To crossfeed or not to crossfeed? That is the question...

[71 dB]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "spatiality". You appear to use it as a catch all word to justify whatever point you want to make.

There is more to speakers than just blending between channels. There's kinesthetic energy you can feel. There are incredibly complex primary distance cues that combine with secondary distance cues in the mix to create an illusion of *specific* space- not just generalized space. There are subtle timing effects and reflections of sound, all of which add to the naturalness. There's head tracking. You can get up out of your chair and move around the room and hear how the sound is different in different places. All of those things work together to define the space that the sound inhabits. The sound affects the space. The space affects the sound. Isn't that "spatiality"?

Blending the channels to reduce ping pong when you listen with headphones is fine. It might take a bit of the curse off of one downside to headphone listening. But it doesn't make headphones sound spatial like speakers. It just blends channels. That's a nice jury rigged patch on one problem. If you like it swell.

I do use speakers. I don't really disagree about what you say. People use headphones also for example to disturb other people less. This forum exists because people use headphones. You don't use much headphones, do you, but for some reason you post here a lot. I have seen you active on many other forums too. I don't know how you have so much time to post, but good for you I guess...

By the way, I happen to have this album and it sounds FANTASTIC on speakers! It's a lot of fun on headphones too.

Interesting take on fantastic... ...to me this recordings uses very aggressive and simple methods to create spatial effects. The hard left/right panned instruments are localized to the speakers while the other sound spread all over. This has been interesting in the past, but in the 21st century this is not sophisticated.

 

[The Jester]

Maybe more like this ?

 

[bigshot]

Maybe more like this ?

I have this album and a compilation that has tracks from it. The binaural does nothing for my ears, but the multichannel mix on my speaker system is fantastic. It creates a full 360 sound field with jungle sounds and flies buzzing around. Neat album. It reminds me of Wendy Carlos’s Sonic Seasonings album.

 

[The Jester]

Bought his “Aero” album on CD when it was released over 10 years ago, it came with stereo and 5.1 versions on the discs,
Great album if you can still find it …

 

[bigshot]

Yeah, that is the album I’m thinking of. Love it!

 

[gregorio]

If sound engineer in general are as stubborn as you are it is no wonder fresh ideas are left alone.

What fresh ideas are left alone? You think I’ve never tried a Jecklin Disk? And, it’s not a fresh idea anyway, it’s a very old idea. It’s just an adaptation of Blumlein’s baffled stereo mic technique from about 1930!

However, there are people able to "think outside the box" such as Jürg Jecklin.

He wasn’t thinking outside the box, he adapted a “box” that’s been around since stereo was first patented. I and many engineers often think outside the box but not if what I’m after is best achieved with a box already developed!

Headphone spatiality has been for whatever reason low priority.

No it hasn’t, we just don’t give priority to your personal perception of headphone spatiality.

It is ridiculous to say there is NOTHING to be done to improve headphone spatiality.

It is ridiculous to say that, so why are you? I certainly have not said that and neither has anyone else to my recollection, so why are you saying it?

Why do symphony recordings have so differing spatiality if there is only a few ways to do it?

There are only a few ways to do it, although an infinite number of small variations within some of those ways. The reason symphony recordings have different spatiality is because they’re recorded in different locations, mixed differently, performed differently and the musicians, engineers and producers have different intentions.

You assume I know nothing, but of course I know something because I have listened to recordings. I know how different they sound. To me this tells there is way to do things in many ways.

I assume you know little/nothing because that’s the impression you give, even after it’s been explained to you.

There is an almost infinite number of ways to do things but that number is massively reduced according to practicalities, the intentions of the musicians, engineers/producer and preferences of the target demographics.

Try to understand me and what I do. I know what can be done! I have tested things out.

Really, you’ve tried recording a symphony orchestra with just a Jecklin Disk setup have you?

Many producers use similar ideas. You are shooting ideas down. That is not good.

Yes, it is very good, in fact it’s why professional engineers are professional and not unpaid amateurs. Shooting down crazy ideas people come up with, based on decades of experience and experimentation of what does and doesn’t work, is why we’re employed as professionals in the first place!

Like many other engineers, if I’m not sure if something will work, I’ll give it a go (budget and time allowing) but that’s not the case here because I have already given it a go and already know the advantages and disadvantages, that’s what I’m paid for!

If ideas don't work then you know they don't work but how do you know if you don't try? What have you done to improve spatiality? Nothing?

Now that’s just nonsense! I have tried Jecklin disk and pretty much all other mic techniques and there isn’t a single project I’ve been involved with in nearly 30 years where I haven’t tried to improve spatiality because that’s a fundamental part of music/sound mixing and always has been. You think maybe I’ve never used pan-pots, delays or reverbs? You think I’ve never checked a mix on cans or made any adjustment I felt appropriate?

G

 

[71 dB]

What fresh ideas are left alone? You think I’ve never tried a Jecklin Disk? And, it’s not a fresh idea anyway, it’s a very old idea. It’s just an adaptation of Blumlein’s baffled stereo mic technique from about 1930!

I am NOT talking about Jecklin Disk, but Jecklin Disk -type spatial philosophy! Use whatever mics you want, but the spatiality can be shaped to "mimic" a Jecklin Disk recording in a DAW. Each separate track doesn't even need to be 100 % headphone compatible alone, because only the whole mix matters and tracks can mask each other's spatial problems to certain extent.

He wasn’t thinking outside the box, he adapted a “box” that’s been around since stereo was first patented. I and many engineers often think outside the box but not if what I’m after is best achieved with a box already developed!

Well, at least he did something.

No it hasn’t, we just don’t give priority to your personal perception of headphone spatiality.

I can clearly hear that from the recordings I own... ...I give priority to my personal perception of headphone spatiality, of course!

It is ridiculous to say that, so why are you? I certainly have not said that and neither has anyone else to my recollection, so why are you saying it?

Because you are against what I say.

There are only a few ways to do it, although an infinite number of small variations within some of those ways. The reason symphony recordings have different spatiality is because they’re recorded in different locations, mixed differently, performed differently and the musicians, engineers and producers have different intentions.

Exactly! So why not study which locations give better result in regards of speaker/headphone compatibility? Why not study what style of mixing is the best and so on... ..there are many things that can be tinkered at least a little bit and the net sum of all those aspects can be huge, hence we have very different sounding recordings!

I assume you know little/nothing because that’s the impression you give, even after it’s been explained to you.

We have different backgrounds. That's the main reason we don't understand each other. I get what you "explain" to me, but I am not a simpleton believing it nullifies/debunks everything I say.

There is an almost infinite number of ways to do things but that number is massively reduced according to practicalities, the intentions of the musicians, engineers/producer and preferences of the target demographics.

Of course, but "massively reduced" can still be significantly more than one. I am after JUST ONE new way to do things, the Jecklin Disk-philosophy way.

Really, you’ve tried recording a symphony orchestra with just a Jecklin Disk setup have you?

No, I DON'T suggest anyone should try to do THAT! Use whatever mics you think are appropriate to record the orchestra and then mix the tracks together shaping each track to have spatiality that is a little bit too "wide" for headphones, but not too wide, because the final mix of all individual tracks will have a bit narrower spatiality because of masking. Balance of instruments should not be an issue, because track levels and the "panning" of the tracks can be adjusted separately to perfection. These principles seem to work when I mix my own music and they also seemed to work when I mixed music by a band on a mixing course.

The idea of Jecklin Disk-philosophy is to have the spatial signature of a Jecklin Disk without the practical problems/limitations of using a Jecklin Disk.

Yes, it is very good, in fact it’s why professional engineers are professional and not unpaid amateurs. Shooting down crazy ideas people come up with, based on decades of experience and experimentation of what does and doesn’t work, is why we’re employed as professionals in the first place!

I have experimented with these things for years. How else would I even have these ideas and opinions about how things should be done? Do you really think I have zero knowledge? If so, then people who don't know what ILD means have NEGATIVE knowledge.

Like many other engineers, if I’m not sure if something will work, I’ll give it a go (budget and time allowing) but that’s not the case here because I have already given it a go and already know the advantages and disadvantages, that’s what I’m paid for!

I don't know what you have tried.

Now that’s just nonsense! I have tried Jecklin disk and pretty much all other mic techniques and there isn’t a single project I’ve been involved with in nearly 30 years where I haven’t tried to improve spatiality because that’s a fundamental part of music/sound mixing and always has been. You think maybe I’ve never used pan-pots, delays or reverbs? You think I’ve never checked a mix on cans or made any adjustment I felt appropriate?

I don't even know what you have produced & mixed! Why do you think I am talking about YOUR skills? Most of the recordings I own could have been better in my opinion (in regards of headphone spatiality) , so there are audio engineers out there who could have done better job theoretically. I don't know if you are one of those audio engineers or not.

 

[gregorio]

So why not study which locations give better result in regards of speaker/headphone compatibility? Why not study what style of mixing is the best and so on...

What do you think recording engineers have been doing for the last century? You think professional engineers never study “what style of mixing is the best” or the nuances of recording in different locations?

It’s statements and suggestions like this which indicate you don’t know the first thing about engineering/production.

Of course, but "massively reduced" can still be significantly more than one. I am after JUST ONE new way to do things, the Jecklin Disk-philosophy way.

Sometimes there is just one fundamental way of doing things for best results, sometimes 2 or 3 and occasionally many but the Jecklin Disk is extremely rarely the best way.

Use whatever mics you think are appropriate to record the orchestra and then mix the tracks together shaping each track to have spatiality that is a little bit too "wide" for headphones, but not too wide, because the final mix of all individual tracks will have a bit narrower spatiality because of masking. Balance of instruments should not be an issue, because track levels and the "panning" of the tracks can be adjusted separately to perfection.

Clearly you’ve never mixed an orchestral recording. How on earth can track levels and panning be adjusted separately to spatial information when that spatial information is on those recorded tracks? You think maybe we can magically separate all the reverb and spatial information from the instruments themselves when recording a live orchestra?

I have experimented with these things for years.

Obviously you haven’t, it’s clear you have no idea how orchestras are recorded and haven’t even done it once, let alone for years! If you had done it, you would not have made the suggestion above which is impossible.

How else would I even have these ideas and opinions about how things should be done?

God knows. Maybe a fanatic who’s played around with some samples and free plugins in a DAW and think they know how to record and produce an orchestra?

Do you really think I have zero knowledge?

Why else would you be suggesting nonsense, things that even a beginner student would quickly discover?

I don't even know what you have produced & mixed! Why do you think I am talking about YOUR skills?

Let me get this straight, you have no idea what I’ve mixed, produced, studied or done and that’s why you’re telling me how I should do my job? You’re joking?

Because you are against what I say.

I disagree with you’re suggested methodology of recording/mixing, so that’s a valid reason for you to make up ridiculous assertions, seriously?

G

 

[bigshot]

duffer

 

[71 dB]

What do you think recording engineers have been doing for the last century? You think professional engineers never study “what style of mixing is the best” or the nuances of recording in different locations?

Recording engineers in general have been much much more interested of speaker spatiality than headphone spatiality. Perhaps these days thanks to headphones listening becoming much more common things have changed, but for decades speaker spatiality dominated and created conventions that are not so headphone-friendly such as ping-pong stereophony. Had sound engineers solved these issues decades ago, we wouldn't be needing crossfeeders much, would we?

It’s statements and suggestions like this which indicate you don’t know the first thing about engineering/production.

You are for some reason against my ideas and views and try to use your authority of decades in the industry to strike me down, but I am not going away. It is reidiculous to say I don't know anything. As if I had not been to schools one day in my life! I have an university degree! What is it you think I know? My own name?

I don't claim to know everything. Nobody does. I am educated enough to know there is always more to learn. Your knowledge is limited too and people disagree. The best engineers in the World have their own sound, own philosophy to do things.

Sometimes there is just one fundamental way of doing things for best results, sometimes 2 or 3 and occasionally many but the Jecklin Disk is extremely rarely the best way.

Jecklin Disk-philosophy is about having the strengths of Jecklin Disk (spatial compatibility with speakers and headphones) without the weaknesses and problems. You don't need Jecklin Disks to use Jecklin Disk-philosophy in mixing, because the spatiality is shaped in a DAW. It is about using spatiality cleverly so, that the result has great spatiality on speakers and headphones.

Clearly you’ve never mixed an orchestral recording.

No, I have not. As I say, I have mixed my own music and one track of a band on a mixing course.

How on earth can track levels and panning be adjusted separately to spatial information when that spatial information is on those recorded tracks?

Huh? Because level information and spatial information are practically orthogonal mathematically.

You think maybe we can magically separate all the reverb and spatial information from the instruments themselves when recording a live orchestra?

Well, don't you use close up mics and room mics to make this possible? This was the case when I mixed the track of the band on the mixing course and I didn't have too much trouble of controlling the room reverb level. These were somewhat amateurish recordings of a random no name band.

Obviously you haven’t, it’s clear you have no idea how orchestras are recorded and haven’t even done it once, let alone for years! If you had done it, you would not have made the suggestion above which is impossible.

Why do you keep talking about orchestras as if nothing else was ever recorded? If orchestras can't be recorded and mixed with my ideas then FINE. Something else maybe can. For example I use the Jecklin Disk philosophy to mix my own music all the time!

God knows. Maybe a fanatic who’s played around with some samples and free plugins in a DAW and think they know how to record and produce an orchestra?

I have never claimed to know how to record and produce an orchestra! Very few people need to know that. Somehow you are one of those rare people. You are probably the only one on this board.

Why else would you be suggesting nonsense, things that even a beginner student would quickly discover?

Nonsense to you, not to me. I'm sorry I am not a super-genius who was born with the knowledge of how to record orchestras. I am just a dummy who needs years if not decades to learn and understand things.

Let me get this straight, you have no idea what I’ve mixed, produced, studied or done and that’s why you’re telling me how I should do my job? You’re joking?

I'm not telling YOU what to do. I don't even know how you mix and produce! I am suggesting everybody working in the field how the problems of headphone spatiality could be fixed. Maybe you already have fixed this problem in your way, but not everybody has.

I disagree with you’re suggested methodology of recording/mixing, so that’s a valid reason for you to make up ridiculous assertions, seriously?

G

What should I be doing in your opinion? What assertions should I be making? Do I know anything about anything in your opinion?

 

[bigshot]

Most people go away and come back less agitated.

 

[71 dB]

Thinking about this, maybe I should just tell how I mix my music, what kind of spatiality I create. Maybe that makes professionals here feel less targeted?

 

[bigshot]

My advice is to stop being emotional and stop taking factual disagreement as a personal attack.

 

[71 dB]

My advice is to stop being emotional and stop taking factual disagreement as a personal attack.

Not a bad advice at all bigshot, but for a person who is struggling with low self-esteem taking comments like "Clearly you know nothing about this, because you have not recorded/mixed/produced orchestras..." is difficult to stop taking personally and emotionally. I am tired of hearing from other people that the things I HAVE DONE mean nothing and are worthless.

I am ready to discuss about the problems of Jecklin Disk for example on technical level, but gregorio has a tendency of attacking my knowledge and experience on the field of recording to discredit me as a debater. It is also annoying to me, an INTJ/P with asperger's how he implies that audio engineers with a lot of experience (especially with orchestra) are above constructive criticism. Architects are constantly criticized for their "ugly" architecture (no need to "respect" the artistic intent), but it is somehow blasphemy to point out stereophonic recordings have spatial issues with headphones...

 

[bigshot]

You aren’t arguing about the subject any more. You’re arguing your emotions and you can’t let go. Gregorio does this stuff for a living. If you listened to what he says and incorporated it, you could grasp what he’s saying and stop putting yourself into the position of punching bag. He isn’t doing it to you. He’s just responding to the same factual error repeated over and over and over. You’re doing it to yourself by being more invested in arguing than the topic being discussed.

This isn’t about spatiality. It never was about that. It’s about your bruised ego. You don’t have to win at all costs. There’s way too much of that around here already. No one listens to each other, and everyone speaks entirely for their own benefit. It’s all a big dumb contest for “king of the forum”. That’s lame. Better to listen and try to understand. It isn’t about winning an argument. It’s about learning from each other.

You have a professional sound engineer talking with you. Take advantage of that. Don’t try to be more of an expert than an expert.