live. Even with Madonna's huge production budget! She spent $200 per ticket to see the show. The costumes. The elaborate choreography. The effects.

The company I used to work for has annual meetings that are usually held in Las Vegas with about four thousand folks attending. The offer entertainment and one year they had Huey Lewis whose music I've enjoyed for years. It was held at Mandalay Bay and was somewhat more intimate than most concerts with only about two thousand in attendance. That same friend (who is also a co-worker) was there as well. The sound quality was dreadfully hard and shrill as usual. FWIW, they were using JBL line arrays and Crown Macro Tech amps. She went up to the stage with a couple of other girls and danced. Huey went down the line touching each person there at the stage. For many like my friend, it is that kind of experience - not the sound quality that drives concert attendance. As for me, I couldn't care less about those things if it sounds like $hit - which has always the case for me attending quite a few *live* concerts over the past forty years.

rw

Interesting.... I have the same opinion of concerts.... I refuse to pay to hear the music sound like $hit... I had pretty much the same issue with clubs from when I was a teen... I always felt annoyed that the music on my stereo sounded better than what was in the club... Some go for the stage show and to be physically close to the artist... I'd rather hear the song in good quality....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why then are there 32 and 40 channel mixing boards if there aren't that many discrete feeds used?

When you use that many inputs, you are probably recording for more than one format, or the project you are recording is pretty big. I participated in a live recording last year that required a 15 piece brass section on the balcony on two sides and rear of the hall. Brass instruments because of their bells are very directional instruments at pretty much their entire range, so it required two mikes per side for each brass section. There was a hundred voice chorus which required two mikes per section because they blended horribly. The 100 piece orchestra clocked in with 5 with three highlights for solo instruments, and the organ required two spaced ones to keep it airy and within perspective in the recording. I used two spaced omni's out in the hall to capture ambience, and there was a separate mix going to three separate recording devices(a 5.1 and 2.0 digital recorders and one analog two track magnetic tape recorder). I used automation to control this big project, and it required a 88 channel board to get it done. Every project requires a different solution.

Quite a few live recording engineers like to have mutiple back up microphones even if they don't use their inputs in the final mix.

Also with mixing sound tracks you are often working with 300 special effects stems, several dialog stems, and at least 5 to 10 music stems that all require a mixdown to either 7.1 or 5.1 for the theater and home. With automation that makes using a 96+ channel board pretty routine in the film community.



I don't recal Telarc ever using that few. When I assisted with the recording in Atlanta years ago, there were five primary mikes with a couple of fill.

That is pretty standard for recording orchestras.



To each his own. As for me, concerts are a musical experience. Some folks enjoy seeing their favorite artists do improvisation and/or dance, but such provides no value for me. For example, I have always been a big Madonna fan. Not necessarily her persona, but her music. The best recordings I have are 12" 45 RPM singles that have minimal compression. They have incredible punch and range. A friend of mine saw Madonna at the Philips Arena in Atlanta. Afterwards, she was listening to the Sound Labs and commented that she hears far more detail and the ability to hear subtleties of her voice in the system that are massacred live. Even with Madonna's huge production budget! She spent $200 per ticket to see the show. The costumes. The elaborate choreography. The effects.

Once again, a concert sound system has its specific purpose, and re-creating audiophile quality isn't one of them. The object of the system is to cover as many seat with sound as possible, which is the exact opposite goal of home audio. This requires a huge production budget along with the dancers, lights, road crew, FOH and house mixers, and technicians that hold it all together.

I am the exact opposite of you, I love to see Madonna live for all the reasons you mention.




The company I used to work for has annual meetings that are usually held in Las Vegas with about four thousand folks attending. The offer entertainment and one year they had Huey Lewis whose music I've enjoyed for years. It was held at Mandalay Bay and was somewhat more intimate than most concerts with only about two thousand in attendance. That same friend (who is also a co-worker) was there as well. The sound quality was dreadfully hard and shrill as usual. FWIW, they were using JBL line arrays and Crown Macro Tech amps. She went up to the stage with a couple of other girls and danced. Huey went down the line touching each person there at the stage. For many like my friend, it is that kind of experience - not the sound quality that drives concert attendance. As for me, I couldn't care less about those things if it sounds like $hit - which has always the case for me attending quite a few *live* concerts over the past forty years.

rw

Unless the system had intelligibility issues, the system is doing its job. Much like JBL cinema system, their concert systems suck. EV, EAW and Community make far better stuff, and Meyers Sound Lab stuff is exceptional for a house or traveling system. JBL lives off of their name, not the sound quality of their products.

Much like anything in life, some folks can have a relatively good system to work with, and their lack of experience or talent can make that system sound like hell.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good as they are, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo recordings are generally overrated, IMO. There plenty of more recent recordings that are a lot better. I have heard these from Telarc, Reference Recordings, Harmonia Mundi, and the SFO (Tilson Thomas), Deutche Grammophon, and Philips, amongst others.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NV6273KHL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://image.allmusic.com/00/acg/cov200/cl400/l470/l4703984a72.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z8inDREkL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G4NZZTZ1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FP9E2YFPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/ef/d8/d7d9d250fca063d9c6f07010.L.jpg

I fully agree with you!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T t T.....

