Music Lover vs Audiophile [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Music Lover vs Audiophile



Byron4
05-20-2012, 09:55 AM
I spend most Sunday mornings listening to music on my primary stereo in my living room which relaxes me and gets me ready for the upcoming work week. None of my family, co-workers, friends, or anyone I know shares this enthusiasm. Most would be perfectly happy listening to an inexpensive ipod which is frustrating for me because I would like them to share my enthusiasm.
I think one of the problems is the high end industry and publications are catering more to only audiophiles as opposed to the general music lover. Some of the products reviewed and comments I read in the magazines by the reviewers support this conclusion. Most audiophile reviewers seem to put the equipment as the top priority and the music is there only to support the equipment. That is why a number of reviewers describe their favorite music as live acoustic "unamplified music". A musician or music lover would say something like they enjoy baroque music or perhaps describe a particular instrument such as the piano because they only care about the music. Amplified or not would never be used in the description. Another common audiophile preference seems to be their willingness to sacrifice bass for "midrange purity". When I bring people to listen to these expensive setups they can't understand why anyone would pay that much money for a bass shy system. They may notice one setup sounds more pure but if that system lacks the lower octaves it is not for them. About ten years ago a reviewer put together a $7000 system emphasizing midrange purity with a pair of $2000 bass shy speakers. This to me is an example of a system catered to audiophiles as opposed to the general music lover. I also noticed this trend at the Newport audio show last year. Stereophile reviewed a pair of speakers that were at the show. Even though they were $3400 a pair I thought they lacked bass which made them sound a little forward. John Atkinson's test results were consistent with what I heard even though the reviewer really liked the speakers.
Fortunately there are floorstanding speakers out there for under $1000 and also inexpensive solid state and tube electronics to drive them. This would be the first step past an entry level system. Unfortunately the magazines do not review them, they are not at the audio shows, and are carried by only a small number of stores. This makes it difficult to introduce my kids and the younger generation into the high end audio activity.
I would like to bring more people into this activity especially the under 30 crowd. I bought a ticket for my daughter to one of the shows hoping she enjoys it. Any other suggestions.

JoeE SP9
05-20-2012, 11:15 AM
Yes!

First of all stop thinking and writing that audiophiles aren't music lovers. The only difference between the music lover (as you picture them) and an audiophile is the amount of money spent. With very few exceptions audiophiles are true music lovers who will spend money to get the highest quality sound they can afford. By your post I'm certain you would consider me one of those "audiophiles". This of course ignores the 3500+ LP's or 1600+ CD's in my music collection. As far as I'm concerned that makes me a music lover who also happens to be an audiophile.

You go on to complain about expensive bass shy systems with midrange purity. What's worse, bass shy midrange purity or cheap crappy anything that gets no part of the musical spectrum correct? I know if I have to make a choice I'll take bass shy midrange purity over bass heavy crap. What you seem to overlook is that many of those reviewers listen to classical orchestral music where thumping bass just isn't that important. Of course if the music you and your friends prefer is bass heavy modern popular music a reviewers midrange purity based system isn't going to win any prizes. I realize this, understand it and agree with this direction. If you don't get the midrange right IMO it's not worth listening to. I built my system around what I think is good midrange. The subs for good bass were added later.

Frankly, many true music lovers as most musicians are really couldn't care less about the gear they use or how much bass they're not hearing. The proof of this is the usually awful systems most musicians own.

The high end industry isn't interested in catering to the iPod/ear bud public who is satisfied with their low bit rate MP3's and $2.98 ear buds. Ferrari dealers don't cater to the Scion buyer. Why should Wilson Audio (for example) cater to the Bose Lifestyle buyer? You seem to find fault with things you don't like. The high end seems to be doing just fine without your support.

Once you realize that Stereophile and The Absolute Sound cover the high end their not reviewing your pet sub $1000pr speakers makes sense. They are not high end products, neither are the inexpensive electronics you mention. If you want reviews of (by your definition) affordable gear read Affordable Audio, whathifi or HiFi Choice. If you want to have your wallet humbled read Ultimate Audio.

Were you a reviewer and had to choose between reviewing some mediocre sub $1000 speakers or a pair of YG Carmel's which would you choose? Bear in mind that by the time you're in a position to have this choice you've listened to truck loads of inexpensive mediocre speakers.

Audio magazines are for the enthusiast. Enthusiasts are the same in every interest. While they may not have the means to buy that Lamborghini or Pass Labs amplifier they want to read about it. You want to read about the best buy in consumer gear read Consumers Reports. They gave a Porsche 911 a poor rating because it didn't hold enough grocery bags in the trunk. It's the magazine with reviews aimed at the non enthusiast. It's where I look when I'm buying a refrigerator or washing machine. Those are two things I have no enthusiasts interest in. For anything I have an interest in (automobiles, motorcycles, audio equipment, camera's etc) I look for an enthusiast's publication.

recoveryone
05-20-2012, 11:17 AM
Byron you knida answered your question in a round a bout way. one you have to think back to when you were a kid/teenager and remember what was more important?

The Music, you didn't care much if it was on a AM station, flip top 45 player, 8 Track, cassette player or a all in one unit. You just wanted to hear your favorite song. As we get older/exposed to higher quality gear, our mindset shift from the music to how can I make the music sound its best, which puts you more focus on the gear. IMHO its not always the price of the gear that makes it Audiophile level, but the results of the sound quality. You can put together a awesome sounding setup for under 2K, but it may not register on the quake meter at Cal Tech. Then again you can spend a lot of money on a name brand and the results are only so so, but have the pleasure of saying to others and yourself that I own a pair of XYZ's.

Byron4
05-20-2012, 12:56 PM
Hey JoeE SP9. Lighten up on the tone. This is my personal opinion how the people I know do not share my enthusiasm for the activity and any suggestions on how to change this. If you had read any of my other posts or my user reviews you will realize that I also consider myself both a music lover and an audiophile. I have been a subscriber to Stereophile for almost 30 years and I still enjoy reading the magazine. I also purchased subscriptions for a number of friends who all let them lapse. I have back issues of The Absolute Sound going back to the 1970's. Stereophile introduced me to products in my past two purchases. A pair of Quickilver amps Sam Tellig wrote about and an Antique Sound Lab Preamp which I found out about the brand at the 2006 Stereophile show. I voted the booth best sound at the show Nola, Antique Sound Lab, and Kuzma. This preamp was favorably reviewed by AV Guide which I believe is connected to The Absolute Sound.
We will have to agree to disagree on the importance of bass. I mainly listen to orchestra and big band and to me it sounds unnatural in a totally bass shy system no matter how perfect the midrange although I still enjoy listening no matter what. I also disagree that the industry will do fine without new support based on the number of high end stores that have closed.

[QUOTE=JoeE SP9;383270] If you don't get the midrange right IMO it's not worth listening to.

Music Lovers feel good music is always worth listening to no matter the system which was exactly my point.


recoveryone

You are correct that is exactly how I got involved in the activity. I eventually moved on to also enjoying the equipment back than ESS speakers, integrated amp, Rabco turntable. When i was in high school and college everyone seemed into the gear. Nowadays young people never moved on to higher end equipment and instead opted for an Ipod or laptop listening.

Feanor
05-20-2012, 01:18 PM
Ah! Where to start, Byron.

Very many music lovers aren't audiophiles. For instance I know lots of classical ("unamplified", "accoustic") music lovers who are completely content with <$500 compact systems, and some who do most of their listening on iPod/MP3 player.

On the other hand, most audiophiles are, indeed, music lovers.

A preference for "midrange purity" over huge, pounding, (but perhaps muddled), bass isn't uncommon among audiophiles. Most often it depends on music preference -- e.g. classical or jazz just don't need huge, pounding bass but do benefit from resolution & transparency. In fact huge, pounding bass is mainly essential for various rock forms -- or maybe pipe organ.

I agree with you the best-know hi-fi mags, i.e. Stereophile and The Absolute Sound pay too much attendtion to "high-end" very expensive equipment. I also agree that you can get pretty decent sound for, say, $1500.

On the other hand I say you shouldn't be so disdainful of those willing to spend a good deal more: you can get much improvement in "midrange purity" and -- yes -- better bass. It is utterly wrong to dismiss these dismiss these folks as not really music lovers

JoeE SP9
05-20-2012, 07:07 PM
Expecting people to share your enthusiasm is some extremely wishful thinking. Rather than give people copies of or subscriptions to an enthusiast publication they're really not that interested in I give them or help them purchase what I consider to be a good sounding system. In the past 25 years I've given away or set up at least a dozen friends and relatives with what I consider to be decent systems. Of that dozen exactly three have developed an interest in being an audiophile in addition to a music lover. One currently has Magneplanar MG-3.6R's with custom external crossovers. Another has a pair of recently restored Ohm F's. The third recently took delivery of a pair of Magneplanar MMG's. Those three are true converts and avidly proselytize "audiophilia".

Most of the others that I've given systems to rarely use them, with some strange exceptions. My 86 year old mother buys several CD's every month and my brother has replaced his Kenwood receiver with an HK surround receiver and added a Polk powered sub. He has surround speakers in the works.

As far as bass goes, I built two 12" transmission line sub woofers and I power each one with an 800 Watt SS amp. They are equalized using a parametric equalizer, REW and a meter to be flat to 18Hz. They, my tube driven front esl's and my bi amped dual sub woofer-ed rear esl's are all in an acoustically treated dedicated room. I would think four sub woofers provide enough bass for anyone. It is for me an ex-bass player. Even so, if the midrange wasn't right I wouldn't bother listening. I can listen to a bass shy system. I can't listen to a crappy midrange.

I didn't mean to come of so snarky sounding in my original post. It's just that I don't expect a magazine aimed at enthusiasts to champion bargain basement gear. Enthusiast oriented publications cater to the enthusiast. Most audio reviewers do it part time as they also have real jobs. They have usually secured a position reviewing because they've been there and done that with the bargain basement gear. Given the option of reviewing a pair of mediocre $500 a pair bookshelf speakers or a pair of Wilson Alexandria's I know what I would choose. Stereophile and The Absolute Sound are enthusiast magazines aimed at the high end. That's what they review and otherwise right about. Of course they cover a certain amount of lower priced (in comparison) gear. However, even that stuff isn't cheap.

If you want advice for Joe Six Pack Consumers Reports does just that. They periodically cover stereo equipment. However, they are not an enthusiast oriented publication and they cover non enthusiast products. They gave a Porsche 911 a poor rating because it didn't hold enough grocery bags in the trunk. If I'm buying a refrigerator or washing machine I'll go to their ratings. When I want information on a product in which I have a personal enthusiastic interest such as automobiles, camera's, bicycles, motorcycles, stereo gear and other things I'll peruse a magazine aimed at enthusiasts. Sure, they mostly cover the high priced spread. Isn't that a large part of what being an enthusiast is about?

emaidel
05-21-2012, 04:07 AM
In my experience, most music lovers haven't a clue what an audiophile system can sound like, and once they do, they're all but blown away. Musicians, in particular, always seem to have really lousy systems, and many prefer loudspeakers that seem to reproduce the particular instrument they (the musicians) play, rather than the entire audio spectrum.

Audiophiles, on the other hand, aren't necessarily music lovers as many listen to their systems, and not to the music itself. There's been a long-standing joke in the industry about the audiophile who'se spent tens of thousands of dollars on his equipment, but owns only four records, or discs.

Those of us on this site are likely both music lovers and audiophiles, or at least, audio enthusiasts. We are a particular breed, who'd like to see others join in with that which gives us such pleasure (listening to music on our systems), but sign in frustration when entering someone's home only to see a three-piece, plastic "stereo" as the source of recorded music.

Whenever I traveled while working in the industy, I always looked out the window of the plane as we were landing, and realized how few of those thousands of homes I was looking at had any really decent audio equipment in them, and how few people have a clue how enjoyable listening to good music on a good system can be. Pity.

JohnMichael
05-21-2012, 04:22 AM
If I were not a music lover I would not go to the trouble of tweaking and upgrading. For me the love of music drives my need for a better sound system.

bobsticks
05-21-2012, 04:39 AM
I think marketing has a tremendous amount to do with this. As mentioned, the tech sectors are focused on phone and mobile applications...there certainly aren't any ad campaigns featuring mod hipsters sitting in their Corbusier chairs getting their heads blown back by Pioneer speakers. That may not effect what is available but it certainly effects what is perceived to be available.

(As a side note, if you want to see how much emphasis is placed on mobile technology today, commit to researching a phone purchase---hell, just Google, "Droid Razr vs. iPhone"---you'll see vitriol similar to the Great Cable Debates)

I suspect it's noteworthy too that a lot of kids today have little to no idea of what live music really sounds like.

Plus, not to avoid the elephant in the room, but as to the characteristics of "audiophile equipmentent" and "audiophile preferences" I've often felt that when some henpecked audiogeezers use the phrase WAF what they really mean is, "Keep your stupid hobby quiet and unobtrusive or get ready to sleep on the couch"...

mlsstl
05-21-2012, 05:03 AM
Just a quick comment on the OP's jab at "unamplified" music as a reference. This is actually quite defensible as it gives an outside reference point that is far freer of manipulation than something that's been though an equalizer, effects processor and had the volume manipulated in comparison to the other instruments on the recording.

Who knows what the artist really wanted you to hear with a synthesizer, electric violin or sampled vocals and so on.

Of course, this assumes the listener has some experience with live music. Sure, there are variances in sound between a Bosendorfer and Steinway or other pianos that most have not memorized, but that still doesn't deprive the usefulness of knowing how "real" a piano recording sounds when played through a particular system. With the recordings that have substantial artificial manipulation, one is essentially reduced to saying "I like it" without much ability to know if that is what you were meant to hear.

Byron4
05-21-2012, 07:52 AM
Feanor
I also agree that you can get pretty decent sound for, say, $1500.

That describes my office setup based on Magnepan MMG speakers.

emaidel
Those of us on this site are likely both music lovers and audiophiles, or at least, audio enthusiasts. We are a particular breed, who'd like to see others join in with that which gives us such pleasure (listening to music on our systems), but sign in frustration when entering someone's home only to see a three-piece, plastic "stereo" as the source of recorded music.

Yes my feelings exactly.

Glen B
05-21-2012, 09:51 AM
My passion for music and equipment is shared equally. I would literally spend my last dollar on either one. I just prefer to do most of my listening on the best sounding equipment I can afford.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-21-2012, 03:38 PM
Just a quick comment on the OP's jab at "unamplified" music as a reference. This is actually quite defensible as it gives an outside reference point that is far freer of manipulation than something that's been though an equalizer, effects processor and had the volume manipulated in comparison to the other instruments on the recording.

Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly). The great majority of music has some sort of manipulation in it because the studio recording(which has some manipulation in it). Today's live mixer goals are to recreate a live version of the studio sound captured on the album. The "A" chain of a live sound system(speakers, amps, and DSP processing including venue/system equalization) has improved dramatically over the years. Artist today take a very active role in the quality of their live sound, so if the manipulation is there, it is there because the artist wanted it.


Who knows what the artist really wanted you to hear with a synthesizer, electric violin or sampled vocals and so on.

You know because if the artist didn't want it, it would not be there. Part of a road mixers job is to give the artist exactly what they need sound wise to make the performance happen. The mix of a live tour is designed before the crew hits the road via rehersal after rehersal of practice with the artist and band. If it does not jell in rehersal, it does not go out on tour. That goes for audio and visual elements of the production.


Of course, this assumes the listener has some experience with live music. Sure, there are variances in sound between a Bosendorfer and Steinway or other pianos that most have not memorized, but that still doesn't deprive the usefulness of knowing how "real" a piano recording sounds when played through a particular system. With the recordings that have substantial artificial manipulation, one is essentially reduced to saying "I like it" without much ability to know if that is what you were meant to hear.

So you understand, we don't mix for individual environments, we mix for optimum sound quality first, with the understanding the recording will be played back on a wide variety of sound systems, in a wide variety of rooms. Secondly we do not mix in a vacuum. The artist always(and I mean ALWAYS) has the last word on what goes on disc, and through a live PA system in a concert setting. If the artist does not like what they hear in a live setting, then it does not go out during performance. There is a lot of communication during pre-production, production, and post production between the artists, and the mixer/recorders.

E-Stat
05-21-2012, 04:03 PM
Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly).
I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.


The artist always(and I mean ALWAYS) has the last word on what goes on disc
So, even successful artists like Katy Perry want highly compressed, bandwidth limited somewhat hard sounding recordings with a flat perspective? Really? There are quite a few pop artists whose work could most certainly benefit from improvements.

Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.

I guess what you're saying is that there are quite a few artists who are utterly clueless as to what really good recorded music can do. That's a sad statement.

RGA
05-21-2012, 07:04 PM
Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.



Glad I'm not the only one - I see the DG label and I start looking for something on another label - pretty much any other label. eesh.

mlsstl
05-21-2012, 07:25 PM
Once again Terrence, you gave a lengthy response to issues that misses the point of my comments.

When a person buys a recording of heavily processed music, there is simply no independent reference a listener can use to know if he's hearing what the artist intended. An artificial sound, whether created synthetically or an acoustic instrument that's had the daylights processed out of it is just that - artificial. Since it has no real counterpart, a listener has no way to know if he's hearing what's intended. He can only say he likes it, or use his imagination to think some other sound quality would have been better.

I also find little similarity between live, heavily amplified rock concerts and recordings, though I don't have much interest in the touring rock extravaganzas that seem popular with others. (I always find it amusing when classic rock types start obsessing about "soundstage", as if that replicated something live. Plus, there is something wonderfully ironic when one claims to be an audiophile but has to wear ear plugs at a live event to protect hearing.)

I think we just live in different worlds, Terrence. You're at the forefront of an industry doing a lot of things that have little interest for me.

