Neil Young's Living With War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

It's the old being or becoming discussion...

---

I guess for me, I am trying to recreate something that resembles reality... in my fairly large room with my speakers that produce a "realistic" sized image... with eyes closed on the right two-channel recordings you can be fooled into believing that a jazz combo is in the room with you...

Of course in the '70s Pink Floyd and others did play around with concerts that were played through a quad PA and some interesting effects were possible... I am not opposed to that. However when I am listening to Steely Dan and the band is essentially in front of me... then all of a sudden a horn solo comes from behind me??? That's just cheesy... that is ping pong stereo all over again.


Widget

Hi Guys
I suppose the bottom line is, what's your reference? well mine is live performance,I thought the holy grail was to put that artist in your living room warts and all.
I'm afraid a horn section coming from the rear or a guitar lick leaves me some what confused and to my mind takes away from the main body of the performance.
That's my two bobs worth
Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Smith

Hi Guys
I suppose the bottom line is, what's your reference? well mine is live performance,I thought the holy grail was to put that artist in your living room warts and all.
I'm afraid a horn section coming from the rear or a guitar lick leaves me some what confused and to my mind takes away from the main body of the performance.
That's my two bobs worth
Michael

---

Hey Michael,
You nailed it in my mind! Leave surround for the movie special effects and out of the music! If, in time, I go to a concert where the keyboard player is behind me, the lead guitarist left rear and the drummer is in the middle of the stage then I'll buy it! For now, if they are on stage in front of me, that's where the music should come from! How many of us can just sit for any length of time in the middle of our surround sound system and just listen to music? I know I can't. As soon as you get up from the sweet spot you have lost any "benefit" of the EFFECT! One day I'm sure there will be a circular monitor that will allow the musicians to surround you with the visual along with the sound. Just make sure your chair swivels so you can see all that you hear!

Most of the music we listen to is not based on live performance.

Having said that, I'll give you that a live recording (kind of an oxymoron, eh?) should sound like a live concert: everyone up front on stage in place. Except even then it doesn't recreate the complete stage experience.

When Bono's got a mic and he goes from center stage to stage left, then across to stage right, the sound doesn't necessarily do that in the recording, since one mic is the primary input for his voice, and an engineer might just leave it all at center stage.

Be that as it may, the majority of the music we listen to is recorded in a studio and mixed to its final presentation. Imagining that the recoding process is anything other than a nice fiction when it comes to soundstage and placement requires too much faith from me. That mix is the recording engineer's, producer's, and hopefully artist's interpretation of where the sound should be and how it should be reproduced.

I don't want to be too much of an old fart, but the only format that eliminates most of these variables is good old monophonic sound.

Saying or implying that two-channel sound is more natural or accurate or correct doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. It's a preference and an engineering choice. Some of us may prefer it because that's what we're used to after 40 or so years of listening to it.

Peace to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

Most of the music we listen to is not based on live performance.

Having said that, I'll give you that a live recording (kind of an oxymoron, eh?) should sound like a live concert: everyone up front on stage in place. Except even then it doesn't recreate the complete stage experience.

When Bono's got a mic and he goes from center stage to stage left, then across to stage right, the sound doesn't necessarily do that in the recording, since one mic is the primary input for his voice, and an engineer might just leave it all at center stage.

Be that as it may, the majority of the music we listen to is recorded in a studio and mixed to its final presentation. Imagining that the recoding process is anything other than a nice fiction when it comes to soundstage and placement requires too much faith from me. That mix is the recording engineer's, producer's, and hopefully artist's interpretation of where the sound should be and how it should be reproduced.

I don't want to be too much of an old fart, but the only format that eliminates most of these variables is good old monophonic sound.

Saying or implying that two-channel sound is more natural or accurate or correct doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. It's a preference and an engineering choice. Some of us may prefer it because that's what we're used to after 40 or so years of listening to it.

Peace to you.

---

I think you hit a home run or grand slam with this post:applaud:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

Most of the music we listen to is not based on live performance.

Having said that, I'll give you that a live recording (kind of an oxymoron, eh?) should sound like a live concert: everyone up front on stage in place. Except even then it doesn't recreate the complete stage experience.

When Bono's got a mic and he goes from center stage to stage left, then across to stage right, the sound doesn't necessarily do that in the recording, since one mic is the primary input for his voice, and an engineer might just leave it all at center stage.

Be that as it may, the majority of the music we listen to is recorded in a studio and mixed to its final presentation. Imagining that the recoding process is anything other than a nice fiction when it comes to soundstage and placement requires too much faith from me. That mix is the recording engineer's, producer's, and hopefully artist's interpretation of where the sound should be and how it should be reproduced.

I don't want to be too much of an old fart, but the only format that eliminates most of these variables is good old monophonic sound.

Saying or implying that two-channel sound is more natural or accurate or correct doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. It's a preference and an engineering choice. Some of us may prefer it because that's what we're used to after 40 or so years of listening to it.

Peace to you.

---

You knew that would cause a stir....nice rub.

Monophonic can't pan or place sounds in space....stereo can. Mono can't place the instruments of a Big Band as they are set up on stage...first chair sax, lead trumpet, trombone, piano, drums, string bass, etc.....stereo can. Usually the instruments are placed in space as they would be if they were to be infront of you at a club or other small venue. Arena concerts aren't the intimate venue that can give that experience, but it can give the feeling of space....which mono can't do...but stereo can.

Also...the live recording just doesn't come off of the FOH board....there is lots of mixing that can be done from the recording consoles and post production to move the performer around the recorded sound stage.

Anyone else care to add to this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

Saying or implying that two-channel sound is more natural or accurate or correct doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. It's a preference and an engineering choice. Some of us may prefer it because that's what we're used to after 40 or so years of listening to it.

---

I am not sure if you were putting my 2-channel preference into that boat or not.

To clarify, the thrust of my argument is that it has taken several decades for most engineers to get a handle on 2-channel... I expect it will be awhile yet before they learn how to use their new found tools with subtlety and grace. Currently most surround mixes are the sonic equivalent of a Tijuana day-glow on black velvet painting.



Widget

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Widget

I am not sure if you were putting my 2-channel preference into that boat or not.

To clarify, the thrust of my argument is that it has taken several decades for most engineers to get a handle on 2-channel... I expect it will be awhile yet before they learn how to use their new found tools with subtlety and grace. Currently most surround mixes are the sonic equivalent of a Tijuana day-glow on black velvet painting.



Widget

---

Are there dogs in that painting? I like dogs. :homer:

Maybe the best understood analogies to stereo 2 channel is this...

We humans both hear and see in stereo. That's what gives us depth and space perception....two eyes and two ears feeding two separate brain channels. That's the same concept that would make the argument of stereo being the most natural recording method for music...or anything else for that matter.

But we can see and hear in more than one direction. So the sources of stimuli are located all around us, not just in two locations.

Also, that logic would imply that a person with only one eye or one ear could not perceive depth or localize sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

But we can see and hear in more than one direction. So the sources of stimuli are located all around us, not just in two locations.

Also, that logic would imply that a person with only one eye or one ear could not perceive depth or localize sound.

---

One can somewhat localize sound with one ear due to the shape of the ear and how it collects sounds. Take away one eye and try to play catch with a baseball or hit a baseball. The depth perception is severely compromised. It takes considerable time for the brain to adjust and compensate if one loses an eye.

But my point is it takes at least to channels of audio to give the dimensions of both depth and width to recreate a realistic soundstage. and I think it's more seamless than surround sound....so far anyway.;)

Ever compare 2 mixes of the same material of a new release in 2 and 5 channels??? I can think of Peter Gabriels Up as an example. The 2 is great and the 5 is superb. Basically you have 3 additional Hi Res channels to present the material through. As good as the 2 channel is the clarity and resolution on the 5 is stunning. The individual textures on the instruments are as clear as day with the extra channels. The sounds is open and spacious. This unfortunately is the exception but the promise is there. When they do became used to the format look out. As far as 2 vs 5 well it's all artificial anyway. Both can sound great however listenning to symphonic material where the back 2 channels are ambiance only is another stunner. Talk about a really great sense of space. No 2 channel recording can ever come close.

Rob:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robh3606

This unfortunately is the exception but the promise is there. When they do became used to the format look out. As far as 2 vs 5 well it's all artificial anyway. Both can sound great however listenning to symphonic material where the back 2 channels are ambiance only is another stunner. Talk about a really great sense of space.

---

I do think there is a promising future for multi-channel.

There is another issue however. I can't really afford the two speakers I have... both economically or in terms of real-estate... getting five of them would require cheapening out on the electronics and speakers... I don't think that would be a fair trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robh3606

Talk about a really great sense of space. No 2 channel recording can ever come close.

---

Get on a plane... I've got something for you to experience.:D


Widget

Quote:

---

Get on a plane... I've got something for you to experience.:D

---

:rotfl: Nice comeback!!!! Maybe someday!!

Rob:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oznob

Hey Michael,
You nailed it in my mind! Leave surround for the movie special effects and out of the music! If, in time, I go to a concert where the keyboard player is behind me, the lead guitarist left rear and the drummer is in the middle of the stage then I'll buy it! For now, if they are on stage in front of me, that's where the music should come from! How many of us can just sit for any length of time in the middle of our surround sound system and just listen to music? I know I can't. As soon as you get up from the sweet spot you have lost any "benefit" of the EFFECT! One day I'm sure there will be a circular monitor that will allow the musicians to surround you with the visual along with the sound. Just make sure your chair swivels so you can see all that you hear!

---

At a concert many years ago, I had a great seat - close but not too close, maybe twelve feet - in a perfect, purpose-built tiny hall in the round. The performance was stellar, the Chicago Symphony String Quartet playing really great pieces, like Debussy's string quartet. That group would be the first and second violin chair and the first chair viola and cello. Three out of four instruments were Strads. All four men obviously had day jobs in the symphony, but were there because they loved to play and were excited about the presentation. The greatest sound quality I ever heard. It was a free concert to debut the room. Both venue and talent were paid for by a wealthy patron of my college.

Still, I thought afterward that the only seat better would be them surrounding me instead of us surrounding them. It doesn't happen because an audience of one is not practical. Except in recording. I think this is where the real potential of surround for musical playback lies. It could actually improve on the experience by giving us an impossibly great seat that we cannot have in the real world. Kind of like when I play a submarine sim, technology offers a version of an experience I could never enjoy in real life. And yes, of course any reproduction is a version of something.

When you think about it this way, you realize we are restricting ourselves on the basis of what we have already experienced. Sitting in a a circle of musicians playing, or sitting in on a jam can sound more interesting than a stage-audience relationship, and is a lot more intimate. You players can attest to this. Have you ever wondered what it sounds like to be playing in that string quartet during practice, when they are facing each other?

Lacking that, I prefer two channel for now.

BTW, the few true binaural recordings I have heard (through Stax headphones, great sound too) gave a more realistic sound field than anything else I've experienced. Binaural is recorded through "dummy head" microphones for headphone reproduction. http://www.binaural.com/

Peace, Clark