Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
...
It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
recordings
of the music of any era has added reverb.

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 the Vespers of 1610, okay?)


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

I did, back when J. Gordon Holt was running Stereophile. Sometime in the
1980s-1990s, perhaps in reaction to the close-miked Deutsche Grammophon &
similar recordings, classical producers began opting for much "wetter"
recordings -- i.e., more reverb -- whether via placing the mics farther back
or adding artificial reverb. This coincided with the shift in audiophile
publications, led at the time by The Absolute Sound in the USA and Hi-Fi
News & Record Review in the UK, toward an emphasis on soundstaging as the
be-all-and-end-all of audio quality, rather than tonal accuracy. (This
reached the absurd point where reviewers were raving about speakers with
utterly skewed tonal response but incredible soundstaging, like the Spicas.)
The recordings followed suit; heck, what's the point of having
super-soundstaging in your playback system and not using it? So now the
recordings are swamped with reverberberberb.

Peace,
Paul

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

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.

You normally wouldn't. The ambience systems I'm describing are for the
enhancement of two-channel recordings.

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?).

If you're using the extra speakers only for ambience, they need not be large
or expensive -- merely low in coloration. In addition, small speakers allow
more-flexible positioning.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Howard Ferstler wrote:

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

Exactly my observation from visits around. Most always I can _hear_ the
center channel and wish they'd reduce it just a tad, not unlike the
approx 3dB you mentioned elsewhere.
Often it's even worse off with the rear speaker levels.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:09:05 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
.. .
It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most
recordings
of the music of any era has added reverb.

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 the Vespers of 1610, okay?)


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

I did, back when J. Gordon Holt was running Stereophile. Sometime in the
1980s-1990s, perhaps in reaction to the close-miked Deutsche Grammophon &
similar recordings, classical producers began opting for much "wetter"
recordings -- i.e., more reverb -- whether via placing the mics farther back
or adding artificial reverb. This coincided with the shift in audiophile
publications, led at the time by The Absolute Sound in the USA and Hi-Fi
News & Record Review in the UK, toward an emphasis on soundstaging as the
be-all-and-end-all of audio quality, rather than tonal accuracy. (This
reached the absurd point where reviewers were raving about speakers with
utterly skewed tonal response but incredible soundstaging, like the Spicas.)
The recordings followed suit; heck, what's the point of having
super-soundstaging in your playback system and not using it? So now the
recordings are swamped with reverberberberb.

Peace,
Paul


I did though, read in Stereophile that Rhino (Bill Inglot) was a
little heavy on the sweetening, when others praised his work. How he
got to the top of the field, in early CD mastering, is sickening. I
called Rhino once, complaining about a relesase and they said "Bill
loves treble"

Abbedd

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

"Mogens V." wrote in
message
. dk...
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.

I cant see it either but I sure can hear 3d in stereo
recordings in my treated listening room. Of course some
recordings have more than others but I do not hear any room or
3d with any stereo gear in untreated rooms. I just hear the
untreated room. This is kind of odd but intuitive once one
listens for awhile in a treated room.

Listening to pop music in my treated room I can hear things
like the different reverbs or delays on the individual
instruments and where the effects are returned in the
panorama. I had a hard time telling if there was any reverb in
the untreated room.


peace
dawg

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:33:44 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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?

It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more
interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than
in considering whether it ought to be there at all :-)

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
wrote:

Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.

But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.

Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised
resolution of digital :-)

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
wrote:


Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide
what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.


But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.

Yes, I do know what you mean. I wrote in another post I do have good
stereo imaging and spacial definition _behind_ speakers; it's in the
real part of the room _I'm_ in that's missing 3D definition.
It's a new appartment, so I haven't finished the interior, meaning I'm
aware I have some standing waves and reflections to deal with.
It'll probably all fall nicely in place in due time, so I'll 'delay'
looking into artificial arrrangements till then.

I always get so much good info out of you guys'n'girls in here ;)

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

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?

It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more
interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than
in considering whether it ought to be there at all. :-)

Ummm... Creamy reverb...

Adding reverb to hi-fi
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
wrote:

Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can
provide
what's not present in a 2D stereo recording.

But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's
non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens.

Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the
quantised
resolution of digital :-)

Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if
you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example
of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics
of your room.

No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not
acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend
thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they
cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig
and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning.


peace
dawg