Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message . ..
I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
here,
i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
in the
real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
effect, just to
add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
have.

Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
that,
of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
gear.

One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
absorption and diffusers.

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
to fix your room.


peace
dawg

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here,
i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the
real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to
add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.

Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that,
of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.

Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D

Not from me.

You can start with a Hafler difference-signal setup while you're looking
for
a synthesizer. (The Yamaha DSP-1 shows up all the time on eBay; just be
patient and wait for one with a remote control. If a Yamaha DSP-3000 or
JVC
XP-A1000 or XP-A1010 shows up, grab it. JVC still has remote controls,
though they're down to three.)

I should point out that the most-significant ambience is the "lateral"
sound
of the hall, not the rear reflections. All the synthesizers I mentioned
produce four channels of ambience, two of which are intended to come from
the sides.


In the 80's I worked for the classical organ centre in Oldham, they used the
Alesis digiverb units in 'dead' churches to liven up the rear speakers,
heard one once on Songs of Praise which was very weird, the organ finished
each verse with this long cathedral like decay but the choir just stopped
dead....... the Alesis is very good though.

Pete

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
to fix your room.

No, but it does help the recording.

Remember that, no matter how good the room, the reproduced sound comes
mostly from the front -- whereas the spatial impression (SI) of a hall is
determined primarily by lateral sound.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque)
music properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts"
the acoustics of the relatively small spaces in which these works
were performed. (I'm not talking about Vespers of 1610, okay?)

I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording
was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like.

I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that have to
do with my observation, one way or another?

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"That's too much echo... echo... echo... Turn it off... off.. off..." --
Stan Freberg, "Heartbreak Hotel".

Twenty years ago, JVC and Yamaha made consumer reverb units whose programs
were modeled after specific churches, concert halls, and other performance
venues. If you're trying to produce a natural sense of reverbererberation,
this sort of device is what you want.

You should be looking for a Yamaha DSP-1, DSP-3000, JVC XP-A1000, XP-A1010.
I don't remember if the DSP-1 has a digital input; the other models do. The
DSP-1 requires its remote control and is useless without it. The others can
be operated from their front panels but it's a bit clumsy and inconvenient
to do so.

All offer four outputs, two rear and two side. The programs are adjustable,
to match the sound of the synthesized reverb to the ambience of the
recording.

They sometimes show up on eBay. The Yamaha DSP-1 is fairly common, the
others less so. I recently bought a JVC XP-A1010 as a backup to the XP-A1000
I already own. (I also have a Yamaha DSP-3000 and Lexicon CP-3plus.)

You should always run the ambience through added speakers. You should
_never_ mix it with the original. It screws up the sound quite badly.

I agree about not mixing any additional reverb into the main
channels. There will usually already be enough recorded
reverb already.

The later DSP-A3090 and DSP-A1 integrated amps work well,
too, as does the still later RX-Z1 receiver, although having
their own amps built in kind of limits their flexibility
with complex audio set ups. I assume that the latest RX-Z9
version also does well, although I have never reviewed the
unit. I reviewed the other devices in issues 65 (Sept/Oct,
1997), 72 (Nov/Dec, 1998, and also reviewed the Lexicon DC-1
in that issue), and 93 (Dec, 2002/Jan, 2003) of The Sensible
Sound.

The three Yamaha units mentioned above have a
"Classical/Opera" mode that I find superior to the various
"hall" and "club" simulation modes. While those do not
include a center feed, Classical/Opera does, and it gets the
center info via the usual Dolby Surround, L+R "derived"
center circuitry in the units. Normally, I find the center
feed a tad too loud when it comes to producing a faux center
from a two-channel source, but backing off the center level
about 3 dB widens the soundstage back up and the result
works particularly well if the listener is sitting somewhere
but the sweet spot.

The hall-simulation surround ambiance generated by the
Classical/Opera mode varies in loudness between the three
units mentioned, and with both the DSP-A1 and RX-Z1 I find
it best to back off the surround effects levels by about 3
dB, compared to what the set-up menu offers for the global
movie-sound set-up level. The units make this easy to do,
and the settings can be fixed for any of the surround modes.

I also find that the two front "effects" channels work
better with the front "effects" speakers not in the front
corners as Yamaha recommends, but moved further down the
side walls, and aimed across the room at each other and not
out into the listening area. Also, rather than locate the
rear surround speakers in the back corners as Yamaha
suggests, I find that they work better also mounted on the
side walls, perhaps ten degrees behind directly to the sides.

In all cases, the wider dispersing the surround speakers are
the better they perform. Also, I find that a wider room
(with a long front wall) works better than a narrow one. One
exception involves the Lexicon processor I reviewed, which
works at its best in a shoebox-shaped room, with the
main-channel speakers on the shorter wall.

Howard Ferstler

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message . ..

I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
here,
i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
in the
real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
effect, just to
add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
have.

Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
that,
of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
gear.


One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
absorption and diffusers.

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
to fix your room.

Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.
Not meaning to sound like a knowitall, but I am aware of just how good
music can sound in a good room with good gear correctly setup.
In most homes I visit, there's hardly even a stereo image. Though my
current (way cheaper than friends) gear isn't yop notch, I still have
good positional definition of instruments in a concerto, have a sense of
depth behind speakers et al.. I just miss something in the other
direction, the room I'm in; it feels like having.. only stereo.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here,
i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the
real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to
add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have.


Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that,
of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear.


Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D


Not from me.

You can start with a Hafler difference-signal setup while you're looking for
a synthesizer. (The Yamaha DSP-1 shows up all the time on eBay; just be
patient and wait for one with a remote control. If a Yamaha DSP-3000 or JVC
XP-A1000 or XP-A1010 shows up, grab it. JVC still has remote controls,
though they're down to three.)

I should point out that the most-significant ambience is the "lateral" sound
of the hall, not the rear reflections. All the synthesizers I mentioned
produce four channels of ambience, two of which are intended to come from
the sides.

Now it probably gets a Bit OT, sorry for that.
I understand the lateral part, had to reflect a little on that, though.
But I have a problem understanding mixing the additional lateral setup
with the usual 5/7.1 surround in films.

Do note I don't have such, so I have freedom for a new implementation.
All I want is the full range front, with fidelity for pure music, which
is way more important to me than what's in films.

To this I'm looking at adding the ambiance we discuss here _and_ the
rear part of films - but without ending up with six speakers.
I'm thinking.. since this is for a normal (not oversized) appartment, I
can't offset my couch to have rear speakers truly behind listening pos.
So maybe mounting your mentioned lateral speakers to the sides of my
preferred listening position, further to the sides than normal for rear
speakers, can serve the dual purpose of laterality for music and
rearability for films (does those words even exist?).

Maybe I'm just babbling, dreaming, and will wake up tomorrow ;)

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Mogens V. wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good
hall
to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place.



Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings,
which is
what the OP was asking about?


Well, a couple points. If it's popular/pop music, one may choose to not
even bother ;) If it's classical, one may choose another recording.

Nevertheles, even though I prefer recordings the way they were made (and
hopefully intended) by the rec engineer, I never opted for a surround
system, to much criticism from friends (a gots-to-have these days).

With two-channel audio the engineer, no matter how good he
is, has to make a compromise. With live music, most of the
reverb one hears comes from places other than the soundstage
area. However, with two-channel recordings, all of that hall
reverb comes from up front. The home listening room adds
reverb, of course, but it is much different from what the
hall would deliver. The engineer is stuck with that
situation when making two-channel recordings.

Using a home-based reverb synthesizer (which may take the
mono attribute of a recording and reverberate it to surround
speakers) or a reverb extractor (which may take the L minus
R part of the recorded source material and send it directly
to the surround speakers, usually after applying some delay
and maybe additional reverb) helps to overcome this problem.
This is the case if either technology is well engineered and
the levels are not goosed too much and the room is decent
and the speakers are located properly. The result will get
some ersatz reverb out into the room and help to make a bad
situation a bit better. No system can properly duplicate a
real-world hall, but extracted or synthesize reverb in
combination with two or three channels up front is a much
better approach than basic two-channel stereo.

I'd prefer a good stereo with full range fronts and tonewise matching
rear speakers for pseudo-quadro/surround for films _and_ for a more
spacious experience for at least some music.
I have absolutely no interest in center speakers and subwoofers.

Well, if one's main speakers are solid bass producers a
subwoofer may not be required, particularly with lighter
weight musical source materials. However, a really good,
really well integrated subwoofer can do several things
better than full-range speakers operating alone.

First, it takes pressure off of the satellite amps. They no
longer have to deal with low bass.

Second, it takes pressure off of the satellite woofer
sections. They no longer have to deal with low bass, which
can be very important if those woofers in the satellites are
not particularly potent.

Third, set up right (close to two or more room boundaries) a
subwoofer helps to eliminate boundary-related suckout
artifacts that one gets with typically set-up satellite
speakers that are positioned well out into the open. With
the proper crossover frequency, the sub operates below its
suckout cancellation point and the satellites operate above
theirs.

Fourth, good subs will get the bottom octave better than
most full-range speakers. Yes, most music does not go down
to 20 Hz, but in many cases hall ambiance does go that low,
or even lower, and so a good subwoofer will do a better job
of simulating the subjective "space" of a good hall better
than most full-range speakers.

As for the center channel, look at it this way. During a
live performance a centered soloist will be generating two
arrival clues: one for each ear. However, with two-channel
reproduction and a "phantom" center a centered soloist
generates four arrival clues: one from each speaker for each
ear. This is abnormal, both in terms of inter-system
frequency-response cancellations and also in terms of focus,
particularly when listening from anywhere but the sweet
spot, and has only been lauded by traditionalists because
they are not aware of just what a centered soloist sounds
like in a real-world hall. Going to a center channel (even
one that involves "deriving" a steered center feed from the
L+R part of a stereo source) gives the listener the more
realistic two arrival clues.

Yes, you still get cancellations and other artifacts between
the center channel speaker and the left and right mains, but
having an additional channel reduces their impact compared
to what they sound like with only two channels.

Uhh ohh, I'm most surely going to be lectured now :-D

But not lectured in a nasty way, at least by me.

Howard Ferstler

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message . ..

I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say
here,
i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens
in the
real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal
effect, just to
add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't
have.

Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do
that,
of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested
gear.


One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible
was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband
absorption and diffusers.

Well, this may eliminate some of the slap echo and
reflecting hot spots, but the net result is still a
recording that has the reverb mostly coming from up front.
This is not the way it is at a live performance.

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers
you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb
in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going
to fix your room.

It will not fix it. Nothing can fix it. However, done right
(with the levels not too loud and the timings not too
extreme) putting synthesized or extracted reverb out into
the room (even if that reverb is an ersatz simulation) does
a better job of simulating live sound than having just two
channels up front.

The problem with most surround sound set ups is that the
user will play the surround channels too loud. This
certainly is the case with store demos. I suppose the
demonstrator simply wants the guest to be extremely aware of
the surround channels. However, what you want is for the
listener to NOT be aware of the surround channels.

Howard Ferstler

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Yes, but how do you do that with existing, commercial recordings,
which is what the OP was asking about?

The simple solution is: If it ain't good, don't buy it! "Remastering" a
bad recording won't give you a good recording, remastering a good
recording will often give you a bad recording.

How do you replace a poor recording of a great performance with a good
recording of the same performance? I don't think even Albus Dumbledore can
do that.