Byron4
05-21-2012, 07:38 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible;383340]Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly).

I totally agree. I enjoy big band jazz such as Gerald Wilson, Buddy Rich, Maynard Ferguson, Gerald Henderson among others. I could care less whether it has amplification or not. Although with electric guitars and electric bass I am sure it does. I also enjoy classical music Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Tchaikovsky among others. Again the fact it is not amplified is not a factor. In this case I am sure it is not. The performance by these performers is very important to my enjoyment. The products I buy services the music not the other way around so I bring my favorite records and Cd's to evaluate the components I may buy. Fortunately, my current local high end shop Shelley's has a wide selection of records and Cd's to demonstrate their equipment and a very knowledgeable staff to guide me. As far as sub $1000 speakers I find even my Magnepan MMG's can be extremely satisfying to me. In my very small office it goes down to almost 50hz which just gets me enough bass and has a midrange that suits me. While this might not be the preferred way of evaluating equipment the results have been very similar to what other music lover/audiophiles own and I rarely have had buyer's remorse with the exception of not buying a pair of Dahlquist DQ10's in the 1970's.

Also I tracked down the article I referred to in my original post. It was by Robert Harley titled "An Affordable Audiophile System" in the table of contents. So the author also considered it an audiophile system. It was an outstanding article because he pointed out the strengths as well as the flaws of each component and the speakers may have been my only change to that system which he even stated others may prefer different speakers or later adding a subwoofer. I would have preferred either the Vandersteen 2ce's or the Magnepan 1.6's at the time. I also learned about his system approach for building a system and will admit it was educational.

I realize some of you may disagree with my approach or way of thinking but just keep in mind these are only my opinions. Also the diversity of likes and dislikes of equipment and the approach to evaluate products are one of the things that makes this activity fun.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-21-2012, 07:52 PM
I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.

The number of microphones you use has no relevancy to the sound quality you get. There have been some really horrible simple miked recordings, and some really good recordings that use many microphones. It not the number of microphones, it is how they are used.



So, even successful artists like Katy Perry want highly compressed, bandwidth limited somewhat hard sounding recordings with a flat perspective? Really? There are quite a few pop artists whose work could most certainly benefit from improvements.

Do you blame this on the original recording, or the duplicated release product? Do you blame this on the original tape, or the playback format? What if the culprit was the end users system, and not the recorded product?


Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.

Can you really blame the problem on multi miking, or the playback format? Or how about the difference between the monitoring system of the masterer, and the consumer playback system. Or how about the differences between the acoustics of the studio and the playback room. There are too many variable to simply blame multi miking as the culprit.


I guess what you're saying is that there are quite a few artists who are utterly clueless as to what really good recorded music can do. That's a sad statement.

No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is their is straight recording, and there is shaping a particular artistic sound during the mixing or mastering process. The latter is just as legit as the former, whether you like the results or not. No artist should be constrained to another person idea of artistic sonic integrity. Some music would be rather boring if artistic license was not allowed.

I am not a one size fits all for either recording or playback.As an artist, I would not have somebody's opinion of "sad statement" effect my artistic license and creativity. Homogenization is pretty bland in my book.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-21-2012, 08:13 PM
Once again Terrence, you gave a lengthy response to issues that misses the point of my comments.

When a person buys a recording of heavily processed music, there is simply no independent reference a listener can use to know if he's hearing what the artist intended. An artificial sound, whether created synthetically or an acoustic instrument that's had the daylights processed out of it is just that - artificial. Since it has no real counterpart, a listener has no way to know if he's hearing what's intended. He can only say he likes it, or use his imagination to think some other sound quality would have been better.

I would dare say this goes for any recording heard by the end user. You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters. What you cannot seem to wrap your head around is that the artist approves every release that goes out of the studio. So what leaves the studio is exactly what the artist wanted you to hear. They have far more input in shaping the sound of any release than they used to have when the sound war was in full effect. That CD or digital file is exactly what the artist wants you to hear, so that is your reference good or bad.


I also find little similarity between live, heavily amplified rock concerts and recordings, though I don't have much interest in the touring rock extravaganzas that seem popular with others. (I always find it amusing when classic rock types start obsessing about "soundstage", as if that replicated something live. Plus, there is something wonderfully ironic when one claims to be an audiophile but has to wear ear plugs at a live event to protect hearing.)

There is little similarity between live and recorded sound because their jobs are fundamentally different. One serves the needs of the venue, the other is for our rooms, ears and playback systems.

I am a audiophile, and I wear ear plugs to protect my hearing because I am not the only person listening. The sound system has to serve thousands of people, not just me in my listening room. The sound will be loud to some, and not so loud to others in the crowd. A live PA must cover a very large space with even sound, and my playback system just covers me. The recording is a snapshot of the sound from microphones at strategic positions, the live sound covers the entire venue. Live and recorded sound cannot and should not be compared to each other, the jobs are quite different, and so are the tools.


I think we just live in different worlds, Terrence. You're at the forefront of an industry doing a lot of things that have little interest for me.

And yet you are here criticizing......hummmmmmmm

Poultrygeist
05-22-2012, 04:24 AM
Having worked in mental health services for many years I'm not keen on being labeled with any word ending in phile.

E-Stat
05-22-2012, 04:33 AM
You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't.
You really don't have a notion of what any number of acoustic instruments sound like devoid of getting played through PA gear or countless processing steps? Sorry to hear that.


What you cannot seem to wrap your head around is that the artist approves every release that goes out of the studio. So what leaves the studio is exactly what the artist wanted you to hear.
That is a truly depressing testament. Are all artists really that deaf to not have any understanding of dynamic range?


...and not so loud to others in the crowd.
120 db is "not so loud to others"? Waddit you say? Huh?

Feanor
05-22-2012, 04:40 AM
I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.
...
Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling. ...
Whether or not the number of microphones was the issue, I agree that most Deutsche Grammophon recordings of decades ago were poor with respect to depth and ambience.

DG's "Original Image Bit Processing" remasters are a bit of an improvement. I gather that they took their original, multi-multi-multi-track tapes and selectively added time delays, etc., to render a better sense of depth.

Feanor
05-22-2012, 05:06 AM
I would dare say this goes for any recording heard by the end user. You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters. What you cannot seem to wrap your head around is that the artist approves every release that goes out of the studio. So what leaves the studio is exactly what the artist wanted you to hear. They have far more input in shaping the sound of any release than they used to have when the sound war was in full effect. That CD or digital file is exactly what the artist wants you to hear, so that is your reference good or bad. ...
I like to think that I have a nuanced view of the importance of the live reference.

For a start, what is a individual's "live reference"?? For one thing, live sound differs according to various parameters, including at least the music(!), the ensemble, the conductor, the venue, and one's personal seat in the venue. Consequently the individual has no single live references. Rather a person's live reference is really pastiche of many live listening experiences.

Furthermore I believe people "idealize" their live reference composite according to their preference in sound. An individual's perceived "live reference" as very far from an objective thing.

Sir Terrence, I agree that the relevant entity is the recording: each is its own artistic and technical product. As far as accuracy is concerned, absolutely the only benchmark is what the sound engineer heard in the mastering room. Accuracy per se is with respect to the recording, not to the "live reference".

Just the same, the only way to understand what (acoustic) instruments sound like, is to hear them live.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-22-2012, 04:20 PM
You really don't have a notion of what any number of acoustic instruments sound like devoid of getting played through PA gear or countless processing steps? Sorry to hear that.


I would wager I know far more about what acoustic instruments sound like than you do. How many concerts have you recorded? How about film scores? ASSumptions are never a good thing.



That is a truly depressing testament. Are all artists really that deaf to not have any understanding of dynamic range?

The artist has no choice in this aspect when the marketing department is telling you the record company wants it loud so it plays well on the radio.



120 db is "not so loud to others"? Waddit you say? Huh?

Stick to TALKING about audio Ralph, you wouldn't last twenty seconds on the comedy circuit.

E-Stat
05-22-2012, 04:58 PM
I would wager I know far more about what acoustic instruments sound like than you do. How many concerts have you recorded? How about film scores?
And yet, you don't seem to understand or retain what you've heard.


The artist has no choice in this aspect when the marketing department is telling you the record company wants it loud so it plays well on the radio.
Bingo, we have a winner!!!! Now you've acknowledged the real answer.

tube fan
05-22-2012, 08:36 PM
Even I can see that, in , say twenty years, high res MC will TOTALLY dominate the audio world. Yes, in twenty years, a great MC system will cost very little (compared to today's stereo high end cost).

E-Stat
05-23-2012, 05:05 AM
Even I can see that, in , say twenty years, high res MC will TOTALLY dominate the audio world. Yes, in twenty years, a great MC system will cost very little (compared to today's stereo high end cost).
So, you believe that the cost of all high performance sources, cabling, amplification and speakers will drop by more than half? While that notion is certainly desirable, it does not reflect what has happened over the past several decades.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-23-2012, 06:34 AM
And yet, you don't seem to understand or retain what you've heard.

How would you know this, a spirit told you? Or perhaps Harry Potter gave you his magic wand so you can read my mind? This is at best a stupid statement, and t worst, a very stupid statement.



Bingo, we have a winner!!!! Now you've acknowledged the real answer.

That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?

Byron4
05-23-2012, 06:38 AM
So, you believe that the cost of all high performance sources, cabling, amplification and speakers will drop by more than half? While that notion is certainly desirable, it does not reflect what has happened over the past several decades.

Actually with the new global economy combined with the number of outstanding American made high value products made by Quicksilver, Rogue, Vandersteen, Magnepan, the list goes on, I feel high-end products have become very affordable. However, when reading some of the comments there are still a substantial number of audiophiles that equate quality with price. I read a long time ago that high-end audio is an attitude of the manufacturers design of a product not about price. Also The April 2011 issue of Stereophile has an article called "The Upward Price Spiral" which discusses the issue of pricing. It is available on their website.

On a related note, after rereading my initial post, I would like to clarify that Stereophile does a very balanced job of covering their entry level products, especially with their introduction of "The Entry level " and some of the new reviewers hired the past few years. Like I said earlier Sam Tellig exposed me to the Quicksilver line of reasonably price tube amps. I am only suggesting they review a few more floor standing speakers instead of the mostly stand mounted speakers to appeal to a wider young crowd. And no these do not have to be muddled bass speakers for loud modern music. There are probably some new companies out there we have never heard of that could use the exposure.

E-Stat
05-23-2012, 06:53 AM
How would you know this, a spirit told you?
The "spirit" would be you with your previous comments.


That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?
Only the vast majority of current music which shares this gross compression. You might recall that the AES has formally complained about that.

Brett A
05-23-2012, 12:55 PM
I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

JoeE SP9
05-23-2012, 01:52 PM
I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

One good thing about them, you can't tell if they're compressed.:biggrin5:

Byron4
05-23-2012, 03:49 PM
I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

Haha

Beautiful system although I don't know why the link disappears when I sign in.

RGA
05-23-2012, 10:24 PM
Actually with the new global economy combined with the number of outstanding American made high value products made by Quicksilver, Rogue, Vandersteen, Magnepan, the list goes on, I feel high-end products have become very affordable. However, when reading some of the comments there are still a substantial number of audiophiles that equate quality with price. .

It depends what your standards are. Rogue makes over $10k amps, Magnepan makes $15,000 loudspeakers and Vandersteen makes a $50,000+ loudspeaker.

Sure they make "affordable products" but just keeping it within the company line - the more expensive models tend to sound a lot better than their less expensive models.

MC presently would make my increased cost dramatic. The old 2 great speakers and a great two channel SET amp to let you listen to 99.99999% of all recorded music in history or buy 6 to 11 lesser loudspeakers and some sort of SS surround system to play the remaining fraction of a percent of music seems off to me.

That's in an "either or" scenario. It does not have to be - you can always buy BOTH. Have a lesser priced MC set-up with "good" speakers and play MC back on that.

It depends on what sacrifices you wish to make. Using Maggie as an example - 3 pairs of 1.6 speakers for $6k in multi-channel or one pair of 3.6 for two channel. I'd probably go MC given the choice.

If it was stuff I liked I could run 3 pairs of AX Two standmounts with one or two Genesis subwoofers for H/T and MC. I can buy mono-block SET amps as power amps for each speaker (and then run an MC SS amplifier with a bypass to a SET preamp for 2 channel).

Brett A
05-24-2012, 06:37 AM
Haha

Beautiful system although I don't know why the link disappears when I sign in.
Thanks. I'll check my linkages...

And an even funnier thing is when I got home last night, I actually DID listen to sweeps and spot tones for most of an hour. (I'm working on positioning a new set of speakers).

:wink5:

Byron4
05-24-2012, 07:03 AM
[QUOTE=RGA;383456]It depends what your standards are. Rogue makes over $10k amps, Magnepan makes $15,000 loudspeakers and Vandersteen makes a $50,000+ loudspeaker.

You have a point. Still the Rogue integrated amp complete with phono stage for under 2k is intriguing and I have read some really good things about this amp. Someday I would like to hook them up to my Alon speakers to hear how they compare to my ASL/Quicksilver combo especially because they both have a similar tube complement.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-24-2012, 08:04 AM
The "spirit" would be you with your previous comments.

And what comments would those be?



Only the vast majority of current music which shares this gross compression. You might recall that the AES has formally complained about that.

Much more targeted response, because not ALL music is highlty compressed.

I am acutely aware of the AES complaint, I was one of the members complaining.

E-Stat
05-24-2012, 10:28 AM
And what comments would those be?


"Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly)...

You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters. "

The characteristics that make an audio system disappear benefit all genres of music to which I listen - unless of course you really like the gross colorations of sound reinforcement gear. I don't! :)

A voice, piano, guitar, cello, drum, bell tree, etc. all have a signature sound regardless of the variance you find between any two instruments or sound venues.

E-Stat
05-24-2012, 10:39 AM
The number of microphones you use has no relevancy to the sound quality you get.
Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions. :)

I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.


Do you blame this on the original recording, or the duplicated release product? Do you blame this on the original tape, or the playback format?
The product delivered to the public, format included.


What if the culprit was the end users system, and not the recorded product?
Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

Florian
05-25-2012, 02:50 AM
Having worked in mental health services for many years I'm not keen on being labeled with any word ending in phile.

Comedy Gold :D

Florian
05-25-2012, 02:52 AM
How would you know this, a spirit told you? Or perhaps Harry Potter gave you his magic wand so you can read my mind? This is at best a stupid statement, and t worst, a very stupid statement.




That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?

Please leave Harrys magic wang....aeh.... wand out of this :eek:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-25-2012, 11:54 AM
"Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly)...

Well Ralph, it does not help rock, soul, electronic, progressive jazz, or any other genre that uses amplified instruments does it?


You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters. "

Sitting in a concert hall(with its reverberation characteristics) is not exactly listening to the instrument in its pure form. A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine. Listen to a woodwind or string instrument up close, and then move back to mid hall. You here far more reverberation than you hear pure tone.


The characteristics that make an audio system disappear benefit all genres of music to which I listen - unless of course you really like the gross colorations of sound reinforcement gear. I don't! :)

So Madonna or Rihanna recording makse your audio system disappear. Yeah right, they contain all the processing you complain about. Sound reinforcement gear has come a very long way, but of course your personal prejudices with it would prevent you from recognizing this.


A voice, piano, guitar, cello, drum, bell tree, etc. all have a signature sound regardless of the variance you find between any two instruments or sound venues.

And one you introduce the reverberation characteristic of the hall, that sound signature is subtlely altered. The piano can lose it percussiveness as can the guitar, the cello sounds a bit less woody, and the transients of the bell tree are blunted.

The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber, or with your ear very close to the instrument. You don't get that experience in a concert hall.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-25-2012, 01:01 PM
Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions. :)

You could not be more wrong on this. The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be. It has nothing to do with getting depth, or razor sharp imaging. Your lack of recording experience brings you to the wrong conclusions on this every time this is discussed.


I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.

Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny. Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues. This recording used no less than 15 microphones, and the presentation is as natural as you can get, with excellent depth, timbre clarity, and soundstaging

I made a recording which included 1300 choir members, a 110 piece orchestra, soloists, a Hammond B3 organ, and Yamaha CP-70 electric piano and a acoustical piano, synthesizers, and a drummer with a HUGE drum kit. It required close to 85 microphones to capture this performance, and its presentation is totally natural, well scaled, VERY dynamic, top notch clarity, excellent soundstaging and depth. There is no way in hell the performance could have been captured clearly using minimal microphone techniques - the scale is just too massive.

It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.


Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

I am going to throw this at you. How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?

I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.

E-Stat
05-25-2012, 07:26 PM
Well Ralph, it does not help rock, soul, electronic, progressive jazz, or any other genre that uses amplified instruments does it?
I'm not alone in finding that even a good home system sounds more "live" on rock music than sound reinforcement systems. You actually get to articulate voices and instruments. The same is certainly true for electronic music where there's all sorts of tasty detail to be found with the synthesizers that is totally lost in a "live" venue. I'll go further. I find nothing at all desirable about them. The show and dance means nothing to me. What is highly desirable at such events is very good ear protection. : )


A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine.
Sorry, I prefer natural sound. Not an unrealistic macro view.


So Madonna or Rihanna recording makse your audio system disappear.
Rhianna, no. Some Madonna is very good. It is the system that gets out of the way.


The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber,
If listening to music in an anechoic chamber floats your boat, then enjoy!

Feanor
05-26-2012, 07:02 AM
...
Sitting in a concert hall(with its reverberation characteristics) is not exactly listening to the instrument in its pure form. A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine. Listen to a woodwind or string instrument up close, and then move back to mid hall. You here far more reverberation than you hear pure tone.
...
The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber, or with your ear very close to the instrument. You don't get that experience in a concert hall.
You are right, of course. But I guess I judge real instrument sound by the way I typically hear the real instrument -- rarely close up (since I'm not a performer), and never in an anechoic chamber.

Sound recording is a both a science and an art, no doubt. I don't know its mysteries. I do know that older Deutsche Grammophon recordings that used many microphones, didn't convey a concert hall experience. I know that Mercury Living Presence recordings, made typically using only 3 mics, usually not placed close. The Mercurys did presented something closer to a concert hall experience, yet somehow I don't like the Mercury recordings all that much -- maybe I just don't like halls where they were made. :skep:

Byron4
05-26-2012, 08:36 AM
Wow I never thought this post would generate this much interest. I have enjoyed reading most of the posts even the ones that differ from my point of view with the exception of JoeE SP9's second post which I found rather childish and off topic.

Even though I have been a member for almost two years I have not posted much due to the lack of time. Now that things have slowed down at work I would like to participate more. Remember I am still new at this so please have patience.

About myself. I started in music at the age of six taking piano lessons. As time went on I also learned to play the violin, drums, and trumpet. BTW I thought the musician/crappy stereo comments were amusing and did not take it personally. It is interesting because despite playing all of these instruments I did not become a music lover for another 10 years. As a teenager I started listening to rock like everyone else my age which differed greatly from the music I played classical. As I got older the performing arts talent increased greatly each level up until about the time I graduated from college and could not keep up so I stopped playing altogether. This gave me the appreciation for the classical and jazz I enjoy so much. It is also why I do not consider the term "unamplified" a genre of music. It is also why I do not like parts of the music (bass) removed for any reason when I listen on my system. Again these are just my opinions and preferences. I know many of you disagree and that is OK. I became an audiophile around the age of 19 because like many of you I wanted my music to sound better. I am comfortable and happy with my main system now although I know it could be better. The primary deficiency has to be my digital rig because I have been using the same equipment for 19 years. I feel my turntable ensemble is still pretty good especially after I got rid of the AR turntable motor noise using sewing machine oil about 10 years ago.

I find both Sir TTT and Estat to be music lovers taking a different approach to system building and listening. They both seem extremely knowledgeable and know way more than me about this topic so I plan to stop posting on this thread. Anyone want to join me in the analog forum. I posted about the new replica AR turntable and am interested in comparisons to the new VPI Traveler and Clearaudio Concept.

JoeE SP9
05-26-2012, 11:47 AM
I always wonder, why does it only take two ears to hear what (according to many engineers) takes 15+ microphones to record.

The best sounding recordings I've collected in 45+ years all have two things in common. They were all done with minimal miking (many with only two) and they have little or no (studio sweetening) processing.

Byron4: Please stop thinking that bass isn't important to the majority of audiophiles. That's simply an incorrect assumption. Accurate natural sounding bass is what I and many others are after. In my case I've been spurred on by being a bass player. A system not having enough bass for you means only one thing; it doesn't have enough bass for you, nothing else.
Also, calling my previous post childish mainly because you don't agree with it is actually the childish response. Please don't start calling people names. No one was doing it before you started posting.

Whenever you post incorrect assumptions about others I will post a dissenting post.

FWIW: My system is flat to ~18Hz. Even so, I've had people tell me it doesn't have enough bass. For many people enough bass has nothing to do with flat response. What a lot of people think is bass is above 100hz in frequency and is actually lower midrange, not bass. Wanting excess energy in that range usually coincides with wanting extra treble. That places the sound in the "boom and sizzle" area.

E-Stat
05-27-2012, 09:47 AM
The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be.
My experience is to the contrary.


Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny.
Sorry, I most certainly disagree. We see and hear in two dimensions, yet our brain recreates the third dimension from our genetic hard wiring and experience in a similar manner. Just the other night, I watched a PBS program about how our senses work and how they are fooled. Quite fascinating.


Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues.
I'm glad to hear he did not choose a close miking technique. Fill works fine as I have directly experienced with Jack Renner's techniques recording the ASO. Others, however, use close up techniques which destroy natural depth.


It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.
And, mike placement.


How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?
By listening to headphones. You might try that sometimes.


I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.
What I find to fool the senses as "being there" is apparently different from yours. I find coherency and system resolution more important than spatial effects because the former are present regardless of the venue. Like hearing wifey play her baby grand or sing. The acoustics of our small living room aren't that impressive. My notion of "live" isn't tied to the size of the space: :)

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/lr.jpg

I will confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack watching The Adventures of Tintin last night on the HT/MC. I'm one of those folks who actually watches and listens to the end credits as some of the best music is sometimes found there! The end credit music score was quite tasty and MC certainly improved the experience - if not sounding a touch hokey. The brass sounded as if it was coming primarily from the sides of the room. Overall, very nice.

The largest factor by far, however, has to do with my library of software. As I've mentioned before, I buy music that I enjoy listening to on a regular basis. Is that different from the way you relax and enjoy your music? Unfortunately, MC versions cover about 2% of that since I listen to lots of stuff that was recorded pre-MC era. Call me an old f**t at age 55. I go for greatest bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have a few gee-whiz "audiophile quality" recordings of various types, but quite frankly, I don't listen to them that much - unless I'm doing an evaluation between components to determine how well they are performing. Then, I return to feeding my addiction for music. :)

PolsdVigan
05-28-2012, 07:54 PM
I guess I'm more of a Music lover in this case. The reasons is mostly that I do not have the amount of money like most people do to get nice hardware.:-(

Feanor
05-29-2012, 03:27 AM
I guess I'm more of a Music lover in this case. The reasons is mostly that I do not have the amount of money like most people do to get nice hardware.:-(
Pols, you don't have to be ashamed for not spending more on equipment than you can afford. On the other hand, having and spending money lots of money on equipment doesn't make you any less a music lover.

JoeE SP9
05-29-2012, 08:21 AM
I'm absolutely certain that those with meager budgets can be and are both an audiophile and a music lover. The reason I know is because of my meager (retired) budget.

Before I retired my budget was in many ways restricted. Too many hobbies and interests and a finite income make one economize on many things. I could have bought a pair of IRS Beta's. The need to have a roof and the desire to have an automobile, a motorcycle, a bicycle, RC cars and planes, DSLR camera and food on the table caused me to rethink that possibility. Plus, little things like college tuition for children have a big impact budget wise.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-29-2012, 11:51 AM
My experience is to the contrary.

You have no recording experience Ralph, so just what experience are you talking about.



Sorry, I most certainly disagree. We see and hear in two dimensions, yet our brain recreates the third dimension from our genetic hard wiring and experience in a similar manner. Just the other night, I watched a PBS program about how our senses work and how they are fooled. Quite fascinating.

Can you translate that into how we hear STEREO systems in rooms? Your brain can't fill in what is not there in the first place. It can't fill in the rear when you only have speakers in the front.



I'm glad to hear he did not choose a close miking technique. Fill works fine as I have directly experienced with Jack Renner's techniques recording the ASO. Others, however, use close up techniques which destroy natural depth.

They miked each section individually, so the mikes were quite close - oh and listen....depth there, balance there, imaging there, dynamics there, and the performance sublime.



And, mike placement.

The would go under skill of the mixer....



By listening to headphones. You might try that sometimes.

Dodged the real answer didn't you. I listen through earphones all of the time, so don't ASSume I don't. Trying to avoid the room does not change the problems within it.



What I find to fool the senses as "being there" is apparently different from yours. I find coherency and system resolution more important than spatial effects because the former are present regardless of the venue. Like hearing wifey play her baby grand or sing. The acoustics of our small living room aren't that impressive. My notion of "live" isn't tied to the size of the space: :)

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/lr.jpg

I guess they are different, because you can't get there with just two channels. You can have coherency and system resolution and still get the proper spatial picture incorrect. A 100K two channel system still presents ambiance behind the orchestra, instead of around you. It will still leave the clapping of the audience behind the orchestra instead of all around you like in a real concert hall. A two channel system leaves you at the mercy of the room to create spatial space - a room that was not apart of the recording in the first place.





The largest factor by far, however, has to do with my library of software. As I've mentioned before, I buy music that I enjoy listening to on a regular basis. Is that different from the way you relax and enjoy your music? Unfortunately, MC versions cover about 2% of that since I listen to lots of stuff that was recorded pre-MC era. Call me an old f**t at age 55. I go for greatest bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have a few gee-whiz "audiophile quality" recordings of various types, but quite frankly, I don't listen to them that much - unless I'm doing an evaluation between components to determine how well they are performing. Then, I return to feeding my addiction for music. :)

Can't argue with this. We have come full circle, and it had nothing to do with listening on a lesser system.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-29-2012, 12:23 PM
You are right, of course. But I guess I judge real instrument sound by the way I typically hear the real instrument -- rarely close up (since I'm not a performer), and never in an anechoic chamber.

Sound recording is a both a science and an art, no doubt. I don't know its mysteries. I do know that older Deutsche Grammophon recordings that used many microphones, didn't convey a concert hall experience. I know that Mercury Living Presence recordings, made typically using only 3 mics, usually not placed close. The Mercurys did presented something closer to a concert hall experience, yet somehow I don't like the Mercury recordings all that much -- maybe I just don't like halls where they were made. :skep:

I would argue it was not the amount of microphones that could be the problem, it could be in how they are placed that's the problem. If all they used is the mikes closest to the instruments, then you will will miss the concert hall's ambiance. If you are going to use a close mike technique, then you MUST use spaced omnidirectional microphones to capture the hall ambiance as well.


Were those older DG recording analog or digital?. One thing you learn with recording in both analog and digital, is analog does not lose an instruments focus and resolution with distance, and recording in 16/44.1khz does.

E-Stat
05-29-2012, 03:35 PM
You have no recording experience Ralph, so just what experience are you talking about.
Just the obvious awareness of the recording.


Your brain can't fill in what is not there in the first place.
There are many musicians who would disagree with that opinion.


They miked each section individually, so the mikes were quite close - oh and listen....depth there, balance there, imaging there, dynamics there, and the performance sublime.
I don't share you enthusiasm for close miked recordings.


listen through earphones all of the time, so don't ASSume I don't.
Sorry you needed to be reminded. Why did you ask such an obvious question?


Trying to avoid the room does not change the problems within it.
Our modest living room isn't the best environment to showcase the piano.



You can have coherency and system resolution and still get the proper spatial picture incorrect.
You continue to illustrate examples of individual preference. What is important to you is not necessarily what's important to everyone else.




A 100K two channel system still presents ambiance behind the orchestra, instead of around you.
And lacking in all sorts of resolution cues for live performances. On the other hand, I look forward to the day when MC's contribution to the music market enters double digits. It's somewhere below 2%.



It will still leave the clapping of the audience behind the orchestra instead of all around you like in a real concert hall.
My preference is listening to music. I'm delighted that very few of my recordings contain crowd noise.



Can't argue with this. We have come full circle, and it had nothing to do with listening on a lesser system.
Using your set of preferences, perhaps. Yes, you continue to argue in circles. You may never understand why MC recordings are barely a novelty in the marketplace. But, then again since your earnings are in no way tied to MC recordings, then its just an academic point, isn't it?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2012, 02:02 PM
I always wonder, why does it only take two ears to hear what (according to many engineers) takes 15+ microphones to record.

Unfortunately the recording chain does not behave like our ears do. We also don't use our ears as recording devices to be played back on speakers.


The best sounding recordings I've collected in 45+ years all have two things in common. They were all done with minimal miking (many with only two) and they have little or no (studio sweetening) processing.

This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group. With the size orchestra's I record, the complexity(and control you need) precludes this approach.

JoeE SP9
05-30-2012, 02:44 PM
Sometimes it almost seems that "I've got 68 microphones and 48 channels so lets use them" is the mantra behind a lot of recordings.

Give us some examples of your two channel recordings. I'm willing to actually purchase at least one. I can decide for myself if your approach sounds as good as the recordings I cherish.

E-Stat
05-30-2012, 03:29 PM
This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group.
Grammy winner (11 out of 20 nominations) Jack Renner would most certainly disagree with your assertions. Do you really find that 1800 odd seat venues such as Severance Hall or the Woodruff Center are "small rooms"?

If so, how big do you think a room *must be*?

E-Stat
05-30-2012, 04:30 PM
I'm willing to actually purchase at least one. I can decide for myself if your approach sounds as good as the recordings I cherish.Reminds me of years ago when a well versed nuclear engineer boasted a while back about a power cord that would outperform everything on the market for $4 / ft. I offered to take him up on the offer.

Show your cards (http://forums.audioreview.com/96419-post59.html)

Not surprisingly, he folded :)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-31-2012, 07:53 AM
Sometimes it almost seems that "I've got 68 microphones and 48 channels so lets use them" is the mantra behind a lot of recordings.

No Joe, that is not the mantra. You seem to be under the impression that every mike out there is actually used, and they are not. Some are backups, some are spot and are only on during a solo passages.


Give us some examples of your two channel recordings. I'm willing to actually purchase at least one. I can decide for myself if your approach sounds as good as the recordings I cherish.

I haven't done a two channel recording in over a decade. I only do multichannel recordings. And even if I had two channel recordings to give to you, comparing them to yours would be an apple to oranges comparison. To make this comparison, you need the same performance recorded two different ways. A multimike approach, and a minimalist approach. I am willing to bet and the hand of a good engineer, you would not be able to reliably guess which is which under DBT

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-31-2012, 09:24 AM
Grammy winner (11 out of 20 nominations) Jack Renner would most certainly disagree with your assertions. Do you really find that 1800 odd seat venues such as Severance Hall or the Woodruff Center are "small rooms"?

If so, how big do you think a room *must be*?

As usual no details in your response. Jack Renner takes exactly the same approach to recording as I do - and that is to use only as many microphones as you need to get the job done. Now the details. Jack(and I know this from hearing his lectures at AES) uses typically 5 main microphones, but usually has to alter the recording space in order to make that possible. That means putting plywood over seats so you can set the orchestra further out in the room, or adjusting the concert hall shell(or even bringing one in) to extend the natural ambience of the hall. I have never had that privedge, so I have to work around what is before me. He does not do recording in front of live audiences, I do. He chooses the recording hall he wants to record in, I don't get that choice. He has stated numerously that his idea of minimalist miking doesn't mean just two microphones, or four, or five, but just the amount needed based on the hall size, the orchestra size, and the music being recorded(which could mean 8-10 microphones). I take the same approach. He even admits that using two microphones in a large recording hall has some big disadvantages, including loss or resolution, or too much reverberation being picked up. Jack admits it costs a lot more to do his recordings because of the changes that have to be made to the recording venue. This is probably why the Telearc of old (Renner, Bishop, and Woods combination) is no longer around - the cost versus ROI would never pass mustard in today record company. I mostly record film scores which have to be added to other elements in the soundtrack. There is no way in hell Disney would allow me to record a $200K film score with two microphones. The recordings I do on my own are done in places with good acoustics, but are sometimes not live recording friendly.

So, if you take Joe's idea of minimalist miking, Jack Renner would not be acceptable. No audio engineer worth his salt would marry himself to a single method of recording without taking into consideration the music that is being recorded, and the acoustics and size of the venue the music is being record in. I have heard Jack say this a few times "the recording method must fit the venue:, so you don't use Joe version of minimalist recording outdoors, in arena's, or halls with not so great acoustics. You cannot do it using very large orchestra's, or organs, orchestra's and choruses combined.

In recording, no one method fits all situations.

To answer you last question Ralph, I would consider those halls medium size. The lion share of classical music I record is in a 3,000 seat Paramount Theater . Another is Davies Symphony Hall seats 2743 people. Disney Concert Hall seats 2265, and my church seats 4,000.

E-Stat
05-31-2012, 09:38 AM
As usual no details in your response.
None required for those who know about him and the many award winning minimally miked recordings he did for Telarc. I had the privilege to meet him many years ago.


Jack Renner takes exactly the same approach to recording as I do - and that is to use only as many microphones as you need to get the job done.
Which for his Telarc recordings has been a single digit number.


Now the details.
How does any of this have to do with the statement of yours I quoted? Let's review it:

This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group.

Jack Renner would continue to disagree with your assertions concerning the size of Severance Hall and Woodruff to mention just a couple.


the cost versus ROI would never pass mustard in today record company.
That's "pass muster". Hold the mustard.


There is no way in hell Disney would allow me to record a $200K film score with two microphones.
Why do you persist with this straw man argument? Who said anything about using only two mikes? I find it strange that you work for Disney without pay as you previously have stated in your defense of lack of bias towards MC recordings.



So, if you take Joe's idea of minimalist miking, Jack Renner would not be acceptable.
I think you're mistaken. His experience with a wide range of recordings and mine are similar. We'll let him comment.


. You cannot do it using very large orchestra's, or organs, orchestra's and choruses combined.
I see you dodged my question as to why an 1800 seat symphony hall is considered "small" by you or as to how big "large" must be.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-31-2012, 10:10 AM
None required for those who know about him and the many award winning minimally miked recordings he did for Telarc. I had the privilege to meet him many years ago.

I have met him several times, so that point is meaningless.



Which for his Telarc recordings has been a single digit number.

According to his lectures, not always Ralph. I take his word over yours anyday.



How does any of this have to do with the statement of yours I quoted? Let's review it:

This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group.

Jack Renner would continue to disagree with your assertions concerning the size of Severance Hall and Woodruff to mention just a couple.

How do you know he would disagree, and you currently channeling him? An 1800 seat hall is relatively modest compared to the 2600 seat Davies Symphony hall, or the 3000 seat Paramount theater.



That's "pass muster". Hold the mustard.

Don't give up your day job...



Why do you persist with this straw man argument? Who said anything about using only two mikes? I find it strange that you work for Disney without pay as you previously have stated in your defense of lack of bias towards MC recordings.

What would you call minimalist? Joe calls it two mikes. I never said i work without pay, I said that my enjoyment of MC is not tied to my work. There is a difference, and perhaps it takes more brain bits than you can muster up. So now your idea of minimalist miking is some unknown floating target.




I think you're mistaken. His experience with a wide range of recordings and mine are similar. We'll let him comment.

And both of you guys experience is from a listening seat, and not behind a mixing console making decisions.



I see you dodged my question as to why an 1800 seat symphony hall is considered "small" by you or as to how big "large" must be.

I didn't say it was small, I said it was medium size. 1800 seats is not a large hall by today's standards.

E-Stat
05-31-2012, 10:30 AM
I have met him several times, so that point is meaningless.
Then there really was no need for your posturing about that in the last post.


According to his lectures, not always Ralph. I take his word over yours anyday.
I base my opinion upon observing one of the ASO recordings over a two day span. I was quite fascinated to hear him describe and point out the minimal miking technique he uses.


How do you know he would disagree, and you currently channeling him?
You're right. He should just admit that he wasted at least a decade of his life devoted to exclusively using minimal miking for Telarc. What an absolute fool he was!



An 1800 seat hall is relatively modest compared to the 2600 seat Davies Symphony hall, or the 3000 seat Paramount theater.
How does your new use of the word "modest" relate to your earlier comment about a "small room".




What would you call minimalist? Joe calls it two mikes.
Please do cite your assertion with a link.


, I said that my enjoyment of MC is not tied to my work.
Glad you acknowledged why your opinion may differ from that of others.



And both of you guys experience is from a listening seat, and not behind a mixing console making decisions.
That is an important concept that seems to elude your understanding. Nobody cares about the mixing console. it's the results.


I didn't say it was small, I said it was medium size.
Great. We can now ignore your previous statement since there were dozens of very nice minimally miked recordings (Grammy winners at that) which were recorded in those spaces:

This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group.

Obviously, it works in venues other than "small rooms".

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-31-2012, 10:58 AM
Then there really was no need for your posturing about that in the last post.

Looks like I was not the only one posturing.



I base my opinion upon observing one of the ASO recordings over a two day span. I was quite fascinated to hear him describe and point out the minimal miking technique he uses.

You observed one recording(not mixed it) in one venue, and you think you have his technique down as it applies to every recording in every venue. Great, I watch a surgery once, and now I think I can do it. I have heard him explain his minimalist miking technique four or five times at AES, and he never mentioned a definite number of microphones he uses. I heard him say he starts with five, but he also says he uses just what he needs(which could be any number). The term minimalist miking can mean different things to different people without details. So, with your two day class, how would you apply his technique to recording a 110 piece orchestra, and ten piece band, and a 1300 voice choir in a 4000 seat auditorium? I am sure you two days of observation will yield a satisfactory answer.

I am just thrilled you were fascinated.....



You're right. He should just admit that he wasted at least a decade of his life devoted to exclusively using minimal miking for Telarc. What an absolute fool he was!

This does not have anything to do with him, it has to do with you putting words in his mouth.




How does your new use of the word "modest" relate to your earlier comment about a "small room".

Very well...




Please do cite your assertion with a link.

The best sounding recordings I've collected in 45+ years all have two things in common. They were all done with minimal miking (many with only two) and they have little or no (studio sweetening) processing.

Post #47





Glad you acknowledged why your opinion may differ from that of others.

I have always said that, glad you are finally catching up.




That is an important concept that seems to elude your understanding. Nobody cares about the mixing console. it's the results.

Can't get the result without some way to mix.



Great. We can now ignore your previous statement since there were dozens of very nice minimally miked recordings (Grammy winners at that) which were recorded in those spaces:

The words minimalist miking mean nothing without details. So how many mikes means defines minimalist?


This only works when you have a solo instrument, or a very small ensemble in a small room with suitable acoustics for the group.

Obviously, it works in venues other than "small rooms".

You have a habit of taking words out of context. That statement was referring to Joe comment on using just two mikes. They didn't teach you how to play connect the dots in school?

E-Stat
05-31-2012, 12:27 PM
You observed one recording(not mixed it) in one venue, and you think you have his technique down as it applies to every recording in every venue.
I observed what worked for over a dozen recordings with Telarc at the ASO. The Woodruff Symphony Hall is most certainly not a "small room".


So, with your two day class,
Class? It was during one of the actual recording sessions. Showtime. Each day consisted of multiple takes, sometimes with Shaw critiquing the results between them. It was nice hearing a playback of the master tape. As I've reported before, you have commented on a couple of things that were true of the recording sessions. There were few in the "audience", the air conditioning was switched off (with Shaw using a towel around his neck) and the acoustic shell was rolled back away from the performers.


how would you apply his technique to recording a 110 piece orchestra, and ten piece band, and a 1300 voice choir in a 4000 seat auditorium? I am sure you two days of observation will yield a satisfactory answer.
You would certainly need to ask him. I offer only observations of his previous work. I'll leave all the speculation to you.


The best sounding recordings I've collected in 45+ years all have two things in common. They were all done with minimal miking (many with only two) and they have little or no (studio sweetening) processing.
Fair enough. Some employed two mikes.


Can't get the result without some way to mix.
But those who listen to the recording focus on the results, not the tools used in the making.



The words minimalist miking mean nothing without details. So how many mikes means defines minimalist?
Such is a subjective question. I have quite a few which employed single digits. Call it whatever you please.

Telarc mike count (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue51/telarc.htm)


You have a habit of taking words out of context. That statement was referring to Joe comment on using just two mikes. They didn't teach you how to play connect the dots in school?
Out of context? Haha.

I see now. You ignored "all done with minimal miking" and focused on "many with only two". Your response certainly didn't qualify the subset to which you refer.

JoeE SP9
05-31-2012, 01:25 PM
No Joe, that is not the mantra. You seem to be under the impression that every mike out there is actually used, and they are not. Some are backups, some are spot and are only on during a solo passages.



I haven't done a two channel recording in over a decade. I only do multichannel recordings. And even if I had two channel recordings to give to you, comparing them to yours would be an apple to oranges comparison. To make this comparison, you need the same performance recorded two different ways. A multimike approach, and a minimalist approach. I am willing to bet and the hand of a good engineer, you would not be able to reliably guess which is which under DBT

OK, I'll ask the question in a different way.
What two channel recordings that you have made are commercially available?

BTW: Although not a recording engineer I have a basic knowledge of recording techniques. I'm well aware that some mics are backup or for spotlighting a soloist. My comment about using "x" mics and "x" channels was sarcasm bordering on truth.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-01-2012, 08:42 AM
OK, I'll ask the question in a different way.
What two channel recordings that you have made are commercially available?

The last two channel recording I mixed was back in 1998. I am not sure the recording is around anymore, and I know the record company is not.


BTW: Although not a recording engineer I have a basic knowledge of recording techniques. I'm well aware that some mics are backup or for spotlighting a soloist. My comment about using "x" mics and "x" channels was sarcasm bordering on truth.

Well it certainly was sarcasm. On this issue, the truth is pretty relative.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-01-2012, 09:39 AM
I observed what worked for over a dozen recordings with Telarc at the ASO. The Woodruff Symphony Hall is most certainly not a "small room".

It isn't a big hall either.



Class? It was during one of the actual recording sessions. Showtime. Each day consisted of multiple takes, sometimes with Shaw critiquing the results between them. It was nice hearing a playback of the master tape. As I've reported before, you have commented on a couple of things that were true of the recording sessions. There were few in the "audience", the air conditioning was switched off (with Shaw using a towel around his neck) and the acoustic shell was rolled back away from the performers.

So he recorded in a controlled environment which is the reason he records like he does. These days you don't get such luxuries. You have to work with what you have.



You would certainly need to ask him. I offer only observations of his previous work. I'll leave all the speculation to you.

I asked you Ralph, you seem to be the authority on how to properly record things. So what is YOUR answer to my question?. How many microphones would YOU use to record a 1300 voice choir, a 110 piece orchestra, 10 piece band, and soloist in(and I must correct myself) a 8,000 seat arena? I am sure the knowledge you attained from watching a two day recording session will yield a really good answer.

I think it was you that was doing the speculating. You are really good at twisting, spinning, and deflecting.



Fair enough. Some employed two mikes.

So now minimal miking is either as Renner puts it"only as many as you need" or Bishop's four for stereo and seven for surround(which by the way is the same I use to record the Oakland Symphony), or two. This means minimal miking means different things to different recording engineers. It is subjective choice based on how you want to present the recording to consumer.

I know some recording engineers who use ten or twelve, and they call it minimal miking. The term minimal miking is meaningless in the absence of a set standard. I agree with Renner on the term, using just what you need based on the music complexity, the size of the orchestra, and the size and acoustics of the hall.



But those who listen to the recording focus on the results, not the tools used in the making.

And because of this focus on results(which is purely subjective based on the consumer equipment and room) these same listeners often make simplistic, ignorant and mal-informed comments on the result.




Such is a subjective question. I have quite a few which employed single digits. Call it whatever you please.

Telarc mike count (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue51/telarc.htm)

You notice how Bishop ups the microphone count for surround? Do you notice that Bishop uses more mikes than Renner. This is the subjective nature of microphone use and placement. Nobody's way is the right way.



Out of context? Haha.

I see now. You ignored "all done with minimal miking" and focused on "many with only two". Your response certainly didn't qualify the subset to which you refer.

Unlike you Ralph, I don't major in minors. I ignored "all done with minimal miking" because it does not mean a damn thing. I focus on things that are defined, like the use of TWO mikes.

E-Stat
06-01-2012, 09:56 AM
So he recorded in a controlled environment which is the reason he records like he does. These days you don't get such luxuries.
Why on earth would symphonies no longer allow for a dedicated recording session in their own hall?


So what is YOUR answer to my question?.
I don't know how to say observation in any other way. What worked for hundreds of recordings worked. That is an observation of fact.



So now minimal miking is either...
This is not a binary question. There is a great deal of difference between 2-5 and 16-24.



I agree with Renner on the term, using just what you need based on the music complexity, the size of the orchestra, and the size and acoustics of the hall.
Using that empirical information, he won many Grammy awards using his minimal mike approach in what may be fairly described as "medium sized" halls.


Do you notice that Bishop uses more mikes than Renner.
Yes. He went from 3 to 4 for stereo.

JoeE SP9
06-01-2012, 02:33 PM
The last two channel recording I mixed was back in 1998. I am not sure the recording is around anymore, and I know the record company is not.



Well it certainly was sarcasm. On this issue, the truth is pretty relative.

So, do you have some kind of problem naming at least one? I want to hear what you've done. You talk about your skills often enough. Is there a reason for your reluctance to divulge?

Frankly, using the age of a recording date as an excuse not to answer the question is a rather pitiful reason. When I can easily find recordings from the turn of the century why would I not be able to find at least one of yours?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-01-2012, 02:57 PM
Why on earth would symphonies no longer allow for a dedicated recording session in their own hall?

Its called lack of money. These days if you want to record, you have to sell tickets and fill the hall to pay for it. Recording is not cheap, and the audience that loves concerts is getting older and going less.



I don't know how to say observation in any other way. What worked for hundreds of recordings worked. That is an observation of fact.

Telearc has not made "hundreds" of recordings.




This is not a binary question. There is a great deal of difference between 2-5 and 16-24.

This is not an answer. The fact that you cannot come up with an answer is very telling considering all of the hot air you are blowing in my face.




Using that empirical information, he won many Grammy awards using his minimal mike approach in what may be fairly described as "medium sized" halls.

Well, somebody elses impirical information may lead to another perspective of what is labeled minimalist miking.



Yes. He went from 3 to 4 for stereo.

Can you now see the subjective nature of what is called minimalist miking? I wonder if Renner would call Bishop a heretic for using one more mike than himself, or for using 5 more for surround?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-01-2012, 03:02 PM
So, do you have some kind of problem naming at least one? I want to hear what you've done. You talk about your skills often enough. Is there a reason for your reluctance to divulge?

I already stated that the last stereo recording I did was well past a decade ago, and it was done for a small independent label that is no longer in existence. So what is the point of naming it if you cannot get it?


Frankly, using the age of a recording date as an excuse not to answer the question is a rather pitiful reason. When I can easily find recordings from the turn of the century why would I not be able to find at least one of yours?

Probably because it has been well out of release for over a decade on a very small label.

I am sorry that is not enough for you, but that is too bad. You are asking for something from a format I no longer support, and have not for years. I have no interest in it, I have moved on. And lastly, I have nothing to prove to you at all, when you want to discuss multichannel recordings, come talk to me.

E-Stat
06-01-2012, 05:36 PM
Its called lack of money. These days if you want to record, you have to sell tickets and fill the hall to pay for it.
Sorry to hear about the compromises. Crowd noise is a real bummer. Maybe that's why I don't find the need to replace many of my classical recordings.


Can you now see the subjective nature of what is called minimalist miking? I wonder if Renner would call Bishop a heretic for using one more mike than himself, or for using 5 more for surround?
I'll repeat: there is a significant difference between 2-5 mikes for stereo and 16-24.

JoeE SP9
06-02-2012, 03:02 PM
I already stated that the last stereo recording I did was well past a decade ago, and it was done for a small independent label that is no longer in existence. So what is the point of naming it if you cannot get it?



Probably because it has been well out of release for over a decade on a very small label.

I am sorry that is not enough for you, but that is too bad. You are asking for something from a format I no longer support, and have not for years. I have no interest in it, I have moved on. And lastly, I have nothing to prove to you at all, when you want to discuss multichannel recordings, come talk to me.

I asked for a representative example of your two channel work.:yesnod:

Is that the only one? I don't care if you support the format or not. You made the recording. Is there some special reason you're so reluctant to name it or any other two channel recording you've done?:biggrin5:

How about naming a MC recording you've done?:rolleyes5:

It's very difficult to discuss recordings of any type with you as you totally discount personal preferrence and what others report they hear. I'm far more likely to get a straight answer about recording from one of the engineers who frequent The Steve Hoffman forum.

RGA
06-02-2012, 08:14 PM
Joe

Sir T was on the team that made the Hunt For Red October - and that was one of the best movies around for Sound and created a great deal of believability for the overall effects of that movie.

As for recordings - not everyone is perfect all the time. Perhaps his 2 channel effort wasn't so good for any number of reasons just as the DVD release of Star Wars was a pile of poo - it doesn't mean the guys at ILM or THX or whatever are bums.

I'd rather keep it to apples vs apples - 2 channel versus 2 channel and MC versus MC. My take on Sir T (based on forum posts anyway) is that he primarily a movie guy and an effects guy and a "bass slam" (macro-dynamics) guy. Basically because most of his commentary seems to me to be on bass and "immersion" of movie going experiences. If the speaker doesn't have the ultimate bass slam capability then nothing else is going to matter. And of course for a movie like The Hunt For Red October - bass is pretty damn critical for Maria Callas it isn't. different strokes.

Feanor
06-03-2012, 05:21 AM
Joe

Sir T was on the team that made the Hunt For Red October - and that was one of the best movies around for Sound and created a great deal of believability for the overall effects of that movie.

As for recordings - not everyone is perfect all the time. Perhaps his 2 channel effort wasn't so good for any number of reasons just as the DVD release of Star Wars was a pile of poo - it doesn't mean the guys at ILM or THX or whatever are bums.

I'd rather keep it to apples vs apples - 2 channel versus 2 channel and MC versus MC. My take on Sir T (based on forum posts anyway) is that he primarily a movie guy and an effects guy and a "bass slam" (macro-dynamics) guy. Basically because most of his commentary seems to me to be on bass and "immersion" of movie going experiences. If the speaker doesn't have the ultimate bass slam capability then nothing else is going to matter. And of course for a movie like The Hunt For Red October - bass is pretty damn critical for Maria Callas it isn't. different strokes.
Sir T can certainly speak for himself, but I think it just incorrect to imply the M/C is mainly about bass and effects.

Since you mention Maria Callas, let me suggest you listen to one of two good operas on SACD, or DVD or Blu-ray -- with the video turned off if you like. You will be impressed with how much M/C adds to you enjoyment of the sound and the drama itself.

JoeE SP9
06-03-2012, 11:40 AM
RGA:
I agree with you. However, what I don't agree with is someone who makes comments about recording symphonic music with a chorus etc and can't or won't name any of these releases he did that can be bought. Saying a recording is from a small company and out of print never stopped any of us from at least looking for it.

I've seen Hunt For Red October. Yes, it has a great soundtrack. What in hell has that got to do with the sound of the CSO or how few microphones Jack Renner used? If someone is a movie guy I have no problem with that. Sir T. may be one of the premier guys for MC movie sound. That in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with his skills (or lack of) when it comes to recording a symphony orchestra. Sure I can listen to something with my eyes closed but with movies and opera on DVD/BR that ain't gonna happen.

I amended my request for recording examples to include MC recordings. I'm still waiting for an answer. To my mind and especially ears their is a difference in MC movie sound and MC music sound. Being good at recording and mastering one doesn't necessarily say you're good at the other. As far as I'm concerned without some "proof" of straight audio recording and mastering skills there's nothing but a lot of smoke being blown around.

RGA
06-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Sir T can certainly speak for himself, but I think it just incorrect to imply the M/C is mainly about bass and effects.

Since you mention Maria Callas, let me suggest you listen to one of two good operas on SACD, or DVD or Blu-ray -- with the video turned off if you like. You will be impressed with how much M/C adds to you enjoyment of the sound and the drama itself.

I didn't say MC was about bass and effects I said I felt SirT generally posts about these aspects.

I do not possess an MC system - I do not want to clutter my space with it at this time. To do it justice requires significant outlay. It can't be high negative feedback SS, the speakers need to be speakers that I like in 2 channel since I would not create two systems. Thus in my main system that would require 3 more AN J speakers (or 2 more sets - $10grand) a by passable MC preamp 4 SET monoblocks ~$12grand, A subwoofer $2grand. A Bluray machine dedicated to audio. Eesh.

The set-ups I have heard and not liked may have been because of the speakers - ML with Bryston, B&W with Classe and a couple of others. Pretty poor sound with SACD which turned me off going down that route. Soundhounds set one up with Meridian's active speakers so if they still have it set-up I will give it a go. At least they used the same speaker all the way around.

Feanor
06-03-2012, 03:45 PM
I didn't say MC was about bass and effects I said I felt SirT generally posts about these aspects.

I do not possess an MC system - I do not want to clutter my space with it at this time. To do it justice requires significant outlay. It can't be high negative feedback SS, the speakers need to be speakers that I like in 2 channel since I would not create two systems. Thus in my main system that would require 3 more AN J speakers (or 2 more sets - $10grand) a by passable MC preamp 4 SET monoblocks ~$12grand, A subwoofer $2grand. A Bluray machine dedicated to audio. Eesh.

The set-ups I have heard and not liked may have been because of the speakers - ML with Bryston, B&W with Classe and a couple of others. Pretty poor sound with SACD which turned me off going down that route. Soundhounds set one up with Meridian's active speakers so if they still have it set-up I will give it a go. At least they used the same speaker all the way around.
Are you conceding that you'd go M/C if only you had a spare $20k? Might be nice, but you certrainly don't have to spend that kind of cash to begin to enjoy M/C.

For one thing, automated EQ + time delay systems, (such as Audyssey), are a huge advance over manual system for almost everybody. You can get Audyssey MultiEQ in receivers under $1k. (5 or 7 SETs or tube amps of any kind are ludicrous if only because of the heat -- personally I'd go for class D if I was't content with at receiver.) Lesser speakers are acceptable for surrounds and backs are optional. A sub is essential but there are plenty under $2k acceptable for an enjoyable entry system.

RGA
06-03-2012, 08:06 PM
What's bad in 2 channels isn't going to be good in 5 channels.

Adding receivers and more circuits makes it worse IME.

The system for the audiophile isn't going to be replaced. Added to is fine but adding 2 more pairs of my speakers is out of the question. Which is no doubt why the marketing departments at all the home theater speaker makers came up with center speakers you could sit sideways on the front projector TVs or below them and tiny little rear speakers. Compromise. Or those myriad of $700 one note dead sounding subwoofers that sound better when they were turned off.

I don't want entry level sound. I'm picky - The only ones I've heard sound good are the ones where all the speakers are the exact same model same size positioned at the same height.

Still I have "kind-of" begun to build an M/C system because I found a relatively inexpensive speaker that I like. Putting it through the 2 channel paces. Then 2 more sets of those speakers would make 6.

As for tube multi-channel - monoblocks would be a bit overkill but this might work

BRISTOL SHOW 2012: Ming Da valve amps power iPod, hi-fi and home cinema (http://www.whathifi.com/node/3523075)

Still I would likely have to attach speakers to the rear walls and before I do any of this I really want to hear one good demo somewhere that will convince me first. The two biggest dealers in Vancouver (and the biggest Bryston dealer in the world - Commercial Electronics) didn't cut it. Again with ML speakers and Bryston I don't want to get on MC because the technology may be fine just the playback system ruined it. I am also sure the technology is better than the early days of SACD.

Dealers at other stores were demoing stuff like Hotel California and it sounded utterly terrible on SACD.

Fortunately, unlike BC, higher res formats like SACD are sold in every music store I've been to here in HK where sound quality seems to be more of a premium here than in the west. And DVD-A and BluRay music also commonly found for cheap. I can get Reference Recordings, Opus 3 and Chesky for about $10-$15 each. No tax. So that's been nice to see. Surprisingly, there is a lot of new vinyl here as well considering the lack of space I was surprised to see this in ever music store I've been to. I've been somewhat tempted to sign up for piano lessons. I figure it's probably too late to learn to be any good at it. I'm still a 4 finger typer LOL.

Feanor
06-04-2012, 06:39 AM
What's bad in 2 channels isn't going to be good in 5 channels.

Adding receivers and more circuits makes it worse IME.

The system for the audiophile isn't going to be replaced. Added to is fine but adding 2 more pairs of my speakers is out of the question. Which is no doubt why the marketing departments at all the home theater speaker makers came up with center speakers you could sit sideways on the front projector TVs or below them and tiny little rear speakers. Compromise. Or those myriad of $700 one note dead sounding subwoofers that sound better when they were turned off.

I don't want entry level sound. I'm picky - The only ones I've heard sound good are the ones where all the speakers are the exact same model same size positioned at the same height. ...
Well, a few more points in response.

First, It's simplistic to say that more circuits make things worse: it depends. In particular digital processing (DSP) can be highly effectively. To reiterate, the improvement from automated EQ and time delay is HUGE. (Of course, like anything else it can be done more or less well.) I suspect DSP at high internal bit rates is very, very close to completely transparent. (Most digital issues occur in the ADC and DAC processes in case you hadn't noticed.) Personally I thing the use of DSP is overdue in dedicated 2 channel systems, (though it's available if you look for it).

Secondly I agree that timbre matching is important for the whole set of speakers, however surrounds and rears can, say, a cheaper model for the same model line. It is certainly important that the L, R, and C speakers be in the same horizontal plain; it is common mistake to have the on quite different plans. I'm not a person to rant about marketing scams but I don't like the dual mid/bass center channel speakers that are so prevalent: better the center be identical to the L&R fronts.

There are lots of poor subs, but two things: (1) there are decent subs in that range, e.g. the Dayton Audio T1203K 12" (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-762), and (2) in many cases shortcomings of the speaker and placement can be overcome by DSP EQ, (which gets us back to the earlier point).


...
As for tube multi-channel - monoblocks would be a bit overkill but this might work

BRISTOL SHOW 2012: Ming Da valve amps power iPod, hi-fi and home cinema (http://www.whathifi.com/node/3523075) ...
Whatever benefit there might be for tubes for 2 channel are even less for M/C. (If accuracy is your goal, there are none I strongly suspect.)


...
Still I would likely have to attach speakers to the rear walls and before I do any of this I really want to hear one good demo somewhere that will convince me first. The two biggest dealers in Vancouver (and the biggest Bryston dealer in the world - Commercial Electronics) didn't cut it. Again with ML speakers and Bryston I don't want to get on MC because the technology may be fine just the playback system ruined it. I am also sure the technology is better than the early days of SACD.

Dealers at other stores were demoing stuff like Hotel California and it sounded utterly terrible on SACD.
...
The benefits of M/C are evident even in quite modest systems, (such as my HT system), though there might be compromise in, say, resolution vs. a comparably priced 2 ch system. Thus is your incomprehension of the benefits is the result of sloppy set-up -- or your pathetic bias for the candy-coated tube sound.

RGA
06-04-2012, 08:24 AM
Hey Sony engineers set-up the demo along with Bryston. If they can't do it you can't do it.

As for tubes and SS that debate gets us nowhere. I have heard, arguably, the best SS available and the best tube amps available. There are good and bad examples of both - but the best have been tubes IME. You have yet to hear a good one. From what I can tell the best you have heard is Sonic Frontiers - their best gear would be a notch below Audio Note level Zero. Indeed, Michael Kerster was hired by Audio Note to help make the Dac 1 which he said was better than anything SF made - and SF was known for their DACs. Their best is still worse than Audio Note's worst stuff and that by the SF designer. Kerster now runs parts Express where all those Kits are coming from.

I'll grant you the Ming Da may be nothing great - I have not heard it just happened to see that it was five channels and several reports have been positive on their two channel amps of similar looks.

I recently heard the top of the line Yamaha and Denon receivers running a Paradigm surround system and was unimpressed. To be fair one of the sales guys at Soundhounds who listens to all gear for the last 35 years all day every day noted that of their two competing lines B&W and Paradigm that B&W floorstanders were the way to go and Paradigm floorstanders sound broken - but Paradigm is better with the standmounts. The 60 has always been a bit of a lemon IMO and they don't seem to have fixed it. The British press gave one model a 2/5 (which is really doing something since almost nothing gets below 4/5. And the 60 didn't do great here either Paradigm Reference Studio 60 (2400) - Loudspeakers (http://www.hifinews.co.uk/news/article.asp?a=9899)

Maybe I should look into your MC system - you seem high on it - what do you own?

Feanor
06-04-2012, 01:09 PM
Hey Sony engineers set-up the demo along with Bryston. If they can't do it you can't do it.

As for tubes and SS that debate gets us nowhere. I have heard, arguably, the best SS available and the best tube amps available. There are good and bad examples of both - but the best have been tubes IME. You have yet to hear a good one. From what I can tell the best you have heard is Sonic Frontiers - their best gear would be a notch below Audio Note level Zero. Indeed, Michael Kerster was hired by Audio Note to help make the Dac 1 which he said was better than anything SF made - and SF was known for their DACs. Their best is still worse than Audio Note's worst stuff and that by the SF designer. Kerster now runs parts Express where all those Kits are coming from.

I'll grant you the Ming Da may be nothing great - I have not heard it just happened to see that it was five channels and several reports have been positive on their two channel amps of similar looks.

I recently heard the top of the line Yamaha and Denon receivers running a Paradigm surround system and was unimpressed. To be fair one of the sales guys at Soundhounds who listens to all gear for the last 35 years all day every day noted that of their two competing lines B&W and Paradigm that B&W floorstanders were the way to go and Paradigm floorstanders sound broken - but Paradigm is better with the standmounts. The 60 has always been a bit of a lemon IMO and they don't seem to have fixed it. The British press gave one model a 2/5 (which is really doing something since almost nothing gets below 4/5. And the 60 didn't do great here either Paradigm Reference Studio 60 (2400) - Loudspeakers (http://www.hifinews.co.uk/news/article.asp?a=9899)

Maybe I should look into your MC system - you seem high on it - what do you own?
Look at my HT configuration HERE (http://clients.teksavvy.com/~wdbailey/Feanor_HTSystem.jpg) or under my signature.

It's not that I'm so high on my HT system; it's pretty modest and mainly for movies. But as I and various other people have said, M/C is a different order of experience than stereo and my modest system is sufficient to understand this. The tube vs. solid state debate is trivial in comparison.

Mash
06-04-2012, 04:12 PM
The tube vs. solid state debate is NOT trivial in comparison. Just different.

My "home theatre" system is not as involved as yours, Feanor..... I have two Mackie HR824 Monitors and a Velodyne 15" sub connected to the LCD TV. One of these days I will plumb in two more HR824 speakers for the reat channels. I can tell you this: Ken Burns' WW2 series would, on occasion, make you duck.

Feanor
06-04-2012, 04:17 PM
The tube vs. solid state debate is NOT trivial in comparison. Just different.

My "home theatre" system is not as involved as yours, Feanor..... I have two Mackie HR824 Monitors and a Velodyne 15" sub connected to the LCD TV. One of these days I will plumb in two more HR824 speakers for the reat channels. I can tell you this: Ken Burns' WW2 series would, on occasion, make you duck.
Those Mackies are an excellent choice for an M/C system, I would guess. A mid-range receiver with EQ would make huge difference, though.

thekid
06-04-2012, 06:31 PM
I started to try and wade through some of these posts but I got the sense that some of the usual thread wars were developing so I stopped. Therfore if my answer to original OP question is redundant with other answers I apologize.

You can't force your enthusiasm of the hobby on people but you can tweak their interest enough so that develop more enthusiasm.

My wife is probably a typical listener of music that you described. She likes her I-Pod was content with a run of the mill compact system sold through Best Buy.

Once I started collecting gear particularly vintage gear she still mildly tolerated my hobby. However once in a while I would put on some of her favorite music when testing out gear she started to pay a little more attention to what I was bringing into the house. Then I set up a system for just her consisting of a Pioneer SX-1050 - DCM Time Windows and a Sony SCD-CE595 5-disc SACD/CD player she was hooked. Now she has her own book of CD's and plays whatever she wants. The plus for me is that understands enough about audio through this slow emersion process that when I wanted to upgrade my main system again she did not bat and eye and only wanted to know that it would not affect "her system".

Doing this with vintage gear allowed her to appreciate what I was doing but it did not cost me an arm and a leg.

Mash
06-05-2012, 05:38 AM
Well, Feanor, someone had commented to me that digital EQ did not cause the phase shifts common to analogue EQ and perhaps an automatic EQ unit (self-setting using a mike) would be a solution. I just have so many projects going right now.

Ed Vilcher once used the "your eyes will dominate your ears concept" in Boston to launch his then-new Acoustic Research by having a small ensemble play music and at some point Ed's speakers would take over playing the music as the ensemble pretended to continue playing. After a little while the ensemble would put their instruments down and the audience would be "amazed" at how "real" Ed's speakers sounded. I think the same thing applies to TV.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2012, 08:51 AM
I asked for a representative example of your two channel work.:yesnod:

I understand what you asked for, but my work is not the topic of this discussion.


Is that the only one? I don't care if you support the format or not. You made the recording. Is there some special reason you're so reluctant to name it or any other two channel recording you've done?:biggrin5:

I am not reluctant, but I see no purpose. I have not done a two channel recording since 1998. It was made for a small label that is no longer in existence. Four years ago I tried to track it done just for archiving purposes, and I could not find it. So what is the point of naming it? You would not know the artist(he was a local act) nor would the title of the recording be familiar to you. So what is the point Joe, so you can make a apples to pears comparison with recordings you have? What is the point in that?


How about naming a MC recording you've done?:rolleyes5:

Check out every Disney A title they have released on DVD and Bluray, and there is an example of my mix work. Check out any film score that Dennis Sands has recorded, and there is a partial example of my work(I am a assistant recording mixer on his team).


It's very difficult to discuss recordings of any type with you as you totally discount personal preferrence and what others report they hear. I'm far more likely to get a straight answer about recording from one of the engineers who frequent The Steve Hoffman forum.

Joe, I do not discount anything except misinformation. You and Ralph seem to believe that minimalist miked recordings(whatever that is) are better than recordings done with more multiple microphones, and that is simply not true. I have carefully pointed out several high quality recordings that used at least 12-15 microphones, and have done high quality large scale recordings with as many as 86 microphones. Your beliefs are just plain incorrect, and I have pointed out examples that proves this. It not how many microphones, it is the skill of the recording engineer that determines that quality of the recording. Two to five microphones can end up a disaster in the wrong hands, and 12-15 mikes can turn out a high quality mix in the right hands. You use only what you need(no number) to get the job done. There is no one perfect way to record, and no one person way of recording that fits every piece of music, orchestra, or venue.

So you understand this clearly. When I record orchestra's, I do it not for national release, but for that orchestra's archives. The Oakland Symphony records all of their performances, and they have the option to release them. That goes for the Oregon Symphony, the Seattle Symphony, the Los Angeles Symphony, The New York Symphony, and the Miami Symphony orchestra's - all orchestra's I do this kind of work for. If you are interested in hearing these recordings I have, you are welcome to come to California and hear them in my listening room or studio.

JoeE SP9
06-05-2012, 09:59 AM
My beliefs are neither incorrect or the issue. I said that the best sounding recordings I have were done with a minimal (many only two) amount of microphones. The LP and CD covers and liners "brag" about how few microphones were used. I don't care what kind of recordings you make. I know what recordings have always sounded better regardless of the system they were played on.

The best sounding recordings I have were minimally miked with little or no studio sweetening. This has been an audiophile truth as long as I've been listening to music. Argue all you want. Vague references to using "x" numbers of microphones to record orchestra "y" mean nothing. If no one can listen to it, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

What's next? Are you going to try and tell me I'm not hearing what I'm hearing?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2012, 10:09 AM
RGA:
I agree with you. However, what I don't agree with is someone who makes comments about recording symphonic music with a chorus etc and can't or won't name any of these releases he did that can be bought. Saying a recording is from a small company and out of print never stopped any of us from at least looking for it.

Perhaps the recordings where not made for commercial release, did you ever think of that?(obviously not), Not all recordings are made for commercial release, orchestra's record their performances for a wide variety of reasons other than releasing them to the public.


I've seen Hunt For Red October. Yes, it has a great soundtrack. What in hell has that got to do with the sound of the CSO or how few microphones Jack Renner used? If someone is a movie guy I have no problem with that. Sir T. may be one of the premier guys for MC movie sound. That in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with his skills (or lack of) when it comes to recording a symphony orchestra. Sure I can listen to something with my eyes closed but with movies and opera on DVD/BR that ain't gonna happen.

My question to you is just what the hell does Jack Renners microphone count have to do with my recordings?


I amended my request for recording examples to include MC recordings. I'm still waiting for an answer. To my mind and especially ears their is a difference in MC movie sound and MC music sound. Being good at recording and mastering one doesn't necessarily say you're good at the other. As far as I'm concerned without some "proof" of straight audio recording and mastering skills there's nothing but a lot of smoke being blown around.

And you are blowing quite a bit of the smoke yourself, and I am not here to prove anything. So you understand, there is no difference in recording an orchestra for a film score, and recording one for audio only purposes. The technique is still the same, you put microphones in the best place to capture the instruments within the venue. You are creating differences where there are not really any.

Typically when I record an orchestra for a film score, I use 12-15 microphones for the surround mix. Depending on the venue I am in, I use between 7-10 to record an orchestra in a hall. I use more microphones for film scores because they usually use a larger orchestra than the typical symphony orchestra.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2012, 10:38 AM
My beliefs are neither incorrect or the issue. I said that the best sounding recordings I have were done with a minimal (many only two) amount of microphones. The LP and CD covers and liners "brag" about how few microphones were used. I don't care what kind of recordings you make. I know what recordings have always sounded better regardless of the system they were played on.

