Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

=DEann 20/06/2011 03:19, skrifa=F0i Gary Eickmeier:
Hey group -

I am a little baffled by how we can tell anything about what we are buy
ing -how it was really reocorded and mastered, whether it has a real solid
center channel or phantom, real .1 subwoofer feed or not, discrete surround
recording or upmix, on and on.


That is what music magazines are for, distributing information like that=20
although classical labels and audiophile labels usually have some sort=20
of info on their homepages and sometimes on the cover as well.


And of course a new improved format will require a hardware or a=20
software upgrade, in the case of an SACD both the conversion process and=20
the basic media are very different from a standard CD, however almost=20
all SACD disks have a compatibility layer that allows you to play the=20
disk back on a standard CD player. And SACD does nor require a dedicated=20
player but a compatible player, quite a number of DVD players can play=20
back SACD's although they tend to be more expensive.


The Dolby True HD and DTS-HD are more common on Blu-rays than on DVD's,=20
most music DVD's use a slightly improved version of the MP3 format=20
(usually an AAC variant branded either Dolby or DTS) that is compressed=20
in a loss inducing way (i.e. data is thrown away) and are not considered=20
hi-fi for that reason.


DTS-HD, Dolby T-HD, the now defunct DVD-A format and SACD's all use=20
lossless data compression, i.e. no data is thrown away. The difference=20
is that DTS-HD, Dolby T-HD and DVD-A are PCM formats while SACD/DSD is=20
delta-sigma, and Telarc and the other classical labels actually record=20
in DXD, which is D-S with twice the sampling rate of DSD, this is then=20
transcoded to DSD for SACD, 16 bit linear PCM for CD or 16/20/24 bit=20
lossy PCM for DVD. (not mixed BTW as you stated, in most cases mixing=20
happens either in the DXD format itself for quality reasons or after=20
transcoding to PCM if the decision to record in DXD was due to archival=20
issues rather than current quality issues)



You did not play LP's on a wind up 78 RPM gramophone even though the=20
formats were similar ....


You Said:

"...Telarc and the other classical labels actually record in DXD, which is
D-S with twice the sampling rate of DSD..."

That's not exactly correct. DXD is a Sony editing format that is used within
their DSD editing suites. It is never used for DSD mastering because it is a
PCM-like format (rather than a DSD format) with 24-bit resolution sampled at
352.8 KHz. I've heard some recording engineers say that DSD recordings edited
using DXD don't sound as good as the raw masters. *

According to Robert Woods (who was Telarc's founder and record
producer until 2009), they master using DSDIFF (File extension .dff) at
2.8224 MHz. *There are two other DSD formats, but they aren't used very much
(if at all) for commercial recording. One is a Sony proprietary format that
was used in some Sony 'VAIO" personal computers and is called DSF, and
another is WSD which stands for Wideband Single-bit Data and is defined by
the "1-bit Audio Consortium" . Most DSD recorders will do any of these three
file formats.


Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release rate of
2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5.6448
MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be used for
capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SACD disc
is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple of
recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage space as
does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it.

Audio_Empire


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to
the new article. -- dsr ]



On a more practical level....

Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you
consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are
they 3 front channels, or just two? Are they surround or just front sound?
Do they release these in the newer Dolby True HD on Blu Ray disc, or are
there no audio only Blu Ray discs?

I realize how iggerant I am, but I'm trying...

Gary Eickmeier


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:02:14 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to
the new article. -- dsr ]



On a more practical level....

Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you
consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are
they 3 front channels, or just two? Are they surround or just front sound?
Do they release these in the newer Dolby True HD on Blu Ray disc, or are
there no audio only Blu Ray discs?

I realize how iggerant I am, but I'm trying...

Gary Eickmeier



I have a large collection of SACD releases, including many Telarcs. All
Telarc SACDs have a surround layer. I have never listened to the surround
layers in my own system as it's only two-channel. Some of the Philips
produced Mercury recordings released in the SACD format are indeed three
channel (the way they were originally recorded - right, center, left), but
again, you need three identical speakers and three channels of amplification
to correctly present those recordings, and I don't have that either. I have
heard them in a stereo store, but never in my own system. I must say that
soundstage is impressive. Especially for a three-spaced-omni mike
arrangement, which I deem to be wrong-headed.

My impression of SACD releases, in general, is pretty much the same as Meyer
& Moran's conclusion in their oft-cited paper on SACD vs CD. SACD releases
generally sound better than regular CD releases because they seem to use less
compression and limiting in their production. I suspect that if regular CDs
were mastered in the same way as the SACDs, that there would actually be
little to choose between them sonically.

