[skwoodwiva]

1. Oh good, more utter nonsense. Professional orchestras have very little rehearsal time, typically one or two days (2-4 sessions) before the performance and then a rehearsal on the day of the performance. "Rehearse to death" is complete nonsense!
2. What is this, a competition to see how much nonsense you can invent in one post? Orchestras pretty much ALWAYS have a rehearsal in the concert venue, this rehearsal even has it's own name, it's called a "Dress Rehearsal". I get that you're ignorant and don't know anything about orchestras, concerts, rehearsals or recording but what I don't get is why you just make up lies and nonsense?!



What hard earned knowledge? The only thing you've demonstrated is a complete lack of of even the most basic knowledge ... and the ability to make-up complete nonsense!

Again, it's just not worth going through each and every nonsense point in your posts. It's (more than) enough now, STOP with all your completely made-up nonsense and trolling!

G

@analogsurviver
I got all this too. ..just by claiming I,could spot a multmiked recording anytime, on a good system .

 

[analogsurviver]

I've never personally done any large-scale multi-track recordings....
But so far all of the discussion has been about what I would consider commercial recordings (someone is paying and willing to put some effort into the process).

However, I've recorded several choir performances in churches, and a few bands in similar situations, which were somewhat less well thought out.
("My group is performing tonight; in about three hours; could you drop by and record it; we'd sure like to have a copy.")

And, in those sorts of situations, the problems you encounter are rather different.
For example, in several I've done, the choir and orchestra was already set up to play....
And one requirement was that they NOT be rearranged or even asked to accommodate the recording.
It was literally a situation of: "We didn't think of this before; they're tuning up now; find a place to put the microphones where they and the wires won't get in the way."
Even worse, the only opportunity to set levels and EQ was in the few minutes before the doors opened - in an empty room.
Then, the band finishes tuning up, the doors open, the seats fill..... and the acoustics of the room entirely change.

In those situations, it would have been great to have a dummy head I could just park in a seat, and trust to record more or less what someone in the audience heard.

Been there, done that ... God only knows how many times !

What usually comes out of it - both for the artist and recording engineer - is what is called in our language "medvedja usluga"
( litteral translation : bear's service ) - meaning, rougly, "to do someone an ill turn/disservice ".
And because of that, I no longer do it - PERIOD !!!

That's what I actually do for since a couple of years now - for the "first scouting" ( the first assesment if a particular venue would be interesting/usable for recording of such and such musical formation ) - turning myself into unartificial binaural - not only head, but entire human being.
Packs a whole lot more processing power than any artificial one/can even pick the best sounding row - but has to stay awake ( hey...you're snoring...), has to learn a super quiet breathing technique - AND choose one point "somewhere" on stage to look /point at troughout the entire duration of the concert. Needless to say, any applause from myself has to be kept silent - I call it "playback applause". It takes herculean effort not to burst into laughter if something funny enough happens to crack the entire contents of the audience - but "microphone" has to stay silent ...

 

[Phronesis]

don't know if this is nitpicking or massively important, but as we play wannabee scientists all the time, it would be better if you said "my hypothesis" instead of "my theory".

If we want to get the terminology right, agreed on your distinction.

 

[KeithEmo]

Just to play Devil's advocate here, I'm going to suggest a VERY simple test that you can do yourself.
I'm going to tell you how to make two audio test tracks....
They will measure as "the same" by all the standard metrics.
But they will AUDIBLY SOUND VERY DIFFERENT.

Pick your favorite audio editor....

Use it to generate 180 seconds of "pure white noise"....
Divide that up into three equal 60 second segments of "pure white noise".... (we'll call these #1, #2, and #3).
NOTE: You CANNOT simply copy the same sixty second segment into three separate files.
Perform any tests you like to confirm that you have three exactly equal segments of white noise (I would suggest a detailed spectral analysis).

Now, using your favorite audio editor again, create a STEREO audio file with #1 as the left channel and #2 as the right channel.
This is what we call "uncorrelated white noise"..... each channel contains a different stream of totally equivalent random numbers.
Now, again using your favorite editor, create a STEREO audio file with #3 as BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT CHANNELS.
This is what we call "correlated white noise"..... and each channel contains the SAME stream of random numbers.
You now have two test tracks, one with "60 seconds of correlated white noise" and one with "60 seconds of uncorrelated white noise".

Now LISTEN to those two tracks.

You will find that the "correlated white noise" sounds like a single noise source centered between the speakers.
While the "uncorrelated white noise" sounds like randomly located white noise spread across the sound stage.
Note that, if you use a "vectorscope" or a "separation meter" it will clearly show the difference between the two test tracks.
However, to every measurement that fails to specifically compare the content in the two channels, they will "measure as the same".
The point, which should be obvious, is that....
Determining the difference between those two test signals by measurement requires VERY SPECIFIC TESTS....
Yet, to our human brains, the difference is quite obvious....

Also note that the audibility is only apparent with very specific tests performed using a specific protocol.
You will NEVER hear or measure a significant difference between the individual channels involved by listening to or measuring them one at a time.
The clearly audible difference only exists as a relationship between them.

 

[KeithEmo]

Honestly, while that example illustrates your point admirably, it doesn't say much about how audible jitter is.....

- what test samples were used?
- what playback equipment was used?
- what were the demographics of their test sample?
- EXACTLY what sort of jitter test signal did they use?

Jitter is not a single monolithic "characteristic"......
Jitter describes variations in the clock frequency over time.......
Therefore, jitter has a frequency, and amplitude, and a waveform (or, if random in nature, it has a frequency distribution and a peak amplitude).
Jitter can also be "data correlated" or not.

This is not a trivial distinction.....
For example, I suspect that the audibility of 3 kHz jitter would be far different than that of 0.1 Hz jitter.... both of which commonly occur in various systems.

No. They are all far, far away from objective data like measurements.

Both examples of what you say are purely subjective anyway. In both cases you are asking subjects to give you answer. What the question is, is immaterial. That same subject using identical blind test in another round could very well give you the opposite answer.

Here are the answers from listeners to audibility of Jitter in a test Dolby conducted:



This is very close to the type of test you mention using tones. Look at the "error bars" showing variations of answers in one person's. And then look at the subject to subject variation. Nothing about this is remotely objective.

As I said, listening tests are always subjective. Conduct a few formal ones and you will see.

 

[RRod]

Determining the difference between those two test signals by measurement requires VERY SPECIFIC TESTS....
Yet, to our human brains, the difference is quite obvious....

While 'check the phase difference between channels' is a specific test, it isn't SO out there right?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Let's assume a VERY simple situation to start.
We have a symmetrical concert venue.... fifty feet square, moderately "live", with a stage at one end.
A drummer sits stage center playing on his snare drum.
...
[2] A binary recording, recorded with a "dummy head", will record all of these cues more or less accurately.
[2a] Now, instead of using a binary microphone, let's do this as a multichannel recording.

1. Assuming a VERY simple situation can sometimes be useful to illustrate some specific point but most situations are NOT simple and therefore a simple example often ends up being misleading or entirely wrong because it does not take into account the practical complexities and interactions at play! ... I don't recall ever working in a perfectly symmetrical concert venue that's the size of a bathroom, with a stage at one end and where the whole concert is just a drummer playing a snare drum. Let's take something a little more realistic/practical shall we? Say a drummer playing a drum kit with a band in a proper sized concert venue.

2. Yes, all those timing cues will be recorded more or less accurately (for some people), but so what? The kick will sound like a can of beans being played in a noisy cave, the hi-hat will be inaudible, the toms will sound like an empty packet of cornflakes (if you can hear them at all in the mix) and the snare drum will probably just sound like a little drum rather than a snare drum. But hey, we've got all those little timing cues so essential for audiophiles, who cares that the drum kit actually sounds like half a broken kid's toy?
2a. Yep, we loose/mess up those subtle little timing cues with a typical multi-mic kit setup but at least we can make the drum kit actually sound like a drum kit (or rather, what a drum kit is expected/desired to sound like)!! Which would you rather have?

I didn't previously mention it, but I have in fact heard real live wire-brush cymbals played many times.
I noted that, in some recordings, the wire-brush cymbals seem to be rendered much more realistically than in others (they sound closer to what the ones I've heard in real life usually sound like).
I offered MY THEORY as to why this might be the case (and it involved a difference in how some multi-track recordings are done).
I could be wrong..... that's how science works..... and being proven wrong also adds to our knowledge.
(But simply saying: "I think your theory is wrong, so you must be imagining what you think you hear" is not an answer.)

I agree that's not an answer but that is NOT the answer I gave you, your quote is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I actually said!
I gave you reasons for why your hypothesis was probably wrong and a far more likely alternative for what you were hearing, which had nothing to do with your imagination.

What a great wealth of recording knowledge you have. Thank, you, not only for this wonderful elucidation but as suporting my claims about the superiority of 2 Mike recordings .

Yep, in the audiophile land of the blind, a man claiming to have one eye is king!!

@castleofargh maybe this thread's title should be changed from "testing audiophile myths and claims" to: "let's invent as many nonsense audiophile claims as we can"? If not, then maybe it's time to start doing something about what can only be trolling? (It must be trolling because I can't believe this amount of ignorance and delusional assertions is even possible)!

G

 

[bigshot]

I can see if you're recording in a "fly by the seat of your pants" situation that keeping it simple is the only way to get decent results. I've always worked on projects that had the budget for studio time or soundstage rental. The scale and technique of that is different than a situation where you have to record live in a venue you've never worked in before.

When we start talking about brain scans we enter the twilight zone where I zone out. I'm only interested in ways to make my audio system sound better. When it comes to abstract theory, there are other subjects that interest me more.

Yep, in the audiophile land of the blind, a man claiming to have one eye is king!!

Shouldn't that be one ear? Lately the emperor's new clothes keeps coming to mind too. There's an awful lot of naked parading about going on!

My recommendation to discourage trolling is to not quote their posts. That’s what they want and the site sends out an email alert letting them know you’ve replied to them. It’s better to talk past them to the general audience of lurkers. Don’t engage them. Just answer the nonsense for the benefit of the rest of the audience.

 

[Phronesis]

When we start talking about brain scans we enter the twilight zone where I zone out. I'm only interested in ways to make my audio system sound better. When it comes to abstract theory, there are other subjects that interest me more.

If 'sound science' refers to the sound perceived by music listeners, there are areas of science (and technology) involved which go well beyond considerations of equipment, rooms, etc. The science relevant to listeners has to address ears and brains, and maybe we can't entirely avoid talking about 'minds' too. Interesting stuff for those who want to try to look at the whole picture.

 

[bigshot]

I'm interested in using science to make my home audio system sound better. I have no need to split atoms or enter into purely theoretical discussions. Feel free to do that, but you're going to have to forgive me if you catch me yawning and stretching.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

...and now something completely different...
Hi analogsurviver...
Where are the CD Mats testing files, due to be ready 2015?
...have I missed them?

 

[bigshot]

Sound Science never forgets!

 

[gregorio]

I can see if you're recording in a "fly by the seat of your pants" situation that keeping it simple is the only way to get decent results.

Sure, if I were an amateur and flying by the seat of my pants, a simple stereo pair is just about the only way to go. But a world class orchestra costs around $300k a day for distributable recording and so there would never be any "flying by the seat of your pants" or amateurs involved! My only explanation, if analogsurvivor is actually telling the truth about having some orchestral recording experience, is that he's somehow gained permission to record some rehearsals, maybe even some performances (as long as he's completely unobtrusive to both the musicians and audience) or, he's is bootlegging.

G

 

[Zapp_Fan]

Not to backseat mod or whatever, but I think this thread could take to heart the "principle of charity", meaning when arguing with someone you should interpret their argument in the strongest / most charitable way you can, (i.e. give the benefit of as much doubt as you can on the part of the argument and arguer). For one thing it keeps things more civil, it also forces you to use your strongest arguments as well.

There are more than a few posts ITT where I read something significantly less ignorant or controversial in the post, than other commenters did.

We're all on the same team here, which is the team that wants to rationally and methodically approach better sound, rather than throwing money at the problem and crossing our fingers

I think the only fundamental point of difference there ought to be is basically between someone like me and @bigshot - he only cares about what's actionable for his home setup, which is quite reasonable. I personally find the outer limits of theory and measurement to be pretty interesting, regardless of whether I can use them at home or work.

This can also lead to arguments and misunderstandings - I actually want to know if there are ANY predictable/repeatable exceptions to the "ultrasonics are inaudible" rule, others find this to be worse than a waste of time and muddying the waters, to the detriment of the community.

But being that this is the sound science section, I think having a lot of arguments over semantics is a bad sign.

 

[bigshot]

There has been an organized effort over the years to get this thread locked. Now that it’s pinned, that is a meaningless effort. It’s here and not going away.