| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » 2+3 surround sound?? (83 posts, 5 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 4 (83 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A revision of playback with reverberation injection or ..  Lexicon MX400...  Playback Listening  Forum     82  93962  08-03-2021
08-05-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 113
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 51
Post ID: 26243
Reply to: 26239
Replies
Will try to answer all questions here.

Romy: I understand why you do not wish to use the term “surround sound”, but it is the accepted term for what we are discussing. You may add other terminology, but it only muddies the debate until others accept it.

Romy:    Pretend we have a “perfect” and ideal reverberation/delay processor that generates all needed reverberation and do not crew up main sound. Then we would not even need the surround channels and all necessary “room enhancement” would be produces by ONLY main speakers. Would you call this installation as Surround Sound installation?  

 We would still need the surround channels as unless phasing distortions are add, the false room information would still be stuck in the front dimension. One can do it with headphones using a Smyth Realizer, but I think not with speakers.

Paul: If I can split my front channels without screwing up gain or messing with the front channels (not a given!), then I will give this a go. And I will probably never learn more than necessary to "get the job done"

 Romy has done this by feeding the front channels their normal information then feeding his processor the same information which is the given a reverberation field. While this allows the main channels to not be negatively affected, This is not optimal for two reason. In a perfect two mike recording, one still has the reverberant field mixed in on the main channels which will affect the reverberation field. On multimike recordings, there is no correct sound field for the reverberant field to work with.

As for getting the most and best from your thousands of recordings, I’ve also had thousands of master tapes, vinyl, cd's, DAT's, etc., and find over the years I've narrowed down my recording I’ve kept to several hundred, and listen usually only to what I consider to be the best performances or sound reproduction, and I bet you have too. These will probably also be the best recording to add a reverberant field or correctly obtain the recording's Hall sound for the surround effect.

Romy: Paul, what you are saying is slightly irrelevant in context of reverberation insertion. It is absolutely irrelevant how it was recorded,  mixed etc as we do not recreate the original acoustic environment of recording space. Instead we in bed whatever recording is into an acoustic environment that we synthesize.

You are correct, but again, the reverberant field you add is dependent on what was recorded in the first place. The only time your field would be a facsimile of the concert hall you are trying to emulate is if the original recording was a two mike, probably omni's, done in a completely dead sound stage without its own reverberation. You use your main speakers for this and add your reverberant field to front and back surround speakers for the effect.

Anthony: Thanks for this information Bill.  Were the 16 channels (I counted 15 in your description) an all-at-once installation or have you worked up to that many channels in steps with the Trinnov 16?  Say 4 channel then 8 then 15 or something like that.  Would be interesting to gauge incremental changes in the "effects".

Sorry, there are actually two subwoofer channels. I am planning on going to one subwoofer and one back floor channel so I can add  2 so-called wide side channels for Dolby atmos and DTS Pro to see what happens. It’s supposed to improve the side imaging as the space between the front and side channels is over the 60 degree ideal. I doubt it will do much good as the Auromatic field supposedly compensates for the space.

 I can see why Romy is working at this problem the way he is given his system topology.  I too am reluctant to put all sources through a processor g

OK. This will be a long answer. The Trinnov is a very special processor. It’s actually a computer with audio only processing using its own program. It uses a special four mikes built into one which can measure time alignment very accurately for all drivers and 16 channels. They also have units for 20, 36 and 44 channels. Each channel does the following:

  1.  Measures the amplitude across a 16 to 20k frequency range for each driver and speaker to 0.1 dB.
  2. Can act as a 24/96 active crossover from first to fourth order for each driver. With small speakers will allow the bass information from whatever frequency range chosen, and transmit it to one of the woofers or subwoofers in the room with correct time and amplitude alignment relative to the original speaker.
  3.  Will time align each driver within 1/10 millisecond for each speaker.
  4. Will time align each speaker to the others in the room.
  5. Allows the listener to adjust the frequency response of each driver to their wishes. 
  6. Allows the listener to adjust the delay to expand the relative room volume.
  7. Allows the listener to adjust the volume of each speaker.
  8.  Adds the BBC dip if asked to.
  9. If the speakers are not properly set up in space, will align them to what is considered their optimal virtual position for the different decoding systems.
  10. Does up to 24/96 a/d and d/a encoding and decoding. The more expensive models do 24/ 196. 
  11.  Accepts up to 16 channels of information through hdmi, and two channel through spdif. 
  12.  Does a/d conversion of analog balanced or rca input, then will do multi-channel conversion if asked to.
  13.  Decodes Dolby Atmos, DTS Prox and Auro 3 D and Auromatic decoding. Will take the information from whatever number of channels there are on the recording, try to separate the stage from the hall information, and transmit the correct special information to the proper speaker.


     The whole process, once understood after several hours of reading their beautifully thought out 160 page instruction booklet only takes about 10 minutes to record, encode and present to the listener. The listener can then go ahead and change any of the parameters of each speaker and driver to his heart's content. After much experimentation and fiddling over four weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that all of the attempts to improve on the Trinnov's algorithms only marginally improved the sound obtained. And I can definitely say, that the sound I have now is far ahead of anything I’ve obtained in the past. I believe Romy would also agree on that point. 

Disadvantages of the unit:   There are only two things I have a complaint with. First is the inability to decode sacd or dsd recording. The unit only works with pcm, but will do flax and Aflac. Of course, no unit out there that I know of will do these things, and most sacd or dsd recordings are transferred to pcm when worked on and then reencoded to dsd. This is too bad as most of my multitrack recordings are sacd's, but I do have an OPPO 205 unit which does dsd to pcm decoding so it is not really a problem.Second is the price of the unit. Compared to other preamp processors, but considering the amount of money I’ve spent over the years on so-called high new equipment and wires.

Romy: As I finish, I will publish me recommendation how anybody can try it for less than $100. Yes, one more thing: I would LOVE to hear Bill’s Trinnov processor as a … DAC. It might be a very good DAC… 


   I have no idea how good the DAC's are on the unit, but maybe one day I’ll remove the jungle of wires behind the unit and bring it to Romy's for an evaluation of the two systems. I can say though that the sound I am obtaining now is light years ahead of what I had with high end two channel dacs and the Marantz top of the line 8805 pre-pro I sold to get this unit.

Romy: How many of recordings you have that were recorded well (from multichannel perspective) AND would be music that you want? We are subordinates of recording engineers’ taste and style and let agree that most of the recording hall do not have good acoustic to begin with. Why would I need to have multichannel audio to recreate the dreadful acoustics of Avery Fisher Hall?  I agree and that is why I'll bet that none of the multiple hall reverberation fields on your unit does not emulate that dreadful place, or Fenway Park for that matter.

Very few recordings are top notch. The best multitrack are sacd's from Reference Recordings and Pentatone, and two track are best from the golden days of the 50's and 60's before the engineers without ears got at the recordings. On the other hand, I’ve been to your place and seen the thousands of vinyl and cd's on your shelves, but you always pick from a black folder of about 25 cd's and previously from a few vinyl recordings to demo your system. I believe that you would agree that you can't make a purse out of a sow's ear from 95+% of the recordings out there, but I have heat to play a recording over the past four weeks on my system that didn't sound better than it did in two channel. And the multichannel recordings have taken on a feeling of being present at the performance that cannot be obtained with two track.

No matter which approach you decide on of the six, there will always be an improvement over stereo. One does not need super high end speakers except possibly for the main channels. Matter of fact, all of my and Romy's surrounds are inexpensive speakers mated with zip wire to inexpensive amplifiers, but the sound improvement would not allow either of us to go back to two channel. Or would you disagree with that Romy?
08-05-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,576
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 52
Post ID: 26244
Reply to: 26243
Down the Road
Bill, I can see how you got where you got, one step at a time, and I do understand the theory behind the convolutions. I also get that there may be "native ambience" in some recordings I listen to. Something I've worked on over the years is getting more from sub-prime recordings, and during this time I've learned some things about what makes a recording "good" for my listening. And this is not always a "perfect recording", in the "audiophile" sense. My situation now is that most of the sound that does not add to the Music is sort of "set aside", like ticks and pops from an LP. My understanding from Romy's descriptions is that his way of doing the "rear channels" does not rely on "good ambience", or anything else, in particular, being in the front channels to begin with. If it's there, fine; if it's not there, fine. Perhaps it might even be some sort of "phase dithering". Who can say? I can tell you, at this point, if I have to "figure it out" before I do it, it might never get done before I croak!



Best regards,
Paul S
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 53
Post ID: 26245
Reply to: 26243
I am still experimenting with myself.
 Bill wrote:
No matter which approach you decide on of the six, there will always be an improvement over stereo. One does not need super high end speakers except possibly for the main channels. Matter of fact, all of my and Romy's surrounds are inexpensive speakers mated with zip wire to inexpensive amplifiers, but the sound improvement would not allow either of us to go back to two channel. Or would you disagree with that Romy?
   
