Pair of questions for soundhoud et al

Just got through listening to “Fragile” by Yes on DVD audio. (Yes I am a child of the 70s) Having heard this album on vinyl, 8-track and cassette, I was blown away by the music mix and clarity. This is my first foray into the world of multi channel music and so far so good.

I’ve read a number of posts about how music is mixed and the quote about “you can’t polish a turd”. As the resident expert on music mixing I was hoping you could help me out.

In 2-channel music, it is annoying to me that there seems to be a loss of stereo in many recordings. The same instrument is playing at the same level out of both speakers with a hole in the middle. Vocals and other instruments are fine; it’s just one instrument that is off. I have moved my speakers a million times (slight exaggeration) trying to remedy this.

Questions 1 and 2:

Is this a result of the processor, the speakers or just a “turd” recording?

If not the recording, then what is the solution?

The DVD-A mix that I heard tonight was seamless, except that too much was mixed into the side speakers. But the front soundstage was wide and very seamless.

Questions 3 and 4:

And do I understand correctly that the DVD-A and SACD data remains untouched by any processing? It is straight analog from the DVD/CD player and there is nothing the processor does except pass the signal to the amp?

I'm not Soundhound but it may help if you would mention which stereo recordings you heard the hole in the middle of, and if there was other stereo recordings you heard that did NOT have a hole in the middle.

It may also be beneficial if you would mention which speakers you were using.

the only way an instrument can be placed extreme right AND extreme left with a 'hole' in the middle is if it is recorded on 2 tracks simultaneously and 1 track is panned right and the other track is panned left, in which case, it's as it was intended to be.

otherwise, you may have your speaker wires reversed.

i agree with will though, in needing to know which recording(s) you're talking about.

btw...yes 'fragile' on dvd-a...you dog! eddie offord...one of the best mixes ever. it would be cool if you reviewed that disc. though i am in the sacd camp,i am tempted to buy a dvd-a player just for that one.

I actually came across a CD once where I'm pretty darn sure that the whole thing was out of phase! And I can't even figure out if it was meant to be that way...

You can always buy the disc now and use your current DVD player to listen to the Dolby Digital track (which is simply a data-reduced version of the MLP track). You won't get the higher resolution of MLP, but you'll at least hear the discrete 5.1-channel mix.

Best,
Sanjay

Jacket Fan,

Are you talking about the Fragile DVD-A wrt stereo imaging?

As for a review of this disc, Bosso, it's incredible. It's crystal clear, it has a huge soundstage. One highlight (especially for us bass players) is Chris Squire's sound throughout. Heart of the Sunrise is immense! Steve Howe's guitar (Martin OO-18, I think) on Mood for a Day is as life-like as you can get on such an old recording. There's a bonus track of "America" from Yesterdays at the end. It's nice but I could have done without it. If this disc has you thinking of adding a DVD-A player to supplement SACD, then save some cash now because you're going to need it when Close to the Edge comes out this spring.

Many popular stereo recordings are intentionally mixed with most insturments and vocals coming equally from both channels - mostly 'dual mono' with just 'sprinklings' of some instruments coming from either the left only or right only. This is a convention that sucks for people who like good sound, but the 'masses' will be assured of hearing all the instruments no matter how messed up their speaker placement is. It's a holdover from the days of LPs. If an identical signal is panned equally to the left and right speakers, there will be a 'phantom' image created sharply in the middle.

One thing that is becoming very common is the use of 'spatializer' type processing which can image instruments out into the room, even behind you. With properly set up speakers, these can sound amazing, but these effects are created by intentional introduction of out of polarity signals, which can sound strange in some instances. Maybe this is what you are hearing, as it can sound like there's a hole-in-the-middle on certain instruments, even though the vocals and other instruments image sharply in the middle.

DVD-A and SACD have no baggage from LPs, so the mixes can be more creative, with wider soundstages front and back. It is still not unheard of for some instruments and vocals to be panned into all three front speakers to varying degrees.

Classical and Jazz recordings tend to have a wider soundstage in stereo, as natural sound is more valued.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited December 29, 2002).]

When Soundhound visited me, he heard some popular stereo soundtracks that had these effects and he preferred hearing them here in straight stereo over just two speakers, rather than having them processed into a 5.1 sound with DPL II or DTS NEO processing.

Thanks for the replies.



This is what I am asking about. Maybe a hole in the middle is not exactly the correct way to put it. It is more like the instrument is smeared across both speakers and you hear it on both the left and right sides rather than pinpointing it in one location. And "dual-mono" is what it sounds like. With the DVD-A recordings I can pinpoint where an instrument is without any smearing.



Ouch Will, I actually don't have any specific titles off the cuff, will have to make notes and get back on that...

Speakers are Diva 4.1s up front with an SVS 20-39 crossed over at 100Hz. I know these are not high end, but ya gotta start somewhere. I am using a Panny RP-82.

I am still wondering if the output of the RP-82 is passed through without any processing?

Thanks



------------------
No matter where you go, there you are.

mj

If an instrument is put through a digital delay with unequal delay times for the right and left channels, it will sound like it's coming from both speakers but not the phantom center. Reverb, chorusing, and other types of processing can also have the same effect. This is an intentional artistic decision of the person who mixed the music. If everything else is imaging as you think it should, I wouldn't worry about it.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited December 29, 2002).]

I thought I heard that Boston does a great job in the studio so I put it on. On "More Than A Feeling" I can pinpoint the percussion and vocals, but the lead guitar seems to be coming from across the whole soundstage.

Is this the way the mix was intended?

It could just be me and the ears are gone, although I did pass the hearing test I took a year ago...

An artistic decision, and sometimes the artists want to fatten up a particular instrument by putting it in both speakers with no specific imaging. It is also common to have Hammond B3 organs with the top of the spinning speaker in the cabinet on one side and the bottom on the other. Pinpoint imaging is not sought after in all instances, with all instuments.

Mr. Hound,

Thanks for the explanation. Just trying to make sure I was not too lame. There is so much I do not know about music and the music industry. Probably lots I don’t need or care to know about. I just enjoy the music. Also want to make sure the setup is correct. I feel much more confident I do not have something dreadfully wrong.

It was that the difference between 2-channel and the DVD-A was so significant, just needed to make sure I had my head screwed on straight.

Now I can impatiently wait on the new Outlaw processor, Model 850???, in 2-channel bliss.

JacketFan wrote: "The DVD-A mix that I heard tonight was seamless, except that too much was mixed into the side speakers. But the front soundstage was wide and very seamless."

I too find many DVD-A's play quite loudly in the rear/side speakers. At first I attributed it to a "learning curve" similar to the early days of stereo when sounds moved from side to side or other oddities. But could it be the "set-up" with the 950? I noticed a similar problem this evening listening to Roy Orbison's Black and White video DVD -- sounded much better when I moved significantly closer to the front speakers.

Any comments or observations would be welcome.

TIA,

Denny





[This message has been edited by raceone (edited January 02, 2003).]

Assuming you have matched all channel levels properly, most likely there is nothing wrong with your 950. Part of the problem lies in how we configure our rear speakers for HT (correctly) with a location directly to the side, or slightly behind,
the listening position, thus putting us closer to the rears than the fronts. Multichannel DVD-A and SACD's are mixed for a listening position located at an equal distance between the front and rear speakers. When you moved forward, you put yourself in a more ideal position for listening to MC music. Some of the Sony players (SACD) come with internal adjustments to optimize the balance between front and rears for MC music playback when your rear speakers are set up for HT playback requirements. Even so, I agree that some mixes are a little overly "aggressive" in the rear channels. It's still a fairly new technology that seems to be open to a wide variety of interpretations on how to use it.

Will…

You asked me to put up what I think are the recordings I find the “hole” in the mix. Hole is not the correct word, more like “smeared” from one speaker to the other.

The speakers are Diva 4.1s. Not the greatest, but certainly not Bose. Also have an SVS 20-39PCi sub. I still have the Denon 3802 I bought when I could not wait on the 950 any longer.

I have Boston’s “Greatest Hits”. Most of the track on this CD exhibit what I would consider a smearing of either vocal or guitars. Typically, the percussion and vocals are focused and I can place them at some point across the soundstage. But the guitars tend to come from both speakers. Since I am a novice, I was inquiring as to whether this observation is the way the music is mixed, the equipment/room or my ears. My only real contact with anyone who would know how the music should sound is via internet forums.

On Boston: “Higher Power”, “Piece of Mind” the guitar is across both speakers and smears across the soundstage. The vocal and percussion are localized. On “Cool the Engines” the cymbals are up towards the ceiling and the vocals are sometimes smeared across both speakers.

Trying to cover other music, Faith Hill’s “There You’ll Be”, there are two different mixes of “Breathe”. In the Tin Tin Out Radio Mix, the lead in guitar is pinpointed in the center, while the other has the guitar coming from both speakers and is not pinpointed. I am assuming that this is the way the music was mixed and what was intended.

With classical music I do not have this observation. I listened to Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and some John Williams. But for me, classical music does not need the instruments to be localized.

Some recordings seem to be better mixed and the instruments do localize: Diana Krall (I have this one for the cover), James Taylor’s greatest hits and Doobie Bros “What Were Once Vices”.

After the session I did learn something. I have a small sweet spot in my room for “critical” listening. It really is only 1 to 2 people wide. Especially for multichannel music.

