So you know all the important mobile recording crews, also in the EU, and are intimate with their setups and workflow ?

I wonder how you can comment in one thread on the cranesong dac and how big the upgrade is in imaging compared to Gracedesign/benchmarkmedia, while I can easily hear on any bench/grace dac old or new how the soundstage collapses to nothing when I disable my delay settings on support mics and spots.

I know of several main EU outfits that do it as well.

IMO it is one of the reasons why digital (with multiple mics) recordings sound superior to older analogue recordings.

Hello Yannick,
You mix a number of topics in your response above. I cannot know what each outfit does vis a vis mic delays, that's true. But it is not nearly as commonplace as it used to be when the Yamaha DM2000 first came out. I work d in Germany during those days and the request came from DG to Yamaha to build in delay capability. I do know that many engineers have abandoned the use of delay. Only those who use too many microphones need it now.

Then you talk about a post I made about Solaris. All I said there was comparing it against a Benchmark DAC1. Never mentioned Grace. Since my recordings use mic methods that preserve depth, I said that Solaris preserved all the depth of the recording. No time alignment was needed.

If you use a lot of mics for your recordings, then you might need delay. If the recording is an inorganic whole, it can benefit from timing manipulation.

You're an apologist for a method first seen in 1990. I guess there's nothing wrong with that. As a tutoring, listen to Reiner CSO recordings.

I never brought up any analog vs. digital subject matter. None of my colleagues use time alignment.

Does Manuel Mohino use time alignment? I don't know if he does or not.

There we go again. I can adopt the same style, but I will refrain. There is no need to state your opinion as (historical/objective) fact.

I am very aware time alignment came into the picture with the use of the DM2000. I am also quite confident that many/most DG recordings still use the technique.

Also, would you call a main stereo pair + one stereo support mic too many mics on chamber orchestra + woodwinds ? If I do not time align the woodwind mic (of course, this is impossible for ALL woodwinds), you hear it too early in the mix. Even when it is 20 dB down, the signal still precedes the main mic and skews the image and soundstage.

see my remark about the woodwind mic. I wonder how you use eg. 6 mics without some sort of time alignment, and still preserve your main image. Some very creative mic placement spring to my mind ;-)

I disagree. See above. Anyway, I use as little as mics possible, so your statement is not correct.

There we go, not only historical facts, but also psychological profiling. Now I am an apologist
I am not defending an obsolete technique. I did many tests over the course of two decades, and I conclude that in most instances, the end result is a lot better with time alignment. In some instances I avoid it (surround arrays, flankers, soloist spot placed too close too the main mic array with the soloist all ready very present in the mains, etc.)

Moreover, on more percussive sounds in bigger setups, spots mics start to sound like flams, if not time aligned. (for me anyway, but I tend to listen for clean transients)

No I did, as a reason why it wasnt used before.

I do not know, but I think he does. How do you know him ? Did you work with him ?

No big deal. Everyone works differently.
I don't judge negatively those people who use certain technical methods.

The more mics one puts out on stage, the more mistakes are captured close up and in high fidelity.

in response to



btw my method is not technical. It is empirical. Much like a 9 year old with ears, time and a mic collection

Hey Yannick, you ever do 5 mic ITU surround recording of acoustic music? I'd like to correspond with others who do as a primary alignment and recording product.

Tom

If you mean the Polyhymnia pentagon, then no.
I mostly do double MS augmented with a half Hamasaki square, or just two fig8 for the rear channels. If do not like direct sound ending up in the rear channels, not with classical music anyway.

Demand for surround is non-existant the last decade. Nevertheless a lot of my recordings are done this way, as it also works brilliantly in stereo.

IME the Polyhymnia pentagon is incompatible with the stereo version, so in my case a complete waste of inputs and harddisk space.

Yes, that's the PolyhymnIa branded ITU alignment patterned after the surround speaker alignment. It's a starting point though, ending up more like a Decca Tree with two rear surround mics. My own experience is that it reduces better to stereo with omni mics than the Onno Pipe with the same mics.YMMV.

While surround is a niche market, it's hardly non existant. Our nativedsd.com sells about a third of our volume as surround. It appears once people make the investment, it seems to become the listening format of choice, particularly for larger ensembles .

OK. I tend to prefer coincident MS over AB for stereo, and I have the same for surround arrays. I do seem to prefer a spaced arrangement for the rear channels, or to augment the rear.

Do you find as well you need much less spots for the surround mixes ?

I see that. I only have two problems:

a. I took a quick look at the gear on your site. I do not see an easy solution to download 5.0 DSD and play it back ? How does one meet the technical hastle (not to mention the surplus investment if one has to buy 3 highend DACs) with the higher average age of the classical listener in EU ? I mean, I regularly have to help my parents and parents-in-law with basic stuff like email and getting wifi to work.

Is there any solution that will stream 2ch or even 5ch from the internet to your Hifi - without PC ?

b. I never recorded DSD and never will. So sites that offer native DSD for sale are not an option (and I am avoiding the discussion about the term "native"here). By non-existant I meant: I have no clients nor labels that ask for it. I agree that once you offer it, you will find some buyers.
I do appreciate what sites like nativedsd.com are doing. It seems to create some awareness among music lovers.

As a side note, last year, Warner classical (Belgium) was not even interested in MFit or 96K stereo versions for digital 2ch distribution. They just wanted the 44.1K/16 bit files ! Go figure.

The price is very steep, but this appears to be Merging's thinking behind the NADAC which uses an integrated version of the Roon Player.

No need for streaming, nor the internet. Well, until you need to purchase and download content.

But, perhaps Primephonic's new classical streaming service could offer the backend, and there is no reason why the NADAC couldn't support Primephonic as Roon Player already streams Tidal.

Streaming though isn't a business model, for anyone other than the shareholders.

I agree streaming is a bad business model.
I also agree price is steep. multichannel Nadac is 11500 dollar.

I really wonder how those 30% clients of nativedsd get their 5ch files playing on their hifi in a practical way.

IMO there are no practical medium-cost solutions available today. Which is a big joke considering how long multichannel hires exists.

That is exactly why I have zero demand.

I was never convinced by 5.1 nor 7.1, as it offers no improvement over stereo in terms of frontal spread (still only 60°) and throwing a few more speakers at the back, so I only purchase the stereo DSD releases from NativeDSD.

But apparently I'm a minority voice as few seem to agree with that sentiment.


The Weiss MAN301 is the only other Music Server/DAC solution I am aware of, which is priced even higher than the NADAC (roughly $12500) and its stereo only.

One of those obvious solutions that are priced beyond the average listener.

I'm still convinced the Television (and the Cinema) has more of a future for classical music consumption. It will be interesting to see how the Berlin Philharmonic pulls off 4K/HDR video streaming along with "hi-res" audio later in the year (which is only referred to as "hi-res" but no specific details are available as to what that actually means in the context of audio recording for the Digital Concert Hall).

I find listening to and mixing for surround much easier. It gives a more relaxed physical and emotional experience, whilst offering more resolution. It is as if the ear/brain finds itself more comfortable and can concentrate on the music in a more natural way. Balance issues tend to disappear.

Yes. But combining quality surround audio with image puts these kind of productions out of the reach even of only slightly lesser orchestras. Let alone a young chamber music ensemble.

How are small labels going to sell their audio only surround recordings in a home-cinema context ? That is like all those music youtube movies with just the cover of the cd as the image.

I see a dim future for multichannel, whichever way you look at it. The main problem being there is no cost-effective AND elegant way to do it.

I agree, but in the context of an improved layout such as 10.0 (or even a 5/2) configuration. I don't have an aversion to "surround" formats, it's just the 1970s technology (5.1) never inspired me the way 10.0 does.


I didn't mean the home cinema, I meant the Film Theatre.

It will work once Theatres return to a subscription model, as was implemented during the early years of film, in the birthplace of film (France) in the early 20th century, which was seemingly based on the Mozart performance subscription of the 17th century (the earliest known instance of this model).


I always think of the Louis Lumière credited remark: "Cinema is an invention without a future".

Live Cinema broadcasts are second only to sitting in the Opera Theatre.

I heard excellent 9.1 playbacks at the Tonmeistertagung. Very enveloping sound and the height channels were adding not only dimension, but also more accurate timbre for the instruments in the orchestra.

Pyramix has a 3D mixing console and Reaper too. Soon hopefully Sequoia will join the club.

I am stoked by 3D immersive sound.

That is exactly my impression as well, the height channels improve the tonal quality of the instruments and their spacial separation, even from front to back of the sound stage.

The physical placement of the speakers distract from what they add to the playback, as they don't add so much clearly audible height information.

Best,
Dirk

While there are surround enthusiasts, like me with dedicated five identical balanced channel listening systems, I think the majority of multichannel listeners use their home theater multichannel systems. The receivers contained in those systems accept digital or analog inputs, and process them into the 5 or 7 channel speaker arrays. It ain't pure, but it has the advantages of surround sound.

As I mentioned in your Sequoia 14 thread, the object-based audio features to be included (not to be confused with Dolby Atmos "objects" but metadata-specified dynamically rendered audio) will be a huge step forward for music production and delivery.

Paired with immersive sound, the new directions and possibilities object-based audio presents to content creators is very exciting. Object-based audio has more potential than immersive sound since it is speaker and configuration agnostic.

Side note: I am pleased Magix is supporting open specifications which are actual standards (specifically ITU-R BS.2088-0, ITU-R BS.2076-0 and ITU-R BS.2094) instead of the proprietary solutions such as Dolby's AC-4 which is the direction Avid is taking.

Yes. But to an even greater degree, when ITU surround is played back on a correctly set up ITU surround system, the spatial relationship between instruments is preserved and natural sounding. In other words, I find instruments or groups that would normally need to be spot mic'd for stereo reproduction appear correctly balanced and realistic sounding when listened to in surround.