Ah hates you.... (done in best Yosemity Sam growl)!

You get to play wit all the purty toys.
You get to buy all the purty toys.
You get to have all the purty toys.....

AND I DON'T!!!!!

Grrrr..... Bastiche!!!!! Pass it around!!! Stop hoggin it!!!! Let us get some of the sonic goodies!!!!

Da "suddenly quite jealous and envious and alike" Worfster

LOLOLOL!!

[Ajani]

I am just getting back from touring Todd AO post production facility and the Mann's Chinese theater #6 for a demo of a new theatrical surround system that you will be hearing about more in the future. The sound system is developed by Iosono, and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the future of film audio right here, and what will keep people coming to theaters for years to come.

After this demonstration I have decided(along with my business partners) to have this system installed in one of my own mixing rooms, in two mixing rooms at Disney Orlando, and one at Disney Burbank. I must admit, I have never heard anything quite like this system as demonstrated here, even though we have an installation at Disney World(the haunted house), but we have never mixed specifically for that installation. After this demo, we are going to!

http://iosono-sound.com/

I discovered that even in an audio only application, this technology was stunning in its ability to place instruments so perfectly if you closed your eyes, you could identify every instrument exactly in its place on a stage.

That tech looks very promising... I can't wait for it to be available in local cinemas.... combine that with even better 3D movies and I think we'll be in for something very close to the virtual reality experience many of us really want....

[E-Stat]

When you use that many inputs, you are probably recording for more than one format, or the project you are recording is pretty big.
That's why I made the observation about using dozens.


a concert sound system has its specific purpose, and re-creating audiophile quality isn't one of them.
This is what I've been saying for years. It could be done, but at high cost. When I visited the Sound Lab production facility, Dr. West showed me a picture of a proof-of-concept experiment he conducted at a huge auditorium in Utah. The Pro Stat line is intended for professional use and is designed to be used in large arrays. He put together an array using twenty four 922s in a 2x6 arrangement. Each resulting channel was eighteen feet tall and about twenty four feet wide. Even then, it did not reach the uppermost seats because the array of an electrostatic line source needs to be as high as the coverage desired. Dr. West said that the array really should have been about three times as tall. The speakers alone would run around $1M. Add another half million for amplification. If you look in my gallery, you will find a picture of Ray Kimber using the same 922s (nine foot height - 22 degree radiation angle) in a smaller arrangement. Double the height and double the width of what you see to match the auditorium system. Now, that's a sound reinforcement system that could provide very high quality audio output (assuming you don't use crappy pro amps).


I am the exact opposite of you, I love to see Madonna live for all the reasons you mention.
You are most certainly not alone! The Atlanta concert sold out very quickly. Madonna takes pride in producing an elaborate stage show and my friend and her SO thoroughly enjoyed it. I leave "Dancing with the Stars" to my mother-in-law. :)

rw

[Woochifer]

FWIW, this is a shot of the mic rig that was used during the SF Symphony's recording of Mahler's Eighth (The Symphony of a Thousand), which BTW is up for three Grammys including Best Engineered Classical Recording. (Here's my review (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=296672&postcount=1) of that SACD/CD release) By my count, they used a total of about 50 mics during that session. Most of them are well hidden (some of them at the stage level near the music stands). But, the mic count alone doesn't really tell the whole story.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/3078453962_c9820a1d08.jpg

More shots from inside Davies Symphony Hall (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=264303&postcount=4)

I'll need to look it up, but the San Jose Mercury News did a write up on the SF Symphony's recording sessions a few years ago, and what they described was a process in which a group of primary tracks are recorded using a minimal miking approach. Basically, their goal was to lay the recording down as if they were only using a few mics.

The extra mics and tracks are recorded more for backup and would get inserted during post production only if the engineers detected deficiencies (or if Michael Tilson Thomas wanted to rebalance certain sections). So, even though you see a lot of mics on, above, and around the stage, the sound captured by most of those mics probably won't make it onto the final 5.1 and two-channel mixes. But, by using that huge canopy of mics, it gives the engineers options to make corrections and adjustments if needed.

IIRC, you have the six or eight primary tracks that were recorded using a DSD console, while the remaining channels were recorded with PCM consoles. Any overlays and dubs were done in PCM.

Whatever approach they've used, the SFS Mahler series' 5.1 tracks in general do a great job at conveying the listening experience from inside Davies Hall (which as T note, does not have great acoustics). The two-channel tracks sound excellent in their own right, but are not representative of how the hall actually sounds.

The video below shows some shots of the recording session and the prep and rehearsal work.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MAjmM7lcb1c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MAjmM7lcb1c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>