"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[Ralf11]

18 minutes ago, esldude said:

... In ear microphones for each player so you can hear what the musicians hear.  All mixed together so you can know what it is like to hear yourself playing every instrument in the orchestra all at once.  

 

Do you use an artificial ear on your microphone, otherwise directionality effects and such means it can never sound the same. 

 

https://www.pcmag.com/news/365299/bose-frames-are-augmented-reality-audio-sunglasses

[Miska]

But seriously, there's a lot of discussion about OP's topic, but I'm still wondering how many have actually tried it. At least I didn't notice many listening impressions yet.

 

It doesn't hurt much to try it out and giving it a listen, does it?

 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

But seriously, there's a lot of discussion about OP's topic, but I'm still wondering how many have actually tried it. At least I didn't notice many listening impressions yet.

 

It doesn't hurt much to try it out and giving it a listen, does it?

 

Are you referring to the OOP or the Revised OP?

[Miska]

Just now, esldude said:

Are you referring to the OOP or the Revised OP?

 

Regardless of the genre. I'm not so much into listening tests using someone else's preferred music, that isn't going to work.

 

Maybe it works better for someone more into X than someone more into Y. Nothing wrong with that either. I'm not expecting any particular correlation.

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Up to a limit yes. But you can't make gold from shit. I have bad productions that cannot be made good no matter what you do with listening side. Probably the problem in the end is with my ears and brain that need to be replaced, they just don't process the input correctly.

 

 

In part it will depend upon how much it irritates one that the production was done in a certain way. I tend to "overlook" such aspects, and just focus on whether the impact of the musical sounds, however captured, ticks the boxes - are the sounds 'distorted' in a way that creates any sense of, subjective, irritation; that is what I'm aiming to eliminate.

 

So, with such a goal in mind I have always found that a rig can be 'cajoled' to that level. And the type of enhancing required delivers on all fronts - there are no negatives in the end SQ.

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, Miska said:

But seriously, there's a lot of discussion about OP's topic, but I'm still wondering how many have actually tried it. At least I didn't notice many listening impressions yet.

 

It doesn't hurt much to try it out and giving it a listen, does it?

The OP is clearly comparing two different masters. One happens to be a surround mix. It also happens to be more in line with the OP's preferences, even after downmixing to stereo. So what?

[fas42]

57 minutes ago, esldude said:

I find I like Argentine Malbec's for something not expensive. 

 

We're pretty blessed down under - there's a local retailer who sells a dozen of Oz stuff, 4 varieties of red, works out at less than $4/bottle (used to be $3!) - I would be happy to throw a bottle into any round of blindtasting, and see if anyone would pick the 'outsider' ...

[Miska]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The OP is clearly comparing two different masters. One happens to be a surround mix. It also happens to be more in line with the OP's preferences, even after downmixing to stereo. So what?

 

That's why I'm asking why others are so quick attempting to shoot down the topic instead of trying it out on their side?

 

It is 2:37am here and I'm at the moment listening Genesis - Foxtrot 5.1 channel version using headphones and 5.1 processed through 3D audio with virtual speakers placed at optimal positions. Sounds quite nice to me.

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

Do you have any particular reason to artificially limit the bandwidth? I don't find any good reason to do so.

 

There is one very good reason, i.e, to minimize HF hearing loss. See Macca's research about prolonged exposure to 25 to 30kHz.

[Miska]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

There is one very good reason, i.e, to minimize HF hearing loss. See Macca's research about prolonged exposure to 25 to 30kHz.

 

At what levels and exposure times?

 

Should I be more worried about mice repellers or music listening?

 

How about boat's 50/250 kHz echo sounder beating out at 600W transmit power? I can hear the resonant ticking on the hull at pulse interval.

[asdf1000]

29 minutes ago, Miska said:

It is 2:37am here and I'm at the moment listening Genesis - Foxtrot 5.1 channel version using headphones and 5.1 processed through 3D audio with virtual speakers placed at optimal positions. Sounds quite nice to me.

 

Cool, what software?

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

At what levels and exposure times?

 

Should I be more worried about mice repellers or music listening?

 

How about boat's 50/250 kHz echo sounder beating out at 600W transmit power? I can hear the resonant ticking on the hull at pulse interval.

 

Hearing loss is common among musicians. HF air damping attenuates the frequencies considerably that very low level would reach the listener. The instruments may contain ultrasonics harmonics buit it doesn't mean that a listener sitting at about 10 meters will perceive them due to air damping. 

 

A close miking recording may have captured the actual level of the instruments but over loudspeakers the ultrasonics would be attenuated compared to headphone listening. Both infra and ultrasonic damages your ears. BTW,  IIRC, Oohashi's research suggested that ultrasonic was not perceived by ears. 

 

I am only answering the part where you ask why would one to limit the bandwidth.  

[Le Concombre Masqué]

On 12/6/2018 at 2:25 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

Is there a reason?  All of my comments are referenced to classical music.

Yes and you're certainly right when stating that down mixing classical can't shine ; changing the original title was a way to take yours and others' comments into account and avoid misleading 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Regardless of the genre. I'm not so much into listening tests using someone else's preferred music, that isn't going to work.

 

Maybe it works better for someone more into X than someone more into Y. Nothing wrong with that either. I'm not expecting any particular correlation.

 

Yet I'd recommend you dig in the Pink Floyd's "Early years" set of Blu-Ray and find 4.0 Atom and Echoes ; well worth the time spent with DVD audio extractor and Mp3tag (tag editor of hires too). 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Hearing loss is common among musicians. HF air damping attenuates the frequencies considerably that very low level would reach the listener. The instruments may contain ultrasonics harmonics buit it doesn't mean that a listener sitting at about 10 meters will perceive them due to air damping. 

 

A close miking recording may have captured the actual level of the instruments but over loudspeakers the ultrasonics would be attenuated compared to headphone listening. Both infra and ultrasonic damages your ears. BTW,  IIRC, Oohashi's research suggested that ultrasonic was not perceived by ears. 

 

I am only answering the part where you ask why would one to limit the bandwidth.  

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf

 

The paper about ultrasonics being conducted into the inner ear via the eye sockets.  I am disappointed it was Oohashi as some of his work seems questionable.  

 

@Kal Rubinson

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf

 

The paper about ultrasonics being conducted into the inner ear via the eye sockets.  I am disappointed it was Oohashi as some of his work seems questionable.  

 

@Kal Rubinson

 

 

 

So how is possible to hear hypersonics via headphones. Oohashi did one experiment with a helmet shielding the head except for the ears....can't really remebr what he concluded.

[Miska]

5 hours ago, STC said:

Hearing loss is common among musicians. HF air damping attenuates the frequencies considerably that very low level would reach the listener.

 

That is due to high levels and not because of high frequency content. If you have a wind instrument section located one meter behind you and they are blowing right to your ears behind you in a symphony orchestra....

 

6 hours ago, STC said:

I am only answering the part where you ask why would one to limit the bandwidth.

 

If you are worried about that, you can certainly do it at playback side, you don't need to spoil the recording by doing it. You can easily remove such things later on in the playback chain, but you cannot put those back in a playback chain if they have been removed already earlier during recording.

 

[Miska]

6 hours ago, Em2016 said:

Cool, what software?

 

HQPlayer of course...

 

[asdf1000]

Just now, Miska said:

 

HQPlayer of course...

 

 

Huh? Up-coming headphones DSP feature?

[asdf1000]

I'll take it to the HQP thread.

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

That is due to high levels and not because of high frequency content.

 

If you look at the permissable level of duration and loudness I wonder how this people are suffering hearing loss in the first place. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

 

If you are worried about that, you can certainly do it at playback side, you don't need to spoil the recording by doing it. You can easily remove such things later on in the playback chain, but you cannot put those back in a playback chain if they have been removed already earlier during recording.

 

 

I am always for hires recordingand prefer to have not less than 96khz. But they are filtered at 20khz for playback as you suggested. 

 

My concern is how hp reproduced hf sound waves which are supposedly not conducted through the ears “heard” by the HP users? And, as a listener at a distance do any of the HF actually reaches you? Looking at a concert hall FR, even those should be audible are attenuated very much. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

So how is possible to hear hypersonics via headphones. Oohashi did one experiment with a helmet shielding the head except for the ears....can't really remebr what he concluded.

Oohashi's work is uneven.  I forget at the moment the name of the researcher.  But another Japanese researcher has replicated faithfully some of his work and the results don't replicate.  I think some of the work has been repeated by more than two people and no one's results replicated his. 

 

Doesn't mean he is wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time one researcher's results were real and other's failed.  Some unnoticed attention to detail can be the difference.  I do in totality look askance at Oohashi if others aren't getting results to corroborate similar phenomena.  

[Miska]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

If you look at the permissable level of duration and loudness I wonder how this people are suffering hearing loss in the first place. 

 

Several hours per every time they play together at 100+ dB. No wonder.

 

18 minutes ago, STC said:

I am always for hires recordingand prefer to have not less than 96khz. But they are filtered at 20khz for playback as you suggested.

 

You are altering your transient response that way though. By the way, do you do brickwall at 20 kHz or what is your filter slope?

 

14 minutes ago, STC said:

My concern is how hp reproduced hf sound waves which are supposedly not conducted through the ears “heard” by the HP users? And, as a listener at a distance do any of the HF actually reaches you? Looking at a concert hall FR, even those should be audible are attenuated very much.

 

Maybe bone conduction. There's quite a bit of skull exposed to sound with Sennheiser HD800. I don't use much IEM's.

 

Based on my measurements it does also reach my listening position on loudspeaker system too. 2 m distance to speakers.

 

[Miska]

4 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

Yes and you're certainly right when stating that down mixing classical can't shine ; changing the original title was a way to take yours and others' comments into account and avoid misleading 

 

I'm now comparing the 2L sample recordings and I can say that the downmix sounds quite nice. At least not any worse than stereo, a bit less flat on headphones.

 

For example this one:

Hoff: Innocence Hoff Ensemble

5:07

POLARITY — an acoustic jazz project (2L-145-SABD)

 

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

 

Just 96/24 5.1 channel version against the DXD stereo.

 

[firedog]

11 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I saw 'The Shining' in the theatre when it first came out. When my then girlfriend and I exited the theatre, there was a line for the next showing. Both of us ran up and down that line telling people to save their money and avoid the movie like the plague! I honestly believe that it was one of the worse films I have ever had the misfortune to see! Luckily I don't remember much about it (Other than "Here's Johnny". Put it out of my mind, altogether, I guess). So, if your little rock-'n-roll taunt was based on something in that film, you'll forgive me for not picking up on it.  

Tastes differ. I saw it then too and thought it was brilliant. Do you like any other Kubrick movies? If so, any of the later ones?