| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:22:28 GMT, Bruce Abrams
wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news:47Snb.57301$HS4.298229@attbi_s01... This is an oversimplification. YOur two ears, including external, middle and internal portions, plus your brain can interpret 3D sound in the real world because they are getting 3D sound. You cannot record 3D sound (not a good term but I quote it from you) with only two receptor sets unless you add a brain (as does, to a degree, the Soundfield Mike). Give the human system 2 sources and it cannot interpret (accurately) what the 3D original was. That's not entirely true. While the difficulties of true binaural recording are myriad, when done properly for a specific listener, the results are quite startling in their replication of the original event. Unfortunately, the difficulties render the process impractical. Agreed. In that case, you are encoding SOME of the 3D information by using a dummy head with dummy pinnae. Kal |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:GJInb.53489$Fm2.32924@attbi_s04...
Giving that some thought; wouldn't it make sense then that sound engineers seem to be lacking in the ability to create a true 3D sound reproduction in that they are using too many source mikes and not a pair (as in your ears) and letting the hall acoustic create it's own 3D effect (as in your analogy of multiple unlimited actually sources of sound)? Would you then suggest that a concert could not be fully enjoyed by a person with only two ears or that two acurate recording devices would not best mimick that experience? What I am saying is that regardless of how many points in space sound may eminate from, it is perceived by only two receptors. Thus it can stand to reason that it can be recorded in that fashion if the devices used are adequate and can recover the proper spectrum from the same directions. Playback would then require only two channels, yet would contain information received directly and by reflection and frequency/phase relation from the original hall in it's entirety. Wrong. Your assertions completely ignore the fact that two ears placed in a soundfield determine directional queues as a result of the acoustical masking, interference effects, filtering and such of the head and outer ear to which the ears themselves are attached. So a pair of ears in a venue, by themselves, WILL capture all the information THAT PAIR OF EARS NEED to determined directionality. That masking, shadowing, interference, filtering, and so on is known as the HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) which, to a large extent, is specific to the individual owning those ears. When a sound comes from "over there," it passes around the physical structures of the head and ear and is modified by the HRTF in a way that you have adapted to and the resulting filtered acoustical sound is one having queues that makes you recognize that the sound came from "over there." But whena sound comes from "over yonder," since it takes a different physical path, it is modified in a different way by your HRTF, and the filtered result tells you it came from "over yonder." The HRTF provides a mapping between geometrical position and the cues necessary to decide whether it's "over there" or "over yonder" or somewhere else. In order for the HRTF to work, the sound MUST be coming from specific directions, it must have a geometrical position. In order for the HRTF to work well, there must be but ONE HRTF in the entire chain (in your case it must be YOUR HRTF, in my case, it must be mine, and so on). Place two microphones in the venue and record. You can look at what happens simply: these two microphones have NO HRTF or they have no HRTF which is related in any way to yours or mine. Let's assume they have none, for all intents and purposes. What you have now done, first of all, is remove ALL unambiguous geometrical position information. Those microphones DO NOT HAVE AN HRTF THAT ENCODES GEOMETRICAL POSITION CUEUS. They are GONE, FORGOTTEN. Two "transducers" in space that do not have an HRTF that generates unambiguous cues based on position CANNOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY CODE POSITION. The position information IS NOW GONE. Now, play it back over two speakers. Whatever sound eminates from those speakers only NOW can be processed by your HRTF. But there is no longer any unambiguous position information left. Now, the ONLY thing your ears can do, with their intact HRTF, is attempt to locate, IN THE ROOM, where the sound sources are. Now, you can get phantom images, very crude illusions because any number of microphones do have their own "HRTF," but it is SO wildly unrelated to what your ear's HRTF was in the same venue, you end up with a lot of ambiguous apparent positions, "pinpoint images," and all sorts of stuff that are little more than a caricuture of the original soundfield. The ONLY thing that properly triggers your HRTF-based positioning system is the listening room in which the SPEAKERS are playing. The bottom line is this: The ONLY time YOUR ears can sense direction is when the sound COMES from that direction and is heard BY YOUR EARS. Your ears have built in physical structures that are designed to do this. Once you have captured a sound field with two microphones, the sound, played back IS NO LONGER COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION. That is why, for decades and decades and decades, those people who DO know how the ear senses directionality (and precious few if any of those people are in the high-end audio business), have known that two channel reproduction is utterly incapable of presenting a realistic image of an acoustical sound field to a listener. The only group of people who have consistently stated otherwise are a small group localized almost entirely withinn the high-end audio world who have little knowledge of the role of the HRTF and other factors in how humans listen to asound. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Excellent reply, Dick! It's a keeper.
I'd also like to add that, it seems to me, there are psychological factors involved - it's difficult to fool the brain into believing something when the various senses contradict one another. In other words, your eyes see that you're not sitting in a concert hall, so that makes the illusion of creating an aural concert hall that much harder to believe on a basic level - even if the audio reproduction of that hall is very, very good. On a related note, in live sound we try to place the speaker generally in line with the visual source, because although it may be easier to get intelligible audio to the listener with multiple delayed speakers in a very reverberant space, it creates what we call "listener fatigue" when the eyes see someone speaking in one location and the sound coming to the ears is in a different location. You can intellectually understand it all you want, but your brain still fights it. The same is true of a home listening set-up. Through various other inputs and memories, your brain KNOWS that you're sitting in your living room (or wherever), so no amount of concert hall reverberant information is going to truly make you believe otherwise. Not to mention the fact that most listening rooms add their own personal signature to what you hear, unless you have created an anechoic chamber in which to listen. Bill Balmer |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:tDbnb.42730$HS4.180174@attbi_s01...
