Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
Hi,
I had to buy the latest HIFI+ (Issue 47) because it had an interesting POSITIVE article about how to build a multi-channel system using Arcams electronics and KEF speakers: Searching For A Multi-channel Standard the Arcam/KEF Reference system The "high end" press has been very quiet about multi-channel (except Stereophile / Music in the Round by KR). They seem to have wanted to forget this advancement in audio reproduction completely ... but is this going to change? best regards, Esa PS. The English Hifi News is a good example of this kind of a stupid attitude. But they still sometimes test and compare iPOD to other MP3 players that to me is somewhat weird ... but maybe they want to look up to date to the general public ... and multi-channel is not in. The Swedish Hifi&Music also took up multi-channel in one issue (the excellent Swedish multichannel record companies BIS and Opus3 have shown m-c capabilities lately) but after making a reader inquiry they found out that stories about multi-channel are not expected ... so that possibly was the end of that interest. German Stereoplay has no interest in m-c but Audio has at least installed some equipment to their readers for equipment comparison. They are not clearly showing interest in m-c but you can read their passive enthusiasm in the articles. And Audio even had a section for SACD and DVD-A record criticism but now it seems to be gone .... So what is wrong? The most active audiophiles are retro audiophiles that hate CD, digital audio in general and want to go back to the golden 70es and their youth. Extremely conservative gang that controls opinions of those younger audiophiles that for some strange reason have taken up hifi as their hobby. How do I detect a retro audiophile: 1. He/she typically hates ... CD and all digital audio ... sometimes SACD is OK ... multichannel audio ... active loudspeakers 2. He/she typical thinks that ... mechanical sound reproduction is state of the art forever (i.e. LPs) ... tube amplifiers rule ... cables are one of the most important factors of audio reproduction ... there are magic tools that can improve audio reproduction of equipment (like mats under your equipment or Golden Sound DH Cones, Squares, and Pads that even Ken K recommended in Hifi News one year ago). ... when the equipment costs outrageously much it just cannot be bad!!! ... I have "golden ears" that can detect even ultrasonics ... mass market products are inherently poor And typically he/she does not understand much about acoustics, mechanics, signal processing, electronics design etc. at all. Well ... this actually also goes very well with the market situation that is not improving (hifi is not a growth market) and but on the other hand ... outrageously priced items produce high margins for manufacturers and sales chain (even if the quantities are small) ... there is something to write about for the audio magazines (if all properly designed amplifiers would sound the same, Atkinson would not have anything to write about) ... small European and Chinese manufacturers have niche market for their products. PS2. sometimes it even seems to me that "High End" is about worshiping all sorts of audio anomalies ... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
FiveDotOne wrote:
The "high end" press has been very quiet about multi-channel (except Stereophile / Music in the Round by KR). They seem to have wanted to forget this advancement in audio reproduction completely ... but is this going to change? Peter Aczel has been writing about the pros and cons of surround for a long time. However, most of his writing on the subject is not found in the "gear" section, but in his CD and SACD reviews--where it should be, I guess. BTW, according to a notice on his site, access will be free at the beginning of the new year for anyone interested. The most active audiophiles are retro audiophiles that hate CD, digital audio in general and want to go back to the golden 70es and their youth. One cannot be too dismissive of older results. In spite of its at times "pop" recording style, the Solti Ring is very good, sonically. I'd certainly rate it as good if not better than, say, the digital Janowski which used the then SAO Soundstream device. Also, in another post I briefly mentioned the Brian Wilson Pet Sounds sessions recorded at Western and, I believe, Gold Star, using 4 (and the then new) 8 track analog machines. It is hard to tell listening to the mono release, but in the CD box set one is amazed at how fantastic the old multi-tracked tapes (now mixed into "stereo") are. Here, I am not talking about the "stereo" mix of the final album (which is heresy) but the actual multi-tracked sessions prior to final mix down. So, newer is not always better. mp |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
FiveDotOne wrote:
Hi, I had to buy the latest HIFI+ (Issue 47) because it had an interesting POSITIVE article about how to build a multi-channel system using Arcams electronics and KEF speakers: Searching For A Multi-channel Standard the Arcam/KEF Reference system The "high end" press has been very quiet about multi-channel (except Stereophile / Music in the Round by KR). They seem to have wanted to forget this advancement in audio reproduction completely ... but is this going to change? Here in the US, the two major high-end mags have sister pubs dedicated to high-end home theater. So it's not that the publishers are ignoring multichannel, it's just that they see two separate markets. They also see that there's no real market at all for multichannel music-only content. Unfortunate, but true. And no, I don't expect it to change, because I don't see any catalyst on the horizon that will change it. bob |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
FiveDotOne wrote
The most active audiophiles are retro audiophiles that hate CD, digital audio in general and want to go back to the golden 70es and their youth. Extremely conservative gang that controls opinions of those younger audiophiles that for some strange reason have taken up hifi as their hobby. How do I detect a retro audiophile: 1. He/she typically hates .. CD and all digital audio ... sometimes SACD is OK .. multichannel audio .. active loudspeakers Name one auiophile that claims to hate "all digital audio." This is typical of the objectivist mythology regarding other audiophiles. 2. He/she typical thinks that .. mechanical sound reproduction is state of the art forever (i.e. LPs) And who has made this claim? "State of the art forever." .. tube amplifiers rule .. cables are one of the most important factors of audio reproduction Again who, other than cable manufacturers, have made this claim? .. there are magic tools that can improve audio reproduction of equipment (like mats under your equipment or Golden Sound DH Cones, Squares, and Pads that even Ken K recommended in Hifi News one year ago). Please cite any claims bu any audiophile that "magic" is at work. .. when the equipment costs outrageously much it just cannot be bad!!! .. I have "golden ears" that can detect even ultrasonics .. mass market products are inherently poor You have built quiite a straw man. And typically he/she does not understand much about acoustics, mechanics, signal processing, electronics design etc. at all. Typically? How can you use the word in regards to imaginary people? Well ... this actually also goes very well with the market situation that is not improving (hifi is not a growth market) and but on the other hand .. outrageously priced items produce high margins for manufacturers and sales chain (even if the quantities are small) Sure about that? .. there is something to write about for the audio magazines (if all properly designed amplifiers would sound the same, Atkinson would not have anything to write about) Really? Then what the heck is Sound and Vision writing about? .. small European and Chinese manufacturers have niche market for their products. PS2. sometimes it even seems to me that "High End" is about worshiping all sorts of audio anomalies .. Clearly you don't understand what audiophiles are looking for in high end. Scott. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
FiveDotOne wrote:
snip .. there is something to write about for the audio magazines (if all properly designed amplifiers would sound the same, Atkinson would not have anything to write about) .. small European and Chinese manufacturers have niche market for their products. PS2. sometimes it even seems to me that "High End" is about worshiping all sorts of audio anomalies ... Although this sort of post seems like a 'troll', it does raise an interesting point or two. There are two factors that have kept "multichannel" audio only releases from the marketplace. 1. Lack of any standard or playback gear. - I'd have preferred higher sample rate, greater bit depth in the first place (over "redbook"), and then I would have had no problem dealing with 'not so compact disc' if they were say 7" or gasp the same size as a standard LP!! This to accomodate the extra data. Afterall, 4 channels burned onto a CD means effectively 2 CDs worth of data. 8 channels (wouldn't that be nice?) implies 4 CDs worth of data, add in the extra bits and samples, and we've got a wee bit bigger format disc. Unless, of course, you go double layer and "blu-ray" (only recent developments compared to "redbook"). 2. Lack of any commercial impetus. - no matter how much any of us would drool over the prospect of a direct copy of multi-channel masters from the past, or new ones yet to be made, in a world where /cassette/ was the most popular medium and then CD, and now MP3(effectively noiseless cassette) by a /wide margin/, there is no commercial reason to try to pack in more data, information or variables for the user. 3. Oh yes, Artists. - Only when artists/producers/record companies stop being control freaks, and let their "creations" fly will it be even possible to release multi-track recordings. The only possibility that seems to fit the bill would be "surround" recordings where the mix is effectivley fixed and not user variable. The idea that users might "remix" an artists recording positively freaks out the entire recording industry. _-_-bear |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a
suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. The fact that we have two ears does not mean that two *playback* channels are optimum (except for headphones). That's because the playback 'system' isn't just the listener and the loudspeakers speakers...it includes a *space*. Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of a live event than even the best two-channel system. This was recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction, when three-channel playback was found to be better than two-channel. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
On 17 Oct 2006 04:03:31 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote: These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. Or more than five or seven neurons. Relating mch to the number of ears is one of the simplistic and silly arguments. The real reason is a lack of mass market interest in quality audio of any format. Kal |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
Bret Ludwig wrote:
These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. Surrre. That's why orchestras are limited to two musicians. bob |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. The fact that we have two ears does not mean that two *playback* channels are optimum (except for headphones). That's because the playback 'system' isn't just the listener and the loudspeakers speakers...it includes a *space*. Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of a live event than even the best two-channel system. This was recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction, when three-channel playback was found to be better than two-channel. But what about four, five, six, seven, eight, or more channels? Where is the evidence for their benefit? I ran a phantom third channel for years (the fi was my, but it was superficially very seductive) and I am prepared to accept (true) three channel as an improvement. I'm also old enough to remember quad and it wasn't all that great, but then again, it had a short lifespan in which to develop. But five? Seven? Nine? Maybe we should emulate large radial engines and have 14, 18 or 24 channels. One, two, or three channels each have cogent arguments. Two is a good compromise and there is a modest library of excellent two channel recordings in circulation. The others do not. If you can accept three channel as an improvement, that is why five instead of four. The surround channels add a) ambience and naturalness for classical music and most jazz, and b) a mix option for adventurous sound sound for pop mixes. The added ambience primarily has the effect of much better delineating the soundstage and air between instruments in small combos. The adventurous pop mixes are more a matter of personal taste and the talent of the people doing the mix. Most of them I like. A few I don't. But five can help with music as opposed to four, so long as the center channel is well integrated. If not, I'd rather have four and a quad mix, such as many of the older reissues from the quad era. I've not really had a chance to critically listen to six or seven, but I think I can understand their role. With a 5.0 or 5.1 system, essentially the surround sound is about a 270 degree system. The area directly behind (where you can't localize anyway) doesn't seem to "fill". A 6.0 or 7.0 system provides a bit more "fill" in this area, I understand. I have a sixth Thiel 3.5 to put into my system, but nowhere to put it since the back of my listening room contains a consists of a stairwell. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. The fact that we have two ears does not mean that two *playback* channels are optimum (except for headphones). That's because the playback 'system' isn't just the listener and the loudspeakers speakers...it includes a *space*. Which does not mean two channels are not optimum. Ultimately it is all about what goes into each ear. Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of a live event than even the best two-channel system. I have yet to hear this actually take place. Can you cite what system/source material out performs the very best 2 channel has ever produced? This was recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction, Not sure I would give anything too much credibility from then. They obviously were not using today's cutting edge 2 channel playback. when three-channel playback was found to be better than two-channel. Suggestive that three channel may be inherently better than two channel at best. Far from definitive proof of fact. Scott |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: These are all very true but the primary reason is the lack of a suitable population of buyers with five or seven ears. The fact that we have two ears does not mean that two *playback* channels are optimum (except for headphones). That's because the playback 'system' isn't just the listener and the loudspeakers speakers...it includes a *space*. Which does not mean two channels are not optimum. Ultimately it is all about what goes into each ear. Multichannel can produce a *more* realistic reproduction of a live event than even the best two-channel system. I have yet to hear this actually take place. Can you cite what system/source material out performs the very best 2 channel has ever produced? You likely will not consider this definitive, but.... ......I've had good two channel stereo in many different listening environments...none bad...some superb...using large Maggies, IMF monitors, and full range Thiels (3.5's and 2 2's). The systems have been driven by an ARC 6b preamp, phono by an Accuphase AC-2mc through a modified, battery driven Marcof PPA-2 headamp, various Phillips and Marantz and Sony CD players, and ARC (D90b) and VTL (STL 85) power amps. While the various speakers did not sound exactly alike, all were considered top flight by general reputation (and by my own evaluation) and I would rate them as roughly comparable in sound quality. However, on classical music, my current multichannel system using five of those full range Thiels and lesser preamps and amps (3 Onkyo 301p preamps, 5 Outlaw M200 monoblocks) leaves every single one of those two channel systems in the dust. And this is in a room that is not as good as some of the rooms the two channel system was in. For demonstration purposes, I consider the current Haitink/LSO Beethoven disks to be representative of the very best orchestral recordings out there. I can also attest from experimentation that the three-channel RCA Living Stereo disks usually have an edge, versus the two channel mixes, when listening in SACD. The orchestral soundstage retains more spread and dimensionality than with two channel, and solo instruments (such as a piano in a concerto) remain more firmly differentiated from the orchestra. It simply sounds more like being at the performance. And with rear channel ambience added, even more so. FWIW, I am struggling with the issue of whether to give up Multichannel to move into a smaller apartment when I turn seventy in three years, and so far at this point have concluded I just can't do it...I get to much pleasure. My first decade of collecting recordings out of college was mostly classical....CD was not enough of an "improvment" for me to duplicate that collection....but I am rapidly doing that now in multichannel, mostly SACD. I continue to attend live concerts, and I am amazed at how close to that sound I can now get in my own living room. You won't consider this definitive, but it surely is heartfelt from someone to whom multichannel has been a total rejuvenator. This was recognized even in the earliest days of sound reproduction, Not sure I would give anything too much credibility from then. They obviously were not using today's cutting edge 2 channel playback. when three-channel playback was found to be better than two-channel. Suggestive that three channel may be inherently better than two channel at best. Far from definitive proof of fact. See my comments above. IME, it is better. Not night and day, but incrementally better. Multichannel, however, is revolutionarily better. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?)
concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2 different needs. The article went on to say that the audio industry should create its own audio reproduction standard for mc that can be incorporated into the video mc standard so both sides win. JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a valuable addition to audio reproduction. Used to recreate a T-Rex attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation, which is really of no use to the serious listener. Best, Ross FiveDotOne wrote: Hi, I had to buy the latest HIFI+ (Issue 47) because it had an interesting POSITIVE article about how to build a multi-channel system using Arcams electronics and KEF speakers: Searching For A Multi-channel Standard the Arcam/KEF Reference system The "high end" press has been very quiet about multi-channel (except Stereophile / Music in the Round by KR). They seem to have wanted to forget this advancement in audio reproduction completely ... but is this going to change? best regards, Esa PS. The English Hifi News is a good example of this kind of a stupid attitude. But they still sometimes test and compare iPOD to other MP3 players that to me is somewhat weird ... but maybe they want to look up to date to the general public ... and multi-channel is not in. The Swedish Hifi&Music also took up multi-channel in one issue (the excellent Swedish multichannel record companies BIS and Opus3 have shown m-c capabilities lately) but after making a reader inquiry they found out that stories about multi-channel are not expected ... so that possibly was the end of that interest. German Stereoplay has no interest in m-c but Audio has at least installed some equipment to their readers for equipment comparison. They are not clearly showing interest in m-c but you can read their passive enthusiasm in the articles. And Audio even had a section for SACD and DVD-A record criticism but now it seems to be gone .... So what is wrong? The most active audiophiles are retro audiophiles that hate CD, digital audio in general and want to go back to the golden 70es and their youth. Extremely conservative gang that controls opinions of those younger audiophiles that for some strange reason have taken up hifi as their hobby. How do I detect a retro audiophile: 1. He/she typically hates .. CD and all digital audio ... sometimes SACD is OK .. multichannel audio .. active loudspeakers 2. He/she typical thinks that .. mechanical sound reproduction is state of the art forever (i.e. LPs) .. tube amplifiers rule .. cables are one of the most important factors of audio reproduction .. there are magic tools that can improve audio reproduction of equipment (like mats under your equipment or Golden Sound DH Cones, Squares, and Pads that even Ken K recommended in Hifi News one year ago). .. when the equipment costs outrageously much it just cannot be bad!!! .. I have "golden ears" that can detect even ultrasonics .. mass market products are inherently poor And typically he/she does not understand much about acoustics, mechanics, signal processing, electronics design etc. at all. Well ... this actually also goes very well with the market situation that is not improving (hifi is not a growth market) and but on the other hand .. outrageously priced items produce high margins for manufacturers and sales chain (even if the quantities are small) .. there is something to write about for the audio magazines (if all properly designed amplifiers would sound the same, Atkinson would not have anything to write about) .. small European and Chinese manufacturers have niche market for their products. PS2. sometimes it even seems to me that "High End" is about worshiping all sorts of audio anomalies ... |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
On 21 Oct 2006 02:53:24 GMT, John Doe wrote:
About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?) concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2 different needs. I find this misleading. With exceptions, the mch audio in video, derived from films, requires a consonance between the sound and the scene which means that the acoustic results have to make logical sense in the defined context. As a result, good mch attempts to replicate a real event. As such, there is mostly ambience in the surround but those channels also assist in the imaging across the front. JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a valuable addition to audio reproduction. Yup. As Harry and I have suggested, one needs only a good system and a few well-made recordings from companies like Pentatone and Channel Classics to be convinced. Sadly, there are few players that will permit on-the-fly switching from the mch track to the stereo track of an SACD but such a transition is usually eye-opening and never in the favor of the stereo track. And there's absolutely no need to adjust one's long-learned criteria for quality reproduction. Used to recreate a T-Rex attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation, which is really of no use to the serious listener. Except that, in rare, specific cases where there ARE meaningful voices intended to be behind/beside the listener, mch is of similar use to the serious listener. Kal |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
John Doe wrote:
About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?) concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2 different needs. The article went on to say that the audio industry should create its own audio reproduction standard for mc that can be incorporated into the video mc standard so both sides win. This was (and probably still is) a high-end conceit, but it's not an accepted fact outside that little world. Just as a good speaker will reproduce any sound accurately, musical or otherwise, so a good multichannel system should reproduce any 3-dimensional soundspace--real or simulated--well. It happens that MC was largely developed with movie theaters in mind, but that historical circumstance isn't really relevant to the present-day capabilities of these systems. There is, of course, a fair bit of debate on the 5-identical-speakers vs. dipoles-in-the-rear question--a debate that I don't think is settled even among technical experts. But there are people who know a lot more about sound reproduction than anybody at Fi who think dipoles are the right choice even for music. JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a valuable addition to audio reproduction. Used to recreate a T-Rex attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation, which is really of no use to the serious listener. This isn't a system problem, it's a recording problem. bob |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
Bret Ludwig wrote:
But what about four, five, six, seven, eight, or more channels? Where is the evidence for their benefit? The typical goal of home audio reproduction is to transport the listener to the performance space. But just as a thought experiment, imagine a different goal: to create the sound of musicians performing in your listening room. How would you do that? By arraying speakers across the front (ideally, one per instrument). Then the reflected sounds would closely match those you would experience if there were musicians instead of speakers. (Obviously, this only works if you have a large room and you're listening to chamber music. A symphony orchestra would sound terrible in your living room even if it could fit.) Now, let's go back to the main goal--transporting you to the concert hall. What stands in the way of that? Most obviously, all those reflections that your brain will inevitably interpret as, "I am listening to this in my living room." The way around that is to provide extra information coming at you from different directions, and that takes extra speakers. This is just theory, of course. But it's important to remember that 5.1 and larger systems didn't evolve by accident. There was plenty of research into configurations that improved reproduction of sound space. (Maybe Mark Ovchain will come back someday and remind us of his work in this field.) I'm sure if you search AES for articles on multichannel reproduction you'll find loads of relevant material. bob |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
bob wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote: But what about four, five, six, seven, eight, or more channels? Where is the evidence for their benefit? The typical goal of home audio reproduction is to transport the listener to the performance space. But just as a thought experiment, imagine a different goal: to create the sound of musicians performing in your listening room. How would you do that? By arraying speakers across the front (ideally, one per instrument). Then the reflected sounds would closely match those you would experience if there were musicians instead of speakers. (Obviously, this only works if you have a large room and you're listening to chamber music. A symphony orchestra would sound terrible in your living room even if it could fit.) Most living rooms are ill suited for something as small as chamber music. but I agree with the jist of your point. I don't Live at Disney Hall so I don't want to have the musicians in my home. Now, let's go back to the main goal--transporting you to the concert hall. What stands in the way of that? Most obviously, all those reflections that your brain will inevitably interpret as, "I am listening to this in my living room." Yes very much so. But there is far more than just the sound of the listening room between the listener and the illusion of transportation to the original venue. The way around that is to provide extra information coming at you from different directions, and that takes extra speakers. It isn't "the way around" it. It is a means of trying to make the illusion better. It does not solve everything by a long shot and it introduces a whole new set of problems. Ultimately it is about getting the information to two ears that will best create the desired aural illusion. Multichannel is just one approach. This is just theory, of course. But it's important to remember that 5.1 and larger systems didn't evolve by accident. There was plenty of research into configurations that improved reproduction of sound space. (Maybe Mark Ovchain will come back someday and remind us of his work in this field.) I'm sure if you search AES for articles on multichannel reproduction you'll find loads of relevant material. I'm not against multichannel but I still think ultimately the best results would lie in binaural systems. Scott |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is High End finally starting to accept multi-channel audio?
bob wrote:
John Doe wrote: About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?) concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2 different needs. The article went on to say that the audio industry should create its own audio reproduction standard for mc that can be incorporated into the video mc standard so both sides win. This was (and probably still is) a high-end conceit, but it's not an accepted fact outside that little world. It ought to be. There is nothing accurate about movie or TV sound. And that is a good thing. Just as a good speaker will reproduce any sound accurately, Really? musical or otherwise, so a good multichannel system should reproduce any 3-dimensional soundspace--real or simulated--well. Reproducing a "simulated" sound stage well? Sounds like an oxymoron. Reminds me of genuine Corinthian leather. (Corinthian leather is a brand name for a particular artificial leather.) It happens that MC was largely developed with movie theaters in mind, but that historical circumstance isn't really relevant to the present-day capabilities of these systems. I agree with all of that There is, of course, a fair bit of debate on the 5-identical-speakers vs. dipoles-in-the-rear question--a debate that I don't think is settled even among technical experts. But there are people who know a lot more about sound reproduction than anybody at Fi who think dipoles are the right choice even for music. JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a valuable addition to audio reproduction. Used to recreate a T-Rex attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation, which is really of no use to the serious listener. This isn't a system problem, it's a recording problem. For the film world it is an inherent problem. Unless you like an accurate rendition of dialogue on a sound stage. That would be a sure formula for breaking any suspension of disbelief. Scott |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (caution, this is HUGE) | Car Audio |