We did the recording in the anechoic chamber last month with Stephen and Chris from The Stephen Stanley Band. The theory was we could increase the realism of the playback experience if we did not cascade the room it was recorded in with the room it was played back in. 401Classic asked if we could send him the wave files. We did and this is what he produced from them:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3LpYN6zj3AmVikywf3OyOF4dmMyJsmT/view?usp=sharing

Love to hear what you think.

I don't know what is meant by "...not cascade the room it was recorded in with the room it was played back in." And what did 401Classic do?

It sounds great on my Audiobytes and I expect it will sound even more amazing on my ADA and v4 system.

The chamber is a "non-room" as it has no reflective signature of its own. Technically then there is only one room in the equation which is your room that you are playing it back in.

It tells me my room and system is awesome and I have no business upgrading it...LOL!

There's some hum in the beginning like ever-so-slight feedback. I hear 2 guitars in the intro. One is anchored to the right speaker and is 4' high. The other is 2' behind the left speaker and 1' towards the center. It's higher than the right by a half foot. These guitars stay there throughout the song although there is a guitar that pops in and out of the left speaker. The male singer comes in 2' behind the right speaker and 1' towards the center. He's right there! He sounds 5' tall. A female sings from time-to-time and she's anchored in the left speaker. Once towards the end a male sings over her. The main singer and guitars sound very clear and resonant like they're in my room. It sounds very "transparent".

Please tell me this is all wrong so that I can continue to justify my upgrade.

Thanks!

What I DIDN'T do was mix it and play it back in a room with decent speakers, I used a really nice set of custom IEMs, though. So I need to re-mix it with a room in mind. I will try to get an updated file to Amie and Ian probably by Wed, since all I need to do is re-pan a little and change the levels of a couple things. It sounds great on both my M22s and custom IEMs, but very different from each other.

What I DID do is listen to all 8 tracks that I was given and I decided to eliminate a couple of the tracks because there were cleaner tracks with the same info. For instance there were 3 tracks of the electric guitar. Based on the pic earlier in this thread, I figured that two of them were the ones right on the amp and the third was a few feet away, but it also picked up the acoustic and both vocals (Mojo, the second vocal is a dude, so you may need an upgrade ). Guitar amps are famous for giving quite different signatures based on mic placement, even a few inches apart. Once I had the clean channels, I tried to create a soundstage with what I thought I was seeing in the picture - Lead Vocal playing acoustic and B/G vocal playing electric and panned them accordingly, more or less. For the Acoustic, I EQ'd a bump around 300 Hz and a negative peak at 2k Hz and panned it right to match the lead vocal. For the Electric, similar EQ, but I panned one track hard left and the other track just to the right and a light reverb on both. Lead vocal EQ has a bump around 400 Hz and negative spike around 6k Hz to help with sibilance. B/G vocal just got bump at 400Hz. Then the whole thing was run thru its own EQ, a Limiter, a binaural pan at 150% and a very slight reverb.

One of the tracks seemed like the mic was in the middle of the room as just about everything was picked up. Ordinarily this would be the "Room the song was recorded in" but because the anechoic chamber sucked up all the natural echo and ambiance a regular room would lend, it was just a mic too far away from any one thing, so I did not include it in the mix.

So what I can upload is:
- Just the tracks, no nothing - EVERYTHING will be sitting dead center
- Just the tracks, pan only
- The Full Monte, redone on a room with M22s

So there will be 4 versions to take a poll on.

Scott

Scott, nice work man! Can you share with us how the depth that I heard is achieved? Is the depth accurate?

BTW, I really was unsure if that was a guy or gal and should have reflected that in my notes instead of guessing.

I'm looking forward to hearing the various files.

Mojo,

I really have no freaking clue how to effect depth or height, for that matter. Your 'left here' and 'right there' comments are easy to explain and match the pan settings, but height? No clue. Maybe it's tied to the pan settings. For instance, in terms of pan settings in my DAW I noticed that the lead vocal is panned less than the acoustic. I basically closed my eyes and listened as I moved things left and right, stopping when I felt they were balanced and where I wanted them, not just a number on the DAW. That was on my IEMs. When I played it in my living room (after I sent a copy to Amie and Ian) that balance was different - and also reversed! Left was right and right was left. No clue what happened there.
The guitar you mentioned that pops in and out is the second track of the Electric Guitar coming from a different mic placement on the amp and I panned it just off center and the opposite direction of the other EG track. It's sonically just different enough in certain phrases that you hear it as a different instrument in a different spot.
I'll have to take a closer listen to the individual tracks again, but I'm pretty sure the hum you hear is the guitar amp. If I can pull it out without effecting the tone of the guitar, I will.

Scott

I'm very curious about height and depth. The vast majority of music presents itself "up high" with my M80s. By that I mean the images float above the speakers. When I had the back of the M80s 6" from the wall, the images were in the same plane as the front of the drivers. I've now moved the back 3' away from the wall. The images are still up high but now I can finally perceive depth.

One of the exceptions is your file. Like I reported, I heard various heights and didn't have to strain at all to place the images in 3D space. I hear no depth in your file by the way when I move the 80s against the wall. Also the height and width are still preserved but are "fuzzier".

My listening desires have gotten more refined over the years. I can hear image fuzziness and spatial congestion that I couldn't hear even 2 years ago. I've purchased the M5HP to get the depth and image focus I yearn for. If the M5HP, and in general the v4, lead to improved imaging and soundstage spaciousness, then this is a secret that Axiom has protected very well. Maybe Axiom wants listeners to discover this for themselves.

It's a very interesting journey and experiment actually. It's not just about drivers and their materials, cabinet bracing and shape, port configuration and cross-over parts. It's how all these work as a system, or in the case of the LFRs, a system of systems. Trying to understand what measurements make a difference to human perception of sound and how those measurements need to be analyzed in context to the desired objectives is the real magic. Then of course synthesizing those measurements into a desirable product is another thing altogether.

I think this is what The Family of Curves is all about. Although many speaker manufacturers take curves, they may be hampered by the available equipment and methods. Axiom recognized a long time ago the need to invest in their own chamber and automation to increase the curve quantity and granularity. I hope all this work shines through in the M5HPs I'm about to receive.

Very, very nice job 401! I have not listened to the raw files, but your mix is excellent in terms of tone and dynamics. My only criticism is with the panning placement. I think that it would be great to have Stephen centered along with his guitar and Chris and his guitar panned slightly to the right to provide some separation. Either that or maybe still have them left/right but both positioned closer to centre?

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I can certainly go back and put Stephen and the Acoustic(?) dead center with and the others off center. I uploaded, for Ian and Amie to approve, a version panned closer to center with the same processing I did before and one with the same pan but no additional processing, and also one with no pan or processing (so everything piled up in the middle).

Scott

I wonder how long before machine learning algorithms take over recording engineering duties.

As long as there are people that want a different "sound" I think there will be humans involved. My view, most Sundays, is from behind a 32 channel, all digital mixing board. There are two of us that primarily run sound for the contemporary service. I like more bass so I tend to turn that up. My counter part like more lead vocal, so he turns that up. We have different ears, brains and preferences. But we both deal with a room that is less than ideal, with hard surfaces for EVERY surface. Standing on stage and yelling "Hey!" takes 4 seconds to decay below 60 dB. We'd love to get a machine to deal with that. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xBMiYk62oosWf3NU3JKQsNi5tb5w43hp/view?usp=sharing

The current generations of sound engineers will train the machines and in the future, these machines will not only tailor the sound to the characteristics of the room but also the characteristics of the people in them.

As long as the machines do not pull a Phil Spector.

Be afraid ...

Bryce, who is in my original picture on recording day, did a mix of Troubadour. Here is the link to it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GmI9zlr0WI0IlgldNF0tu8rUqRtowenT

Bryce's mix is what I'd expect from a professional production but the original is more interesting. On my M3v4 system, I hear depth on the original that I don't hear in Bryce's. The original also sounds more dynamic. I'll have to try on my main, M5HP system.

I heard details on my legacy M80v2 system that I don't hear with the M3v4. This could be the M3s, the WIP room my M3s are in or the source equipment. I'll have to see if my main system can reproduce those details.

The presentation of the original mix is totally different through the M5HPs compared to the M80v2. Same room, same equipment. Much more enjoyable through the M5s!

I very much prefer Scott's mix over Bryce's on the A-LFRs just like I did on the M80v2 and M5. It is larger-sounding and more interesting. I went back over my review I did on the M80v2. The beginning is feedback and it has more air/resonance than the dullish, grinding, human-like sound I remember on the 80s. On the 80s, the main singer was panned quite far on the right but now I hear him right of centre. He's resonant enough he leaks into the center. The left guitar is behind the left speaker but the right is just inside the right speaker and not in it like on the 80. It sounds more clear than the 80s. I do not perceive depth like I did with the 80s though. The 80s were a few feet away from the front wall.

Scott, regarding my question of how to control depth in the recording, the suspicion I have after listening to the A-LFRs, is by using relative gain. If for example you mix vocals and cymbals for a centre presentation, and cut the gain of the cymbals, they'll appear behind the vocals.

As for controlling height, that remains a mystery.

They call it Psychoacoustics for a reason .... it’s all in your head mojo ...

I suspect that (in 2 channel) any height spaciousness you get is more a consequence of your room than intent of the recording engineer.

I also suspect that that effect might be amplified by the LFR.
That said I have no real knowledge of this just suspicions

There are times when guitars appear at the height of the mid-ranges, as if the guitarista is seated. At other times, they are at tweeter level and yet other times "way up there". This is actually consistent between all my v4.

I have two heights in my house. The basement at around 7'2" and the upstairs at 8 feet. These effects do not change at the two different locations.

BTW, I don't hear the A-LFR amplifying this effect. What it does is make the images I "see" sharper. There are also more images and more spatially resolved and of higher fidelity.

I was just thinking that sound might not care if it’s bouncing off a wall or a ceiling ... and that height clues might be (probably are) unintentional. 2nd since the LFR is designed to bounce sound off the front wall it makes sense that the effect would be enhanced. (Not to be confused with louder ) Of course, as I stated before, this is all speculation on my part

From what I hear, the LFR makes the stage wider and deeper. I think the wider effect is due to the rear drivers.