Why did it take this long to understand

[E-Stat]

Note I am discussing most of the new movies at the neighborhood multiplex.

My choice of movies is not limited to blockbusters.

Next up on the Netflix queue is: "A Day in the Neighborhood". Don't recall any explosions or CGI in the Fred Rogers story.

 

[Mystic]

And movies are dubbed, redubbed, endless amounts of times in post processing ... you can't call movie sound natural or full range.

Amen to that.

 

[Mystic]

My choice of movies is not limited to blockbusters.

Next up on the Netflix queue is: "A Day in the Neighborhood". Don't recall any explosions or CGI in the Fred Rogers story.

I read somewhere that the production team were originally going to borrow elements of the soundtrack for the film Saw IV, but changed their mind(s).



... must have been a fake news source?

 

[Guest159]

Well, to be fair, I've heard that as well. But I rack it up to room acoustics. (And psycho-acoustics)

I went to Axpona in Chicago about a year ago and listened to a LOT of very nice and very well set up systems. One of the things I listened for was "sound stage". Except for the systems set up in hotel rooms, none of the other truly exotic systems had a sound stage wider than the speaker placement.

Another challenge was one I noticed in Difinitive Audio on Roosevelt in Seattle. We were listening to a half million dollar system and there were two chairs set up next to each other. One was in the sweet spot and the other right next to it. The difference in sound "stage" between the two chairs was staggering. And this speaks to why I am not the audiophile I used to be. If the only time a system sounds "perfect" is from a single point in a room, it's not worth pursuing. I'm sure not gonna be that bore (like I used to be) that insists friends sit in that chair and listen to a song. But even in that "perfect" seating position, the soundstage produced by the speakers was as wide as the speaker placement, with some reflection coming off the walls of the room to give the impression of a wider sound stage.

This is why Klipschorns go in the corners of a room. And for them to fully be appreciated the room needs to be 40 feet wide, due to bass wavelengths.

It's not really a question of psychoacoustics. It's pure and simple math. Two points of reference are all that you need to describe the location of an object in 3 dimensional space. It works for your ears just like for your eyes, and microphones can capture the same information too. It's no some hocus pocus trick. It's simply the speakers accurately revealing the spacial information in the recording.

You don't want to use room reflections to simulate that for the most part. It produces harsh distortion of high, odd orders, and it confuses the spacial information in the recording, if it's there. First reflection surfaces need to either be treated or be far enough away from the speakers that the time delay doesn't matter too.much. That's a pretty big room. Ultimately, those things are best described in the decay characteristics of a room. The smaller the room, the sharper the slope of decay you want.

 

[RobRoy]

It was either wider or not.


Actually, their bass folded horn design requires corner reinforcement. Has nothing to do with imaging. Which for that speaker, I've never found very impressive stuck against the wall.

I was in the first Speakerlab store way back in the day. It was a converted house. The guy was playing up the Speakerlab K's but couldn't demo them. No prob. He was living in a huge craftsman house with a couple of room mates just a block and a half away so we went there. He had a pair in his quite wide (not quite 40 feet) listening space and put on Cisco Kid. It was powered by a Phase Linear 700, (I think this was before the "B"). It was like the band was in the room. And the bass really kicked you in the posterior area, and was ridiculously clean and flat (not boomy at all) I was quite awestruck. And the band was as wide as the speaker placement.

Regarding "either wider or not", yes, it was wider, because it was in a room that reflected sound. But put those speakers in an anachoic chamber (or outdoors on the lawn), and the imaging is increadible - and the stage is exactly as wide as the speaker placement. Literally the ONLY way you can make it wider than that is through intentional phase distortion. You can even get that by simply wiring the speakers out of phase, but the bass and other factors suffer. I have a few mono recordings from the early 60's that did that ridiculous "simulated stereo" treatment. I always flip them to mono when listening.

 

[RobRoy]

As for me, I find wide dynamic range quite realistic.


Agree with you there. Theater systems never sound as good as better audio systems to me in that regard.


Perhaps you should widen your scope of movies.

My son recently bought a house with a full theater room professionally outfitted with stepped sitting areas and professional acoustical treatment with a 106" projection TV. When I first listened I told him the entire sound system was playing in mono. Every speaker was getting the same sound. We went to his electronics stack in the utility area and there were two rather large Denon amplifiers, set up incorrectly. I didn't have to rewire anything. They were just on the wrong setting. Once we found the right settings (trial and error) that system absolutely blew me away. However, I'd not bother to listen to music on it unless it was a blueray concert like David Gilmore at Pompeii. The room is not set up for listening to music. It's set up for watching movies. Oh, and Football and golf are a thing to behold.

For stereo recordings I prefer vintage stereo amps. Not because they are better than modern stuff, but because to get modern stuff that sounds better is outside my budget. There is truly amazing equipment being designed and built these days.

 

[E-Stat]

He had a pair in his quite wide (not quite 40 feet) listening space and put on Cisco Kid.

If you refer to the recording by War, that is the challenge. It is innately flat as board and contains no ambience.

