"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
There are quite a few participants in this newsgroup who have professed
either indifference or outright dislike to the idea of surround sound. The
reason often cited is "I don't want to have instruments all around me".


If you have a chance to hear a decent surround system and have access to
all/some of these disks, give a listen. Share with the group what *YOU*
think. And if you already have multichannel, well, agree? or disagree?



I am a recent convert to surround. But at the same time I fully
understand why many listeners profess their dislike for the new kid
(multi-channel) on the block. When stereo first challenged mono many
listeners hated it much like many listeners hate multi channel today.
Some of those early stereo recordings clearly disfigured the music.

I went to CES this year specifically to check out SACD Multi-Channel.
As much as practical I tried to listen to multi-channel recordings
that I was very familiar with as two channel recordings, such as those
from Telarc. In short, I was very much sold on multi-channel based on
my listening experiences.

I found that multi-channel is *not* the proverbial "quantum leap
forward" that I had naively initially expected compared to what I can
already achieve in my existing two-channel system. Instead, I found
multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal extension of
two-channel; like vastly improved two channel, not like the
“speaker everywhere” experience I had expected.
Nevertheless, I am very much an enthusiastic convert to multi-channel.

In most of the recordings I 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 more like listening
to no specific speaker at all. In other words, well done multi-channel
sounded like what stereo has been trying to accomplish all these
years.

This is why when an audiophile states "I don't like multi-channel", I
no longer understand what they are talking about. Multi-channel, done
correctly (my interpretation), is like the ultimate two-channel
experience. Only when the rear and center channels were removed from
the equation did the sound stage collapse before your eyes to the
familiar two channel experience that you come to the realization that
you were listening to "multi-channel".

The improvement that multi-channel offers, while certainly a lot more
than subtle, is still a clear extension of the two-channel experience.
If you like good two-channel, you will love good multi-channel.

Robert C. Lang

Have to agree with Kal that TriField is good. We also like Dolby ProLogic
II in the music mode as well - None of that synthesized crap you hear with
the units that have the fake "Concert Hall" or "Jazz Hall" settings.

We purchased a Meridian 541 unit years ago because we like the TriField
process so much - It actually sounded like music, natural, and made stereo
music more enjoyable to listen to.

The more current Meridian products still use TriField and added DPL II, so
you can choose between whichever one you like better.

Tim & Ann

in article , Kalman Rubinson at
wrote on 6/29/03 8:44 PM:

You should try Meridian's TriField process. Not only does it work
better than any surround synthesizer I've tried, it is flexible
allowing for useful control of all channels.

Kal

On 1 Jul 2003 14:59:52 GMT, "chelvam" wrote:

I may be wrong but I think a good set up can create sound beyond the
standard 60 deg. Stereo system can produce sound at almost 80 degrees and
beyond and in some tracks I do hear sound travel from rear to front and vice
versa.

Yes but that sound is spurious, not real, although it may be pleasing.
It is the sound of the listening room.

Once I attended a demo using Qsound recording (Roger Water -Amused to death)
to produce the surround effect. The guy toed out the speakers and the room
was fully padded. I could hear the sound at 90 deg and the racing car was
going in circles. Unfortunately, due to the extensive padding everything
sounded "dead". Some liked the effect. No surround here just two speakers.

Well, one can fiddle with phasing and try to simulate the HRTF but it
is still not the real ambience of the recording site.

How wide should a stereo system sound? I believe, IMHO, as wide as a stage
set up. The only thing I dislike about the stereo recording is the crowd's
applause is always coming from the front instead from the rear or around us.
In orchestra, the sound do not come from the rear but front. the only thing
that would come from the rear is the huge pipe organ.

What I dislike is the decay of ambience/reverb TOWARDS the front!

The next question, what additional benefit that we get from extra rear
speakers? Well some say ambience. what is ambience?
Ambience retrieval-the ability to capture the distinctive sound of a given
space.... (extracted from the absolute sound mag). So the sound of
performance in Carnegie Hall is more captivating due to the ambience
retrieval of the hall. So a recording of Harry Belafonte in Carnegie Hall
consist of the actual instrument sound and together with the ambience of the
Hall itself. Now how do we expect it to sound in our room?. The recorded
sound plus the room's signature. The ideal room would be one with limited
room interacting but without sounding dead in that case you get the right
ambience in your own room.

