OK, have not tried yet. All these experiments take considerable amount of time, much more than several words in a post.
But we do not speak about special coding, but about standard 2 channel recording, which contains no vertical info. Just sound captured by highly positioned mikes, e.g., which is projected to the horizontal plane during 2 channel reproduction via 2 sound sources. No ambisonics.
I like to concentrate on MONO. Stereo is a fad! '-) Sound quality, the way that I concentrate on it, can be evaluated in mono, mostly. However Zung reminded me of an exception to this when he mentioned my Magnapan speakers that I used in Switzerland in in 1974-6 with a Levinson JC-2. These speakers imaged fairly well (so I thought) until I visited Frank Van Alstine in 1976, and he had the same speakers. His imaging was BETTER, with the same recording. Looking more carefully I found that the JC-2 had asymmetrical X-talk due to circuit board layout, a near fatal flaw. Mark did not want to change the board, because he had laid it out. And so it goes! My greatest find that year was getting the prototype of the Electrocompaniet power amp that was a copy of Matti Otala's paper in the AES. It wiped out every other Marantz, and SAE and just about everything else. I kept it for many years.
John, would you please clarify "the Electrocompaniet wiped out every other Marantz and SAE" ??
What I think you mean, but am not sure, is that you personally liked that amp so much that you got rid of all the other amps you owned, including Marantz amps you owned, SAE amps you owned, etc. You kept only the Electrocompaniet. Have I misunderstood?
What I think you mean, but am not sure, is that you personally liked that amp so much that you got rid of all the other amps you owned, including Marantz amps you owned, SAE amps you owned, etc. You kept only the Electrocompaniet. Have I misunderstood?
Itself included.
I know, I fixed that thing. At that time, THE thing was to use small SOA, "fast" (7MHz) output transistors without any protection. I still have a bag full of those Philips BD203-4 somewhere.
David Griesinger was mentioned earlier & he has some interesting things to say about localization here
"The alignment of phases in the upper harmonics of tones is vital to source separation & localization"
"Phase above 1KHz has been presumed to be irrelevant to hearing which is true for sine waves but not for music or speech"
"The alignment of phases in the upper harmonics of tones is vital to source separation & localization"
"Phase above 1KHz has been presumed to be irrelevant to hearing which is true for sine waves but not for music or speech"
During my +40 years professional life, I had the opportunity to record and mix countless albums, including few classical music ones.
And was the technical manager of several studios the last years.
Of course, we take care of the technical part of the studio electronic parts. But NUMBERS are only a little part of the choices. Simply a minimal requisite.
When a company offer-us to test a gear, that happens very often, we first measure-it then ... listen to it, and try it in real situation as much as possible..
If we never accept something that sound bad, or not as expected, we can accept gears that measure not so good but sound great. Yes That happens.
About classical music, it was very old fashion, very special in the hierarchy and roles of people involved. I remember in the 70 early 80, the were using 20 years old technologies. Criticizing our use of multitrack, and all our impertinent ways to record and mix.
What is amusing is, if they have not changed a lot of their they ways to say Mass and do ceremonies, they now had adopted a lot of our technologies and impertinent technical behaviors, nowadays. multi tracks, artificial reverbs etc.
The difference between the two worlds is still huge:
Rock etc. is created and played by musicians, Classical interpreted by instrumentalists (often unable to improvise).
Each record of rock etc. is a creation in all the details, including the sound, each classical music record a reproduction of the reproduction. Reproduction as fidel as possible of the original composition (in rock, we call this with a touch of contempt a "cover"). And the recording reproduction of this first reproduction, trying to mimic a concert, or recording-it live.
Quite boring and frustrating for a creative sound engineer. ;-)
Last edited:
Mine broke once too, Zung, but I lost it totally in a firestorm in 1991. Today, I have a second similar Electrocompaniet in my lab sound system. Still sounds OK, but the really cheap pots and other parts tend to drift over the years. Design good, manufacturing below average. Still it, and the Audio Research D150 (tube) were the only amps that I liked with my STAX headphones at the time. Today, I use a STAX direct drive tube amp for my headphones, but I only use them for serious evaluation. I don't like them, long term. Might be the added resonances, as well as their added clarity bringing out the imperfections in the recorded material. Still they are very clean, especially when I bypass the Alps pot at the input. Sorry folks, Alps is good, but not great.
You will have big problems.
Most of the cardioid mics are not linear enough on their sides. Specially if you increase the angle. I you put your vertical mics in the center, you will kill most of the stereophonic space, adding this information: everything will be re-centered.
Unless you create a well balanced volume in each of the 3D directions, and use a set of speakers installed in the same original angles than the mics. And all this for what ? All the commercial attempts to produce real 3D recordings were a commercial defeat.
Not to forget that, with this kind of recording, you will make impossible to offer all the creativity that close recording offers.
Right. Like closing one eye don't deprive us from depths of field evaluation.
Our brains are complex devices. More than our primitive technology: compare an ear with a microphone, a lens with an eye.
I can use those for an amp in the works.
If you have paypal, I can send you shipping.
Ray
Last edited:
Ah yes, you're right. May be i wanted to write high low order...? I wish it won't confuse people as everyone here is sufficiently knowledgeable
What is 'music' is subjective. As 'musical' may mean high distortion. In amp design we may face a compromise where option A gives us ultra high resolution and separation of every instruments but 'boring' and option B which gives less but 'more music'. In my experience listening to live music, i enjoyed a lot, but i think the 'resolution' is not 'audiophile quality'?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.