I would guess this is partly why the ITU standard calls for the "surround" speakers to be at 110 degrees...it puts them far enough "forward" that the early can locate the directionality to some degree, versus further "back" in the rear. Harry, The ITU standard is probably a compromise between envelopment which is maximally perceived at 90 degrees to the sides, and rear directionality (the sense of something behind you), which is optimal at +- 150 degrees. A 7-speaker system with intelligent steering, such as Lexicon's Logic 7, can do a very nice job of matrixing the rear 2 channels of a 5.1-channel source into 4 channels with this in mind. As for the necessity of surround, consider the following facts: 1. The critical distance (the distance from a sound source where the energy of the direct sound is equal to the indirect sound's) in an average concert hall is about 3 meters. So unless you're the conductor with a small group, you will be listening outside the critical radius, and therefore the majority of the sound you will hear is from around you, and not from the front of you. Even if you're within the critical distance, you'd have to be within 0.3 meters of the sound source for the hall's reflections to be only 20 dB below the main signal! Consider the size of a concert grand piano (about 3 meters), and this is clearly an unrealistic requirement, for even the pianist is outside the critical radius for some of the sounds he produces. 2. The sense of a hall is determined in large part by its lateral reflections --- sideways moving soundwaves --- which cannot be reproduced by two speakers, unless those two speakers are directly to your side, and then you get other problems. In fact, the sense of envelopment is frequency- and direction-dependent, with generally lower frequencies needing to be more to the sides to be enveloping. 3. The human head is not a static sampler that samples two points in space. It actively moves about a volume in space, intelligently sampling different points to construct its aural picture. This is why binaural recording is unsatisfactory for frontal images, and why surround schemes that pay attention to only one point, like Ambisonics, are ultimately unacceptable. An ideal surround system for one person would reproduce a volume of the original soundfield large enough to encompass a listener's head and shoulders, allowing the listener to use all his/her natural facilities to sample the soundfield and hear what he/she hears. Unfortunately, such a construct is unimaginably difficult, with Gerzon proposing a 1-million channel system to do this. More recent proposals, like JJ's PSR, and other similar schemes, offer to capture the psychoacoustically important cues, and reproduce them, and are more practical in the number of channels they require (5 to 20-something, depending on who you talk to). --Andre |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Very good. I don't argue with that assessment at all other than to add
that you are not being realistic in terms of what is possible. Obviously you can't recreate the exact experience of being there, but you can attempt to approximate it. All a recording is afterall is a passable copy of the original event. The standard for many years has been stereo for it's accuracy and cost effectiveness. To deny that is to ignore fact. Good stereo recordings can be very realisitic and do capture hall ambience and as you say "imaging", etc. to provide as close to a copy as is possible to the original. Some recordings are just better than others as are some speakers in reproducing this and I feel that it has as much to do with the recording technique as it does with the apparatus. That is why some recording engineers are more famous for their work and why they consistently produce popular results and why not just anyone with a good kit can duplicate it. The brain is a very complex device and fortunately we are all equipped with one, so that function is going to come standard with any kit. I don't buy the statement that simply because the brain is not present in the recording chain that the event cannot be accurately recorded with some 3D information still intact. Again, it is not that it will be "AS IF" you were there, but that you could imagine yourself there. It is a leap of faith when you listen to any recording in a different environment and then allow yourself to be transported to the original venue via your brain, whether with stereo or with an excessive number of channels . The brain works as it should in that environment and the 3D cues that do come through the better recordings create the listener's illusion that sounds come from around as well as directly from the sources. The lateral "acoustic images" are well known as "phantom center" as well as those that "appear" outside the speaker locations to the left, right and even from farther back behind the speakers plane. Images that appear in front of that plane and including those that admittedly more rarely extend beyond the position of the listener are also reported. You do not further the science or the industry by insulting the intelligence of all those who have heard stereo recordings (and we can count most of the people in developed nations) when you make false and misleading statements about other professionals in the industry. It may make you feel better, but it does not reflect very well on you or your views when you insult those you have never met. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:vM9ob.63098$Tr4.168703@attbi_s03... "Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:GJInb.53489$Fm2.32924@attbi_s04... Giving that some thought; wouldn't it make sense then that sound engineers seem to be lacking in the ability to create a true 3D sound reproduction in that they are using too many source mikes and not a pair (as in your ears) and letting the hall acoustic create it's own 3D effect (as in your analogy of multiple unlimited actually sources of sound)? Would you then suggest that a concert could not be fully enjoyed by a person with only two ears or that two acurate recording devices would not best mimick that experience? What I am saying is that regardless of how many points in space sound may eminate from, it is perceived by only two receptors. Thus it can stand to reason that it can be recorded in that fashion if the devices used are adequate and can recover the proper spectrum from the same directions. Playback would then require only two channels, yet would contain information received directly and by reflection and frequency/phase relation from the original hall in it's entirety. Wrong. Your assertions completely ignore the fact that two ears placed in a soundfield determine directional queues as a result of the acoustical masking, interference effects, filtering and such of the head and outer ear to which the ears themselves are attached. So a pair of ears in a venue, by themselves, WILL capture all the information THAT PAIR OF EARS NEED to determined directionality. That masking, shadowing, interference, filtering, and so on is known as the HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) which, to a large extent, is specific to the individual owning those ears. When a sound comes from "over there," it passes around the physical structures of the head and ear and is modified by the HRTF in a way that you have adapted to and the resulting filtered acoustical sound is one having queues that makes you recognize that the sound came from "over there." But whena sound comes from "over yonder," since it takes a different physical path, it is modified in a different way by your HRTF, and the filtered result tells you it came from "over yonder." The HRTF provides a mapping between geometrical position and the cues necessary to decide whether it's "over there" or "over yonder" or somewhere else. In order for the HRTF to work, the sound MUST be coming from specific directions, it must have a geometrical position. In order for the HRTF to work well, there must be but ONE HRTF in the entire chain (in your case it must be YOUR HRTF, in my case, it must be mine, and so on). Place two microphones in the venue and record. You can look at what happens simply: these two microphones have NO HRTF or they have no HRTF which is related in any way to yours or mine. Let's assume they have none, for all intents and purposes. What you have now done, first of all, is remove ALL unambiguous geometrical position information. Those microphones DO NOT HAVE AN HRTF THAT ENCODES GEOMETRICAL POSITION CUEUS. They are GONE, FORGOTTEN. Two "transducers" in space that do not have an HRTF that generates unambiguous cues based on position CANNOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY CODE POSITION. The position information IS NOW GONE. Now, play it back over two speakers. Whatever sound eminates from those speakers only NOW can be processed by your HRTF. But there is no longer any unambiguous position information left. Now, the ONLY thing your ears can do, with their intact HRTF, is attempt to locate, IN THE ROOM, where the sound sources are. Now, you can get phantom images, very crude illusions because any number of microphones do have their own "HRTF," but it is SO wildly unrelated to what your ear's HRTF was in the same venue, you end up with a lot of ambiguous apparent positions, "pinpoint images," and all sorts of stuff that are little more than a caricuture of the original soundfield. The ONLY thing that properly triggers your HRTF-based positioning system is the listening room in which the SPEAKERS are playing. The bottom line is this: The ONLY time YOUR ears can sense direction is when the sound COMES from that direction and is heard BY YOUR EARS. Your ears have built in physical structures that are designed to do this. Once you have captured a sound field with two microphones, the sound, played back IS NO LONGER COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION. That is why, for decades and decades and decades, those people who DO know how the ear senses directionality (and precious few if any of those people are in the high-end audio business), have known that two channel reproduction is utterly incapable of presenting a realistic image of an acoustical sound field to a listener. The only group of people who have consistently stated otherwise are a small group localized almost entirely withinn the high-end audio world who have little knowledge of the role of the HRTF and other factors in how humans listen to asound. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
news:XLvpb.70020$mZ5.434082@attbi_s54... Very good. I don't argue with that assessment at all other than to add that you are not being realistic in terms of what is possible. Obviously you can't recreate the exact experience of being there, but you can attempt to approximate it. The fundamental point that I intended when I began this thread, was that we have after nearly 50 years, essentially maxed out the capability of the stereo format. It is capable of a "willing suspension of disbelief" facsimile of a musical event, but that is all. In order for us to achieve significantly greater realism in music reproduction, we must accept the fact that more playback channels, not exotic amps and cables, are required. All a recording is afterall is a passable copy of the original event. The standard for many years has been stereo for it's accuracy and cost effectiveness. You are correct in that stereo has been the standard, but the reason has had everything to do with cost effectiveness, and nothing to do with accuracy. *snip* I don't buy the statement that simply because the brain is not present in the recording chain that the event cannot be accurately recorded with some 3D information still intact. Whether anyone "buys" this or not, it is a fact that most 3D information is lost in the stereo recording chain. Again, it is not that it will be "AS IF" you were there, but that you could imagine yourself there. It is a leap of faith when you listen to any recording in a different environment and then allow yourself to be transported to the original venue via your brain, whether with stereo or with an excessive number of channels . Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? You would need to cite some truly ground breaking research to prove this point. As previously discussed, only a true binaural recording with an accurate dummy head and pinnae specific to the intended listener is capable of such reproduction. The brain works as it should in that environment and the 3D cues that do come through the better recordings create the listener's illusion that sounds come from around as well as directly from the sources. The lateral "acoustic images" are well known as "phantom center" as well as those that "appear" outside the speaker locations to the left, right and even from farther back behind the speakers plane. Images that appear in front of that plane and including those that admittedly more rarely extend beyond the position of the listener are also reported. You do not further the science or the industry by insulting the intelligence of all those who have heard stereo recordings (and we can count most of the people in developed nations) when you make false and misleading statements about other professionals in the industry. It may make you feel better, but it does not reflect very well on you or your views when you insult those you have never met. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:vM9ob.63098$Tr4.168703@attbi_s03... *snip* Wrong. Your assertions completely ignore the fact that two ears placed in a soundfield determine directional queues as a result of the acoustical masking, interference effects, filtering and such of the head and outer ear to which the ears themselves are attached. So a pair of ears in a venue, by themselves, WILL capture all the information THAT PAIR OF EARS NEED to determined directionality. That masking, shadowing, interference, filtering, and so on is known as the HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) which, to a large extent, is specific to the individual owning those ears. When a sound comes from "over there," it passes around the physical structures of the head and ear and is modified by the HRTF in a way that you have adapted to and the resulting filtered acoustical sound is one having queues that makes you recognize that the sound came from "over there." But whena sound comes from "over yonder," since it takes a different physical path, it is modified in a different way by your HRTF, and the filtered result tells you it came from "over yonder." The HRTF provides a mapping between geometrical position and the cues necessary to decide whether it's "over there" or "over yonder" or somewhere else. In order for the HRTF to work, the sound MUST be coming from specific directions, it must have a geometrical position. In order for the HRTF to work well, there must be but ONE HRTF in the entire chain (in your case it must be YOUR HRTF, in my case, it must be mine, and so on). Place two microphones in the venue and record. You can look at what happens simply: these two microphones have NO HRTF or they have no HRTF which is related in any way to yours or mine. Let's assume they have none, for all intents and purposes. What you have now done, first of all, is remove ALL unambiguous geometrical position information. Those microphones DO NOT HAVE AN HRTF THAT ENCODES GEOMETRICAL POSITION CUEUS. They are GONE, FORGOTTEN. Two "transducers" in space that do not have an HRTF that generates unambiguous cues based on position CANNOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY CODE POSITION. The position information IS NOW GONE. Now, play it back over two speakers. Whatever sound eminates from those speakers only NOW can be processed by your HRTF. But there is no longer any unambiguous position information left. Now, the ONLY thing your ears can do, with their intact HRTF, is attempt to locate, IN THE ROOM, where the sound sources are. Now, you can get phantom images, very crude illusions because any number of microphones do have their own "HRTF," but it is SO wildly unrelated to what your ear's HRTF was in the same venue, you end up with a lot of ambiguous apparent positions, "pinpoint images," and all sorts of stuff that are little more than a caricuture of the original soundfield. The ONLY thing that properly triggers your HRTF-based positioning system is the listening room in which the SPEAKERS are playing. The bottom line is this: The ONLY time YOUR ears can sense direction is when the sound COMES from that direction and is heard BY YOUR EARS. Your ears have built in physical structures that are designed to do this. Once you have captured a sound field with two microphones, the sound, played back IS NO LONGER COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION. That is why, for decades and decades and decades, those people who DO know how the ear senses directionality (and precious few if any of those people are in the high-end audio business), have known that two channel reproduction is utterly incapable of presenting a realistic image of an acoustical sound field to a listener. The only group of people who have consistently stated otherwise are a small group localized almost entirely withinn the high-end audio world who have little knowledge of the role of the HRTF and other factors in how humans listen to asound. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
... Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? I doubt that anyone was claiming this, though I won't presume to know what others are thinking. As long as we all understand that this is, sadly, a hypothetical debate at this point in time. As far as I can tell, the home theater market is the lion's share of multi-channel systems in the home, and I don't see any big swing away from that on the horizon. The record labels just don't see the market for a big investment in multi-channel recording and production of high quality music. Sure, there are some such recordings out there, and multi-channel remasters of multiple-mono recordings, which tend to be studio recordings that lean toward the rock/pop side of the musical spectrum are relatively easy to make. But we've been talking about accurate, multi-channel reproduction of a given space, and that's a different ball game. Technically, yes, it can be done, and it *can* be a superior reproduction of the original performance. It is also much more difficult to do well, more expensive to produce, has a smaller market, and can create havoc when it comes to reproduction. So, possible - yes. Reasonable - ??? Bill Balmer |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:XLvpb.70020$mZ5.434082@attbi_s54...
Very good. I don't argue with that assessment at all other than to add that you are not being realistic in terms of what is possible. snip of the listener are also reported. You do not further the science or the industry by insulting the intelligence of all those who have heard stereo recordings (and we can count most of the people in developed nations) when you make false and misleading statements about other professionals in the industry. It may make you feel better, but it does not reflect very well on you or your views when you insult those you have never met. Great. Mr. Uptown, in one stroke of the pen, basically negates a century and more of auditory research. Instead of dealing with facts, Mr. Uptown instead resorts to insults of his own. Mr. Uptown, why don't YOU go and see the research for yourself. It's there, much of it written in and available in English. Read it, understand it, see why things work the way they do. As to "false and misleading statements about professionals," kind sir, you had better be specific as to exactly what "false and misleading statements" you accuse me of or retract them. The REAL professionals in the field of auditory perception are NOT to be found in the high-end audio industry. Whether YOU like it or not, the high-end audio industry is an insignificant back-water industry, as the sheer economic facts tell you quite unambiguously. The FACT is, that two-channel stereo reproduction was demonstrated well over a half century ago as being wholely unable to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the sound field by people whose life business is was (and is) to study and understand the field of auditory psychophysics. These are people, kind sir, who forgot more about the field in a moment of distraction than the entire realm of high end audio dealers combined ever knew. As to the illusion, which is ALL that two-channel stero can ever be, if you like it, fine. No one is telling you not to. But you, perhaps by accident, wandered into a discussion about the physical properties of sound fields and auditory perception. Your comments, while interesting, are not germaine until you choose to verse yourself in the topic. No insult intended. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
I am not trying to argue anything, let alone that two channels are
better at reproducing sound from the rear than say four with two at the rear. I am saying that good two channel recordings create a sense of being at a venue, which is plenty for most of us considering the cost of each channel. Also that sound from the rear for a musical performance is not really desirable unless it is just hall ambience (and does not include the nagging cough in row T). I feel that two channels sound more natural in most respects to multi-channel due to the recording techniques and that has nothing to due with amplifiers or cables, just the location of the speakers and the mix of the recording. So while you and others can go on about how it is possible to reproduce a 3D sound field with multiple channels, it is not going to happen until those making the recordings get a handle on it. Further, and strictly from my perspective; it really does not interest me in terms of what I am willing to invest in or in terms of how I am willing to arrange my living space. Two channels is just fine. I do have interest in what is possible with regards to others systems as I sell those here, but I don't find them attractive personally. I do enjoy a good modern movie, which is well recorded in a 5.1 format and also the same films in a good stereo format. We offer both systems and have them set-up in close proximity to each other as well as obviously being able to demonstrate the multi-channel systems in stereo-only mode. Some people find them awesome and attractive and that is fine. I just like the idea of spending my hard earned money on fewer, better quality components rather than on more, lesser quality ones. It comes out the same at the cash register, it's just that my Lp collection sounds a lot better on a nice stereo than on a mediocre theater rig. I have also yet to be more impressed with the sound of any local theater over a DVD played on my "stereo theater" system. It is easy enough to make it more powerful and awe-inspiring by adding more channels while keeping it all the same quality, it would just exceed my budget to a ridiculous degree. So it is more a matter of space and budget rather than of ideals when it comes to film that has a decent discrete multi-channel sound track (non-discrete is another animal). For music however, which is what I really enjoy most, I am really thrilled by a great stereo and just annoyed mostly by a theater being used in that fashion. A few good music videos have been made that don't use the rear channels like a sonic version of Pong, but they are not reason enough to waste three times the cash needed for a great stereo. I suppose if movies matter to you more than music and you are a gadget person and don't mind a load of speakers hanging around the room, then multi-channel is cool baby. Another reason that I am not really interested in multi-channel is due to the format change needed to enjoy it and the waste of all the years of collecting stereo recordings. I don't think anyone would argue that they would rather sacrifice all previous recordings to have a few new enhanced, properly recorded multi-channel ones, given the chane to really consider it. Oddly many people do just that when they get their HT in a box systems and use them as their sole source of entertainment. A lot of our customers have two systems and use each exclusively for stereo music and multi-channel theater respectively. That is to address the recording issues that I have been dissatisfied with (not that anyone else cares). It does not matter to me wheter everyone agrees with me or not as I bought my stereo for my entertainment and not everyone elses (the room is really not big enough for everyone - really). I do like to voice my opinion on the value of stereo when I hear others dismiss it as old-fashioned. Hell, I still like oatmeal... - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message ... "Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:XLvpb.70020$mZ5.434082@attbi_s54... Very good. I don't argue with that assessment at all other than to add that you are not being realistic in terms of what is possible. Obviously you can't recreate the exact experience of being there, but you can attempt to approximate it. The fundamental point that I intended when I began this thread, was that we have after nearly 50 years, essentially maxed out the capability of the stereo format. It is capable of a "willing suspension of disbelief" facsimile of a musical event, but that is all. In order for us to achieve significantly greater realism in music reproduction, we must accept the fact that more playback channels, not exotic amps and cables, are required. All a recording is afterall is a passable copy of the original event. The standard for many years has been stereo for it's accuracy and cost effectiveness. You are correct in that stereo has been the standard, but the reason has had everything to do with cost effectiveness, and nothing to do with accuracy. *snip* I don't buy the statement that simply because the brain is not present in the recording chain that the event cannot be accurately recorded with some 3D information still intact. Whether anyone "buys" this or not, it is a fact that most 3D information is lost in the stereo recording chain. Again, it is not that it will be "AS IF" you were there, but that you could imagine yourself there. It is a leap of faith when you listen to any recording in a different environment and then allow yourself to be transported to the original venue via your brain, whether with stereo or with an excessive number of channels . Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? You would need to cite some truly ground breaking research to prove this point. As previously discussed, only a true binaural recording with an accurate dummy head and pinnae specific to the intended listener is capable of such reproduction. The brain works as it should in that environment and the 3D cues that do come through the better recordings create the listener's illusion that sounds come from around as well as directly from the sources. The lateral "acoustic images" are well known as "phantom center" as well as those that "appear" outside the speaker locations to the left, right and even from farther back behind the speakers plane. Images that appear in front of that plane and including those that admittedly more rarely extend beyond the position of the listener are also reported. You do not further the science or the industry by insulting the intelligence of all those who have heard stereo recordings (and we can count most of the people in developed nations) when you make false and misleading statements about other professionals in the industry. It may make you feel better, but it does not reflect very well on you or your views when you insult those you have never met. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:vM9ob.63098$Tr4.168703@attbi_s03... *snip* Wrong. Your assertions completely ignore the fact that two ears placed in a soundfield determine directional queues as a result of the acoustical masking, interference effects, filtering and such of the head and outer ear to which the ears themselves are attached. So a pair of ears in a venue, by themselves, WILL capture all the information THAT PAIR OF EARS NEED to determined directionality. That masking, shadowing, interference, filtering, and so on is known as the HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) which, to a large extent, is specific to the individual owning those ears. When a sound comes from "over there," it passes around the physical structures of the head and ear and is modified by the HRTF in a way that you have adapted to and the resulting filtered acoustical sound is one having queues that makes you recognize that the sound came from "over there." But whena sound comes from "over yonder," since it takes a different physical path, it is modified in a different way by your HRTF, and the filtered result tells you it came from "over yonder." The HRTF provides a mapping between geometrical position and the cues necessary to decide whether it's "over there" or "over yonder" or somewhere else. In order for the HRTF to work, the sound MUST be coming from specific directions, it must have a geometrical position. In order for the HRTF to work well, there must be but ONE HRTF in the entire chain (in your case it must be YOUR HRTF, in my case, it must be mine, and so on). Place two microphones in the venue and record. You can look at what happens simply: these two microphones have NO HRTF or they have no HRTF which is related in any way to yours or mine. Let's assume they have none, for all intents and purposes. What you have now done, first of all, is remove ALL unambiguous geometrical position information. Those microphones DO NOT HAVE AN HRTF THAT ENCODES GEOMETRICAL POSITION CUEUS. They are GONE, FORGOTTEN. Two "transducers" in space that do not have an HRTF that generates unambiguous cues based on position CANNOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY CODE POSITION. The position information IS NOW GONE. Now, play it back over two speakers. Whatever sound eminates from those speakers only NOW can be processed by your HRTF. But there is no longer any unambiguous position information left. Now, the ONLY thing your ears can do, with their intact HRTF, is attempt to locate, IN THE ROOM, where the sound sources are. Now, you can get phantom images, very crude illusions because any number of microphones do have their own "HRTF," but it is SO wildly unrelated to what your ear's HRTF was in the same venue, you end up with a lot of ambiguous apparent positions, "pinpoint images," and all sorts of stuff that are little more than a caricuture of the original soundfield. The ONLY thing that properly triggers your HRTF-based positioning system is the listening room in which the SPEAKERS are playing. The bottom line is this: The ONLY time YOUR ears can sense direction is when the sound COMES from that direction and is heard BY YOUR EARS. Your ears have built in physical structures that are designed to do this. Once you have captured a sound field with two microphones, the sound, played back IS NO LONGER COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION. That is why, for decades and decades and decades, those people who DO know how the ear senses directionality (and precious few if any of those people are in the high-end audio business), have known that two channel reproduction is utterly incapable of presenting a realistic image of an acoustical sound field to a listener. The only group of people who have consistently stated otherwise are a small group localized almost entirely withinn the high-end audio world who have little knowledge of the role of the HRTF and other factors in how humans listen to asound. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Cossie" wrote in message
news:nGQpb.104738$Tr4.281863@attbi_s03... "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message ... Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? I doubt that anyone was claiming this, though I won't presume to know what others are thinking. As long as we all understand that this is, sadly, a hypothetical debate at this point in time. As far as I can tell, the home theater market is the lion's share of multi-channel systems in the home, and I don't see any big swing away from that on the horizon. The record labels just don't see the market for a big investment in multi-channel recording and production of high quality music. Sure, there are some such recordings out there, and multi-channel remasters of multiple-mono recordings, which tend to be studio recordings that lean toward the rock/pop side of the musical spectrum are relatively easy to make. But we've been talking about accurate, multi-channel reproduction of a given space, and that's a different ball game. I disagree. The Telarc multi-channel SACDs that I've heard on my own 5.1 system (Paradigm Studio 100 v2, Studio CC and Studio 20 rears) were far more convincing in multi-channel than they were in stereo. That's not to say that it is was perfect multi-channel playback, but the whole point is that even imperfectly done multi-channel (as long as it's tonally and dynamically accurate and balanced) greatly exceeds the capabilities of even the best stereo. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
... Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? You would need to cite some truly ground breaking research to prove this point. As previously discussed, only a true binaural recording with an accurate dummy head and pinnae specific to the intended listener is capable of such reproduction. IOW, you are saying that it IS possible to reproduce a 3-dimensional soundfield with only 2 channels--which would seem obvious, since there are only 2 signals to supply our brain. True, the binaural technique is the only one developed so far that does a workmanlike job of it, but there is no theoretical reason why the eardrum can't be supplied with the same signal by other means not yet developed. Norm Strong |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Cossie" wrote in message
news:nGQpb.104738$Tr4.281863@attbi_s03... "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message ... Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? I doubt that anyone was claiming this, though I won't presume to know what others are thinking. As long as we all understand that this is, sadly, a hypothetical debate at this point in time. As far as I can tell, the home theater market is the lion's share of multi-channel systems in the home, and I don't see any big swing away from that on the horizon. The record labels just don't see the market for a big investment in multi-channel recording and production of high quality music. Sure, there are some such recordings out there, and multi-channel remasters of multiple-mono recordings, which tend to be studio recordings that lean toward the rock/pop side of the musical spectrum are relatively easy to make. But we've been talking about accurate, multi-channel reproduction of a given space, and that's a different ball game. Technically, yes, it can be done, and it *can* be a superior reproduction of the original performance. It is also much more difficult to do well, more expensive to produce, has a smaller market, and can create havoc when it comes to reproduction. So, possible - yes. Reasonable - ??? Bill Balmer Bill, must disagree after a point. It is true that most multi-channel systems are home theatre, but most pop music sounds reasonably okay on those systems, and the surround mix adds interest to the production. Moreover, to the degree that DVD-A (and in the future, it is rumored, SACD) has extra video elements, these appeal to the younger generation. And if your interests run towards classical and jazz, then simply upgrading or designing the home theatre to include five full range speakers (or a center with its own separate sub, rather than or in addition to a LFE subwoofer) can give superb sound and more and more disks are out there to satisfy. In fact most classical nowadays is recorded and released multi-channel...Sony has just announced that all its SACD releases will be hybrid SACD/CD from now on, and they are rapidly converting their plants so production is no longer a bottleneck. All the record companies except Time-Warner are now issuing SACDs. Warner is still pushing DVD-A's, and a new crop of reasonably priced all-in-one players (Yamaha, Marantz, Denon, Pioneer) are rapidly making the format issue moot (although to my ears SACDs still win out in sound and convenience). At this point there are 1000 SACD's released in the US, and another 500 titles outside the US that can be imported. There are 3000-400 DVD-A's. Of the SACDs, fully a third are classical music, and another 25% jazz. Only DVD-A's seem to be mostly pop. My guess is the record companies are catching on that people who do invest in these new technologies end up buying many more bright, shiny disks than people who do not...and as a result, I think the multi-channel hi-rez formats will exist for the older crowd, coexisting with downloaded MP3-type songs for portable/casual/less costly use favored by the young. Time will tell. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"normanstrong" wrote in message
... "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message ... Are you truly arguing that multi-channel playback doesn't do a better job than stereo in the reproduction of a three dimensional sound field? You would need to cite some truly ground breaking research to prove this point. As previously discussed, only a true binaural recording with an accurate dummy head and pinnae specific to the intended listener is capable of such reproduction. IOW, you are saying that it IS possible to reproduce a 3-dimensional soundfield with only 2 channels--which would seem obvious, since there are only 2 signals to supply our brain. True, the binaural technique is the only one developed so far that does a workmanlike job of it, but there is no theoretical reason why the eardrum can't be supplied with the same signal by other means not yet developed. I suppose it's theoritically possible that you some day you'll be able to bypass the ear drum completely and wire right into the brain. That doesn't change the fact that in 50 years of stereo and multi-channel research no method has yet been developed to accomplish what you suggest, short of multiple channels. I am still bewildered by the refusal of the high-end community to embrace multiple channels of playback. Given all that we know, it just doesn't make sense. My system, which while very good imo, is hardly the be all and end all. I have 5 channels of Paradigm Studio speakers (100s up front, a Studio CC and Studio 20s for the rears) driven by a high quality source (Sony DVP-900) and amplification. I spent a great deal of time and care level balancing the channels and optimizing placement. While I'd certainly rather have a pair of B&W Nautilus 800s for stereo listening, I'd challenge anyone to tell me that a good multi-channel recording (such as Mahler's 6th with Benjamin Zander conducting the Philharmonia on Telarc) is more realistic on a stereo pair of Nautilus 800s than it is played through my far more modest multi-channel system. Any single aspect of the 800s might be better than any single aspect of my Paradigms, but the entirety of the musical experience is simply better realized with my very good multiple channels, than with the superlative two. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:rURpb.104865$Fm2.89686@attbi_s04... But we've been talking about accurate, multi-channel reproduction of a given space, and that's a different ball game. I disagree. The Telarc multi-channel SACDs that I've heard on my own 5.1 system (Paradigm Studio 100 v2, Studio CC and Studio 20 rears) were far more convincing in multi-channel than they were in stereo. No, you don't disagree. :-) Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't claim that high quality 5.1 recordings of music can't be superior to high quality recordings in stereo. I simply said that it's more complicated to produce, and the extra hassle and expense isn't justified by the market. Bill Balmer |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:06 GMT, Bruce Abrams
wrote: While I'd certainly rather have a pair of B&W Nautilus 800s for stereo listening, I'd challenge anyone to tell me that a good multi-channel recording (such as Mahler's 6th with Benjamin Zander conducting the Philharmonia on Telarc) is more realistic on a stereo pair of Nautilus 800s than it is played through my far more modest multi-channel system. Agreed. Been there. Done that. Kal |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
I don't want to perpetuate what is headed for a "spat" here, but want
to respond to your request about what it was that you said that was false and misleading by being degrading to other professionals whom you have not had the luxury of meeting. Also to clear-up how I interpret what is helpful and what is simply chest-beating when it comes to the twisted topic of stereo and human hearing. I expect you to be abrasive and to stand your ground, I just don't want to beat a dead horse here by continuing with the same "Less is More" Vs "More is More" debate. I'm sure we will disagree about the very same thing in another completely unrelated thread, sigh... Dick said: "you had better be specific as to exactly what "false and misleading statements" as well as: "That is why, for decades and decades and decades, those people who DO know how the ear senses directionality (and precious few if any of those people are in the high-end audio business), have known that two channel reproduction is utterly incapable of presenting a realistic image of an acoustical sound field to a listener. The only group of people who have consistently stated otherwise are a small group localized almost entirely withinn the high-end audio world who have little knowledge of the role of the HRTF and other factors in how humans listen to asound." Those are your words. Specifically the comments that attempt to retard the advancements made by these individuals in the field of sound reproduction are quite sweeping generalizations and were added as an insult to those working in the field, many of whom are acoustic and electrical engineers. Regardless of how you would like to characterize it; it reflects the same way upon you. Their task has been to make better stereo products and most of them have done so quite admirably. You could argue that they should have been working on something else, but that is not their task. In the same breath you refer to me by a pseudonym of your own design ("Mr. Uptown"). I have only referred to you as "Dick" and have no intentions of doing otherwise. I have not insulted you, but pointed out your behavior here. If you find that insulting, then consider the source and modify it. Instead of throwing insults at anyone in the high-end audio industry without any regard to who they might be or what they might have contributed and basically acting here as a "negative campaign ad" for your "party", you might consider offering some kind words of advice and pleasant commentary directed at benefiting someone other than your ego. Continuously bashing the industry and two channel reproduction which is an accurate, convenient and economical resource is sure to garner much opposition. Not everyone wants a mono stack when high fidelity stereo is an affordable option and not everyone wants a cheapo multi-channel system when a higher quality stereo system is a more attractive alternative. Those have been the choices for years. I want even get into the Quadraphonic catastrophy of years gone by or the newer attempts at surround sound with two speakers using unconventional placement. For me, I see it boiling down to those that watch movies and care more about the "wow factor" Vs those that listen to music and care more about sound quality, when it comes to selecting a multi-channel or stereo source. You can see it another way and that is just fine. Just don't tell me that your way is superior because of the human hearing function as I am sitting in front of a lot of both stereo and multi-channel systems of very high quality and can decide for myself quite easily what sounds best on what using my own human hearing functions. Theory is one thing and practice is another. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... "Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:XLvpb.70020$mZ5.434082@attbi_s54... Very good. I don't argue with that assessment at all other than to add that you are not being realistic in terms of what is possible. snip of the listener are also reported. You do not further the science or the industry by insulting the intelligence of all those who have heard stereo recordings (and we can count most of the people in developed nations) when you make false and misleading statements about other professionals in the industry. It may make you feel better, but it does not reflect very well on you or your views when you insult those you have never met. Great. Mr. Uptown, in one stroke of the pen, basically negates a century and more of auditory research. Instead of dealing with facts, Mr. Uptown instead resorts to insults of his own. Mr. Uptown, why don't YOU go and see the research for yourself. It's there, much of it written in and available in English. Read it, understand it, see why things work the way they do. As to "false and misleading statements about professionals," kind sir, you had better be specific as to exactly what "false and misleading statements" you accuse me of or retract them. The REAL professionals in the field of auditory perception are NOT to be found in the high-end audio industry. Whether YOU like it or not, the high-end audio industry is an insignificant back-water industry, as the sheer economic facts tell you quite unambiguously. The FACT is, that two-channel stereo reproduction was demonstrated well over a half century ago as being wholely unable to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the sound field by people whose life business is was (and is) to study and understand the field of auditory psychophysics. These are people, kind sir, who forgot more about the field in a moment of distraction than the entire realm of high end audio dealers combined ever knew. As to the illusion, which is ALL that two-channel stero can ever be, if you like it, fine. No one is telling you not to. But you, perhaps by accident, wandered into a discussion about the physical properties of sound fields and auditory perception. Your comments, while interesting, are not germaine until you choose to verse yourself in the topic. No insult intended. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
|
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
news:iAYpb.81205$ao4.237192@attbi_s51... *snippage of the "spat"* Continuously bashing the industry and two channel reproduction which is an accurate, convenient and economical resource is sure to garner much opposition. Not everyone wants a mono stack when high fidelity stereo is an affordable option and not everyone wants a cheapo multi-channel system when a higher quality stereo system is a more attractive alternative. Me thinks your analogy is incorrect. You would have been accurate if you would have said that not everybody wants a cheapo stereo system when a high fidelity mono stack is a more attractive and cost effective alternative. Many more people could afford one Nautilus 800 than could afford a stereo pair, yes? That's not the point, though. A pair of 802s just reproduce music better, in the same way that my multi-channel system is more convincing in most of the ways that count than is a stereo pair of 800s. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Cossie" wrote in message
news:ujWpb.80349$9E1.371161@attbi_s52... *snip* Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't claim that high quality 5.1 recordings of music can't be superior to high quality recordings in stereo. I simply said that it's more complicated to produce, and the extra hassle and expense isn't justified by the market. The point is that "the market" already owns a great deal of mid-fi multi-channel equipment. Instead of preaching about exotic cables and the like, we should be encouraging potential consumers to upgrade their existing HT systems so that might actually enjoy music on those same systems as well. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Cossie" wrote in message news:ujWpb.80349$9E1.371161@attbi_s52... *snip* Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't claim that high quality 5.1 recordings of music can't be superior to high quality recordings in stereo. I simply said that it's more complicated to produce, and the extra hassle and expense isn't justified by the market. The point is that "the market" already owns a great deal of mid-fi multi-channel equipment. Instead of preaching about exotic cables and the like, we should be encouraging potential consumers to upgrade their existing HT systems so that might actually enjoy music on those same systems as well. Well there's still plenty of room for holy wars there, e.g., the advocates of full-range surrounds for music (plus sub for the odd bit of ..1 material, I guess) versus the satellite/sub HT paradigm. I've already seen two articles in the audio press about this in the last year -- one being Ken Pohlmann's in Sound & Vision, another in Sensisble Sound, both advocating the position that orchestral music, in particular, suffers when played over most sat/sub systems due to weakness in the crossover frequency region and mid-to-upper bass. -- -S. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
|
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news  U9qb.111819$HS4.967432@attbi_s01...Bruce Abrams wrote: "Cossie" wrote in message news:ujWpb.80349$9E1.371161@attbi_s52... *snip* Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't claim that high quality 5.1 recordings of music can't be superior to high quality recordings in stereo. I simply said that it's more complicated to produce, and the extra hassle and expense isn't justified by the market. The point is that "the market" already owns a great deal of mid-fi multi-channel equipment. Instead of preaching about exotic cables and the like, we should be encouraging potential consumers to upgrade their existing HT systems so that might actually enjoy music on those same systems as well. Well there's still plenty of room for holy wars there, e.g., the advocates of full-range surrounds for music (plus sub for the odd bit of .1 material, I guess) versus the satellite/sub HT paradigm. I've already seen two articles in the audio press about this in the last year -- one being Ken Pohlmann's in Sound & Vision, another in Sensisble Sound, both advocating the position that orchestral music, in particular, suffers when played over most sat/sub systems due to weakness in the crossover frequency region and mid-to-upper bass. Yes, but they were speaking largely of the mini-satellite, "one-box" type of systems. Anybody serious about music will ultimately want to upgrade to "full range" satellites (for want of a better term) that can cross-over at 55-80hz, or better yet to full range system. If TV is important, then the center channel can have its own "full range" center along with its own matched sub, so in effect it becomes a full range center. An LFE sub can add to orchestral and pipe organ recordings, but is not essential for most musical reproduction. As Bruce says, the trick is to get people to either plan better or upgrade el cheapo systems if they have an interest in music. As for we hi-fi aficionados, there are several routes. Since high-end speakers have become available at lower price points, and since eBay/the internet has made an easily accessible used market, these become economical ways to translate a good two-channel system into a good five-channel system. Any TV/video then becomes just an added plus. This by the way has been my approach. Video is not nearly as important to me as audio, so I have a five-full range reasonable matched system (using three stereo preamps and stereo power amps, all bought used) along with both moderately priced SACD and a DVD, DVD-A players (and phono and DAT and Open-Reel). So I get really terrific surround sound, and when I want movies I simply wheel the tv (on a wheeled stand) from the side of the room (where it normally sits off the left of the system) to a position close to the center speaker. Voila, home theatre (but on a scale commensurate with my interest). And believe it or not, this is done in a room that still maintains living room character (as opposed to audio showroom character). |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:Eebqb.112984$Fm2.100883@attbi_s04... *snip* Personally, I am not interested in multi-channel music reproduction - I'm a 2-channel die hard. And thus I return to my original question. Why do people in this hobby, who appear to be otherwise committed to the search for the most realistic reproduction of music possible, profess a lack of interest in technology that can yield far more convincing results than their present technology? So far, the only explanations have been along the lines of "stereo is good enough." |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news U9qb.111819$HS4.967432@attbi_s01...Bruce Abrams wrote: "Cossie" wrote in message news:ujWpb.80349$9E1.371161@attbi_s52... *snip* Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't claim that high quality 5.1 recordings of music can't be superior to high quality recordings in stereo. I simply said that it's more complicated to produce, and the extra hassle and expense isn't justified by the market. The point is that "the market" already owns a great deal of mid-fi multi-channel equipment. Instead of preaching about exotic cables and the like, we should be encouraging potential consumers to upgrade their existing HT systems so that might actually enjoy music on those same systems as well. Well there's still plenty of room for holy wars there, e.g., the advocates of full-range surrounds for music (plus sub for the odd bit of .1 material, I guess) versus the satellite/sub HT paradigm. I've already seen two articles in the audio press about this in the last year -- one being Ken Pohlmann's in Sound & Vision, another in Sensisble Sound, both advocating the position that orchestral music, in particular, suffers when played over most sat/sub systems due to weakness in the crossover frequency region and mid-to-upper bass. Yes, but they were speaking largely of the mini-satellite, "one-box" type of systems. Anybody serious about music will ultimately want to upgrade to "full range" satellites (for want of a better term) that can cross-over at 55-80hz, OK, but then.... or better yet to full range system. ....and again, if even 55=80Hz crossed-over satellites aren't considered adequate, this sets up a dichotomy between sat/sub advocates and 'full-range all around ' advocates. You're just repeating what I wrote. If TV is important, then the center channel can have its own "full range" center along with its own matched sub, so in effect it becomes a full range center. An LFE sub can add to orchestral and pipe organ recordings, but is not essential for most musical reproduction. Speak for yourself. I listen to lots of prog rock and electronic music. Bass pedals and synthesizers can and do dip below 50 Hz with some frequency. Modern pop and rap also use these frequencies. -- -S. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Mkuller" wrote
Personally, I am not interested in multi-channel music reproduction - I'm a 2-channel die hard. Bruce Abrams wrote: And thus I return to my original question. Why do people in this hobby, who appear to be otherwise committed to the search for the most realistic reproduction of music possible, profess a lack of interest in technology that can yield far more convincing results than their present technology? So far, the only explanations have been along the lines of "stereo is good enough." I can't answer that question for anyone but myself. Having purchased my original music catalog of LPs from the 1960s-1980s (close to 1000) and then repurchased it again in CDs beginning in the 1990s (over 600), I refuse to convert to another format, regardless of what it offers. Since most of the music I listen to regularly is of the pop/rock/blues/jazz variety and I have seen many of these groups perform live on a stage in front of me, great 2-channel reproduction is very satisfying to me. On the other hand, if I were trying to regularly recreate a concert hall/orchestral performance in my listening room, I might feel differently about it switching to mulit-channel. In other words, if you're happy with your 1997 Porsche 911, do you really need a brand new 2003 Lamborghini Murcielago or is the 911 good enough? Regards, Mike |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
That's not good math. Stereo has obvious advantages sonically to mono
and has just under twice the cost as all the typical stereo gear shares a single chassis and only adds a few other components internally to produce stereo (with the exception of the speaker of course). Use your own example and go from a pair of speakers (your choice, and poor taste excepted) and five plus a sub - do the math. By comparison, six channel sound costs three times as much as it requires a lot more in the way of speakers and internal components as well as connections, etc on the rear of the components. The better value is easy to see and hear. What people do to "get into" six channel systems at their budget is to reduce the overall quality of the components by a factor of 3. Now, anyone can say that the sum of the parts does or does not equal the whole as that is your perception, but the cost of materials does not vary. At least be fair when you make such comparisons as you are only cheating yourself. If you can afford three times the cost of what you find to be musically satisfying in stereo to "get into" a six channel system and have the space to fit it into, then more power to you. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message news:NJ8qb.112725$Tr4.315515@attbi_s03... "Uptown Audio" wrote in message news:iAYpb.81205$ao4.237192@attbi_s51... *snippage of the "spat"* Continuously bashing the industry and two channel reproduction which is an accurate, convenient and economical resource is sure to garner much opposition. Not everyone wants a mono stack when high fidelity stereo is an affordable option and not everyone wants a cheapo multi-channel system when a higher quality stereo system is a more attractive alternative. Me thinks your analogy is incorrect. You would have been accurate if you would have said that not everybody wants a cheapo stereo system when a high fidelity mono stack is a more attractive and cost effective alternative. Many more people could afford one Nautilus 800 than could afford a stereo pair, yes? That's not the point, though. A pair of 802s just reproduce music better, in the same way that my multi-channel system is more convincing in most of the ways that count than is a stereo pair of 800s. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Personally, I am not interested in multi-channel music reproduction - I'm a
2-channel die hard. But, a couple of years ago I did an interview with Paul Stubblebine, who is regarded as one of the best high end audiophile disc masterers. He was just beginning to do work on DVD-A and SACD after working for many years with 2 channel. At that time he had mixed feelings about surround sound (since it was new)... Surround sound was first used commercially in 1940 in "Fantasia," then in Cinerama in 1950. It was revived in late 1969 by Vanguard and Acoustic Research, and became common in movies in the late '70s. I have at least 100 surround LPs I purchased in the '70s, and have the high-performance decoders to play them. Surround sound is anything BUT new. One might dislike particular implementations of surround sound, but, properly implemented, surround is more realistic and/or more fun to listen to. The reason some people don't like surround sound is that they've never heard _good_ surround sound. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
news:%7gqb.113769$HS4.984143@attbi_s01... That's not good math. Stereo has obvious advantages sonically to mono and has just under twice the cost as all the typical stereo gear shares a single chassis and only adds a few other components internally to produce stereo (with the exception of the speaker of course). Use your own example and go from a pair of speakers (your choice, and poor taste excepted) and five plus a sub - do the math. My point was that a more modestly equipped multi-channel system will often provide a much more realistic musical reproduction than will two higher cost stereo channels. Five channels of a mid-priced speaker of your choice set up in a proper SACD Multi-channel configuration (I'll leave the poor taste comment untouched) will almost certainly provide a more enjoyable musical experience than a single stereo pair of the same manufacturer's flagship speaker. *snip* What people do to "get into" six channel systems at their budget is to reduce the overall quality of the components by a factor of 3. Actually, you're incorrect. Many people might reduce the individual quality of the components, but as long as they're still buying quality stuff (as opposed to "system-in-a-box" type of junk), they will still have increased the overall quality of their system as compared to the would-have-been stereo. Now, anyone can say that the sum of the parts does or does not equal the whole as that is your perception, but the cost of materials does not vary. At least be fair when you make such comparisons as you are only cheating yourself. If you can afford three times the cost of what you find to be musically satisfying in stereo to "get into" a six channel system and have the space to fit it into, then more power to you. And again, you don't need to spend three times the cost of a "musically satisfying" stereo, to get a more satisfying multi-channel system. A specific examply with Paradigm Studio speakers... Stereo pair of Studio 100s - $2,100 5 Studio 40's - $2,000 and add a Servo-15 at $1,500 = $3,500. Hardly 3 times the cost of the stereo pair. Properly configured and placed for multi-channel SACD, the MC system will be far more satisfying. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
Uptown Audio wrote:
That's not good math. Stereo has obvious advantages sonically to mono Tell that to the 'back to mono' contingent. -- -S. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
No thanks. That would be like you convincing me on multi-channel. Each
likes what they like for their own reasons. Move-on... - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:VUlqb.121125$e01.437454@attbi_s02... Uptown Audio wrote: That's not good math. Stereo has obvious advantages sonically to mono Tell that to the 'back to mono' contingent. -- -S. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
|
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi-fi, High-end and Multi-channel reproduction
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:42:38 GMT, "Uptown Audio"
wrote: (among many other things) I want even get into the Quadraphonic catastrophy of years gone by or the newer attempts at surround sound with two speakers using unconventional placement. The "Quadraphonic catastrophy" was only a "catastrophy" in the commercial sense. I was a late adapter to Quad (SQ) and bought an Audionics Space and Image Composer in the 70s. I enjoyed many years (and still enjoy) of four channel audio from SQ and non-SQ LPs and as a bonus enjoyed movies Dolby encoded on VHS before any decoders were generally available. I find it interesting that both you and Dick look at the industry from a strictly commercial viewpoint while I look at the industry from a users viewpoint. DIYing all that is possible and practical not only to save money and obtain "custom" items, but the self-satisfaction of learning and pride of accomplishment. -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
Linear Mode
