"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael writes:
Audio Guy wrote:

Then would you please explain why my father's circa 1966 Sansui solid
state receiver had a built in center channel decoder?

Hello.

Different products call for different design philosophies. For their
high end products, this was not the case. I could ask my friend and
find out what the exact philosophy behind your product was. But, common
sense leads me to believe that they were designing for a market or based
on the components of that particular receiver, it functioned better
with a center channel.

Hope that helps,

Michael

But if Sansui

"purposefully designed stereo to present the cleanest example of the
music, and not to try and attempt the "realization" of it--that is to
say, to not go with surround sound" (Quoting from your post)

then why would they spend the time and effort to produce a receiver
with a built in center channel decoder. Someone there must have had a
different design philosophy and they felt a center channel was needed
to present a more truthful reproduction. This seems to cast the
foundation of your post into question.

Back in the late 50's / early 60's when stereo first came out, amplifiers
often had a center tap (it wasn't a channel per se). That is because many
people still had corner horn speakers, and adding a second often left too
large a gap between, so a "center-fill" speaker (by the same manufacture,
but designed for along-the-wall placement was the usual recommendation.
Since the original post mentioned that the receiver was a mid-sixties
receiver, it is probably a hangover design.

It is not hard to find this configuration. I recently sold a pristine
Fisher KX200 that had a similar arrangement. It was also from the
early/mid-sixties.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael writes:
Audio Guy wrote:

Then would you please explain why my father's circa 1966 Sansui solid
state receiver had a built in center channel decoder?

Hello.

Different products call for different design philosophies. For their
high end products, this was not the case. I could ask my friend and
find out what the exact philosophy behind your product was. But, common
sense leads me to believe that they were designing for a market or based
on the components of that particular receiver, it functioned better
with a center channel.

Hope that helps,

Michael

But if Sansui

"purposefully designed stereo to present the cleanest example of the
music, and not to try and attempt the "realization" of it--that is to
say, to not go with surround sound" (Quoting from your post)

then why would they spend the time and effort to produce a receiver
with a built in center channel decoder. Someone there must have had a
different design philosophy and they felt a center channel was needed
to present a more truthful reproduction. This seems to cast the
foundation of your post into question.

Back in the late 50's / early 60's when stereo first came out, amplifiers
often had a center tap (it wasn't a channel per se). That is because many
people still had corner horn speakers, and adding a second often left too
large a gap between, so a "center-fill" speaker (by the same manufacture,
but designed for along-the-wall placement was the usual recommendation.
Since the original post mentioned that the receiver was a mid-sixties
receiver, it is probably a hangover design.

But this still doesn't prove that the other fellow's point about
Sansui having a philosophy that 2 channel audio is the only "pure" way
to reproduce sound. I'd still say it's the other way around,

It is not hard to find this configuration. I recently sold a pristine
Fisher KX200 that had a similar arrangement. It was also from the
early/mid-sixties.

No problem here. In fact I think it proves my point that a lot of
people disagree that 2 channel reproduction is not the end all of
audio.


So how about you, do you agree with this fellow's insistence that 2
channels is a more pure way of reproducing audio?

In article ,
Michael writes:
Audio Guy wrote:
then why would they spend the time and effort to produce a receiver
with a built in center channel decoder. Someone there must have had a
different design philosophy and they felt a center channel was needed
to present a more truthful reproduction. This seems to cast the
foundation of your post into question.

Does Volkswagen simply make the "people's car"? They have been making
high-end cars for sometimes now, and most people view them as bridging
away from their original design philosophy. Whether this is right or
wrong, it's not our place to say. The fact remains that they make
products that differ from their design philosophy--every company in the
world does this.

I wouldn't think they would if they felt as strongly as you insist
they did about the "purity" of 2 channel reproduction.

Back in the 1960’s, it was fashionable for people to have center
channels, just as it is now fashionable for people to have multiple
channels. Regardless of whether or not it sound better, it would be
stupid for a company to ignore the demand of a product. If they did,
they would be missing business opportunities, and would most likely go
belly-up as a result--this is why your receiver was built.

So a lack of center channle capability would have caused them to go
"belly up"? If so, then the "purity" of 2 channel reproductions seems
to have been somehting that most people disagreed with then, wouldn't
you say?

If you would have purchased one of their high end receivers, you would
notice that they are not wired for center channels.

I do not remember the model number of the receiver, but I assure you
it was touted as a high-end, state of the art model at the time.

I thought this was more than clear in my last post.

Nope, and still rather unclear to me. I still haven't seen anything
you've posted that justifies the undesirability of other than 2
channel reproduction, either then or now.

Audio Guy wrote:

So a lack of center channle capability would have caused them to go
"belly up"? If so, then the "purity" of 2 channel reproductions seems
to have been somehting that most people disagreed with then, wouldn't
you say?

I agree with Audio Guy. There is nothing "pure" about 2 channel
reproduction. As I said earlier, stereo is not about drilling the two
channels of a two channel recording directly into your ears. Two is
simply the minimum number of channels for an auditory perspective
illusion. There can be any number of channels, and the more the merrier.

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Audio Guy wrote:

So a lack of center channle capability would have caused them to go
"belly up"? If so, then the "purity" of 2 channel reproductions seems
to have been somehting that most people disagreed with then, wouldn't
you say?

I agree with Audio Guy. There is nothing "pure" about 2 channel
reproduction. As I said earlier, stereo is not about drilling the two
channels of a two channel recording directly into your ears. Two is simply
the minimum number of channels for an auditory perspective illusion.
There can be any number of channels, and the more the merrier.

Not if they were specifically engineered for 2, or even 1 channel, (ignoring
the handful made for 3 channels).

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I agree with Audio Guy. There is nothing "pure" about 2 channel
reproduction. As I said earlier, stereo is not about drilling the two
channels of a two channel recording directly into your ears. Two is simply
the minimum number of channels for an auditory perspective illusion.
There can be any number of channels, and the more the merrier.


Not if they were specifically engineered for 2, or even 1 channel, (ignoring
the handful made for 3 channels).

All right, I'll take you up on that hypothetical! The question is, if
you had a two, or even a one channel recording, would it be better to
play it back in the same number of channels, or multichannel?

If you take as your standard the recording, then you might have a point.
You may want to hear it played back the same way the mastering engineer
heard it, thru two or one channel, if only to see how that does. This
would, however, be a myopic exercise indeed, because the recording is
not the standard we should be concerned with.

If you take as your standard the original event, then you will always
want to play it back in multichannel, no matter how many channels you
are starting with. Why? Because a live event does not come from a
peep-hole in front of you, or even two peep-holes in a stereo array. A
live sound field is several direct sources, followed by many early
reflections from front and side walls, and finally a reverberant field
from all around you.

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot
closer with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in
front of you.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I agree with Audio Guy. There is nothing "pure" about 2 channel
reproduction. As I said earlier, stereo is not about drilling the
two
channels of a two channel recording directly into your ears. Two is
simply
the minimum number of channels for an auditory perspective
illusion.
There can be any number of channels, and the more the merrier.


Not if they were specifically engineered for 2, or even 1 channel,
(ignoring
the handful made for 3 channels).

All right, I'll take you up on that hypothetical!


What hypathetical? This is a real world situation most of the time.



The question is, if
you had a two, or even a one channel recording, would it be better to

play it back in the same number of channels, or multichannel?


Actually that isn't really the question at all. The question really is
if you have a recording that was engineered specifically to sound best
on one channel or two channels does adding channels help or degrade the
sound. We have many examples of this in the real world. There is no
need to discuss this in the hypathetical. One can look at any number of
Blue Note jazz recordings that were actually recorded in two channels
for the purpose of a one channel final mix. It is a common opinion that
these recordings sound better with the mono mixes than they do with the
true stereo mixes. This says nothing of the horrible results one can
find with any number of original mono recordings "reprocessed for
stereo." Those were universally dismal. Will three more channels make
them better? C'mon. That would be a classic example. One can also look
at any number of stereo recordings that have been butchered in
multichannel. I would not say it is a hard fast rule that recordings
specifically engineered for mono or for stereo will always sound best
in their intended format but IME they almost always do.




If you take as your standard the recording, then you might have a
point.


I'm not really sure what a "standard" recording is but it does seem to
work that way for the most part with most real world commercial
recordings of quality.



You may want to hear it played back the same way the mastering
engineer
heard it, thru two or one channel, if only to see how that does. This

would, however, be a myopic exercise indeed, because the recording is

not the standard we should be concerned with.


What? If one's interest in audio is to play back actual real world
recordings of music this makes no sense to me. The recordings we want
to listen to must be the standard at least for those recordings.




If you take as your standard the original event, then you will always

want to play it back in multichannel, no matter how many channels you

are starting with.


Aside from the fact that the original event is long lost this simply is
not always true at all.In fact I bet it is rarely true. Look no further
than those classic Blue Note recordings. Take a look at any pictures of
the set ups used for those recordings. The mono mixes were most
definitely better than the original event could have possibly been. The
set up was not made to make a good sounding original event but to make
a good sounding mono recording. Then take a look at the vast majority
of popular recordings. The idea of original event becomes rather
meaningless. But then lets take a look at stereo. How do you figure
processing a purist two mic recording into multichannel will do a
better job of recreating the original event than the proper playback of
such a purist recording as it was intended to be played and engineered
to be played? You can't invent channels that were never recorded and
expect it to be more accurate.




Why? Because a live event does not come from a
peep-hole in front of you, or even two peep-holes in a stereo array.
A
live sound field is several direct sources, followed by many early
reflections from front and side walls, and finally a reverberant
field
from all around you.

How does five peep-holes help with recordings made for two peep-holes
or one? It's all an aural illusion no matter how many "peep-holes" you
use. It still doesn't reproduce the original event. More channels
bouncing sound around a room that bears little or no resemblance to the
original venue will hardly make for a better reproduction of the
original event. This is particularly true if you are working from an
original recording that only has one or two channels. Building new
tracks for new "peep-holes" aint gonna get you closer to the original
event.







You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these

sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot
closer with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers
in
front of you.


With real world recordings that were originally one or two channels? I
kind of doubt that. My experience tells me otherwise as well.


Scott Wheeler

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot closer
with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in front of
you.

You also can come closer to the original event by colorizing older black and
white films, but the result is decidedly ugly.
I can engage the Pro Logic circuitry while playing a 2 CH stereo recording
in my HT room, or similarly listen to such a recording in my car with the
sound sent to my ears from all directions, fun and interesting for short
periods of time, but in actuality it places me in *nowheresville*' and does
not put me closer to the live event at all.

On 15 Feb 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot closer
with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in front of
you.

You also can come closer to the original event by colorizing older black and
white films, but the result is decidedly ugly.
I can engage the Pro Logic circuitry while playing a 2 CH stereo recording
in my HT room, or similarly listen to such a recording in my car with the
sound sent to my ears from all directions, fun and interesting for short
periods of time, but in actuality it places me in *nowheresville*' and does
not put me closer to the live event at all.

ProLogic is to real multichannel as the old pseudostereo is to real
stereo: A cheap misleading fake. (Actually, it's slightly better.)

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot closer
with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in front of
you.

You also can come closer to the original event by colorizing older black and
white films, but the result is decidedly ugly.
I can engage the Pro Logic circuitry while playing a 2 CH stereo recording
in my HT room, or similarly listen to such a recording in my car with the
sound sent to my ears from all directions, fun and interesting for short
periods of time, but in actuality it places me in *nowheresville*' and does
not put me closer to the live event at all.

ProLogic is to real multichannel as the old pseudostereo is to real
stereo: A cheap misleading fake. (Actually, it's slightly better.)

All stereo is 'fake' too...and pretty cheap these days.

Personally I quite like DPL II. You never know what a new track will
sound like through it. ; More than a few times I've preferred the
'surround' that the algorithm synthesizes from the stereo track, to the
choices that a mixing engineer made for the surround remix.

On 16 Feb 2005 00:26:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

All stereo is 'fake' too...and pretty cheap these days.

Much but not all.

Personally I quite like DPL II. You never know what a new track will
sound like through it. ;

It's OK to like fakes. ;-]

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 15 Feb 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot
closer
with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in front of
you.

You also can come closer to the original event by colorizing older black
and
white films, but the result is decidedly ugly.
I can engage the Pro Logic circuitry while playing a 2 CH stereo recording
in my HT room, or similarly listen to such a recording in my car with the
sound sent to my ears from all directions, fun and interesting for short
periods of time, but in actuality it places me in *nowheresville*' and
does
not put me closer to the live event at all.

ProLogic is to real multichannel as the old pseudostereo is to real
stereo: A cheap misleading fake. (Actually, it's slightly better.)

We agree there, exactly as is playing a stereo CD in your motor vehicle
having 4 or more speakers. Maybe its as good (or slightly better) than real
SACD MC. ;-)

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 15 Feb 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

You can't duplicate all of the timings and directions of all of these
sources and reflections, but spatially speaking, you can come a lot
closer
with multichannel than with a single speaker or two speakers in front of
you.

You also can come closer to the original event by colorizing older black
and
white films, but the result is decidedly ugly.
I can engage the Pro Logic circuitry while playing a 2 CH stereo recording
in my HT room, or similarly listen to such a recording in my car with the
sound sent to my ears from all directions, fun and interesting for short
periods of time, but in actuality it places me in *nowheresville*' and
does
not put me closer to the live event at all.

ProLogic is to real multichannel as the old pseudostereo is to real
stereo: A cheap misleading fake. (Actually, it's slightly better.)

We agree there, exactly as is playing a stereo CD in your motor vehicle
having 4 or more speakers. Maybe its as good (or slightly better) than real
SACD MC. ;-)

Need it be said that in the case of many multichannel releases (virtually
all rock/pop studio releases), there was no
'live event' to recreate - there were only multiple events, recorded
separately, in different real spaces quite unlike the one 'created'
during he multichannel mix? (True also of classical music and jazz, where
edits and overdubs are not unknown.)

What 'live event' is, say, Bjork's 'Medulla' multichannel mix bringing
anyone closer to? Yet is it not awesome? ;





--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

On 18 Feb 2005 00:36:54 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Need it be said that in the case of many multichannel releases (virtually
all rock/pop studio releases), there was no
'live event' to recreate - there were only multiple events, recorded
separately, in different real spaces quite unlike the one 'created'
during he multichannel mix?

Yeah, you can discount all that I've said if you try to apply it to
pop/rock recordings.

(True also of classical music and jazz, where
edits and overdubs are not unknown.)

There are relatively few in classical since they need to be consistent
with the larger portions taken straight. I am also seeing more and
more classical MCH that are done at live events with only minor edits.

What 'live event' is, say, Bjork's 'Medulla' multichannel mix bringing
anyone closer to? Yet is it not awesome? ;

Dunno. If you say so.

Kal

Audio Guy wrote:
I wouldn't think they would if they felt as strongly as you insist
they did about the "purity" of 2 channel reproduction.

Not true. VW believed in selling the "people's car" for as long as
possible, which is why their flagship model went unchanged for longer
than half a century. While the original bug was still being sold, they
came out with other models for other markets--the same thing happened
with Sansui.

So a lack of center channle capability would have caused them to go
"belly up"? If so, then the "purity" of 2 channel reproductions seems
to have been somehting that most people disagreed with then, wouldn't
you say?

It most certainly would have, considering how they wanted to be the next
Pioneer--one does not do that by painting themselves into a corner.
Sure, if they wanted to be a company like McIntosh, they could have
afforded to only sell one model, but they were a mass-producing
manufacturer with delusions of grandeur.

I do not remember the model number of the receiver, but I assure you
it was touted as a high-end, state of the art model at the time.

It most certainly was not their flagship, highest-end model, friend.

Nope, and still rather unclear to me. I still haven't seen anything
you've posted that justifies the undesirability of other than 2
channel reproduction, either then or now.

Now, friend, I am arguing with your opinion, so that is not at all
surprising.

Yours truly,

Michael

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I agree with Audio Guy. There is nothing "pure" about 2 channel
reproduction.

That is most certainly not the reality.

As I said earlier, stereo is not about drilling the two
channels of a two channel recording directly into your ears.

And, I never said, claimed, or inferred that, either.

Two is simply the minimum number of channels for an auditory perspective
illusion.

Exactly, but your explanation is not complete--I'll touch on this in a bit.

There can be any number of channels, and the more the merrier.

Again, that does not match the reality. The only time this thought
holds any water is in comparing mono to stereo.

Gary Eickmeier

If one is watching a band live, the band is obviously playing in front
of them. The only dynamic factor of the depth of the sound is the
distance the musicians are from the listeners. This actual depth of the
sound is compensated for by the listeners ear.

Likewise, if the listener was recording the venue, the depth of the
sound would be compensated for by the recorder. On the stage, in
front of the listener, he has band members on either side of his head:
they are either to the right of him or to the left, and never is a
musician exactly in front of him. This is explained by the fact that
we can never be exact with something. Take a few minutes for that to
sink in, then you'll know why it's the case.

Let's now get into why multi-channels are irrelevant and why they
negatively affect the sound of the recording: we do not have three
perspectives. We have either perspective right or perspective left.
Our ears feed both perspectives into our brain, then our brain makes
sense of the depth of the sound. In terms of musical perfection, our
ears can quite literally not discern the difference in perspectives of
multichannel sound, and therefore, our brains adversely react to the
sound in question--it affects our natural hearing ability, and causes
the sound to be quite bad. That, my friend, is why stereo is so pure.

Like I said earlier, all these rules are thrown out of the window when
movies are in question.

Yours truly,

Michael

On 12 Feb 2005 03:52:54 GMT, (Audio Guy) wrote:

In article ,
Michael writes:
Audio Guy wrote:
then why would they spend the time and effort to produce a receiver
with a built in center channel decoder. Someone there must have had a
different design philosophy and they felt a center channel was needed
to present a more truthful reproduction. This seems to cast the
foundation of your post into question.

Does Volkswagen simply make the "people's car"? They have been making
high-end cars for sometimes now, and most people view them as bridging
away from their original design philosophy. Whether this is right or
wrong, it's not our place to say. The fact remains that they make
products that differ from their design philosophy--every company in the
world does this.

I wouldn't think they would if they felt as strongly as you insist
they did about the "purity" of 2 channel reproduction.

Back in the 1960’s, it was fashionable for people to have center
channels, just as it is now fashionable for people to have multiple
channels. Regardless of whether or not it sound better, it would be
stupid for a company to ignore the demand of a product. If they did,
they would be missing business opportunities, and would most likely go
belly-up as a result--this is why your receiver was built.

So a lack of center channle capability would have caused them to go
"belly up"? If so, then the "purity" of 2 channel reproductions seems
to have been somehting that most people disagreed with then, wouldn't
you say?

If you would have purchased one of their high end receivers, you would
notice that they are not wired for center channels.

I do not remember the model number of the receiver, but I assure you
it was touted as a high-end, state of the art model at the time.

I thought this was more than clear in my last post.

Nope, and still rather unclear to me. I still haven't seen anything
you've posted that justifies the undesirability of other than 2
channel reproduction, either then or now.

Stereo does have a center channel, it's commonly reffered to as the
"ghost channel".
Put there during the mix by the engineer to prevent that percieved
"vacuum" that you'd hear if it was mastered with total separation.