O've never been one for separation, separation, separation and prefer a proper soundfield, as you quite correctly surmised. And this is where the idea of up-mixing from a stereo source, in my view, falls down.
I like Brussels Sprouts.
In my view (again) up-mixing is capable is damaging the original stereo soundfield created during the original mix down. Because of my views on the creation of artificial soundfields I prefer to listen to something that I have a chance of enjoying.
No matter how much things may have improved in recent years, if I know the original stereo mix then I would not be happy with an up-mix. Exactly the same thing goes with fake stereo from mono attempts.
Well, the Chicago album was remarkably 'realistic', mix wise, with the brass occupying the rear channels. Sounded very similar to the KBFH quad show.
The way Nimbus records the 78's is novel, and having heard a couple it makes them slightly more 'alive' than just a straight transcription. Remember we are talking about recordings that were seriously limited technically and smoothing out some of the rough edges can make the end result more palatable.
Your wrong to say that it would put you off listening to today's UHJ encodes, they are something completely different.
The reason for a new decode of Stereotomy was simply I had made some minor tweaks, especially to the shelf filtering, and in the Super Stereo procedure. It's quite possible that any differences may not be heard, but as i had done it formyself, it made some sense to put it out there.
I'm unaware of Mr Kemp's work as such, although i've obviously heard his name. All of my work is very much 'hands on' and more than likely incompatible with how others work, like I tend to do things 'hands on'.
The work done on decoding the quad matrices has been very in-depth, with the creation of a process (phoenix) that goes 'where no-one has gone before' in respect of recreating, as closely as possible considering the limitations of the matrix systems, the original quad mix whilst retaining as much as the low level detail that is generally thought of as lost during encoding/decoding, which again brings us back to soundfields.
--
Op donderdag 9 augustus 2018 17:40:47 UTC+2 schreef OxfordDickie:I have no intention of explaining how to mix in surround, have other things to do.It's a pity that you throw in a term "natural mixing", but won't explain what you mean with it. I'm just curious, mainly because I believe we're pretty much on the same track there ! (Soundfield above separation ? Right ?)Biased? I have listened to upmixes in the past and find the un-natural and tiring to listen to, so i don't bother with them (bar one). That is not being biased, it's my personal choice.Sorry, but tasting Brussels Sprouts and don't like them and then never eat any vegatable anymore, seems to me biased ! Could be semantics, I'm not a native English speaker and have to do with my high school knowledge and Google Translate ;-)Routines and results improved a lot during the years after I first published my Stereo to Ambisonics routine in 2000 on the Doom9 forum ! (later removed by me, because of some issues with a troll)The one artificially created surround that i do enjoy listening to is my Ambisonic Super-Stereo version of Chicago IV. Those that have heard it have made very favorable comments about it. And oddly, it doesn't sound fake.None of my Stereo to Ambisonics upmixes ever got the remark it does sound fake. But the majority (unfortunately ?) wants surround like commercial ones with discrete channels. I always found that artificial. Especially after hearing Alan Parsons tour with a DTS system and sponsored by DTS. I was standing on the front row and 2 meters away from Ian Bairnson, the solo guitarist, but heard his guitar some 20 or more meters behind me !! . So I was not impressed with discrete channels at all. Especially some old Quads have that effect : complete discrete but wonder where the band is !But at the same time I wanted to please a bigger audience and our routines focused on separation only for a long time. The combination of separation and Ambisonics seems to be the way to go to satisfy as much people as possible.....Picking on Nimbus's choice of how they have chosen to record old 78rpm records isn't really a very interesting subject to discuss. They have been very open on the hows and why they have done it that particular way, which makes some sense. It's certainly better than a bone dry copy of the disc.Explanation why they have done it, doesn't necessarily mean it sounds good ! If I had followed you like you did with upmixes, listening to a few of those, I would have never heard those excellent other UHJ records they did ! LOL !Anyway one question remains : The Alan Parsons Project is my alltime favorite group (EoH= Eye of Horus, the symbol on Eye in the Sky) and I wonder why you redid Stereotomy when it's already done several times. Do you use new routines ? I just wonder, because the other part of The Dynamic Duo, dr. Andres Kempf, published a lot of decoding software routines in the past , including QS, SQ and UHJ ! If your routine differs, of course I'm curious to hear more inside information about the routine you used ! According to mr. Farina, Panorama and Wiggins Ambisonics Decoder would give back a good result on an UHJ disc, which is according to him 95% of Real Ambisonics. If that is true, any UHJ disc can be done with my method too, without separating the stereo first into Sides and Center.... Just feed only the stereo ! I really hope you can "enlighting"me here !kind regards,EoH--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment