Recording of audience applause in live music recordings

[Thad E Ginathom]

It's a fun thing. Airline pilots use headphones that put different voices in different spaces, so that he can more easily separate different inputs. I forget what they call this technique, but the 'phones have to be custom made for each individual and the way their ears handle those clues.

Back in hifi land, I think there is a processor which changes the sound when the listener moves their head....

About those ambient audience noises...

 

[square_wave]

@ Manoje,

The poor mans surround concept looks nice. Couple of questions:

1. What is the effect of such a connection on an amplifier? Load characteristics and how it affects performance of the main speakers etc..
2. I assume, if there is no out of phase info in the recording, the speakers will be silent.
3. Where do you place these speakers? In the rear? If so, arent we assuming that all the ambient info in the recording is supposed to come from the rear of the room? What happens to all the ambient info that happens to the left, right and front areas of the listener at a live performance?

I am sure this is indeed a poor mans surround for people into movies but trying to understand how such a setup adds value for music.

 

[manoj.p]

@ Manoje,

The poor mans surround concept looks nice. Couple of questions:

1. What is the effect of such a connection on an amplifier? Load characteristics and how it affects performance of the main speakers etc..

It will increase the load on each channel of the amp. Amps usually have quite a bit of power left, so thats not an issue, unless the speakers are very power hungry. Also, the out of phase info is mostly ambience, so does not need very much power to drive it.

2. I assume, if there is no out of phase info in the recording, the speakers will be silent.

True.

3. Where do you place these speakers? In the rear? If so, arent we assuming that all the ambient info in the recording is supposed to come from the rear of the room? What happens to all the ambient info that happens to the left, right and front areas of the listener at a live performance?

Usually in the rear. But there are some people who have put these speaker in the front/side and tried to create a wider sound stage. About the ambient info in music. It's not like movies where the surrounds can have very aggressive sounds. In music, for creating the envelope, they put same info in the front as well as rear speakers. For example claps. I have found the claps or audience roars are usually in the surround as well as front speakers. When played back, this sound appears from the front as well rear, giving one the impression that we are standing in audience. The other musical ambient cues are like reflections/reverberations recorded by mics and are very subtle giving a fuller body to the presentation. Then there are some CD's where none of this is present at all.

I am sure this is indeed a poor mans surround for people into movies but trying to understand how such a setup adds value for music.

Yes, it started with movies because that's where surrounds were used first. Incidentally, stereo was also used for movies first and not for music. (When stereo was introduced for movies, they had a big center speaker, accompanied by 2 small left/right speakers.) But very soon surround also made to the music, in vinyls, reel2reel etc. Reputed labels have been using it.

 

[manoj.p]

It's a fun thing. Airline pilots use headphones that put different voices in different spaces, so that he can more easily separate different inputs. I forget what they call this technique, but the 'phones have to be custom made for each individual and the way their ears handle those clues.

Back in hifi land, I think there is a processor which changes the sound when the listener moves their head....

About those ambient audience noises...

Thad, these are called binaural headphones. They can actually measure how a room sounds by placing microphones on an individuals two ears. After incorporating that into a headphone + processor, it becomes a custom made for that individual. The big advantage is that the sound appears to come from outside and not imaging in your head.

As a side note, DTS showed their headphone technology in CES 2013. They first played a tone through 11 channels (7+4 heights). Then asked the audience to put on a headphone and played the same tones. It remarkably gave the impression of a speaker existing in space and that too 11 different speakers. Not only that, the headphone tone and timbre was matching exactly to the physical speaker. Many of us thought this was actual speaker playing and removed the headphones to check. DTS said no special headphone needed, a regular headphone will work perfectly fine. Amazing stuff. Not sure when it will see the light of the day though.

 

[square_wave]

@Manoje,

Thanks.

As a side note, I remember reading somewhere about the arguments among the decision makers / influencers in audio industry during the era when mono transitioned into stereo. There were many path breaking suggestions and prototypes, some using three speakers etc..

I guess it remained at stereo due to many practical and cost related problems. Now stereo has been refined to such a degree in multi-faceted areas that replicating all that to multi-channel will probably remain a dream.

 

[captrajesh]

This is ambient information that should add value to the music. It is best kept subtle and kept as non-obtrusive as possible in the background. From the point of appreciation of the musical art form, does it really matter which direction it comes from??

Considering that the whole objective of Stereo recording is to create an illusion of the performance in ones listening room, adding the applause into the illusion in a realistic manner should form a part of the objective isn't it?

the entertainment business is 95% (or more) about creating an illusion. It could be, generally speaking a canned applause.
Another perspective: As the live applause becomes over overwhelmingly loud... Maybe it was mixed to this effect. Does nothing on the dialog, but holds the applause in check and makes for a much more palatable listening experience.

(oh yeah, and a lot of that crowd noise is in a place where, your speakers and ears are fairly sensitive)

I'm not saying that the crowd noise shouldn't be doctored to make the whole recording more palatable. My question is about creating the illusion in toto.

I think applause is always deliberately positioned from a perspective of the artist/performer on stage with the audience further down and away. So we always hear it as if we are standing in the performers shoes.

As long as the performance is played, the recording is made from the audience perspective; spacing of the musicians as realistically as possible on the stage but when it comes to applause, the (virtual) musicians get replaced by the (virtual) audience.

Appears kind of weird to me. Think about it.

 

[manoj.p]

@Manoje,

Thanks.

As a side note, I remember reading somewhere about the arguments among the decision makers / influencers in audio industry during the era when mono transitioned into stereo. There were many path breaking suggestions and prototypes, some using three speakers etc..

I guess it remained at stereo due to many practical and cost related problems. Now stereo has been refined to such a degree in multi-faceted areas that replicating all that to multi-channel will probably remain a dream.

Some valid points. Although, some clarifications are needed.

When the industry was trying to move from mono to next sound level, the idea was to add body to the sound. Hence the word "Stereo" which is borrowed from greek meaning "solid" or 3 dimensionality. So, the first iteration was 3 speakers in front but very soon they were using surround speakers to add the third dimension. Because of the limitation of technology, they started encoding 4 tracks into 2 channels.

More or less, the encoding used was simple -
Left channel - Left track.
Right channel -Right track
Center channel - equal in both left + right tracks
Surround channel - equal in both, but out of phase.
One may look at it as efficient, some may think its limitation, but it did work beautifully and created 3 dimension.

Soon it made it to home audio, where the medium was Reel2Reel and Vinyl. Some even had 4 dedicated tracks. Now we all know that the surround speakers, if used rightly, adds the 3 dimensionality to audio, whether its music or movies. It's the underlying fact.

You are right on the bang about cost and underlying factor for staying with 2 speaker setup. Industry settled on 2 speakers, that does not mean its the better choice. We all know this because ipods and mp3 is convenience and accepted a lot but it does not mean its better than CD. Same thing can be said about soundbars or Home theater in box - lot of them are sold, even more than AVR's and HT speakers. But we don't say those are better.

We are still able to get quite a bit of 3 dimensional audio at home using 2 speakers because of room reflections from all the 4 walls tend to give us those illusions. Can it be made better by using more speakers? Sure, why not? Like spreading two speakers in front made the sound stage wider, if we add surround speakers, now the sound stage can also be moved from front to back. It works for movies so no reason why it can't work for audio. As for gimmicky, its true for movies as well. In the movie, if the surround mix is aggressive or not done right, then it can be distracting as well. Same thing applies to music. It's up to us whether to take advantage and extend our sound stage front to back as well. I use it that way. Some tracks can be disturbing though. In that case, I just switch to 2 channel.

As for the current topic and Capt question, there are surround cues in the recording, one can extract (not create) them either using decoders like Dolby PLII or simply by adding two surround speaker out of phase with LR. Industry started calling 2 channel audio as stereo but that does not mean they are not putting more info in the recordings.

To put things in perspective - when Dolby introduced their surround format in theaters, they called it Dolby Stereo. When they introduced for home, they called it surround because people had already associated stereo means 2 speakers at home.

 

[square_wave]

@Manoje,

I am actually a big fan of adding that third dimensionality to music reproduction. But I am not very convinced that rear surrounds is the answer. Apart from some very specific dramatic recordings like pink Floyd etc.. music does not have any information that originates from the rear of the listener.

Also for audiophiles who are very particular about their gear, it is an added cost. It becomes a quantity vs quality thing. Do you want two of the best speakers that you can afford or five average ones ? This cost implication applies to amplifiers, signal processing and so on..

 

[Santy]

Anyway, long story short, there is surround information in lots of stereo tracks. The easiest way to check it is by doing "Hafler Circuit". You can google "Poor Mans surround".

The above picture shows how to extract the out of phase info without using a decoder. Its a simple experiment to hear discrete surround from 2 channel.

I am very surprised and glad to see this. Me and my friend have experimented exactly the same when we were doing our 10th. I mentioned this somewhere earlier. With Onida KY Thunder TV on front and Philips power house on rear in the above config (yes its overkill for surround but we enjoyed). We also used a similar technique to run a Karoke show in our college event. Amp's two positive's to one speaker and two negatives to another. Most of the vocals used to disappear leaving most of the music intact.

 

[Asit]

Rajesh,

This is an interesting thread indeed. I have quite a few live recordings in my possession in the form of CDs, cassettes and LPs, including performances at a few high profile places like the Carnegie Hall etc. Even with some of the best recordings, I have found that the audience applause may at best span a large (meaning wide and deep) soundstage, but usually never from behind the seating position.

I have seen a few times how recordings are done by professionals in a studio. The recordist ideally wants each source of sound (instrumental or vocal) completely isolated from each other. He adjusts the final production at the time of mixing ( hope I have used the correct technical term here). This way I believe he can get the correct imaging incorporated in the master copy.

Now in a live recording, the isolation of each source of sound is very difficult to achieve. The same microphones used for recording the music are also picking up the audience applause. Hence I think it is well nigh impossible to achieve what you are asking for. I do not think it is a question of how many channels one has or a question of having surround sound, but a question of recording each source of sound as isolated from each other as possible.

Regards.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Isn't some live stereo recording, eg classical orchestral, still done by the basic two-mic technique? OK, I should google, but any thoughts?

 

[Simon Wires]

There is so much in to this.. A good read

Recording the Audience

 

[captrajesh]

The same microphones used for recording the music are also picking up the audience applause. Hence I think it is well nigh impossible to achieve what you are asking for.

I do not have first hand experience but from the info given in the article linked by Simon Wires, the least they do to record the crowd applause is placing directional mikes on the stage facing the audience. That article also talks of placing the mikes hanging from the ceiling etc.

I do not think it is a question of how many channels one has or a question of having surround sound, but a question of recording each source of sound as isolated from each other as possible.

I do not understand why should recording of each source of sound should be isolated from each other. If that happens, IMHO the stereo imaging would be impossible to achieve and the whole thing would sound disjointed.

 

[ranjeetrain]

And I suppose, you are talking about 2 channel audio with 2 speakers?

Recording engineers either encode the surround as "out of phase" info into L+R, like Dolby and SRS does. Quadrophoic employed Sum (L+R) and Difference of (L-R).

We are still able to get quite a bit of 3 dimensional audio at home using 2 speakers because of room reflections from all the 4 walls tend to give us those illusions.

Your question is answered in your own posts

 

[jls001]

Interesting collection of applauses: Applause Sounds

I think it is the clap which sounds unreal when recorded. It is closer to the real sound when the size of the audience is moderate, but as it gets larger the massed clap sound sounds more like the sound of a heavy monsoon rain falling on a tin roof.

A bit OT, but here's an explanation of popular miking techniques : 6 Stereo Miking Techniques You Can Use Today - Tuts+ Music & Audio Tutorial

I read somewhere that the Blumlein pair is what Water Lily Audio uses to record small ensemble performances - using tube mics that are amplified by a tubed mic preamp (designed by Tim de Paravicini of Esoteric fame) that feeds an analog tape recording machines (Studers, IIRC and fettled/modified by de Paravicini).

Here's another PoV: the recordist may not think the audiences' applause too important to record it as well as the actual performance for posterity so he/she may not devote resources (mics/preamps/cabling/channels in the mixer) and time (to set up the recording devices and spend the time to mix it well) in capturing it well.

 

[arj]

Interesting collection of applauses: Applause Sounds

I think it is the clap which sounds unreal when recorded. It is closer to the real sound when the size of the audience is moderate, but as it gets larger the massed clap sound sounds more like the sound of a heavy monsoon rain falling on a tin roof.

A bit OT, but here's an explanation of popular miking techniques : 6 Stereo Miking Techniques You Can Use Today - Tuts+ Music & Audio Tutorial

I read somewhere that the Blumlein pair is what Water Lily Audio uses to record small ensemble performances - using tube mics that are amplified by a tubed mic preamp (designed by Tim de Paravicini of Esoteric fame) that feeds an analog tape recording machines (Studers, IIRC and fettled/modified by de Paravicini).

Here's another PoV: the recordist may not think the audiences' applause too important to record it as well as the actual performance for posterity so he/she may not devote resources (mics/preamps/cabling/channels in the mixer) and time (to set up the recording devices and spend the time to mix it well) in capturing it well.

I also suspect the same Joshua. on good recordings a clap should have a Fleshy feel to it. badly recorded CDs are nothing short of irritating !

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I do not understand why should recording of each source of sound should be isolated from each other. If that happens, IMHO the stereo imaging would be impossible to achieve and the whole thing would sound disjointed.

I think that that is what close-micing is about. Somehow the engineers mix it all together properly at the desk --- but not all listeners are fans of close micing.

Yesterday, I surfed from this thread, reading about how orchestras are recorded, and how combinations of stereo mics and individual section mics are used and combined. Fascinating stuff! (cross-posted: interesting link from jls001 with simple illustrations)

 

[manoj.p]

Your question is answered in your own posts

Yes. But the reflection helping is not a norm. That's what I was pointing out.

 

[ranjeetrain]

One important aspect is missing from this discussion. This aspect, which even if is not a justification for capturing audience applause poorly, does tell us something of a practical limitation recording engineers must keep in mind.

That is - the ability of home grade loudspeakers to produce real world loudness. Most home use loudspeaker systems are crippled in the way that they can't produce life like loudness with life-like ease (sans distortion, compression). Majority of consumer grade speakers have trouble producing SPLs above 100-105 dB on the scale. Worse, they start showing signs of distress much below their rated capability.

In real world, audience applause can easily reach levels in access of 110 dB (such as in large concert halls/stadiums). It presents two problems:

(1) Due to the limitation of media (which has a finite dynamic range) rest of the track (barring the applause part) will be extremely quite (say -20 dB).

(2) At the crescendo some loudspeakers might simply blow, either due to exceeding their own loudness limit or due to inability of the amplifier to supply clean current to handle such lengthened peaks.

Either way, it's a sure shot recipe to cause speaker damage, if engineers were to record and encode audience applause naturally.

Solution? Some take the approach where they merely reduce the dynamic range of the applause extremely so that it comes under the dynamic range of the average of the rest of the track. Others are lazy and just use a stock audio clip and encode it with the track after normalizing.

Either of the above two approaches is enough of a reason why applause should sound tinny and artificial.

As for the original question the thread started with, as to why the applause is positioned behind the speakers and not behind the listening position, there are two solutions. One is setup a very high quality 2-channel system. The other is to use a multichannel setup. Even a cheap multichannel system reproduces a 3D field with much ease and enhanced realism compared to an expensive 2-channel system.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Yes. But the reflection helping is not a norm. That's what I was pointing out.

I don't think I could agree

The room/venue is an extremely critical aspect of any sound setup. Be it music or movie. Home or cinema or stadium or a concert hall. Speakers are always placed keeping in mind the acoustics of the room/venue. Anyone who ignores "the room" and "the reflections there in" can never get an optimum audio experience.