Sure and the effective use of MCH will supercede much of your room
sound if done right.

Now the next question, should the ambience have any direction? Polk audio
recommends the rear speakers to be connected out of phase. We all understand
that in out of phase mode the sound appears to come from everywhere. That's
what ambience do, they are secondary reflection form the original sound. The
correct combination of both is what matters most.

There are many ways to make phony ambience pleasing, beginning with
the Hafler circuit.

In a way, the surround/multi channel simplifies things for us.

Many things are simplified but not all.

Kal

"Robert Lang" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
There are quite a few participants in this newsgroup who have professed
either indifference or outright dislike to the idea of surround sound.
The
reason often cited is "I don't want to have instruments all around me".


If you have a chance to hear a decent surround system and have access to
all/some of these disks, give a listen. Share with the group what *YOU*
think. And if you already have multichannel, well, agree? or disagree?



I am a recent convert to surround. But at the same time I fully
understand why many listeners profess their dislike for the new kid
(multi-channel) on the block. When stereo first challenged mono many
listeners hated it much like many listeners hate multi channel today.
Some of those early stereo recordings clearly disfigured the music.

I went to CES this year specifically to check out SACD Multi-Channel.
As much as practical I tried to listen to multi-channel recordings
that I was very familiar with as two channel recordings, such as those
from Telarc. In short, I was very much sold on multi-channel based on
my listening experiences.

I found that multi-channel is *not* the proverbial "quantum leap
forward" that I had naively initially expected compared to what I can
already achieve in my existing two-channel system. Instead, I found
multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal extension of
two-channel; like vastly improved two channel, not like the
“speaker everywhere” experience I had expected.
Nevertheless, I am very much an enthusiastic convert to multi-channel.

In most of the recordings I 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 more like listening
to no specific speaker at all. In other words, well done multi-channel
sounded like what stereo has been trying to accomplish all these
years.

This is why when an audiophile states "I don't like multi-channel", I
no longer understand what they are talking about. Multi-channel, done
correctly (my interpretation), is like the ultimate two-channel
experience. Only when the rear and center channels were removed from
the equation did the sound stage collapse before your eyes to the
familiar two channel experience that you come to the realization that
you were listening to "multi-channel".

The improvement that multi-channel offers, while certainly a lot more
than subtle, is still a clear extension of the two-channel experience.
If you like good two-channel, you will love good multi-channel.


I am in total agreement with you when it comes to classical music and other
types of concerts or simulated concerts. It should sound as on a stage, and
the benefits you describe are very real. I'll add another, highlighted by
Harry Pearson in a recent TAS article: the easy, deep sound pressure that
the orchestra can build, particularly if your speakers are full range.

However, as I tried to point out in my first post, I have developed a very
different perspective when it comes to pop, which only exists in a studio to
begin with. Give a few of the disks I recommended a listen and see how you
fee, why don't you?

Harry

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...

Well, one can fiddle with phasing and try to simulate the HRTF but it
is still not the real ambience of the recording site.

How do one capture the ambience of the recording site? Extra microphones?


How wide should a stereo system sound? I believe, IMHO, as wide as a
stage
set up. The only thing I dislike about the stereo recording is the
crowd's
applause is always coming from the front instead from the rear or around
us.
In orchestra, the sound do not come from the rear but front. the only
thing
that would come from the rear is the huge pipe organ.

What I dislike is the decay of ambience/reverb TOWARDS the front!

So how do multi channels help to address the decay of ambience/reverb
TOWARDS the front?

Why am I feeling that I am being considered as ANTI - surround? 3 or 4 years
ago when SACD was still in its infancy, I heard 'Tribute to ..." in a high
end home theater set up. I enjoyed it so much more than his high(er) end
stereo set up.True maybe the clarity was greater than the home theater but
musically and enjoyment was nowhere to the HT even though it was a DVD or LD
( can't remember).

Of course, I have been branded as non High ender.

Many (me included) after perfecting the art creating sound with pin point
accuracy using two speakers, now find multi channel does it better or so it
was claimed. So instead of going surround, we resist the change( but I am
looking for the money). I know someone, who owns, a large collection of LP
( probably all the LPs made), esteemed customer of Analogue Production,
laughed at CDs. Now, I am seeing him buying CD.

The debate will go on for a long time. just like analogue and digital. And
please visit http://www.ambiophonics.org for more on stereo advocate for
surround.

regards,
Chelvam.

(Robert Lang) wrote in message ...

My own multichannel experience comes from a different angle and a
different time.
I'll try to improve on my previous , rather inept explanation. I have
the extinct JVC1000XP which attempts not only to convey ambience but
do it in 20 different, digitally synthesised venues; from a cathedral
to an open air rock concert, through a large movie house. I understand
that they modelled themselves on the actual, existing concert halls.
Eg. the first is a digital recreation of the Asterdam Concertgebouw.
To the best of my knowledge the only other similar project was a
Yamaha's DSP unit which I had had and thought was not as successful. I
would not be without it. Even the solo recordings such as Horowitz in
Carnegie Hall and Belafonte ditto sound truer with early and late
reverb boost. The pianio and voice midrange fill-up. Personal
impressions- please don't ask for "evidence".
Yamaha produced a few successors, each one less ambitious than its
predecessor, and the I think gave up in favour of the home-theatre
kind of multichannel sound like just like everyone else.
Mr.Sommerwerck whose original review in The Stereophile got me
interested in
the digital sound processors to begin with me told me (personal
communication) that such units are no longer available. They never
reached the usual audiophile stores and the music store crowd
obviously were not interested. Perhaps this will catch some
manufacturer's eye.
When my JVC packed up I bought an old Lexicon DSP1+. Not a patch. My
JVC was repaired after all and the Lexicon sits in the loft waiting
for a buyer. At one time I had Carver's Holograph and sold it. I was
not impressed.
I'll now shed the fear of ridicule, and hesitantly, pick-up someone's
posting re shielding earlobes when listening. As chance has it I
noticed the strong, positive effect just before I saw the posting,
when casually putting my hands on top of my head. I now wear regularly
a beach hat with a big brim when listening. The image loses the
blurring on the edges and becomes focused to the front stage. The
effect is even stronger when my surround is on- perhaps not
surprisingly because I use Lexicon configuration with two of the
channels on my right and left side.
I'm passing it on as I experience it- anyone can have a good laugh.
The explanation that occurs to me is this: I have a terrible listening
room with lots of undesirable, conflicting reflexions. The brim may
be helping to keep some of them from my ears. Since I know very little
about acoustics I'm offering this only as my musings not science.
Disclaimer: I don't sell JVC DSPs. I don't sell or am related to a
seller of wide brimmed hats.
Ludovic Mirabel

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
There are quite a few participants in this newsgroup who have professed
either indifference or outright dislike to the idea of surround sound. The
reason often cited is "I don't want to have instruments all around me".


If you have a chance to hear a decent surround system and have access to
all/some of these disks, give a listen. Share with the group what *YOU*
think. And if you already have multichannel, well, agree? or disagree?



I am a recent convert to surround. But at the same time I fully
understand why many listeners profess their dislike for the new kid
(multi-channel) on the block. When stereo first challenged mono many
listeners hated it much like many listeners hate multi channel today.
Some of those early stereo recordings clearly disfigured the music.

I went to CES this year specifically to check out SACD Multi-Channel.
As much as practical I tried to listen to multi-channel recordings
that I was very familiar with as two channel recordings, such as those
from Telarc. In short, I was very much sold on multi-channel based on
my listening experiences.

I found that multi-channel is *not* the proverbial "quantum leap
forward" that I had naively initially expected compared to what I can
already achieve in my existing two-channel system. Instead, I found
multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal extension of
two-channel; like vastly improved two channel, not like the
“speaker everywhere” experience I had expected.
Nevertheless, I am very much an enthusiastic convert to multi-channel.

In most of the recordings I 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 more like listening
to no specific speaker at all. In other words, well done multi-channel
sounded like what stereo has been trying to accomplish all these
years.

This is why when an audiophile states "I don't like multi-channel", I
no longer understand what they are talking about. Multi-channel, done
correctly (my interpretation), is like the ultimate two-channel
experience. Only when the rear and center channels were removed from
the equation did the sound stage collapse before your eyes to the
familiar two channel experience that you come to the realization that
you were listening to "multi-channel".

The improvement that multi-channel offers, while certainly a lot more
than subtle, is still a clear extension of the two-channel experience.
If you like good two-channel, you will love good multi-channel.

Robert C. Lang