Spoken like a technician . . . not a thought for the thousands of two channel recordings that already exist.
Perhaps the most astute and intelligent thing you have said in this thread . . .
I'll leave it at that.
That's the goal: getting to the point where the brain can rest on its laurels -- that's what's actually happening when speakers become "invisible", and the imaging is always convincing: the brain can afford to be completely relaxed in picking up the clues, and never fails to "understand" the meaning of what is being presented. You can turn around, move to a corner of the room and talk to someone; and even at that moment the part of your brain still registering what the reproduction is "doing" is completely comfortable with what it hears ...
Frank
Actually it can do that as well - which I think was Pano's original point.
The problem is that the effect is seemingly pretty rare (across a broad-spectrum of listeners), and even when done well it necessarily "skews" the perspective.
That "skew" is a sort of window perspective, or at the threshold of a space rather than being further into the space. It also includes a mirror-like inversion.
Stereo "Live" reproductions in particular have the audience *behind* the performers, and there is nothing that can be done about that with standard stereo.
Most recordings however can have their space "synthesized" to provide a more immersive perspective (multi-channel side/rear dsp), the only real problem with this is having the space recorded properly and using the correct space for the correct recording. It also happens to be a *much* better solution than any multi-channel surround recording I've heard. (..some multi-channel experience might convince me otherwise, but so far that hasn't happened.)
For me, the real demarcation point in this is that those setups that are far more of the "they are hear" variety - are (I've found) inferior to the "we are there" setups - when using *either* good multi-channel recordings or stereo with synthesized side/rear channels, with the goal of creating a more compelling "we are there" experience. Specifically - those "they are here" systems tend to "shrink" the frontal portion of a venue in these cases, resulting in a rather strange venue perspective.
-of course a good binaural recording on a set of headphones can do stereo superbly. Plus, std. stereo can be convoled to binaural.
Last edited:
The problem was not getting it on tape, but getting it on the chosen media - a vinyl record. They found it could not be done without a bunch of compromises to fidelity, and abandon the effort.
Remember, multitrack is a way to an end. As far as doing multitracking on a 24 track analog tape, not many during recording. Too expensive in this day in time were recording budgets are very small, and the cost of tape is pretty high. Now I have heard of digital recordings transferred to analog multitrack(to get the edge off, or create a warmer effect), and then tranferred back to digital for mixing and mastering. This is very, very rare these days.
What amps have you heard in the last five years? I personally don't do multichannel amps, but monoblocks in my reference theater and mixing rooms. However, I have a small multichannel music system based around a VERY good sounding high end receiver that trashes not only most high end stereo amps, but most high end multichannel as well(Arcam AVR600).
Multichannel music, or multitrack mixing? The two are quite different.
Souindtrackmixer,
Whether you use 24 tacks or more while mixing I don't really care ,but ending up with a multitrack final mix is what I am talking about to play back on a multichannel playback system. If you mix down to two tracks an then create a phantom third or more playback track that wouldn't be what I am talking about. If you were doing a minimalist recording with let's say five or seven discrete channels that could be taken straight to the Blue Ray disk, like a direct to disk two channel recording. That is what I am talking about. Perhaps a Chesky or someone like that could put something like that out though I know they are not what they were years ago.
Whether you use 24 tacks or more while mixing I don't really care ,but ending up with a multitrack final mix is what I am talking about to play back on a multichannel playback system. If you mix down to two tracks an then create a phantom third or more playback track that wouldn't be what I am talking about. If you were doing a minimalist recording with let's say five or seven discrete channels that could be taken straight to the Blue Ray disk, like a direct to disk two channel recording. That is what I am talking about. Perhaps a Chesky or someone like that could put something like that out though I know they are not what they were years ago.
Which IMO detracks from the believeabilty of the recording.
Why synthesize the space rather than just capturing it and presenting it naturally?
I think you are suffering from lack of exposure here, and miss the mark entirely in your last statement. I would imagine you were not listening on a well calibrated multichannel system, because in 12 years of doing multichannel recordings, I have never heard the side or rear information that was correlated enough with the front channels to shrink the front soundstage. You have to have common information at simular levels in all channels to do that, and that is not usually what is happening in multichannel music. The front speakers carry the primary information(the orchestra or band), and the sides and rear carry the hall ambience only. Have you ever heard a uncompressed high resolution 5.1 PCM recording? Have you ever heard a 5.1/7.1 DTS HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD recording? If not, and DVD is what you base your perspective on, then you have already compromised the experience by listening to lossy compressed multichannel audio. You cannot base ANY opinion on that. Synthesized surround is a HUGE compromise compared to the real thing.
I don't listen to headphones, I buy really good speakers. Binaural is not as good with speakers as with headphones.
What is seems to me is that most folks are not willing to push their state of the art forward, and are trying to drain the juice out of an already dried up piece of fruit. It is also apparent to me that not many folks have heard a high resolution surround recording played back on a high quality multichannel playback system that has been properly calibrated and aligned. So I am not surprised when I read "skewed" comments about multichannel that are completely foreign to me.
It is not going to happen as it is not even practical. I think you are confused here. Multitracking is a way to get more recorded tracks for mixdown, it is not a playback medium for the end user. Multitrack recorders(at least the good ones) are pretty darn expensive, and out of the budget of most folks. We can't even get HT folks to widely adopt 7.1, and you cannot get two channel folks past two channel. How do you get ANYONE(except for maybe me) to adopt to 24 channels of audio to playback on 24 discrete speakers?
There is absolutely no advantage to sending 24/48/96 tracks to the end user based on this.
I now understand what you are talking about.
Chesky does this quite frequently. I have done it with small ensembles, and have heard it done on some of my jazz and classical commercial multichannel recordings. However, it is not practical at all with large orchestras, or recording spaces with average to poor acoustics. The other issue is the quality of the performers, and their ability to make few or no mistakes, and know how to personally balance themselves. This is a rarity these days. One sqeek of a oboe or clarinet, and the recording is ruined. With what recordings cost these days, no producer wants to take that chance unless they infalible trust the performers.
Last edited:
Soundtrack,
You are very correct I haven't heard what you are talking about. I really don't watch movies at home, I go to the movies for the experience of the large screen and so have no reference point. that is why I am asking you, that seems to be your forte. I am only asking in reference to music, not music related to a movie sound track. I'll let you pontificate on that. And by the way what is the high quality receiver that you are talking about. Eventually I will build a complete multichannel amplifier system but haven't done that yet. And then knowing which multichannel front end to use would be something else.
You are very correct I haven't heard what you are talking about. I really don't watch movies at home, I go to the movies for the experience of the large screen and so have no reference point. that is why I am asking you, that seems to be your forte. I am only asking in reference to music, not music related to a movie sound track. I'll let you pontificate on that. And by the way what is the high quality receiver that you are talking about. Eventually I will build a complete multichannel amplifier system but haven't done that yet. And then knowing which multichannel front end to use would be something else.
The one I was referring to is the Arcam AVR600. I have not heard a receiver that sounds even close to good as this one, and I have heard a lot of receivers.
I have a 200" screen setup in my reference theater(yes that is 16 foot wide screen as viewed from 14ft away), and I can better the theatrical presentation right in my home. That includes 3D as well. It is a Cinerama screen(curved) to increase the sense of visual immersion. I never go to a commerical theaters - the experience is far too underwhelming.
I dont want to be rude, but even my pc logitech speakers gives me enough to be able to follow the music and to appreciate it. If anyone cannot appreciate music wihtout a goiod system, you have a serious problem.
My brain have fun with ipod buds, no problem. This audiophile thing is not true. It does not allow me to follow better the music, its just more appreciable, but it doesnt bring another dimension to the music, this is just us wanting to beleive that all our effort is worth it. Those details, those exact timbre are not important at all.
So you really fail to see the meaning of music without a good reproduction? maybe its the music you lsiten to that has lost the meaning, even for you.
Anyways, everyone is so biased all the time, that even their musical taste is not to be taken to seriously. everyone always just try to convince itself that they do it for the music, but those people are still listeing to the same thing they were 20 years ago claiming nothing else have come out as good since then. I really hope that theres a lot of people in here that still discovers music, enjoys it with all their hearts without thinking every ten minutes about the sound "quality", but I fear that it is really hard. I have been cought in what im describing for 2 years, its been around only 3 month that I really dont let myself "doubt" the sound quality anymore, lifes too short, it bring to much suffering, for too little return.
I think that the policy of diminushing return also applies to diminushing of pleasure
okay, you can just forget all that I said, it wasnt meant for you. but damn this hobby was detrimental for me for too long, and im still trying to not let myself think about the sound, just listen to the ******* song, and thats hard, and thats suck. I probably should have never went into this. even if mys system is really good sounding I mean the sound is so good that I get distracted by how powerful the sound is, whatever!
Murphy,
You have the right idea, but I am sorry but the ipod thing I just can't do that! Earbuds and MP3 sound just bothers me and then I can't listen, the enjoyment of just listening is gone. But when I am in the car I could care less about the quality, then it is just about the song and I just listen to the music. I will roll up the windows though,,,,,,,,
You have the right idea, but I am sorry but the ipod thing I just can't do that! Earbuds and MP3 sound just bothers me and then I can't listen, the enjoyment of just listening is gone. But when I am in the car I could care less about the quality, then it is just about the song and I just listen to the music. I will roll up the windows though,,,,,,,,
Murphy, I basically agree with everything you say. I have no trouble listening to a sh!tty car radio if the song is turning me on, or the PC monitors. Or even a conventional hifi system doing its thing. For quite awhile some years ago I gave tweaking away, and just listened to my system playing at the same level of quality as many setups do. And it was a very pleasant experience, most recordings sounded "nice" and I was happy enough with that. But it wasn't the real deal: I couldn't put on a more "difficult" recording, nor could I wind up the volume to realistic levels, without finding the sound very "hifi-ish". So what I am talking about here is going to the next level; if you've never heard it happen that's fine, but once you have you can never forget it, it will remain in the back of your mind, as Pano indicates.
So, if you're totally comfortable with what you have then there is no reason to change course; but on the other hand, people should not be allowed to declaim that normal "hifi" is "as good as it gets". Because, it just ain't so ...
Frank
Last edited:
But you won't get better than binaural - it's fundamentally correct, which is not something you can say about any other format.
Binaural is in fact "state of the art". Why not promote this format instead of multi-channel? Multi-channel will likely never approach, let alone exceed binaural.
It really has only two deficits: single listener (headphone), and lack of tactile sensation (headphone). The single listener part can easily be transferred to multiple people simultaneously, and the tactile sensation can largely be compensated for with varying tactile transducers. Only for very few people will a generic dummy head (profile) recording cause problems.
The most amazing part is that serious listening (as opposed to casual listening), is performed by most of the world's population ON HEADPHONES. Listening room loudspeaker playback (stereo or multi-channel) by comparison doesn't even "rate" - it's more of an antiquated luxury.
Further - a standard head model goes a very long way to achieving uniformity when compared to any other recording techniques.
-so if you really are concerned with pushing the state of the art forward (for music), then you are promoting the wrong format.
As for my experiences with multi-channel - it's possible that I haven't heard the best the format is capable of, in fact given a wide scope I'd guarantee it.
I have however heard rather excellent multi-channel, including DTS HD Master Audio demo discs. Again, results as mentioned. Frontal expansion just isn't as wide as the rear with more "they are here" speaker setups..
Why might synthesizing the space rather than just capturing it and presenting it naturally? Well,
1st: The best synthetic surround I've heard has been from capturing the space (not simply a dimensional/material construct), and
2nd: In the context of a multi-channel recording - just how do you capture the sound and how is that presented more naturally? To whom is it more natural?
Last edited:
hey.,well i might not have experience the best, but the tannoy monitor red 15 inch of my daddy is suppose to be in the best, and my system almost does that.. but god dam, you got me interested here and I do not accept it anymore. I jused to love music more before I get into hifi. Why do you want to listen to real volume? isnt this a obsession? I love to crank my new 3 way. I love everything about the killer sound it recreate. I mena, after building my 3 way, I was like, ohhh thats what you guys are talking about all day long
. I now understand your passion because yes, it sound amazing, and its total new experience for me at least, to listen to music thrue my speakers.dont you guys feel its a addiction more then a hobby?
dont you guys realize how much stress this thing can bring in our lives?
How much consentions are we willing to accept in order to get to "that" experience your describing?
Dude, just eat some shroom, your system will sound so good, that you will wonder why in sober life, you care so much. On shroom, my system sound so good that I cry at my ridiculous behavior to want to acheive a better sound!
I just hope that you guys are able to appreciate the amazing sound you guys already enjoying. Most of you im sure are always never happy enough, always thinking about it in the back of your head.
but I know I will eventually get to your point. once everypart of my system will be top notch, the next step is room correction ect.
anyways
Well, I hope, I really do, that things can advance to the point where top notch sound is just standard fare, just taken for granted, any conventional system will have it as part of the package. But it isn't so at the moment, which is why
If you want to know why the "addicted" people do it, go and watch some of the broadcasts of the last Olympic Games on a quality, calibrated, 1080p 60" digital screen, nice and close, for an hour, then go and watch the same material on a rough and ready, ghosting, 80's CRT 25" screen at the normal distance one used to watch TV. And be told you can never watch anything but that quality of broadcasting ever again ...
Frank
is a has-been for most, it just doesn't perform.
If you want to know why the "addicted" people do it, go and watch some of the broadcasts of the last Olympic Games on a quality, calibrated, 1080p 60" digital screen, nice and close, for an hour, then go and watch the same material on a rough and ready, ghosting, 80's CRT 25" screen at the normal distance one used to watch TV. And be told you can never watch anything but that quality of broadcasting ever again ...
Frank
Well so much for all those silly old movies . . . anybody up for a High Def 3D Casablanca remake?
What if those deficits are game changers for me. And what if something artificial and non-accurate like tactile transducers is not better than the real tactile response from speakers for me? Then your comment is subjective and isolated to your experience, which is not mine.
Via two channel iTunes, not binaural recordings. Don't misrepresent the fact here, you cannot fool me.
So where are those standard headphone, and the standards for mixing on them? They don't exist, which makes this comment irrelevant in reality.
-so if you really are concerned with pushing the state of the art forward (for music), then you are promoting the wrong format.
Then let me ask why is there FAR more 5.1 music tracks in the market than binarual ones? And let's be honest here(instead of disengenous), headphone listening now adays is based off of two channel iTunes, not binaural. So lets not pretend the masses are searching for a high quality playback via Binaural recordings. That would be untruthful at best.
How can you come to the opinion that Binarual is better than multichannel without actually comparing the two at simular levels? This is nothing more than subjective opinion outside any actual test..right? Your experience does not equal mine, so how can you speak for me?
Then all I can say to this is the system you heard it on was miscalibrated, and further correlates the idea you have not heard the best that multichannel can deliver. Sorry, as a person that has, I must brush aside your comments as nothing more than inexperinced conjecture. That may work for you, but not for me.
Then the basis of your argument is confused and incorrect. Read the meaning of synthetic, it cannot be simular to a discrete capture, it has to be manufactured in some way, which is not natural at all.
If you cannot answer these basic questions, then there is no point in discussing this issue with you - you just won't get it. If you have never heard multichannel music done right, then your question is shallow and quite frankly naive(no offense). If you have not heard a high resolution multichannel done right, then there is no context to this question at all. You are just throwing crap at a wall, and seeing what stays or falls. How inefficent.....
Last edited:
I hear that argument pretty often when I caim that standards would be a great idea. I don't want to limit the art, I want it to be experienced by everyone as intended by the artist. Does color calibration of a film camera or a TV screen standardize the art of film making? I would think the opposite is true.
Object based audio is coming and terms like "multichannel" or "binaural" as separate and incompatible techniques won't be relevant anymore. People can chose any renderer they like, even if it's two dipole speakes
Last edited: