[James Romeyn]

This thread is completely 100% unrelated to so-called "music-videos", but rather "live music performances" on DVD and/or Blu-ray. 

My wife Debra is very deep into the early blues, jazz, and rock music scene, listening to the music, reading about, and learning about stars such as Dylan, Muddy Waters, The Band, Cream, Clapton, etc.

She recently got the DVD Cream Reunion 2005 Live At Albert Hall.  Even being as picky as possible regarding the sound track quality, my only complaint is Ginger Baker's drum kit is a little too wide.  Beyond that, the music, the sound quality, the performance is just over the top fun from top to bottom.  You might think it's a Blu-ray even though it's just a DVD.  (One production gripe is the default audio track is "stereo"; you must manually select DTS 5.1...oh, and Debra, whose ears are far better than mine, was disturbed by the mixer turning up the treble about 45 seconds into Disc 2...I didn't notice it on my own but could hear it after she pointed it out...she said neither of could live with a non-audiophile because they would think us insane.)   

The Paul Simon American Songwriter Award Blu-ray is great, The Last  Waltz Blu-ray is fantastic, and now this Cream DVD is priceless.  (We're considering getting tickets to see Cream this summer.) 

The question is, of your top twenty most favorite video software, how many are music performances?
 
Just a warning (or to pique your interest), the replies will lead to a second question related to watching music performances.

 
 

[eclein]

3 for me in no particular order:
 Pat Metheny Group-"We Live Here"-live in Japan
 Steely Dan-"Two Against Nature"
 Pink Floyd-"PULSE"
All DVD's and all 3 are great perfomances and recordings as far as I'm concerned. If you like Pat Metheny at all, even a smidge the above DVD is great.
Pink Floyd's is a classic.
Steely Dan is just one of my all time great favorites..FWIW

[James Romeyn]

Ditto Steely Dan.  I have not seen it since we got the 92" diagonal Vu-tec perforated retractable screen (Mitsubishi HC6500 1080p projector).     

[drphoto]

For the past 6 months or so, I've largely been using concert vids as my main source. (I don't even have the SB3 hooked anymore)

I just really like live performances. Music is about communication, and I think live CAN be great.

Plus, it's amazing how good the engineers and techs have gotten at capturing this stuff w/ decent to very good sound. (same on video) Gone are the days of really muffled, compressed sounding sound and grainy, blurry video. Here's is one arena where vintage just does not hold up.

But on the other hand if you really like a certain artist and the performance is compelling enough, all that goes out the window, as it does on any other media.

For example, I'm a huge fan of Neil Finn of Crowded House/Split Enz fame. After he went solo, he did a live show for two nights in at a theater in Aukland called "7 Worlds Collide". It is grainy and the sound isn't the best, and the musicanship is even a bit sloppy in parts, but I just love it. It's what a live show should be, a spirited performance of great songs with everyone....band and audience just having a blast. I've seen it dozens of times and never get tired of it.

At the other end of the spectrum, there's The Eagles "Fairwell 1" concert from Melbourne. Good sound (just a bit bright but very good mix) and video production. Pretty boring to watch, except for some really hot babes in the audience (hell the last track is like a soft porno) Band is not the most visually interesting bunch of people, but they play better now than they ever did. Maybe because they're sober?

Pink Floyd's "Pulse" has both great sound and visual quality. I personally think the  concert production, which is a totally separate issue is way over the top. I'd rather watch the guys play than see all the video inserts and I think flash pots and lasers are a bit much with the advent of the varilite. I dunno, I guess they just think Pink Floyd audiences expect a laser show? The thing I really like, is the band just seems to be having fun. You see these little smiles between the guys, that say...yeah....we really have something here. And it's a cracking performance. Everyone is spot on.

Peter Gabriel. Always on the cutting edge IMHO. His concerts are like performance art. The Growing UP Live is exceptional for sound and video quality and performance, though far more subdued than previous tours. Still very interesting production however.

Genesis, When in Rome concert. An excellent performance, with great video. And Genesis has always had some of the best stage and lighting designer in the biz. A great looking show. Sound is a tad bright, but decent.

The MTM "Unplugged" series seems to have very good sound. I have the Alice in Chains and want to get the much heralded Nirvana.

Sorry, I'm rambling again, but you asked, and this is something I've been messing around with of late.

Of course, now I'm off in the weeds w/ the vinyl LP, which an 180º turn in direction. Go figure.....

cheers mate
 

[James Romeyn]

Well, at least two interested parties, so I think that's a so-called "quorum".

I ask because of the following.  My best understanding is that there are at least two major differences in system specifications separating HT from music.  In a broad general sense:

• HT more often benefits with a higher maximum output ceiling (obviously, the louder one likes their music and the wider the dynamic range, the less true is this general statement)
• HT more often benefits from a true 20 Hz bass cutoff than music (the only 20 Hz program material is synthesized and/or huge pedal organ, so again, the more one listens to those instruments the less this rule applies)
• HT benefits from a narrower, more controlled radiation pattern because three front channels make for a more seamless and wider front stage than two stereo speakers...also the HT L/R are primarily effects channels, again, because there are three across. 

The above presupposes what I believe to be the most ideal HT, being a perforated screen with the center speaker located where it is in the theater, behind the screen.  In a HT with perforated screen, one is able to locate the three front speakers at identical correct heights and has absolutely no issue with reflective surfaces nearby except for the horizontal bar (if one exists such as on my Vu-Tec) at the bottom of the screen.  It was one of many interesting surprises building this system to find that the screen had to be slightly lowered and the speakers slightly raised to fix this issue, because the tweeter was just barely firing over the horizontal bar. Before that, the screen was at the exact height recommended after many hours of research on this one subject. 

The only "correct" HT speaker system comprises three identical vertical  array speakers across the front.

IMO about 99% of center speakers are wrongly designed horizontal arrays. The sum total reason such speakers exist is to accommodate the end-user who does not want to invest the time, money, space and money and money for a properly installed perforated screen.  This is the sum total reason any horizontal or quasi-horizontal center exists. 

The sum total reason any horizontal array, quasi-horizontal array, or anything with any horizontally arrayed drivers exists in the center, is for the sum total reason that that a solid screen exists where a properly designed vertical array speaker would otherwise exist.  Two solid objects may not exist in the same time and space, hence the birth of one of the most ubiquitous objects in all HT.  (The only exception that comes to mind is the Legacy's Whisper Speaker if employed as a center.)

Another way to view this: if any type of horizontal or quasi-horizontal array exists in the center, the exact same speaker belongs at the L/R.  This is  less good than above, but is a better compromise.  Each and every single HT with three unmatched speakers across the front is permanently and audibly compromised.  Purely my opinion, welcoming debate to continue.  I'm extremely fixed to this opinion, yet am just as open to considering it is invalid.

The above opinion is the sum total reason anyone ever expresses the opinion that a HT is better without a center: because every system in which they have auditioned on which this opinion is based, is an incorrect, compromised system...because a correct system is too costly in more ways than one.     

But the best and only proper HT system has three perfectly matched speakers, all in perfect vertical array, and these three speakers can only be setup at the correct height with a perforated screen.  This is immutable.  It means any HT lacking a perforated screen is a permanent compromise.

I'm working my way up to expressing what I believe will be an original and strange opinion.  It may be controversial, but in a purely fun and good way.   

[ctviggen]

IMO about 99% of center speakers are wrongly designed horizontal arrays, simply to accommodate the end-user who does not want to invest the time, money, space and money and money for a properly installed perforated screen.  Additionally, for any center speaker with anything other than a perfectly straight vertical array of every driver: the more correct system would install three identical speakers across the front.  Meaning, if any type of horizontal or quasi-horizontal array exists in the center, the exact same speaker belongs at the L/R.  Each and every single HT with three unmatched speakers across the front is permanently and audibly compromised.  Purely my opinion, welcoming debate to continue.  I'm extremely fixed to this opinion, yet am just as open to considering it is invalid.
 

After having two different systems (Linn and VMPS) with center channel speakers that were sideways and not vertical, I can say with some certainty that these set ups sounded great.  Would the system have sounded better with three identical fronts?  That, I cannot answer.  I do know that I'll never have such a system, because I like to listen to stereo, and I believe it's better to position the front right and left speakers away from the wall for stereor, which means not behind a screen. 

[James Romeyn]

Some clarification is in order.  The system presupposes maximum viewing and listening pleasure for more than one person sitting in a tightly knit space. 

I previously had two VMPS RM30 L/R and one horizontally sited RM30 center atop a 50" RPTV.  To say it was handicapped vs. my current setup with three matched vertically arrayed monitors with "Vertical Offset Bipolar" output and a perforated screen is an extreme understatement.   

Another way to view this.

Let's say we have three speakers across the front.  The L/R are classic vertical arrays with no horizontal anything.  The center is a quasi-horizontal array, with let's say two midbass flanking an elevated centrally located tweeter (same maker).

The goal of the three front speakers is create as seamless as possible soundfield L to R...top to bottom less so but that is still of some significance.  Yes or no? 

Any argument supporting the position that there is no handicap to the results of the above described mismatched speaker system, could just as easily be used to support the idea that each individual speaker could successfully employ the same design criteria.  So, for instance, you could support the idea that a L/R stereo speaker could be designed just as well with some horizontally splayed drivers.  And yet, of course, such speakers are probably less than 1% if that many.  Why?   

In other words, the three front speakers are supposed to make up one huge, perfectly integrated soundfield.  Yes, three different sources spaced horizontally.  But the fact that the three speakers are indeed horizontally spaced, IMO, this emphasizes even more that they must be matched in every possible way.   

[bunnyma357]

I'd guess that something like 90-95% of the HT market is LCD/Plasma displays that require a center above or below. I have 6 matching speakers for my HT, all oriented the same way (vertical MTM) and I notice a much greater shift in tonality due to proximity to room boundaries versus the orientation of the speaker.

I also think that speakers below the screen angled to match the tiering of the seating is a viable alternative. It seems like this would keep the 2 Mids in an MTM equidistant for better performance than speakers only lined up with one row of seating. I've found the sound image height doesn't stay with the speakers, but is perceived to be higher and match the screen, even with the speakers below.

My HT is still in the testing phase, but that is what I have observed so far - still figuring out what to do configuration wise, if and when I ever get a chance to build it for real.


Jim C

[James Romeyn]

I'll just get right to the main point now.

The perfect system, IMO, for HT is exactly the same for music.  The sum total reason this is impossible to believe is because:

The appropriately designed system is so rare that too few people know of its existence.  So no one clamors for it, hence no one offers it. 

The system is offbeat.  Contrary to the way audiophiles and HT buffs view themselves, they are extremely conservative (like most people).   

I must preface this by saying I do not believe in stereo for music.  I believe three front channels are the minimum for ideal music listening.  And stereo sources can indeed be properly converted into multi-channel, but the only three components in the world that can do this are so rare and so under-marketed that again, almost no one knows they exist. 

It will likely surprise the most ardent 2-ch stereo fan to hear this, but no less an authority than Alan Blumlein, the inventor of the format, accurately and properly documented the format's terminal Achiles Heel from its inception.  The AES documented the same thing (read the papers long ago, sorry no reference), as did Stereophile circa 2008.

The most preferred, most pleasurable performance criteria for HT is the same for music.  It's costly but IMO is great value for the results.  It requires a multi-channel music system (three across the front minimum) and three identically matched vertical array speakers for HT, which can only be setup with a perforated screen.  If the systems are integrated (what I'm getting at), then the perforated screen should be retractable.  Actually, I suppose you could just have a fixed perforated screen for HT and music but it's aesthetically just kinda strange, and you have to walk around it. 

For both HT and music the front speakers are spaced several feet from the front wall.  This takes up space and requires a larger room, but still is far less space (and money) than building two systems, which requires two rooms.

Getting back to my original subject: When you hear well recorded live music performances on a HT system as described herein, the results border on surreal.  The soundfield fills most of the room, with pinpoint imaging in all three dimensions.  The front speakers are spaced way out from the front wall, with all the spatial effects completely uninhibited and developed in space because the entire 92" screen is acoustically transparent.  My wife and I made involuntary approving sounds during parts of the Cream concert. 

On the same system, used with a Trinuaral Processor for music only: My luthier Ryan Thorell is one of the world's most elite, building some of the best money can buy. Ryan was here yesterday and had to ask twice if there were rear surrounds in play while we listened to the Frank Vignola Trio playing a Thorell "F.V. Signature" arch top in New York.  (Surrounds were not in play.)  Ryan said it was the sound of his guitar right there in the room.  (Frank's guitar was miked, no guitar amp was employed.)           

[eclein]

I have found just recently that using my 2.1 setup for music videos is wonderful. I take the HDMI output of a PS3 for video only and run toslink to my DAC and then to 2.1 integrated amp...I love it, absolutely love it. I watched the Pat Metheny DVD the other day this way and found it a much more enjoyable experience. The emotion of the music was conveyed in my opinion so much better then the way I was listening before in a 5.1 setup. For me, just for me, not telling anyone what or what not to do, I love 2.1 for music and music video far better than 5.1.
 I'm diggin it...just sorry it took me 52 years to find this out..LOL!!!!

[cujobob]

Well, at least two interested parties, so I think that's a so-called "quorum".

I ask because of the following.  My best understanding is that there are at least two major differences in system specifications separating HT from music.  In a broad general sense:

• HT more often benefits with a higher maximum output ceiling (obviously, the louder one likes their music and the wider the dynamic range, the less true is this general statement)
• HT more often benefits from a true 20 Hz bass cutoff than music (the only 20 Hz program material is synthesized and/or huge pedal organ, so again, the more one listens to those instruments the less this rule applies)
• HT benefits from a narrower, more controlled radiation pattern because three front channels make for a more seamless and wider front stage than two stereo speakers...also the HT L/R are primarily effects channels, again, because there are three across. 

The above presupposes what I believe to be the most ideal HT, being a perforated screen with the center speaker located where it is in the theater, behind the screen.  In a HT with perforated screen, one is able to locate the three front speakers at identical correct heights and has absolutely no issue with reflective surfaces nearby except for the horizontal bar (if one exists such as on my Vu-Tec) at the bottom of the screen.  It was one of many interesting surprises building this system to find that the screen had to be slightly lowered and the speakers slightly raised to fix this issue, because the tweeter was just barely firing over the horizontal bar. Before that, the screen was at the exact height recommended after many hours of research on this one subject. 

The only "correct" HT speaker system comprises three identical vertical  array speakers across the front.

IMO about 99% of center speakers are wrongly designed horizontal arrays. The sum total reason such speakers exist is to accommodate the end-user who does not want to invest the time, money, space and money and money for a properly installed perforated screen.  This is the sum total reason any horizontal or quasi-horizontal center exists. 

The sum total reason any horizontal array, quasi-horizontal array, or anything with any horizontally arrayed drivers exists in the center, is for the sum total reason that that a solid screen exists where a properly designed vertical array speaker would otherwise exist.  Two solid objects may not exist in the same time and space, hence the birth of one of the most ubiquitous objects in all HT.  (The only exception that comes to mind is the Legacy's Whisper Speaker if employed as a center.)

Another way to view this: if any type of horizontal or quasi-horizontal array exists in the center, the exact same speaker belongs at the L/R.  This is  less good than above, but is a better compromise.  Each and every single HT with three unmatched speakers across the front is permanently and audibly compromised.  Purely my opinion, welcoming debate to continue.  I'm extremely fixed to this opinion, yet am just as open to considering it is invalid.

The above opinion is the sum total reason anyone ever expresses the opinion that a HT is better without a center: because every system in which they have auditioned on which this opinion is based, is an incorrect, compromised system...because a correct system is too costly in more ways than one.     

But the best and only proper HT system has three perfectly matched speakers, all in perfect vertical array, and these three speakers can only be setup at the correct height with a perforated screen.  This is immutable.  It means any HT lacking a perforated screen is a permanent compromise.

I'm working my way up to expressing what I believe will be an original and strange opinion.  It may be controversial, but in a purely fun and good way.   

This whitepaper is quite useful... http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/directivity.pdf

Lack of compression, high output, and sensitivity are very important to getting a good live experience.  Constant directivity is always important (as they all are, to some extent, I suppose).

[James Romeyn]

I'd guess that something like 90-95% of the HT market is LCD/Plasma displays that require a center above or below. I have 6 matching speakers for my HT, all oriented the same way (vertical MTM) and I notice a much greater shift in tonality due to proximity to room boundaries versus the orientation of the speaker.

I also think that speakers below the screen angled to match the tiering of the seating is a viable alternative. It seems like this would keep the 2 Mids in an MTM equidistant for better performance than speakers only lined up with one row of seating. I've found the sound image height doesn't stay with the speakers, but is perceived to be higher and match the screen, even with the speakers below.

My HT is still in the testing phase, but that is what I have observed so far - still figuring out what to do configuration wise, if and when I ever get a chance to build it for real.


Jim C

Jim
I'm imagining that the correct height for a vertical array MTM center is exactly where any solid screen would be located?  Would appreciate some clarification.  Sorry if I missed the obvious.

Also, the ideal location for music speakers is away from the front wall.  And yet, are not all flat screen located on or very near a wall.  Purely for myself, this just fails every imaginable test aiming for ideal.  But that's what this entire thread is really about, so it's all just open for debate.  This is all just my view and history and other member's.   

[James Romeyn]

Earl Geddes made a bigger impact on my audio and HT pleasure than anyone else.  I've been doing this for several decades both professionally and as a hobbyist.  Earl's old protege Duke LeJeune is a close #2.  For Duke's fans, at my site is my own mathematical formula for siting four subs in a 4-cornered room ala LeJeune.  Duke approved of the method by theory, but I don't know if he tried it yet.

My formula, involving the Golden Ratio, made for the smoothest bass yet in this room, which has the worst modes (or equal to the worst) of any room in which I setup my own system.     

[bunnyma357]

Jim
I'm imagining that the correct height for a vertical array MTM center is exactly where any solid screen would be located?  Would appreciate some clarification.  Sorry if I missed the obvious.

Also, the ideal location for music speakers is away from the front wall.  And yet, are not all flat screen located on or very near a wall.  Purely for myself, this just fails every imaginable test aiming for ideal.  But that's what this entire thread is really about, so it's all just open for debate.  This is all just my view and history and other member's.   

Myself, I have a CIH projection screen - I was pointing out that manufacturers design for the marketplace and the majority of that is LCD/Plasma.

A few things to consider - usually the screen isn't centered top to bottom, it is in the upper third of the room. Usually the people are sitting in the lower third of the room - so a lower speaker position under the screen and angled to match the the tiered seating seems like a good solution to me. It allows the speakers to be brought out into the room, and works quite well - the sound seems to come from the screen. It also avoids any problems that are built into perforated screens. It also doesn't require you to move the screen out into the room to place speakers behind it. For me that would entail either a too small screen or constructing a new house.

I agree with matching speakers and using vertical alignments and having them positioned away from room boundaries, since that is what I have done, I just don't see any reason that putting them behind the screen is ideal. The perforated screen seems like it would cause more compromises rather than solving problems, but maybe you are only addressing people with giant rooms available in which to set up an HT.

Jim C

[launche]

 

http://blog.stereophile.com/axpona2010/best_experience_at_axpona/

[James Romeyn]

I hate physical work more than mental.  Plus building this HT was one of the most costly things I've done.  So I made as sure as I possibly could what was the most highly recommended screen height (my ceiling is only 7.6').  IIRC there were two slightly different formulas to compute height, very closely related to each other but just slightly different.  I averaged the two resulting recommended heights.  (IIRC, and this was about 18 mos ago, the viewer's eye height will be equal to a point 1/3rd up from the screen bottom.  Please correct if necessary.) 

For seated listeners, I posit the following: the proper height of any true big screen (let's say, about eighty-some inches or larger) will shade or be in front of the drivers of a vertical array of a center speaker that is also at the ideal height.  I posit this to learn of the exceptions if such exist.  I don't know of any yet.   

Notice the proximity in height between your ears and eyes.  If a solid screen is at the correct viewing height, and the speakers are sited above or below, even if the speakers are angled, the angle does not fix the problem that the drivers are located too high or too low.  Your ear/brain still knows the source is from below or above.  But if this is the only way a system can be built, it "seems" ideal for all three front speakers to be matched and at the same height and same angle. 

Angling fixes the firing angle, but still the source is too low.  If angling the drivers fixed the problem completely, then this would give rise to many low-rider speakers that are much lower and just angled to correct for proper results.  This appears to be nonsense, maybe because it is.   

The above image with the wonderful Thiel 3.7s demonstrates my opinion.   3.7 are about 40" tall.  IMO, in the setup shown the screen is considerably too high for a seated listener.  That screen height is specifically for people standing in the demo.  To repeat, employing a properly functioning perforated screen is a pain in the butt. 

There may be issues with sound firing through a perforated screen.  I hear no problems with the perforated screen used for HT.  In fact I may hear no difference for music whether it's up or down...will check this.   (will ask Debra if she's noticed any problems when I go upstairs later...so far today she's made stuffed flank steak, two kinds of pork chili, and is now finishing off egg plant provolone with a little parmesan...much of which will be stuffed in the freezer for later).  Whatever are the alleged problems, moving the speakers too high, too low, or unmatched front speakers, or horizontal arrays, or quasi-horizontal arrays, cause immensely more problems. 

Hearing three ideal matched vertical array speakers, setup far from the front wall, playing with a large perforated screen, IMO puts this debate to bed.  IMO the upgrade is magnified with what may be the most ideal radiation pattern, being Duke LeJeune's own proprietary "vertical offset bipole".

I'm not saying this isn't costly or impractical.  Just stating my opinion of the ideal.  I assumed from the start that debating real, potential, and perceived compromises is a big part of the hobby.

There are many reasons a perforated screen is not employed.  There are many reasons there is so seldom several feet behind the screen and the speakers to the front wall.  In every case, regardless of the justification and reasons, sound quality suffers.

Three identical matched vertical array speakers, spaced from the front wall, with appropriate high-quality conversion from stereo to three channels or more (no simple summed mono center, all channels including the center must be algebraically processed), also happens to be the ideal setup for music.  (The only three known components that successfully perform such conversion/processing are Bongiorno's Trinaural Processor, the Meridian TriField Processor, and Meridian pre-pros with Ambisonic Processing...the two Meridian components are long discontinued.) 

If this is true, then it's not much of a jump to posit that one system can be assembled that is ideal for both HT and music.  Watching a live music performance on such a properly integrated system pretty thoroughly demonstrates this opinion. 

[drphoto]

I'm w/ Ed on this one again. I running my normal audio system, so 2.1 (though w/ multiple subs) Simply sending the digital audio out from the DVD deck to my outboard DAC.

But I thought the original discussion was about concert vids, not hardware. I suppose you can derail your own thread though. I do it all the time! 

[James Romeyn]

The subject was a round about way of positing that:

Great live music performances may provide more overall pleasure than movies.

The audio system providing the greatest pleasure for viewing/listening to live music performance has the same qualities as your ideal music playback system, because the primary audio component is music not dialog and effects.

The inventor of the stereo format was aware the format is inherently flawed, leading to the opinion that there are certain preferred alternatives such as Trinaural, which work best with three matched front channels.

Three identical matched front speakers with vertical array are mandatory for ideal video, only possible with a perforated screen.     

If the above conclusions are all valid, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that a dual use system can be assembled that suffers absolutely no degradation of performance subsequent to its dual use nature.  Such a system would employ a retractable perforated screen and some proper system to process at least three channels from stereo sources.

ETA for my four custom built sub enclosures is 28 June.  It should take only a day or so to get the subs up and running.  It will be the 1st ever sub system licensed by Duke with four of his 16 lb 10s in a reflex system.  The enclosures will match my main speaker cosmetics but be larger of course and different proportions to fit near the walls. 

After the subs are up I will invite the old group that expressed interest in doing a local get together about 18 mos ago (assuming they are still around).  I'm hoping Duke can bring a couple speakers down too.

Debra agreed to put on one of her typical spreads, maybe a complete British High Tea, or something else just as pleasing.  The stuffed flank steak and eggplant provolone tonight was beyond outstanding.

We can switch back and forth from stereo to Trinaural for music only.  We can also switch from 5.1 to 2.1 for live music.  If anyone prefers 2.1 to 5.1 on this system, I will be more than a little surprised.  (Debra can tolerate ghetto blasters, but if it's a high-end system she has little patience for stereo vs. Trinaural.  I'll reposition the L/R speakers properly for stereo auditions...currently for Trinaural and HT the L/R are very close to the side walls but toed in to cross fire in front of a centered listener.)           

[drphoto]

I honestly have no idea of what you are talking about......