Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [regsaudioforum] Memory again

Expand Messages
  • yipmangmeng@yahoo.com.sg
    Just read JE s comments of his demo CDs for Delos and you may understand his recording philosophy. Yip ... From: Peter Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 34 , Dec 9, 2012
      Just read JE's comments of his demo CDs for Delos and you may understand his recording philosophy.

      Yip

      --- On Sun, 9/12/12, Peter <alcomdata@...> wrote:

      From: Peter <alcomdata@...>
      Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Memory again
      To: "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Sunday, 9 December, 2012, 9:43 PM

       

      >  I was listening to a John Eargle recording on
      the Spendor SP1/2s which I have set up
      in our living room for Christmastime.
      Really, the sense of correctness was
      most reassuring.
       
      I'm a huge admirer of John Eargle's orchestral
      recordings but I can't get past this apparent
      disconnect:  He almost always used a pair of
      omnis as flankers for the main coincident or
      near-coincident pair.  See, for example, pp. 
      359-360 of Eargle's Handbook of Recording
      Engineering, Second Edition
       
      Your dislike of omni microphones seems to
      extend not just to their use as the main pickup
      pair but also to their use anywhere in the recording
      session. 
       
      (Also. . . please don't let Kavi read p. 362 of Eargle's
      handbook, which shows a typical recording setup for
      a full orchestra + soloists + chorus: He shows the placement
      for a total of twelve microphones/diaphragms.)

      From: Robert <regtas43@...>
      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:42 PM
      Subject: [regsaudioforum] Memory again
       
      Returning to the memory question, I suppose
      one point that deserves mention is that I
      tend to judge audio equipment and the whole
      audio experience in terms of how close it is
      to my recollections of how live sound especially
      orchestral and chamber music sound.
      Naturally since I have been hearing this kind of
      music all my life(my earliest memory is of a
      chamber music rehearsal of my mother's and
      I have been playing on orchestras myself since
      I was eight years old), I tend to have
      rather vivid recollections of these sounds,'reinforced
      by my contining playing and concert going.
      Many people here have similar situations.

      And if one does have a vivid memory of the actual
      sound of live music, it seems to me natural
      and indeed appropriate to want the sound
      from one's audio system.

      Lots of reviews read as if the writer were
      expecting revelations of new glories and aspects
      of music. What I am expecting is different--
      or at least what I am looking for is different.
      I am looking for something that is congruent
      with my experience already. I do not expect
      to hear things that I did not know were there
      in music or even in recordings. And I would
      not particularly care if I did. What I
      want is for a system not to sound somehow
      stupid when I put on a decent orchestral recording
      and compare the sound to say Row 9 in Tivoli
      Concert Hall(as I have mentioned before--
      an unusually good seat for orchestral sound
      at relatively close but not playing-close distance).

      This came to mind just now because I was
      listening to a John Eargle recording on
      the Spendor SP1/2s which I have set up
      in our living room for Christmastime.
      Really, the sense of correctness was
      most reassuring. Of course it was not perfect.
      Stereo is all in front--which does not bother
      me much since in Row 9 as it were the sound
      is mostly in front too (as heard--not literally
      but as heard). And the width of the
      orchestra is a little less than in reality.
      Again not too bothersome. More bothersome
      is the lack of deep bass--if it were not our
      living room at Christmas(which Paige wants to
      look nice) I would add a sub or two. But even that
      is not so bothersome since deep bass is really
      not all that much a feature of orchestral music.
      The overall effect was good--the instruments
      sounded like themselves, one could hear what everyone
      was playing(one could have written down the score
      pretty much I think with not much missing except
      perhaps a few details of bass lines), the sound was
      integrated, things were located convincingly.
      Altogether, it really worked quite well.
      I suppose if I had listened to something really
      loud, at the loudest moments the room
      around would have been too intrusive. But
      at reasonable volumes--which were actually pretty
      loud, not far short if any of what one would
      hear at a reasonable audience location--
      sitting reasonably close to the speakers
      things sounded reasonable.
      And of course the Sanders Magtech was just loafing
      --no sense of electronic stress at all.
      The speakers sounded unstressed as well--
      at fairly close range, one did not have
      to push them to extremes to get natural
      levels.

      Now I admit I EQed the SP1/2s a tiny bit--
      but only a little, to pull down a bit the slight excess
      at 1.5 k and thereabouts. But even if I bypassed
      that, things still sounded very natural.

      I am not suggesting that other speakers might
      not also work in this way. But I do think
      that in practice there is something extra
      good about running one driver over the whole
      range above the deep bass on up to 3k or so.
      Coherence seems to count.

      And oddly enough, I am inclined to think
      that what is supposed to be a problem with
      this--that the speaker consequently becomes
      beamy at the top of the bass mid driver's range--
      is likely an advantage since in my relatively
      narrow living room I have the speakers fairly
      close to the walls though toed in to be
      aimed straight at the listening position.
      Toole to the contrary not withstanding, I
      think not bouncing 2-3 kHz off the walls
      is good! at least in this particular setup
      and most likely altogether.

      Good anyway if you are trying to
      match your memory of live sound,
      not to satisfy some audio categories
      for multiple listeners(What I am
      describing is a one person experience.
      A noncentered listener will not hear this
      the same way--something pleasant but
      not so real as the centered listener hears)

      Anyway, it was fun!

      REG

    • HM
      Hi Russell Sennheiser MKE 2002, delivered with a dummy head and allowing to use ones own head, making a very individual recording, but incompatible with
      Message 34 of 34 , Jan 15, 2013
        Hi Russell
        Sennheiser MKE 2002, delivered with a dummy head and allowing to use ones own head, making a very individual recording, but incompatible with someone elses ears.
        There are individual HRTF response curves (there is a website from IRCAM about more than 50 various simulations about that: http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/sounds.html).

        This was one reason for Neumann to move the capules from the inner end of the ear canal to its outer end was a more versatile use for more or all listeners and better compatibility with speakers with less coloration.

        As an alternative there is the OKM Original Kopf Mikrofon available, 2 electret capsules to be placed in-ear of the individual.
        http://www.soundman.de/en
        HTH BR HM

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Russell Dawkins wrote:
        >
        > An interesting side note regarding pinnae effects which I believe is worth posting a second time for those new to the group is that an experiment was done around 1987 by Sennheiser who at the time were making a stethoscope-like mic pair which were very small indeed and meant to pick up very near the ear drum. The assembly holding them was so slim as to not affect the soundwaves travelling down the ear canal, it was thought. This permitted kunstkopf (dummy head) recordings influenced by pinnae other than those of the German engineer from whom the moulds for the Neumann head were made.
        >
        > A session was arranged with a number of engineers listening acoustically to a jazz ensemble but each equipped with a pair of these mics, the output of each pair being sent to a pair of tracks in a multitrack recorder. Afterwards, everyone was surprised at how easy it was to determine which was their pair of ears and also how different each stereo pair sounded.
        >
        > This represents the closest we have come to being able to hear through the ears of others, and I would like to have been part of it. Now I can't find any reference to the experiment, nor the microphones used.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.