So your idea of a good sounding recording is the reference that we all must follow? I don't think so. So this is clear, the best recordings YOU have heard have been minimal miked(whatever that means since it means different things to different people). Great. Since you only listen to two channel, that is understandable. I don't listen to two channel recordings, so the best I have heard certainly required more than two mikes, and as many as fifteen. The reality is, sound quality has ZERO to do with microphone count. That is a fact. You can believe otherwise, but that does not make it truth.


The best sounding recordings I have were minimally miked with little or no studio sweetening. This has been an audiophile truth as long as I've been listening to music.

A lot of audiophiles truths are built on nonsense, so that means nothing to me. Your first sentence is filled with vagarious that essentially say nothing. Minimally miked, what does that mean? Little or no sweetening - unless you know how much that "little" is, or what is was, it means absolutely nothing.



Argue all you want. Vague references to using "x" numbers of microphones to record orchestra "y" mean nothing. If no one can listen to it, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

Who said nobody can listen to it? I have heard it, the Directors and Orchestra members I have recorded have heard it, and some patron's have heard them as well. It is not wise to shrink the world to only what you can hear or see.

It is silly to think just because YOU have not seen something or heard something it does not exist. If you just discount something because you have never heard it, then the world would probably be a very empty place to you.



What's next? Are you going to try and tell me I'm not hearing what I'm hearing?

No, I am telling you that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to recording. I cannot tell anyone what they can or can't hear. Once again, the quality of any given recording is not determined by the microphone count. There is so many other things aside from microphone count that ultimately determines sound quality.

Unless you have a standard that distinguishes what minimal recording is, then it essentially means nothing.

Mash
06-05-2012, 11:35 AM
Ohhh... a fight....
Well, if I listen to a recording on our Tympani, or Maggie, systems then I want the recording protocol to correctly preserve the front to back depth of the ensemble, orchestra, etc. Two mikes? Great! More than two? Well, if the depth perspective is maintained, then fine with me. Direct radiators (cone speakers) do not usually reproduce front to back depth, so I am not so picky with our Mackie HR824 systems even though they smoke.

Hey, Feanor, I found the STEINWAY-LYNGDORF PerfectRoom system but I did not find a price...... but I would bet $6,000.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-05-2012, 12:46 PM
Ohhh... a fight....
Well, if I listen to a recording on our Tympani, or Maggie, systems then I want the recording protocol to correctly preserve the front to back depth of the ensemble, orchestra, etc. Two mikes? Great! More than two? Well, if the depth perspective is maintained, then fine with me. Direct radiators (cone speakers) do not usually reproduce front to back depth, so I am not so picky with our Mackie HR824 systems even though they smoke.



I was bowled over by the bolded statement. Are you saying the natural depth in the recording, or the artificial depth from delayed room reflections? The former is part of the recording, the latter is not.

I would say my direct radiators are just as capable of reproducing the naturally RECORDED ambience as any panel is, and probably better. Especially at middle and high frequencies where there is less rearward output, and less room interaction. A speaker that interacts less with the room will convey more of the natural information on the recording.

Mash
06-05-2012, 01:23 PM
I am referring to the the naturally RECORDED (front to back) ambience ....... The various cone speakers I have used (a lot) do not provide this .... but the Maggies/Tympani do. And even in a room where the back wall is 14 ft plus behind the panels.... Why? Good question.

Maybe because the planars produce a planar signal, which is what a mike will "see"? (A very small segment of a large spherical wave) while a cone produces a point source wave... An interesting question.

Mash
06-05-2012, 02:08 PM
My theory about this Sir T was that for some recordings (Rock, Pop, etc.) the front row was recorded with one set of mikes and the (say) third row was recorded with another set of mikes and then these signals were simply mushed together. This would put these rows all in the same plane timewise. These recordings sound like **** on the planars ... but fine on cone speakers....

When we sit in the audience, we will experence a slight delay of the 3rd row w/r/t the first row even though the performers in these rows are playing in a cordinated fashion, i.e. to the same beat .... hence, depth.

I concluded that (somehow) for a "serious" recording the recording people could record the first row, the third row, etc. and keep these rows in their correct planes, i.e. maintain the sense of depth that I heard on the planars and in the audience .... but not on cone speakers.

Some theory, huh?

Feanor
06-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Ohhh... a fight....
Well, if I listen to a recording on our Tympani, or Maggie, systems then I want the recording protocol to correctly preserve the front to back depth of the ensemble, orchestra, etc. Two mikes? Great! More than two? Well, if the depth perspective is maintained, then fine with me. Direct radiators (cone speakers) do not usually reproduce front to back depth, so I am not so picky with our Mackie HR824 systems even though they smoke.

Hey, Feanor, I found the STEINWAY-LYNGDORF PerfectRoom system but I did not find a price...... but I would bet $6,000.
At least that for a Lyngdorf system.

By the way, much & all though I love my Maggies, I have to agree with Sir T that the depth is really an artefact of room reflections.

Mash
06-06-2012, 01:00 AM
Well, if ".the depth is really an artifact of room reflections. " then this "depth" should be invariant w/r/t all recordings... which I have not found.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2012, 06:16 AM
My theory about this Sir T was that for some recordings (Rock, Pop, etc.) the front row was recorded with one set of mikes and the (say) third row was recorded with another set of mikes and then these signals were simply mushed together. This would put these rows all in the same plane timewise. These recordings sound like **** on the planars ... but fine on cone speakers....


When we sit in the audience, we will experence a slight delay of the 3rd row w/r/t the first row even though the performers in these rows are playing in a cordinated fashion, i.e. to the same beat .... hence, depth.

I concluded that (somehow) for a "serious" recording the recording people could record the first row, the third row, etc. and keep these rows in their correct planes, i.e. maintain the sense of depth that I heard on the planars and in the audience .... but not on cone speakers.

Some theory, huh?

Interesting, but not remotely correct. Rock and Pop recordings are multitracked, and contain no real depth aside from what a recording engineer puts there via DSP based soundfield generator.

So you understand basic recording practices of live recordings, you don't usually record audio from he seats. There is far too much reverberation happening there which can color and diffuse the sound. I typically I use a Decca tree setup just over the conductors head, and two spaced omni's to the left and right of the tree, I put two to four microphones(depending on the size of the hall) out into the audience to capture surround information.

Your continued assertions on cone versus planars is not correct. That depth you are hearing is not from the recording itself, but from reflections from the room. While pleasing to some, it is completely artifical. To test that, just cover the wall behind the planar entirely and see what happens to that depth.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2012, 06:24 AM
Well, if ".the depth is really an artifact of room reflections. " then this "depth" should be invariant w/r/t all recordings... which I have not found.

Not all recording are alike are they? Some are "drier" than others which means the effect will be different with different recordings. The end result is the same.

filecat13
06-06-2012, 06:44 AM
If you haven't left the room already, I'll move the discussion at least a little way back in your direction.

I think the thread's title anticipates a distinction (or even disagreement) between music lovers and audiophiles, and that's a typical construct for this kind of discourse. Some of the posters here have drawn the two terms closer together to allow them to co-exist, though admitting that someone can be one and not the other.

Reinforcing that idea, it's useful to think of the terms as complements rather than contrasts. Folks get hung up on differences these days, polarizing discussions in politics, religion, operating systems, brand names, types of speakers and drivers, amplifier types... well, just about anything. It usually ends up being preachy and screechy and *****y (rhymes with "itchy"), and I personally get tired of that kind of overbearing grandstanding after a while.

As someone joked, we might not want anything with 'phile attached to us, but the term audiophile really just means "lover of sound" in its most generic sense. It's come to be associated with a kind snobbery in which the love is considered more like lust for equipment and sonic voodoo than pure musical pleasure.

My personal belief and experience is that being a music lover and an audiophile is part of a continuous journey. I've certainly been a music lover all my conscious life, even as a very young kid who loved to sing (badly), tap and beat on anything, play "Little White Duck" and "Toot Toot Tootles the Tugboat" picture disc 45s on our old flip top record player, and listen to my mom play "Avalon" on our Hammond chord organ.

Over the years, I listened to the Beatles with the neighbor girl on their brand new Magnavox console stereo, and when we got our own (Hooray!!) I would sneak downstairs at night to listen to LPs and Stereo FM broadcasts of classical pieces that I cherish to this day.

With opportunity all around me, I learned the trumpet at school, played in bands and orchestras, learned the bass guitar and played in a garage band, sang in local vocal groups and choirs, just enjoying the heck out of music.

When I got my first summer job paycheck, I bought an 8 transistor radio with an ear plug. It was the MP3 player of the day: poor in almost all aspects compared to real hi-fi equipment, but it kept me connected to music and made it central to my life. Much later in high school, I could actually buy my own Electrophonic stereo with separate speakers. By any standard, it was barely hi-fi, but it kept me connected to music, and it kept the continuous journey from music lover to audiophile alive.

(more)

filecat13
06-06-2012, 07:03 AM
In 1970 I bought what at the time was the highest level gear of anyone I knew: JBL L100 Century speakers, Kenwood KR-6160 receiver, and Dual 1219 turntable. My friends thought I was nuts, until they heard the system. Then it was an infectious disease that ran through them all. Until that time, they were content with cheap radios, crappy sounding car audio, and all-in-one cheap stereos.

I've lost touch with virtually all of them, but I know that my continuous journey took me to more and better gear over time, notwithstanding raising three kids, moving 14 times, and having to work/pay my way through college and grad school. Now I have a boatload of stuff, including those original L100s, and some of it cost quite a bit.

So now, I think I'm sort of at the audiophile part of the journey, but it's all still about being a music lover. I can say that the thrill I get from listening to a great dance, club, or trance mix on a pair of JBL K2 S9900 speakers is the same thrill I got listening to Deep Purple's Machine Head in a college dorm on the L100s is the same thrill that I got listening to "My Boyfriend's Back" on my transistor radio is the same thrill I got listening to New World Symphony on the magnavox console is the same thrill I got playing the trumpet well at state competitions (and I still play that trumpet today).

So the key to me is the journey and staying connected to the music. How did that happen? Three things, I guess.

Loved music.
Heard great sound at a neighbor's house.
Used a cheap, portable music device as a gateway to increasing investment in better and better equipment.


Those iPod wielding kids that so many curmudgeons decry as the ruin of quality music are actually the future travelers on the continuous journey to becoming audiophiles. They are in fact the hope for the future. Having them over to listen to a great system is the way I pay it forward for someone doing that for me, and I see the iPod as the gateway for them to take the same journey I did.

E-Stat
06-06-2012, 07:13 AM
..,the depth is really an artefact of room reflections.
Gotta hate hall acoustics-where usually zero is captured. :)

Mash
06-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Well, Sir T, our "music room" in Avon, CT from 1977 to 1990 was 20 ft square which produced a nasty ~40 Hz resonance. The Tympany were across one side of the room with ~4 ft clearance to the wall behind. I used furring strips to assemble a slanted framework, going from the wall-ceiling corner 8 Ft up and slanted about 3 ft outward toward the Tympani at the floor. I placed two staggered layers of acoustic ceiling panels on the furring strips, but I did not fasten those panels to the furring strips so that I would have as much mechanical damping as was possible.

The result? The 40 Hz nasties were gone but that wonderful sense of depth remained & everything was much clearer.

Is this what you ment by placing damping behind the Tympani?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2012, 09:10 AM
Gotta hate hall acoustics-where usually zero is captured. :)

Its captured, just difficult to reproduce correctly with only two channels.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-06-2012, 09:16 AM
Well, Sir T, our "music room" in Avon, CT from 1977 to 1990 was 20 ft square which produced a nasty ~40 Hz resonance. The Tympany were across one side of the room with ~4 ft clearance to the wall behind. I used furring strips to assemble a slanted framework, going from the wall-ceiling corner 8 Ft up and slanted about 3 ft outward toward the Tympani at the floor. I placed two staggered layers of acoustic ceiling panels on the furring strips, but I did not fasten those panels to the furring strips so that I would have as much mechanical damping as was possible.

The result? The 40 Hz nasties were gone but that wonderful sense of depth remained & everything was much clearer.

Is this what you ment by placing damping behind the Tympani?

I hope those acoustical ceiling panels where very thick(at least 4") or I highly doubt they would obsorb much energy at 40hz. Question, how do you damp a 40hz peak, and not touch any other frequencies - especially those in the mids and highs? Acoustic panels are not very good at acting like a parametric filters - notching specific frequencies without touching others.

Paint me skeptical on this.

JoeE SP9
06-06-2012, 09:28 AM
Perhaps the recordings where not made for commercial release, did you ever think of that?(obviously not), Not all recordings are made for commercial release, orchestra's record their performances for a wide variety of reasons other than releasing them to the public.



My question to you is just what the hell does Jack Renners microphone count have to do with my recordings?



And you are blowing quite a bit of the smoke yourself, and I am not here to prove anything. So you understand, there is no difference in recording an orchestra for a film score, and recording one for audio only purposes. The technique is still the same, you put microphones in the best place to capture the instruments within the venue. You are creating differences where there are not really any.

Typically when I record an orchestra for a film score, I use 12-15 microphones for the surround mix. Depending on the venue I am in, I use between 7-10 to record an orchestra in a hall. I use more microphones for film scores because they usually use a larger orchestra than the typical symphony orchestra.


The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Since when am I not allowed to have an opinion on the best sounding recordings? Not agreeing with you doesn't invalidate what I think. Many many enthusiasts agree with me on the sound quality of Telarc recordings and direct to disc LP's. So it's not just me.

Mash
06-06-2012, 09:47 AM
Well, Sir T, the furring strips were not close together nor were they fixed together. The whole affair was intentionally rather flexible with a lot of mechanical damping occurring when the acoustic panels moved against each other. Normally we assume that a wall is "rigid" and returns or reflects all or almost all of the acoustic energy falling thereon. If the wall is mechanically lossy... there goes the reflections.

I preferred this approach rather than relying on a "form" of Helmholtz damping, which would rely on a defined space behind the panels and would also be very tricky to execute. Mechanical damping (not significant in acoustic panel ceilings) is much more predictable. I have (several times) researched the acoustic damping I believe you are referencing and that approach is, indeed, very tricky.

I had also detuned the room with the slanted surface.... rather like how one deals with flutter echos by removing wall parallelism.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-07-2012, 03:10 PM
The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Once again Joe, using the words "minimal miking" mean absolutely nothing outside of a definition of what that means. Does it mean Renners three mikes, Renners comments on what it takes to do the job, Bishops 4 mikes, or 7 for surround sound, or 7-10 that others who call themselves minimal mikers? Without that definition, minimalist miker is nothing more than a "air sandwich" phrase used as a "market differentation" designed to highlight one way of recording over another. And now you throw in direct to disc vinyl which is the least accurate way of presenting musical information, if it is not the more euphoric way.


Since when am I not allowed to have an opinion on the best sounding recordings? Not agreeing with you doesn't invalidate what I think. Many many enthusiasts agree with me on the sound quality of Telarc recordings and direct to disc LP's. So it's not just me.

What you don't seem to understand is I don't give a damn about personal choices. That is all over the map. What I am interested in is the misfact of saying that the number of microphones determines the quality of the sound, which is patently false no matter how you look at it. Those of us who actually mix the recordings know better than to believe that. The placement of the microphones, the acoustic of the hall, the quality of the cables and skills of the mixer, the complexity of the musical score, and the ability of the performers and conductor to balance and bring out the timbral textures of the music the orchestra plays has HUGE role in the outcome. As does the quality of the dither(which is mostly likely going to be used), the DAC's, and the monitoring system used for the mix. It is the quality of the whole that determines the ultimate sound quality, not one aspect of it. We haven't even talked about your system, your room, or your hearing ability.

If you need a co-signer to validate your opinion, then it is probably based on shaky ground in the first place. Your opinions are your own, and saying other agree just means a lot of you have bought the hype. And lets face it, you are basing your opinions on a format that is at best inaccurate, and at the least limited in scale compared to a live experience. That goes a long way in understanding your perspective, and why I don't necessarily agree with it.

Woochifer
06-07-2012, 05:54 PM
The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Actually, most of the direct-to-disc LPs I've heard used multiple mikes run through a mixing board. Direct-to-disc simply means that a live two-channel board feed went directly to the cutting head without a tape or digital playback intermediary. With Sheffield Lab's direct-to-disc LPs, they used a single stereo tube mic to capture the Harry James Big Band performance (and my understanding is that it took a lot of preparation and arranging of the musicians to get that session to sound right), while other performances (such as the James Newton Howard, Dave Grusin, and Don Randi direct-to-disc LPs) were captured using several microphones. Even Supertramp once released a direct-to-disc 12" single, and IIRC they normally used 48 tracks.

JoeE SP9
06-07-2012, 06:24 PM
Actually, most of the direct-to-disc LPs I've heard used multiple mikes run through a mixing board. Direct-to-disc simply means that a live two-channel board feed went directly to the cutting head without a tape or digital playback intermediary. With Sheffield Lab's direct-to-disc LPs, they used a single stereo tube mic to capture the Harry James Big Band performance (and my understanding is that it took a lot of preparation and arranging of the musicians to get that session to sound right), while other performances (such as the James Newton Howard, Dave Grusin, and Don Randi direct-to-disc LPs) were captured using several microphones. Even Supertramp once released a direct-to-disc 12" single, and IIRC they normally used 48 tracks.

That's not what it says on the liner notes.

For an example of a two microphone recording done direct to a CD master check out any Groove Note CD.

I've spent time on both sides of a mixing board. It's been my experience that all to often microphones and tracks are used because they are there and available. "We'll fix it in the mix" is one of the excuses used.
My rant isn't aimed at SirT it's aimed at the AutoTune it, compress it to death, use every track and ProTools to fix it bunch. The guys doing that tend not to hang out on audiophile oriented sites.

BTW: To me minimal miking means just that. The minimum necessary for the job. That's why except for direct to disc LP's I deliberately never mentioned any specific numbers for microphones.

E-Stat
06-07-2012, 10:32 PM
... using the words "minimal miking" mean absolutely nothing outside of a definition of what that means.
I don't understand why you continue to ask simple questions like this or your earlier one about headphones. There really is no mystery to the answer when you understand the concept.

Renner certainly doesn't.

GMichael
06-08-2012, 05:07 AM
It might just be me, but......

E-Stat
06-08-2012, 05:55 AM
Its captured, just difficult to reproduce correctly with only two channels.
Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.

Feanor
06-08-2012, 06:58 AM
Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.
Mercury Living Presence recordings do indeed capture a good sense of the hall. On the other hand, as I commented earlier, I really don't like that hall all that much.

IMO, MLP recordings are somewhat over rated, and there are very many later recordings that I prefer.

Mash
06-08-2012, 05:54 PM
Isn't minimal mikes.... No mikes?

Then we should not have any arguments.....................

E-Stat
06-08-2012, 10:39 PM
iI really don't like that hall all that much.
That hall? To which of several do you refer?
Chicago?
Eastman Rochester?
London?
Detroit?
Moscow?

Feanor
06-09-2012, 04:58 AM
That hall? To which of several do you refer?
Chicago?
Eastman Rochester?
London?
Detroit?
Moscow?
I have only a few MLPs on CD. I'll need to hall them out and look. Most of the ones I have a have a slightly close-up perspective, are a bit bright, and sound high school auditorium-ish. So did Cozart Fine capture a sense of the hall? Yes, but is it an ideal recorded sound? Not so much.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.

I have read it. She also makes the same points I do about the process. Doing minimal miking in analog is a much easier task than doing it in digital. As you move the mike further away from a performer with digital, the instrument loses focus. In analog, it does not do that. This is the reason Renner has to basically reconstruct a hall around his recording process.

There are technicians who try to use this basic set up in these modern days of digital recording and conclude that the original 3-microphone setup has its flaws. They forget that digital formats are completely different from analog. They forget or do not know that the digital format of the CD has only 16 bits and is a linear format where relatively close miking of all the sections of instrument of an orchestra, a band or an ensemble, is imperative.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html)

Unfortunately Ralph, whatever ambience is recovered is spatially distorted, and that is the nature of a crippled format. It cannot be corrected no matter what you do.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't understand why you continue to ask simple questions like this or your earlier one about headphones. There really is no mystery to the answer when you understand the concept.

Renner certainly doesn't.

There is no concept, because everyone has a different version of what minimalist miking is. Once again, is it three microphones, five, seven, or ten? I have heard all of these numbers as a representation of minimalist miking, and you only quote Renner. Renner is just one person who has created great recordings, so his perspective is not the only one out there.

Why do you continually avoid answering questions directly? How do you separate room reflections from the original recorded ambience, your answer use headphones. That real answer is, you can't with YOUR speakers.

As long as you dodge and deflect, I will continue to ask whatever question I desire. Got it?

E-Stat
06-11-2012, 10:37 AM
This is the reason Renner has to basically reconstruct a hall around his recording process.
Two things:

1. I'm glad you acknowledge the concept. Many engineers over the past 50 years have leveraged its benefits.
2. I wouldn't exactly classify turning of the AC and moving the acoustic shells away from the stage as "reconstructing the hall". :)


Unfortunately Ralph, whatever ambience is recovered is spatially distorted, and that is the nature of a crippled format. It cannot be corrected no matter what you do.
Agreed. All recordings are inherently flawed to some degree. There are most certainly variations, however, on how you prioritize the many factors in order to create the artifice.

Unfortunately, most recordings are artificially flat. Painted boats on a painted sea.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 11:03 AM
Two things:

1. I'm glad you acknowledge the concept. Many engineers over the past 50 years have leveraged its benefits.
2. I wouldn't exactly classify turning of the AC and moving the acoustic shells away from the stage as "reconstructing the hall". :)

See this is how limited you really understand of Renner. When he was recording the CSO, he would remove seats out of the audience, and move the orchestra out into the room. He would put boards over seats to extend the RT of the room. He basically tunes the room to fit his recording practices, and I don't believe that is the only approach to getting good recordings.



Agreed. All recordings are inherently flawed to some degree. There are most certainly variations, however, on how you prioritize the many factors in order to create the artifice.

And this goes for playback systems as well.


Unfortunately, most recordings are artificially flat. Painted boats on a painted sea.

Maybe that is a flaw of recordings you listen to, but I don't have these issues with the ones I listen to.

Can expect much from Madonna or Rihanna. Their recordings contain every element that causes recordings to sound flat and overly processed.

E-Stat
06-11-2012, 11:52 AM
See this is how limited you really understand of Renner.
See this is how limited you really understand how Renner recorded the ASO.

What did he do in St. Louis?
Cincinnati?
Boston?
Chicago?
Prague?
London?
Scotland?
San Francisco?
Toulouse?


Can expect much from Madonna or Rihanna. Their recordings contain every element that causes recordings to sound flat and overly processed.
Or DG, Decca, EMI, Columbia, Philips, RCA, et. al.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 12:51 PM
See this is how limited you really understand how Renner recorded the ASO.

This comment is bullshyte and you know it.


What did he do in St. Louis?
Cincinnati?
Boston?
Chicago?
Prague?
London?
Scotland?
San Francisco?
Toulouse?

Most likely the same kinds of things he did in Cleveland and other places he has recorded. When you marry yourself so closely to a single concept, you have to repeat the same kinds of processes to get the same result.

With an increasing distance between microphone and instrument, while making a digital recording, the sound gets less precise.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html)

This is why he has to do the alterations to the room to get that "Telarc" sound.



Or DG, Decca, EMI, Columbia, Philips, RCA, et. al.

This is bullshyte as well. You don't change your recording practices just because you change record companies.

E-Stat
06-11-2012, 12:57 PM
This comment is bullshyte and you know it.
I was there. You were not. Speculate on!


Most likely ...
This speculation also noted.


This is why he has to do the alterations to the room to get that "Telarc" sound.
Having witnessed him in action, I understand that concept quite well. To which of his recordings have you personally attended?



You don't change your recording practices just because you change record companies.
My point is that very few stereo recordings from the last fifty years get perspective right. Those that do use minimal miking.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 01:47 PM
I was there. You were not. Speculate on!

This does not mean a damn thing. I have heard him enough times at AES to know exactly what he is doing. That fact that you were there means nothing, since what he did in that hall will likely have variations in other halls. The end result is the same - adjust the acoustics of the hall to fit your recording style. You don't have to be THERE to understand that.





This speculation also noted.

Not speculation....history.



Having witnessed him in action, I understand that concept quite well. To which of his recordings have you personally attended?

You witness him in action in one place, so that does not mean very much. And you do not have to attend his recordings to understand what he does - so cut the bullshyte Ralph. He alters the room to fit his three microphone approach, you don't have to be there to understand that.




My point is that very few stereo recordings from the last fifty years get perspective right. Those that do use minimal miking.

My point is this comment is bullshyte.

This forest of microphones as used by some Philips recording technicians, stands in clear contrast to the "simple" microphone placement applied by Bob Fine and the Mercury team.

The Philips microphone system technique consists of two basic microphones plus a number of supporting microphones. Levels were carefully adjusted to capture the original orchestral balance in the beautiful acoustics of the "Grote zaal" (large hall) of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. Such extreme multi miking was not every Philips engineer's microphone technique in the days of analog recording. Yet the results are very positive with depth and a wide image, if the record is played on a quality system.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html)

This flies directly in the face of your comments. You obviously have not heard enough recordings.

I would take the bolded comments further. You can use as many microphones as you want as long as there is are dedicated A/D converters on each input, and the ability to time align each microphone to the board. When I use a a large amount of microphones for large scale recordings, this is what I do. This preserves both the complex harmonic structure of the instruments(interactions) and the width and depth of the soundstage. When you understand this, then the benefits of the three microphones(and the cost of altering the room to fit it) are basically erased. I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team - it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality.

E-Stat
06-11-2012, 01:59 PM
The end result is the same - adjust the acoustics of the hall to fit your recording style.
Yes. Roll away the acoustic shells and eliminate things that make noise.


Not speculation....history
So "most likely" is now "history". Your story gets embellished with each telling. BTW, an ellipsis has three dots.


You witness him in action in one place, so that does not mean very much.
That is, however, one more time than you. I observe. You speculate.


My point is this comment is bullshyte.
Your opinion and that of Mr. Bruill so noted.


it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality.
Less costly, no doubt. Why bother spending big money for the 2% market after you've already made 170+ recordings? There is a difference between what can or has been done and what is considered cost effective in today's market.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2012, 02:33 PM
Yes. Roll away the acoustic shells and eliminate things that make noise.

That is what he did when YOU were there at that ONE recording, Great, meaningless in another hall with different acoustics, different music, and different orchestra.



So "most likely" is now "history". Your story gets embellished with each telling. BTW, an ellipsis has three dots.

Embellished. Right Ralph, I have heard him speak enough about his approach to recording to know he has a history of doing exactly what I state. His three microphone approach would not work otherwise



That is, however, one more time than you. I observe. You speculate.

Whatever Ralph. Whatever you saw him do live, he will have altered to fit to a different venue. So what you saw is meaningless, as it would be different in a different hall. As I have stated before, I heard him say that he puts down "planks" over seats to increase the RT of the hall. I have heard him state that he has removed seats and moved the orchestra into the hall. I have heard him say he puts blankets over seats and floors to "soak" up echo's and decrease reverberation time. I heard him state these things, so I don't have to be there to see him do it. There is no speculation here, it came from the horses mouth.



Your opinion and that of Mr. Bruill so noted.

My opinion happens to fit the comment.



Less costly, no doubt. Why bother spending big money for the 2% market after you've already made 170+ recordings? There is a difference between what can or has been done and what is considered cost effective in today's market.

That is because technology and a better understanding of digital audio makes the three microphone approach obsolete. You get the same high quality without the cost of altering the venue to fit your recording practices. 170 recordings is a drop in the bucket when compared to all of the recordings produced over the last 50 years.

Ralph, it is very dishonest to parse quotes. If you are going to repeat a comment, repeat the whole thing.

E-Stat
06-11-2012, 02:53 PM
Embellished. Right Ralph, I have heard him speak enough about his approach to recording to know he has a history of doing exactly what I state.
Have you already forgotten what you said fewer than two hours ago? You must meet lots of new people. Here, let me assist your memory:

Most likely the same kinds of things he did in Cleveland and other places he has recorded.

"Most likely" became history in the mere space of two hours! How long was that fish? :)


His three microphone approach would not work otherwise
Actually, he used five in Atlanta. The other two were back in the audience area a bit.


As I have stated before, I heard him say that he puts down "planks" over seats to increase the RT of the hall. I have heard him state that he has removed seats and moved the orchestra into the hall.
You are doing exactly what you chastise me for - extrapolating the experience of one instance to all. It seems logical that he would adapt to different settings differently. It is you who made the unsupported blanket statement.


it is very dishonest to parse quotes. If you are going to repeat a comment, repeat the whole thing.
The introductory clause:

"I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team"

in no way changes the meaning of the significant part of your statement:

"...it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality."

I agree completely with your explanation. I'm fully aware that the best way to create realistic sounding stereo recordings is not the cheapest way! Telarc was most certainly not a "me-too" label. Nor are others like Reference Recordings or Windham Hill who also choose minimal miking and very limited processing.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-14-2012, 02:58 PM
Have you already forgotten what you said fewer than two hours ago? You must meet lots of new people. Here, let me assist your memory:

Most likely the same kinds of things he did in Cleveland and other places he has recorded.

"Most likely" became history in the mere space of two hours! How long was that fish? :)

Most likely means that there is a very high probability. Based on his lectures and the pictures he has shown of his recording sites at AES, I know that I am right. In this case it is not such a stretch to go from high probably to history based on listening to him, and those pictures.



Actually, he used five in Atlanta. The other two were back in the audience area a bit.

Oh so now three has become five. Thank you so much for making my point. Once again Ralph, without a standard, minimalist miking is nothing more than a floating target that means different things to different people. Basically, he uses what he needs to get the job done - however many it takes. Three works for one location, five another. Bishop uses four to start, and as many as seven. I know other engineers that use 7 to start, and upwards of 12. All call themselves "minimal mike" recordists.



You are doing exactly what you chastise me for - extrapolating the experience of one instance to all. It seems logical that he would adapt to different settings differently. It is you who made the unsupported blanket statement.

A blanket statement supported by lectures and pictures. Can't get any more precise than that can you? Yu have shown ZERO evidence that supports an idea that minimalist recording practices are directly tied to sound quality.



The introductory clause:

"I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team"

in no way changes the meaning of the significant part of your statement:

"...it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality."

I agree completely with your explanation. I'm fully aware that the best way to create realistic sounding stereo recordings is not the cheapest way! Telarc was most certainly not a "me-too" label. Nor are others like Reference Recordings or Windham Hill who also choose minimal miking and very limited processing.

Creating realistic sounding stereo recordings does not have to be expensive either - and I am sure Concord music found that out.

I found it pretty ironic that all of these companies are independent record labels possibly looking for a market differentiation slant to separate themselves from the larger labels. There is zero evidence that ties the amount of microphones used in a recording to its sound quality. Zero, considering that there have been plenty of high quality recording made with a "forest" of microphones.

Once again I am going to pose this question to you since you seem to so firmly believe that Renner's approach is the only approach(or those like it) to getting a high quality recording. Based on what you learned in ONE recording session with Renner, how would you record 1300 singers, a 110 piece orchestra. a 10 piece band which includes electronic instruments and soloists in a 8,000 seat auditorium that is highly reverberant with a high ceiling. You do not have the option of customizing the room, you have to take what you have. Now I am sure since you so directly tie the amount of microphones with sound quality, you will have a very creative approach - I mean after all you have this whole recording thing down pat. Please trying not doing the fox trot around this answer like you have previously.

E-Stat
06-14-2012, 07:17 PM
Most likely means that there is a very high probability.
Your speculation remains...speculation.


Oh so now three has become five.
I will be happy to discuss anything I've actually said. Arguing with your imagination is quite pointless. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I have mentioned mike count using two references: single digit and a range. Hint: three is not to be found.



A blanket statement supported by lectures and pictures.
You've mentioned Cleveland. Tell us how he "reconstructed" the Royal Festival Hall. How about in Prague? San Francisco?


Yu have shown ZERO evidence that supports an idea that minimalist recording practices are directly tied to sound quality.
You still don't understand the concept of "preference". Others do not share your opinion.



There is zero evidence that ties the amount of microphones used in a recording to its sound quality.
Only to those who have heard them.



Once again I am going to pose this question to you since you seem to so firmly believe that Renner's approach is the only approach(or those like it) to getting a high quality recording.
The only reference I've made is to a stereo recording. Understand the difference?



Based on what you learned in ONE recording session with Renner, how would you record 1300 singers, a 110 piece orchestra. a 10 piece band which includes electronic instruments and soloists in a 8,000 seat auditorium that is highly reverberant with a high ceiling.
Have never heard such a recording. The compromises must be numerous!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-18-2012, 11:56 AM
Your speculation remains...speculation.

It is speculation until it is supported by pictures and a lecture from the horses mouth. After that it becomes fact.



I will be happy to discuss anything I've actually said. Arguing with your imagination is quite pointless. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I have mentioned mike count using two references: single digit and a range. Hint: three is not to be found.

So your whole argument is meaningless without defining EXACTLY what minimal miking is. Anything between 1-9 is not a definition. You are now hedging, because a single digit and a range defines absolutely nothing. I think you avoid specifics because there aren't any. Minimalist miking has no definition.




You've mentioned Cleveland. Tell us how he "reconstructed" the Royal Festival Hall. How about in Prague? San Francisco?

Not relevant to this discussion. You love to introduce mud to clear water. Though I can tell you what he did in San Francisco, it is majoring in minors.



You still don't understand the concept of "preference". Others do not share your opinion.

I understand preference, I just don't like it referenced as the only way to get good sound. Others do not share my opinion? What, did you ask all of the others? I think most everyone that actually records music shares my opinion, and I think you are full of it. My opinion is you use exactly what you need to get the job done, It does not matter if it takes 3 or 60 time aligned(with individual A/D conversion) microphones, you use what gets the job done.




Only to those who have heard them.

This is a subjective as well...equals meaningless. Some people can't hear very well.




The only reference I've made is to a stereo recording. Understand the difference?

Regardless of stereo or surround the amount of microphones used in a recording is not going to determine sound quality. Understand this?




Have never heard such a recording. The compromises must be numerous!

I don't care if you have never heard one, I asked you to apply what concepts you learned from a single recording session to this scenario. Prove that you can accomplish this with your single digit or range of microphones since you think this is the only way to go. This question has been posed to you at least twice now, and you still refuse to answer the question. This tells me clearly you can't because you don't have the experience or know how. In other words, you bullshyte and that is it.

I didn't have to make any compromises because I had plenty of experience recording in the place, and had plenty of pre-production and rehearsal time to iron things out - not to mention the right equipment and great staff. You assume too much as usual.

Ralph, you are running out of one liners.......and beginning to bore me.

E-Stat
06-18-2012, 12:08 PM
Minimalist miking has no definition.
Clearly, you don't understand the concept.


Not relevant to this discussion.
I didn't really expect any substantiation from you.


Others do not share my opinion?
Such is obvious to anyone who has read this thread.