There are a few True-HD audio-only Blu-Ray discs (I have a couple from a
company in Norway called "2L") Other than a very few independent releases
from specialty labels, I haven't seen much activity on that front.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Olafur Gunnlaugsson[_2_] Olafur Gunnlaugsson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

Žann 24/06/2011 15:06, skrifaši Audio Empi

Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release rate of
2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5.6448
MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be used for
capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SACD disc
is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple of
recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage space as
does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it.


You mean DXD as "Digital eXtreme Definition", I thought that format was
no longer used since we got proper DSD editing software, and I may have
been confusing terms, but unless I misheard the gent from Pentatone, DXD
versus DSD is how he differentiated between 64 and 128 frame recording
but thinking about it it may have been DSX versus DSD, they and most of
the other European Classical labels that (not Chandos I think, but not
sure) use 128 and have done for years.

As for your ability to hear a difference I cannot possibly comment,
especially in the light of the extremely comical discussion you are
having on cables concurrently .....

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Olafur Gunnlaugsson[_2_] Olafur Gunnlaugsson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

Žann 24/06/2011 17:02, skrifaši Gary Eickmeier:
[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to
the new article. -- dsr ]



On a more practical level....

Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you
consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are
they 3 front channels, or just two?


They are usually 4.1 or more seldom 6.1 in other words 2 front channels
but many still have a summed or mixed signal for the centre channel
(making it sort of 5.1 and 7.1), the reason for not utilising the centre
channel is that some manufacturers of centre channel speakers limit
their frequency range to be more intelligible for voice applications and
the simple fact that the typical centre channel placement does not help
much in establishing spatial awareness and may in fact hinder, the
centre channel is there for making dialoge appear to come from the
screen after all and not intended for music per se.

Some labels like Pentatone have released old quad recordings from the
70's as 4 channels and some American re-releases have surfaced of
recordings originally recorded on Ampex triples have been released as 3
channel recordings but those 3 channel releases are not surround sound
per se, and you may or may not hear an improvement from a stereo mix and
may need to play with your set-up for optimal use

Some of these old 3 channel recordings have sounded superb however,
especially a couple of the Mercury recordings, the old Philips quad
mixes are also an interesting listen if only to hear the tendency to
emphasise the quad much like happened in the early days of stereo, and
the sound quality is surprising as well.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:25:24 -0700, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote
(in article ):

=DEann 24/06/2011 15:06, skrifa=F0i Audio Empi
=20
Also, there are two DSD data rates. One is the standard SACD release r=

ate of
2.8224 MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency and the other is double that at 5=

..6448
MHz (sometimes called DSD128) because it's 128Fs. Either rate can be u=

sed=20
for
capture, but the DSD128 signal must be converted to DSD64 before an SA=

CD=20
disc
is mastered. DSD128 is rarely used commercially. I have made a couple =

of
recordings at DSD128 and aside from it taking up twice the storage spa=

ce as
does DSD64, I see (and hear) no actual advantage to it.

=20
You mean DXD as "Digital eXtreme Definition", I thought that format was=

=20
no longer used since we got proper DSD editing software, and I may have=

=20
been confusing terms, but unless I misheard the gent from Pentatone, DX=

D=20
versus DSD is how he differentiated between 64 and 128 frame recording=20
but thinking about it it may have been DSX versus DSD, they and most of=

=20
the other European Classical labels that (not Chandos I think, but not=20
sure) use 128 and have done for years.


DXD does, indeed stand for Digital eXtream Definition, and you are correc=
t,=20
it is obsolete (I think that I said that I don't believe it's used much a=
ny=20
more and it it never was used for SACD capture).=20

You must have heard wrong because DXD isn't a DSD format at all, it's mer=
ely=20
24-bit PCM at 352.8=A0kHz sampling rate (8Fs). While some record companie=
s=20
might have done capture at one time or another at DSD128, the release dis=
c=20
was usually down-converted to DSD64. (Some SACD players, apparently can p=
lay=20
5.6 MBPS (which is different from DSD128) recordings uncompressed, but th=
ey=20
are few and far between AFAICS.

As for your ability to hear a difference I cannot possibly comment,=20
especially in the light of the extremely comical discussion you are=20
having on cables concurrently .....



What's there to hear? DSD64 is flat to 50 KHz. DSD128 is flat to 100 KHz.=
=20
Otherwise, they are exactly the same. Now unless you have bat ears, which=
I =20
doubt, I simply don't believe that you (or anyone else) can hear the=20
difference between these two recording formats. Therefore I'm going to le=
ave=20
it to you to explain to me what possible audible advantage there could be=
=20
between a format that goes to 50 KHz and one that goes to 100 KHz, when m=
ost=20
18 year-old humans (with undamaged hearing) struggle to hear 20 KHz? =20

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:48:42 -0700, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote
(in article ):

Žann 24/06/2011 17:02, skrifaši Gary Eickmeier:
[ Entire quotation snipped as not being relevant to
the new article. -- dsr ]



On a more practical level....

Have you played with the commercial SACD releases from Telarc, and would you
consider them worth the expense over the CD format or Dolby Digital? Are
they 3 front channels, or just two?


They are usually 4.1 or more seldom 6.1 in other words 2 front channels
but many still have a summed or mixed signal for the centre channel
(making it sort of 5.1 and 7.1), the reason for not utilising the centre
channel is that some manufacturers of centre channel speakers limit
their frequency range to be more intelligible for voice applications and
the simple fact that the typical centre channel placement does not help
much in establishing spatial awareness and may in fact hinder, the
centre channel is there for making dialoge appear to come from the
screen after all and not intended for music per se.



Some labels like Pentatone have released old quad recordings from the
70's as 4 channels and some American re-releases have surfaced of
recordings originally recorded on Ampex triples have been released as 3
channel recordings but those 3 channel releases are not surround sound
per se, and you may or may not hear an improvement from a stereo mix and
may need to play with your set-up for optimal use.


Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to get these
three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have spectacular soundtage
even though three omnidirectional mikes (L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my
opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true stereo techniques is always the way to go
for real stereophonic sound.

Some of these old 3 channel recordings have sounded superb however,
especially a couple of the Mercury recordings, the old Philips quad
mixes are also an interesting listen if only to hear the tendency to
emphasise the quad much like happened in the early days of stereo, and
the sound quality is surprising as well.


Certainly, the "quad" is over-emphasized in a lot of these, but remember, the
S-Q and Q-S matrix systems that were used limited the separation between two
of the channels (front to rear with S-Q and right to left with Q-S) to only 3
dB (without logic steering). 3 dB is barely audible, so they had to do
something to make the quadriphonic effect seem to be adequate.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

Audio Empire wrote:

Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to
get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have
spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes
(L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true
stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound.


Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious,
why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What
sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than
Blumlein's patent?

Gary Eickmeier

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to
get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have
spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes
(L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true
stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound.


Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but.... curious,
why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What
sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than
Blumlein's patent?

Gary Eickmeier


The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft
apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches apart.


Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't phase
coherent. The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and
Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel spaced
omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural
version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which both
a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One couldn't
just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies
would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center
channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more
stable center image.

It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent stereo
recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better imaging
but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced
omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility
afforded by using cardioids. Some record companies such as British Decca and
DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and for
a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to
multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio
Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three spaced
ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable from a
flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He
acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced omnis
were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt
that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was
largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and didn't
want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids
have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real hall
sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But this
only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a live
event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll
still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough and
program rustle.

There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made.
Just because someone works in the business professionally and successfully,
doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I
confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel,
microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra. I
said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no depth,
and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for a
group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual instruments
must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or microphones)
and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments captured
close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance.

Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound, he
was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed
attitude like that?
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to
get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have
spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes
(L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true
stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound.


Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but....
curious,
why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What
sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than
Blumlein's patent?

Gary Eickmeier


The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft
apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches
apart.


Well, my shocking retort is that stereophonic sound has nothing to do with
the number of ears on your head or the spacing between them. Your M/S and
Blumlein techniques are also not spaced as the human ears are. In other
words, stereo is not a head-related system like binaural, it is a field-type
system. The goal is not ear signals, but rather reconstructing a sound field
in another room.

Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't
phase
coherent.


OK stop for a minute. So what? Who says they need to be? Where does that
come from?

The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and
Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel
spaced
omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural
version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which
both
a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One
couldn't
just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies
would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center
channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more
stable center image.

It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent
stereo
recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better
imaging
but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced
omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility
afforded by using cardioids.


For some contrarian reason I don't have much sympathy for the ability to sum
to mono. What I do have is some (I believe) valid theoretical reasons that 3
or more spaced omnis are more correct for stereo.

Some record companies such as British Decca and
DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and
for
a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to
multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio
Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three
spaced
ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable
from a
flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He
acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced
omnis
were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt
that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was
largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and
didn't
want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids
have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real
hall
sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But
this
only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a
live
event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll
still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough
and
program rustle.

There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made.
Just because someone works in the business professionally and
successfully,
doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I
confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel,
microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra.
I
said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no
depth,
and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for
a
group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual
instruments
must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or
microphones)
and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments
captured
close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance.

Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound,
he
was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed
attitude like that?


I would agree with you there. The only way he could justify his technique
would be to play back his recording in as big a hall as it was made in, and
with as many speakers as microphones.

Two things: I wrote an entertaining article about the difference between a
head-related system and a field-type system that tries to get to the heart
of this discussion. I don't remember if I sent it to you. It is called An
Audio Fantasy: The AES Goes to Mars. I could zap it to anyone who is
interested as a PDF. Number two, I have been making some 3 spaced omni
recordings of my own to test out my audio theories from recording to
playback, and I have had some success both in my system and in critical
acclaim in three other people's systems. I made a shorter demo version that
I would be glad to send to anyone interested, if you just Email me your
address.

Gary Eickmeier




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:22:00 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:16:26 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Actually, you need three identical channels )including speakers to
get these three- channel recordings to sound correct. They have
spectacular soundtage even though three omnidirectional mikes
(L-C-R) are wrongheaded in my opinion. X-Y or M-S or other true
stereo techniques is always the way to go for real stereophonic sound.

Uh-oh - I think we may have argued about this one before, but....
curious,
why would you characterize X-Y or M-S as "real" stereophonic sound? What
sort of theory of stereo are you operating under? Anything deeper than
Blumlein's patent?

Gary Eickmeier


The smart-ass answer is this, Do you have three ears? Are your ears 15 ft
apart? No, to both. You have two ears and your ears are about 7 inches
apart.


Well, my shocking retort is that stereophonic sound has nothing to do with
the number of ears on your head or the spacing between them. Your M/S and
Blumlein techniques are also not spaced as the human ears are. In other
words, stereo is not a head-related system like binaural, it is a field-type
system. The goal is not ear signals, but rather reconstructing a sound field
in another room.


I said that was the smart-ass answer. From that you should have understood
that I was kidding.

Kidding aside, the more scientific answer is that spaced omnis aren't
phase
coherent.


OK stop for a minute. So what? Who says they need to be? Where does that
come from?


I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by a
combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis locate
sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left only.
The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a spaced
omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not
nearly as annoying)

The reason why early stereo recordings by people like Fine and
Eberenz (Mercury) and Lewis Leyton (RCA) were initially three channel
spaced
omnis is so that the center mike could be used to produce the monaural
version of the record (these were the days of "dual inventory" in which
both
a separate mono and stereo record were sold of the same title). One
couldn't
just sum the L+R mikes together to get mono because the phase anomalies
would cause cancellations. It was later discovered that mixing the center
channel equally into both the right and the left channels yielded a more
stable center image.

It was known that X-Y, or A-B cardioids would yield a phase coherent
stereo
recording that would sum to mono perfectly, and result in much better
imaging
but many felt that the flatter frequency response (off-axis) of the spaced
omnis would override any advantages in soundstage and mono compatibility
afforded by using cardioids.


For some contrarian reason I don't have much sympathy for the ability to sum
to mono. What I do have is some (I believe) valid theoretical reasons that 3
or more spaced omnis are more correct for stereo.


See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does point
out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and it
shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To me
it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what
seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind
ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone
schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in
soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S
stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable,
almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling while
the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous.

My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with
different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any conclusions.
It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different
setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for it
and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from actual
experience, what kind of results they all yield.

Some record companies such as British Decca and
DGG used M-S miking and that was also phase coherent, RCA eventually, and
for
a short time, changed over to X-Y miking (before going to
multi-miking/multi-channel). I once asked Bob Fine (at a NYC Audio
Engineering Society Convention in the 1970's) why he stuck with three
spaced
ominis even after modern cardioids improved enough to make them viable
from a
flat frequency response standpoint. His answer was a practical one. He
acknowledged that while X-Y, A-B and M-S were better, his three spaced
omnis
were something he knew intimately, and was comfortable with. He also felt
that the spaced omnis picked up more hall sound and the center mike was
largely responsible for the famous "Living Presence" Mercury sound and
didn't
want to change that. He's right about the omnis and hall sound. Cardioids
have such attenuated pick-up from their backsides that if you want real
hall
sound you have to use auxiliary microphones placed out in the hall. But
this
only works if you are recording in an empty hall. If you are recording a
live
event, you want the isolation from the audience sound. Believe me you'll
still hear them applaud on the recording, you just won't hear every cough
and
program rustle.

There are lots of differing opinions about how recordings should be made.
Just because someone works in the business professionally and
successfully,
doesn't mean that they are "right". A good case for this was when I
confronted RCA producer J. David Saks about his 48-channel,
microphone-per-instrument method of recording the Philadelphia Orchestra.
I
said that I thought his recordings sounded simply awful. They had no
depth,
and the instruments didn't sound real because, in my opinion, in order for
a
group of musicians to coalesce into an orchestra, the individual
instruments
must "mix" in the air between the ensemble and the listeners (or
microphones)
and not in an electronic mixer. I also pointed out that instruments
captured
close-up did not the sound the same as they do at a distance.

Saks' answer was that he wasn't looking for "realistic" orchestra sound,
he
was aiming for "better than real". How do you argue with a wrong-headed
attitude like that?


I would agree with you there. The only way he could justify his technique
would be to play back his recording in as big a hall as it was made in, and
with as many speakers as microphones.



Two things: I wrote an entertaining article about the difference between a
head-related system and a field-type system that tries to get to the heart
of this discussion. I don't remember if I sent it to you. It is called An
Audio Fantasy: The AES Goes to Mars. I could zap it to anyone who is
interested as a PDF. Number two, I have been making some 3 spaced omni
recordings of my own to test out my audio theories from recording to
playback, and I have had some success both in my system and in critical
acclaim in three other people's systems. I made a shorter demo version that
I would be glad to send to anyone interested, if you just Email me your
address.


But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find
which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old Mercury
Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound very
good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever
released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis
Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup instead
of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's
Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used
M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging!

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by
a
combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis
locate
sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left
only.
The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a
spaced
omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not
nearly as annoying)


Not to be argumentative - I agree with your basic points about
experimenting - but just food for thought. No, I don't need to study too
much more about how we localize sounds. I have been at this for some 25 or
30 years now, at an amateur level. Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some
years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The
gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear.
When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various
sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase,
doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize
sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted
multimike techniques. I must look that article up again.


See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does
point
out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and
it
shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To
me
it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what
seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind
ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone
schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in
soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S
stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable,
almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling
while
the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous.

My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with
different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any
conclusions.
It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different
setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for
it
and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from
actual
experience, what kind of results they all yield.


I have only begun doing just that. I recorded my current batch with both the
spaced omnis and a single point stereo mike. But I was so thrilled with the
spaced omni results that I never did do my comparison.

The impetus for my acquiring the R16 multitrack recorder and enough mikes to
make the experimental recordings was my experience with the single point
mike. It just didn't have enough space or stereo spread to it - almost a
mono recording. But besides that, in my basic paper on stereo I reasoned at
the end of it that since my ideal playback system was three spaced speakers
attempting to reconstruct the image model of the live sound field, and since
the playback image model was an orthographic projection within the
rectangular space, the correct way to capture the live model of direct and
early reflected sounds that exist in the concert space would be to position
microphones near those images. I suggested some simple math that tells me
how close I can position the three mikes to the performers to get a
perfectly even spread all across the soundstage. You could also use 5 spaced
omnis to get even more differentiation. The main point, however, is that in
order to get all of the direct and reflected sounds onto the recording, the
recording engineer must remember that he is making two stereo recordings at
the same time: the musical instruments themselves and their early reflected
sounds.


But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find
which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old
Mercury
Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound
very
good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever
released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis
Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup
instead
of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's
Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used
M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging!


But yes, I have, but haven't carried the experiment all the way through
yet. I am going to record a chamber orchestra on the 7th of next month - my
daughter's orchestra camp has a final concert every year. It will be in an
ideal medium size room. I hope to get a piano trio or quartet somewhere,
somehow, in the near future to try it on that as well.

Eargle used omnis outboard of the center stereo mikes to get some space into
his recordings.

I generally agree with your approach of experimentation. I don't have as
much experience recording as you do, but I imagine another difference is our
playback systems. Do you lean toward a direct field approach with your
speakers?

One last, annoying point. The simplest thought experiment I can offer is
three performers across the soundstage, positioned as your speakers will be.
Example A, suppose you close-miked them and played them back on their
respective speakers. Each speaker represents a single performer on your
soundstage. Imaging is quite perfect, because there they are right where
they belong, unmistakably coming from right, center, and left, listened to
with your natural human hearing just fine. Phase has nothing to do with it.
Example B, suppose we use three spaced omnis to record them. Not much
difference, and still no problem with "phase." Each mike will record some
leakage from the other performers, but that leaked sound will be later in
time, and so will not hurt the imaging from that performer's primary
microphone a bit.

I may be able to do some experimental voice tests next time as well, with me
calling out my position on the stage and moving around. I live and learn.

Gary Eickmeier


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:28:50 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I think you need to study-up on how humans localize sounds. It is done by
a
combination of level differences and phase differences. Spaced omnis
locate
sounds within soundstage by colume differences between right and left
only.
The lack of phase coherence actually confuses those cues. I can tell a
spaced
omni recording every time. It's as audible to me as multi-miking (but not
nearly as annoying)


Not to be argumentative - I agree with your basic points about
experimenting - but just food for thought. No, I don't need to study too
much more about how we localize sounds. I have been at this for some 25 or
30 years now, at an amateur level. Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some
years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The
gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear.
When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various
sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase,
doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize
sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to pan-potted
multimike techniques. I must look that article up again.


See above. The mono compatibility is not important, per se, but it does
point
out rather dramatically that spaced omnis have serious phase problems and
it
shows, without question, how wrong-headed the spaced omni method is. To
me
it's a serious compromise and I admit readily that I don't understand what
seems to be your blind adherence to it. When I was recording a wind
ensemble's (symphonic band) rehearsals I tried all kinds of microphone
schemes - including spaced omnis. If you could hear the difference in
soundstage and imaging between the three spaced omnis and the X-Y or M-S
stereo versions, I dare say you'd never use former again. The palpable,
almost holographic imaging of the X-Y and M-S recordings is startling
while
the spaced omnis is much more vague and amorphous.

My only real point in this discussion is that one should experiment with
different mike placements and methodologies before drawing any
conclusions.
It's the only way to KNOW what works best. If you try all the different
setups and still find that you prefer the three spaced omnis, then go for
it
and don't let anyone tell you differently, because you'll know, from
actual
experience, what kind of results they all yield.


I have only begun doing just that. I recorded my current batch with both the
spaced omnis and a single point stereo mike. But I was so thrilled with the
spaced omni results that I never did do my comparison.

The impetus for my acquiring the R16 multitrack recorder and enough mikes to
make the experimental recordings was my experience with the single point
mike. It just didn't have enough space or stereo spread to it - almost a
mono recording.


Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid or
figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get mono.

But besides that, in my basic paper on stereo I reasoned at
the end of it that since my ideal playback system was three spaced speakers
attempting to reconstruct the image model of the live sound field, and since
the playback image model was an orthographic projection within the
rectangular space, the correct way to capture the live model of direct and
early reflected sounds that exist in the concert space would be to position
microphones near those images. I suggested some simple math that tells me
how close I can position the three mikes to the performers to get a
perfectly even spread all across the soundstage. You could also use 5 spaced
omnis to get even more differentiation. The main point, however, is that in
order to get all of the direct and reflected sounds onto the recording, the
recording engineer must remember that he is making two stereo recordings at
the same time: the musical instruments themselves and their early reflected
sounds.


But you haven't compared different techniques on the same ensemble to find
which is better. I'm sure that your recordings sound fine. The old
Mercury
Living Presence and RCA "Red Seals" made with three spaced omnis sound
very
good. They are still among the best recorded classical performances ever
released. But they could have imaged so much better had Bob Fine and Lewis
Leyton, et al used a stereo pair of modern cardioids or an M-S setup
instead
of the three spaced omnis. For contrast, listen to one of John Eargle's
Delos recordings of Gerard Schwarze and the Seattle Orchestra. Eargle used
M-S miking. Wow! What palpable, you-are-there soundstage and imaging!


But yes, I have, but haven't carried the experiment all the way through
yet. I am going to record a chamber orchestra on the 7th of next month - my
daughter's orchestra camp has a final concert every year. It will be in an
ideal medium size room. I hope to get a piano trio or quartet somewhere,
somehow, in the near future to try it on that as well.

Eargle used omnis outboard of the center stereo mikes to get some space into
his recordings.


That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as long
as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that
myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo
piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on
the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the
corners. The space was palpable.

I generally agree with your approach of experimentation. I don't have as
much experience recording as you do, but I imagine another difference is our
playback systems. Do you lean toward a direct field approach with your
speakers?


No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart.

One last, annoying point. The simplest thought experiment I can offer is
three performers across the soundstage, positioned as your speakers will be.
Example A, suppose you close-miked them and played them back on their
respective speakers. Each speaker represents a single performer on your
soundstage. Imaging is quite perfect, because there they are right where
they belong, unmistakably coming from right, center, and left, listened to
with your natural human hearing just fine. Phase has nothing to do with it.
Example B, suppose we use three spaced omnis to record them. Not much
difference, and still no problem with "phase." Each mike will record some
leakage from the other performers, but that leaked sound will be later in
time, and so will not hurt the imaging from that performer's primary
microphone a bit.


Yes but that's multi-miked mono. Lots of small jazz ensembles are,
essentially miked that way.

I may be able to do some experimental voice tests next time as well, with me
calling out my position on the stage and moving around. I live and learn.

Gary Eickmeier




  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some
years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The
gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear.
When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various
sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase,
doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize
sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to
pan-potted
multimike techniques. I must look that article up again.


When you're wrong you're wrong.

Stanley was talking about spaced omnis as being the purist technique, and
coincident being the correct technique. Anyway, seems he agrees with you. I
have purchased this one again from the AES library, along with one by Ron
Streicher and Wes Dooley called "Basic Microphone Perspectives - a Review."
I will give a full book report.

Gary Eickmeier


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart.

Superb.

...............


Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid
or
figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get
mono.


A single point stereo mike, not omnis. These are usually two coincident
cardioids aimed at 90 or 120 degrees. My favorite single point stereo was a
Sony M/S, but don't have it any more.


That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as
long
as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that
myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo
piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on
the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the
corners. The space was palpable.


I would love to palp that! Is it for sale, or could you make a copy for me?

Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always
miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10
ft wide piano. But in real life we don't usually listen that way. It is
usually positioned perpendicular to the audience with the lid open.
Sometimes in a pop group it will be mono miked for the reinforcement system,
but I am talking live piano.

Gary Eickmeier




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:32:22 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

No. I use Martin Logan Vantages about 10 ft way and about 7 ft apart.

Superb.

..............


Then you didn't do something right. Stereo miking will work with cardioid
or
figure-of-eight mikes, but not with omnis. Use omnis and you WILL get
mono.


A single point stereo mike, not omnis. These are usually two coincident
cardioids aimed at 90 or 120 degrees. My favorite single point stereo was a
Sony M/S, but don't have it any more.


That was for hall ambience, and it can certainly work well that way as
long
as the auxiliary omnis are subordinate to the stereo pair. I've done that
myself and was most pleased with the results. I recently recorded a solo
piano in a (closed at the time) winery. I used the stereo mike directly on
the piano and two omnis at the other end of the hall near (but not in) the
corners. The space was palpable.


I would love to palp that! Is it for sale, or could you make a copy for me?


Part of my agreement with the customer is that i would give her everything,
and keep no copies, so alas, no. It was very good too.

Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost always
miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a 10
ft wide piano.


Another result of "wrong thinking". They place a spaced pair of mikes INSIDE
of the piano. One at one end of the string sounding board, and one at the
other! Of course you'll get a 10 ft wide piano!. The way to do it is to lift
the lid on the piano and use a good single point stereo mike (or pair) about
4-7 ft in front of the instrument aimed at the lifted lid. I once did a
recording of Phillipe Entremont playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto
with a symphony orchestra. I used two Sony C37A mikes at 90 degrees to one
another on a 7" stereo "T-bar" and hung about 10 ft above the conductor's
head and about 15 ft behind the podium. I didn't highlight the piano at all
(which was down-stage left in front of the orchestra and next to the
conductor's podium). On playback, the perspective was perfect, with the piano
solidly placed on the speaker's soundstage EXACTLY where it was during the
concert. Now, that one I will send you! E-Mail me your mailing address.

But in real life we don't usually listen that way. It is
usually positioned perpendicular to the audience with the lid open.
Sometimes in a pop group it will be mono miked for the reinforcement system,
but I am talking live piano.


Agreed.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:59:29 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Stan Lip****z wrote a famous article some
years back about "Stereo Miking Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?" The
gist of it was that microphones do not need to hear the way humans hear.
When we play back a recording, no matter how it was recorded, the various
sounds will image somewhere within the stereo field by intensity or phase,
doesn't matter, and we will use our natural hearing mechanism to localize
sounds the same way we would live. He compared Blumlein stereo to
pan-potted
multimike techniques. I must look that article up again.


When you're wrong you're wrong.

Stanley was talking about spaced omnis as being the purist technique, and
coincident being the correct technique. Anyway, seems he agrees with you. I
have purchased this one again from the AES library, along with one by Ron
Streicher and Wes Dooley called "Basic Microphone Perspectives - a Review."
I will give a full book report.

Gary Eickmeier



I thought your description of Stanley's position on microphones sounded odd.
Oh, well. Who said memory was perfect? If it was, we wouldn't have so many
innocent people in prison because some "eye witness" picked them, mistakenly,
from a police lineup.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost
always miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes
even a 10 ft wide piano.


Urban myth.


Agreed.

The sound doesn't come from the keys, it comes from the
position on the soundboard that most efficiently radiates
that particular group of frequencies, and that often has
little to do with the relative key or note position.


I've noticed this to be true as I've listened to various parts of the grand
piano that I work with much of the time.

All of the strings are tightly mechanically coupled to the soundboard, a
piece of cast iron which is very rigid. Given the high speed of sound and
the rigidity of that piece of metal, my first order approximation would be
that it all vibrates as one piece. The strings have minimal coupling to the
air in comparison to the soundboard.

I suspect that sound from the top of the piano is also primarily sourced by
the soundboard.

I have noticed that the piano's bass is stronger near the rear leg, but that
may be due to a cavity resonance in the sort of boxed in area in the same
area.

And few people realize that very substantial portion of the
sound of a grand piano comes out of the bottom of the
intrument, or an an upright, out of the back.


That explains why there is a soundboard... doooh!


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

(Eickmeier said):

Pianos are another interesting topic about "stereo." They are almost
always
miked so that we get the spread of the keys on playback, sometimes even a
10
ft wide piano.


Another result of "wrong thinking". They place a spaced pair of mikes
INSIDE
of the piano. One at one end of the string sounding board, and one at the
other! Of course you'll get a 10 ft wide piano!.


OK OK, this has gone far enough. I didn't say I thought the mikes were
recording piano keys.

The way to do it is to lift
the lid on the piano and use a good single point stereo mike (or pair)
about
4-7 ft in front of the instrument aimed at the lifted lid. I once did a
recording of Phillipe Entremont playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto
with a symphony orchestra. I used two Sony C37A mikes at 90 degrees to one
another on a 7" stereo "T-bar" and hung about 10 ft above the conductor's
head and about 15 ft behind the podium. I didn't highlight the piano at
all
(which was down-stage left in front of the orchestra and next to the
conductor's podium). On playback, the perspective was perfect, with the
piano
solidly placed on the speaker's soundstage EXACTLY where it was during the
concert. Now, that one I will send you! E-Mail me your mailing address.


Done! Thanks.

Gary Eickmeier


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

All of the strings are tightly mechanically coupled to the soundboard, a
piece of cast iron which is very rigid. Given the high speed of sound
and the rigidity of that piece of metal, my first order approximation
would be that it all vibrates as one piece. The strings have minimal
coupling to the air in comparison to the soundboard.


I've seen a LOT of pianos, and I must say I have NEVER seen one
with a cast iron sound board. All of them have cast iron frames,
put there primarily to keep the frame from collapsing in on
itself under the tremendous combined tension of the strings,
but that cast iron plays little or no role in the production
of sound.

The soundboard is, in fact, a larrge piece of joined, quarter-
sawn softwaood, like spruce, that, in a piano, is on the order
of 1/4" thick, that is genrally parallel to the string band
and maybe 1/2 behind it. One end of the strings is coupled
mechano-acoustically via the bridge, the other end of the
strings runs over the nut on the pin block, which is a very
thick piece of wood in which the tuning pins are screwed.

The soundboard in a piano serves the same role is constructed
in a way that would be very familiar to anyone knowing guitars
or violins.

The radiation pattern is dictated first by the complex
mechanical resonances of the soundboard, and also by the
fact that it is a very large, extremely non-uniform
radiating surface.

But, a cast iron soundboard? Not a chance.


Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos.

But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is
highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a lot
of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency dependent.

What I know for sure is that if you put two identical mics in most likely
places inside a piano, they sound very much alike. I therefore use a PZM
that is attached to the underside of the lid and keep the lid shut or on a
short stick. It takes a ton of eq to make the feed from the mic sound right,
but thats what eq is for.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos.

But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is
highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a
lot of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency
dependent.


It's nigh on impossible NOT to have many vibrational modes
that are both spacially AND frequency dependent. Look at some
laser interferometry or even the old talc-based resonance
patterns: the vibration patterns are horrifically complex and
all over the place from note to note.


Are they sufficient to create useful sound quality differences using several
mics?


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:06:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Thanks for once again dispelling some of my erroneous ideas about pianos.

But the point is still taken that the sound board being a stiff board is
highly conductive of vibrations and is probably designed to not have a
lot of strong vibrational modes that are spatially or frequency
dependent.


It's nigh on impossible NOT to have many vibrational modes
that are both spacially AND frequency dependent. Look at some
laser interferometry or even the old talc-based resonance
patterns: the vibration patterns are horrifically complex and
all over the place from note to note.


Are they sufficient to create useful sound quality differences using several
mics?



That's a good question, and I don't pretend to know the answer (anyone here
know for sure?).

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confessions of an Iggerant 'Phile Gary Eickmeier High End Audio 2 June 23rd 11 04:44 PM
Why do police criminal interviews/confessions always have such shittyaudio? Spob Pro Audio 9 June 21st 08 08:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"