"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I see what you are saying but I look at it another way.  It is not just the ambience present in the 2 channel vs. the MCH recording.  Each captures the entire ambience but each mic captures it from its particular point of view.  What is lost in going from, say, 5 to 2 channels, is not the amount of ambience but, rather, the directional information that the additional mic channels contribute.  Mixing from 5 to 2 loses (or corrupts) the directionality of the transferred ambience.  Up-mixing from 2 to 5 cannot recover it without considerable psycho-acoustic computation. 

There's no doubt that you are right about that. I was just not thinking about it in terms that detailed. Of course if the ambience information was recorded with multiple microphones to multiple channels, there is of course, going to be directional information in that pick-up and that info will be reproduced as directional info on playback. But my point still holds. If you fold that info into the front channels as in a 2-channel mix down, it's simply not going to sound like the record company's two-channel mix of the same material. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

Cardioid and such mics have poor bass response

Not true at all. In fact, due to the proximity effect, often bass from cardioid mikes needs to be attenuated. But, of course, some cardioid as well as some omni-directional mikes may have deficient bass while others will have, perhaps too much bass or be peaked or deficient in other areas of the spectrum. It's not the pattern that determines frequency response/balance in a mike, it's the overall design. For instance, small capsule (diaphragm) mikes (irrespective of  pattern) are more likely to have weak bass than would large capsule mikes. All of my GP condenser  mikes have one-inch capsules or larger (my Aventone CK-40 stereo mike, for instance has a pair of 35mm capsules). One thing that I have noted is that I have never seen (heard?) an electret condenser mike that had decent bass and I've had a number of so-called professional electrets (such as the Sony ECM-22P or C-38B) and they all had the same characteristic: response that falls off the cliff below somewhere between 80-100 Hz. 

[Miska]

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Not true at all. In fact, due to the proximity effect, often bass from cardioid mikes needs to be attenuated. But, of course, some cardioid as well as some omni-directional mikes may have deficient bass while others will have, perhaps too much bass or be peaked or deficient in other areas of the spectrum. It's not the pattern that determines frequency response/balance in a mike, it's the overall design. For instance, small capsule (diaphragm) mikes (irrespective of  pattern) are more likely to have weak bass than would large capsule mikes. All of my GP condenser  mikes have one-inch capsules or larger (my Aventone CK-40 stereo mike, for instance has a pair of 35mm capsules). One thing that I have noted is that I have never seen (heard?) an electret condenser mike that had decent bass and I've had a number of so-called professional electrets (such as the Sony ECM-22P or C-38B) and they all had the same characteristic: response that falls off the cliff below somewhere between 80-100 Hz. 

 

For example DPA 2011/4011/4015 doesn't quite match balance of for example 4007 or 4006.

 

Or even more so for Sennheiser 8020 omni vs 8040 cardioid or 8050 supercardioid:

https://assets.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/2638/Brochure_MKH_8000_ENG_092014.pdf

 

Usually those large diaphragm mics have top end falling off way before 50 kHz or so needed for hires. But this is where multi-mic setup with mics for separate frequency bands can help!

[STC]

12 hours ago, Miska said:

You anyway listen it with two ears...

 

If you've ever tried good 3D audio with headphones you know that it sounds so real that you are truly convinced sound is coming all around you and you can pinpoint a sound source behind you for example

 

Human hearing is binaural and the most accurate recording would be a binaural recording made with IEM microphones and heard with headphones. 

 

Object based surround sound is not 3D as in binaural recording. It is just an attempt to get closer to binaural sound. 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, STC said:

Human hearing is binaural and the most accurate recording would be a binaural recording made with IEM microphones and heard with headphones. 

 

Object based surround sound is not 3D as in binaural recording. It is just an attempt to get closer to binaural sound. 

The idea with object based encoding is that the playback equipment can use the information to synthesise the best reproduction possible with whatever speakers are available. For headphone listening, it could produce the equivalent of a binaural recording.

[STC]

46 minutes ago, mansr said:

For headphone listening, it could produce the equivalent of a binaural recording.

 

And you are stating this based on....? An object based binaural reproduction would require a sphere like arrangement with many speakers. Something that most never experienced and most likely will never. 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Human hearing is binaural and the most accurate recording would be a binaural recording made with IEM microphones and heard with headphones. 

Many do make this argument but the number of suitable recordings is inconsequential.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

And you are stating this based on....? An object based binaural reproduction would require a sphere like arrangement with many speakers.

No, it wouldn't. With a fully object based encoding, the response of any microphone arrangement can be simulated, including a binaural dummy head.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Many do make this argument but the number of suitable recordings is inconsequential.

 

It took stereo about 30 years to be accepted as the standard. Binaural recordings will be the future. Once headtracking technology of Smyth like product catches on, binaural with headphones will be better than everything else. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, it wouldn't. With a fully object based encoding, the response of any microphone arrangement can be simulated, including a binaural dummy head.

 What do you mean response of any microphone arrangement can be simulated?

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

Binaural recordings will be the future. Once headtracking technology of Smyth like product catches on, binaural with headphones will be better than everything else. 

 

Maybe, but it might be better to just fire some microwaves into the eye sockets and vibrate the auditory nerves...

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Maybe, but it might be better to just fire some microwaves into the eye sockets and vibrate the auditory nerves...

You know the future is wireless.  Why not local in home concentrated high power radar?

[fas42]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

Or take another approach. I have a two channel stereo system setup optimally.  Right and left. 

There are limitations for reproducing hall ambiance.  I add some channels in the rear for hall ambiance and it is coming from a proper direction for that.  It in no way reduces the front two channels, but adds additional info that isn't contained with in them.  Adding this other info into the existing front channels will not be as good.  

 

There is plenty of hall ambiance in normal recordings, assuming they weren't recorded in such a way to completely eliminate such. Often headphone listening will demonstrate what's on the recording - then it's up to the speaker rig to present that, competently; in some recordings it's almost "scarily" deep - pop recordings can push this to create enormous, and highly complex vistas - artificially manipulating this on the consumer side is a poor use of optimising focus, IMO.

[Kal Rubinson]

53 minutes ago, STC said:

It took stereo about 30 years to be accepted as the standard. Binaural recordings will be the future. Once headtracking technology of Smyth like product catches on, binaural with headphones will be better than everything else. 

The personal encumbrance of headphones is an inherent stumbling block.  Conveniently, I wll not be around in 30 years.

[Ralf11]

There is no telling how long you will be forced to suffer, given the advancements in modern medicine  

[STC]

28 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

The personal encumbrance of headphones is an inherent stumbling block.  Conveniently, I wll not be around in 30 years.

 

For most the biggest stumbling block are:-

 

1) more expenses for the multiplespeakers. 

2) WAF

3) real estate space taken for mostly for self enjoyment.

4) volume level so taht it wont disturb others. 

 

For me, give an externalized sound with headphones of binuaral recordings, sitting in the balcony watching the sunset or the full moon. Cigar and wine to go aling is something i  would die for. 

[Kal Rubinson]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There is no telling how long you will be forced to suffer, given the advancements in modern medicine  

Well, surely I can always get someone to take my headphones off.

[Kal Rubinson]

27 minutes ago, STC said:

Cigar and wine to go aling is something i  would die for. 

Those are some of the things I live for.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

For most the biggest stumbling block are:-

 

...

4) volume level so taht it wont disturb others. 

 

 

That's solved by having quality so good that others ask if the volume can be increased, so that they can enjoy it more ... .

 

Neighbour mentioned that he misses having our system running in the main lounge, so that he could hear it, - has to put up with someone living there playing his grand piano, extremely well, instead .

[STC]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

That's solved by having quality so good that others ask if the volume can be increased, so that they can enjoy it more ... .

 

Neighbour mentioned that he misses having our system running in the main lounge, so that he could hear it, - has to put up with someone living there playing his grand piano, extremely well, instead .

 

I take extra effort not to disturb my neighbours, and I don't want to hear, smell and if possible see their existence. Maybe, your neighbour should get a piano with better SQ.  

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, Miska said:

 

For example DPA 2011/4011/4015 doesn't quite match balance of for example 4007 or 4006.

 

Or even more so for Sennheiser 8020 omni vs 8040 cardioid or 8050 supercardioid:

https://assets.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/2638/Brochure_MKH_8000_ENG_092014.pdf

 

Usually those large diaphragm mics have top end falling off way before 50 kHz or so needed for hires. But this is where multi-mic setup with mics for separate frequency bands can help!

Like I said. There are no hard and fast rules about  microphone Frequency balance.  Omni's might have flatter response, generally speaking but their polar response doesn't guarantee superiority in any given area; your examples notwithstanding. 

50 KHz? You're joking, right? 24/88.2 and higher as well as DSD do not rely on 50 KHz bandwidth microphones for their "hi-rez" credentials. That comes complements of the fact that the further the sample rate is from the passband, the fewer filter artifacts (up to a point, after which it's overkill) and the 24 (or 32)-bit quantization is probably far more important than absolute sample rate. Fact is, many so called hi-rez releases are made from analog masters that had little on them above 15 KHz.

But back to microphones. Omnis are often used because their frequency response can be calibration-flat, and while this is nice for the techno-geek in all of us, it has little to do with the real world of recording music. Unless you have an elaborate "gobo" setup like Ray Kimber and his "IsoMike" arrangement, it is impossible to get real stereophonic sound out of  omnidirectional microphones. The only way to get two actual "stereo" channels out of omnis is with a spaced pair, that is to say one mike halfway between the conductor and the left proscenium on the "stage", and another mike halfway between the conductor and the right proscenium on the "stage"  (and sometimes one in the middle, behind the conductor which is mixed equally into the left and right channels to eliminate the often encountered "hole in the middle" effect. But then, this isn't true stereophonic sound. It has some of the more obvious trappings of stereo, but it's not phase coherent and will not mix down to mono in the case of an FM broadcast, for example.

 

But I best bow out of this thread, here, as I just realized that this thread is about Pop and rock (don't know how I missed that before) and whether or not it "shines" in any configuration is a matter of complete indifference to me.  

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Many do make this argument but the number of suitable recordings is inconsequential.

While binaural is how we humans hear, implementing it as a playback format has always met with failure, as it has the following problems: Headphones turn with the wearer's head. Musicians don't. While such contrivances as "binaural chairs" have been made in the past, without the phone/ear seal, frequency response is compromised and the listener is still moving his head away from where the sound is emanating (speakers embedded in the chair's "wings") when he turns his head. Headphone binaural sound also tends to array the ensemble inside the listener's head (although it does seem to place the musicians in their correct left-to right locations in the listener's head!) which is less than optimum and various intermix contrivances have failed to adequately solve this problem. Lastly, binaural is lousy at locating sources behind the listener. I have done a number of experiments over the years whereby a binaural head is in another room and the listeners are each wearing headphones and are listening to the dummy head directly as a colleague walks around the head jiggling a ring full of keys. each is asked to tell, from the sound of the keys, where the key "jiggle-er" was standing with regard to the head. Left, right, and front, everyone involved got right pretty much every time, but a rear orientation was missed more than half the time. Enough to render a verdict of "blind chance" for sounds originating behind the binaural listener.  Since I own the JVC binaural setup used (including the flocked styrofoam head), I have performed this simple experiment many times over many years with always the same result. I have also used a Sennheiser MK2002 binaural microphones with binaural "head" that had the same result. 

In my experience, while we hear binaurally, we don't want our "surrogate ears" (i.e., the microphones) to "listen" binaurally. In order for we humans to hear binaurally, we need to be immersed in the sound field, just as we are in reality. That requires stereophonics. Minimally two channel, ideally multiple channels surrounding us with many discrete channels of full-range audio with each channel captured by a microphone that has been strategically placed to feed that playback channel. I have heard this demonstrated and  it is the closest thing to real (from a soundstage and imaging perspective) I've ever heard. Unfortunately, it's between totally impossible and unbelievably impractical to implement on any real basis and no commercial implementation of surround sound comes even close in my experience. 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But I best bow out of this thread, here, as I just realized that this thread is about Pop and rock (don't know how I missed that before)

The title was changed this afternoon.

[Miska]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

50 KHz? You're joking, right? 24/88.2 and higher as well as DSD do not rely on 50 KHz bandwidth microphones for their "hi-rez" credentials.

 

I'm not joking at all. That's why I also use loudspeakers and headphones that can reproduce at least up to 50 kHz.

 

That is certainly part of the hires, and there are many examples where that is the case. As well as many where that is not the case. But for me, hires means wide-band recording.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That comes complements of the fact that the further the sample rate is from the passband, the fewer filter artifacts (up to a point, after which it's overkill)

 

That is part of it, but to large extent can be dealt with suitable upsampling filters if the content doesn't really reach Nyquist anyway. You have filter artifacts only when your content actually hits the filter.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

and the 24 (or 32)-bit quantization is probably far more important than absolute sample rate

 

Lot of recordings have dynamic range much less than 24/32-bit. You are going to have hard time finding few recordings that involves real microphones and preamps and reaches 20-bit dynamic range. If not for anything else than recording venue background noise. Of course completely digital productions with software synthesizers can reach full 32-bit dynamic range because there's never anything analog involved in the production chain.

 

I would much rather have 192/16 recording than 48/24 one.

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

While binaural is how we humans hear, implementing it as a playback format has always met with failure, as it has the following problems: Headphones turn with the wearer's head. Musicians don't.

 

 

This is due to the lack of HRTF. Smyth realizer with head tracking is required. QSound binaural too can do it pretty well. Even the frontal stage is not as good as stereo loudspeakers. However,  depth, height, envelopment and spatial information are far superior to loudspeakers playback. The ambiance is more relevant for realism than FR.

 

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

While such contrivances as "binaural chairs" have been made in the past, without the phone/ear seal, frequency response is compromised and the listener is still moving his head away from where the sound is emanating (speakers embedded in the chair's "wings") when he turns his head. Headphone binaural sound also tends to array the ensemble inside the listener's head (although it does seem to place the musicians in their correct left-to right locations in the listener's head!) which is less than optimum and various intermix contrivances have failed to adequately solve this problem. Lastly, binaural is lousy at locating sources behind the listener.

 

 

Most of this is probably true 20 or 30 years ago. Head tracking binaural is becoming a reality.

 

Once you know how to externalize the sound outside the head, then binaural will be real enough although the FR may not be precise. IIRC, they have taken over 100 different pinnae and created a filter based on the average FR of the different pinnae. This can work , but those at the two extreme ends will never get it right unless the filter takes into consideration your pinna shape. IIRC, that's what SR is doing.

 

Here is the video of a binaural recording where you can hear the rear sound.