The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Immersive classical techniques
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
I'm running a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. The Onkyo receiver will actually adjust the delay for Auro3D, but it is a bit of a science project. I'm working on Dolby Atmos at the office, so I went with that at home. I can take my mixes and play the discrete files back at home for comparison on a bandwidth limited system.
However, for the most part i use it to watch movies and there is even some Atmos on Netflix, but you need the upgraded account.
As far as placement goes, I'm using a standard ITU for the bottom speakers and a equidistant square for the overhead speakers. I can get them within about 20cm of the correct location. I use the delay in the receiver to compensate. They are off by less than a millisecond.
As far as the recording aspect of it, it really comes down to delays and time of arrival. I generally position my microphones so that my rear channels are in the 30 ms range. For Atmos, I typically duplicate the front curtain of microphones at height and add a wide pair at about 10ms and a very wide pair at 20ms.
I find that I don't like rears that are much more than 30ms behind the mains. The real trick is to get the sense of movement of sound through the space, especially the transients and low frequencies. The real test for any atmos setups are organ pedal notes and bass drums and how the pressure waves propagate through the space. When it is right, you can feel the wave move back and forth running the length of the space.
The Mahler 8 I'm working on was recorded in a space almost 250' long. This is a really great test of the system for getting the movement in space dialed in.

As always, YMMV.
All the best
-mark
Thanks for your detailed reply. I’d love to hear those organ notes.

Are the Atmos speakers positioned closer to the centre of the listening area than the fronts and rears, and did you hang them from the ceiling or are they set into the ceiling?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I am very interested to hear about people's ways of working and the new possibilities.

Here, my research interests focus on binaural and ambisonic playback on headphones. 3D / immersive sound playback on headphones.

I do this with the use of IRCAM Panoramix and various binaural and ambisonic microphones and spot mics.

I have heard fantastic playbacks by Sennheiser using their Ambeo Square and Ambeo Cube for 9.1 playback. These based on capture by a specific grouping / arrangement of Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin mics.

By far the best demos I have heard have been at two Tonmeistertagung meetings.

I listen to what Gregor Zielinsky says and I like his research, but am currently oriented to the French since I believe that they (and the BBC) are the most advanced in this field.

I speak and write French.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
.
Atmos is not a high def format, and as such has its own set of limitations. Today, ATMOS production is limited to 48k and for that reason we are treating it as a delivery medium and not a master. I'm doing all my production at DXD or 192 and then at the end creating a 48k mix master project for ATMOS delivery.

As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Hi Mark,
Wonderfully helpful insights, as usual. Is Soundmirror doing the Atmos “mastering” in house (I.E. are you using the Dolby products to create the deliverables)?

Best,
Andrés
Old 3 weeks ago
  #34
I lived through the "Quadraphonic" phase in recording and listening. The college I worked for even bought a Neumann QM-69 and a Sansui encoder to record the concerts given in one particular hall. (Good article here http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...gotten-sur.php) The radio station that did our "bicycle network" (sending tapes to 83 other radio stations) was the driving force in getting the college to get into Quadraphonic recording. The whole endeavor lasted about three years and then went away. I fear this is the same fate that the ATMOS will face in the foreseeable future especially if the only way to "truly listen" is on speakers. Most men have trouble convincing their wives to go with 5.1 setups, ATMOS is in a whole other category. As they say "time will tell" how this is received. FWIW
Old 3 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
I lived through the "Quadraphonic" phase in recording and listening. The college I worked for even bought a Neumann QM-69 and a Sansui encoder to record the concerts given in one particular hall. (Good article here http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...gotten-sur.php) The radio station that did our "bicycle network" (sending tapes to 83 other radio stations) was the driving force in getting the college to get into Quadraphonic recording. The whole endeavor lasted about three years and then went away. I fear this is the same fate that the ATMOS will face in the foreseeable future especially if the only way to "truly listen" is on speakers. Most men have trouble convincing their wives to go with 5.1 setups, ATMOS is in a whole other category. As they say "time will tell" how this is received. FWIW
I understand the comparison of ATMOS to Quad but respectfully think a closer comparison might be 3-D? But ATMOS is first and foremost a movie sound format promoted by a very well-known company that is deeply embedded in the movie sound and audio worlds already. ATMOS has been very much embraced by movie studios, there are more ATMOS equipped theatres every day and while I question how widely it will be taken up by home-theatre people there is certainly action there. Will it be taken up to the same degree by people who spend very large amounts of money on "serious-listening" rooms, folks who sit and listen to recordings with great concentration? I guess some have, feeling that the ATMOS-mixed recordings that are available now are worth the trouble. But I see this as a niche-within-a-niche, something that will have to wait for some new consumer-technology breakthroughs to become part of most people's lives outside of movie theatres and high-end cars.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
I understand the comparison of ATMOS to Quad but respectfully think a closer comparison might be 3-D? But ATMOS is first and foremost a movie sound format promoted by a very well-known company that is deeply embedded in the movie sound and audio worlds already. ATMOS has been very much embraced by movie studios, there are more ATMOS equipped theatres every day and while I question how widely it will be taken up by home-theatre people there is certainly action there. Will it be taken up to the same degree by people who spend very large amounts of money on "serious-listening" rooms, folks who sit and listen to recordings with great concentration? I guess some have, feeling that the ATMOS-mixed recordings that are available now are worth the trouble. But I see this as a niche-within-a-niche, something that will have to wait for some new consumer-technology breakthroughs to become part of most people's lives outside of movie theatres and high-end cars.
Take a look at what this website is saying about 3D TV https://turbofuture.com/misc/Everyth...ow-About-3D-in

It is not the "bomb" everyone thought it might be, it has instead bombed and has mostly gone away from people's homes. 4K is here to stay as is 5.1 but ATMOS for the normal consumer is, IMHO, never going to catch on big time. If you have the money and the space and the time to set it all up then ENJOY! you are one in probably 10,000.

Everyone in Hollywood is looking for "next big thing" to get patrons back into the their local theaters. That is where Hollywood makes their money. I am betting on James Cameron who is looking into 3D without glasses for the next Avatar and if he can pull it off WOW!!! That is the one BIG complaint from most people viewing 3D movies...having to wear dark glasses in order to see the 3D effects and thereby cutting down the light by a large factor. See https://www.cinemablend.com/news/157...-working-on-it

I could be and most probably am not seeing the future of ATMOS but from a personal standpoint 5.1 or 7.1 is fine for me.

FWIW
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Gear Addict
 

I've been working with ambisonics for a few years now, mostly for 360 Video / VR content for headsets, almost always consumed with headphones. There's a chance that'll end up in the history bin alongside 3D televisions as well, but I've heard some really impressive demos of ambisonics reproduced over loudspeakers. CCRMA at Stanford holds concerts with different hemispherical arrays, and the big one I heard in the large studio that's part of Bing Hall absolutely *blew me away* - two nights back to back, several hours of content ranging from pure sound design to music on a system with dozens of speakers. What I heard that night, especially a few of the pieces, was so far beyond anything I've heard in a theater - even the best Dolby Atmos mixes don't hold up. But, I think they set that system up twice a year...it'll be interesting to see where all of this goes. I've also been to demos from the Dolby Atmos team where they described efforts to get Atmos systems in more clubs that host big electronic / dance events, and I think there are already a few scattered around the world. Pretty niche stuff though.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
As over-man says "Pretty niche stuff". Reality might be such that, until they can get ambi-immersive to work in the home with minimal speakers, or convincingly in headphones.....it's destined to become an out-of-home experience, something you hear in a movie theatre, drama theatre, concert hall, art gallery, dance club...in short, anywhere BUT the home setting ? Which is fine, it becomes part of the whole event-experience of going out to a shared public happening.

The only people disappointed and thwarted (drats....foiled yet again !) are those evil speaker box sellers who are determined to make inroads into your domestic living space, and sell you something they're convinced you need. Like a New Religion. They've been trying for decades, God bless 'em....but one day they'll give up ! You can lead an acoustically convincing hologram to the typical urban front door....but rarely does it make it (en masse) across the threshold.

Maybe 'the people' have spoken....long ago, and still today.....but those damn box builders just don't want to hear the message ? Get outta my house.....put your multi boxes in the supermarkets, libraries, theatres, movie-houses...any public space you wish. You can take your seductive holograms to the people, but (beyond basic default-position stereo....which today might be getting replaced by single box Bluetoothed phase-throwers) the people just ain't buying.....

It's an odd phenomenon isn't it....people will permit increasingly large hi-def TV panels into their homes (although the size ceiling must be nigh, if not already reached), yet they don't want the aural equivalent imposing itself upon their psyches. Must be something about home as cocoon, refuge, relief from outside world's reality....we want a barrier from it (otherwise we'd be living in tents on the front lawn.....which might be a really good idea in the current heatwave conditions !)

Last edited by studer58; 3 weeks ago at 02:50 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
It's an odd phenomenon isn't it....people will permit increasingly large hi-def TV panels into their homes (although the size ceiling must be nigh, if not already reached), yet they don't want the aural equivalent imposing itself upon their psyches. Must be something about home as cocoon, refuge, relief from outside world's reality....we want a barrier from it (otherwise we'd be living in tents on the front lawn.....which might be a really good idea in the current heatwave conditions !)
Not odd at all. Large screen TVs are flat today. If they took up as much room as CRTs or front projection large screens, they wouldn't be "permitted." But the space they take up is wall space and acts as a window to entertainment.

Speakers take up volume. And height speakers take up room that wasn't even planned for (and make the room smaller.) And very few people are ready to do in-wall installations (nor are their walls constructed properly to do so.)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
Not odd at all. Large screen TVs are flat today. If they took up as much room as CRTs or front projection large screens, they wouldn't be "permitted." But the space they take up is wall space and acts as a window to entertainment.

Speakers take up volume. And height speakers take up room that wasn't even planned for (and make the room smaller.) And very few people are ready to do in-wall installations (nor are their walls constructed properly to do so.)
So the smart approach, by those primitives I'll call the Box Sellers, would be to integrate their 3D-ambeo-immersive tech into already existing domestic ornaments...like window curtains/drapes, ceiling light fittings, cupboards, wall paint, refrigerators. The 'Internet of Things' domestic revolution (smart light globes etc) has already bypassed the audio hologram peddlers. Actually, I did see a startup enterprise who had a reasonably evolved idea of turning our windows into planar speaker membranes....what happened to that one ?

I can't help but see the Box Sellers as failed car salesmen, trying to convince us for the need of 50's style fins, leaded fuel and cruise control....when we're on the threshold of electric driverless cars. Men out of their time, like those dudes in Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch", almost phylogenetically senile, lost, running on auto-pilot

You guys can lead us all to the acoustic hologram Kool Aid, but you you can't make us drink
Old 3 weeks ago
  #41
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
You guys can lead us all to the acoustic hologram Kool Aid, but you you can't make us drink

Beamforming sound bars might be the answer: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8396233B2/en
Old 3 weeks ago
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
You guys can lead us all to the acoustic hologram Kool Aid, but you you can't make us drink
I suggest you take the opportunity to check out the Sennheiser sound bar. It is the first in a nascent market for 3D soundbars. While not a truly mas-market product at $2.5k, it is nonetheless impressive.
Also, like I said in my first post, the Dolby and b-com headphone systems are getting very good and don't require anything other than good old fashioned stereo to distribute. A recent Atmos music release was fundamentally mixed on the headphone app and finalized on the big studio system.
You should also check out the San Francisco Symphony - Brandt "Ice Field" in Atmos headphone.

As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Old 3 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Bruce Watson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
You guys can lead us all to the acoustic hologram Kool Aid, but you you can't make us drink
Now I get why Mr. Bourassa was trying to herd the cats back to recording techniques way back in post #24. Sigh...

As to recording techniques for immersive audio recording. I'm an old engineer (mechanical, not recording) who was always taught that "you can't solve a problem you can't define". And my problem with immersive audio is that I can't really define it.

