| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo vs. surround
Hi:
Maybe this question was answered a lot of times in this group, but I'm new on it. Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? what additional features do the surround add to the stereo? if there are several audio sources (5.1 in a modern surround system) but only 2 ears, how can the human brain qualify as better the surround audio? best regards eto |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Hi: Maybe this question was answered a lot of times in this group, but I'm new on it. Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? Because in a real musical performance, the sound isn't just coming from two directions; it's coming from many directions as it bounces off walls, ceilings, floors, and audiences. By having more speakers, we can better simulate the sound as it was in the original hall (or in the space the recording engineer attempted to simulate). Also, having an odd number of speakers up front is supposed to help with localization of voices, but somebody else is going to have to explain that to you. By the way, the reason 2-channel became dominant has nothing to do with the fact that we have two ears. It's just that back at the dawn of stereo, nobody had a practical way to get more than two tracks into a record groove. It was just a technical compromise at the time. (There were already recordings with more than two channels.) i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? Depends on how good a simulation you want. what additional features do the surround add to the stereo? A greater sense of the original ambience of the performance. if there are several audio sources (5.1 in a modern surround system) but only 2 ears, how can the human brain qualify as better the surround audio? Um, have you ever listened to a trio? How did you do it? :-) bob |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? There is a white paper on that subject at: http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=120 http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt1.pdf Part One:How many loudspeakers? What kind? Where? By Dr. Floyd E. Toole Vice President Acoustical Engineering Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
First, we have to address how your question was phrased. It assumes
that one is better than the other and asks only for confirming evidence. There is not agreement that one system is better than another and certainly not in a general sense and not with the limitation of only two options such as 2ch Vs 5.1ch. In other words, to get a straightforward response, the question should be "What is considered better, 2ch or 3 or more ch sound?" Even with that non-directive line, there are still a lot of ways to answer the question that could be correct or just opinions as it is a complex problem. You don't suggest any type of recording that is being reproduced and that is a critical part of the equation as the recording method will determine the playback method. One is basically the other in reverse, although some will ague that point as well as it is obviously possible to playback recordings on any system with some signal manipulation. Also you don't say whether you are asking about a music event or a movie soundtrack, which would be a more 3 dimensional experience for instance. Now, any number greater than 1 channel can produce ambience or spacial effect and really even one channel could do some in a single direction (depth) with some phase manipulation. Basically, in a 3 dimensional space, sound is not limited to any number of channels, but rather they are infinate. That does not necessarily mean that an infinate number of channels is the only way to reproduce it or that it is even best, but it may give us something to work with. In an attempt to create such a "surround" field as a 3D space, engineers have developed multi-channel recordings and played them back on multi-channel systems. When all else remains the same, that does increase dynamic range and power, which in a smaller system is limited in relation to the original event. Which brings us to another issue; all else does not always remain the same. Other variables that effect quality can be added to or left out of systems and so it is easy for an excellent 2ch system to outperform a poor 5.1ch system. It does require you to face the 2ch system and have it arranged in a way that is balanced for you body's bilateral symmetry. In a multi-channel system, you can rotate in the field as the sound eminates from all (or an aproximation) points around. These scenarios however are limited by what I initially alluded to in that the stereo system must be reproducing a true stereo recording and the multi-channel system must be reproducing a true multi-channel recording, both done in real time and in reals space to make it work. Typically however, recordings are mixed so that the channels do not always represent specific directions and the sound field is diminished or destroyed. It is also possible to construct a soundfield that did not actually exist by electronic manipulation of a recording. So what do we prefer? I like to listen to my stereo recordings on my stereo system. I also enjoy listening to soundtracks on the same stereo when I watch movies. I do enjoy the surround sound systems that we have here on demo at our showroom, but I don't feel a pressing need to have that in my home for movies. I find it to be equally entertaining and it can be more exciting for movies which are recorded in true discrete surround, but it is disconcerting for stereo music. I also don't bother with multi-channel music recordings as it is more of a novelty due to the limited selections and I choose music based on its artistic value and not on its technology. So I am not going to buy a recording because someone says that it is recorded well in multi-channel if I would not buy it in stereo for its musical qualities. That may be a rather lengthy synopsis, but it is far from complete and so full of holes, the subject being far to great to address by a simple answer. Had you asked a single and a simple question such as "Do you prefer stereo for general use?" I could have simply said, "Yes". -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 wrote in message ... Hi: Maybe this question was answered a lot of times in this group, but I'm new on it. Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? what additional features do the surround add to the stereo? if there are several audio sources (5.1 in a modern surround system) but only 2 ears, how can the human brain qualify as better the surround audio? best regards eto |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
wrote: Hi: Maybe this question was answered a lot of times in this group, but I'm new on it. Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? Because in a real musical performance, the sound isn't just coming from two directions; it's coming from many directions as it bounces off walls, ceilings, floors, and audiences. By having more speakers, we can better simulate the sound as it was in the original hall (or in the space the recording engineer attempted to simulate). Also, having an odd number of speakers up front is supposed to help with localization of voices, but somebody else is going to have to explain that to you. By the way, the reason 2-channel became dominant has nothing to do with the fact that we have two ears. It's just that back at the dawn of stereo, nobody had a practical way to get more than two tracks into a record groove. It was just a technical compromise at the time. (There were already recordings with more than two channels.) i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? Depends on how good a simulation you want. what additional features do the surround add to the stereo? A greater sense of the original ambience of the performance. Well just think about this one: if your 2 channel system gives problematic sound, standing waves etc. your 5.1, 6.1 channel system may magnify your troubles by a factor of 3. Any listening room is going to give a surround sound of its own, on top of that provided by any recording, 2 CH (isn't that why there are those room treatments) or MC. It may get confusing with MC, whether it was put down on the master, rarely, or arrived at by the engineers, what works in their set-up is more than likely not to work the same way in yours. I like my dedicated listening room as is; having used my Tympanis there without moving them an inch for over 13 years, it has become as comfortable as a worn shoe and the room boundaries provide its own surround sound. I can't see changing that set up at all. I have a MC HT room elsewhere in my house and it's *fun* listening to it in the case of traffic, moving aircraft, 1812s and gun blasts (all too common IMO plus damaging to my hearing), but it has to stink for Beethoven's Ninth. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 22:56:57 GMT, wrote: Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? Because your ears let you hear sounds from all around you, not just from two sources in the front. i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? No. All real musical events are heard in the context of the acoustics of the performing space. You cannot reproduce that space with only two sources. This is key . Obviously, even in room using a two-channel system, there's sound coming at you from all around, due to reflections. A multichannel system allows you to better reproduce the 'surround' aspects of a *different* room (the real one the recording was made in, or an 'unreal' one concocted in the studio). |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
wrote in message ... Well just think about this one: if your 2 channel system gives problematic sound, standing waves etc. your 5.1, 6.1 channel system may magnify your troubles by a factor of 3. Any listening room is going to give a surround sound of its own, on top of that provided by any recording, 2 CH (isn't that why there are those room treatments) or MC. It may get confusing with MC, whether it was put down on the master, rarely, or arrived at by the engineers, what works in their set-up is more than likely not to work the same way in yours. I like my dedicated listening room as is; having used my Tympanis there without moving them an inch for over 13 years, it has become as comfortable as a worn shoe and the room boundaries provide its own surround sound. I can't see changing that set up at all. I have a MC HT room elsewhere in my house and it's *fun* listening to it in the case of traffic, moving aircraft, 1812s and gun blasts (all too common IMO plus damaging to my hearing), but it has to stink for Beethoven's Ninth. It might, but it certainly doesn't *have* to. The Fifth sounds mighty fine to me in mine, for example -- the source being DG's surround remaster of the famous Carlos Kleiber-conducted version. The 'surround' channels of this one are for ambience. -- -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. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote: This is the one question everyone has gotten wrong so far. The answer is yes, it is *possible* in theory. Your instincts on this one are completely right. In theory you only need one channel for each ear to reproduce natural 3D sound. The problem is no one has *actually done it* successfully. It would have to be some sort of binaural system done with headphones of some sort so as to completely control the input to each ear. While current binaural systems are quite convincing with rear imaging, for some reason they aren't as convincing with images infront of the listener. But the human brain only gets two signals from the ears so in theory you are dead on. You only need two channels. The fact that we move our heads in real life while listening is one of a few reasons why this is not an easy thing to do in practical application. Consider what would be involved in compensating for that. No, nobody "got it wrong." We are talking about field-type systems, namely stereo and surround. There is no point in telling us that binaural can do it with only two channels. Different subject. Not at all. The original question was... "Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better th=ADan stereo if the human ears are just two?" Perhaps you do not consider binaural recordings played over headphones to be stereo. I do. I said first thing in my post that stereo doesn't work by drilling the sound from two speakers into your ears. Please go back and re-read it. You put that limitation on *stereo* not me, not the original poster. No such exclusion was made in the question that he asked. The bottom line of the question as I read it was why do we need more than two sound sources when we have two ears? Answer is we don't really. Scott Wheeler |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Feb 2005 00:03:48 GMT, Michael
wrote: It doesn’t sound better. That's entirely subjective but it does have the potential to be more accurate than stereo. When you are at a venue, regardless of how many speakers are placed around you, the end result of the sound is affected by the dynamics of the situation: the amount of people roaring, the dimensions of the room, the number of seats in front of you, etc. As a result, the old designers of audio knew something that the scientific community did not comprehend: regardless of how many tracks one has, recorded sound can never reproduce the reality. Instead of trying to replicate the sound through the use of infinite tracks, the mastering process of recoded sound became such that it was primarily concerned with the purity of the sound. That is to say, removing impairing noises from the recorded sound. You are ascribing too much to the cogitation of "the old designers of audio" who worked with the technology they had available. With limited technology, focussing in on clean sound and removal of noise was wise. However, times change. What we are concerned with is having the purest sound and not reproducing the exact dynamics of a particular venue. When one starts throwing in numerous tracks to reproduce the reality of the venue, they would be making a film: that is to say, adding effects that have no affect other than they sound powerful. if that were the practice today, we’d be left with hollywoodish recorded audio that was full of lackluster effects that adds absolutely nothing to the originality of the recording. Excuse me but that's nonsense. If you are talking only about tricks and effects, perhaps. If you are adding additional useful and understandable information in the form of real directional information it helps the perception and makes it easier to hear and comprehend. If you want an example of which is better, check out Mondi’s “Advanced Remote” DVD, then compare it to any of the stereo releases--it suffers the same fate as “The (that really annoys me) Dark Side of the Moon” SACD. The end result will be the proof: the stereo release sounds more “real” than multichannel audio release. Two entirely synthetic experiences with little relationship to real-world acoustics. The differences are due to the skills of the producers, regardless of the number of channels. In the end, it is entirely up to personal preference. In some cases. Kal |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael wrote:
Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo? eto It doesn=92t sound better. When you are at a venue, regardless of how many speakers are placed around you, the end result of the sound is affected by the dynamics of the situation: the amount of people roaring, the dimensions of the room, the number of seats in front of you, etc. As a result, the old designers of audio knew something that the scientific community did not comprehend: regardless of how many tracks one has, recorded sound can never reproduce the reality. Instead of trying to replicate the sound through the use of infinite tracks, the mastering process of recoded sound became such that it was primarily concerned with the purity of the sound. That is to say, removing impairing noises from the recorded sound. What we are concerned with is having the purest sound and not reproducing the exact dynamics of a particular venue. When one starts throwing in numerous tracks to reproduce the reality of the venue, they would be making a film: that is to say, adding effects that have no affect other than they sound powerful. if that were the practice today, we=92d be left with hollywoodish recorded audio that was full of lackluster effects that adds absolutely nothing to the originality of the recording. If you want an example of which is better, check out Mondi=92s =93Advan= ced Remote=94 DVD, then compare it to any of the stereo releases--it suffer= s the same fate as =93The (that really annoys me) Dark Side of the Moon=94 SACD. The end result will be the proof: the stereo release sounds more =93real=94 than multichannel audio release. In the end, it is entirely up to personal preference. Yours truly, Michael I agree, it doesn't sound better. It could probably sound more "3d", if t= he=20 recording were made in a proper way. Now 95% of the rcordings I have are=20 just 2-channel normal CDs. So whatever setting I choose(programs and dela= ys)=20 on my Yamaha AV amp, it sounds only worse with the surround on. Even the=20 center speaker in my setup will disturb the stereo space, I listen to mov= ies=20 with the "phantom" setting. A center speaker is IMHO only useful with peo= ple=20 on random positions not in the sweet spot. But even then, our attention is drawn by the screen and although if we ar= e=20 closer to one speaker, our brain puts the dialogues right where the actor= on=20 the screen is. And that is the fundamental difference. when you watch a movie, your=20 attention is focused on the picture, you are not even aware of the sound = (if=20 it is done correctly). But listening to CDs, I have my eyes closed and all my attention is focus= ed=20 on the hearing. I also have the Pink Floyd SACD and prefer the 2-channel=20 version. The surround seems "overdone", too much effect. It is impressing= in=20 the beginning, but then annoying, as you write. I am sure a proper recording will sound more realistic, but that one has=20 still to come IMHO. --=20 ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy=20 |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've listened to mainly a 7.1 home theater setup up for the past two
years. The best DVD player I could afford also decodes DVD audio, so I wired that up and I've bought 15 or 16 DTS and DVD audio DVDs. Most of the time though, when I listen to music, I listen to old cds. My reciever is a B&K 306 and I can easily switch between eight and two speakers or any combination in between. I've found that what works, what I like to listen to all depends on the mix. My old stereo cds sound best with just the front two speakers. I do have some DVD audio disks that I like to listen to but some of them are quite distracting. I have a remix of the Grateful Dead's "Workingman's Dead" and it's almost silly. The sound is much crisper than the original record or cd, the separation much cleaner but perhaps because I've listen to the two channel mix so often, I find the six channel mix to be quite disconcerting. The instruments sound great but they are all around me. OK, so I'm sitting on the stage with the Grateful Dead, I can get used to that but their voices sound like they are coming from the next room, which in my house is a bathroom. I remember yelling to my wife, "Come here, you have to hear this, the Grateful Dead are singing in our bathroom." Some studio multichannel recordings really do work, though, like Alan Parson's "On Air" recorded with DTS. He's got airplanes taking off, insturments here, instuments there and it works, it's great. I also have some live DVDs, like the Band's "Last Waltz" and the Eagle's "Hell Freezes Over" that work because the mix engineers only used the surround channels for ambient sound. Those two DVDs are wonderful, talk about being there! So, overall, I would have to say multichannel CAN sound a lot better than stereo but that it quite often doesn't and indeed, a lot of that is personal preferance. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , wrote:
Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? What you hear is the product of all the transfer functions between the performers and you - concert hall or recording studio, microphones, mixing/equalization, recording equipment, playback electronics, speakers, room, and your head. The shape of your head and ears (head related transfer function) mean you hear different frequencies from sounds coming in different directions. Timing between signals also determines how you hear them. To get a full soundfield with the right frequency and time relationships you'd need to put the recording microphones in an artificial head which created the same frequency response differences for sounds coming from various directions. This doesn't work with two speakers in a room because with typical speakers in typical rooms being more than 2.5' from a speaker means you're picking up more room reflections than direct sound including big peaks where you hit a room resonance. You don't get anything like the same sound from the same directions you'd get at a live concert. You'd also like to share the experience with friends which furthur complicates things. When you add more speakers you pick up more direct sound from the right directions. Since you're no longer depending on the room to create some semblance of the concert hall it can be relatively dead so you get even less reverberant sound. 7 channels is definately insufficient for this purposes. Some people have suggested that 12 plaback channels are enough (Holman, Griesinger) for higher frequencies plus two for sub bass. David Griesinger has said that matrix encoding these across 5 recorded channels is enough. i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? Sure. You just need to record using microphones in an artificial head and listen with headphones. -- a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
In some cases. Kal In all cases, it's a matter of personal preference. This very hobby, audio, is entirely up to personal preference. The age old debate of this sounds better or does not--just like we are doing right here--is entirely up to personal interpretation. Regardless of what you say or what I say, we are still going to have our personal opinions on the subject. My explanation is limited to how I view the present situation of stereo versus surround sound, just as yours is also confined to how you currently view the situation. Everybody needs different levels of proof in order to accept something as fact--and for some people, it doesn't matter what level of proof they receive, because it wont change their outlook. Everything in life is subjective, friend. Now, let’s get back to the main debate: surround versus stereo. The designers of old most certainly did have more than stereo at their disposal, but they chose to go with stereo for the very reasons I listed. I say this from personal knowledge, friend, as I knew one of Sansui’s original stereo engineers of the 1950s, Mr. Chan Moi. He disclosed to me that at Sansui and throughout the rest of the world, they--audio engineers--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. As such, we have our current spectrum of stereo sound. He also told me that they chose stereo, because of the real world tests they received across entire demographics of people and due in large part to some sort of physics equation. Now, I am not one to use math to prove personal preferences and I’m not claiming that Sansui invented stereo in any way, but at Sansui, it was the backbone of their stereo audio division. It doesn’t matter if you have two tracks or a thousand, because the “reality” one wants to hear is how the sound was originally affected by the dynamics of the venue. Surround sound was purposefully missed, friend, because it’s improper and does not accomplish what one’s reason would tell them. Those two speakers in my bedroom function just as they would if they were part of a concert; and my room is modulating the sound of whatever music I play, just as the venue’s building would. The difference is not the number of speakers or tracks that contribute to the “reality” of the sound--it’s the physical attributes of the particular venue. Now, in terms of movies, surround does have the leg up on stereo, because the current crop of action-intense movies try to simulate the viewer into the movie. For instance, it tries to recreate the cars passing behind the viewer, the bullets speeding past the viewer’s head, etc. In other words, with movies, the key concern is depth--movement--and stereo has a hard time creating a surround sound, because it only has two channels for which to represent movement--a sound moves from one speaker to the next and vice versa, or plays on both of the speakers. When listening to a band live, one does not have cars passing by their heads or planes flying overhead, so the point is moot. In a true live concert--such as that of an orchestra--the pieces are in front of the viewer and they will stay there for the duration of the concert. It would be stupid to try and “spice up the recording” by throwing in surround sound, so that the violinist was really playing behind you, instead of playing in front of you--that would be tampering with the originality of the venue. To drive the point further, for most concerts--I wouldn’t dare say all of the concerts--musicians are in three positions: in front of you, to the left of you, or to the right of you--and that is exactly how the stereo technology functions. The actual distance from you to the musician is also a factor, but even mono compensates for that. That, my dear friend, is exactly what the problem with surround sound and music is: in all of the venues I’ve been to, I’ve never had a musician play behind me and in front of me--they just don’t operate like that. Now, certainly, in reality, sound is multidirectional, but so is it when it leaves one’s speakers--meaning, speakers automatically output “multidimensional sound”, which is then modulated through the dynamics of a room. In a venue, what one is really hearing is how the room and its attributes are modulating the sound. This “exact modulation” can never be reproduced, regardless of how many tracks or speakers on uses, because on would need the exact physical characteristics of the room to reproduce such a sound. Back to my “true original point”, instead of stereo being concerned with representing the physical attributes of a room--which is truly impossible--its main concern is with representing the purest recorded sound possible--stereo is technology that is concerned with the best possible quality. Stereo tries to remove all of the impairing sounds from a recording, and in doing so, it presents the “cleanest and purest” version of the recorded sound. I dare anyone to try and make a better sounding surround sound recording than its stereo counterpart. You may love surround sound, and if so, my hat is off to you. The problem with this is--and I’m not saying this problem applies to your specific opinion--is that more often than not, people do not truly understand what a medium is trying to do and why it is trying to do it--and yes, I consider stereo to be a true medium, and not just some technology. Instead of understanding why it was done in a certain way, most people like to disregard it, and toss the “old technology” aside. In the case of stereo versus surround, I think the main thing that is hurting stereo is the lack of high fidelity interests throughout the world, which has forced the corporations to move onto the “next thing”. I do believe that the music industry is not so stupid to jump ship with them. At present, in the entertainment industry, music and movies tend to operate on separate hemispheres, so hopefully the division bell will last a lot longer: stereo will remain supreme, which is how things are and should remain. Yours truly, Michael |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote: In some cases. Kal In all cases, it's a matter of personal preference. This very hobby, audio, is entirely up to personal preference. The age old debate of this sounds better or does not--just like we are doing right here--is entirely up to personal interpretation. Regardless of what you say or what I say, we are still going to have our personal opinions on the subject. My explanation is limited to how I view the present situation of stereo versus surround sound, just as yours is also confined to how you currently view the situation. Everybody needs different levels of proof in order to accept something as fact--and for some people, it doesn't matter what level of proof they receive, because it wont change their outlook. Everything in life is subjective, friend. 2 + 2 may or may not = 4, you know. Ohm's law? Subjective, my friend, merely subjective. Heliocentrc solar system? Well, some believe so, but who's to say? "Everything in life is subjective." Except that, I guess. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Michael writes: =20 I say this from personal knowledge, friend, as I knew one of Sansui=92s= =20 original stereo engineers of the 1950s, Mr. Chan Moi. He disclosed to=20 me that at Sansui and throughout the rest of the world, they--audio=20 engineers--purposefully designed stereo to present the cleanest example= =20 of the music, and not to try and attempt the =93realization=94 of it--t= hat=20 is to say, to not go with surround sound. As such, we have our current= =20 spectrum of stereo sound. He also told me that they chose stereo,=20 because of the real world tests they received across entire demographic= s=20 of people and due in large part to some sort of physics equation. Now,= =20 I am not one to use math to prove personal preferences and I=92m not=20 claiming that Sansui invented stereo in any way, but at Sansui, it was=20 the backbone of their stereo audio division. Then would you please explain why my father's circa 1966 Sansui solid state receiver had a built in center channel decoder? If I remember correctly the owner's manual even described how a much better sound experience could be had by connecting a mono amp and speaker to the center channel line level output. I would also think that the main reason for just 2 channels is that the main audio reproduction system was LPs and that putting more than 2 channels on an LP was a difficult undertaking in the 1950s. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Feb 2005 00:21:19 GMT, Michael
wrote: In all cases, it's a matter of personal preference. Enjoyment certainly is. More than that I will not grant. Now, let’s get back to the main debate: surround versus stereo. The designers of old most certainly did have more than stereo at their disposal, but they chose to go with stereo for the very reasons I listed. Again, not economically feasible in a mass-distributed medium until recently. snip Surround sound was purposefully missed, friend, because it’s improper and does not accomplish what one’s reason would tell them. Those two speakers in my bedroom function just as they would if they were part of a concert; and my room is modulating the sound of whatever music I play, just as the venue’s building would. The difference is not the number of speakers or tracks that contribute to the “reality” of the sound--it’s the physical attributes of the particular venue. Here is the nub of the issue. Your room does not "modulate" or otherwise influence the music in any way as the original venue would simply because they are entirely different in physical and acoustic parameters. Now, if you want to listen to anechoic recordings and say that playing them makes it seem as if the musicians are in your room, that is a logically valid approach. But, if you want to hear the musicians as they sounded in the original venue, then you must convey the acoustics of the original venue. Now, in terms of movies, surround does have the leg up on stereo, because the current crop of action-intense movies try to simulate the viewer into the movie. For instance, it tries to recreate the cars passing behind the viewer, the bullets speeding past the viewer’s head, etc. In other words, with movies, the key concern is depth--movement--and stereo has a hard time creating a surround sound, because it only has two channels for which to represent movement--a sound moves from one speaker to the next and vice versa, or plays on both of the speakers. Well, how true! snip That, my dear friend, is exactly what the problem with surround sound and music is: in all of the venues I’ve been to, I’ve never had a musician play behind me and in front of me--they just don’t operate like that. Now, certainly, in reality, sound is multidirectional, but so is it when it leaves one’s speakers--meaning, speakers automatically output “multidimensional sound”, which is then modulated through the dynamics of a room. Vide supra. In a venue, what one is really hearing is how the room and its attributes are modulating the sound. This “exact modulation” can never be reproduced, regardless of how many tracks or speakers on uses, because on would need the exact physical characteristics of the room to reproduce such a sound. This has, in fact, been achieved quite successfully, if not yet consistently, despite your denials. Back to my “true original point”, instead of stereo being concerned with representing the physical attributes of a room--which is truly impossible--its main concern is with representing the purest recorded sound possible--stereo is technology that is concerned with the best possible quality. Stereo tries to remove all of the impairing sounds from a recording, and in doing so, it presents the “cleanest and purest” version of the recorded sound. I dare anyone to try and make a better sounding surround sound recording than its stereo counterpart. Again, this has been done. There's no reason that any of the 5-6 channels need be in any way inferior in any quality to what is contained on the 2 channels of stereo. You may love surround sound, and if so, my hat is off to you. I love good sound and the better it is, the more I love it. Just as stereo adds a dimension of the real event not conveyed by mono recordings, so, too, does multichannel further convey added dimensions. I do not care for the term "surround" since it includes various and sundry synthetic processes. snip In the case of stereo versus surround, I think the main thing that is hurting stereo is the lack of high fidelity interests throughout the world, which has forced the corporations to move onto the “next thing”. I do believe that the music industry is not so stupid to jump ship with them. The incoherence of the music industry is apparent. They will do whatever they see as profitable and high quality recordings, of any format, will always take a backseat to that. At present, in the entertainment industry, music and movies tend to operate on separate hemispheres, so hopefully the division bell will last a lot longer: stereo will remain supreme, which is how things are and should remain. I doubt that the separation exists any longer given the mergers of all the major providers. Nonetheless, stereo will survive primarily because the mass market really has no concern for quality and would rather listen to compressed MP3s via cheap earbuds. Those of us who care about the quality of music reproduction, regardless of the number of channels, occupy an increasingly small niche. Kal |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael wrote:
When listening to a band live, one does not have cars passing by their heads or planes flying overhead, so the point is moot. In a true live concert--such as that of an orchestra--the pieces are in front of the viewer and they will stay there for the duration of the concert. It would be stupid to try and "spice up the recording" by throwing in surround sound, so that the violinist was really playing behind you, instead of playing in front of you--that would be tampering with the originality of the venue. To drive the point further, for most concerts--I wouldn't dare say all of the concerts--musicians are in three positions: in front of you, to the left of you, or to the right of you--and that is exactly how the stereo technology functions. The actual distance from you to the musician is also a factor, but even mono compensates for that. I was thoroughly turned off by the quad experiment in the 70s, but after being an anti multi channel, two channel guy, I now believe the time for multi-channel has arrived. Not that it will be a financial success for the industry (high end surround will probably never reach the masses, especially since two channel high end never did), but instead I believe that the technology is in place to make surround work and more importantly that that labels and sound engineers are better trained or experienced to harness and make the technology work to bring a significant improvement over two channel sound. If it only rises to a level of being only a niche market, but hangs around a while, so be it. If the technology works and enough good music is recorded in the format, I want in. Using primarily Telarc two channel classical recordings as a reference, I found multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal extension of two-channel; like vastly improved two channel. In most of the recordings I have listened to, the soundstage was wider, deeper, and taller, without any hint (in most cases) that you were listening to more than two speakers. In fact, it is more like listening to no speakers at all. That's right, good multi-channel is more like "no-channel", when compared to even an excellent two-channel presentation. Done correctly, it can be that seamless. In other words, multi-channel done correctly sounds like what stereo has been futilely trying to accomplish all these years, but has been only partly able to achieve. This is why when an audiophile states, "I don't like multi-channel", I conclude that they have never experienced the technology correctly implemented. If you like good two-channel, you will *love* good multi-channel. I am tempted to call it "small-hall realism". I am reluctant to say that because that type of comparison is bandied about all the time. I remember my father showing me of a review of the old AR1 from the 50s or early 60s. The reviewer made a similar "small hall realism" comparison when talking about the AR1. Have you ever heard the AR1? Well, I have not. But I heard the more advanced AR3a and in my mind they could *never* simulate "small-hall realism". Ask yourself the question, is recorded two-channel as close to a live experience than is possible? If you believe that to be the case, then yes multi-channel is a silly idea. But if you believe like I do that there still remains a serious gap between recorded and live music then multi-channel, I believe, is a requisite. My personal experience is that the best two-channel falls far short of the best multi-channel that I have auditioned. Again, I have found that the best multi-channel I have heard sounds like great two-channel, only far far better. A good two-channel system, will rarely tip itself off that it is, in fact, two channels. The same holds for good multi-channel (software and hardware). Which is why I have opined that if you prefer two channels that you will prefer good multi-channel even more. It sounds like better two-channel that you have experienced not like "multi-channel" or "surround". To put it another way, if you listen to an optimally recorded two-channel recording through two good speakers in a good room, and then listen to that same recording that was also optimally recorded in multi-channel, through 5 speakers (same model as the stereo speakers) I cannot fathom why most audiophiles or music lovers would prefer the two-channel version. This goes beyond taste or what one is "use to" because the multi-channel version will sound very much like the two-channel, except that it will sound less like a recording and more like a live performance! I do believe that when we are talking about previously recorded two-channel music, it can be a slippery slope to start turning them into multi-channel recordings. Although keep in mind that hundreds of major releases (so I understand) of MC recordings were made during the 70s and 80s that we enjoyed as two channel releases but never saw the light of day as multi-channel. These recordings done in multi-channel presumably would be more in keeping with "the remixing/reinterpretation of the original material". In fact, in those circumstances, we may have *never* heard these recordings as they were intended, such as, perhaps, the Isley Brothers "3+3" until multi-channel rode to the rescue or the RCA Living Stereo three-channel recordings. This addresses the argument often cited that multi-channel goes against the "original intent" of the artists and engineers. This is not neccesarily true for hundreds of old recordings. Likewise, a rapidly growing number of new recordings, even those you may have recntly purchased on CD, you may be (you probably are) missing out on what the artist and the recording has to offer. Reading industry magazines, such as "Billboard" and listening to artist interviews, it has become apparent to me that many artists are taking to multi-channel like a duck to water. Keep in mind that at its advent two-channel was viewed to actually be a step *backward* by many music lovers. And it's completely understandably why. Many of those early stereo recordings were afflicted with the "ping pong" malady and worse. The music was often disfigured. But it was slowly perfected to the point where it earned the status of being a quantum leap forward over mono. And so too has multi-channel suffered at its incarnation with examples of over engineering and tawdry tastes or poor implementation(such as, perhaps the recording I believe you heard with the violinist playing behind you). But multi-channel too is getting better and in time I believe it will be seen as an important leap forward. (But going two-channel to multi-channel is probably not as big a leap as going from mono to two-channel). Many excellent multi-channel recordings, that *far* outstrip their two-channel counterparts, already exists. Robert C. Lang |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Feb 2005 00:21:19 GMT, Michael
wrote: Now, let’s get back to the main debate: surround versus stereo. The designers of old most certainly did have more than stereo at their disposal, but they chose to go with stereo for the very reasons I listed. But we have to take into consideration that multichannel transmission was very cumbersome before wideband digital media was avaliable. Two cahnnels were a lot easier and cheaper. In these days, power is cheap, digital channels come by the dozen and speakers are good. I don't think it is as simple as they choose two chnnels because it was better, I think they went by it because it was viable! Wasn't Sansui part of the Quadraphonic movement, by the way? Surround sound was purposefully missed, friend, because it’s improper and does not accomplish what one’s reason would tell them. Those two speakers in my bedroom function just as they would if they were part of a concert; and my room is modulating the sound of whatever music I play, just as the venue’s building would. That is true *if* you wan't the musicians moved into your bedroom! Most music lovers, including me, wants to be moved to concert hall, not vice versa! For this, more channels are better than fewer. Now, in terms of movies, surround does have the leg up on stereo, because the current crop of action-intense movies try to simulate the viewer into the movie. For instance, it tries to recreate the cars passing behind the viewer, the bullets speeding past the viewer’s head, etc. In other words, with movies, the key concern is depth--movement--and stereo has a hard time creating a surround sound, because it only has two channels for which to represent movement--a sound moves from one speaker to the next and vice versa, or plays on both of the speakers. When listening to a band live, one does not have cars passing by their heads or planes flying overhead, so the point is moot. Not if you want the live performance, it isn't! Two channels may be enough, if you record nearmiking in a club, and playback in the same club. But that is not what is typically happening, is it? It would be stupid to try and “spice up the recording” by throwing in surround sound, so that the violinist was really playing behind you, It would not be Hi-Fi, but I can be great fun! That, my dear friend, is exactly what the problem with surround sound and music is: in all of the venues I’ve been to, I’ve never had a musician play behind me and in front of me--they just don’t operate like that. But all sound that *Is* coming from the back in a concert hall, why throw that away? Why do you think concert halls are not acoustically dead? Because you want sound to get around, that's why. And you will get sound coming to you from behind, even without helicopters. Now, certainly, in reality, sound is multidirectional, but so is it when it leaves one’s speakers--meaning, speakers automatically output “multidimensional sound”, Yes, but is with the acoustics of your bedroom, not the concert hall... Multichannel is nearly always better than stereo, in my opinion. Per. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
]Hi:
Maybe this question was answered a lot of times in this group, but I'm new on it. Could someone explain me why is the surround sound better than stereo if the human ears are just two? i.e., is it not possible to simulate real world sound using just two audio sources? what additional features do the surround add to the stereo? if there are several audio sources (5.1 in a modern surround system) but only 2 ears, how can the human brain qualify as better the surround audio? best regards please sir see my site and the new psicoacustic high resolution surround the delay increase the deep of sound ,not the reverberete effect and the music is more detailed HIgh definition effect for two or four Channel , |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
"The Last Waltz" DVD-A didn't take me there. And that's another thing I don't like about many multichannel (you know that the de-facto multichannel format always has been Dolby Digital) video performances is the frenetic camera work. It is true that the image of the concert space, the high ceilings, the pillars, the apparent distance, the windows, etc) makes for a better representation of being at the concert (seeing the space helps), the un-real camera work with way too many close-ups, and camera angles that no attendee could ever see is often more distraction than anything else. True for me this evening,watching the Criterion DVD of 'Gimme Shelter' ; I preferred the mostly static-camera outtakes of 'Little Queenie' and 'Prodigal Son' to the 'official' performance segments, even thought the picture quality was vastly better on the latter. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 3 Feb 2005 00:21:19 GMT, Michael wrote: ...snips.... At present, in the entertainment industry, music and movies tend to operate on separate hemispheres, so hopefully the division bell will last a lot longer: stereo will remain supreme, which is how things are and should remain. I doubt that the separation exists any longer given the mergers of all the major providers. Nonetheless, stereo will survive primarily because the mass market really has no concern for quality and would rather listen to compressed MP3s via cheap earbuds. Those of us who care about the quality of music reproduction, regardless of the number of channels, occupy an increasingly small niche. Kal Actually with regard to reproduction formats it's easy to forget that stereo DID NOT unilaterally and universally REPLACE mono. We still listen to mono everyday on newcasts, sports, talk radio, etc. The difference is that mono today is much better than in was before and after stereo. Stereo will remain here, in a practical sense, forever. True, but just as mono is a subset that can play on stereo equipment (as well as on its own mono-capable-only devices), so too stereo can exist as a subset of multichannel while continuing to be listenable on stereo-capable-only devices. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 4 Feb 2005 03:59:44 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Actually with regard to reproduction formats it's easy to forget that stereo DID NOT unilaterally and universally REPLACE mono. We still listen to mono everyday on newcasts, sports, talk radio, etc. The difference is that mono today is much better than in was before and after stereo. Yes but mono is no longer in general use for music and music reproduction is what we were talking about. Stereo will remain here, in a practical sense, forever. Sure, just like mono. The L/R RCA inputs of at least one of my devices indicate using the L CH input for a mono source, e.g. my analog cable box, which is then distributed to both channels. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Feb 2005 21:52:42 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 4 Feb 2005 03:59:44 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stereo will remain here, in a practical sense, forever. Sure, just like mono. The L/R RCA inputs of at least one of my devices indicate using the L CH input for a mono source, e.g. my analog cable box, which is then distributed to both channels. QED. ;-) Kal |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 4 Feb 2005 21:52:42 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 4 Feb 2005 03:59:44 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stereo will remain here, in a practical sense, forever. Sure, just like mono. The L/R RCA inputs of at least one of my devices indicate using the L CH input for a mono source, e.g. my analog cable box, which is then distributed to both channels. QED. ;-) HQD :-( |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. If you would have purchased one of their high end receivers, you would notice that they are not wired for center channels. I thought this was more than clear in my last post. Hope this clears that up, Michael |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| STEREO: Scam of the Century? | Tech | |||
| Stereo: Scam of the Century? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Extracting surround sound from a stereo recording | Pro Audio | |||
| Story of the poor car stereo | Car Audio | |||
| Does Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround mean it's in stereo? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
