A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Arindal]

I have never listened to a multichannel with its recording that sounded as realistic as a well-set stereo system.

Of course there are minimum requirements for a proper surround setup (true to 5.1, Auro or Atmos alike) to create a ´realistic´ imaging and buying. Systems meant for cinema sound are not necessarily aiming at realism. But if the worst mistakes are circumvented, surround sounds by far more realistic and plausible than any stereo. There are 1,000s, if not 10,000s of excellent surround recordings with plausible reverb in the rear/immersive channels on the market. Stereo is always pretty limited when it comes to ambience.

How many outdoor concerts take place in a open field?

Are you referring to acoustic concerts without any amplification?

 

[Neadych]

Concert halls, where sound is clearly audible to many thousands of people, are a necessary measure for conveying information in the era of the absence of recording and reproduction means.

 

[Mart68]

Are you referring to acoustic concerts without any amplification?

With or without - my point is that they mostly take place in a space that has fairly close reflective boundaries. So just how different is it from being in a hall with a roof? I appreciate not entirely the same but I'm wondering if the difference is being exaggerated in importance.

 

[Arindal]

they mostly take place in a space that has fairly close reflective boundaries. So just how different is it from being in a hall with a roof? I appreciate not entirely the same but I'm wondering if the difference is being exaggerated in importance.

Had the chance to experience an unamplified, free-field concert, after previously witnessing the rehearsal of the program in a hall. Can tell you that the difference is very very significant. It is a challenge even for professional classical musicians.

The characteristic sound of a concert hall is largely defined by sound which gets reflected multiple times forming a characteristic reverb pattern and diffuse decay. You don't have anything close to such, even from a shell-type stage under free-field conditions.

Concert with sound reinforcement are a different thing, though.

 

[Suono]

Of course there are minimum requirements for a proper surround setup (true to 5.1, Auro or Atmos alike) to create a ´realistic´ imaging and buying. Systems meant for cinema sound are not necessarily aiming at realism. But if the worst mistakes are circumvented, surround sounds by far more realistic and plausible than any stereo. There are 1,000s, if not 10,000s of excellent surround recordings with plausible reverb in the rear/immersive channels on the market. Stereo is always pretty limited when it comes to ambience.

I have never heard a well-implemented multichannel system before.

 

[Mart68]

Had the chance to experience an unamplified, free-field concert, after previously witnessing the rehearsal of the program in a hall. Can tell you that the difference is very very significant. It is a challenge even for professional classical musicians.

The characteristic sound of a concert hall is largely defined by sound which gets reflected multiple times forming a characteristic reverb pattern and diffuse decay. You don't have anything close to such, even from a shell-type stage under free-field conditions.

Concert with sound reinforcement are a different thing, though.

Fair enough, I just wondered.

 

[Sokel]

Why do we have to over complicate things?
Forget venues, in or out, take it from the street.

Have you ever been at a parade? No matter far or close to the band. That's classical instruments there and the absorption of the hundrends of bodies around them is no small.
But is quite nice and super dynamic. Don't take instruments as they sound in recordings. They are usually staggering in real life.

 

[Arindal]

Have you ever been at a parade? No matter far or close to the band. That's classical instruments there and the absorption of the hundrends of bodies around them is no small.
But is quite nice and super dynamic

I agree to your impression, but that is a completely different thing. Instrumentation for parades and marching bands is particularly selected to sound dynamic and impulsive under free-field conditions. Actually lack of reverb and diffuse sound is contributing to this impression.

Don't take instruments as they sound in recordings. They are usually staggering in real life.

For the majority of acoustic instruments used for classical and jazz, as well as the human voice, this is not the case. They are meant to be played in a hall, supported by the discrete reflections and the reverb therein. The vast majority of acoustic recordings containing a fraction of this reverb pattern being more or less loosely oriented on this acoustic ideal.

To reproduce them in a plausible way, any speaker setup has to deal with this mixture of direct sound, reverb pattern on the recording and additional reflections in the listening room, which is reaching our ears. That said, a pretty convincing compromise is possible, but it has nothing to do with dry instruments´ sounds or free-field conditions. Comparing does not make sense.

 

[Neadych]

I agree to your impression, but that is a completely different thing. Instrumentation for parades and marching bands is particularly selected to sound dynamic and impulsive under free-field conditions. Actually lack of reverb and diffuse sound is contributing to this impression.



For the majority of acoustic instruments used for classical and jazz, as well as the human voice, this is not the case. They are meant to be played in a hall, supported by the discrete reflections and the reverb therein. The vast majority of acoustic recordings containing a fraction of this reverb pattern being more or less loosely oriented on this acoustic ideal.

To reproduce them in a plausible way, any speaker setup has to deal with this mixture of direct sound, reverb pattern on the recording and additional reflections in the listening room, which is reaching our ears. That said, a pretty convincing compromise is possible, but it has nothing to do with dry instruments´ sounds or free-field conditions. Comparing does not make sense.

Why do we need additional reflections when listening if everything should be in the recording?

 

[Sokel]

They are meant to be played in a hall, supported by the discrete reflections and the reverb therein. The vast majority of acoustic recordings containing a fraction of this reverb pattern being more or less loosely oriented on this acoustic ideal.

Instruments are meant to be played anywhere, in or out (apart from an organ perhaps )
I take it that what you mean is where they should be recorded so they convey an envelopment as they will also usually would be played back inside a room (but not always)

 

[pma]

Concert hall acoustics is normally captured in the recording. At home, we add reflections and reverberation of our listening room, which is usually unwanted. Then, placing speakers in almost free field of a big garden is an interesting experience.

 

[Suono]

Why do we need additional reflections when listening if everything should be in the recording?

Try listening to your stereo in a free field.
The spatial information in the recording is so low that if you didn't have any room reflections (the good ones, not the early ones), you wouldn't hear anything. read Haas

 

[Neadych]

Try listening to your stereo in a free field.
The spatial information in the recording is so low that if you didn't have any room reflections (the good ones, not the early ones), you wouldn't hear anything. read Haas

Headphones create space out of nothing

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

When I listen to a recording, that has very low spatial information, in a heavily damped room it doesn't trouble me. I just think - Oh, that's the way that one was produced.
The next one I play is often the polar opposite and that's part of the fun. Adding room reverb will make them sound more the same, which is less appealing.

 

[Arindal]

The spatial information in the recording is so low that if you didn't have any room reflections (the good ones, not the early ones), you wouldn't hear anything.

Cannot confirm this. In contrary, most of acoustic recordings from the last 30 or 40 years I listened to, contain a significant amount of reverb signature, which even gives a nice (although scaled down and partly flatter) impression of the venue´s reverb and depth-of-field under anechoic or free-field conditions. I understand that most of people would not appreciate such setup for the fact that reflections from the sides are missing, so there is almost no impression of envelopment.

This might be different with non-acoustic recordings (like popular or electronic music) or older ones, particularly from the 1970s and early 1980s.

Could you please name a bright example of an acoustic recording which you think sounds too dry without added reflections?

 

[Suono]

Headphones create space out of nothing

Listening in the garden isn't like listening with headphones, which isn't like listening to the stereo; they're three completely different things. The spatial information is in the recording. With headphones, I don't perceive spatiality, understood as solid three-dimensionality in space. The reason? The quality of the speaker output and proper attention to room reflections.

 

[Arindal]

With headphones, I don't perceive spatiality, understood as solid three-dimensionality in space. The reason?

In my understanding the lack of spatiality and distance of localized phantom sources when listening to headphones, is partial circumvention of our own head-related-transfer function HRTF, which is always involved when localizing natural sources or reproduction via loudspeakers.

 

[olieb]

The spatial information in the recording is so low that if you didn't have any room reflections (the good ones, not the early ones), you wouldn't hear anything.

If you do not hear anything with a stereo in free field the problem is sound pressure most of all as there is no room gain and distance is typically large.
The spatial information about the performance and the concert hall is in the recording (or not). The listening room reflections will not bring that back, if it is not in the recording.

A problem with a stereo in free field is the highly unnatural situation where all the sound emanates from only two points in space. This creates
- FR irregularities from comb filtering and HRTF
- zero envelopment

With multichannel this can be improved.

Headphones create space out of nothing

Actually they don't. That is the reason why everything sounds like coming from inside your head (more or less).
Unless of course all the reflections have been recorded binaurally so they appear to come from all directions with according HRTF and delays.
EDIT: It is possible to add listening room reflections by means of convolution through a binaural virtualisation. This will create "space".

 

[Suono]

If you do not hear anything with a stereo in free field the problem is sound pressure most of all as there is no room gain and distance is typically large.
The spatial information about the performance and the concert hall is in the recording (or not). The listening room reflections will not bring that back, if it is not in the recording.

I agree

 

[Elkerton]

I can agree but recordings must be created for multichannel and I have never listened to a multichannel with its recording that sounded as realistic as a well-set stereo system.

Poor you. I have some 200 multichannel recordings that I and others prefer to the stereo versions of the same.