So I look to those who have. And that leads me to Mr. Donahue's advice on technique. He's at least experimented with it enough to find what works for him and his clients, and he has a good theory as to why it works too. And that sounds like a darn fine starting point for anyone else. Just sayin'.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
...You should also check out the San Francisco Symphony - Brandt "Ice Field" in Atmos headphone.

As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Thanks for the links Mark. Personally I was a bit nonplussed by the Brandt in Atmos and preferred the stereo version - better defined image and not just awash in the soundfield, as was my impression of the former. Just my $0.02.

I will continue to listen to any examples offered; I don't think stereo is the grail but it sure has stood up well over time.

-Jim
Old 3 weeks ago
  #45
Thumbs up Immersive microphone techniques

Thanks for posting your in-depth experience with your immersive session, David. I'm really interested to see how you think it turns out once you get it mixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
I made my first immersive location recording about 9 months ago and I'm about to start mixing it. I don't have an Atmos-ready system, but I've cobbled together an "upper layer" in my control room for mix sessions. Ultimately, I expect it to be heard mostly in headphone renderings.

I decided to fall back on my prior experience making surround recordings, and augment a 5-channel surround "tree" with height channels. Recently published research shows that "raised" height microphones generate perceivable comb-filtering. I decided to use "coincident" height channels based on hypercardioid capsules from the same series as my front triple. I also employed a Hamasaki-inspired pair of side-facing figure-eights for ambience, and a rear-facing sub-cardioid in each side balcony for low-frequency de-correlation. That's a total of 11 channels to which I added a separate stereo pair for monitoring convenience and a couple of on-stage mics. I've attached a picture of my main array, another perspective showing it position relative to the stereo and ambience pairs, picture taken from the position of one of the balcony mics, and a picture of some of the action on stage. Musicians and other performers were doing things not only on stage, but also out in the hall. A conventional stereo recording wouldn't really have done justice to all that was happening.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 2 weeks ago
  #46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Thanks for the links Mark. Personally I was a bit nonplussed by the Brandt in Atmos and preferred the stereo version - better defined image and not just awash in the soundfield, as was my impression of the former. Just my $0.02.

I will continue to listen to any examples offered; I don't think stereo is the grail but it sure has stood up well over time.

-Jim
It's been my experience too, when trying to record ambisonics for decode in binaural, that a good spot for stereo placement sounds much more ambient in a binaural decoding. When moved closer to compensate for additional ambience, it seems to suffer a bit from overly separated sources (at least for chamber music applications).

Admittedly, most of the time I am doing this sort of thing in situations where my stereo mains are directional. I am guessing that perhaps this sort of thing might be more successful in situations where omni mains are usable, and at comparable distances.

Just upgraded my mixpre6 to be able to monitor in binaural (didn't want to take the chance of "bricking" it with a firmware update in mid-season), so I am looking ahead to next season to have better chance at monitoring on location.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
I made my first immersive location recording about 9 months ago and I'm about to start mixing it. I don't have an Atmos-ready system, but I've cobbled together an "upper layer" in my control room for mix sessions. Ultimately, I expect it to be heard mostly in headphone renderings.

I spent the last several years at AES haunting the immersive lecture and demo rooms to understand different microphone techniques and how they sound in playback. I agree with Bruce Watson that many of the most common techniques seem to obtain immersion at the expense of localization. There are a lot of recordings being made with stacked mics on five widely-spaced stands. I think one reason is that many of the "name" engineers and producers in this field are mostly recording symphonic and choral music with very large ensembles, which they render with "broad brushes", so to speak. The demos I heard of these recordings always sounded best when heard well back in the playback room. Get too close to the front speakers, and you realize there are lots of conflicting localization cues. I had a classical recording client with me one day, and we both noticed exactly the same thing. I'm not saying these engineers are "wrong"; this recording style is obviously getting them gigs. But it's not what I want to do for my work with smaller ensembles.

I decided to fall back on my prior experience making surround recordings, and augment a 5-channel surround "tree" with height channels. Recently published research shows that "raised" height microphones generate perceivable comb-filtering. I decided to use "coincident" height channels based on hypercardioid capsules from the same series as my front triple. I also employed a Hamasaki-inspired pair of side-facing figure-eights for ambience, and a rear-facing sub-cardioid in each side balcony for low-frequency de-correlation. That's a total of 11 channels to which I added a separate stereo pair for monitoring convenience and a couple of on-stage mics. I've attached a picture of my main array, another perspective showing it position relative to the stereo and ambience pairs, picture taken from the position of one of the balcony mics, and a picture of some of the action on stage. Musicians and other performers were doing things not only on stage, but also out in the hall. A conventional stereo recording wouldn't really have done justice to all that was happening.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Hi David

We've probably been haunting the same rooms. I'll confess, I mostly concur with your conclusion, though at a Sennheiser Ambeo demo a year or two back, I heard a couple of good recordings of smaller ensembles that were pretty convincing, even on a big system.

That's a pretty nifty array there - is that OCT you are using for mains?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
It's been my experience too, when trying to record ambisonics for decode in binaural, that a good spot for stereo placement sounds much more ambient in a binaural decoding. When moved closer to compensate for additional ambience, it seems to suffer a bit from overly separated sources (at least for chamber music applications).

Admittedly, most of the time I am doing this sort of thing in situations where my stereo mains are directional. I am guessing that perhaps this sort of thing might be more successful in situations where omni mains are usable, and at comparable distances.

Just upgraded my mixpre6 to be able to monitor in binaural (didn't want to take the chance of "bricking" it with a firmware update in mid-season), so I am looking ahead to next season to have better chance at monitoring on location.
may i ask you how large these places were? in my experience, smaller to medium rooms do not really help ambisonic recordings.

and for my taste, no decoding (or downmixing) sounds 'right' upon listening back with headphones (but maybe that's just me - funny enough, i find stereo recordings fed into a crossfeed matrix for headphone playback to be very pleasing...)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #49
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
and for my taste, no decoding (or downmixing) sounds 'right' upon listening back with headphones (but maybe that's just me - funny enough, i find stereo recordings fed into a crossfeed matrix for headphone playback to be very pleasing...)
I believe there are a few ambisonic to binaural decoders that allow you to load a personalized HRTF in sofa format, and I'm sure that would make some difference, but I've yet to try. I've auditioned pretty much all of the decoders out there, and to my ears, the Blue Ripple Sound headphone decoder in their paid decoder package sounds the best by far. It doesn't seem to destroy the tonal quality or transient response like some of the decoders do....
Old 2 weeks ago
  #50
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
may i ask you how large these places were? in my experience, smaller to medium rooms do not really help ambisonic recordings.

and for my taste, no decoding (or downmixing) sounds 'right' upon listening back with headphones (but maybe that's just me - funny enough, i find stereo recordings fed into a crossfeed matrix for headphone playback to be very pleasing...)
That is true - many of these have been under "smaller room" circumstances.

I have made a few choir recordings under larger room circumstances (and these with omni stereo mains). In these cases, the sound of the omni's really beats the ambisonic mic hands down. But even there, the binaural decoding seemed less-than-ideal distance-wise. In this instance, the sound held up OK, but was less interesting to listen to. Also, the sound quality was not there - the HRTF's seem to thin out the sound in a less-than-pleasant way. That said, in one antiphonal piece the illusion of sound coming from the balcony behind was quite convincing in headphones.

My Ambisonic mic is a Soundfield ST450 mk2. It is OK, but can't really hold a candle to the Schoeps and km100's I am generally employing for stereo mains. I would love to find an Ambisonic mic that does. I know the Soundfield digital stuff is quite good. I've been impressed so far with the Sennheiser Ambeo, but have never had a chance to compare it to anything.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #51
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
My Ambisonic mic is a Soundfield ST450 mk2. It is OK, but can't really hold a candle to the Schoeps and km100's I am generally employing for stereo mains. I would love to find an Ambisonic mic that does. I know the Soundfield digital stuff is quite good. I've been impressed so far with the Sennheiser Ambeo, but have never had a chance to compare it to anything.
I've been using a Josephson c700s for several years now on ambisonic projects, and even though it doesn't have a height component, I haven't heard another ambisonic mic that comes close to the sound quality and tone of the c700s. All things considered, the sound is still better in regular MS decoding compared to converting the b-format into ambisonics and then binaural...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 

thx for sharing your impressions: although it's kinda sad, i feel a bit better (seriously!) reading from others that their experience is somewhat mixed as well...

in my experience, the use of different mics, setups and decoders did not change things much; it could reflect my taste to various degrees but the use of the usual hi-quality gear mainly was based on the experience i had with the gear and to make me confident enough that if the immersive experience would 'fail', i'd still get a resonable stereo recording (which always was the case).

___


what really bugs me though is that there is a multitude of issues, some theroretical, some practical, some personal (in no particular order):

- i can't see the slightest value in classical immersive productions if all instruments/voices keep a fixed position: what's the point of picturing an ensemble if no sound moves? maybe for drama and some opera, but on a static orchestra/choir, i find listening to sound moving between different positions to be very distracting.

- since immersive became th latest craze, it started devaluating 5.1: i thought surround was picking up in recent years but all of a sudden, things (aka financing) for projects became more difficult if not implenting the latest technology; maybe that's just affecting me but i got more projects cancelled this year than i could realize (two in the last few weeks alone so sorry for being grumpy...)

- size of gear: my smallest immersive mic rig consists of an sps200 and a double ortf, both of which are really small and light. the problem with them is that i feel the need for adding more widely spaced mics for rear surround channels (as previously mentioned in various other threads): setup time then isn't so fast anymore (still much faster than with a much larger decca rig though!) and flying the mic systems can become an issue, so what to use if not this?

- downmixing: isn't any good with surround and only gets worse with immersive techniques. you may say that this doesn't need to be and one could do just mix to stereo directly but i'm sure it's gonna happen due to tight schedules and budget restrictions: be prepared to be disappointed... - upmixing: why not but downmixing: no thx!

- format/delivery: i'm not buying into dolby's ponzi scheme for delivering of audio only - but what else then? and if not wanting to depend on any tech corporation's twist on things, how do you deliver files to a smaller group of folks?

- articulate picture of the soundfield: while i'm impressed with immersive for some movie soundtracs, i have yet to hear a music only mix which would allow for precise localisation and/or without this blurred overhead wash - any recommendations?

- monitoring/speaker setup: since i'm doing a fair amount of live mixing (amplified music), i get to deal with rather sophisticated alignment tools for speakers and started using them as part of my monitoring chain years ago (and do tech support for large live productions or help fixing minor issues in small to medium studios) so you can be assured that my monitoring is very accurate and measures very well regarding levels, eq and phase...

...now did you ever record a large drumkit (or percussion orchestra) with an immersive mic rig and play back those tracks in your mixing environment?! -
if you haven't yet, give it a try: even if it sounds okay in your studio (it didn't in mine! and as drummer myself and longtime artist relation manager for a cymbal manufacturer, i pride myself in knowing a few things on percussion instruments), it almost certainly will not anywhere else...

___


this experience made me rethink the whole immersive recording and mixing quite a bit - as of now, i don't see much value outside those areas mentioned previously by various posters: classical music imo is not one of them!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
thx for sharing your impressions: although it's kinda sad, i feel a bit better (seriously!) reading from others that their experience is somewhat mixed as well...

in my experience, the use of different mics, setups and decoders did not change things much; it could reflect my taste to various degrees but the use of the usual hi-quality gear mainly was based on the experience i had with the gear and to make me confident enough that if the immersive experience would 'fail', i'd still get a resonable stereo recording (which always was the case).

___



this experience made me rethink the whole immersive recording and mixing quite a bit - as of now, i don't see much value outside those areas mentioned previously by various posters: classical music imo is not one of them!
I hear you, and overall agree with most of that.

I think (like most things) it works best when the project and the content are conceived from the ground up for an immersive project. There are interesting things being done, especially in the context of 360 video and such. I think binaural could have legs, but we need to move away from trying to adapt stereo situations into immersive ones (which is really what I am guilty of doing when I am throwing up the ST450 when recording a concert in stereo).

I did a 360 session with a saxophone quartet at the college where I teach, and the recording was successful for multiple formats (stereo, facebook 360 video, and standard 5.1) - but it was conceived to do that from the get go. I've found this with surround projects too - some things are much more interesting in surround, others not so much more that people would be induced to run out and buy a bunch of speakers.

I really think that electronic music would benefit the most from all of this, as far as "music only" is concerned; but I could also conceive of other situations where people might find binaural to be a compelling experience - especially in the classical world. I don't think the pop or rock worlds will benefit so much.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
(...)we need to move away from trying to adapt stereo situations into immersive ones (which is really what I am guilty of doing when I am throwing up the ST450 when recording a concert in stereo) (...)
i find this not to be problematic as the soundfield mics imo decode pretty much ok to stereo and 5.1 (and are possibly the easiest way to get 5.1) - the issues i was referring to start when using additional mics for the height channels...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #55
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
There are interesting things being done, especially in the context of 360 video and such.
The problem here is that the honeymoon period is over and we're firmly in the valley of despair, with most 360 video funding having completely dried up and many of the largest production companies either folding or pivoting to AR...I think there's a potential, niche future for 180 3D videos consumed with headsets and binaural audio, but until people start buying headsets and actually using them, it's basically a dead end. I can show someone a piece for the first time, and 99% of people will be blown away, but none of them actually buy a headset for themselves. On the plus side, the audio and video pipelines to create this kind of content are far more robust than they were a few years ago, and the tech is out there for anyone to experiment and create. Mix in 3rd Order Ambisonics and skip the Dolby pipeline to have the widest compatibility across platforms. As far as monitoring goes, if it's going to be consumed on headphones, I mix on headphones.

Right now, the best ways to distribute this content in a pleasing manner are the Oculus Go (4k x 4k 3D video with 2nd order binaural audio) or the less consumer friendly HTC Vive w/ a modified version of Vive Cinema to support 3rd order PCM audio.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
That is true - many of these have been under "smaller room" circumstances.

I have made a few choir recordings under larger room circumstances (and these with omni stereo mains). In these cases, the sound of the omni's really beats the ambisonic mic hands down. But even there, the binaural decoding seemed less-than-ideal distance-wise. In this instance, the sound held up OK, but was less interesting to listen to. Also, the sound quality was not there - the HRTF's seem to thin out the sound in a less-than-pleasant way. That said, in one antiphonal piece the illusion of sound coming from the balcony behind was quite convincing in headphones.

My Ambisonic mic is a Soundfield ST450 mk2. It is OK, but can't really hold a candle to the Schoeps and km100's I am generally employing for stereo mains. I would love to find an Ambisonic mic that does. I know the Soundfield digital stuff is quite good. I've been impressed so far with the Sennheiser Ambeo, but have never had a chance to compare it to anything.
Hi Rob,
As you may remember, I have a Soundfield DSF-1, definitely a step up from the analog Soundfields
and on quality level of my separate MKH and Josephson C617 mics. PM me if you would like me to bring it sometime to try out.
Bill
Old 2 weeks ago
  #57
Here for the gear
 

I've been horrified by the number of professional and semi-professional musicians who listen to music exclusively with either earbuds or tiny, low quality external computer speakers. This seems to apply equally to YouTube tracks and meticulously recorded and edited super high resolution recordings. Even MP3's have become widely acceptable!

If orchestra and symphony musicians find such low quality listening systems and formats to be "good enough," not to mention the general public, I don't see much future for either immersive recording techniques or, sad to say, very high quality stereo recordings of the sort we all endeavor to make. Naturally there will always be well equipped audiophiles who value and appreciate superb fidelity- but they seem to be getting pretty few and far between these days.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
Hi David

That's a pretty nifty array there - is that OCT you are using for mains?
Good guess, but I fooled you Rob!

It's actually a SONC array. Same rig as I use for OCT, but the center mic now has a MK41 hypercardioid capsule instead of a cardioid, and the L & R are no longer aimed fully sideways. My idea was that this would allow better integration of the height mics, which were another pair of MK41's borrowed from a colleague.

Rear mics on the big tree are still my usual AKG C460, a wonderful mic -- provided you never aim it at anything important!

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump