Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?  (Read 25150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 381
    • Core Sound
Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« on: October 01, 2014, 03:03:36 PM »
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?

« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:12:22 PM by Len Moskowitz (Core Sound) »
Len Moskowitz
Core Sound
www.core-sound.com

Offline perks

  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
    • Recordings uploaded to TTD
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2014, 03:14:02 PM »
My neck hurts when I stealth a Soundfield.
Mics: Schoeps MK5's, Schoeps MK41's, AT853's (C,SC,H,O), DPA 4061's
Preamps/converters: Schoeps VMS52UB (x2), Nbox (x2), E.A.A. PSP-2 (x2) Grace Lunatec V2, Sound Devices MP-2, DPA MMA6000, Naiant Tinybox v1.5, Naiant PiPsqueak, Church Ugly, Apogee Mini-Me, Benchmark AD2k+
Recorders: Tascam DR-680, Korg MR-1, Edirol R-05, Sony PCM-M10 (x2), Tascam DR-07, Marantz PMD-661, Sound Devices Mixpre-3

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2014, 03:25:49 PM »
I haven't heard enough (well any) field recordings of this sort so I have no idea what I'd get or why I'd want to use it. 

I can say that in general I want a focused sound : typically as direct a line as I can get on the proceedings. 

A surround field of room reverberations, or worse chattering, drinking, eating, etc. is not my goal.  I'm trying to avoid that. 

Most audience located applications probably are going to get less music and more random ambient factors with a surround approach as opposed to a directional one. 

That said I do a fair amount of onstage and stage lip work where I could see some utility in reproducing a wider field.  I think in general I at most want 180 degree coverage for that though.  What's behind the (conventional) mics or my position I don't want (I put them where I do to try to minimize the potential soundstage I don't want). 

That said there are a few who want to introduce some (diffuse) crowd ambiance into their recordings.  Maybe they'd want something of that nature. 

Of course I may misunderstand what these mics actually reproduce in which case I return to my start (I don't know them and haven't heard the results). 
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 03:52:30 PM by bombdiggity »
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline ScoobieKW

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • ScoobieSnax Audio Archive
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2014, 03:31:26 PM »
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 essentially 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?

There are a few reasons.

a. I own stereo pairs of mics, I do not own or have the budget to buy an Ambisonic mic
b. I own a stereo, I do not own any surround sound playback systems.
c. In most cases, I am working to maximize the performance to audience ratio. Adding extra mics to capture the room runs counter to this.
Busman BSC1, AT853 (O,C),KAM i2 Chuck Mod (C), Nak 300 (C),
M10, UA-5, US-1800, Presonus Firepod

http://kennedy-williams.net/scoobiesnax/

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2014, 03:31:53 PM »
Not to knock the TetraMic, but I think stereo recordings made with fine German condenser mics are going to sound better than recordings made with the electret capsules in that mic.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline cybergaloot

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4079
  • Gender: Male
  • Poohbah!
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2014, 04:03:29 PM »
A: Most of the time I give the band a copy right after the show. The sets are usually 90 minutes that wont fit on a CD without editing so I burn both sets to one data DVD. The fact that it is a DATA DV which confuses more of them than it should. Surround would just confuse them more. Many will not have the playback gear.
B: Price. Don't get me wrong, the price is fair, I'm just poor.
C: I'd love to have one to play with but there is a lot of other gear I need more. Maybe one day.
--
Walter

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. Will Rogers

this>that>the other

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2014, 04:11:36 PM »
I think Ambi mics are a great option and have always wanted to play with one. I like the ability to adjust pattern in post.

As to listening to "surround sound" on playback, I know there are those here that do it, but I just don't see it. Listening to music is actually nothing like listening to a 7.1 Hollywood movie. Those that remember (or in my case, have a father who collected) Quad in the 70s know how that turned out.

Personally, for music, I would rather listen to music in stereo on an excellent stereo pair than "surround sound" that brings a center channel and rear speakers into the mix.

But that doesn't mean I'm knocking ambisonic mics. I think the real reason most tapers don't use them is they are too lazy to do the work in post. Look how many people don't bother with EQ, which is child's play compared to mixing down an ambisonic recording, or so I'm told.
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2014, 04:14:30 PM »
Not to knock the TetraMic, but I think stereo recordings made with fine German condenser mics are going to sound better than recordings made with the electret capsules in that mic.

Maybe.  But our good friend Ozpeter posted a rather interesting comparison here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/951015-classical-orchestra-positioning-m-s-mic-pair-3.html

Of course I'm biased, but although I heard my mix many years ago (seven I think), I'd never heard the main pair until last month.  My opinion is neither file posted is as good as a simple 50/50 mix of the two; the quite expensive German main pair was lacking in lows, not because of their quality but because of laws of physics as they apply to directional capsules.  And the spot-omni mix, although it worked incredibly well given its setup, missed detail in some of the sections (notably cellos and some of the winds), and was a bit hyper-realistic.

I have no doubt that Ozpeter's final mix (I think there were also some flankers involved) was even better than the 50/50 approach.

My aim wasn't to disparage electrets as I still own and use a pair of your MSH-1O's and my current favorite omnis are Audix M1290-o. I guess my point is that it's hard to beat a nice pair of high quality condensers for recording. I haven't heard any surround sound recordings that sound as good as a stereo pair sound. I have found that I really don't like surround sound audio recordings of concerts. The surround is fine for movies, but not for the best musical reproduction in my opinion.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2014, 04:26:54 PM »
Like others, I don't want to hear what's coming from behind me in a club.

Offline flipp

  • resident curmudgeon
  • Trade Count: (17)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4285
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2014, 04:29:02 PM »
the following are my main reasons:

Quote

I own stereo pairs of mics, I do not own an Ambisonic mic
I own a stereo, I do not own any surround sound playback systems
too lazy to do the work in post

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2014, 04:44:09 PM »
Lot's of responses since I started typing this and got distracted.

Here’s a list of reasons off the top of my head:

-Limited playback opportunities.
-Increased complication in understanding the various approaches in recording for surround (2-channel stereo is already complex).
-Increased recording hardware complexity and costs.
-Increased editing complexity, complications, and lack of robust support in commonly used editing software.
-Increased storage requirements.
-Lack of standardized universal, free distribution/playback formats.
-Doesn't fit easily into the model of recording to promote lesser-known acts which drives much of this taping culture.
-Doesn't fit well with the modern lifestyle listening habits of most listeners.
-Misunderstandings of the advantages over 2-channel stereo, and mischaracterizations of expected disadvantages.

And the biggest one-
-Most simply haven't been convinced.  They haven't heard good enough examples to be convinced these hassles are worth making the extra effort to overcome them.

Some of those challenges have become less problematic than they used to be, given the on-going advances in computing and recording hardware such as inexpensive multi-channel recorders and other gear such as your TetraMic.  But all of them remain challenges over 2-channel stereo recording and playback, some of them quite significant.

Here’s a realistic if somewhat dark view of the current state of things. I’ll follow up later with the brighter evangelistic take, because really I’m a true believer and optimist-

The field of amateur live music recording is relatively small, within which surround recording will always be at best a sub-set.  I've found very little interest here at TS in even discussing surround and potential ways to go about recording it.  I’m unaware of anyone else actually making live music recordings in surround.  Here's the previous attempt at a general discussion- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=7947.msg1658425#msg1658425.  That was the original Surround live recording thread from 2003.  Todd E bumped it in 2009 and that's when I became aware of it, I bumped it again in 2011 and it immediately died a quick, sharp death.  Since then I've given up discussing it around here, but still sneak mention into discussions when it's somewhat relevant.  That rarely goes anywhere other than a PM or two on rare occasions.

There have been a few users of various portable Soundfield microphones on-board here, although all of them have used the microphones to produce 2-channel stereo rather than surround, as far as I’m aware.  There are some some DTS encoded surround recordings from the early to mid 2000’s posted on Archive, Etree and elsewhere, but all of the ones I’ve sampled are either simply dry SBD routed to the front speakers with a stereo AUD routed to the surrounds, or are otherwise made from a few conglomerated 2-channel stereo recording setups with the surround being at best an afterthought and not well implemented.

Almost no one has a system setup for proper playback.  Most home theater cinema systems are sub-par at best for good surround music playback and not up to the quality of their stereo playback, their car stereo, or their headphone system.  Most commercial surround sound music releases are a joke and not worth the effort to reproduce them.  On top of that, very few listeners are even willing to take the time to sit down and experience something like a fully immersive surround listening experience which commands all of one's attention.  Readers here are a few of the last remaining exceptions to that, but how many outside of us even have decent stereo systems much less take the time to sit down an listen to an entire album or live recording?

[edit to add link to previous TS discussion above]
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:09:21 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2014, 04:54:04 PM »
When I have the option to listen to 5.1 concert playback or 2 channel I always prefer the two channel. Partly because my playback is for movies, not music. But, I also find listening to surround sound to be fatiguing. I watch football games with the 5.1 on and it's good for that though.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline Wiggler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2014, 05:43:41 PM »
I think surround recording great for near field not good for the far field recordings most tapers make.