It is a loaded question. I can comment only about my way to do the things as in the way how you do it there are too many methodological unknowns to me, and I never tried it myself. In my case when I introduce only one single new feature to classic stereo (inject reverberation) the difference is very profound and indeed I do not think that anybody who did it would be ever go back to classic stereo. I am still in process to form my final opinion about and that I do now but one way or other the reverberation injection will stay in this listening room. I am not ready to call “zip wire” attitude as a “final solution”, still looking into it but for sure many of the changes I am observing do challenge what we know about “perfect sound” in just stereo.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 54
Post ID: 26246
Reply to: 26245
Hm, no good for now....
I think I am falling with my idea of integrating front reverberation channels with pilot channels.  The Dunnoy works great as a pilot channel, but I am not so wild with the whole idea of front reverberation channels. The front reverberation channels, it feels, do not a lot with reverberation from what I observe but it rather widening sonic presentation. The delays for front reverberation channels are not too high and the sound from front reverberation channels do interacts with sound of main channels.  I am very close from stopping to use front reverberation channels and keep juts back reverberation channels but this will kill the idea of integration is with pilot… Still thinking about it….


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 113
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 55
Post ID: 26247
Reply to: 26244
Recordings
Paul: for two channel recordings:For Romy's method to work perfectly, there should be no ambiance in the recording so that he can fill in the room ambiance with his stored reflections program. I don't think how many mikes used would make a difference, just lack of inherent ambiance.For my system to work perfectly using Auromatic, Dolby or DTS, the r3cording should be as few mikes as possible with as much ambiance information as possible to be able to extract a facsimile of the hall.Most recordings fall in between these two parameters so the quality of the reproduction of the ambiance information will vary.The advantage of the Trinnov is that it is able to get as close to a perfect frequency response and time alignment as possible, possibly far better than can be done through driver and speaker positioning, and that it can take a modest speaker and improve both of those parameters significantly. Again, at about 100 times the cost of Romy's method.
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 56
Post ID: 26248
Reply to: 26247
....even more!
 Bill wrote:
For Romy's method to work perfectly, there should be no ambiance in the recording so that he can fill in the room ambiance with his stored reflections program. I don't think how many mikes used would make a difference, just lack of inherent ambiance.

This is accurate but I would change from “method to work perfectly” to “to be effective”. With recordings that have a lot of own hall reverberation information the audible contribution of the room reverberation injection significantly less effective. However, it is purely from Sonic point of view. From perseptial point of I feel that even with recordings which have a lotta ambient information the reverberation channels also add if not direct Sonic benefits but significantly reducing criticality of perception the main channels. what reverberation channels do in addition to extend perception of space is an introduction of amazing softness and kindness in the room. Air classical stereo compared to injected stereo in a room feels dry, cold, analytical and forces listening perception defend itself. with a reverberation injected sound it feels like sound in the room become organically a part of your organic psyche. when I begin experimented with this my wife from kitchen was screaming that what the hell I changed that it's beginning to sound so nice. I had yesterday an amazing experience, no kidding first time in my life. It was raining and I was sitting in my listening room with windows wide opened. I was listening and I recognize that the rain became too loud and decided to close the windows. How huge my surprise when I recognize that it was not the sound of the rain but it was the sound of noise from my recording complemented with preparation injections…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,576
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 57
Post ID: 26249
Reply to: 26248
Gain?
Romy, I suppose you have to buffer when you split the front channels, and you have to gain 6 dB. How, exactly, are you doing the split now, from, say, phono stage to rear speakers?

Best regards,
Paul
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 58
Post ID: 26250
Reply to: 26248
Notes from the trenches.
OK, here are some notes. I do not generalize them, juts my notes from my listening and my current conclusions.
 
All processors are different. Ridiculous but fact. I have 4 of them and they all with the same reverb parameters sound different. I do not know if it is because they are over 30 years old but I slightly prefer the sound on one processor over another…  for a given music… and given recording. How important it is? Absolutely not important. The differences between reverberation effect of different recording makes the things looks like irrelevant as far as quality processing concern...

The reverberation front channels do not work for me. I do not think that I will be able to find anything that can successfully work with Macondo. Dunnoys are very nice, but I can clearly here that it is not multi-amped acoustic system.  Playing Dunnoys alone is fine but along with Macondo with short reverberation time is not good.
 
I have returned to 4ch configuration. The 6ch configuration is not good for me. The benefits to have front reverberation is very negligible but there is a hurtle for main channels. The only benefit of the front reverberation is widening soundstage but in kind of strange ways. I think to use the front reverb I need to rearrange the speakers.  I do not want to spend next 10 years to learn how position speakers in reverberate room. So, from now and on ONLY 2 reverb channels in the back…
 
To my surprise the bass for reverb channels is important, not the depth of the bass but the hue of the base. I have a strong distaste toward to ported bass as if I hear my staccato bass reflects with typical ported genetic “Um” I get distracted to immeasurable less degree if it was the sound of Macondo but I did notice the effect in a reverberated room if to be intentionally anal-retentive


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
maravedis
Posts 1
Joined on 08-07-2021

Post #: 59
Post ID: 26251
Reply to: 26250
NXT type surrounds
Romy,

Did you ever experiment with DML or BMR type drivers for ambience channels?

https://www.tectonicaudiolabs.com/audio-components/bmr-speakers/

https://uk.kef.com/products/t101-satellite-speakers

There is something quite wonderful about how they work playing along with horns - they might be ideal for the front channels?

Best, James
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 60
Post ID: 26252
Reply to: 26251
2+3 becomes 2+2
James,
 
I never tried or heard about DML or BMR type drivers. I looked them up and a few things they do give me a cold shoulder.   It is not about a selection of driver type or the topology of front channels. I though initially that it was important. Or let me to say this: I thought that all aspects of integration of main channels with front channels is something that important and the quality of that integration is something that might improve or compromise the use of the front channels as a concept. Based upon what I experienced, unless somebody or something convince me otherwise, I concluded that front effect channels are fundamentally bad idea. It is unfortunate, in my view, that Yamaha topologically combined the excellent idea of reverberation fields injection with the idea or what they call front presence speakers.
 
The presence speakers meant to give theater-like wide ambiance and in my view a bed idea that came from home theaters and used of feeble main channels. I can achieve a full presence effect and indeed to do my presentation wider. The wider doe does not mean better. Whatever I need to do with sonic presentation width Macondo does already itself with no presence speakers help.
 
So, I am sticking with 2+2 configuration for now.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 61
Post ID: 26253
Reply to: 26252
I think I am done
Okay, I pretty much finished my experiments with reverberation injections and I do not mind to publicize what I have in my head. I do not want to spend a couple hours on writing and I will record a video. Are any specific topics I would like me to cover?



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
anthony
Posts 335
Joined on 08-18-2014

Post #: 62
Post ID: 26254
Reply to: 26253
Be thorough...
...you usually are quite thorough in your assessments.

I use Macondo also for watching concerts and would also really appreciate any insight you may have into making surround sound successful even though this is not what you are doing here.  The Trinnov interests me even with its hefty outlay and perhaps it is useful for both surround and reverberation duties in your situation.  Would love to know if you are considering getting together with Bill for a weekend to perhaps use what you both know to see if the french processor brings anything to your table, but success likely depends on your relationship with Bill and whether you are able to give each other enough rope to get done what needs to get done.
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 63
Post ID: 26255
Reply to: 26254
Here we go....



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,576
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 64
Post ID: 26256
Reply to: 26255
Again, Congratulations!
3 weeks, eh? Vs. how many years for functional DSET? Next, a great 5 cent cigar!

Same questions about decoupling a phono stage from the split, re-setting the output impedance, and doubling the output. Where and exactly how does one split and boost the source signal so there is "no difference" in the front/stereo channels, split vs. un-spit? And this supposes any differences in "the original stereo front channels and the split-off rear channels "doesn't matter".

Best regards,
Paul S
08-08-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 65
Post ID: 26257
Reply to: 26255
... and finally...
OK, I need to finish my new infatuation to talk to camera. I have recorded a new video where I am closing this “reverberation” chapter of my life with an interesting trick the I juts discovered and will talk a little about music.




"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-09-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,576
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 66
Post ID: 26258
Reply to: 26257
Saving the Best for Last!
Thank you for this video! I will happily figure out the connections for myself now, and I really look forward to finishing my current project so I can get to this "reverb" injection. Regarding the Squirrel Singularity, I hope you mean what I think you mean, because this would mitigate the single biggest problem that's "plagued" my hi-fi since I got my system to where I could use it to mine the Great Music, something related to the "HF decay", but not that; so hard to find the words. Of course there are times when the Sound is good enough to "escape itself'. But when it doesn't, it's too often the "singularity problem" that I would rather not be bothered by.

Best regards,
Paul S
08-09-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 113
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 67
Post ID: 26259
Reply to: 26257
Give us the numbers
Now that you've wetted our appetites, how about writing the information on the great r3cordings so we can dig for them.cProbably not available but at least we can look.
08-09-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 68
Post ID: 26260
Reply to: 26257
…and the one after the last one…



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-10-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 113
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 69
Post ID: 26261
Reply to: 26260
Unreadable
Sorry, but again cannot make out how one can obtain the discs with the information given. Cannot make out from your description and from being unable to read the disc label from how you are holding it. Better to photograph the disc cover and/or the disc, and put that information below either as picture or downloadable file. Other option would be to give the name of the disc, recording company and disc number. Was able to find the Schubert 9th on eBay but unsure whether it is the same pressing .Bill
08-10-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 70
Post ID: 26262
Reply to: 26260
I am pleased now.
It is so fanny how my parley into reverb domain changed my entire “architecture” of my listening room. As I told I use default DUNLAVY SC-III for my reverb channels. The Dunlavy are exceptionally properly designed speakers and exceptionally non-music. Also, in my estimation they have too much LF extension for reverb channel. I would very much recommend using bookshelf speaker with restricted bass for reverb channels NOT full range speaker. Still, since I use my reverb channels as pilot system that runs pretty much OK with this limitation, and I am considering to “damn down” Dunlavy, I juts do not know how. You can see in the picture below how Dunlavys wonderfully injected in the back on my room.
 
The funny part in all of it is my listening position. I have one listening chair that slides 180 degrees toward the pilot speakers or main speakers, and it has 2 ottomans for my legs from both sides. I do not reconnect anything. If I would like to switch from my main speakers to Pilot system, then all the I need to do is following:
 
1)     Turn off the Milq amplifiers
2)     Switch from whatever reverb pattern I have to no-processing mode
3)     Rotate my listening chair 180 degree.
 
I am pleased now.
                                                      
 Room2021.jpg



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-10-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 351
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 71
Post ID: 26263
Reply to: 26262
Listening room
 Romy the Cat wrote:
It is so fanny how my parley into reverb domain changed my entire “architecture” of my listening room. As I told I use default DUNLAVY SC-III for my reverb channels. The Dunlavy are exceptionally properly designed speakers and exceptionally non-music. Also, in my estimation they have too much LF extension for reverb channel. I would very much recommend using bookshelf speaker with restricted bass for reverb channels NOT full range speaker. Still, since I use my reverb channels as pilot system that runs pretty much OK with this limitation, and I am considering to “damn down” Dunlavy, I juts do not know how. You can see in the picture below how Dunlavys wonderfully injected in the back on my room.
  
                                                      

This is a very nice looking listening room both for architecture and furnishings. Certainly a big difference from your first move in. Enjoy!
08-10-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 72
Post ID: 26264
Reply to: 26262
Nice Controller



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-13-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
anthony
Posts 335
Joined on 08-18-2014

Post #: 73
Post ID: 26271
Reply to: 26264
Man in a suit
Well, one thing about the videos Romy is that they are more difficult to get through for me than the writing, but more informative I think, so thank-you for doing them.  There is no way I can find an hour to sit and watch each of these so it was done in little steps...hopefully not too much was missed along the way.

Nearly spat out my whisky when you talked fondly about Leonard Cohen...I am certainly with you on that one.  One of my regrets is that I could not convince my wife to accompany me to see Leonard when he last visited Australia, and now she is a fan too and wishes we had gone.  Good for the spirit, he is, yes.  Do you use the Reverb Injection for Leonard too?

None of those processors you mention can be found over here (not yet anyway) so perhaps I will have to invest in something newer.  Not sure what, but that new DSP thingamy above this post does look perhaps too simple, but that may just be the ticket.

Was a Lexicon CP1 or CP3 processor part of your trials?  It looks an interesting unit 
08-14-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
xandcg


Rio de Janeiro, BR.
Posts 218
Joined on 09-07-2014

Post #: 74
Post ID: 26273
Reply to: 26262
Injection Channels.
Hello!

Just now I learned about your YouTube channel, and in regards to ' reverberation injections', I would like to ask if you have tried something like guitar reverb pedals instead of those processors (or other ambient pedals)?

Cheers!




Think for yourself, do not be sheep.
08-14-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,051
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 75
Post ID: 26274
Reply to: 26271
I was not trying Lexicon
 anthony wrote:
Was a Lexicon CP1 or CP3 processor part of your trials?  It looks an interesting unit 

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/arts/sound-now-concert-halls-pay-house-calls.html


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 3 of 4 (83 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A revision of playback with reverberation injection or ..  Lexicon MX400...  Playback Listening  Forum     82  93962  08-03-2021
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts