Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!?

No I thought that he was serious . . .
Well I was, to a point . . . but . . . Pano “got it”. "Stereo" is, after all, one of those "what does that mean" terms . . .

I listen (mostly, but not exclusively) to “classical” music, aim for a “listening area” rather than a “sweet spot”, own dipoles, and have optimized accordingly. The “front wall” is of course a significant part of that optimization. It seems to work OK for everything else (except for “turn it up to 11”, which I don’t do any more). If I listened mostly to studio-mixed rock I’d probably have a system much more like Pano’s, optimize differently (not put so much emphasis on the “front wall” contribution), and be content that it worked OK for “classical” too.

But if you want a “wall of sound” you’ve got to have a wall, right ? ? ?
 
I think that there is a lot more music types than "classical" and "hard rock". I think that there are two "types' of recordings - those that attempt to recreate a venue and those that take stereo as the medium. But there are a lot of music types using these two recording types. Stereo is excellent at one and notably limited at the other.
 
I don't know if you caught my reference to IRCAM earlier in the thread, but that's where I learned multi-track. I've often worked with 24 track playback into 24 or more speakers, or 4 channel source into 40 speakers, and over at GRM (Radio France) up to 200 channels. So you might say I like multi-track. :up:

However, with a good setup, stereo can do amazing things. In some ways even more amazing than multi-track. I know, I've heard it done many times. It can be tough to do in small rooms, but that's a room limitation, not a stereo limitation. Anyone who says it doesn't work, just hasn't heard it done well, period. Classic stereo is capable of amazing realism. And that's a good thing, as so many millions of recordings were published in 2 track.

Ah! Pano.. please do tell us more about this experience, it sound really exciting, 2 channels vs 200... :yikes:
I agree with you, stereo is a capable medium. But have we yet reached the full potential of plain stereo recording? I also think to make it properly work we need... veeeeery large rooms! :(:bawling::sigh:...
 
Amazing, isn't it? I've noticed that too.
The flip side being that I've listened to movie audio with no image and been surprised at how good it can be.
The "truth" is that almost all recorded sound can sound amazing is if it's reproduced well enough ... :p, ;). Some time ago I thought of doing a cute trick: tap into the TV sound, get it to sound right, and send it out on either side of a tiddly, bedroom sized TV set. And watch people's faces when they switch it on ... :D

I note some here are annoyed, and feel that people are preaching. On the other hand, some people despair at the typical quality of playback and ask what can be done to improve things. Well, a decent first step is to supply motivation, and a realisable goal; if some are offended by that, well, IMO that is just too bad ... the bigger picture is far too important ...

Frank
 
I listen (mostly, but not exclusively) to “classical” music, aim for a “listening area” rather than a “sweet spot”, own dipoles, and have optimized accordingly. The “front wall” is of course a significant part of that optimization. It seems to work OK for everything else (except for “turn it up to 11”, which I don’t do any more). If I listened mostly to studio-mixed rock I’d probably have a system much more like Pano’s, optimize differently (not put so much emphasis on the “front wall” contribution), and be content that it worked OK for “classical” too.
Personally, I have found that when you get everything right, and I mean the total system here, then all music works. And I mean, all music.

As an example, I could listen to a Beethoven piano trio, then Foo Fighters 'at 11', and lastly a bit of languid, ambient music synthesizer "twiddling", and they all work! As music, they all make sense, and all feel worth listening to. To me, that's the goal of having an audio system, to make every recording a positive 'experience' ...

Frank
 
I think that there is a lot more music types than "classical" and "hard rock". I think that there are two "types' of recordings - those that attempt to recreate a venue and those that take stereo as the medium. But there are a lot of music types using these two recording types. Stereo is excellent at one and notably limited at the other.

IMO stereo as a medium can present a " they are here" perspective pretty darn well, but fails with the "you are there" pretty miserably. The pipline when compared to multichannel is really quite small.
 
I think that there is a lot more music types than "classical" and "hard rock".
Well duh . . . yes, those can be taken as recording "styles" also . . . but I find a discernible difference in how best to "present" . . . even if the orchestra is studio recorded (by an engineer who knows what he's doing).

I certainly wasn't intending to present an exhaustive list of music styles or genre . . . but rather to observe that some musical genre (and recording styles) benefit from front wall reflections while others don't . . . so you might choose to optimize where it matters to you. But it's not an "end of the world" difference . . . optimization for one style doesn't make the system useless for all others.
 
"Stereo as the medium" is a great idea but the problem is that there are no standards hence the medium is arbitrarily changing. Listen to Fagen's "Nightfly" followed by "Kamakiriad" followed by "Morph the Cat". Night and day.

So what. It's art at that end. Do you want to standardize art? Listen to Pink Floyd. Most of their recordings involve manipulation of stereo as a medium. They exploited it as part of their art.
 
However, with a good setup, stereo can do amazing things. In some ways even more amazing than multi-track. I know, I've heard it done many times. It can be tough to do in small rooms, but that's a room limitation, not a stereo limitation. Anyone who says it doesn't work, just hasn't heard it done well, period. Classic stereo is capable of amazing realism. And that's a good thing, as so many millions of recordings were published in 2 track.

Here is the problem with your comment. Multitrack is a way to an end not the end, and stereo or multichannel is that end. The average listener has never heard the individual tracks on a multitrack recorder, and quite frankly it is not very useful in this form. Multitrack is a capture system, not a playback system. I think your comment here is apples and oranges.

I am not sure my dislike of stereo has anything to do with realism. Getting the performer in the room in stereo is a very obtainable goal. My problem with stereo is the spatial distortion it introduces, and the over reliance of phantom imaging which breaks down with even small head movements. One of the most unsettling things to me as a person who goes to the symphony 10-15 times a year is having the handclaps from a two channel recording happening in back of my speakers. That is not natural at all. Or listening to the recorded ambience coming from behind my speakers, instead of to the sides and rear of the room - which is natural. This failure, no matter how good the recording is always snaps me out of focus because it is a gross spatial error that fails my "realism" test. Stereo will naver be spatially natural or accurate, it is too limited to a frontal perspective to do so.

 
That's where those front wall reflections can help. They can "fill in the gaps" . . . perhaps not as well as multiple channels, but better than just two boxes.

That front wall is not actual recorded information, it is simply a room reflection. I prefer a center channel with center based signals over relying on a reflection.

One is real, the other is not, and let's be frank - there is nothing like the real thing. The brain has to work far to hard with filling in the gaps than actually enjoying the music.
 
My problem with stereo is the spatial distortion it introduces, and the over reliance of phantom imaging which breaks down with even small head movements. One of the most unsettling things to me as a person who goes to the symphony 10-15 times a year is having the handclaps from a two channel recording happening in back of my speakers. That is not natural at all. Or listening to the recorded ambience coming from behind my speakers, instead of to the sides and rear of the room - which is natural.
Imaging breaking down with head movements says to me that the system is not working well enough -- the soundscape is capable of being made rock solid as you move around the room.

Likewise with handclaps ... this can be quite "shocking" in its impact on some recordings.

I tend to run my system at high SPLs, the sound subjectively completely fills the room, or "pressurises" it is a term I've seen being used a bit -- feels very natural to me ...

Frank
 
That front wall is not actual recorded information, it is simply a room reflection.
It is a "room reflection" of "actual recorded information" . . . and there are circumstances where it simply sounds better that way.

I prefer a center channel with center based signals over relying on a reflection.
If you can capture a "clean" center . . . and figure out a way to deliver and present it. It may be "easy" for movies, maybe not so much for capturing an orchestra in a hall.

One is real, the other is not, and let's be frank - there is nothing like the real thing.
I think "frank" would be that neither is "real" (center speaker or "reflections") . . . and we try to get the most believable illusion that we can with the recordings that we've got.

You're right about "applause" sounding wrong, too "front loaded", but that's because in the hall the audience is around and behind you. The orchestra is not. I don't go to concerts or listen to recordings for the sounds of the audience (including their much-appreciated applause gesture) . . . and think that investing a couple more channels in getting that "effect" right is . . . well . . . unnecessary . . .
 
It is a "room reflection" of "actual recorded information" . . . and there are circumstances where it simply sounds better that way.

I am sorry, unless you love silly compromises, I cannot think of any ideal(or not) situation where a reflection is better than a actual channel of information.


If you can capture a "clean" center . . . and figure out a way to deliver and present it. It may be "easy" for movies, maybe not so much for capturing an orchestra in a hall.

Nonsense. You obviously have never heard of(or heard) multichannel audio. If you had, I am sure you would not have ever made this comment. The delivery system has been there since DVD-A and SACD entered the market. Bluray disc has taken over now, and the two other formats are essentially dead.

I have done over 450 orchestra recordings in my career(for archival purposes), and I always use the center channel for ANYTHING located in the center of the orchestra. All you need is a center channel that is identical to the left/right mains, and well calibrated to them. If you don't think this is possible, I will steer you towards the Lucern Festival Orchestra's Mahler series on Bluray. It is a superb example of center channel integration, and how it can make the frontal soundstage larger and much more precise than in stereo.


I think "frank" would be that neither is "real" (center speaker or "reflections") . . . and we try to get the most believable illusion that we can with the recordings that we've got.

This is not going to work on me at all. Signals picked up by a microphone(lets say the center microphone of a decca tree set up) is a "real signal. That microphone picked up a real group of instruments, and can transfer it to a real speaker. Your room reflections are not apart of the microphone pickup, it is a manufactured process as a result of room reflections. That is not real. Any logical thinker knows the difference.

You're right about "applause" sounding wrong, too "front loaded", but that's because in the hall the audience is around and behind you. The orchestra is not. I don't go to concerts or listen to recordings for the sounds of the audience (including their much-appreciated applause gesture) . . . and think that investing a couple more channels in getting that "effect" right is . . . well . . . unnecessary . . .

I hate to tell you this, but the audience is an integral part of the live experience, and when microphones caputure it, it is now apart of the playback experience as well. Trying to seperate the two as you are attempting to do, is like taking a single slice of bread, cracking it into two pieces, and telling me this is two whole slices of bread. Sorry, not buying this kind of compromise. You don't listen for the sound of any audience, it is there whether it is spatially distorted(as in stereo), or rendered spatially correctly.

You have settled for stereo reproduction, and I respect that. But trying to spin and diffuse reality does not make your point a very strong one.
 
Last edited:
Soundtracker,
If I remember correctly I think very early on a center channel was proposed for reproduction but was not adopted and two channel stereo is what we got. It would have appeared to be easy to do as I remember some of the first tape machines I ever saw were Ampex three track machines. It is a shame that didn't happen as the center channel would have been superior to the illusion of a center channel that we get with two discrete channels. That being the case do you know of anyone who is using multitrack recording for music that is not on a film track? Blueray would be a nice way to distribute the music as most of us already have one with a computer though it would probably be better as a stand alone device. I am not impressed by most multichannel HT amplifiers as of yet but I am sure in time some will get better than most consumer models. I imagine there must be some high end models I am not aware of as I don't do home theater at this point in time. Since you work in the industry today what is the prognosis of great multitrack recordings and playback for music?
 
Soundtracker,
If I remember correctly I think very early on a center channel was proposed for reproduction but was not adopted and two channel stereo is what we got.

Correct, the idea of a center channel is almost as old as stereo. Its a shame that it was never adapted, but there are good ways to derive an uncorrelated center channel from LR.
 
Correct, the idea of a center channel is almost as old as stereo. Its a shame that it was never adapted, but there are good ways to derive an uncorrelated center channel from LR.

Yes, Havery Fletcher at Bell labs:

1940 - Harvey Fletcher and Stokowski made another stereophonic demonstration at Carnegie Hall April 9 and 10, with recorded stereo music from a three-channel system using sound on film with a frequency range of 30 to 15,000 cps and a volume range of 120 decibels. A 4th track was used as a loudness playback control track. The New York Times reported April 10 "Sound Waves 'Rock' Carnegie Hall As Enhanced Music' Is Played" and "The loudest sounds ever created crashed and echoed through venerable Carnegie Hall last night as a specially invited audience listened, spellbound, and at times not a little terrified."