Topic: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?

[DF81]

Not in surround album releases.

You obviously haven't listened to the new Magical Mystery Tour blu ray.  Holy crap.  George Martin's son mixed the 5.1 surround sound.  Far better than the 2009 stereo remasters.

[Gutbucket]

No I haven't.  I'd like to though.  Honestly I have very few commercial surround releases.  I find many of them gimmicky, sometimes that's appropriate but it's really a whole different ball of wax than what I'm shooting for, stuff like being in the middle of the band onstage with musicians all around, or sounds flying all around the room. All that is more like movie type surround.  Cool and I don't mean to belittle it, but not my goal. 

Even the surround releases I've heard which aim for a more "natural live surround experience" are not really like being at a live concert.  The Grammy winning ones are well crafted but really more like abstracted versions of live concerts than the real experience of being there- nice ambiances, good imaging and all that, but you are never right there upfront in the audience like being at the actual event.  It usually sounds like the audience is all around but oddly distant and removed, as if you are listening alone from a chair suspended from the rafters above them.

Of the very few I have, one of the best is a DPA surround sampler with a sample of an orchestra recorded with several different versions of their surround decca tree using various combinations of their microphones.  Very informative for comparing omni's vs cards, vs subcards on the surround channel for instance.  I remember the one using five spaced 4015's as being really sublime.

Might checkout some of the better surround releases for what they are, but I just have much less time and interest in most of that stuff than I do in my own live recordings these days.  I mostly listen to the commercial stereo in stereo in the car on CD or off a player.

[DF81]

No I haven't.  I'd like to though.  Honestly I have very few commercial surround releases.  I find many of them gimmicky, sometimes that's appropriate but it's really a whole different ball of wax than what I'm shooting for, stuff like being in the middle of the band onstage with musicians all around, or sounds flying all around the room. All that is more like movie type surround.  Cool and I don't mean to belittle it, but not my goal. 

Even the surround releases I've heard which aim for a more "natural live surround experience" are not really like being at a live concert.  The Grammy winning ones are well crafted but really more like abstracted versions of live concerts than the real experience of being there- nice ambiances, good imaging and all that, but you are never right there upfront in the audience like being at the actual event.  It usually sounds like the audience is all around but oddly distant and removed, as if you are listening alone from a chair suspended from the rafters above them.

Of the very few I have, one of the best is a DPA surround sampler with a sample of an orchestra recorded with several different versions of their surround decca tree using various combinations of their microphones.  Very informative for comparing omni's vs cards, vs subcards on the surround channel for instance.  I remember the one using five spaced 4015's as being really sublime.

Might checkout some of the better surround releases for what they are, but I just have much less time and interest in most of that stuff than I do in my own live recordings these days.  I mostly listen to the commercial stereo in stereo in the car on CD or off a player.

If you are a Beatles fan (and have a good 5.1 playback) it's something you need to purchase.  I hope all the albums are 5.1 eventually.  Wow. so good.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Magical-Mystery-Tour-Blu-ray/53311/

[Gutbucket]

I am and I will, thanks.  I need to get a blu-ray player at some point anyway.  I'd like to find one that can also still play DVD-A.

[tim in jersey]

Personally, I have a tough enough time of keeping up with my 2 track and 4 track recordings.

I can just imagine how back-logged I'd get if I threw Surround in to the post-processing workflow. I would never get to just sit back and enjoy the recordings I've made. I've got plenty of examples of stereo stuff that needs some tweaks from 2, 3, 4+ years ago that I'd enjoy listening to that are just sitting on a HDD as it is...

In addition, I'm working on getting rig 2.5 and maybe 3.0 going for festy season...

[Gutbucket]

Yep, that's really my biggest issue Tim!

Enough of my earlier evangelizing.  Thanks for the ear and the space.

I’ll just address a few things I noticed in posts above which I think are entirely understandable misconceptions, but which don’t apply to surround recording of live music, at least in my experience.

But first a few thoughts on the TetraMic-
The Core TetraMic and the SoundField SPS2000 are very cool and relatively new tools, available at price-points low enough to be more widely attainable by amateurs like us.  I find the TetraMic to be most useful for its amazing stereo output flexibility- the ability to change patterns and mic angles after the fact is truly fantastic.  It’s also very small and unimposing. I justified buying one as part of my recording self-education and it has served very well in that role. It’s patterns are very accurate and it’s sound is much better than might be expected from the pedigree of capsules it uses.  I credit that to the innovative approach which both corrects and matches the native frequency response of the capsules in software, and matrix all four of them to produce virtual microphones with superior polar properties to those of the native capsules.  To my way of thinking it's a quite nice, super flexible stereo microphone with unique features that are very applicable to tapers.  It's great on-stage.  It would be easier to use with a few updates to it's software I'd like to see, and less kludgy powering options (I think Len may have addressed power options recently with an additional add-on product).

However, the TetraMic is not my preferred choice for multi-channel surround recordings of music unless maybe serving as a stereo microphone in a larger array with other microphones.  It’s small and convenient and might be an optimal choice for surround for video with minimal extra stuff, but in my experience optimal surround arrays for music recording and playback over 5 or more speakers absolutely requires space between microphones. 

I find an appropriately spaced or baffled array using 4 to 6 standard directional and omni mics like we all use for stereo recording to be superior for surround recording of music.  And yes, just like with stereo, great sounding microphones sound great in surround arrays.  My current 'reference' open recording array uses four Gefells (two cardioids, two supercardioids) and two DPA s (miniature omnis) into a Tascam DR-680.  So yeah, that's six mics, but not an uncommon amount around here, and it requires no unusual gear, just an unusual microphone arrangement and mounting setup.  The recording gear isn't really that much of a constraint, it's everything else.

Not mentioned in this thread but a common pitfall-
With the notable exception of widely spaced omnis, standard 2-channel stereo recording microphone setups plus extra microphones cannot be expected to work optimally for surround or offer a significant improvement over 2-channel stereo.  However, some good multi-channel surround recording setups can work very well for deriving a 2-channel stereo mix, and that compatibility is a very welcome side-benefit.  Sound familiar?  It's similar and relates to discussions of mixing two stereo pairs together- when that is likely to be beneficial and when it's less likely so, and has informed my comments in those discussions here at TS (for instance, adding a wide spaced pair of omnis is probably going to offer more advantage than a second similarly near-spaced pair right next to the first pair on the same stand).

One more that will be harder for some to believe-
Believe it or not, unless your stereo microphone setup is attenuating the distractions of bad audience members and over-reverberant rooms significantly enough so that those things are fully beneath the threshold of awareness on playback, and the stereo microphone setup which achieves that for you does not significantly compromise other otherwise desirable qualities in the recording which could have been achieved with a different stereo microphone setup if they weren't a problem, those problem noises originating from behind your recording position may actually be less distracting in properly mixed surround.  That's probably difficult to believe, but it’s actually an extension of one of the important difference between stereo and mono.  With stereo it becomes much easier to differentiate between separate sources, and do things like follow separate but simultaneous melodic lines on two different instruments than it is with mono.  That's partly based on the “cocktail party” effect where we are able to listen to one conversation and ignore the others in a crowded room.  With mono reproduction you simply can’t do that.  In surround it’s actually much easier than in two-channel stereo, and unless the offending noise is completely pushed beneath your threshold of awareness by your stereo technique, those distractions can actually be easier to ignore and less annoying in surround than in stereo.  Still sucks though, like it did live in the room at the time.  Note that this is different than being hyper-aware of noises at the live event only to find you don't notice them on the recording.  I still find that happens even though I'm recording sounds arriving from all directions.

[justink]

We (Core Sound) manufacture TetraMic, an ambisonic microphone. It's small, competitively priced, and produces a four-channel B-format recording. For playback that four-channel recording can be decoded to two-channel stereo or binaural, but it can also be decoded to full surround (with height) for playback over almost any number of speakers. It can also be decoded to simple 5.1 surround. Decoding is easy.

