How to find what music has stereo bass (with EasyEffects)

[krabapple]

Especially if the data are there, why would anyone have a problem accepting that stereo bass could have *some* perceptible effect, even if it's not 'a sense of directionality'. Direction isn't everything.

(I'm already getting envelopment -- not necessarily bass-derived -- from just upmixing sources; and wrangling stereo bass properly into a DSP-'room corrected' sound field sounds like a bear. And then there's the question of how much stereo bass source material exists. So even with two subs, I'll stick to dual mono for now)

 

[bmc0]

I'm already getting envelopment -- not necessarily bass-derived -- from just upmixing sources

Frequencies above the subwoofer range are definitely more important for conveying spaciousness and envelopment. As you've (likely) found, plain 2-channel stereo is lacking in this respect, especially in the midrange (a standard stereo pair seems to work okay at high frequencies [>1kHz or so]—as long as you don't turn your head ). The additional benefit of independent sources below ~80Hz depends a lot on the program material, the room, and probably one's own priorities/preferences as well.

And then there's the question of how much stereo bass source material exists.

From what I've found, it's pretty much the rule in certain genres (classical/orchestral, for example). Pop, rock, etc. is much more likely to be substantially mono below 80Hz, although there are tracks with "real" stereo bass (i.e. not just pan-potted mono sources) in those genres as well.

 

[pablolie]

Frequencies above the subwoofer range are definitely more important for conveying spaciousness and envelopment. As you've (likely) found, plain 2-channel stereo is lacking in this respect...

I'd admit it is limited in theory, but it provides us with known references. I still find surround gimmicky and sometimes even off-putting. The stuff with the timpani suddenly playing behind me and such. That's not how I've ever heard music in any concert hall ever. Clearly it's hard enough to master music well-enough in stereo. And I am not finding a lot of evidence the music industry is shifting to higher production cost and better engineering with surround and Atmos and what not.

 

[kyuu]

I'd admit it is limited in theory, but it provides us with known references. I still find surround gimmicky and sometimes even off-putting. The stuff with the timpani suddenly playing behind me and such. That's not how I've ever heard music in any concert hall ever.

Something like that is clearly not meant to reproduce a concert hall (unless perhaps to emulate being in the middle of the orchestra rather than in the audience). I'm not aware of many orchestral surround mixes being mastered like that, though.

 

[bmc0]

I still find surround gimmicky and sometimes even off-putting. The stuff with the timpani suddenly playing behind me and such.

I'd find something like that gimmicky too. Strange creative decisions in some mixes have no bearing on the technical merits of surround, though.

 

[pablolie]

Something like that is clearly not meant to reproduce a concert hall (unless perhaps to emulate being in the middle of the orchestra rather than in the audience). I'm not aware of many orchestral surround mixes being mastered like that, though.

My main objection to stereo is that speakers with good directional characteristics or great spacial accuracy kinda narrow things compared to what I'd hear in a good seat in the Alte Oper in Frankfurt or the Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco. And no recording I have heard in any other mode significantly extends that in a realistic way, at least not yet. I do harbor hope, and that would be the day I'll gladly park my stereo gear.

PS: My speakers are about 7.5ft apart and I sit about 8ft from them. The stage in front of me is about 10ft wide asa rule (sometimes wider), which isn't bad all things considered, but of course a good concert hall and a good seat give you a perspective bigger than that.

 

[krabapple]

I'd admit it is limited in theory, but it provides us with known references. I still find surround gimmicky and sometimes even off-putting.

Upmixing is often not even experienced as 'surround', but more a sense of the sound being bigger and more enveloping.

Personally I enjoy the occasions where upmixing mimics actual surround mixing, i.e., when you can localize elements to side or rear of you. In some cases I much prefer upmixes of the original stereo to the 'real' surround mixes that certain overrated remixers have been celebrated for creating.

The stuff with the timpani suddenly playing behind me and such.

I can't recall *that* ever happening, though there are actual surround mixes from the quad era -- and possible newer ones -- where it does. The philosophy there being 'put you in the middle of the orchestra'.

Most typically for me, an upmixed orchestral recording will simply sound more like being at an actual concert. The room gets bigger.

That's not how I've ever heard music in any concert hall ever. Clearly it's hard enough to master music well-enough in stereo. And I am not finding a lot of evidence the music industry is shifting to higher production cost and better engineering with surround and Atmos and what not.

You're conflating upmixing with actual surround mixing.

 

[krabapple]

Something like that is clearly not meant to reproduce a concert hall (unless perhaps to emulate being in the middle of the orchestra rather than in the audience). I'm not aware of many orchestral surround mixes being mastered like that, though.

Probably the most famous is Boulez conducting Bartok with the NY Phil, a quad mix from the 1970s.

 

[pablolie]

... You're conflating upmixing with actual surround mixing.

I also said I'll keep checking and I'll stay open minded. If anyone local to the Bay Area wants to convince me otherwise, I'll bring a $250 bottle of Barolo along for your troubles.

 

[krabapple]

I'd find something like that gimmicky too. Strange creative decisions in some mixes have no bearing on the technical merits of surround, though.

FWIW, when popular music uses effects like phase shifting and busy pan-potting, it's already striving for a 'surround'-like experience (especially when listend to on headphones).

There are rare concert pieces, too, where the composer specified a player or sounds coming from somewhere offstage. And in the postwar modern era, tape recording comes into play in the concert hall. I'd love to hear a surround remix of Varese's Poeme Electronique , a work on tape -- though I'm not sure multitracks even exist. Its original playback venue was an early surround-sound experience -"broadcast on 450 loudspeakers arranged in "groups"" in the Philips Pavilion building of the 1958 World's Fair.

 

[pablolie]

... Strange creative decisions in some mixes have no bearing on the technical merits of surround, though.

I fully agree with that. I always have hated panning in stereo (like The Beatles' "Sun King" with the walk-left-to-right guitar), and unfortunately surround leaves the door wide open to that (which is often over-exploited in FX). I see zero benefit to that when the screen in front of me is 2D - in fact I find it annoying.
I never said it can't be used *right*. But I remain a bit skeptical because it seems hard enough to record stuff right in stereo (endless debates on the best way to record a piano to this day, for example), so any 3D stuff isn't about to make things easier.

 

[Robin L]

FWIW, when popular music uses effects like phase shifting and busy pan-potting, it's already striving for a 'surround'-like experience (especially when listend to on headphones).

There are rare concert pieces, too, where the composer specified a player or sounds coming from somewhere offstage. And in the postwar modern era, tape recording comes into play in the concert hall. I'd love to hear a surround remix of Varese's Poeme Electronique , a work on tape -- though I'm not sure multitracks even exist. Its original playback venue was an early surround-sound experience -"broadcast on 450 loudspeakers arranged in "groups"" in the Philips Pavilion building of the 1958 World's Fair.

Iannis Xenakis wrote some musique concrete that was designed as a surround mix. I happen to have a DVD (not DVD-A) of "La Legende d' Eer" on "Mode X5" with 5.1 surround mix derived from the 7-track original.

 

[bmc0]

There are rare concert pieces, too, where the composer specified a player or sounds coming from somewhere offstage.

I thought about mentioning this. I've attended a couple performances of pieces with off-stage parts: Verdi's Messa da Requiem, and Britten's War Requiem.

 

[j_j]

Frequencies above the subwoofer range are definitely more important for conveying spaciousness and envelopment.

Important, yes, "more" is unproven.

 

[pablolie]

Important, yes, "more" is unproven.

Deferring to your obvious authority... does that mean we should all invest in 4 subs and clearly bass management for an improved stereo experience? It is in no way a trick question, would simply appreciate your opinion and leave the discussion at that.
To me the term envelopement doesn't convey directionality, but spaciousness clearly does.

 

[j_j]

Deferring to your obvious authority... does that mean we should all invest in 4 subs and clearly bass management for an improved stereo experience? It is in no way a trick question, would simply appreciate your opinion and leave the discussion at that.
To me the term envelopement doesn't convey directionality, but spaciousness clearly does.

No. There's precious little actual material up there than can use 2 properly. Both the chicken and the egg are absent.

 

[MKR]

Well, since this is ASR, a great paper on stereo bass, see section 6. Also a very good discussion of cardioid of course. Thanks to Soundfield Audio for pointing me to this paper.

https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files...le_low_frequency_cardioids_in_small_rooms.pdf

 

[krabapple]

Well, since this is ASR, a great paper on stereo bass, see section 6. Also a very good discussion of cardioid of course. Thanks to Soundfield Audio for pointing me to this paper.

https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files...le_low_frequency_cardioids_in_small_rooms.pdf

Interesting. It's from 2005, before the DSP era . Here's its two main reccommendations

1. Five fullrange loudspeaker with identical bandwidth and transfer characteristics offer better conditions for an even modal room excitation than systems using non-uniform loudspeakers. This recommendation is valid independent of the use of the “.1” or LFEchannel. If the “.1” or LFE-channel is used all channels should be fed the same LFE-signal, because of the advantageous “multi-point-excitation”.

Interesting that they recommend feeding the same LFE to the five main (full-range) speakers, contra the usual(?) recommendation to bandwidth-limit. Usually that's advised because it puts less strain on the main amp and the speakers, which no longer have to handle the lowest frequencies.

Also: deploying 5 'fullrange' speakers tends to be....expensive.

2. The traditional sub-sat-combination with correctly adjusted crossover frequencies still represents a good alternative. Here the mode excitation in the room benefits from the use of multiple monopole subs, provided the sources are positioned in a sensible arrangement. However, in comparison to a cardioid array, the monopoles require more damping at the modal frequencies, while their flexibility regarding the modal excitation is reduced.

The bolded part can be achieved nowadays with DSP. Boosting a trough ('modal excitation' ) is still a problem.

Two cardioid subs (i.e., more directional than the usual) properly placed are deemed good enough for 'partially damped' small rooms; four even better for large rooms.

Who makes cardioid subs for the home consumer?

 

[krabapple]

Iannis Xenakis wrote some musique concrete that was designed as a surround mix. I happen to have a DVD (not DVD-A) of "La Legende d' Eer" on "Mode X5" with 5.1 surround mix derived from the 7-track original.

Xenakis designed the Philips Pavilion, working under the aegis of Le Corbusier. He conceptualized it as a 'stomach bag' that would digest its visitors.

 

[MKR]

Interesting. It's from 2005, before the DSP era . Here's its two main reccommendations



Interesting that they recommend feeding the same LFE to the five main (full-range) speakers, contra the usual(?) recommendation to bandwidth-limit. Usually that's advised because it puts less strain on the main amp and the speakers, which no longer have to handle the lowest frequencies.

Also: deploying 5 'fullrange' speakers tends to be....expensive.



The bolded part can be achieved nowadays with DSP. Boosting a trough ('modal excitation' ) is still a problem.

Two cardioid subs (i.e., more directional than the usual) properly placed are deemed good enough for 'partially damped' small rooms; four even better for large rooms.

Who makes cardioid subs for the home consumer?

It is very interesting indeed, glad ya took the time to read it.

And agree, 5 full range can be pricey (I know, paying for such a system now!), but worth it! Will in fact have 5x full range cardioid towers

Soundfield does full range cardioid, as does I believe GGNTKT, Gethain, and Genelec. May be others I am not aware of.