Post by tailspn December 1, 2007 (41 of 113)
|
|
amatala said:
I am sorry, but recreating the original room ambient sounds in a different room is a contradiction in terms and a technical impossibility........
Using the surround channels for reproducing the sound of the original room is only a gimmick and it produces a lame and boring surround presentation.
You bring up a very interesting point to me, which I thought of raising here from time to time. No recording of an acoustic performance sounds like the real event. Most of the time, it's not even close, in my experience. But a really well done recording, classical music in my example, can convey as much emotional impact, and enjoyment as the live event. Or more so. It just doesn't recreate an exact duplicate.
Since it doesn't, it becomes a matter of experience, taste and art, on the part of the recording engineer and producer, to use the elements available to them to create the best product, to their ears. It's all very subjective.
But, IMO, the greatest tools to recreate a performance to come along in may years are multichannel recording, and a practical delivery media to get it to consumers. It is hardly a gimmick, and does very nicely fit within the average living space. The reverberation time and ambient characteristics of the average recordable concert hall are vastly longer, and different than the average living room. They are so different that any influence the listening space introduces (reflections) are low level and long over before the recorded hall ambiance decays. The ear/brain ignors the early reflections, those less than about 20 milliseconds. That's the whole point of MC. Replace the listening space ambiance with the recorded venues ambiance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
amatala said:
I am sorry, but recreating the original room ambient sounds in a different room is a contradiction in terms and a technical impossibility.
Every room has its own unique sound signature. If you are using a dedicated room (acoustically treated) the room signature will combine with the ambient sound present on the recording to create a new sound signature, which can be coherent, but will still be different from the sound of the original room where the performance took place.
However, most of us use living rooms for music listening. These rooms are not acoustically correct and their own sound signature (echoes and reverberations) will only clash with the ones present on the recording polluting the sound. You are way better off listening to the stereo performance than to this kind of so-called multichannel recording.
Using the surround channels for reproducing the sound of the original room is only a gimmick and it produces a lame and boring surround presentation.
One could use your arguments to suggest that one should only listen in monaural sound! You do realize (don't you?) that every (or at least almost every) stereo recording has made an attempt to capture the 'ambiance' of the recorded space? And I hope you realize that in stereo, any such attempt is no less "bogus" than the multi-channel efforts to do the same. Some stereo recordings actually add artificial "reverb" to "sweeten" the sound!
As an aside the characteristics of omni-directional microphones, which continue even to this day to deliver the sweetest sound character are wrong for phase coherence and introduce exactly the same kinds of errors you complain about with multi-channel recordings.
Critics often complain about either too little (dry sound) ambiance or too much....and they have been doing so for years and years! This indicates that the issue is not something that simply derives from multi-channel recording.
It appears from all evidence that the use of multi-channel recordings to more correctly deliver the ambience of the recorded space is NOT intended, as you so scabrously state, as a "gimmick" but rather something the recording engineers and producers honestly believe significantly advances the state of the recording art. That despite the objections you correctly raise and others (I personally believe are much more serious) concerning the type of microphones used.
The omni-directional microphones employed for this simply have to "mess up" because they will not only capture the reflected sounds, but will capture direct sound as well. Yet experience teaches that those microphones 'sound' better! It is my experience is that multi-channel sound is a huge improvement, even for solo violin, over mere stereo.
Ideally the calrec soundfield microphone or some variant thereof would actually capture the critically important reflections off the back wall the ceiling and the side walls of the recorded venue, without introducing information that should only come from the front, into those back channels.
The people at Polyhymnia International, Sound Mirror, Classic Sound, and LSO Live along with the several other studios recording in surround are not trying to employ a "gimmick" to sell more recordings. I have talked extensively with two engineers and one producer, I know they believe in what they are doing.
Your criticisms, theoretically valid, only set forth a limited set of some of the reasons that this recorded method (like all others) falls short of perfection. But I and many others find the sound of multi-channel recordings intended to recreate the ambiance of the venue to be much closer to what we experience in the concert hall than any stereo recording can possibly deliver.
Some newer microphone technologies like Iso-mike are pointing new directions for exploration for yet greater improvement. In summation, while I agree with your basic theoretical analysis, your assessment, your conclusions are incorrect.
The significance of the listening room is overshadowed by the greater realism in portraying the recorded venue that is obtained from the rear channels. See Tailsp's very cogent post above.
I like the description by producer Stephan Reh in his CPO recording of the Ries symphonies #7 & 8.
“A number of questions arise during the planning phase of every recording production: Why are we making this or that recording? What do we want to accomplish with this recording? What hall offers the proper recording space? Today, however, advances in recording techniques require that we ask an additional question: What does the option of a surround recording have to offer us?
Let us consider for a moment the familiar listening situation of stereo recording technique. We are sitting in our living room, ideally in front of, and in a middle position between the loudspeakers. We are listening to the recording of Ferdinand Ries symphonies.
First the composer and his music occupy the foreground. We can easily follow his compositional technique, and we hear the power in his music, the alternation between winds and strings, the great importance of the tympani, the interlocking of motif and rhythm, and the great compositional dynamic. Moreover, we are able to form quite a good impression of the performance by the orchestra and of the acoustical character of the large church space in which the recording was made. One could rest content with all of the above – as one has had to do until now.
If we listen closely 'into' the music, we realize that there is always a distance between the speakers and the listening position. The sound picture opens up before the listener, but in the case of a stereo recording, it cannot “embrace” her.
[Note from Bruce: I can’t read the Deutsche, but suspect that a better English word than “embrace” would have been “encompass”. In a stereo recording the reproduced sound cannot encompass the listener! It is always in front located between the speakers, and if you are lucky, maybe has a little “depth” to the image lending some semblance of a 3 dimensional sound field that remains in front of, does not encompass, the listener. Even the recorded information about the ambiance of the hall remains (wrongly) in front of the listener...but back now to Herr Reh:]
This is where the home listening situation differs from the musical experience in the concert hall. Side and back reflections are of decisive importance in the formation of the overall sound impression of a musical event. The temporal and dynamic relation between the sound heard directly and the sound reflected from the walls and ceiling conveys to us the information concerning the room in which the music is being performed.
It is here that we find our first answer about the sense of a surround recording. It is only within certain extremely narrow limits that a stereo recording is able to transport into our listening room the immensely important information contained in the reflections from the ceiling and walls.
But in the case of the Ries symphonies, we have employed the surround recording for the transmission of the parameters described above. Careful selection and placement of microphones, particularly the positioning of the surround microphones, have enabled us to simulate the sound in the manner it is heard in an ideal and central position somewhat distant from and behind the conductor in the church.
The listener with a surround system properly set up in her living room now can form a very precise picture of the performance space – yes – even experience the performance as if she were actually there, sitting in the church.
The sound is no longer in the distance. We are no longer required to listen into the music, as if through a window!. The decisively important side reflections are now present and they are arriving at the listener’s ears in the same manner in which they would arrive were the listener actually present at the recording location. These decisively important reflections now include the listener in the sound event with the highest degree of realism.
This inclusion becomes apparent, for example in the case of the trumpets and trombones. The blaring playing of these instruments produces a wealth of reflections from the back wall and thus lends the sound picture an enormous depth. The cantilenas of the cellos, which now radiate a greater warmth and openness, are also impressive to hear. The motivic interplay between the instrumental groups also takes on a new dimension. Many, many more examples could be cited along these lines.
The result is a greatly enhanced sound experience conveying the composer’s music to us in the home in an entirely different manner. The enhanced richness of sound also improves the clarity and listening quality of the recording – which not least supports the composition, allowing us to more fully comprehend the very nature of the score.”
If you've read this far you realize that I find those recordings that use mch to recreate (to the extent possible) the ambiance of the recorded venue are anything but "lame and boring". I think they, flawed as they may be, are wonderful and certainly not a gimmick at all. That word gimmick is the one I reserve for mch recordings that place the listener in the middle of the orchestra!
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 1, 2007 (43 of 113)
|
|
Very nicely put, Bruce.
In the midst of all this, I'd just like to say to LSO Live (and all the other SACD issuers) - keep up the good work, and keep the releases coming!
Many thanks
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Chaz,
We make a lot of very long 5.0 multichannel + stereo SACD's. Just authored one today of 79 minutes, and the recent Concertgebouw Brass SACD was well over 80. Mostly it's the CD that's the limiting factor for us. Our experiences is that the .1 channel does use up quite a bit of space, even if the material on it (as usual) is limited to the low frequecies.
I don't think that SACD's with only a multichannel layer are a great idea. There are a fair number of stereo only SACD players out there, including new models from Marantz and others, and a lot of audiophile's who love SACD but aren't yet on the surround bandwagon.
Good luck!
Everett
|
|
|
Post by amatala December 1, 2007 (45 of 113)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
You do realize (don't you?) that every (or at least almost every) stereo recording has made an attempt to capture the 'ambiance' of the recorded space?
Of course I do, and I strongly believe that stereo recordings are still the best in reproducing the ambiance of the original recording space.
Using surround channels to do this just sounds fake to me and is a waste of storage space on the SACD. The multichannel track on SACD should only be used for discrete multichannel mixes - this is what real multichannel is, everything else is just a gimmick.
This might only be a matter of taste, but this is how I feel about all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
amatala said:
Of course I do, and I strongly believe that stereo recordings are still the best in reproducing the ambiance of the original recording space.
Not wishing to appear to be disrespectful but does this mean you always stand in a venue with your back to the wall?
|
|
|
Post by amatala December 1, 2007 (47 of 113)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Not wishing to appear to be disrespectful but does this mean you always stand in a venue with your back to the wall?
I am surprised how many people believe that stereo can only produce bi-dimensional imaging...
|
|
|
|
|
|
amatala said:
I am surprised how many people believe that stereo can only produce bi-dimensional imaging...
I was questioning your use of "best" iro imaging. Two speakers can of course produce mono as well :)
More seriously, when there are works with spaced instruments (including those behind the listener - by design of the composer not audio engineer), how does stereo "best" present this image?
|
|
|
Post by Sam December 1, 2007 (49 of 113)
|
|
I've noticed when losslessly compressing CDs that there's a fairly wide range of compression ratios (from about 1.5x to 2.5x). That's the nature of lossless - you can't predict exactly what the size will be.
I don't think dropping stereo is a good idea. By all means get rid of the stupid and unnecessary ".1" channel; that has to help some.
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 2, 2007 (50 of 113)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
I was questioning your use of "best" iro imaging. Two speakers can of course produce mono as well :)
More seriously, when there are works with spaced instruments (including those behind the listener - by design of the composer not audio engineer), how does stereo "best" present this image?
It doesnt.
How many works do this?
I bet the percentage of these works is even lower than the number of people who have surround sound against those who listen in stereo and or mono.
So is it relevant to design a system for this miniscule minority.If so should we go to the next level..Higher.,5.1 time two?
Oh dear..does that mean the ultimate surround system which only seems to
satisfy a few of the minority listeners is not indeed perfect.I suppose you could have the extra speakers pointing upwards to create even more timimg and phase problems that you introduced by adding extra speakers to stereo.
Of course the limitations to your argument and thinking is that you are assuming a sitting in front of streo speakers.How about you take that same unnatural step that surround listeners have taken and go and sit and listen from behind the stereo speakers.Voila.The off sage and rear effects will be behind you dependant upon which way your ears are pointing.
|
|
