• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,555
Likes
3,860
Location
Princeton, Texas
Perhaps the best demo I created for it was to begin with some well reproduced stereo music, then move to various levels of Logic 7 upmix enhancement, generating an improved sense of envelopment. Along the way, the music would be paused so I could add descriptive commentary and answer questions. Of course, everything, music and reverb ceased instantly. During one classical music segment I gradually faded in the LARES Light system. It had been set up to mimic the reverb in the recording, so its addition was not noticed by the listeners. However, this time when I hit the "pause" control, the reverb did not cease, but decayed in a relatively normal way. When anyone spoke they were speaking in the concert hall. Hand claps reverberated in an uncannily real way. It was impressive, and something most people thought would be impossible.

Brilliant demo!!

I have a question about this statement: "[The Lares Light system] had been set up to mimic the reverb in the recording."

Could you get thoroughly enjoyable results with "set it and forget it", or did the system call for dialing in the settings for each recording?

How about for Auros 3D - set & forget, or trial & dial?

So, the technology exist(ed) - maybe still exists somewhere; it isn't magic - to superimpose large venue acoustics on small room acoustics. It is now known that in such a contest humans gravitate to the larger perceptual space, fortunately. [emphasis Duke's]

Is there a perceptual "point of inflection", past which the ear accepts the large venue acoustics "package" of the recording as being more credible than the small room acoustics "package" of the playback room? If so, what are some of the characteristics that tip the scale in favor of the former? (I have my amateur ideas about such, but would rather learn from you.)
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,702
I do think, like you suggest, you are wrong about the nationalistic card you tried to play.

The DBT experiments that back up the clear, unequivocal preference for multi channel were not AFAIK grounded in an audience with a home-cinema background. They usually draw on a disparate audience, with care and deliberation.

I just think you keep making assumptions about why your pre-conclusions are sound. Be a bit more open.

And we all know upmixing is a crippled surrogate for discrete multichannel, but I would like to see your evidence that it is necessarily crippled compared to stereo, unless you mean bad practice, which would be unfair given the amount of bad stereo practice that one could also point to.

And you can't say "it's a matter of taste" if it is a topic that has been tested and a different conclusion drawn.

I definitely don't think good upmixed audio is a "crippled surrogate" compared to stereo in terms of absolute performance. It beats stereo in pretty much every way(no downsides). I agree that there is some "justification" of personal biases happing, but I also think stereo does win the "value" comparison, which was the other part of tuga's point. Upmixed stereo is better, but not hugely better, and it costs more and is far messier to setup.
 

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
888
Likes
1,654
Location
Norway
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "de-correlated, or sound with no direction"?
Does the upmixer system "recognise" what is direct sound information and ambience information and extract the latter?

I can use the fader in the car to increase envelopment, but the system is of poor quality and it's good only for background music, not for serious listening.
Already answered by others, and exactly what one upmixer does can obviously be different from other upmix algorithms, since the sound they present is different - and some are better.

Sound outside of the L-R width is created by adding negative phase signal to one channel, this way it is possible to place objects at 180 degrees or even further back.

A correlated pink noise signal - one that is exactly smilar L and R - will present an image bubble of the noise quite concentrated right at center. If you flip the phase on one channel, the noise kind fills the room and it is hard to tell where it comes from.

A decorrelated pink noise signal will also present a large, diffuse bubble of noise, which does not appear to come from one specific location. such a signal can be created by generating 2 pink noise signals, and then put those together into a stereo L, R signal. The signal in one channel is only similar to the other in spectral distribution and mean level.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,294
Likes
9,851
Location
NYC
Were you at all involved with the Lexicon SL-1? It would seem like that sort of setup would let you have a lot of control over ambient experience by throwing more or less audio off axis?
I got a chance to hear it and it remains one of the most memorable speaker auditions. I waited with bated breath for it to appear as a real product but, apparently, it disappeared.
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,905
Brilliant demo!!

I have a question about this statement: "[The Lares Light system] had been set up to mimic the reverb in the recording."

Could you get thoroughly enjoyable results with "set it and forget it", or did the system call for dialing in the settings for each recording?

How about for Auros 3D - set & forget, or trial & dial?



Is there a perceptual "point of inflection", past which the ear accepts the large venue acoustics "package" of the recording as being more credible than the small room acoustics "package" of the playback room? If so, what are some of the characteristics that tip the scale in favor of the former? (I have my amateur ideas about such, but would rather learn from you.)
Set and forget was pretty satisfying for concert hall performances. Small clubs and recital halls need tweaking.

Re. large room vs. small room. The best info I know of is: Hughes, R., Cox, T., Shirley, B. and Power, P. (2016). “The room-in-room effect and its influence on perceived room size in spatial audio reproduction”. 141st Convention Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 9621.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,555
Likes
3,860
Location
Princeton, Texas
Set and forget was pretty satisfying for concert hall performances. Small clubs and recital halls need tweaking.

Re. large room vs. small room. The best info I know of is: Hughes, R., Cox, T., Shirley, B. and Power, P. (2016). “The room-in-room effect and its influence on perceived room size in spatial audio reproduction”. 141st Convention Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 9621.

Thank you!!
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,696
Likes
37,432
I definitely don't think good upmixed audio is a "crippled surrogate" compared to stereo in terms of absolute performance. It beats stereo in pretty much every way(no downsides). I agree that there is some "justification" of personal biases happing, but I also think stereo does win the "value" comparison, which was the other part of tuga's point. Upmixed stereo is better, but not hugely better, and it costs more and is far messier to setup.
Just by listening I don't agree. Every upmix I've heard (noting I've not yet heard Atmos or Auro) has been definitely less good than just stereo in my experience. There weren't any comments on a quick example I listed earlier in the thread of a good two channel recording. Here is the link to that again.


A good example of what can be done. Yet I find MCH to be even better on such material, and upmixers to be even less satisfying on such minimalist recordings. So MCH gets us by some inherent limitations of two channel, but I experience little benefit from upmixing.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,505
Likes
4,336
Somewhere I'm sure I have commented on LARES - Lexicon Acoustical Reverberation and Enhancement System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES. This was for the manipulation of large venue acoustics, making overly dead spaces more suitable for many types of music.

LARES was installed in my local symphony orchestra's home venue in 1998. A couple of photos at the time: http://www.tecsa.com.au/afc_pictures.htm. It was quite a construction project because all the speakers had to be installed in-wall to be 'invisible'...and the walls were solid concrete.

The local AES arranged a tour and LARES demo that I attended in 2009. It was impressive, but a very limited demo.

When I tried to talk about it to audiophiles, the purists immediately erected a Wall of Denial, with statements like "it's just a glorified PA system", "it would completely destroy orchestral but maybe ok for a stage show", "it must always be turned off for orchestral". My reply, that it is never turned off and they have been listening to it for 10 years, was flatly denied as impossible.

It is my experience that purism drives a lot of negative outcomes...starting with insisting that even demonstrably-worse things simply must be better, by sheer virtue of their unsullied purity. And "that's that". The very sight of the banks of gear in the photos, above, would set many a purist off.

cheers
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,478
Likes
4,098
Location
Pacific Northwest

Nice example of a simple unprocessed two microphone recording. Using a pair of ribbons in a Faulkner array. You can give it a listen streaming in the post.
Wow, that is an excellent recording! It's amazing what good results can come from a simple setup. He clearly put some work into getting the mic distance & location just right.
Here's a local brass quintet I recorded few years ago with a pair of Rode NT1As in ORTF arrangement. It's the straight mic feed without any processing other than shifting the peak amplitude.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Never tested turning them all except one off, but I have tested turning the front 3 off and putting my ear next to one of the surrounds for some time. All it really plays is echo noise, with the spl being tied to the strength you use. What would I be listening for?
Some kind of warbling around transient-like or impulsive sounds or unusual discontinuity in background ambience. The algorithm is usually only good to so many dB down and relies on masking from other channels.
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,905
LARES was installed in my local symphony orchestra's home venue in 1998. A couple of photos at the time: http://www.tecsa.com.au/afc_pictures.htm. It was quite a construction project because all the speakers had to be installed in-wall to be 'invisible'...and the walls were solid concrete.

The local AES arranged a tour and LARES demo that I attended in 2009. It was impressive, but a very limited demo.

When I tried to talk about it to audiophiles, the purists immediately erected a Wall of Denial, with statements like "it's just a glorified PA system", "it would completely destroy orchestral but maybe ok for a stage show", "it must always be turned off for orchestral". My reply, that it is never turned off and they have been listening to it for 10 years, was flatly denied as impossible.

It is my experience that purism drives a lot of negative outcomes...starting with insisting that even demonstrably-worse things simply must be better, by sheer virtue of their unsullied purity. And "that's that". The very sight of the banks of gear in the photos, above, would set many a purist off.

cheers
While studying in London my wife and I attended several concerts at the Royal Festival Hall. It had not been an acoustical success and physical solutions were too onerous to undertake. Wikepedia under" Royal Festival Hall" explains:
"Leo Beranek, an American acoustics engineer who had undertaken measurements of all of the world's leading concert halls, had identified that the interior treatment of the auditorium was absorbing too much sound.[22] By 1962 the authorities, after prolonged experiment, had become convinced that no improvement in the hall's reverberation could be achieved by any further treatment of its surfaces. Longer reverberation would require modification to the main structure, reducing the seating capacity and the provision of a new ceiling. This was considered too costly, particularly as any hypothetical gain in ‘warmth’ or ‘resonance’ might well be by the sacrifice of other positive qualities for which the Hall was generally esteemed, for example, its clarity, its comparative uniformity of acoustic response and its freedom from echo.[23]

It was known that the ancient Greeks had developed the technique of using vases built into their auditoria which added resonance to strengthen tone or improve its quality, though the effect was very weak. The Building Research Station developed an electronic method of lengthening the reverberation time by a system called ‘assisted resonance’ in which some of the acoustical energy lost to the surfaces of the hall was replaced by acoustical energy supplied by a loudspeaker. Each microphone and its associated loudspeaker was limited to the one frequency by placing the microphone inside a Helmholtz resonator fitted into the ceiling in a range of sizes which resonated over a wide range of the low frequencies which critics and musicians thought did not adequately reverberate in the hall. 172 channels were used to cover a frequency range of 58 Hz to 700 Hz, increasing reverberation time from 1.4 to 2.5 s in the 125 Hz octave band.[24] However, the system never fully solved the problem, and as it aged it became unreliable, occasionally emitting odd sounds during performances. It was switched off in 1998, which returned the acoustics to their poor state, so bad that they make performers who play in it "lose the will to live", according to Sir Simon Rattle.[25]"

The rest of the story is that the management knew that audiences - at least "knowledgable" attendees and certainly reviewers - would not approve of electronic enhancements, so they did work during dark periods and in stages, keeping it all secret. They were waiting to see if anyone heard a difference and what it was. The story goes that after months of this effort some reviewers noted that the orchestra sounded better than usual, and words to that effect. Soon it was generally known that the hall, while not a great hall, was certainly sounding better than it had. Only then was the solution, called Assisted Resonance, publicly revealed. It was a beginning. Who knows, maybe we were there during the test period.

Even "purists" can be fooled.
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,478
Likes
4,098
Location
Pacific Northwest
... The Building Research Station developed an electronic method of lengthening the reverberation time by a system called ‘assisted resonance’ in which some of the acoustical energy lost to the surfaces of the hall was replaced by acoustical energy supplied by a loudspeaker. Each microphone and its associated loudspeaker was limited to the one frequency by placing the microphone inside a Helmholtz resonator fitted into the ceiling in a range of sizes which resonated over a wide range of the low frequencies ...
Are there any examples of this "active room treatment" for people's listening rooms? I wonder how it would compare in cost and function to passive treatments like bass traps, resonators, tube traps, diffusers, etc.
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,905
Are there any examples of this "active room treatment" for people's listening rooms? I wonder how it would compare in cost and function to passive treatments like bass traps, resonators, tube traps, diffusers, etc.
Yes indeed. If you have my book - any edition - you will find explanations about how passive combinations of multiple subwoofers can be used to predictably attenuate room resonances in rectangular rooms, and in active solutions for rooms of any shape, can manipulate them, to create regions of similar sounding bass for several listeners. NO traditional acoustical absorption is required. The information is also in the Audio Engineering Society publications, under Todd Welti, the inventor and author, part of my research group at Harman. Four small subs in corners of a rectangular room (two at opposing mid-wall locations can also work, but at lower efficiency) are generally preferable to covering large portions of walls and ceiling with bass traps. It can still be a "normal" visually pleasing room. This is only for the bass - above about 500 Hz in most rooms the loudspeakers themselves are the dominant factors, and for this you need to seek out and buy the right loudspeakers - "room EQ" might help, but in the limit, won't save you.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,696
Likes
37,432
Wow, that is an excellent recording! It's amazing what good results can come from a simple setup. He clearly put some work into getting the mic distance & location just right.
Here's a local brass quintet I recorded few years ago with a pair of Rode NT1As in ORTF arrangement. It's the straight mic feed without any processing other than shifting the peak amplitude.
Yes, nice recording. And how easy is it to work to find the right location to record? To me the answer is usually easier than miking this with about 8 or 12 microphones and mixing them all in later.

BTW, anyone who wishes to hear MRC01's recording you'll need to right click and save link or download link.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,555
Likes
3,860
Location
Princeton, Texas
... passive combinations of multiple subwoofers can be used to predictably attenuate room resonances in rectangular rooms... Four small subs...

[multisub tangent] I was an early adopter. Todd Welti and Alan Devantier's paper "Low Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers" was published in May of 2006. I was actually already producing and selling a four-small-subs system (called "The Swarm") by then, but cannot take credit for the idea: I was using Earl Geddes' idea, which he had described to me at CES in January of 2006, with his permission. My understanding is that, completely unknown to one another, Earl and Todd were both working on the same basic problem at the exact same time, Todd arriving at specific symmetrical-placement solutions for rectangular rooms and Earl arriving at asymmetrical placement with specific guidelines for rooms in general. [/tangent]

I wonder how it would compare in cost and function to passive treatments like bass traps, resonators, tube traps, diffusers, etc.

Acoustician Matthew Poes addresses this question (multile subs versus bass traps), and gets his point across in about thirty seconds from where this link is cued up to start:


 
Last edited:
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,285
Location
Oxford, England
LARES was installed in my local symphony orchestra's home venue in 1998. A couple of photos at the time: http://www.tecsa.com.au/afc_pictures.htm. It was quite a construction project because all the speakers had to be installed in-wall to be 'invisible'...and the walls were solid concrete.

The local AES arranged a tour and LARES demo that I attended in 2009. It was impressive, but a very limited demo.

When I tried to talk about it to audiophiles, the purists immediately erected a Wall of Denial, with statements like "it's just a glorified PA system", "it would completely destroy orchestral but maybe ok for a stage show", "it must always be turned off for orchestral". My reply, that it is never turned off and they have been listening to it for 10 years, was flatly denied as impossible.

It is my experience that purism drives a lot of negative outcomes...starting with insisting that even demonstrably-worse things simply must be better, by sheer virtue of their unsullied purity. And "that's that". The very sight of the banks of gear in the photos, above, would set many a purist off.

cheers

One of the things I love about all music and not just classical is the sound of acoustic instruments and vocals in a natural acoustic environment. Well designed music halls and even many regular rooms and churches have tremendously beautiful acoustic characteristics which play an important role in the overall sound of a recital or concert.

Mic'ing and PA'ing them kills a lot of that beauty. As do synthesizers.
And it's not a matter of purism, only personal preference.

Fortunately I have yet to hear a PA'ed orchestra with two exception which took place outdoors.


Edit: this may clarify the reasons behind my criticism of some mic'ing techniques
 
Last edited:

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,539
Likes
2,071
Location
U.K
Well designed music halls and even many regular rooms and churches have tremendously beautiful acoustic characteristics which play an important role in the overall sound of a recital or concert.


I had an interesting experience recently. Last weekend we listened to the LSO perform Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique at the South Bank Centre (London). Not withstanding that it’s a great piece and a great orchestra, I was hugely underwhelmed with what felt like an absence of scale. We were on a first floor and back from the orchestra, so I would speculate highly reliant on the acoustic properties of the ceiling and walls. Contrast with the the last performance I saw at the Barbican-BBC symphony orchestra performance of Arvo Part’s Cantus in memorium for Benjamin Britten and Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No 3 in D minor-face melting.

Obviously not level matched and several months apart so my auditory memory may not be pin point accurate:p-but not all concert halls are equal in my book.

Edit: of course emphasises the extreme folly of this hobby.
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,042
Not all seating in a concert hall is created equal. The best place is on the conductor's podium and very close behind (if the seats are at the same level).

I hate the acoustics of the church with its alterations in timbre ie. the distortions, the long reverberation giving an undefined, muddy sound ....if I have a place a little far from the stage.
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,285
Location
Oxford, England
I had an interesting experience recently. Last weekend we listened to the LSO perform Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique at the South Bank Centre (London). Not withstanding that it’s a great piece and a great orchestra, I was hugely underwhelmed with what felt like an absence of scale. We were on a first floor and back from the orchestra, so I would speculate highly reliant on the acoustic properties of the ceiling and walls. Contrast with the the last performance I saw at the Barbican-BBC symphony orchestra performance of Arvo Part’s Cantus in memorium for Benjamin Britten and Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No 3 in D minor-face melting.

Obviously not level matched and several months apart so my auditory memory may not be pin point accurate:p-but not all concert halls are equal in my book.

Edit: of course emphasises the extreme folly of this hobby.

I agree. And that is part of the challenge when mic'ing an orchestra.

Modern music halls are compromised designs, an attempt at balancing good sound with the large occupancy needed to make them viable.

The Haydnsaal at the Schloss Esterházy, considered by many to be one of the best rooms, seats only 400 people.
You can't expect the Royal Festival Hall with 7 times as many seats to sound good. It's too big.
 
Top Bottom