| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors,
with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it. www.studiospares.com have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used here? Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD player's digital output. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"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. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
I added reverb to a recording once. Then I got well
and never did it again. There is a difference to adding to the recording, and playing it through additional speakers. A huge difference. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
wrote:
Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors, with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it. This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful. www.studiospares.com have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used here? Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD player's digital output. I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what the artist was aiming for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:36:49 +0300, wrote:
Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors, with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it. www.studiospares.com have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used here? Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD player's digital output. if you'd like it more wet then why not. From Studiospares offerings I'd pick TC M One. -JP -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors, with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it. This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful. www.studiospares.com have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used here? Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD player's digital output. I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what the artist was aiming for. Maybe the OP was thinking about a dry sound in basic two-speaker stereo, and have a carefully crafted limited reverberated sound from the back speakers only, attempting to (try to) reproduce some room/ambiance. Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though... -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:20:54 +0200, "Mogens V."
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: Has anybody tried using a studio reverb unit, or other processors, with a hi-fi system? I have found some recordings, especially classical ones, are a bit dry, which is why I'm thinking of trying it. This was very popular in the sixties and seventies, and there used to be lots of commercial boxes like the Fisher Spacexpander that were designed for the job back then. They all.. sounded pretty awful. www.studiospares.com have a selection at reasonable prices, which units has anyone used here? Some models have a digital input, which could be used with a CD player's digital output. I would tend to recommend something like the Sony DPS V-77, if your goal is to have digital ins and outs and reproduce a realistic room sound. But I suspect that you will be apt to go overboard on the effect if you are not very, very careful. And I fear that you won't be fulfilling the wishes of the original producers either. If they made the recordings very dry, they must have done it for a reason, and that may tell you something about what the artist was aiming for. Maybe the OP was thinking about a dry sound in basic two-speaker stereo, and have a carefully crafted limited reverberated sound from the back speakers only, attempting to (try to) reproduce some room/ambiance. Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though... I think the op is a shill for the linked dealer Abbedd |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
I don't like to disagree with Scott, who's generally correct. But there's a
lot more to ambience synthesis than the Fisher SpaceXpander. There are products that are specifically designed for home use, and "sound good". Please read my previous posting. As for ansermetniac's remarks... As he suggests, it's almost always wrong -- both acoustically and aesthetically -- to mix ambience into a recording, even a dry one. But that's not what these devices do. They present the ambience through side and rear speakers, and the results are quite, quite different. You should hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of stereo ambience is added to the room. The improvement is drastic. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
ansermetniac wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:20:54 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Wonder just how many NG's need to know about this, though... I think the op is a shill for the linked dealer Oh well, maybe, so used to vendor/dealer links I missed it. Whatever, sometimes some useful knowlege comes out of such posts. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: You should hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of stereo ambience is added to the room. The improvement is drastic. I think you forgot the parenthesis round improvment. I've yet to hear any decent mono recording improved by adding stereo ambience - and that includes pro attempts. -- *It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Chel van Gennip 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. I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the complete swamping of almost every recording of 'early' music with reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this big audio sign was up saying 'this is early music, listen to the reverb' and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast cathedrals and caverns... -- Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
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? |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
You should hear what happens to mono recordings when a bit of
stereo ambience is added to the room. The improvement is drastic. I think you forgot the parentheses around improvement. I've yet to hear any decent mono recording improved by adding stereo ambience -- and that includes pro attempts. Because -- as I repeatedly stated -- you didn't hear it correctly done. You don't add the ambience to the recording, but through additional speakers. The results are much different. I will add one qualification... The recording has to be reasonably good to begin with. Really old mono recordings sound rather odd with stereo ambience -- though the oddness is more aesthetic than acoustic. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
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. I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb" and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast cathedrals and caverns... Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response. 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?) |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "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. I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb" and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast cathedrals and caverns... Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response. 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've always had the impression that when a recording is swamped with reverb either the playing wasn't very good or the producer/engineer didn't really understand what he was recording. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
In article ,
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? By looking for Bob Fine's name in the credits? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
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). 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. 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 -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
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. |
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "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. I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb" and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast cathedrals and caverns... Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response. 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 Abbedd |
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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk