[K. B.]

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

[news]

"K. B." wrote in message
...
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?

With large enough a room you can do it with two channels, but with a normal
home room in which you want to reproduce a semblance of another acoustic
space, I would say 5.1 is a minimum.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.

Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an
infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:49:36 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:

You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.



Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an

infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's.

Even with infinite channels you can't do it. You still need the same exact room boundaries and they need to be made of the same materials so the reflective and absorptive properties are the same. You also need the same interior setting with the actual musicians doing their own absorbing, reflecting and diffusing. Then you need all acoustic output devices to have the same exact radiation patterns as the musical instruments they are reproducing.

Bottom line is you can't do it and there is no point in trying. Maybe if we ever get Star Trek holodeck technology. And I haven't even mentioned how impossible it is to record the data of an original sound field.

[Bob Lombard[_3_]]

On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.
Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an
infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's.

Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have
to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.?

Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
=20
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to=
accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.
=20
Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original=
sound field, one would need an
=20
infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conc=
lusion back in the 1930's.
=20
=20
=20
Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have=20
=20
to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.?
=20
=20
=20
Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here.
=20
=20
=20
---
=20
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus prot=
ection is active.
=20
http://www.avast.com

You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduct=
ion haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used t=
o capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's wh=
o came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today.

[Bob Lombard[_3_]]

On 11/1/2013 5:40 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.
Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an
infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's.


Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have

to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.?



Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here.




You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduction haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used to capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's who came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today.
The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has
made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong
forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway.

bl

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[news]

"K. B." wrote in message ...

I'm more interested in the objective side of audio
rather than the subjective side.

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 that DVD-Audio and SACD failed because the manufacturers did not
educate the public as to the advantages of these formats and the fact that
you need to have decent quality equipment; all the way through your system
to hear the sonic improvements that these formats can give you compared to
regular CDs. I know that CD Japan and other sources apparently offer close
to 1000 SACDs or maybe more. Also HDCD was an improvement over standard CD
as well but for some reason Micro$oft purchased that company possibly to
take it out of production it seems, I may be wrong here?

I'm using a Cambridge Audio Universal Blu-ray player that does all of these
formats and I can hear the difference compared to standard CDs, but I know
that a dedicated SACD player from Sony would probably sound even better. I
have heard that a $2000.00 player is in order to really experience the
difference.

Shaun