DF81

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2014, 08:21:07 PM »
I've used the surround sound some with FCPX, but it was difficult to output 5.1 from the laptop and be able to hear the panning so I put it aside.  I recently bought a new laptop though and I will check it out again soon.  It has HDMI and Optical outputs.  I would like to test a surround mic before purchasing, and mix with a good SBD recording or multitrack.  It also depends on the venue.  This might be good for mid-size and larger venues, but clubs... nah.

And to echo what AcidJack said, some people are too lazy or don't have the computer skills to use much editing software.

I'm mostly interested in surround sound for videos and home theatre use.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 08:40:25 PM by DF81 »

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2014, 08:57:24 PM »
Okay, my last post was all the bad and the ugly, here’s the good (cue the red-tailed hawk cry and warble whistle, knock off the desert dust and wet those chapped lips)..

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool firm believer in live music surround recording.  Not in surround album releases. And not in a way that has very much in common with film surround sound or television broadcast surround. 

The first part of that statement at least probably comes as no surprise to many of you who have been kind enough to bear with my frequently over-worded posts here, where my enthusiasm for surround recording occasionally seeps in. This is likely to be another one of those.  I’ll try and explain why I feel so strongly that way, and why I think others might also find it as rewarding, but I’m well past expecting to convert anyone here to recording surround.  It’s taken me about 7 years of experimentation to get to where I’m relatively comfortable and satisfied with several basic recording approaches to doing it, depending on the situation and constraints.  It’s certainly no “one approach fit’s all” kind of thing on the recording side of things, although I do think there may be positive movement towards eventually finding a few “universal formats” which are at least appropriate to mix to, from which specific formats like stereo or specific surround playback formats may be derived as appropriate.  My greatest desire at this point is to find ways to share this experience which I’ve personally found to be so rewarding and compelling with others who might appreciate the experience of it and I hope to be working towards doing that more effectively in the next few years.  In all likely hood that will involve not just appropriate editing of the recordings for an appropriate playback and distribution format, which is one of the larger challenges for both surround recording in general and for me personally, but also a dedicated portable playback system I can transport easily enough to haul around and share the experience - since those two sides of the coin are essentially inseparable.  I’ve already begun to slow down on the recording side, so those are obvious next steps.

Nearly every recording I’ve made since about 2007 has been made in some form of surround.  I can easily count the exceptions.  It may sound cliché, but I’ve found the proper playback experience of the ones I didn’t screw up some how to often be at least on-par if not significantly superior to the live experience, at least sonically.  At its best the experience is completely transformative, like a teleportation time-machine.  Ironic perhaps, but that playback experience has been one of the greatest windows to really understanding and finding a far deeper enjoyment of the actual performance of live music for me.  I’ve had the opportunity to hear some really excellent live recordings through outstanding high-end 2-channel stereo playback systems in dedicated rooms, and it is true that at their best they can approach some (but not all) of the qualities of great surround playback.  But that’s rare, and I don’t have anything like that kind of budget.  I can achieve a superior suspension of disbelief much more consistently at a far lower cost with surround.  There are plenty of other hurdles though.  If there was an easier and less isolated way to achieve the same transformative experience with just two channels I’d do it.

For me the motivation for making live music recordings mostly comes from just two things: that transformative experience, and the interesting intellectual challenge in understanding how it works well enough to engineer a systems approach for achieving it with the resources I have available, within all the given constraints.

The ultimate potential of surround sound is the live music experience.  Good movie surround is great and live sports surround sound has great potential in similar ways to movies.   Like movie surround, the goal of suspension of disbelief to achieve an emotive connection is the same, but the particulars are very different, and so is the essential essence of the experience I think.  Movies and sports are highly if not primarily visual experiences and that visual experience is reinforced and improved by good immersive surround. By contrast, live music surround is an auditory experience first and foremost, a visual image is secondary and actually distracts from the ultimate suspension of disbelief, given the viewer’s expectation of cuts, zooms and modern production techniques. Modern viewers have long learned to accept the visual constraints and "language of video", they no longer actually fear for their lives when a train runs through the cinema screen like audiences did in the early silent movie era, they don't get confused and sea-sick with quick pans like audiences used to in the early days, but that knowing it's a cheat is still there subconsciously.  I don't mean to belittle great video of live music, but even the very best of it is never presented in a fully immersive visual-surround format except maybe at Epcot or IMAX, at best it's a big HD image screen in front.  In contrast with cinema, with surround music-only playback the lack of any visual image can actually heighten the auditory sense of acuity and the near-magical sense of teleportation.  I'm not saying I can do it to that quality, but that's the potential of it, and I've tasted it.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 09:04:10 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 44 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF