On Monday, October 28, 2013 5:28:50 AM UTC-7, K. B. wrote:
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio
rather than the subjective side.
How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate
soundfield reproduction with speakers?
Blu-ray Dolby TrueHD offers 7.1 discrete channels,
Dolby Pro-Logic IIz offers 9.1 channels (some decoded,
not discrete).
Some say that 4 full range speakers arranged in a square
with each speaker pointing at the listener (in the middle)
is the best way to convey an accurate soundfield.
(from http://www.quadraphonicquad.com discussion with
Louis Dorren, inventor of the USA Quad FM standard)
It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats
failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD
(maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for
getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers.
~~~
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed for cinema
sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I don't think
that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're probably talking
an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How many seems to
be a matter for much speculation. I've never heard it done properly, but I've read that
the Ambisonics system comes closest to the approximation of a proper
sound field reproduction for music than does any system tried thus far. I lived through
the quadraphonic "craze" of the 1970's and I must tell you that even when everything
was working perfectly (read that as being with 4-channel reel-to-reel tape) I was
underwhelmed. Just getting two channels correct is difficult enough, and while such
surround systems as Ray Kimber's IsoMike technique is interesting, I do not find it
any more realistic sounding than any other multiple channel "surround" scheme.