synthesized surround sounds better! Howard right!

[Robert Morein]

It sounds better to me than the commercial multichannel releases.
Embarassingly, I have to agree with Howard about that.
There is some technical basis for my subjective impression.

The simplest factor to look at is delay time. Reflected surround arrives at
the ear after a delay time that is characteristic of the concert hall. With
synthesized sound, this delay time can be accurately mimicked. With
multichannel recordings, the delay time is built into the recording.

In a multichannel recording, the hall ambience is sampled in a way that may,
or may not, be compatible with the positions of the surround speakers in the
playback system. A surround synthesizer, to varying degrees, accommodates
these variations in the setup parameters.

So my experience is that synthesizers such as those made by Yamaha do an
excellent job of creating early reflections, late reflections, simulating
wall hardness and proscenium geometry -- better than "one size fits all"
commercial multichannel recordings.

It is true, of course, that synthesized surround can never provide the
sensation that the audience is breathing and clapping beside you. IME, only
Ambisonics B-format can do that.

So what do you goofballs, tweakos, and freakos say to that?

BTW, my blood pressure doesn't go up, but I am salivating a little :)

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>It sounds better to me than the commercial multichannel releases.
>Embarassingly, I have to agree with Howard about that.
>There is some technical basis for my subjective impression.


You are of course refering to stereo recordings, played in some
synthesized surround modus.
My experience with this is that, depending on the recording, the
effect grows tiresome after some time.
It will even become pretty irritating after an evening of concentrated
listening.


>The simplest factor to look at is delay time. Reflected surround arrives at
>the ear after a delay time that is characteristic of the concert hall. With
>synthesized sound, this delay time can be accurately mimicked. With
>multichannel recordings, the delay time is built into the recording.


IMO correct speaker placement is capable of even better results.
BTW very few people are able to set up a 5.1, let alone a 7.1 system
correctly.

This is what I meant when I told Howard that there are too many ways
to misadjust a surround processor, apart from incorrect speaker
placement.


>In a multichannel recording, the hall ambience is sampled in a way that may,
>or may not, be compatible with the positions of the surround speakers in the
>playback system. A surround synthesizer, to varying degrees, accommodates
>these variations in the setup parameters.


If ever you succeed in converting the acoustics of your listening room
to exactly those of the Scala or the Met, and you're an instant
millionaire :-)


>So my experience is that synthesizers such as those made by Yamaha do an
>excellent job of creating early reflections, late reflections, simulating
>wall hardness and proscenium geometry -- better than "one size fits all"
>commercial multichannel recordings.


That part is probably correct.


>It is true, of course, that synthesized surround can never provide the
>sensation that the audience is breathing and clapping beside you. IME, only
>Ambisonics B-format can do that.

>So what do you goofballs, tweakos, and freakos say to that?


Get a life, slick. Note.


>BTW, my blood pressure doesn't go up, but I am salivating a little :)


Nothing that a pair of tweezers and a humidifier can't solve, pal.

Haw haw haw.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >It sounds better to me than the commercial multichannel releases.
> >Embarassingly, I have to agree with Howard about that.
> >There is some technical basis for my subjective impression.
>
>
> You are of course refering to stereo recordings, played in some
> synthesized surround modus.
> My experience with this is that, depending on the recording, the
> effect grows tiresome after some time.
> It will even become pretty irritating after an evening of concentrated
> listening.
>
That's why they provide so many buttons to play with :)

OTOH, vacuum tubes provide a rather vacuous sound :)
[insert pirated technical vebiage or an entire article from the Sterophile
website here]
[insert reference to the Encyclopedia of French Postcards here]
[derogatory personal comments go here]

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>OTOH, vacuum tubes provide a rather vacuous sound :)


Only in your wallet.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Harry Lavo]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> It sounds better to me than the commercial multichannel releases.
> Embarassingly, I have to agree with Howard about that.
> There is some technical basis for my subjective impression.
>
> The simplest factor to look at is delay time. Reflected surround arrives
at
> the ear after a delay time that is characteristic of the concert hall.
With
> synthesized sound, this delay time can be accurately mimicked. With
> multichannel recordings, the delay time is built into the recording.
>
> In a multichannel recording, the hall ambience is sampled in a way that
may,
> or may not, be compatible with the positions of the surround speakers in
the
> playback system. A surround synthesizer, to varying degrees, accommodates
> these variations in the setup parameters.
>
> So my experience is that synthesizers such as those made by Yamaha do an
> excellent job of creating early reflections, late reflections, simulating
> wall hardness and proscenium geometry -- better than "one size fits all"
> commercial multichannel recordings.
>
> It is true, of course, that synthesized surround can never provide the
> sensation that the audience is breathing and clapping beside you. IME,
only
> Ambisonics B-format can do that.
>
> So what do you goofballs, tweakos, and freakos say to that?
>
> BTW, my blood pressure doesn't go up, but I am salivating a little :)
>


Even the little Dynaco Quadaptor actually did a very creditable surround on
most live recordings. So why should not a more sophisticated synthesizer
not do a good job? For me the issue is, does the basic signal get through
the digital processing unscathed? So far in my (somewhat limited)
experience with them, it does not. I still prefer bypass mode.

[Bret Ludwig]

Five channels makes sense-if you have five ears.

Synthesized surround sounds better than "the real thing" because "the
real thing" is a bodge.

Good stereo (of which there is very little) is actually tough to beat.
Three channel is probably easier to get right than five. Four worked
okay in principle, but poorly in most released quad recordings. It's
worth noting that a good quad system properly configured can play a
few seventies quad records back with stunning quality.

[Robert Morein]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
[snip]
> >
>
>
> Even the little Dynaco Quadaptor actually did a very creditable surround
on
> most live recordings. So why should not a more sophisticated synthesizer
> not do a good job? For me the issue is, does the basic signal get through
> the digital processing unscathed? So far in my (somewhat limited)
> experience with them, it does not. I still prefer bypass mode.
>
The Yamaha models with front effects actually do not mix any of the
synthesized surround into the mains. So the basic signal has a path which
is uncompromised, other than possible quality-of-circuit issues. In the
Yamaha DSP-A1, the path is digital, with onboard 24/48 DACs. Reports are
that DACs in later models are better.

I also use two Sony TA-E1000ESD units, which may have been the first all
digital preamp/surround processor. It uses 18 bit ladder DACs. In my small
circle, the unit is an excellent sounding DAC, close but not equal to the
best there is today.

I find the more expensive processors, mostly of U.S. design, disappoint in
not preserving the signal.

[Buster Mudd]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Five channels makes sense-if you have five ears.



I've never understood how anyone can honestly believe this arguement.
Your two ears are quite capable of localizing sound that comes from any
direction; they're not limited to localizing sounds that originate from
only two sources.

Now, five-channel HEADPHONES only makes sense if you have five ears,
sure.