Like

Archive through June 19, 2004

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1194
Registered: Dec-03
2c,

Thanks. As I said also to Sem, I am receptive to irony, just not SACD (just as big smiley thing).

I have to duck out, just as this is warming up. It is getting seriously into Sunday over here. I owe Jan replies to direct questions in a post several yards up the page, and his ambisonics link is serious stuff, should only take a week to read.

Speaking of ducking out, if Gregory shows up, my gauntlet is still on the table: May 22, 2004 - 09:25 am. He will understand. Friend and adversary: You can run, but you can't hide,
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 304
Registered: Dec-03
no i do not take your question to me an attack.

i just think you and i are looking for different
things.

i do not enjoy going to concerts nor do i like
how they sound "most of them" i feal i can make
better sounding music at home.

personally if an album is live or studio i buy
the studio version to me it is usually a cleaner recording.

so no i do not base my whole listening experience
trying to recreate a hall that might have recorded
the concert.

do i think we need a reference point to base what
stereo should sound like so we are all given the
same experience from our recorded music? yes.

so we have proper phasing and eq and imaging.
so we can all start from the same place.
fine we have that allready.

now take that same recording put it on higher rez
material and give me an experience i can't get at
a concert.

i don't think anyone hear including me says that
a band should make all their albums surround but
why not take that favorite music you like that
you have listened to many times over that you
know exactly where everything is and move some
of the instuments around to other places in your
listening room.

i believe in the change of multichannel, i enjoy
it and if the engineer is not trying to recreate
the concert i'm fine with that.

do i think that multichannel should not be held
to the same truth as stereo yes! how can it be!
as you said at a concert you usually do not have
intruments in back of you or on the sides but
does this mean we shouldn't just because we don't.
maybe we should then it would be something.that
is how i look at multichannel music.something we
can't get from stereo.

and i do not believe in having to comform to the
way we have been doing things for centuries. what
if we have been doing it wrong?what is right?

i think that is where we differ you have an idea
of what something "should sound like" and base
the listening experience on that.where i do not!

i do not mean that as you are wrong or that i am
right.

it just seems you put more emphasys on the music
needing to conform to a certain standard than i do.

to me the goal of audio should be to give you
something you like to listen too.
i enjoy putting in music and being surrounded by
it without it having to have an agenda or rule
to follow.

take that same tv you mentioned listen to it with
2 speakers and listen to it with surround on it's
much more exciting with surround.

i just believe like surround was a progression
for tv that surround is a natural progression for
music.to make it more exciting and entertaining.



 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 305
Registered: Dec-03
the above was meant for jan.

and jan i do not mean a slam on you either.
just expressing what i feal your and my differnces are.

look forward to your response!
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 306
Registered: Dec-03
one last thing i thought of.

I am in the computer industry where it is allways changing and evolving.

i do not question whether or not it is good for
the industry. i have to follow it.it's my job and
if i don't keep on top of it i will be lost.and
for the most part everything that comes out new
is an improvemeant and becomes a new technology
that enhances the old.

so maybe that is why i look at audio the way i
do!"allways looking for the new improved thing"
and striving to get more out of my setup!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 104
Registered: Apr-04
Gentlemen,

Yesterday I had a moment to get online and had composed a response to JohnA's comments about his skepticism of the technology's "service" and the "real agenda". Unfortunately, due to a little bit of a hangover :-) I shutdown the computer without first posting the message. Today, what I said doesn't seem so earth shattering so I won't attempt to repeat it.

Jan,

I think I've avoided the "big box in the center" syndrome. My "entertainment center" is actually a TV "box" flanked by matching bookcases. I bought it a couple of years ago for two reasons:

- It was shorter and less hulking than typical entertainment centers

- It was built by Robert Bergelin Company, a small NC furniture company that builds excellent quality furniture. One day I hope to furnish my entire house with their furniture - but I'll need a lot more money than I have now.

Anyway, the entertainment center is only 48" tall so I have the front and center speakers sitting on top of it and there's nothing between any of the speakers. The only concern I have with this setup is the speakers are about a foot higher than they would be if they were on stands. I may have to get a hydraulic chair to achieve optimal listening position....hehehehe.....I'll post a picture later this week.

BTW, Jan, thank you for the detailed information about the sub setup. I have followup questions that I'll try to post later this week.

For now, I must return to my studies. I look forward to getting them and the tests finished so I will have more time for listening to music and keeping up with the forum.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1202
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

It's OK, I understand, and I'll bet you Jan V. does too. You have to allow the computer industry has produced some junk, too. It is telling which is which that is the problem. I listened to Pink Floyd TDSOTM today, on CD. Really good, and no point in pretending there was ever a live perfomance. None the worse for that. Will post back on this.

Jan, going back to Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 03:15 am

"Any takers?"

Yes. I refer to the best DVD-As I have, This is maybe five out of about ten altogether, so far. One is the closest to being there I have ever experienced in sound reproduction; I have not been to that exact venue, but many like it, and have numerous recordings on Lp and CD made exactly there, going back to the early 1970s. They are all pretty good, really. The worst is startlingly clearer than CD, marred only by the engineers being cloth-eared clowns with no interest in, or understanding of music. Or sound. Or people.

"Do you sense the music rolls down and through a space or are you hearing front and back and that is what you were expecting so that's close enough for your brain?"

It rolls down through a space. I do not listen to the speakers themselves. I had few expectations, except liking the music and a lot of years of listening to stereo, and similar concerts (fewer in recent years).

"Are you hearing an acoustic space that the performers existed in or are you hearing front and back?"

The former. Only because I can hear, or at least get a sense of, the latter. This is not either/or.

"What steps have you taken to achieve this result?"

Set up my surround system as if it were four stereo systems, one on each side of a square (rectangle, really; compromise with living space), with me in the middle. Cutting down room reflections as much as practable (consistent with letting in daylight when available and having the whole family use the same room to watch movies, too, at other times).

"Does anyone have a great story about a breakthrough in recreating the space top to bottom and side to side?"

Side to side, yes; front to back, yes; top to bottom, no. There are some reflections from V-shaped wooden ceiling that probably emulate some height information.

"We've pretty much agreed that the mix is still the key to good surround sound and most mixes don't convince us. Am I correct?"

I agree, at least. If , by "mix", it is of channels from the right microphones in the right place at the right time.

"So, what's lacking?"

I am still trying to see how far it will go. In half the cases (5/10), what is lacking is any understanding of sound and music on the part of the recording engineers, who cannot ever have experienced a real performance, and move different performers, at different times, into a centre-channel spotlight , as if the whole thing was performed on a split revolving stage as in those music hall venues of long ago, with individuals (often the wrong ones) viewed through a magnifying glass. They tend to zoom in on harps, I notice, if they are present. Perhaps it is the harpist they fancy, and they have a weakness for giantesses.

"What needs to happen to make this really convincing in terms of what you can control?"

I don't want control. I want neutral, uncoloured rendition of the performance the engineers recorded as accurately as they could.

"What still needs improving in your opinion?"

Don't know. I will think of something, eventually.

"And, finally, yes, finally, where are the engineers who know how to make this work?"

One I can recommend:
http://www.kaproductions.co.uk/
Can't find links to some other unsung heroes. See other link, below.

"Are you finding a particular label or engineer/producer that has the touch?"

Naxos when from K&A (see above link).

Coro : http://www.the-sixteen.org.uk/ecommerce/system/index.html
(they have only done one disc in surround so far: the DVD-A I have is my all-time number one for sound quality, ever - see May 13. You may not like/know the music. Get it for the brilliance and purity of the surround sound; it will bowl away all reservations. You may end liking the music, too).

If this stalls, I will come back on the subjects of Pink Floyd, Sem, Alan Parsons, and whether we need accurate, distortion-free reproduction of distortion (e.g. from an amp fed a signal from a Fender Stratocaster). or whether distortion sounds better when, itself, distorted.

It's a strange business.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 221
Registered: Dec-03
JohnA.,

Yes, there is the paradox. The human ear sometimes hears harmonic distortion and soft clipping as desireable in our music, but don't want it in our musical reproduction equipment.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1205
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you, Rick!

.... And: a preference for distortion illustrates the power of psychological association. It is the brain, not the ear, that does that. So we can genuinely prefer bad sound. "Bad" is this year's "Good". Understanding this can solve some repeated problems on this forum, I think.

Personally, during those great solos, I wanted to get up there and have a look at Mr Gilmour's amp, maybe get it checked over by Marshall or whoever, or take it apart to see what had failed. To me, it was destroying inspired playing. But I do not have the association. I predict you and Sem do, and would prefer it like that.

I can see exactly why The Dark Side of The Moon is a must for people interested in surround sound.

It is the exact opposite of the Thomas Tallis disc - there never was a real performance. The DSOTM album does not even pretend there was. Also, in the original, they spend half the time self-consciously fooling around with stereo effects, as part of the programme itself. If someone like Jan were to say "sounds better in stereo" the answer is "of course it does; that is what they intended".

What you would have to do is get Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons together, and ask them if they would like to have another go, but in 5.1. My appreciation for that wonderful album is such that I would expressly forbid anyone else from touching it, with severe penalty. Especially that clown in LA who did the CD version. I can say that, not having heard the original LP. I should want, first, to get the LP, to understand fully the artists' original intention. In fact, I mean to.

I am only just warming up on the Dark Side of the Moon. I loved it. Totally. The songs say many of the things we have been banging on about on this forum, but so much more elegantly and beautifully. "Money", "Us and Them", "Brain Damage", "Breathe" - I feel I'd like to quote them. They are exactly what we have been discussing. And, surely, we could almost just end this thread with "Time". There is almost nothing more to say.

Except...., the pillock who transcibed "in a relative way" as "in the relative way" in "Time" should be shot at dawn. He did not understand; was not listening, probably; had no right to interfere. There are so many irritations like that, I am tempted to burn the booklet.

Good to end with a buzz.

I'd love Sem to comment, and maybe say something about the different versions. I can't possibly get all six. Who mixed the DVD-A? Or is it really SACD? Where can I get the LP?!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 293
Registered: Feb-04
John A and Sem

Listened to DSOTM about a week ago on DVD-V - well almost did but gave it the flick because of the poor sound and all the BS in between. It might interest some but I was hoping for just the music - like the album/cd only better. DSOTM is one of my all time favourites but thank goodness we just hired it!

When I buy music DVD's I like to watch and listen to the music. If I want all the technical and "deep insights" I'll read any supplied text. One should listen to the crap Donald Fagan and Walter Becker ramble on with on the "Two Against Nature" DVD-V - great recording spoilt by these so called 'educated' musician's egos in between songs and I have to overwork my remote finger to enjoy it. But that's me. The only music DVD where I enjoyed what the musicians had to say was "The Last Waltz" where the guys were just themselves - down to earth. But, who wants to hear what they say over and over again? Why not have all the guff after the music like they do for movies - a discography section. Then everyone is happy - well me at least.

There are some excellent lyricists and composers within the 'Rock' world, but many (and I don't mean Gilmore & Co) seem to think they are philosophers of note. It usually sounds similar to art critics rambling on about some paint thrown on a canvass and selling for some obscene amount of money (eg Pollack). Nothing irritates me more.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1207
Registered: Dec-03
Quite right, My Rantz, I totally agree. A performance that needs some clown explaining his world-view in between can't have much to say in the first place. As for critics. The number of times I have shouted at the TV/radio something like: "Just get one with it. Later, I might just be willing to listen to YOU trying to play the guitar as well as that. But not now. Please shut up".

I did not know there was a DVD-V of DSOTM. That is clearly one for laying down and avoiding.

Thanks, "Gilmore". Sorry, Mr Gilmore.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1211
Registered: Dec-03
BTW, MR, I would say Gilmore, Waters et al were indeed "philosophers of note", maybe not even knowing it. Also agree about art critics. Ernst Gombrich (RIP) was a good one, and would probably have said much the same as you on that subject. I think "art" is bit like "classical" music; the encircling barrier of bullshit is just too high for most normal, intelligent people, who conclude there is nothing behind it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 222
Registered: Dec-03
JohnA.,

Nothing really failed with Mr. Gilmore's vintage Marshall or Fender tube amp. You are just hearing the warm harmonic distortion, of tubes being over driven. DARE I SAY IT? Have we finally exposed the audiophile tube lovers? Think about it.

BTW, DSOTM is a wonderful piece of work, not not Pink Floyd's best work IMHO.

Cheers!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1212
Registered: Dec-03
Rick,

I am not totally off another planet: I know about distortion controls, reverb settings, wah-wah peddles and that little lever on the instrument that increases the tension of the strings momentarily, returning them when you release it, having taken them out of tune a little. I forget its name. It was the trademark of Hank B. Marvin and the Shadows, inter alia. I used to play in a bad pseudo-Motown band long ago (when it was still fashionable), and have dabbled in an absurdly broad range of music over the years. Jack of all trades. Still, I've got Sunshine, on a Cloudy Day.

At the end of one track on the CD, Pink Floyd do a very camp thing; they have a long chord from a piano, and they raise and lower the pitch to suggest a huge piano has one of those little levers. You can hear a digital filter (I think) come on to let them produce that effect, and it stays on as the chord fades away, and you can stil hear a fizz at the end. Did they/Alan Parsons intend that? I shall have to try the LP, and see if it was there in the original.

I take your point completely! The above is another example of why it would be futile to approach the recording as a recreation of a real performance. If you think of it at all that way, as most people still did in 1973, I suspect, you are intended to be shocked and surprised by all the muttering, helicopters, and ping-pong stereo effects. That self-conscious "look what clever things we can do" is fun and OK if you try to look at it in its time and place (e.g. Sgt Pepper, too; same recording venue etc, five years earlier; detectable musical influences, too), but all that no longer surprises, after 30 years of endless stereo trickery.

I suppose we have all that coming round again in surround sound! I am getting more inclined to the Jan Vigne view on surround. Except for that Thomas Tallis DVD-A, and a few others, which show what can really be done greatly to enhance "real" music.

Which other Pink Floyd LPs would you recommend? The Wall? I do mean to try to track down Ummagumma (? sp.).
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 97
Registered: Mar-04
Not much time this morning, more later...
John A. Rick, My Rantz, and others that may be interested, for song by song comments by Parsons of the James Guthrie surround mix of DSOTM,
Check out http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=1&article_id=444&page_nu mber=2&preview=

Also, while no one can mistake Gilmour's unique guitar work, I think it would be safe to say the real "conceptual creative" force behind PF would be Roger Waters. If in doubt listen to The Wall, The Final Cut, and the under-appreciated Amused To Death. Though the subject matter is dark and guaranteed to bring you down, few can write lyrics as powerful as Waters does, IMO.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 98
Registered: Dec-03
I think Pink Floyd is one of those bands that are best enjoyed through a good pair of headphones with the lights down low (and I don't mean through a walkman or MP3 player). I reccomend listening this way with albums like Meddle or Atom Heart Mother (I agree with Rick on DSOTM). Of, course I don't think these albums in 5.1 surround will sound very good through cans.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1214
Registered: Dec-03
REL subwoofers:

http://www.rel.net/

Is that the opening of TDSOTM, looped? Awful, imho, brings REL right downmarket.

Sem, I too must be brief. I will look out for your next report! Thanks for the link! I thought Rick was correcting me with "Gilmore".

Ben, headphones is another whole topic. There are surround headphones, too. The first thing I ever heard on stereo headphones was Ummagumma, newly released. I still don't care for headphones, personally.

Thanks, all. Must leave.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 307
Registered: Dec-03
rick .
just in case anyone didn't know.that is the
sound that tube lovers enjoy.it's tubes overdriven to clipping.
"soft clipping" tubes do it with a harmonic that
is said to be pleasing while solid state does it
sharply and harsh.

john.
imho the best pink floyd album is called animals
and my favorite track would "pigs 3 different ones"
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 223
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Thank you! I have finally found a true believer. Roger Waters IS the true creative force behind Pink Floyd.I mean no disrespect to other members of the band, but it is Mr. Waters who gives us the glimpse into insanity, that keeps us from it. Did we ever truly thank him for "THE WALL"? He invited us all in for a close up look into his tortured childhood/soul. How could he ever hold it together after that project. Am I the only one who really heard all the anger, rage, and pain in the line "daddy what did you leave behind for me"?
Powerful stuff. Thank you, Roger.

JohnA.,

Certainly did not mean to sound like I was trying to correct you, my friend. I really was just taking a shot at the tube amp die hards. As to Pink Floyd, check out The Wall, as well as Wish you were here.

Ben,

I find many fans under appreciate Animals as well.
I saw them do the Animals tour. Great stuff. Never really cared for the group after Roger Waters left.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 224
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

You are right on the money my friend. If you try to tell tube amp lovers that they enjoy listening to harmonic distortion and soft clipping, they will fight you tooth and nail.