Literally the ONLY way you can make it wider than that is through intentional phase distortion.

With poor recordings, I would agree. Not, however, with minimally miked recordings that capture the acoustics of the recorded space.

 

[RobRoy]

It's not really a question of psychoacoustics. It's pure and simple math. Two points of reference are all that you need to describe the location of an object in 3 dimensional space. It works for your ears just like for your eyes, and microphones can capture the same information too. It's no some hocus pocus trick. It's simply the speakers accurately revealing the spacial information in the recording.

I agree. But the only time a microphone picks up "space" is if it is a binaural microphone or one of those single point stereo microphones. I single studio microphone, even one in the many thousands of dollars, only picks up raw sound. It adds no "space" to it. To get space, you need to combine two microphones. And even then, how they are interpretted by the playback source depends on how far apart they were when being used and how far apart the speakers are in the playback area. That is why the most "perfect" space is done with a binaural mic and headphones.

BTW, about 30 years ago I got a Styrofoam "wig head", cut it in half and installed RadioShack condenser mics in the ear area. I then glued it back together and covered in silicone. It actually made some pretty darned good binaural recordings.

Sound stage has been a bit of a thing for me for a very long time.

 

[E-Stat]

The room is not set up for listening to music. It's set up for watching movies. Oh, and Football and golf are a thing to behold.

Which is why I maintain separate HT and music systems as the requirements, content and expectations are different. At least pour moi!

 

[RobRoy]

If you refer to the recording by War, that is the challenge. It is innately flat as board and contains no ambience.


With poor recordings, I would agree. Not, however, with minimally miked recordings that capture the acoustics of the recorded space.

A single mic can not capture "space", no matter how expensive and exotic. It can only capture the sound coming to its single point. And then the speaker that reproduces that sound reproduces it as a single point. It can't "re-spread" the sound that the mic picked up. However, if you have two mikes, and a two speaker playback area, it can spread it as wide as the two speakers. But only that wide because the only thing that tells you something is coming from one side or the other or anywhere in between is the volume level and the phase difference - which is why binaural recordings through headphones are so effective.

An example: If a sound comes from the left and enters the left microphone and then travels to the right microphone, the mics will pick up the volume difference as well as the time difference between the two mics. If the source was on the left, but came from a plane ten feet from the plane of the two mics. It will hit the left mic at one time and volume, and hit the right mic at a different time and volume. That time difference can only maximally be the time difference for a sound to travel from the source to the mic that is farthest away vs the mic that is closest. If something is fifty feet to the left of the left mic, in a stereo recording it will be played back as though it happened AT the left mic. And the time difference between it and the right mic is what will also be picked up in the right speaker to give the spread, based on where the speaker is placed.

The exception is binaural recordings. And there is a reason the "good" binaural mics are shaped like a head and ear canals. This really can give you a front to back sensation. But stereo speakers can't Just like it takes two speakers to make stereo, it takes three speakers minimum to give a surround "stage". I actually made a surround synthesizer back in the late 70's. First for my car and then for my house. It wasn't too bad, but it was passive. It operated after the speaker outputs. I never tried to use it with my "good" hi-fi.

 

[RobRoy]

Which is why I maintain separate HT and music systems as the requirements, content and expectations are different. At least pour moi!

On that we completely agree! I just turned one of our bedrooms into a HT. But I stripped it of the vintage stereo and it now just uses the TV speakers. Meanwhile, in my60x30 garage building, I have devoted a 16x30 swath into a separate band rehearsal/mancave/small project room. That is where the real hi-fi will reside. I don't know that we will ever do much with the sound of the TV, though I might get a decent headphone amp. My wife coudln't care less about the sound.

 

[E-Stat]

A single mic can not capture "space", no matter how expensive and exotic.

Who said anything about using a single mic?

You really need to listen to a wide range of minimally miked (not one - just a small number) of recordings that are able to create a wonderfully three dimensional result. Mercury Living Presence. Windham Hill, Telarc. Sheffield. And many more.

I have devoted a 16x30 swath...

If that is discretionary space, you might consider a swath with more fortuitous dimensions for minimizing room modes. I lucked out with my current home having a 25x16 space that provides nearly Golden Ratio dimensions. And not surprisingly, wonderfully neutral bass response.

 

[RobRoy]

Who said anything about using a single mic?

You really need to listen to a wide range of minimally miked (not one - just a small number) of recordings that are able to create a wonderfully three dimensional result. Mercury Living Presence. Windham Hill, Telarc. Sheffield. And many more.


If that is discretionary space, you might consider a swath with more fortuitous dimensions for minimizing room modes. I lucked out with my current home having a 25x16 space that provides nearly Golden Ratio dimensions. And not surprisingly, wonderfully neutral bass response.

Well, it has ten foot tall ceiling and a 5 foot tall "open" ceiling. I'll be picking up a bunch of Roxul to maximize the sound. Interestingly, just with the standard insulation inside (it's a sheet metal building) it's quite acoustically "dead". With the roxul treatment I expect it will be fine. We'll see.

BTW, I'm all over the "Minimally miked idea. We may agree more than I thought.

 

[RobRoy]

Who said anything about using a single mic?

You really need to listen to a wide range of minimally miked (not one - just a small number) of recordings that are able to create a wonderfully three dimensional result. Mercury Living Presence. Windham Hill, Telarc. Sheffield. And many more.

BTW, I have pretty much every Sheffield record ever made and a lot of Windham Hill. And Telarc? I was a hi-fi (and record) salesman when they started pressing. I immediately picked up The firebird and the 1812 overture. Only one of my cartridges was able to play through all of the canon blasts without popping out of the groove. It was my AT-15SA.

All of those are amazing, but after a while I kinda saw Windham hill as "elevator music for audiophiles. But regarding the others, I used to be a fanatic about dynamic range. I even had a Phase Linear 1000 in my signal path until a tube amp fried it. But that is why I was all over powerful amps - to reproduce those transients.

 

[spicer]

Note I am discussing most of the new movies at the neighborhood multiplex. I like the better movies of the past and good ones today. I love the 1950's and 1960's epic movies, the best musicals, and love a good flick. I love a great spaghetti western. What movies I watch tend to be carefully chosen and curated.

Clint Eastwood rules... spaghetti western. Just watched A Fistful of Dollars... saw it in a thrift store on VHS for 25 cents and couldn't resist.

 

[Okra]

You're probably right about not asking the right questions and "I'm just browsing" probably won't enhance knowledge. I've had some great sales persons. Specifically in some really high end audio stores. I was looking at consignment items. He didn't seem to care I wasn't going to drop $10K. He became interested in my exploration after asking me a few pointed questions. When he understood my enthusiasm for music we shared a common bond. Even in Magnolia at Best Buy, some of those people are in that room because they are passionate about music. One salesman knew I loved the B&W Diamond Series and knew I wasn't going to buy but he spent about a half hour just sitting there listening to music with me. Actually in retrospect that may have been kind of annoying but you get my drift.

 

[E-Stat]

With the roxul treatment I expect it will be fine.

Nearly even dimensional multiples is problematic.

BTW, I have pretty much every Sheffield record ever made and a lot of Windham Hill. And Telarc? I was a hi-fi (and record) salesman when they started pressing. I immediately picked up The firebird and the 1812 overture.

Then perhaps you might revisit some Liz Story, George Winston and Michael Hedges recordings on WH. Ackerman took a different approach with minimal miking and no compression at least in the early days.

I participated in the Telarc ASO Firebird recording in a minor way. But that experience was invaluable in experiencing Jack Renner's mike technique while being able to compare live vs recorded during the two day process. After takes, we would go downstairs and play back the results for Shaw to review.

Many of those recordings mentioned are NOT speaker width limited in apparent soundstage.

 

[RobRoy]

I participated in the Telarc ASO Firebird recording in a minor way. But that experience was invaluable in experiencing Jack Renner's mike technique while being able to compare live vs recorded during the two day process. After takes, we would go downstairs and play back the results for Shaw to review.

Well, that's pretty cool.

 

[E-Stat]

Well, that's pretty cool.

JWC of TAS was largely responsible for bringing Telarc to Atlanta, remains a baritone in the chorus and got me the gig knowing I would love to be there.

With the LP under "special thanks", I'm the fifth one down.

 

[spicer]

A single mic can not capture "space", no matter how expensive and exotic. It can only capture the sound coming to its single point. And then the speaker that reproduces that sound reproduces it as a single point. It can't "re-spread" the sound that the mic picked up. However, if you have two mikes, and a two speaker playback area, it can spread it as wide as the two speakers. But only that wide because the only thing that tells you something is coming from one side or the other or anywhere in between is the volume level and the phase difference - which is why binaural recordings through headphones are so effective.

An example: If a sound comes from the left and enters the left microphone and then travels to the right microphone, the mics will pick up the volume difference as well as the time difference between the two mics. If the source was on the left, but came from a plane ten feet from the plane of the two mics. It will hit the left mic at one time and volume, and hit the right mic at a different time and volume. That time difference can only maximally be the time difference for a sound to travel from the source to the mic that is farthest away vs the mic that is closest. If something is fifty feet to the left of the left mic, in a stereo recording it will be played back as though it happened AT the left mic. And the time difference between it and the right mic is what will also be picked up in the right speaker to give the spread, based on where the speaker is placed.

The exception is binaural recordings. And there is a reason the "good" binaural mics are shaped like a head and ear canals. This really can give you a front to back sensation. But stereo speakers can't Just like it takes two speakers to make stereo, it takes three speakers minimum to give a surround "stage". I actually made a surround synthesizer back in the late 70's. First for my car and then for my house. It wasn't too bad, but it was passive. It operated after the speaker outputs. I never tried to use it with my "good" hi-fi.

Other things aside for a moment... it's all about the phase. The phase includes everything except, maybe, loudness... time, all of it. With regards to phase everything else is easy... look at all the buttons and options for processing, how ironic and telling is that. Phase Linear... some may argue their merits but the company chose that name for a reason.