Since I went this far I might as well go on…

I bought a Panasonic RP-82 mainly for the video capability. After I had it for a while, I decided to invest in some cheap interconnects and go ahead and buy some DVD-A music to take advantage of the DVD-A outputs.

I am up to 4 DVD-A discs so far.

Eagles – “Hotel California”
Deep Purple – “Machine Head”
Foreigner – “Foreigner 4”
Yes – “Fragile”

I suppose I consider myself a 2-channel guy. But this foray into DVD-A is very interesting.

After some multichannel listening, I have a new appreciation for this medium. I sure felt drawn into the music and really enjoyed the experience. My only complaint is the way certain instruments are mixed into the rear speakers. It is disconcerting to me to hear, for example, a guitar evenly playing out of the two rear speakers. It could just be my set up of direct radiating surrounds with one mounted up close to the ceiling or the recording. But it is distracting to me.

I listed the 4 in order of preference, with the Eagles the most “rear distracting”. In the “Hotel California” track there are wonderful lead in effects only to be interrupted by a misplaced guitar in the left rear. Or “Life in the Fast Lane”, there seems to be misplaced guitars in the L & R surrounds in the opening, then the instruments seem to place themselves nicely. The track of “Wasted Time (Reprise)” could be the best with some room filling strings and fabulous bass from cellos. It just seemed to me that the rears get too much action, especially with the guitars.

Deep Purple was another example for me for music I have heard on 8-track, cassette and CD. I got the feeling that the mix was from the perspective of the listener being the drummer. Especially in “Space Truckin’”. There were a couple of videos. Long hair and silk shirts! Far out!

Foreigner 4 was great fun. The surrounds seemed more integrated and the instruments well placed. “Juke Box Hero” had a mix where the bass moved around the room! Fantastic effect and it seemed natural. I listened to that cut several times. Normally I don’t like effects like that, but it really blew me away.

“Fragile” was fun as well. In “Roundabout” there is a nice organ effect and the vocals blend into the surrounds. The cut “Canes & Brahams” was nothing but fun. This could be a great test for your speakers.

Other than what seems to me to be misplaced guitars, multichannel music has been a real hoot.

Thanks for letting me ramble...


------------------
No matter where you go, there you are.

mj

__________________________________________

jacket:
first off...excellent post. the guitar player for boston (i forget his name) was an endless tweaker who was eventually fired (or quit, depending on who you ask) because he delayed the releases of the records for ages, while he layered and re-mixed his guitar work.

i think it was worth the effort on the first disc. some of the best git work in rock music. just my opinion. nevrtheless, his guitars are many, many layers of tracks and effects, placed all over the map. no doubt, this is the reason for your observations.

without knowing anything about mixing techniques, you sure have a better than average ear. dvd-a/sacd multichannel is new to records and will take a lot of experimentation on the part of artists and producers and gear makers. some are superb...some are not...some downright stink.

time will show the improvements and who is who in the genre.

i enjoyed reading your post. very well written and easy to follow.

the sony people told me at CES that they hope for sacd to "peacefully co-exist with dvd-a". i hope it's true. i love multichannel hi-rez and the possibilities it offers and like hearing other's thoughts on the subject, so...ramble on!

was his name Tom Scholtz?

Jacket, I really love your taste in music

Bosso, Willscary - you are too kind.

After reading all of the experts posting here on the Outlaw forum over the past year, I did start to wonder about all of the terms like “pinpoint imaging”, “wide soundstage” etc…

All I knew is what I have heard over the years and what I hear now. Unlike many of you on this forum, I have no experience in music. So I am just trying to get a handle on what is supposed to be heard.

I do not have the “ear” that ya’ll have, so I am just trying to learn and enjoy.

Odd thought for the day -----------------

The cost of a 950 may pale in comparison to getting a large library of multi channel music!

(I know I have more in DVDs than the cost of a 950)

I just skimmed through the posts, but you seem to be listening to 5.1 on a 4.1 system. Have you looked at how your pre/pro is setup?

------------------
MeanGene's Home


[This message has been edited by MeanGene (edited January 16, 2003).]

Check out Foreigner's debut album on DVD-Audio. It's a good one.

You got it, Will. I may get this really mangled but ... He's an engineer out of MIT and he formed Boston because he had so many ideas about guitar sound and music production. He's also really fond of the organ. I don't think he was ever "fired" since he was really the founder although I bet the record company had issues with him. After "Don't look back", he spent more time on guitar effects and processors under the name Sholtz Design *something*. He basically put the signature Boston guitar sound (clean distortion and chorus/flange) into these little boxes.

"Third Stage" came out because of the huge demand for another album and I believe they are working on a fourth.