P.S. As I said in a post above, I agree with you on Animals.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 99
Registered: Dec-03
To me, Animals marks the point in which the rest of the Band became session musicians for Waters. I like the stretch of albums from Piper to Meddle the best.

It would be interesting to see how the band would have evolved if Barrett wouldn't have lost it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 308
Registered: Dec-03
you got it rick the animals album rocks!

i love the way floyd does albums based on themes
or joining the songs together.

they just seem to flow so nicely.truly one of my
favorite bands.

as i posted on another thread lately i revisited
"okay cut me some slack hear" tracy chapmin's crossroads album.

truly if you have not heard it pick it up you will not
be disappointed.(even if you don't normally like her)
it is a great sounding album.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 225
Registered: Dec-03
Ben,

I agree, too bad, we will never know.

Kegger,

Yes, intertwined themes. Don't all their albums tell a story?

I have always enjoyed Tracy Chapman, a very talanted singer/songwriter IMHO.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 295
Registered: Feb-04
Jan Vigne

www.ambisonics.net must have forgot their domain name renewal?

John A

The lever thing for stretching guitar strings is a tremelo (tremello?) - in case you're wracking your brain. Drives me mad sometimes! I recall my youthful guitar days with some of those sound goodies. Attracted a lot of attention - so the police told me!

Guys - good version of PF's Money in the Italian Job remake. Good version of Charlize also.

Does anyone know: was Floyd really pink or how did they come up with the name?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 98
Registered: Mar-04
Rick,
"daddy what did you leave behind for me"? Very powerful indeed. Or one of my favorite lines,
"Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the
promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?" Which speaks of youthful innocence lost under a barrage of falling bombs during WW2. It was but another brick in his wall.

Kegger,
Animals is also one of my favorites, (as most of them are I guess). It would be no easy task rating my top 5, much less picking a favorite.

Ben,
"To me, Animals marks the point in which the rest of the Band became session musicians for Waters." I'm sure there's a lot of thruth in that although we may never know how much each of the members actually contributed to earlier albums, credits aside. There may have been a Lennon/McCartney thing going on there. Though its certain that Waters certainly took far more than a casual role in his final few albums with PF.

John A.
I know exactly what you're talking about at the end of (was it) Eclipse? I read something about that recently, someone asking the same question, "was that intentional?" I see if i can dig it up.
Recommendations....I usually suggest DSOTM and Wish You Were Here as jumping off points for newer listeners. Then expand outward from there. Though you don't necessarily qualify as a new listener. Particularly if you've listened to Ummagumma through headphones. Isn't it great how the peaceful, meandering "Grantchester Meadows" moves into the mind-blowing "Several Species..."? I have never heard anything before or since quite like that. That album was my first introduction to Floyd as well. Its available on cd.

Some DSOTM tidbits,
An average of 8000 copies of DSOTM are sold each week in the US alone.
According to the December 1, 2001 issue of Billboard, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts for an astounding 1,285 weeks. That's just under 25 years! Note, those are not consecutive weeks as sales dropped off in the early '80's only to be revived with the advent of cds.
Strangely, DSOTM never hit #1 on the charts in the UK and held the #1 spot in the US for only one week.
DSOTM was one of the first albums to popularize cds, in fact it has an EMI label of EMI001.
The ticking and alarm clocks heard at the beginning of the song Time is said to have been provided by Alan Parsons who carried a tape recorder into a London clock shop and captured the intro to the song.
Little known trivia...Parsons and Floyd went back in the studio between DSOTM and WYWH, and started recording an album that was never released. It was rumored to have contained absolutely no instruments but instead only various sounds and sound effects. My guess is the drugs wore off before the album was finished and thankfully it never saw the light of day.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 100
Registered: Dec-03
The name Pink Floyd, seemingly so far-out, was actually derived from the first names of two ancient bluesmen (Pink Anderson and Floyd Council).

There was a RS interview with Pink Floyd in the 80's where they talked about how they tried to record that album of sampled sounds on the 70's. I imagine it might have sounded like some Beta Band or Chemical Brothers song. Due to technology, they had to tape record and loop everything. They realized it was a near impossible and scrapped the project before it drove them bonkers. Today it would be easy.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 226
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

They "borrowed" the name from 2 American blues artists: Pink Anderson and Floyd Council.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 296
Registered: Feb-04
Thankyou Ben and Rick

I knew someone here would know. It is interesting how some bands formed their names. These posts about PF bring back many good memories. Whatever happened to the music?

I think we'll have to rename this thread to Teaching New Dogs Old Tricks!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1216
Registered: Dec-03
Great stuff, all. Just to say "thanks" to My Rantz for "Tremelo arm" (? spelling). Just to get deep into kinds of distortion, there was a thing called a "fuzz box", too. Amongst other things, I think that was the basis of the sound of the guitar riff in "(Can't get no) satisfaction" (Nanker and Phelge).

Sem, fascinating. More welcome. I see from your link on Alan Parsons that surround DSOTM is SACD. Darn...

BTW, Rick, Sem and I were right, it is "Gilmour". 'Course they could have got that wrong in the CD booklet, too.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 99
Registered: Mar-04
John A.

"At the end of one track on the CD, Pink Floyd do a very camp thing; they have a long chord from a piano, and they raise and lower the pitch to suggest a huge piano has one of those little levers..."

I was wrong. The song you mentioned is "Great Gig in the Sky."

It took some doing but I found this, it was posted on another forum I follow, by a friend of mine, (S.H.). He speaks to Alan Parsons quite regularly so I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. I don't think he'll mind if I repost it here.

"According to Alan (who also indicates it's not always easy to remember little
details like this 27+ years after the fact), that tonal rise was some kind of
goof whose cause couldn't be specifically identified at the time. However,
everyone thought it was kinda cool so they decided to leave it in."

That anomoly appears on every album, cd, cassette, and 8-track I've ever owned or listened to. I don't yet have the SACD but I would be surprised if its not on that as well.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1221
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Great. Thanks a lot. So I know, now, it wasn't put just into the EMI CD of 1993! It sure doesn't sound like a goof to me; I cannot imagine their tape recorder has problems like that, with no accompanying flutter. The impression is of a Steinway with a tremelo arm. As I said, "camp".

That album is "moving on", not "moving back", for me. Not so for my wife. You may imagine the ensuing discussions last Sunday, along the lines of "I've been telling you that is fantastic for 25 years...?" etc etc. Good point, really!

If ever I get to feel that I wish to revisit my own mis-spent youth, I see Pentagle's "Basket of Light" is now on DVD-A in 5.1. I'd be interested to know what it sounds like. But that was lost in a split LP collection, long, long ago, and I am quite sure I do not want to go back there. Especially not in surround sound. Some things you just have to let go, not cling on.

My general preference would be to go on moving on, and get the Shostakovish String Quartets, about which I know zilch. On Lp if possible. Then his Leningrad Symphony, on DVD-A; ditto - never heard it before - it would be my first hearing. That excites me more. Different people want different things from music. I've known people who surround themselves entirely with music from when they were teenagers, and never listen to anything else. I am the opposite, mostly. To judge from "Time" and "Breathe" PF would be, too. What great, great songs. I missed them first time round, but "better late than never". So, big thanks, Sem!

PS I could start of fanzine-type rant on why I knew immediately, on first hearing , that the line from "Time" had to be "in a relative way", not "...the relative way" and the guy who transcribed the words should be in prison. It would be fantastic if you could just take a quick look at the LP sleeve, and see which it is, there. It could be an original mistake, I know this probably sounds crazy, but I would be interested to know. Possibly the original was type-set, and the CD booklet was typed again, not produced by OCR, so someone made a mistake in typing copy for the CD booklet. And was deaf. Or listening through Bose speakers.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1222
Registered: Dec-03
Lots of mistakes, actually. Another from Brain Damage : got to keep the loonies off/on the path. Clown! It is completely different, and screws up the whole meaning of the song. The loonies were discounted, marginalised; not told what to do and where to go. Guess I take things too seriously...
Peace.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 101
Registered: Mar-04
John A.

On my original vinyl, bought around 1974 I'd guess - "The sun is the same in the relative way..." hmmm, I always thought it was in a relative way too.
You may not want to "burn the booklet" just yet.

Brain Damage - "got to keep the loonies on the path"

I believe Roger Waters wrote all the lyrics for the songs on this album. When you have some time do an internet search for the lyrics on his solo album, Amused to Death. They're filled with a deeper meaning than what you read at first glance. Truly one of the best "rock" lyricists ever.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1225
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Sem!

My wife says the same about "in the relative way" on the LP sleeve, and that from memory. It is not what is sung. Neither is "keep the loonies on the path". Someone screwed up in 1972/3, then!

I will most certainly get hold of those other recommendations. Fantastic stuff. Many, many thanks.

BTW the original topic of this thread seems to be getting somewhere, but on Plunging into Multi-channel. I have an answer, have no time today, and do not know which thread to post it on. I am inclined to put it here, and link back from that thread, but this failed before. Any views?
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 101
Registered: Dec-03
I have found that it is not uncommon for recorded lyrics not to match what is written on the sleeve. My guess is that the sleeve has the correct version and the song lyric was altered while being recorded.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 102
Registered: Mar-04
Hmm, I always assumed the opposite. I figured the ones singing the songs were usually involved in writing the lyrics in the first place. They would sing exactly as it was intended. It would be the back office folks transcribing the words that would mix things up. But you may be correct. I guess things like changes that weren't forwarded to the "back office folks" could account for the discrepancies. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1227
Registered: Dec-03
I am completely with Sem, Ben. I feel I know and understand why, in those two cases. No time to explain right now. No-one could write lyrics like that without having every word engraved in his mind. The mistakes were in an office somewhere, later. It was a "Friday afternoon" job.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 102
Registered: Dec-03
It is just like writing and delivering a speech. You know what you are going to say, but it comes out a little different. Plus when you are looking at factors like sobriety and multiple takes it is easy to see how lyrics can be changed when recording.

This happens a lot across the board. Maybe the artist does not change the liner notes because it really doesn't matter to them, they don't view it as a transcript. Maybe the artist choses to present their original lyrics.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 103
Registered: Dec-03
You also have to realize that a band may have a separate singer and lyricist on certain songs.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 200
Registered: Feb-04
As I understand it, the song lyrics are copyrighted by the songwriter. Therefore, he/she would have to approve the reproduction of the lyrics even on the cd/lp sleeve.

I've listened to interviews with songwriters who've mentioned tweaking the lyrics at the last moment before recording. So there seem to be instances where a previous version of the lyrics are printed on the sleeve instead of the recorded version.

What irks me are lyrics printed in user-unfriendly formats, e.g., spirals, long lines with no breaks. They may be cool graphically, but a beeatch to read.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1228
Registered: Dec-03
Just listened to "Only a Pawn in their game" and "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol", from LP "The Times are a'changing". Wife agrees I had been telling her about that for 25 years, too, and now hears what I hear: we are quits. No words printed on sleeve. None necessary. Is there anything like that, today?
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 110
Registered: Apr-04
You guys probably don't realize I'm an Aimee Mann fan since I rarely mention her....hehehe...but, she has a history of being the "poster child" as an artist abused by big label practices. On her album "I'm With Stupid" recorded, I believe, for Geffen records, the label restricted the packaging budget and would not allow a full lyric sheet insert. So, she put in an alphabetical listing of all the words used in the songs.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 104
Registered: Dec-03
John A,

That sounds like a lyrical preference to me. Kind of like one prefering Tolken to Shakespere. Some people think Jim Morrison was a true poet, others thought he was a drunk lunitic. Bob Dylan was infulenced by the words and music of Woodie Guthrie and others are influenced by Dylans' words. Some people only listen to melody and don't care about words at all. There is a generation of 19-year olds who think Eminem is a poet....

If you are asking for a modern-day Dylan...too hard to say. Some thought it was Springsteen, others the Clash, I have heard Beck compared to him, heck Chuck D has some of the most powerful social comentary ever within his lyrics.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1230
Registered: Dec-03
Ben, thanks. Yes, Dylan was influenced by Woodie Guthrie (and said so) and also by Martin Carthy and others. But there is vision and yes lyricism in those songs that makes them more powerful than any passionate rant about injustice. They are tied to real historical events in America in around 1960, incredible to believe today, and changed things. I do believe so. Surround not required.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 105
Registered: Dec-03
Well John,

America has a president that is looking to bring all of that back. In a few years another Dylan may be spawn.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1231
Registered: Dec-03
Ben,

I hope you are wrong, but I can't argue with you on that. There's another one, on "The Freewheelin Bob Dylan"; "Oxford Town". I've only just heard the story of the Mississippi "Freedom rides" (wife again - reading Bill Bryson). Last line of song is "Someone better investigate soon". No result of investigations, to this day, in 2004. An awful lot people have covered up for three brutal murders, for 40+ years.

In my view the sharpest of Dylan's lines are in the final verse of Blowin in the Wind. It may be a tired old anthem, now, but if any single song changed the world for the better, it was that. And who cares how many bad cover versions there were; they topped the hit parades around the world, and the message got through, wrapped in a sugared pill. Anyone could sing it, and anyone did. I am maybe more optimistic than you, and think things can never be the same. Let's hope that's right, and you are wrong. We need to remember, that's all I say.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
My apologies to all who tried to link to Ambisonic's web site through my last post. The original web site I gave is correct: www.ambisonic.com. The second attempt included an "s" at the end an will send you off into internet purgatory where you can only wait until your past sins are paid of by the suffering of some poor schlep still on the mortal coil. Or you could hit the back button. (If only the Catholic faith knew of this 2,000 years ago. [Please, let's not send this off into a theological discussion of the sacrament of confession, I doubt Mr. Waters believes in it anyway.]) Anyway, try Ambisonics without the "s" or put the name into a Google search to find their Home page. It's interesting stuff if you care to wade through it. As I tried to post this I clicked on the link I just gave and got sent to a different site (somewhat akin to purgatory for pets). Best do a search to find the Home page. Kegger, what is wrong with your industry that it frustrates me so?
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 320
Registered: Dec-03
their are definately some funky things in the
computer biz.

but i've never seen a website take you somewhere
else if you've typed it correctly.

i wonder if their changing their webaddress or
doing something funky with a page on their site
that does this to you because they want it too.

then again somethings are better left unexplained!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Try: www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/199awsi/
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 329
Registered: Dec-03
good little article their jan.

i have about 5 dts surround music dvd's and they
do sound excelent.

i picked them up before i had sacd/dvd-a. mainly
because i prefer dts over dolby digital and i
figured they were probaly well recorded from the
info i had found and they are.

good stuff!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1241
Registered: Dec-03
Short post.

Re this whole topic, but especially the number of channels and speakers. I think there are two important distinctions.

We are fairly clear now about the first: do we wish to re-create the sound of a live musical performance or not? We agree there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, and we probably all do both at different times and with different music. But it does make a difference to how you set up your system. It is just as well to keep in mind "what you are aiming at" in the first place.

IF YOU DO NOT WISH to re-create the sound of a live musical performance, anything goes, as far as I can see. However......

IF YOU DO WISH to re-create the sound of a live musical performance, you can certainly do that (contrary to some views expressed), but here comes the second distinction.

Do we wish to re-create the sound we would have heard if the performance took place in our listening room, or do we wish to hear what we would have heard if we had been in the original recording venue?

We have our own preferences, but wait, there are things you can do and things you cannot do. Not because of what people allow/prohibit, but because of the way the world works.

First, you have to know what the recording engineers thought you were going to do.

Some recordings are made under near-anechoic conditions: for example, it is obvious the engineers thought you wanted the Julliard Quarted (on CBS LP) playing Beethoven in your listening room. They did a fantastic job. Any ambience you hear is the sound of your own room. It is really just like they are there. The TV is a real pain; you can't image how the second violin has enough room to swing his bow.

Other recordings are made with all attempts to capture the sound of the venue: Leipzig Gewandhaus; Ronny Scott's Club; unidentified; whatever. To get that, your ROOM should be anechoic. Many recordings seem to have taken place in public swimming baths, until you realise what the engineers were trying to do, and adjust your expectations.

If you have two locations for the playback, that is, both your room and the recording venue, it is bound to be a mess, whatever you play it on. If, however, you have no location (both recording and playback anechoic), there is no sense of "being there", or being anywhere, for that matter.

Mono. All that applies to mono. However, with mono, "performance in your room" wins hands down, because otherwise the most you can hope for is a peep through the keyhole, or hearing what is going on inside the hall, as if through an open window. You rely on you room.

Stereo. You can have either, but not both. However, if you opt for "like being there", you have been transposed to a strange, flat world, where all sources of sound are arranged on a line on front of you. You can supplement that with room reflections, and you might prefer it, but you are not then getting "like being there".

Surround sound. Here the distinction 'like I am there' vs 'like they are here' is absolutely crucial. If you want the sound of the performance in your room, you have to think hard to find any suitable music. There is lots, actually, but it is off the beaten track for most people. What you probably want from surround sound is "like you are there", not "like they are here". If that is the case, you need an anechoic listening room. And, ideally, no more than four speakers. Giving the recording engineers a centre channel is inviting them to get confused. If they mess up the recording, there is nothing you can do. You also assume they are trying to make it sound as if "your are there".

Now the personal preferences. I speak only for myself - there is no "right" or "wrong" and sometimes you can have both, but never at the same time (because of the way the world works). Apart from that, it is a free world. We hope.

"Like they are here". Yes: Bob Dylan from his pre-electric days; unaccompanied Kathleen Ferrier; Diana Krall, with just her piano, if it is not to big (no comments, please); The Julliard Quartet; at a push, a small string band. My room is too small for trumpets. The smallest percussion section would fill it completely. No way: any symphony orchestra; Cream; church or theatre organ; any live performance with a thousand people on the sofa. I could not possibly make that much coffee.

"Like I am there". Yes: All the "no ways" above, but plus all recordings of "Like they are here" scale, but with the acoustic of the original venue as part of the performance. For a lot of music, that is very important for the performance; the way performers' sound interacts with the acoustic is essential to know (unless they are hopeless performers, in which case turn it off). That is why every musician require a warm-up before performance, to get to know the acoustic.

So, as we progress from mono recording, through stereo, to surround sound, we are become more likely to choose "like we are there" and leave behind "like they are here" (not always; it is a free world).

With mono, "like being there" was mostly impossible; no performer was ever a point source. With stereo, we could have either (subject to the engineers) but many of us never made up our minds. With surround sound, we have to make up our minds: there is no middle way. The "two competing acoustics" (your room and the venue) makes a much more horrible noise in surround than was ever possible with stereo. The "in my room" for surround would be great for some things, but it is for "special interest" music.

Now, why more channels that four? To get "like they are here" surround sound, under the illusion that more channels gives better resolution, and stereo never worked. For no other reason. Ideally, one channel per instrument/voice. String quintet; at last a use for the centre channel! Thomas Tallis; forty channels. Mahler symphony; a thousand channels. But, the more channels you have, the LESS chance you've got of making it sound like you were there. You've got to pack that performance into your room. if you are into Mahler, you will need a big room. Who wants that, really?

Could this be our basic problem, on this thread?

That was short.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 330
Registered: Dec-03
i think you might be on the right track john!


just to throw something else out their.

i have a fairly large room and being surounded so
to speak works for me very well.
i can have more channels while still giving some
distance between speakers.while basically trying
to fill all the gaps with a speaker.

so i guess to sum up my point would be the best
amount of channels for surround depends on what
your particular room can handle.

and the way i can figure my room would be pretty
much set at 9.1 channels but 7.1 is pretty close
with some tweeking.

as a smaller room would be to cluttered and you
could not get at least a little localization.
"just a little is needed"

and again it still comes down to how or how well
the media was mixed that determines wheather or
not any type of recreation can happen.

i'm all for actually recreating something and for
it to actually work.i just think it should'nt be
a prerequasite.thats all i'm saying.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1242
Registered: Dec-03
That's it, Kegger. We agree. All I say is, IF you want to recreate something, THEN there are some things you have to think about before you can get it right. Mostly, those extra channels make it all much more difficult to get it right. As you yourself say, "keep it simple"!
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 332
Registered: Dec-03
the only thing i would at to that "so people don't get the wrong idea"

is that when you have an issue with the extra
channels is when they are not implemented correctly.

now that being if it's by the user "incorrect palcement
of speakers wrong speakers ect." or the engineer
of the media being played.

because when they are right it can be a very rewarding
experience.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 205
Registered: Feb-04
John A.

Your previous post gives a very clear idea of what to expect from mono, stereo, and surround music. I just have a couple comments. The best stereo recordings also can provide an illusion of depth but only of the soundstage, i.e., voices and instruments can be placed in front or behind each other. What surround sound can provide is an illusion of depth, height, and width to the space shared by the musicians and the listener. If the room is completely dark and my mind is "free," the difference between "I am there" and "they are here" begins to blur.

Your comments on the Julliard Quartet's Beethoven LPs made me pull out my own LPs. The liner notes state "recorded live in the Coolidge Auditorium of the Library of Congress." Is this the recording you are refering to?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
John A. - I believe we are in disagreement again. No time to explain now, I'll get back when I have time to write yet another opus. We do agree about room size, though, I would never be able to keep it clean.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1244
Registered: Dec-03
2c,
Yes, I know there are a number of Julliard Quartet Beethoven String Quartet cycles. The one I have and which I had in mind does not specify the recording location, as far as I can see, and they were recorded between May 1964 and March 1970. I bought them on CBS Masterworks, 1978. Excellent. Very, very dry acoustic - that was my point. I have three complete cycles. One (Quartetto Italiano; Philips) I particularly like and have on both LP and the CD remaster (very good) and it is the opposite; quite resonant - I am there; they are not here. (BTW I took back a complete Emerson Quartet recording because they were all playing with microphones inches from their nostrils, despite the great performances, I forget the label).

Jan,

Thank you. I will be very interested, but no need to rush. I will look out for your reply, when it comes.

If we agree we are all in the hands of the engineers and where and how they place the microphones, that is the main point. My submission is that this all becomes even more critical in 4+(.1) channels. And life is simpler with 4.

BTW would love a Shostokovich cycle like any of the Beethovens I have (my third is Talich quartet on Caliope CD - plus I have the middle quartets by Bartok quartet on Hungaroton) They are all wonderful, but totally different. Looked through an Lp shop earlier today. No Shostakovich at all.

All the best.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1247
Registered: Dec-03
Few days ago, attended children's school play in their sports hall, roughly 300 ft x 100 ft. Nice stereo sound for the production from tape cassettes, CDs, from two big PA speakers pointing outwards to the walls, I assume to get reflections. Not bad. The point is, you could indeed do a full Symphony orchestra in a space like that, and one speaker/channel per instrument would then be ideal.

Also, I remember reading about a concert from the Royal Festival Hall in London, I think in the late 70s, were the organ was being played somewhere else, for some reason. The organist had a video link, and the organ microphone signals were sent to the hall, where they were played through a whole rank of KEF reference speakers, each with its own Quad power amp, and mounted behind the orchestra. I was not there, but all the critics agreed it sounded just like the organ in the other hall was playing in the RFH.

The point is: these are not things we are trying to do at home, are they....?

BTW I have the Late Beethoven Quartets performed by the Smetana Quartet on Supraphon LP, too. Can't think why I forgot that, it was my first purchase of any of the Beethoven Quartets. I also have the Bartok Quartet remastered to CD for the main middle quartets. Both the Supraphon (Czech) and Hungaroton (Hungarian) recording engineers really knew what they were doing in those days (60s-70s), and the performances are wonderful, too. Excellent, heavy, vinyl pressings.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1269
Registered: Dec-03
Short note on new DVD-Audio disc purchase. Naxos Greig's Piano Concerto etc., Royal Scottish National Orchestra and guest solist and conductor. Recorded at 48 kHz. Much better balance that the Moscow-recorded Naxos Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky piano concertos: centre channel is used, but sparingly. I am not deeply impressed by Greig, and wish I had not read the appalling rant masquerading as a "sleeve note" essay in the booklet. However, it is sonically a nice and interesting disc. Though far from the best DVD-A, imho, it is still streets ahead of CD. Weighed against the Bartok quartet playing Beethoven in a 1977 Hungaroton LP recording, it is very lightweight, both musucally and sonically. However they are both "you are there" recordings.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1332
Registered: Dec-03
"As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo." (May 01).

OK, Mr Vigne.

EMI Classics 7243 4 92401 9 3

BACH Magnificat, Choir of King's College Cambridge, Academy of Ancient Music, Stephen Cleobury.

4.0 DVD-Audio MLP. The single disc has 2.0 DVD-Audio MLP on the same side; DVD-V 4.0 AC-3 and 2.0 Stereo PCM on the other.

You are there. In the front row, close to the orchestra, chorus and solists. They are all in front of you, and at one end of the Chapel of King's College Cambridge. They are facing the main area of the Chapel, and the sound projects over your head, into a huge and very distinctive acoustical space. The vast, cavernous acoustic is all behind you.

The performers do not move around, or change places. No-one is playing anything, or singing, behind you. So it could be stereo, but isn't. You cannot imagine it is stereo for even a few seconds. Close your eyes, and you are there. The reverberation lasts about four seconds, and comes from all around.

You can't do that with stereo.

No way.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 425
Registered: Dec-03
test post
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1362
Registered: Dec-03
Received.

Jan?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Seems to be working OK.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1392
Registered: Dec-03
I could change the subject....
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
I is the subject.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
If you changed the subject, would the subject then be you?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
If you cahnged the subject, would the subject then be you? The subject is you or I?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
If you changed the subject, would the subject then be you? The subject is you or I?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
As a subject, I is more impressive than you!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
But let's talk about you.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1398
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

What a pleasure it is to fence with you.

I shall now change the object, which, of course, is what I meant. Sorry about that. One strives to avoid misunderstanding, sometimes in vain.

The following is edited from Ripping DVD-A/DTS/SACD to Computer, where it was originally a reply to Ghia, who wishes to "rip" SACD (no chance) and DVD-A (can do if not MLP) files to computer, and hence to iPod. For some reason...

It will be hilarious if SACD "wins" the format war because people choose hybrid discs in order to copy the CD tracks onto iPod and MP3 players. What sweet irony. The new, "hi-res" format compressed to death; the uncopyable format taking over because people want to "rip" files off disc. What a strange world.

This is where I would like to paraphrase Jan, and maybe start a new "Old dogs" thread, as follows:-

As an aside, am I the only one who thinks that music almost always sounds better when you are sitting still, in one place, and actually listening, instead of trying to do something else at the same time? How old I feel.


Touché.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1401
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Just drop everything, and read this, from Stereophile:

Giving the RIAA the Finger.

Thanks to Ghia, for giving this link, on the thread linked above. I actually think it must be a joke, but fear, in my heart, that it is not.

I used to think I might be paranoid, until I realised that there are people in positions of influence who intend us to feel paranoid....

Eric Blair, where are you, now that we need you?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1414
Registered: Dec-03
I have just written to My Rantz, on the thread Recommendations: Must Have DVDAs and SACDs

"without the center speaker on 5.1 movies....I doubt you'll get the same control to adjust the clarity and loudness that the center channel provides" My points are (1) the clarity and loudness were the recording engineer's job, therefore (2) stereo would have done it just as well. Actually, better; there is less to get wrong.

...a good center channel is essential, now, for movies, but that is only because the track is on the disc, and must be reproduced, otherwise you will not hear the dialogue. People say the centre speaker helps to spread out the sound stage, makes it discernable from more listenting positions, but it does not- it has the opposite effect. It concentrates the centre of the soundfield, and messes up phasing, and, with it, imaging.

...This is where I am so completely with Jan Vigne, and believe that I understand his problem, and that of other good guys, with surround sound.

Stereo rules! 4.0 rules even more!

People knew this decades ago, probably even at the start of stereo: it is obvious. Now we finally have the technology, we have forgotten what we wanted it for. It is bizarre. I place this remark on "Old Dogs" with part of a scanned 1975 LP sleeve.
Upload
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1429
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I have just gone off the rails on this topic, but on a different, unrelated thread. Recommendations: Must Have DVDAs and SACDs. Do you think you, Kegger, and I could maybe re-post some of that, here? Thsoe guys on that thread must be wondering what they walked into.

I found myself "lecturing" Kegger (the last guy who needs it) with


....there is nothing that cannot be improved. But what you do, is see where you can retain the good stuff from the old (here, "stereo") and build on in; not chuck everything away and start again, without understanding what you had before.


Great Dylan song "I threw it all away".

I am so tempted to make a life-size Shoenberg cut-out, and throwing darts will not be enough. Hope your ulcer is better....
 

New member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jun-04
I have been enjoying the discussion so far. I want to ask a question:

Aren't the Surround speakers pumping out a stereo version of the Surround information? It seems to me, if that is the case, that they are similar to the front speakers pumping out the Front information. This reminds me of the pre-HT days (late 1980's) when I read that one could attach a "center" speaker to the (+) terminals of the Left and Right speakers to get the "derived information" of the stereo image. I had experimented with this technique and found that the stereo image tightened up towards the center more and there was a loss of spaciousness in the soundstage. It was an interesting sound and this week, I have actually wired my sixth speaker in the center-rear pointing up at the ceiling to help give my 5.1 system a slightly more 3-dimensional effect. I do not plan on getting a 6.1 system anytime soon and, so far, the effect for movies is nicely subtle. With music, I am not so convinced.

These discussions of stereo vs. multichannel music have really got me thinking about first principles - how do we really hear sound and what is a non-kludgy way of reproducing it. I am not taking sides in this debate but it does make me want to think about all the crap that both the HT and music industries say I should buy in order to obtain excellent sounding source material. It seems that there is a fundamental difference in re-creating a movie experience and re-creating a music hall experience and that slightly different engineering techniques and speaker setups are needed to get the most out of each experience.

I feel like I am awakening some sort of awareness in me or something.

 

New member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jun-04
Also, I wish I were born with 6 ears! Then I could hear in all directions at all frequencies.

:-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 384
Registered: Feb-04
Goldenarrow,

In real life you hear different frequencies eminating from many directions (surround) every day with only 2 ears. Besides, be careful what you wish for! (grin)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
If you were born with six ears you could never wear glasses. And watch that awakening stuff, the administrator has strict rules about that. Room 101 for you, my friend.
Surround speakers are not necessarily putting out a stereo signal. In a discrete surround format; Dolby Digital surround, DTS, DVD-A or SACD multichannel, the channels are all capable of a producing a signal that has no shared information with any of the other channels. While this can be the case with stereo left vs. right information, there is usually shared information between the two channels in stereo. (Ping pong games and passing trains were great demo material in the early days of stereo. But to get a stereo soundstage you must have shared info.) This is where you get the ability to connect the two commons and derive the common signals (that they share) sent to the center speaker. This was not an uncommon arrangement in the '50's and early '60's and Paul Klipsch made the recommendation to use a common center when his Klipschorns were used on the long wall of a room. Different techniques in mixing the recording would result in varying degrees of success with this hook up. This "hidden information" is the basis for the early surround systems of the 1970's such as John A.'s QS above.
QS became the starting point for the bucket brigade time delays of the 1980's and eventually the idea was moved around enough that Dolby Surround could be copyrighted and everyone using it wold pay royalties to Dolby. The original format for Dolby Surround used the difference signal (the signals that the two channels do not share) of the front channels to be delayed, frequency adjusted and introduced as a mono signal to the rear speakers. Dolby Pro Logic later was developed by Jim Fosgate to use the common signal of the front channels to become the front center channel. (This is all very circular and builds upon ideas that were introduced back in the '50's. Look up DynaQuad derived surround hook up from the '70's.) The next development was to bring discrete (mono)signals to all channels. (This, of course was the idea of CD-4 surround in the '70's. It failed more from the technical limitations of the day than from lack of understanding.) This gives the ability to have all channels be a mono signal with no relation to the other signals being reproduced but in reality there is the likelyhood that signals will be shared between two or more channels as a signal is panned between front and back (as in a fly over from front to rear) or, unique to discrete surround, the diagonal movement of signals from front right to rear left (Listen to "True Lies" when Jamie Lee Curtis drops the automatic weapon down the steps and bullets richocet in every direction). And in a situation like that there is actually a certain amount of shared information between all channels simultaneously to make the effect work.
So there you have it, taking from the old and not throwing out what was good about what you are going to build with. John A. was correct in his statement though incorrect to give Kegger a hard time. Bad John A., bad!
The ulcer was 30 years ago and was resolved with nine hours of sugery. The ulcer is gone and has not given me any problems since. Unfortunately, I have also lost 1/2 of my stomach, 1/3 of my pancreas, assorted odds and ends in that region and I have no small intestine. That has given me several problems over the past three decades and I have seen dead relatives on several occassions. But it all gives me a different perspective on each day. Nothing wrong with that. Though I finally got that awakening thing taken care of a few years ago.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 385
Registered: Feb-04
Jan

"But it all gives me a different perspective on each day."

I'll bet it does, however your obvious sense of humour and the skillful and lucid manner in which you share your knowledge and opinions with us speaks a thousand words. I hope the worst is behind you.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1444
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

"Bad John A., bad!". This is a public forum, and, hating exclusivity, I boringly feel the need to explain in-jokes, as I did when one guy was up-front enough to write "Excuse me, what is 'Room 101'?". But, on this occasion, I just finish my Wensleydale and crackers, and put down the latest issue of "Electronics for Dogs". Maybe that mag would be interested in recycled bits of this thread, "Old Dogs"? Boring explanation; I am playing Grommit to Jan's Wallace. Not sure that is the right way round. I never knew Aardman reached Texas. Except, possibly, "Chicken Run". Great movie.

I second My Rantz, Jan. I was referring to the duodecaphonic ulcer, of course. If people don't read the same books, listen to the same music, AND don't read all the right threads, they must get a bit lost. I know I am. Run "search" here with such terms as "Duodecaphonic" and "Blumlein" for more of the adventures of Wallace and Grommit.

goldenarrow,

That post made me feel good. I pretty well stopped listening to anything in about 1992, courtesy of work issues and the like. I am back with a bang. It feels good.

I, too, had written off surround. All these "matrixed" tricks left me cold. Under family pressure, again, I nearly bought one of these Dolby Surround systems a few years ago, where they actually recommended hopeless surround speakers as better than good ones; it was mono, anyway. Glad I waited, and got true 5.1 Now I know I can get stereo behind me (I think you are right) as well as on both sides, it is a different game. I also like the crazy things they do with surround in movies. My son pointed out what the Ring does to the voices of Gandalf and Galadriel, when it tempted them with its power, in TFOTR. Listen. It is really cool. You can't do that with stereo, either. And certainly it has nothing to do with music. But look, too, at the "music and sound" feature in the extended version. Perfectionists, every one.

Jan again, you really must be careful what you write. We'll have the Thought Police round here in no time. Yesterday I listened to Shostakovich Qt. No. 2 (A minor; 1944) for the fourth time in my life (the first was last week). That second movement I would place alongside the Cavatina from Beethoven Opus 131. I never thought I would ever say, or think, such a thing.

Here's a very funny thing about music. Stalin did lots of things. Defended Moscow, took Berlin, secured vistory against Facism, exiled or assassinated about 20 million people, that sort of thing. Then he took the trouble to ban Shostokovich, whom he must correctly have identified as a source of trouble, for writing notes on paper, with ink.

It's not obvious why that was such a big deal, is it?

A guy in Texas who speaks Italian and has no small intestine turned me on the Shostakovich, over the internet. At my age. I'd pretty well given up. What a world. Thanks, Jan.

BTW, getting back to my rant, and goldenarrow's second post. Two eyes are enough; two ears are enough. No animal has 3, 4, or 5. Some, such as insects, have thousands. I cannot see much scope between 2 and thousands, personally.

But there are always new things to learn.
 

New member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jun-04
J.Vigne,

Thanks so much for the primer on the origins of the center channel - sounds like the audio engineers have been very busy the last 30 years, ending up with 5.1 as discrete mono channels. I think I knew that intuitively but your explanation makes it much more clear.

It also seems that my little experiment with tying the surrounds together could muddy the sound in situations where the sound needs to be discrete, usually in certain movie situations. So far, music is mainly reverb in the surrounds but that might change in the future where musicians may start wanting to place instruments all around the listener. Church music has always been a little like this, with choirs or organs placed behind the listener. The future will be very interesting!

And thanks, too, for sharing about your everyday reality (health) - we are all in the same boat in some way or another!

My Rantz and John A.,

I wonder what an 11.0 system would be like? Sound coming from all directions in full-range (even underneath and overhead) - that REALLY would be an awakening! :-)

goldenarrow
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
OK, let's see if I can get this to upload an image.schema~1jpg


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1457
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

That is an interesting image.

BTW Just re-watched "Chicken Run". Fowler gets the great lines, and is the only one to remember they are all chickens.

"Good grief, the turnip's bought it".

goldenarrow,

I have terminated many threads with recommedation of the ultimate DVD-Audio. It is totally arcane, but you did ask. "THOMAS TALLIS Spem in alium - SURROUND SOUND" on Coro - the Sixteen Edition.

This time, I think Jan is going to return, come what may.

Hope so.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
John A. - You can't get rid of me that easily.

Let's try this again. schematic 1
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 388
Registered: Feb-04
Nice little tree and moon scene Jan :-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
*&^%(()*%#$%*)+)@!!@~~%*)>"(*^%&^%%^$!!!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Yeah, yeah, yeah! "Nice little tree and moon..." You like the little folder too? I drew it myself! Yada, Yada!!!
OK, this has me baffled! It appears that the file I want to attach is too large to be attached. Though from the size of the one image that is very simple I don't know how anything of any size can be attached. John A., you and Kegger have done this maybe you can give me a clue.
John A. - I was actually hoping for a Jeeves and Wooster effect but I think you're right, Wallace and Grommit we are. You're right also about "Chicken Run". Don't you wish Mel had used that line as a slick trivia piece lately. "Good grief, the Christ's bought it!" Shostakovich would have enjoyed that, living in an atheist state and all. Glad you are enjoying his music. I'm jealous that I don't have the time now to sit and listen to the quartets as often as I would like. Unfortunately, I think Shostakovich, like so many under Stalin, wrote his notes in blood. The thought police don't care what you use. One thing about Stalin though, when he said he did something because of this reason he didn't change the reason after the stated reason couldn't be found. Of course, NO ONE questioned Stalin.
What I was trying to post when I was so rudely interrupted were a few pieces of historical background that I dug out of a bottom drawer. They are "The Dope From Hope". (No snickering all you Republicans!) These are a series of papers that Paul Klipsch sent to his dealers from the '60's to the '80's. The pieces I have copied are in reference to the creation of stereo and three channel sound. I also have a diagram for the original DynaQuad hook up that David Hafler introduced back in the late '60's. They do not fit on this forum no matter what I did to them. If anyone would like to get them send me an e-mail at soufiej@sbcglobal.net and I will send them to you. The whole sheebang is 10 pages so judge for yourself, they are quick reads.
I would also suggest anyone interested in someone else's opinion of the matters we have discussed concerning multi channel sound reproduction should pick up a copy of the June/July issue of "The Absolute Sound". There are several articles about the state of Hi-Rez and multichannel that I found intersting.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 389
Registered: Feb-04
John A, Jan, Kegger and others interested in the great 'surround' debate.

Here is a worthy review of DSOTM recorded as SACD 5.1. - don't let the format put off from reading it John as it may reinforce much of what you guys have been stating. After reading this, I can't wait to get it into the player's drawer!

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=19939611

Cheers!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 132
Registered: Mar-04
My Rantz,
Thanks for the link. The reviewer, Nicholas D. Satullo, sure had some nice things to say about the mix, including:

"So 'Dark Side of the Moon' has been re-mixed and re-mastered, and the album can now be experienced in a positive manner never before available. And, while I'll maintain that it contains some of the best surround music I've ever heard, and that the fidelity of the disc is now available in a way never heard, I'll stop short of crowning it the best multi-channel disc, or even the best Super Audio CD, simply because life is easier in the absence of such absolutes. However, I will say that if someone else wants to bestow those crowns on this disc, they are well deserved in any respect, and I probably could not think of another disc more entitled to the honors. It is likely at least as good as anything that has yet been done in multi-channel."
High praise indeed, I just wonder how much better it could have been if....there I go again :-)

For those interested, the artist PF uses to design their album covers, Strom Thorgerson, suffered a stroke a few months ago. I hear he is slowly recovering. He also did many of the Alan Parsons album covers, and in fact designed the cover for Parsons upcoming (August 04) cd, "A Valid Path." If you're interested it can be seen here:

http://www.theavenueonline.info/images/covers/valid.jpg

 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 456
Registered: Dec-03
very cool link rantz.

SEM i like the way you look at things, simular to
myself.

I say that statement at least twice a week.
"nothing is absolute"

and use the "what if" quite regularly.

good stuff guy's!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 390
Registered: Feb-04
Sem,

"I just wonder how much better it could have been if . . ." But then again, what if . . . and on and on . . . I think Churchill said it best: "We will fight them on the" - just kidding - "You can please some of the people some of the time" - etc!

Great photo by Strom Thorgerson. The art world needs his recovery as much as he does.

Kegger - don't we all!

I'm picking up DSOTM SACD tomorrow - I'll let you all know if I agree with Sutullo - bet then who am I to judge after only 3 or 4 hi-res titles?
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 458
Registered: Dec-03
I hope so mr. rantz!

jan.
i don't remember the file size i had to use
but when i tried to upload it told me no bigger
than "tugngjy" and what i did was bring up the
picture in paint and shrink it until it was less
than the max size they suggested and it worked
fine for me.

john.
you may move any post i submit and put it anywhere
you desire my friend.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1460
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

The file has to be not more than 100 k and only a couple of formats are allowed, I think .jpg and .gif. But you can now post up to four of those. If it is a problem, I can easily reduce file sizes. I shall send you an email.

Kegger,

Thanks. I agree about Sem, myself, also you, friend.

Looks like this thread has come back to life, so we maybe do not need to move things over here. But let me direct any readers to the discussion, right on this topic, around June 15 or so, on:-

Recommendations: Must Have DVDAs and SACDs.

That is a very nice topic/thread, too - thanks for suggesting that to admin.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1461
Registered: Dec-03
Jan, again,

Only the seriously weird would go in for analysis of "Chicken Run". But I very warmly recommended it. Rocky, the Home on-the-Free-Range, Rhode Island Rooster (Mel Gibson), is the stereotypical American for so many Brits. I didn't know at the time that the actor what a complete nut. All Ghia's fears about technology seem to be there, too. Anyone who hasn't, you first have to see "the Great Escape", to get the jokes. "Good grief, the Christ's bought it!" Just wonderful.

There are so many good movies "for kids".
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Her's a little piece that made me laugh out loud. It is from a list of the top five studio monitors and explains much about what we have discussed here. I first started selling the NS10M in 1977. It was a lousy speaker that personified everything that was bad about minmonitors. It took what the revered LS3/5a had done so well and turned all of it into mush. Bright, hard, agressive all those things and no bass beneath about 100 Hz. But with about a +10 db lump at 120 Hz it sounded like pounded dog p**p. At the time it was the personification of the Japanese abilty to copy something poorly. But for years I saw them on the consoles of almost every studio.

2) Yamaha NS10M
Yamaha retired the popular NS10M this year and will only sell them until they run out of parts to make them. This monitor has dominated the console tops of pro studios for many years. They don't sound great and that's their charm. If you can make your mix sound good on NS10s, the mix will translate well into other systems. It's this fact of life that has kept them selling like hotcakes. The are unpowered and sell for $478 a pair.

Too bad so many couldn't make their mix sound good on the NS10M's and just gave up trying.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 275
Registered: Dec-03
WOW............I feel ill.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1465
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Priceless. "Bad is this season's good". What total, unadulterated %&$@!

Now, did Yamaha understand that any mix that sounded good on speakers with +10 dB lump at 120 Hz would sound terrible on one without?

If "Yes", they were frauds. If "no" they were fools.

They should have written "If you can make your mix sound good on NS10s, the mix is bound to sound appalling on other systems". ....."so you are wasting your time using these speakers. For anything."

It's not difficult to understand, really. That's Yamaha on my list, too. Definitely. Next to Bose. I already had my suspicions. Apart from their ludicrous claims for amp power, there are lots of posts here about a Yamaha surround equalization system (YPAO or something) that adjusts itself to your room acoustics to give you the balance it decides you should be hearing. Bad Yamaha, bad.

BTW cropped jpg files on their way.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1468
Registered: Dec-03
While waiting for Jan's articles, I offer a re-post from Looking for a new reciever for home theater and music.,

From the wonderful album "At the Drop of a Hat". Flanders and Swann. 1959. Recorded in stereo, a new technology. That is the point of the song.

In "A song of reprodution", the verse is Schubert. The refrain, beginning "High Fidelity", is to the tune of "Hi! diddley-dee, an actor's life for me" from Pinnocchio. Sing it. It fits.

"At the Drop of a Hat"
CD on EMI Records CDFSB 11/CDP 7974652

Original LP, 1959, on Parlophone; the same record label as the Beatles. Also produced by George Martin. What a totally talented man.

The multi-talented Swann gets in precisely one word - part of the act.
____________________________________

May we ask, could you hear that more or less all right at the top there? All right for quantity? Nothing we can do about the quality. Not until Swann's voice breaks, anyway. People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room. They seem to like it, and it's about these people who we've written this next song. I mention this in case any of you think the title a little close to the bone; This is a Song of Reproduction.

A Song of Reproduction

I had a little Gramophone
I wound it round and round
And with a sharpish needle
It made a cheerful sound
And then they amplified it
It was much louder then
And used sharpened fibre needles
To make it soft again.

Today for reproduction
I'm as eager as can be
Count me among the faithful fans
Of High Fi-de-li-ty

High Fidelity
Hi-Fi's the thing for me
With an LP disc and an FM set
And a corner reflex cabinet
High frequency range
Complete with auto-change
All the highest notes neither sharp nor flat
The ear can't hear as high as that
Still I ought to please any passing bat
With my High Fidelity

Who made this circuit up for you anyway? Bought it in a shop? What a horrible shoddy job they fobbed you off with with. Surprised they let you have it in this room, anyway, the acoustics are all wrong. If you raise the ceiling four feet, put the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard. I see you've got your negative feedback coupled in to your push-pull input-output. Take that across though your headed pickup to your tweeter, if you're modding more than eight you'll get wow on your top. Try to bring that through your preamp rumble filter to your woofer - what'll you get - flutter on your bottom.

High Fidelity,
FFRR for me.
I've an opera here you shan't escape,
On miles and miles of recording tape
High decibel gain
Is easy to obtain
With the tone control at a single touch
Bel canto sounds like double Dutch
But I never did care for music much,
It's the high fidelity.

Michael Flanders: This is a good moment to explain that we don't normally have these things standing around here, but tonight they are recording this, stereophonically in fact, for posterity. So, wherever you're sitting now, it'll be where you'll be on the record. Sit up nice and straight, if any of you feel like rolling in the aisles or being carried out helpless with mirth, this is a jolly good night to do it. Do you want to say hello to posterity?
Donald Swann: Hello!
Michael Flanders: Hello, Posterity. If we move around a bit, they'll use it for demonstration purposes.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
John A. - Wonderful stuff. All things new are cr@p again. The reference to the auto change is priceless. The first turnatables were, of course, single play - one record at a time. That was in the days of cylinders and 78's that lasted no more than four minutes per side of a disc. To accommodate a symphony manufacturers created the automatic changer that allowed "modding" a stack of records to let you hear a movement more or less, obviously less, as you would in a live performance. Always striving for that live performance , aren't they? Of course by the time you put enough discs on the changer to play a movement uninterupted you got "wow on your top" record as the platter and hard puck drive mechanism just couldn't deal with the extra weight. Trying to bring the weight of the orchestra (no pun intended) through your system meant "flutter on you bottom". So back to single play turntables; and, what did we see next? Direct drive tables because of the speed problems of changers.

Add a little servo to fix that pup; whoops, it's gone wrong now let's catch up!

If that performance was recorded today Swann's "hello" would have come from the rear speakers.
'round and 'round it goes, where she stops, ...

And to give the poor little NS10M a tiny bit of a break, the 10 dB bump was relieved somewhat when it was placed on a monitor desk and it was then out from the wall about three or four feet. That took the lump down to about 7.5 dB. The really bad thing about the NS10M was that Yamaha tried to sell this on the home market as a "studio reference speaker" that was pitiful in the home environment. The idea they have always used that they know how to build audio because they build instruments seems as bogus as Mitsubishi saying they knew how to make audio because they made the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor.

Ya'know, if I didn't know better I'd think we were being played for saps!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1470
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Great. I never understood "wow on your top" and "flutter on your bottom" before. "Bottom" is "butt" in UK Eng, of course, the double entendre (one of many) discernable from MickFlann's inflection and delivery.

"That was in the days of cylinders and 78's that lasted no more than four minutes per side of a disc." Which gave us the length of popular song, still with us, and going strong.

You might like the complete Flanders and Swann (3 CD box). Not exactly repayment for Shostakovich String Qts., but definitely a contribution. Have June/July Absolute Sound. Thanks. I am forwarned by Gregory about the purple prose. Have printed the jpg articles and diagrams, can upload here if there is still problem. Will read tomorrow.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Doing mindless things in the yard today, try this:

We put a lot of work into
how to fix the spindle.
It's the best that we could do, cause next week we're selling something new!
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us