Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio
rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? Blu-ray Dolby TrueHD offers 7.1 discrete channels, Dolby Pro-Logic IIz offers 9.1 channels (some decoded, not discrete). Some say that 4 full range speakers arranged in a square with each speaker pointing at the listener (in the middle) is the best way to convey an accurate soundfield. (from http://www.quadraphonicquad.com discussion with Louis Dorren, inventor of the USA Quad FM standard) It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD (maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers. ~~~ Kirk Bayne alt.video.digital-tv Home Page http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"K. B." wrote in message
... I'm more interested in the objective side of audio rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? With large enough a room you can do it with two channels, but with a normal home room in which you want to reproduce a semblance of another acoustic space, I would say 5.1 is a minimum. Gary Eickmeier |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Monday, October 28, 2013 5:28:50 AM UTC-7, K. B. wrote:
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio rather than the subjective side. How many (discrete) channels are needed for accurate soundfield reproduction with speakers? Blu-ray Dolby TrueHD offers 7.1 discrete channels, Dolby Pro-Logic IIz offers 9.1 channels (some decoded, not discrete). Some say that 4 full range speakers arranged in a square with each speaker pointing at the listener (in the middle) is the best way to convey an accurate soundfield. (from http://www.quadraphonicquad.com discussion with Louis Dorren, inventor of the USA Quad FM standard) It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD (maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers. ~~~ Kirk Bayne alt.video.digital-tv Home Page http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed for cinema sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I don't think that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're probably talking an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How many seems to be a matter for much speculation. I've never heard it done properly, but I've read that the Ambisonics system comes closest to the approximation of a proper sound field reproduction for music than does any system tried thus far. I lived through the quadraphonic "craze" of the 1970's and I must tell you that even when everything was working perfectly (read that as being with 4-channel reel-to-reel tape) I was underwhelmed. Just getting two channels correct is difficult enough, and while such surround systems as Ray Kimber's IsoMike technique is interesting, I do not find it any more realistic sounding than any other multiple channel "surround" scheme. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space.
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:49:36 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Even with infinite channels you can't do it. You still need the same exact room boundaries and they need to be made of the same materials so the reflective and absorptive properties are the same. You also need the same interior setting with the actual musicians doing their own absorbing, reflecting and diffusing. Then you need all acoustic output devices to have the same exact radiation patterns as the musical instruments they are reproducing. Bottom line is you can't do it and there is no point in trying. Maybe if we ever get Star Trek holodeck technology. And I haven't even mentioned how impossible it is to record the data of an original sound field. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: =20 You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to= accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. =20 Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original= sound field, one would need an =20 infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conc= lusion back in the 1930's. =20 =20 =20 Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have=20 =20 to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? =20 =20 =20 Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. =20 =20 =20 --- =20 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus prot= ection is active. =20 http://www.avast.com You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduct= ion haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used t= o capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's wh= o came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
On 11/1/2013 5:40 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2013 6:34:51 AM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote: On 10/31/2013 6:49 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can not accurately reproduce an original sound field other than to accurately reproduce the original event in the original space. Isn't that sort of like saying that in order to "reproduce" an original sound field, one would need an infinite number of channels? I believe that Bell Labs came to that conclusion back in the 1930's. Bell Labs in the 1930s? How much to their opinions on technology have to do with the 2nd decade of the 21st C.? Yep, I'm suggesting that reactionary thinking may be present here. You are joking, right, Bob? The principles of acoustics and music reproduction haven't changed at all in the ensuing years, just the technology used to capture and reproduce music. After all, it was Bell Labs in the 1930's who came-up with the model for two-channel stereo that we still use today. The 'principles' of acoustics haven't changed, but the technology has made things possible now that weren't in the 30s. This may be the wrong forum to mention Dolby Pro Logic... but I did anyway. bl --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Surround Sound
"K. B." wrote in message ...
I'm more interested in the objective side of audio rather than the subjective side. It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD (maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers. ~~~ Kirk Bayne alt.video.digital-tv Home Page http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm I think that DVD-Audio and SACD failed because the manufacturers did not educate the public as to the advantages of these formats and the fact that you need to have decent quality equipment; all the way through your system to hear the sonic improvements that these formats can give you compared to regular CDs. I know that CD Japan and other sources apparently offer close to 1000 SACDs or maybe more. Also HDCD was an improvement over standard CD as well but for some reason Micro$oft purchased that company possibly to take it out of production it seems, I may be wrong here? I'm using a Cambridge Audio Universal Blu-ray player that does all of these formats and I can hear the difference compared to standard CDs, but I know that a dedicated SACD player from Sony would probably sound even better. I have heard that a $2000.00 player is in order to really experience the difference. Shaun |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
DVD surround sound | Audio Opinions | |||
How to go Surround Sound?? | Car Audio | |||
FA: Rare Spatial Sound SP-1 Surround Sound Processor | Pro Audio |