[Corti]

you’re basically an argument bot. And you’ve found another argument bot to interact with.

sorry i just couldnt resist

 

[Blanchot]

Of course not. In a symphony orchestra you’ve got around 90 or more musicians, playing together in close proximity.

Unless there is a pandemic which forces musicians to keep a distance to comply with authority regulations. There has been written quite a lot about how conductors and performers tackled the situation but it would be interesting to know how the technicians dealt with it. How did the distancing requirements affect the recording process? I'm veering a bit off topic here but it would be interesting to know nonetheless.

 

[gregorio]

ORTF has two cardioids at 110° angle without baffle in between. ORTF is btw also very headphone compatible in my opinion.

Yes, I know, I’ve used ORTF numerous times.

I wouldn't hang on to one particular mic distance, as a Jecklin Disk with adjustable mic distance gives flexibility in various acoustic/musical situations.

Mic distances are incredibly important and have been experimented with extensively. Get mic distances wrong and you can cause yourself all kinds of nightmares in a multi-mic setup. Additionally, mic distances are often what differentiates different techniques. For example, increase the ORTF mic distance from 17cm to 20cm (and change the angle of incidence to 90deg) and it’s no longer an ORTF pair, it’s a DIN pair, increase the distance of a DIN pair to 30cms and it’s a NOS pair.

An obvious disadvantage of all the stereo pair setups as a main array is with a 5.1 or greater mix, which has been standard practice for many years now, while something like the Decca Tree is great for multi-channel mixes and stereo. There are other advantages and disadvantages between nearly all the setups but that’s an obvious one between the stereo and 3 mic arrays.

"Close" mics at a few inches away make the sound unstable. The distance to the instrument can easily double meaning that the level of the direct sound will vary several decibels while a listener dozens of feet away wont hear almost any change in the sound. So, a very near mic should be attached to the instruments at fixed point in relation to the instrument to overcome this problem.

We rarely use close mics with orchestral recordings but occasionally it’s necessary. Sometimes we’ll use a “clip on”, a mic attached to the instrument but that can also have issues (vibrations, mechanical noise) so sometimes we’ll use a fixed mic (on a stand) and try to get the musician not to move too much. This is typical with pop/rock singers and they’re used to it. Likewise, we’ll sometimes use clip ons for instruments in a drumkit but typically, clip ons are generally preferred for live performance more than for studio recordings.

How did the distancing requirements affect the recording process?

Sorry, I can’t answer that. I didn’t do any orchestral or large ensemble recording during the pandemic.

G

 

[71 dB]

Mic distances are incredibly important and have been experimented with extensively. Get mic distances wrong and you can cause yourself all kinds of nightmares in a multi-mic setup. Additionally, mic distances are often what differentiates different techniques. For example, increase the ORTF mic distance from 17cm to 20cm (and change the angle of incidence to 90deg) and it’s no longer an ORTF pair, it’s a DIN pair, increase the distance of a DIN pair to 30cms and it’s a NOS pair.

Yes, but the things that separates ORTF from OSS (Jecklin Disk) on principal level are that ORTF uses cardioid mics at 110° angle to create directivity that increases with frequency while OSS uses a disc in between the omnidirectional mics to create similar effect. Jürg Jecklin developed Jecklin Disk, because he felt omnidirectional mics are better than directional mics. If you use omnidirectional mics instead of directional mics, you can't achieve desired ILD and ISD information without something in between the mics to block the sound increasingly with sound, hence the disc. ORTF, DIN and NOS are just variations of the same idea while OSS is a variation of the idea. There is an variation of the OSS idea also, Schneider Disk (aka the pregnant wife of Jecklin Disk ), which aims to give more binaural sound.

An obvious disadvantage of all the stereo pair setups as a main array is with a 5.1 or greater mix,

Sure! I am thinking stereophonic recordings here, because all of this is about having recordings that are spatially compatible with speakers and headphones. The latter are stereophonic, so multichannel sound has to be downmixed for them anyway (another can of worms on its on).

which has been standard practice for many years now, while something like the Decca Tree is great for multi-channel mixes and stereo. There are other advantages and disadvantages between nearly all the setups but that’s an obvious one between the stereo and 3 mic arrays.

I have been thinking about a 5-channel variation of OSS. It would have 5 half-discs creating five 72° sections for the 5 mics.

We rarely use close mics with orchestral recordings but occasionally it’s necessary. Sometimes we’ll use a “clip on”, a mic attached to the instrument but that can also have issues (vibrations, mechanical noise) so sometimes we’ll use a fixed mic (on a stand) and try to get the musician not to move too much.

Yes, mic on a stand + musicians trying not to move too much is better, because the risk of mechanical noises is there with mics attached to the instrument.

 

[gregorio]

… OSS uses a disc in between the omnidirectional mics to create similar effect.

That depends on what you mean by “similar”. Cutting off (absorbing) the higher freqs from a side/quadrant of an omni-directional pattern (as per a Jecklin Disk) is not particularly similar to a cardioid pattern.

Jürg Jecklin developed Jecklin Disk, because he felt omnidirectional mics are better than directional mics.

In some respects (both freq response and directionality) they are better, in others they’re worse. An obvious example, an omni picks up sound much better from behind than a cardioid but of course that’s only better if you actually want to pick up sound from behind the mic, rather than what you’re actually pointing the mic at. A requirement of a main orchestral array is very good width/separation (and depth) a Jecklin Disk setup is not ideal for that. Not to say it couldn’t be done, just that it could usually be done better.

There is an variation of the OSS idea also, Schneider Disk (aka the pregnant wife of Jecklin Disk ), which aims to give more binaural sound.

Yes but more at the expense of speaker reproduction. Schneider disk is very rarely used because in almost all circumstances where you might use a Schneider disk, a dummy head setup would be superior.

Sure! I am thinking stereophonic recordings here, because all of this is about having recordings that are spatially compatible with speakers and headphones.

As 5.1 is stereophonic, I assume you mean 2 channel stereo? But “all of this” is NOT “about having recordings that are spatially compatible with speakers and headphones”, it’s all about making products that meet or exceed consumer demand. As all film for the last 40 years or so, virtually all HD TV and many orchestral recordings are expected and presented in surround, the vast majority (if not virtually all) orchestral recordings are done in surround and have been for many years. Because it’s relatively trivial to create a great stereo mix from a surround recording but not so going from a stereo recording to a surround mix. This is one of the reasons the Decca Tree array is so popular, it was invented as an improvement for 2 channel stereo mixes but as a 3 mic array is particularly well suited to the 3 main speaker arrangement of surround systems, the best of both worlds. It’s not as “spatially compatible” with headphones as the Jecklin Disk or better still a binaural (dummy head) setup, but it works acceptably well for the majority of headphone users, typically somewhat better than Jecklin Disk (and of course very much better than binaural recordings) with a two channel stereo speaker system and of course way better than Jecklin Disk for surround speakers.

I have been thinking about a 5-channel variation of OSS.

I can’t see what that would bring to the table? The whole point of Jecklin Disk is to make a 2 channel stereo recording that works on speakers but also roughly approximates some HRTF characteristics with headphones. A 5 channel variation of the Jecklin Disk would be difficult to construct, not work ideally with a 5.1 speaker setup and would only make sense for HPs with 5 channel output and there’s not many of those around.

G

 

[71 dB]

That depends on what you mean by “similar”. Cutting off (absorbing) the higher freqs from a side/quadrant of an omni-directional pattern (as per a Jecklin Disk) is not particularly similar to a cardioid pattern.

But the result is similar: Less high frequencies on ipsilateral side => ILD rises with frequency and angle of insident. Do we really argue about the meaning of "similar"? Semantic evaluation is part of communication. That's why words can be used flexibly within reason.

In some respects (both freq response and directionality) they are better, in others they’re worse. An obvious example, an omni picks up sound much better from behind than a cardioid but of course that’s only better if you actually want to pick up sound from behind the mic, rather than what you’re actually pointing the mic at. A requirement of a main orchestral array is very good width/separation (and depth) a Jecklin Disk setup is not ideal for that. Not to say it couldn’t be done, just that it could usually be done better.

Of course directive mics have their place and purpose. Why else would have have them? Jecklin Disk has obliviously very small width/separation at low frequencies, but larger at high frequencies. However, since Jecklin Disk creates ITD similarly at all frequencies, the sound is far from "double mono" at low frequencies. The width/separation is just encoded as phase difference following the basic principles of spatial hearing.

In my (uneducated) view if we think about reproduction by speakers, there are plenty of options for good main array, but many of these are not optimal for headphones. That's when solutions such as Jecklin Disk become viable. Jecklin Disk as the backbone of the recording would provide strong foundation for headphone spatiality, but the question is what does this mean for the speaker spatiality? If some harm is done compared to other main arrays such as Decca Tree, could this harm be undone with the other mics? And if we "undo" the harm, do we introduce new issues for headphone listening?

Yes but more at the expense of speaker reproduction. Schneider disk is very rarely used because in almost all circumstances where you might use a Schneider disk, a dummy head setup would be superior.

Yes, because a dummy head is even more binaural than Schneider Disk. The problem of dummy heads is that the spatiality isn't suitable for speakers anymore. If something is produced to headphones ONLY, then dummy heads are the superior way to do it. If speakers are included, then obviously we need something less binaural. They is some circumstances (small groups) Schneider Disk can work, while Jecklin Disk works better when recording bigger groups.

As 5.1 is stereophonic, I assume you mean 2 channel stereo?

Yes. It seem my definition is correct and indeed stereophonic means also "more channels of transmission and reproduction so that the reproduced sound seems to surround the listener and to come from more than one source." Interesting! I have always called anything more than 2 channels to be multichannel sound, not stereo. I have even believed the word "stereo" is latin and means two. Turns out "duo" is two for latin.

But “all of this” is NOT “about having recordings that are spatially compatible with speakers and headphones”, it’s all about making products that meet or exceed consumer demand. As all film for the last 40 years or so, virtually all HD TV and many orchestral recordings are expected and presented in surround, the vast majority (if not virtually all) orchestral recordings are done in surround and have been for many years. Because it’s relatively trivial to create a great stereo mix from a surround recording but not so going from a stereo recording to a surround mix. This is one of the reasons the Decca Tree array is so popular, it was invented as an improvement for 2 channel stereo mixes but as a 3 mic array is particularly well suited to the 3 main speaker arrangement of surround systems, the best of both worlds. It’s not as “spatially compatible” with headphones as the Jecklin Disk or better still a binaural (dummy head) setup, but it works acceptably well for the majority of headphone users, typically somewhat better than Jecklin Disk (and of course very much better than binaural recordings) with a two channel stereo speaker system and of course way better than Jecklin Disk for surround speakers.

What you say here makes a lot of sense I must admit. The conclusion is that those productions that have gone multichannel sound are difficult to make headphone compatible. So, the headphone compatibility is possible mainly in productions that are still done in 2 channel format. Since we also have tons of older 2 channel productions from the early days of stereo that weren't so headphone compatible (because at that time headphones weren't so popular), people like me with demands toward headphone compatibility are stuck with cross-feeders or even more sophisticated methods to address the problem.

I can’t see what that would bring to the table? The whole point of Jecklin Disk is to make a 2 channel stereo recording that works on speakers but also roughly approximates some HRTF characteristics with headphones. A 5 channel variation of the Jecklin Disk would be difficult to construct, not work ideally with a 5.1 speaker setup and would only make sense for HPs with 5 channel output and there’s not many of those around.

G

I don't know if it would bring anything to the table, but my brain likes to ponder with concepts/possibilities like this. It is my way to be happy.

 

[gregorio]

But the result is similar: Less high frequencies on ipsilateral side => ILD rises with frequency and angle of insident.

No, careful here, you’re falling into your old habit of ONLY considering one thing or group of things, rather than the entire picture. In respect of what I’ve quoted, it is similar but in other respects it isn’t. For example, I mentioned that because the Jecklin setup uses Omnis, it picks up sound from behind the mic, IE. The auditorium. So firstly, it’s not great for recording live performances because you’ll have a lot of audience noise and secondly, even without an audience, you’ll pick up a lot of room acoustics. A solution to the latter would be to put the Jecklin setup closer to the source, to pick up a higher ratio of direct sound but now it won’t function well as a main array because you won’t get as much coverage. Another example ….

Jecklin Disk has obliviously very small width/separation at low frequencies, but larger at high frequencies.

Firstly, that’s not great for an orchestra where most of the mid bass and almost all of the low bass is on the right hand side or far right side (cellos, tuba and basses). Secondly, the problem is worse because omni mics are more sensitive to low freqs at mid and far distances than cardioids and the disk is effectively transparent to low freqs. Sure, we’ve got ITD but even with the ideal listening position between the speakers, we’ve still got relatively poor separation/width, plus room acoustics issues and/or coverage issues. We could of course increase the angle of incidence and move the mics further apart but, that causes two issues: 1. The Jecklin disk would need to be huge, although we could overcome this by creating a mic that’s omni directional in the low freqs, increasingly more directional in the higher freqs and therefore do away with the disk altogether.
2. We would have a serious weakness in the phantom centre position, although we can solve this by putting another of our special omni mics there, plus, if we move this mic forward a bit we can help the sense of depth as well.

A great deal of experimentation was done and the best results were achieved with the stereo pair angle of incidence at a full 180deg and 2m apart, with the centre mic 1m in front and the whole thing placed above and just in front of the conductor. Good coverage, wide/separated image, good depth and it provides reasonable headphone compatibility too.

What I’ve described in issue one has already been done, the mic is called the Neuman M50 and what I’ve described in issue 2 has also been done, that’s the exact specifications of the Decca Tree which is designed specifically for use with the Neuman M50!

That's when solutions such as Jecklin Disk become viable. Jecklin Disk as the backbone of the recording would provide strong foundation for headphone spatiality, but the question is what does this mean for the speaker spatiality?

Explained above.

If some harm is done compared to other main arrays such as Decca Tree, could this harm be undone with the other mics?

Not as far as the additional room acoustics and audience noise is concerned. We could use the outriggers to help with the coverage and width but we’d need to rely on them quite heavily, so we’ll loose pretty much all the HP advantages of the Jecklin Disk setup.

And if we "undo" the harm, do we introduce new issues for headphone listening?

Yes, we’ve now got a very wide spaced (AB) pair mixed fairly equally with the Jecklin Disk. We’re pretty much back to square one of getting an arbitrary stereo mix for speakers to work on HPs.

I have always called anything more than 2 channels to be multichannel sound, not stereo.

“Stereo” is commonly used to describe 2 channel stereo but all surround formats are stereophonic and as you used the term “stereophonic” and we were also talking about surround, I wanted to be sure. In these circumstances it’s often wise to specify “2 channel stereo” to avoid confusion. Especially as the first widespread surround format was called “Dolby Stereo” which was a 4 channel (LCRS) surround.

G

 

[71 dB]

Instead of writing here, I watch Pink Panther movies and classic Doctor Who. I have nothing valuable to say and thinking about things and having ideas is clearly useless. Thanks for educating me gregorio.

 

[gregorio]

I have nothing valuable to say and thinking about things and having ideas is clearly useless. Thanks for educating me gregorio.

There’s a popular audiophile myth that engineers are cloth eared idiots who know nothing except how to make the loudness war worse. Sure, there are some duffers out there and many of them these days because anyone with a laptop, mic and free audio software can call themselves a recording engineer. Even at the high levels there are some who are not as competent as they should be but I’ve been lucky enough to work at some of the world’s best studios and the chief engineers there are extremely knowledgeable, very bright, very well educated, very creative, massively experienced and truly world class. Everything I said in my previous message was discovered by these specialists nearly 70 years ago! Compared to them, I’m definitely 2nd rate but I console myself that they’re specialists, I have other audio duties that they don’t know so much about.

So don’t give up with the ideas but ask rather than argue because there’s a very good chance it’s already been explored. If you’re interested in the subject, look up “BBC binaural proms” and follow the technical links. Some really innovative work being done in this field by the BBC R&D dept, creating live 3d audio mixes and creating complex, customised binaural mixes from the same mic feeds at the same time, in real time.

G

 

[bigshot]

Blake Edwards’ The Party is even funnier than the Pink Panther films. “Birdy num num”

 

[71 dB]

Blake Edwards’ The Party is even funnier than the Pink Panther films. “Birdy num num”

I like that movie a lot!

 

[bigshot]

Jacques Tati’s Mon Oncle and Pierre Etaix’s YoYo are great too.

 

[71 dB]

Jacques Tati’s Mon Oncle and Pierre Etaix’s YoYo are great too.

I am a Tati fan (Playtime is in my opinion one of the best films ever), but I don't know Pierre Etaix.

The problem with movies is that seeing them can be challenging. I watch movies mainly on Blu-ray which to my eyes gives good enough presentation if the source material is good. I also watch movies on TV occationally. I don't use streaming services. French movies are mainly released on Blu-ray in France (and perhaps in Belgium). Since French people think French language is the only one that counts and other languages shouldn't even exist, those releases don't have any subtitles. If there is a German release, it has perhaps only German subtitles (and dubbing). In the UK French movies are not popular. Native English speakers are not enthusiastic to watch movies with subtitles. They rather just watch movies with English dialog. The rest of the European countries are too small to release "niche" movies. So, most of the time there won't be a European Blu-ray release of French movies with English subtitles not to mention Finnish which would be ideal for me because I am a Finn. As for US releases, region coding becomes one problem. I do have a region free player, but for how long? Will my next player be? So, I avoid locked to region A or C, because I live on region B. Another problem is that the shipping costs from the US to Finland/Europe are nowadays ridiculously high and there are issues with importing stuff and all that hassle*. So, I order NOTHING from the US (even ordering from the UK became problematic thanks to Brexit!). Pierre Etaix has been released only in the US + Canada, so that's that. It is possible his films are shown on TV here.

Luckily some French movies have had Nordic releases with Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish subtitles. Tati's movies for example! I have also managed to collect some French movies released in UK and Germany with English subtitles.

* Years ago orders under 45 euros were duty free => no hassle. Then they dropped the limit to 22.5 euros. Now nothing is duty free.

 

[71 dB]

There’s a popular audiophile myth that engineers are cloth eared idiots who know nothing except how to make the loudness war worse. Sure, there are some duffers out there and many of them these days because anyone with a laptop, mic and free audio software can call themselves a recording engineer. Even at the high levels there are some who are not as competent as they should be but I’ve been lucky enough to work at some of the world’s best studios and the chief engineers there are extremely knowledgeable, very bright, very well educated, very creative, massively experienced and truly world class. Everything I said in my previous message was discovered by these specialists nearly 70 years ago! Compared to them, I’m definitely 2nd rate but I console myself that they’re specialists, I have other audio duties that they don’t know so much about.

So don’t give up with the ideas but ask rather than argue because there’s a very good chance it’s already been explored. If you’re interested in the subject, look up “BBC binaural proms” and follow the technical links. Some really innovative work being done in this field by the BBC R&D dept, creating live 3d audio mixes and creating complex, customised binaural mixes from the same mic feeds at the same time, in real time.

G

I'd say you have been very very lucky with your career as an audio engineer. I have been very unlucky with the work I have done. That's why I am a tired bitter man who struggles with self-esteem every day. Coming to this discussion board was one of my efforts to change that, but somehow the effect has been the opposite. People like you have shown me my place, humbled me and the struggle continues. I don't understand how people can become so good at something, that other people look up to them. To me it seems to require super-human capabilities.

Technology has changed the ways music is produced and made it possible to produce music in new ways. A dude with a laptop may not know what you know, but he might know something else relevant to what he is doing. I make music with Garageband. I export the "raw" tracks and mix them together in Audacity. I have written Nyquist plugins for Audacity to have effects I want for example to control spatiality. Working under such limitations keeps creativity alive and since my working career is a total mess, I need to think about the future and save money. Music-production related software and hardware is ridiculously expensive if you make music only as a hobby newer profiting one penny of it. Often the software doesn't even work properly and something like updating the operating system can introduce problems. A typical simple home studio with all the gear and software can easily cost $10.000. Where the hell do normal people get that kind of money? Aren't most people broke struggling to pay the next rent to avoid eviction?

I'll check out “BBC binaural proms”, thanks!

 

[gregorio]

I'd say you have been very very lucky with your career as an audio engineer.

Both very lucky and at other times quite unlucky.

People like you have shown me my place, humbled me and the struggle continues.

It’s NOT my intention to show you your place or humble you, just to correct inaccuracies or falsehoods where I’m able.

I don't understand how people can become so good at something, that other people look up to them.

There’s not just one way. Sometimes it’s massive natural talent, sometimes it’s purely huge amounts of hard work to the point of an obsessive disorder but mostly it’s a bit of both. In my case, I was dropped into the deep end in a big way a few times and I worked obsessively hard to avoid looking like an idiot. After quite some time of doing that, some people started to “look up to me”, which was a big shock because I felt I was still just trying to avoid being the idiot amongst my peers/competitors.

I export the "raw" tracks and mix them together in Audacity. … Music-production related software and hardware is ridiculously expensive if you make music only as a hobby newer profiting one penny of it. Often the software doesn't even work properly and something like updating the operating system can introduce problems. A typical simple home studio with all the gear and software can easily cost $10.000.

You’re lucky, when I started about 30 years ago, computer DAWs were just toys for enthusiasts, incapable of pro standards. Entry price to pro standards at that time was about $200k minimum and that was for a cut down/compromised system!

If by hardware you mean mics and recording facilities, then yes, it gets expensive fast, if you want pro quality recordings. But if you’re OK with just synths, samples and virtual instruments, it’s ridiculously cheap. GarageBand is really a toy, Audacity is good for audio editing and some specific audio tasks but is NOT a decent DAW for music production.

As you probably know, Pro Tools is pretty much the industry standard, virtually all the top studios use it. Many composers/song writers prefer Logic Audio or CuBase but for the seriously budget conscious, Reaper (https://www.reaper.fm) is the popular choice. It’s a proper DAW, mature, stable and very well featured, including for multi-channel. It comes with various supplied plugins and supports VST/VST3, AU and other plug-in formats, so if you’re willing to search around there’s many good free plugins. The life-time license is $60 but after the 60 day trial you can continue using it without paying the license, if you don’t mind the “nag screen”. I would say it’s a no brainier for you.

G