If you go to LMA or Dime, essentially all of the recordings are in two-channel format, intended for playback over two speakers or headphones. Surround (even 5.1) is a rarity.

Since it's so easy, why do you suppose most tapers are still recording concerts for only two-channel playback? Why aren't tapers making more B-format or even fixed format multi-channel surround recordings?

we are.  there's lots of them out there.  especially Dave Matthews Band recordings. 

don't even need a special TetraMic to do it!   

[Gutbucket]

Point me to a good one if you can, I'd like to check it out.   I've heard a few but haven't been overly impressed with them.  As I just mentioned above, it's not so much the gear required to do it, it's setting up the microphones in optimal arrangements which are quite different than those typically used for stereo recordings.


I want to be completely fair to Len here in my critique I just posted above, and note that I haven't had the opportunity to hear any true 3-dimensional ambisonic playback from the TetraMic using a minimum of 8 speakers arranged at the vertices of a cube, or a more complex geometric configurations of additional speakers spaced equally all around the listening space, and I don't know anyone who has that kind of setup outside of a sound lab at university.  That’s actual ambisonic surround playback in its true sense without compromise or conversion, but of course it’s far more esoteric than horizontal surround formats like 5.1 and its derivatives and it's not how most users would use an ambisonic microphone.  My impression of TetraMic’s capabilities for surround decodes to more than 4 speakers might change if I ever get the chance to listen that way or rig something like that up myself.  I’d like to do that simply for my own curiosity and education at some point.  I've considered doing something like that using 8 small computer speakers or the like attached to the top and bottom of the legs of a typical pop-up canopy.  I do regularly use 8 speakers for surround playback at home, but they are arranged more like a 7.1 setup, with an extra speaker in the center in back and without the .1 (3 mains in front and 5 surrounds around the sides and in back, no sub)

[tim in jersey]

Statement: most amplified PA mixes are barely stereo mixes.

Given the current state of affairs at small clubs, medium venues, and even big outdoor events, that I record in, why would I want to record ambient crowd noise in 5.1? I get plenty of that in stereo with 2 mics as it is.

Yes, I want some "room air" for reference from the AUD mics. I generally want to get the VOX prescence from the SBD and combine it with the low-end from the AUD...

I'm happy with 4 chan. matrices for now.

[Chilly Brioschi]

Two ears, two speakers, two mics. = I'm good
Stereo is capable of more than we give it credit for and playback of stereo is virtually everywhere.

What is everyone using to encode and playback multi-channel these days?
Last thread was awash with DVD-A encoding worries, Scott had written code, commercial mastering and encoding programs  were megabuck$$$$
How do I best record and playback and share a 5.1 or 7.1 ?

[mysticeyes]

I'm old-school, old-fashioned and behind the times. I have two channels of playback, and I'm very happy with what I have (Martin Logan, Krell and Threshold), and have been for over fifteen years. My preamp doesn't even have knobs to allow alteration of bass or treble. The thought of another playback system that would include five or six more speakers and a lot of sound "processing," and add delay to certain channels, etc., just makes me ill. Not that I could even afford such at the moment. However, it would be great to have a surround system for watching movies, and only for movies!

[Chuck]

However, it would be great to have a surround system for watching movies, and only for movies!

Football also sounds good to me in surround sound.

[2manyrocks]

Statement: most amplified PA mixes are barely stereo mixes.

Given the current state of affairs at small clubs, medium venues, and even big outdoor events, that I record in, why would I want to record ambient crowd noise in 5.1? I get plenty of that in stereo with 2 mics as it is.

Yes, I want some "room air" for reference from the AUD mics. I generally want to get the VOX prescence from the SBD and combine it with the low-end from the AUD...

I'm happy with 4 chan. matrices for now.

In many, the mixes are mono.  If you're being blasted by a mono PA mix, how could surround recording be of much benefit?

[Ultfris101]

Surround recording is out of place for most live music recording for all the reasons listed here. It's very cool technically and can lead to a very immersive experience.

Personally, if I'm going to sit down in an immersive surround sound system I want to see video too. I can only sit with my eyes closed meditating on the music for so long. It might just be me and maybe I have ADD.

If there's video, I'm coming to the theory that your eyes might help you tune out the distractions like the people talking behind you much like you do at a concert and therefore the full surround experience becomes more valuable. I think it's cool to imagine hearing a group of talkers moving through a festival crowd from behind (not distracting, just the festival type deal) and as they walk past they come into view and the sound follows them as they move up into their preferred position to spread out a blanket.

For audio alone the benefit of surround seems to be a very niche market. And then right now the video market seems to expanding in the small/mobile screen with earbuds market rather than home theater.

[Gutbucket]

DAW software can do it, but most implementations I know of have until recently have been awkward and not really very well thought-out, or only well implemented in the more costly versions.  I use Samplitude V10 Master which has limited channel counts, some decent matrix surround support, DVD-A burning, etc. , but the strong multi-channel implementation in that version was in their way too expensive professional Sequoa version.  I have an upgrade to their newer Samp Pro X, mostly due to the elimination of the track limits and the far more robust surround support that trickled down since, but haven't really used that yet.   Reaper support may be good, haven't looked too deeply since I'm already in the Samp camp.

I mostly use the DAW for mixing to two-channel.  I have some surround projects stored as Samplitude native VIP projects played directly from the DAW, which work from the raw track files.  Once fully edited I'll probably store the finished output as multichannel FLACs, playable through Foobar or whatever.  Multichannel FLAC > analog out through a multichannel soundcard / or direct PCM out over HDMI.  But most of my current surround playback is still hardware based, files transferred back to SD cards put back into the multi-track recorders for playback, through hardware EQ and delay if that's necessary and not available on the recorder.  Works at home, sound quality is great, but its clunky and not easily transportable or share-able.

Encoding to other than FLAC (various flavors of Dolby/DTS are the obvious options) is a whole 'nother can of worms.  Encoding software costs money, a lot for the new lossless formats with high channel counts, but not overly cost prohibitive for traditional lossy 5 channel DTS last I checked.  Might be able to do it on the cheap with Dolby Live or whatever they call the real time encoding output option targeted at computers and game consoles (also a DTS version).   I've done matrix encoding for mix-down to 2-channel, not using the official Dolby or DTS encoders, but either the matrix surround mode in Samp or simple delays, stereo over-widening, and phase manipulation.  Decodes pretty nicely through PLIIx or NEO6, but the discrete playback is superior.  It's an easy way for stereo compatibility though.  I once looked at picking up a Lexicon home theater receiver which had the option of Logic7 matrix encoding on it's SPDIF output from a 7 channel analog input.

VST plugin multi-channel support has slowly grown far more common.

The most likely future of all this is probably not multichannel speaker playback so much as headphone-based surround visualization with head-tracking.  I can see that being far more likely.

Statement: most amplified PA mixes are barely stereo mixes.

Two ears, two speakers, two mics. = I'm good

In many, the mixes are mono.  If you're being blasted by a mono PA mix, how could surround recording be of much benefit?

A single solo performer without a PA is a mono source.  An important question I think is this- Can the acoustic experience of listening to that solo performance in a live-acoustic performance space be recreated well enough to completely convince a listener willing to suspend disbelief so that the listener experiences the reproduction as if transported back into that original performance space, by way of a mono recording? A stereo recording? A five channel recording? Seven? The answer is subjective and partly depends on the listener, but is also based in acoustics, the mechanism of human hearing, and how robust we'd like the recreation illusion to be.

If anyone cares to hear more about my experience with recording setups for 5 up to 8 channel playback I'm happy to share what I know.  To repeat what I mentioned earlier, I really don't expect anyone else to try any this stuff.  I'd expect if anyone is interested in discussing it, it would be simply based on a technical interest.  It's obviously something which interests me a great bit and I get a great deal of pleasure from, and that's enough for me.

There's nothing at all wrong with stereo, or mono for that matter, or enjoying either and feeling no need to go any further.  Things are far simpler that way!