|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 10, 2007 at 09:14:29:
HiIt has been a desire for most of my adult life to build a reproducer system which was able to “fool youâ€. The problem is divided into two main parts I think.
First, speakers have many more and larger flaws than the electronics involved and they interact with the room in various ways AND both of these issues are highly variable dependent on the individual speakers and room.
Two speakers at best can only re-create the image span between them and at that properly only up to about a 60 degree included angle, due to interaural crosstalk (sound from the right speaker reaching the left ear etc).
“Perfect†speakers with NO room effects would produce an absolutely solid mono phantom center image when seated in the center, to the degree the speakers are dispersive in time, not flat, have short and medium room reflections, the “less solid†the center image is usually because of the increase in uncorrelated sound. With a good solid center mono image, the speakers can generally also reproduce a stereo image anywhere between the two.So, with this being the case, reproduction of “real†would require at least 5 full range channels to go all around you with a continuous stereo image.
These speakers would have to have a minimum of room interaction and so have significant directivity and should be well behaved in every way (get your RCA’s going).Part B of the problem is recording.
Many of the “old†recordings where “they got it right†were made on what would now be shockingly small number of channels and microphones and processing.
I believe the difference has a lot to do with how recording were made and less on what they were made with (A vs D).
I say that because with digital came more channels, more processing, more flexibility, a lot more tools to choose from. With a large pallet comes the need for people who know how to use it to get the most out of it.
The need to go past 24/96 in mastering is mostly driven by the desire of not having to pay attention to headroom or average levels when doing processing / combining and so on.There are a couple reasons most modern recordings stink, one, with so many fewer record companies who are not driven by inspired owners but CEO’s who report to stockholders, there is far less experimentation, far fewer bands under contract and so on.
In the area I work in / around (live sound) the continuing contraction of the business is a problem for the small sound companies, it is also big companies who do most shows, not old style promoters.
It is all bottom line driven, least common denominator and that sadly is as the TV commercial refers to it “the Superior MP3 soundâ€.Among recording engineers it is lamented that each producer wants his pop record to be “louder†than the last, each becoming further compressed on FM to the point that Cymbal crashes sound dynamically inverted and the VU meter never wiggles.
Lest one think it is just a matter of recording differently, that is more involved too.
Remember the uncorrelated sound problem when reproducing a signal (caused by reflections), it happens recording too.
Modern recordings are made with multiple microphones which are panned to the desired stereo position at mixdown. Lets pretend you had 3 Vocal mics, 3 guitar mics, 5 drum mics. This is a SMALL setup, only 11 channels, 12 with a direct bass line.Now, all is good, you have each singer voice out there channel, you pan it to where it belongs (assuming we are mixing live stereo) and same for the other mics.
Now, the band starts, everything turns to mush, why?
The reason can be seen if all the mics are open and the drummer hit or any one instrument plays, that signal shows up on all the microphone channels, each one a different time and lower amplitude and different response shape.
One can think if each musician had a microphone then the number of “extra†incoherent arrivals goes up with the number of mics squared.
Thus, a stage with 40 open mic channels is not going to capture much that is “real†although a good engineer can make it an enjoyable evening of concert sound.
In the studio, it is normal to divide up the musicians to avoid this problem.Well then the minimalist two mic approach ought to do it then right?
No, “Head†recording and such can be enjoyable or even real sounding when everything is just right but usually sound totally uninteresting on speakers.
My interest in this lead to the microphone invention thingy I used to make the fireworks recordings and such, the idea there is you detect pressure by its Vector but from one spot.
If you listen to that with headphones, it ought to sound pretty real.
I am building a 4 and 5 channel version to see what that is like.If you have a good point source measurement microphone and a sound card, try using it to record your own sounds. Most cards can run at 24/96 and that really is usually quite good even on a junky card. Try recording stuff around the house that you are familiar with, use one mic recorded onto both channels, try it, you will be surprised.
Anyway, I wish it was just a “well flip this switch†kind of answer.How are those RCA’s coming along?
Best,Tom Danley
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Why Isn't The Research Being Done? - tomservo 10:38:27 04/10/07 (1)
- Thanks Tom - thetubeguy1954 11:02:19 04/10/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