Regardless of stereo or surround the amount of microphones used in a recording is not going to determine sound quality.
Your memory lapses are becoming more frequent.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-18-2012, 12:35 PM
Okay, this is devolved into majoring in minors. Ralph..give it up.

E-Stat
06-18-2012, 12:57 PM
give it up
If everyone shared your opinions and preferences as to what constitutes the best sounding recordings, we'd all be listening to something resembling your sig sound system.

Such is clearly not the case for the obvious reasons. Why you cannot understand that concept is beyond me.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-19-2012, 11:03 AM
If everyone shared your opinions and preferences as to what constitutes the best sounding recordings, we'd all be listening to something resembling your sig sound system.

Such is clearly not the case for the obvious reasons. Why you cannot understand that concept is beyond me.

Still babbling Ralph? Give it up, you have completely failed to tie the amount of microphones used in a recording to sound quality. Outside of making this point, you are just swirling shyte in a circle.

E-Stat
06-19-2012, 11:13 AM
you have completely failed to tie the amount of microphones used in a recording to sound quality.
Only to you. There have been many successful record labels who find otherwise.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-19-2012, 11:57 AM
Only to you. There have been many successful record labels who find otherwise.

Another diffusive air sandwich. More empty comments that make no connection to sound quality and microphone count. More dancing, more deflection.

Recording quality audio is a series of processes, and it takes the whole series of processes to get that quality. Your profound ignorance of the recording process has allowed you to be tripped up by marketing hype of microphone count, when that is just one part of the process. Renner says its the quality of microphones, cables, mixing board, microphone placement, acoustics of the site that make the quality of recording so good(and I agree), and you have narrowed it down to just the microphones.

Give it up, you are bankrupt.....

E-Stat
06-19-2012, 12:01 PM
Give it up, you are bankrupt.....
What's to give up? That you don't accept the practices of many engineers before you? That is readily apparent.

Don't really care.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-19-2012, 12:06 PM
What's to give up? That you don't accept the practices of many engineers before you? That is readily apparent.

Don't really care.

More assumptions and proof that either you are a complete idiot, or your ego just won't let you go. The common practice of the best engineers before me was to use whatever you needed to get the job done. That includes the necessary amount of microphones, and the use of high quality equipment behind them. I have embraced this practice since the first time I recorded audio, so your comment screams of pure bullshyte.

Give it up Ralph, you have no legs here.

E-Stat
06-19-2012, 12:16 PM
More assumptions and proof that either you are a complete idiot, or your ego just won't let you go.
Reading the liner notes as to how and why albums were recorded the way they were, speaking at length with Renner and others from the ASO assumes nothing.

Why are you so bitter? Is it because your dear multi-channel world is only a curiosity to the music industry? Does using crude language make you feel better? Perhaps you're like Mash who is convinced only he is a happy person.

Really sad.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-19-2012, 02:34 PM
Reading the liner notes as to how and why albums were recorded the way they were, speaking at length with Renner and others from the ASO assumes nothing.

Why are you so bitter? Is it because your dear multi-channel world is only a curiosity to the music industry? Does using crude language make you feel better? Perhaps you're like Mash who is convinced only he is a happy person.

Really sad.

What is sad is liner notes is not experience, and talking is not experience. Your problem is you lack experience and knowledge on the subject, and it makes you post ignorant comments like you have.

Now you are such a low class gutter snipe individual, that you make a feeble attempt turn to your lack of knowledge and experience into a psychological assessment of me. Deflection on steroids. Every time your statements back you into a corner, you change the subject.

You don't know if I am bitter, or just tired of talking to an apparent idiot. You don't know a damn thing about me. So stop the faking and the BS and move on. When it comes to recording audio, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just sit in your chair in front of your panel and enjoy the recordings, and refrain from talking about how they are made. You look like a fool when you do.

Suddenly a two day recording session and a piece of paper now equal experience and knowledge. WTF!!!

E-Stat
06-19-2012, 02:42 PM
Suddenly a two day recording session and a piece of paper now equal experience and knowledge. WTF!!!
While I enjoy listening to the music of Harry Potter soundtracks, this video explains the "containerized" and unnaturally forward sound of some of the instruments.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-21-2012, 06:52 PM
Sir T sticks his head in the room looking for evidence of a direct correlation between the amount of microphones, and sound quality....unsurprisingly, he does not find that evidence. See a lot of irrelevant stuff, but no direct evidence.

He leaves the room not entirely disappointed.......or surprised.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-21-2012, 07:00 PM
While I enjoy listening to the music of Harry Potter soundtracks, this video explains the "containerized" and unnaturally forward sound of some of the instruments.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Ralph, you are really desperate here. This video A) does not explain what you say it does, B) is not a print master or even a rough edit of the 5.1 score, C) is a low resolution two channel file which is a piss poor example of the final soundtrack encoded to Bluray. You don't even know if the recording is from the camera, or from some external microphones(highly unlikely) Try listening to the Bluray disc, rather than picking such a poor example. You will find it sounds nothing like this, and perhaps you will figure out just what a poor example you chose to represent your point. A youtube clip of the score will never sound like the 24/48khz lossless track on the Bluray.

Your desperation is so profoundly apparent you should be embarrassed. The only thing this shows is how poor the audio encode is for this video, or how bad data reduced low bit rate lossy audio sounds. Nothing more.

E-Stat
06-22-2012, 06:21 AM
A) does not explain what you say it does
It illustrates the point perfectly.


B) is not a print master or even a rough edit of the 5.1 score,
It is exactly what it says it is - one of the scoring sessions you end up hearing on the soundtrack, piped in chorus and all. I have both the movie (special BR edition no less!) and the soundtrack.

I think it is pretty funny that you think I'm commenting strictly on the sound of the Youtube video! I'm certainly not referring to when you hear this segment in the movie either - amongst the thunder and all the noise of the mayhem wrought by the flying dementors. I refer to the music. Have you ever listened to the soundtrack?

The Soundtrack (http://www.amazon.com/Potter-Half-Blood-Prince-Nicholas-Hooper/dp/B0028EQMW6)

What the video clearly illustrates is why the close miked tympani sound like they don't belong to the orchestra. On the soundtrack. The Only Way to Listen to This Music. You hear this not only with "Opening", aka 1M1, but in other cuts as well like "Dumbledore's Foreboding".

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2012, 09:19 AM
It illustrates the point perfectly.

If your point was to BS, then yes it made the point perfectly. If the point was an attempt to save face because you have not made ANY point, then you were a miserable failure. Youtube videos are not the place to evaluate the sound quality of ANY soundtrack.



It is exactly what it says it is - one of the scoring sessions you end up hearing on the soundtrack, piped in chorus and all. I have both the movie (special BR edition no less!) and the soundtrack.

One problem, you don't know if the take we saw in the video is actually the take used on the soundtrack CD or the movie itself. Do you see how your ignorance is killing you? Probably not.....


I think it is pretty funny that you think I'm commenting strictly on the sound of the Youtube video! I'm certainly not referring to when you hear this segment in the movie either - amongst the thunder and all the noise of the mayhem wrought by the flying dementors. I refer to the music. Have you ever listened to the soundtrack?

The Soundtrack (http://www.amazon.com/Potter-Half-Blood-Prince-Nicholas-Hooper/dp/B0028EQMW6)

No, I don't listen to soundtracks on CD. Are you aware there is a different mix for the CD, and for the Bluray release? Do you realize the CD is a mixdown from the original 5.1 source? Do you realize a soundtrack designed for 5.1 will sound completely different when mixdown to two channels?


What the video clearly illustrates is why the close miked tympani sound like they don't belong to the orchestra. On the soundtrack. The Only Way to Listen to This Music. You hear this not only with "Opening", aka 1M1, but in other cuts as well like "Dumbledore's Foreboding".

Sorry, but the CD is not the way to hear ANY film score. Film scores for the last decade have been mostly recorded at 24/48khz, and most recently mostly 24/96khz and optimized for a 5.1 or 7.1 A 16/44.1khz two channel mixdown of that will have noticeable degradation when compared to the original printmaster, and will not have the spatial accuracy of the original printmaster. Last time I checked, a 5.1 mix does not sound anything like a 2.0 mix. So what sounds close on the CD, will definitely not sound so close in 5.1 because the spatial characteristics of the two are quite different. We have been through this before with Avatar

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-theater-video/sir-ttt-i-can-now-answer-one-your-questions-32888.html

You are repeating the same mistake here that you did there. Using the CD as a reference to a film score is a mistake from the very start. Film scores were designed to accompany a picture, not designed to be sold as a CD.

E-Stat
06-22-2012, 10:09 AM
Youtube videos are not the place to evaluate the sound quality of ANY soundtrack.
Obviously. What is does quite well is illustrate the recording environment. It was the pictures that told the story.


One problem, you don't know if the take we saw in the video is actually the take used on the soundtrack CD or the movie itself
Perhaps they were trying to deliberately mislead us as to the environment where the music was recorded. Once the cameras were off, they moved the timpani out of the booth into the main area. I'll bet you now claim that to be fact. LOL!


No, I don't listen to soundtracks on CD.
Now I understand why you don't have the foggiest idea as to what I refer.


Are you aware there is a different mix for the CD, and for the Bluray release? Do you realize the CD is a mixdown from the original 5.1 source? Do you realize a soundtrack designed for 5.1 will sound completely different when mixdown to two channels?
Here in the real world of buying music, we choose among what is available. That is THE soundtrack, warts and all. Different acoustic environments for each instrument or not.


Sorry, but the CD is not the way to hear ANY film score...Film scores were designed to accompany a picture, not designed to be sold as a CD.
It is the music industry that should be sorry. The general public has no choice in the matter. Evidently, those who mix the stereo soundtracks don't know any better.

Call me crazy, but I would rather listen to a wide range of wonderful music by composers like Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri, and Alexander Desplat on what is available rather than not enjoying their talent at all.

You may choose to avoid them completely.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2012, 11:36 AM
Obviously. What is does quite well is illustrate the recording environment. It was the pictures that told the story.

When speaking of audio, a picture of a recording environment tells nothing about the outcome of the sound quality. So this is another fail among many in telling anything, let alone a story. I thought we were talking about microphone count being tied to sound quality? Damn you can dance....



Perhaps they were trying to deliberately mislead us as to the environment where the music was recorded. Once the cameras were off, they moved the timpani out of the booth into the main area. I'll bet you now claim that to be fact. LOL!

Perhaps YOU were trying to mislead us by using this video as an example of a point. More deflection.



Now I understand why you don't have the foggiest idea as to what I refer.

And what you are using as a reference is not really a reference at all. Once again, you are walking forward facing backwards.



Here in the real world of buying music, we choose among what is available. That is THE soundtrack, warts and all. Different acoustic environments for each instrument or not.

This is a stereo version of a 5.1 soundtrack. Either you are blind as hell, or you lie like a rug. In the video I didn't notice that each instrument was in a different acoustical environment. I saw a timpani that was isolated to prevent bleeding into other microphones, but all of the remaining instruments were in the same room. If a person has to mislead, then their point must be pretty damn weak.



It is the music industry that should be sorry. The general public has no choice in the matter. Evidently, those who mix the stereo soundtracks don't know any better.

Don't blame those who mix the stereo soundtrack. Blame yourself for using a poor example to make your point. More deflection here.




Call me crazy, but I would rather listen to a wide range of wonderful music by composers like Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri, and Alexander Desplat on what is available rather than not enjoying their talent at all.

You may choose to avoid them completely.

What the hell does this comment have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.

So back to the point. Where is your evidence that ties microphone count to sound quality?

E-Stat
06-22-2012, 12:07 PM
Damn you can dance....
More importantly, I can observe. Putting a box around a set of timpani and close miking them will sound different than if the kit is situated as you normally find them in the orchestra and not separately miked.


And what you are using as a reference is not really a reference at all.
Anything can serve as a point of reference. It is clear you do not understand the sonic characteristic to which I refer.


I saw a timpani that was isolated to prevent bleeding into other microphones,
Yes, that "bleeding" is a quite natural consequence of what we hear in a normal concert hall. Shared ambience.


Don't blame those who mix the stereo soundtrack.
I really have no expectation that multi-channel music will ever be more than the 2% curiosity it is now as determined by the music industry.



What the hell does this comment have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.
Regardless of whether or not listening to THE two channel soundtrack is "the best way", IT IS THE ONLY WAY. You argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin. My observations have always been about existing recordings and their foibles.


So back to the point. Where is your evidence that ties microphone count to sound quality?
Joe and I (among others) must necessarily have different perspectives of the numerous factors that constitute sound quality than do you. Such is obvious by the different choices we make with our systems. There is no single answer.

No recording completely replicates the original event. All fail. Some fail in different ways than others. A few provide natural perspective while most don't. Some miking techniques affect perspective in a way you can't "fix" afterwards.

I remain amazed that as a recording engineer you don't understand such a simple concept.

Sheesh!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2012, 02:58 PM
More importantly, I can observe. Putting a box around a set of timpani and close miking them will sound different than if the kit is situated as you normally find them in the orchestra and not separately miked.

Most Orchestras don't record in scoring studios right? A timpani will sound different in different rooms no matter how you mike them. Once again you are majoring in minors, and are trying to deflect from the issue at hand.



Anything can serve as a point of reference. It is clear you do not understand the sonic characteristic to which I refer.

So, and MP3 can be used as a point of reference for high sound quality? Anything cannot serve as a reference when the objective is well defined. High quality sound is the objective, and only high quality examples should be used as a reference. You failed in this respect using youtube.



Yes, that "bleeding" is a quite natural consequence of what we hear in a normal concert hall. Shared ambience.

Well, this was not a concert hall, it was a scoring stage. Concert hall concerts don't support pictures, and film scores really should not be separated from its video or film counterpart. Bleeding is not welcomed on film score recordings as it is recording an orchestra sans video. Do you often fry chicken with tupperware?



I really have no expectation that multi-channel music will ever be more than the 2% curiosity it is now as determined by the music industry.

More deflection and not relevant to the topic at hand. So were is this evidence of microphone count equals high quality sound?

Multichannel music is found on every film track recorded in the last two decades. So in film and video(of which you used as an example) it is quite a bit more than 2% - it is more like 99%. Film scores do not come from the music industry, they come for the studios and are distributed by music companies.




Regardless of whether or not listening to THE two channel soundtrack is "the best way", IT IS THE ONLY WAY. You argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin. My observations have always been about existing recordings and their foibles.

If it is not the best way to listen to it, then it should not be used as an example to make a point. The CD is not representative of the best way to hear a FILM SCORE. The CD uses a different master, with different equalization, designed for a different format, and mixed by different people on different equipment than where the FILM SCORE was originally recorded and optimized for. You are comparing apples and pears even if the track was sourced from the same recording event.



Joe and I (among others) must necessarily have different perspectives of the numerous factors that constitute sound quality than do you. Such is obvious by the different choices we make with our systems. There is no single answer.

Here we go with the co-signing as if this makes a point legit.


No recording completely replicates the original event. All fail. Some fail in different ways than others. A few provide natural perspective while most don't. Some miking techniques affect perspective in a way you can't "fix" afterwards.

No sound system completely replicates the original event. The stereo format is a complete fail in this area. The fact that you have to use speakers that scatters reflections everywhere to create artificial reflections to give the format a sense of (fake) ambience is really telling.

Stereo cannot provide a natural perspective because it is not a spatially correct format in the first place. Ambience should come from behind YOU, not from behind the SPEAKERS.

Now, cut the dance Ralph. Where is the evidence that ties the amount of microphones directly to sound quality? You have skirted around this now for more than two pages, so just when are you going to directly answer the question?




I remain amazed that as a recording engineer you don't understand such a simple concept.

Sheesh!

You are so full of shyte, you should just explode. You really need to stop making stupid statements like this if you expect me to take you seriously.

I am amazed as a person who made a very direct claim, cannot support that claim with any evidence whatsoever - and yet has spent two pages dancing every which way but loose.

E-Stat
06-22-2012, 04:41 PM
Most Orchestras don't record in scoring studios right?
Yes. Why bother even trying for realism.


So, and MP3 can be used as a point of reference for high sound quality?
You really don't know the difference between resolution and miking perspective?


High quality sound is the objective, and only high quality examples should be used as a reference. You failed in this respect using youtube.
You've already forgotten the point of watching the video. Twice.


So were is this evidence of microphone count equals high quality sound?
You've already forgotten the comment to which I replied. It was to:

"Don't blame those who mix the stereo soundtrack"


Multichannel music is found on every film track recorded in the last two decades.
That's great for hearing the Dementors streak through the sky. demolish cars and twist bridges.


So in film and video(of which you used as an example) it is quite a bit more than 2% - it is more like 99%.
Do you remember the title of this thread? I continue to speak of music quality. Unfortunately, great music in films is compromised in the only format available to the public.


Film scores do not come from the music industry, they come for the studios and are distributed by music companies.
Why then are so very few soundtracks available as MC? For the biggest blockbuster movies using the best composers? Exactly who is dropping the ball?


You are comparing apples and pears even if the track was sourced from the same recording event.
My problem is that I like the music.


The fact that you have to use speakers that scatters reflections everywhere to create artificial reflections to give the format a sense of (fake) ambience is really telling.
As opposed to the DSP added to virtually all amplified music - regardless of the number of output channels. DSOTM has no real ambience.


Now, cut the dance Ralph. Where is the evidence that ties the amount of microphones directly to sound quality?
You will find it numerous times in your repetitive diatribe.

End of transmission. Those who enjoy listening to music (of which 99% is stereo) will continue to want better from what is available.

By all means, limit your horizons to a format.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-25-2012, 10:45 AM
Well Ralph, you still have not been able to correlate sound quality with microphone count, so we can effectively brush your claims aside.

It is one thing to say something, it is another to prove it.