Multi Channel or Stereo

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, semente said:

I was looking again at the poll options in this thread.

 

Is 2.1 multi-channel stereo?

IMHO, no.  It is stereo with bass management.

[semente]

19 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Of course.  There is no objective superiority except in theory and that is on the side of multichannel. 

 

He, he... 

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That is subjective and I will disagree.

 

Ah.  But to me the "surround effect" is not a compensation for playback quality; it is a major component of playback quality.  

 

And I get that. I just don't happen to think that it's worth the effort or the expense.  I have heard many surround setups, some costing megabucks, but when I heard the effect, I didn't like it.

 

And on the subject of the 1,7i's vs the 3.7i's, the difference in quality is not just subjective, the 3.7i's measure significantly better, especially in the top end, where the more expensive speaker, the 3.7i, has a magnificent true ribbon tweeter and the 1.7i has a quasi-ribbon (IOW, the old Magneplanar tweeter with a voice-grid glued to the same single piece of Mylar as comprises the rest of the speaker). It's not as fast, it's not as extended, and it's nowhere near as clean.

[gmgraves]

On 6/22/2017 at 6:32 AM, fas42 said:

 

Spatial cues are always captured, even when the recording engineers do their best to extinguish them!

 

Even when they aren't there? Multi-miked and direct-feed instruments (those instruments such as electronic keyboards, electric guitars, and acoustic instruments such as saxes and trumpets which are contact miked*) have no spatial cues because those instruments' actual sound is never captured. They are only electronic signals. Electronic signals have no spatial cues, and are electronically placed across the "soundstage". 

 

*A microphone such as a Frap which is attached directly to the instrument's body to pick-up the vibrations of the instrument itself and which is fed directly into the recording console.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

That is subjective too.

 

Of course it is. To many people surround adds a dimension to their music playback that they value. Others (like me) do not value it at all. Some, built 5.1 systems solely for film sound and purchase surround music because, well, they've got the equipment, they might as well use it for music only programs as well as films. That's fine. If people like it, they should do it. I've heard perhaps a handful of surround recordings that I thought got the stereo "right" and used the rear channels only to add real (as in captured at the same time as the performance, not added electronically, later) hall ambience. The IsoMike recordings of Ray Kimber come to mind, here. I have dozens of Telarc classical SACDs with surround sound as well as others from different sources, and I don't find the surround content at all compelling from either a musical or a technical standpoint. I think that what these multichannel recordings are trying to capture, can be done in a much more compelling way when done in two-channel with a binaural recording setup and a pair of high-end headphones! YMMV

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

IMHO, no.  (2.1 stereo)  It is stereo with bass management.

 

I have always found this puzzling. What's the point? Bass is removed from the two-channel stereo recording and is dumped into a single-channel, designed for bass only and then routed to a single subwoofer. If left in the stereo domain, the possibility remains for the listener to have TWO subwoofers and have real stereo bass.  I know that many believe that bass frequencies below 200 Hz are nondirectional and that the full-range speakers locate the bass instruments from the spatial cues of the frequencies emitted by these bass instruments which are above 200 Hz, but I find that stereo bass, from two subwoofers sounds much more natural. 

[Ralf11]

55 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

...

And on the subject of the 1,7i's vs the 3.7i's, the difference in quality is not just subjective, the 3.7i's measure significantly better, especially in the top end, where the more expensive speaker, the 3.7i, has a magnificent true ribbon tweeter and the 1.7i has a quasi-ribbon (IOW, the old Magneplanar tweeter with a voice-grid glued to the same single piece of Mylar as comprises the rest of the speaker). It's not as fast, it's not as extended, and it's nowhere near as clean.

 

 I agree, having spent a few hours listening to both side by side (non-blind).  But isn't it possible that a surround system of the lesser 1.7's might be better in some ways, on some source material than a stereo pair of the 3.7's?

 

BTW, there is a guy out in the desert with a large warehouse like building and a surround setup of 20.7's.  he also has some 3.7's deployed elsewhere and some smaller Maggies.  I plan to visit one of these years...

[Kal Rubinson]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And I get that. I just don't happen to think that it's worth the effort or the expense.

Then OK.  I can't make you appreciate it.

 

59 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 I have heard many surround setups, some costing megabucks, but when I heard the effect, I didn't like it.

It's not broccoli.

[Kal Rubinson]

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

I have always found this puzzling. What's the point? Bass is removed from the two-channel stereo recording and is dumped into a single-channel, designed for bass only and then routed to a single subwoofer. If left in the stereo domain, the possibility remains for the listener to have TWO subwoofers and have real stereo bass.  I know that many believe that bass frequencies below 200 Hz are nondirectional and that the full-range speakers locate the bass instruments from the spatial cues of the frequencies emitted by these bass instruments which are above 200 Hz, but I find that stereo bass, from two subwoofers sounds much more natural. 

That is a valid objection to 2.1 but not to bass management, per se.  2.2 would resolve it.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 I agree, having spent a few hours listening to both side by side (non-blind).  But isn't it possible that a surround system of the lesser 1.7's might be better in some ways, on some source material than a stereo pair of the 3.7's?

 

BTW, there is a guy out in the desert with a large warehouse like building and a surround setup of 20.7's.  he also has some 3.7's deployed elsewhere and some smaller Maggies.  I plan to visit one of these years...

 

 

It's possible that if one valued surround that on some source material, the surround effect could be so spectacular that four 1.7i's would sound better than a pair of 3.7i's, but I doubt that on the same material, the 1.7i's would sound better than four 3.7i's!

 

I too would like to hear a system comprised of four 20.7's. 20.7s are magnificent! Many audiophilles believe that a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandrias at $200,000 a pair are the née plus ultras when it comes to speakers, but other than efficiency and ultimate loudness, the Wilsons can't hold a candle to the cohesive "realness" of the Maggies! For one thing, the bass is more alive and natural. Though many speakers go lower, few sound as much a part of the whole, and the 20.7s go plenty low for most people (perhaps pipe organ aficionados excepted). And the Magnepan ribbon tweeter is just simply the best high frequency transducer that I have ever heard. I'd say that one would have to go all the way to a pair of $85,000 Martin-Logan Neoliths to find a better full-range speaker system! That makes the 20.7s one of the biggest bargains in high-end audio. If two sound this good, I'd likely be blown away by FOUR of them, irrespective of the quality of the surround experience itself.

[Ralf11]

I don't know if he has only 4 in that setup or 5 or even 7.  I'm pretty sure he'll give me a tour & listen tho as a non-audiophile friend was there and got to plug his iPhone in...

 

He has at least 3 or maybe 4-5 setups in different places, all using Maggies.  I don't want to say too much in order to respect his privacy.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Even when they aren't there? Multi-miked and direct-feed instruments (those instruments such as electronic keyboards, electric guitars, and acoustic instruments such as saxes and trumpets which are contact miked*) have no spatial cues because those instruments' actual sound is never captured. They are only electronic signals. Electronic signals have no spatial cues, and are electronically placed across the "soundstage". 

 

*A microphone such as a Frap which is attached directly to the instrument's body to pick-up the vibrations of the instrument itself and which is fed directly into the recording console.

 

I think we've been here before ... . Of course there are sounds which are direct injected, which then nearly always have "space" added - but anywhere where a classic mic is used then the acoustic of that recording environment will be captured. This all kicked off because I queried the significance of the "They are here" vs. "You are there" divide - again, to me it's merely a question of how far behind the speakers the musical event is happening - only a short distance, or that a major gap exists.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Then OK.  I can't make you appreciate it.

 

It's not broccoli.

No, I actually like broccoli, and as with broccoli, it is, after all is said and done, a matter of taste. My disdain for surround is not a prejudice, btw, I would like for it to work to my satisfaction. That it doesn't is mostly down to the way it is recorded, and the fact that 5.1 is simply not optimized for music. If I went for surround, it would be via four channels and an SACD player or Blu-ray player that is designed to play the surround channels on the discs (both of which I already have: a Sony 777ES SACD player and a Sony Blu-Ray player with surround output). BTW I read you column in S'phile every month and enjoy your writing very much.

[gmgraves]

23 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

 

It's possible that if one valued surround that on some source material, the surround effect could be so spectacular that four 1.7i's would sound better than a pair of 3.7i's, but I doubt that on the same material, the 1.7i's would sound better than four 3.7i's!

 

I too would like to hear a system comprised of four 20.7's. 20.7s are magnificent! Many audiophilles believe that a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandrias at $200,000 a pair are the née plus ultras when it comes to speakers, but other than efficiency and ultimate loudness, the Wilsons can't hold a candle to the cohesive "realness" of the Maggies! For one thing, the bass is more alive and natural. Though many speakers go lower, few sound as much a part of the whole, and the 20.7s go plenty low for most people (perhaps pipe organ aficionados excepted). And the Magnepan ribbon tweeter is just simply the best high frequency transducer that I have ever heard. I'd say that one would have to go all the way to a pair of $85,000 Martin-Logan Neoliths to find a better full-range speaker system! That makes the 20.7s one of the biggest bargains in high-end audio. If two sound this good, I'd likely be blown away by FOUR of them, irrespective of the quality of the surround experience itself.

 

On second thought, I wonder what a pair of 20.7i's would sound like with the addition of a pair of Wilson Audio "Hammer of Thor" subwoofers"?

[Ralf11]

While I like that idea, Wendell doesn't like use to put cones near his beauties

[gmgraves]

53 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

While I like that idea, Wendell doesn't like use to put cones near his beauties

 

True. So true

[fas42]

This,  http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm , has been pointed to again with reference to getting a "realistic holographic soundfield of a violin" from a " conventional recording" - and again I will note that such techniques are not necessary - all the auditory clues are on the standard recording already to produce such, and the ear/brain has the capability of reconstructing the original soundfield. But, what's usually missing is adequate quality in the playback system, and the vital cues are masked, blurred during the replay - the illusion can't manifest, and a flat, 2D replica is as good as it gets.

 

The fanciness of the setup mentioned in the above link will never happen, because there is just too much involved - luckily, if one assembles a high quality reproduction setup then one can get it all - "realistic holographic", and, "from your current recordings".

 

 

[fas42]

Note, STC stated "You shouldn't reproduce the ambiance ( even it is possible to record them) in the recording because all the different direction cues will now originate from the two speakers. Whatever ambiance that you hear in the recording is limited so that it would not  overly distort the sound when the room acoustics  add its own ambiance ". This is completely wrong - what one is aiming to do is to reproduce all the ambiance in the recording with the highest level of fidelity - this will automatically override the listening room acoustics.

 

Why does this happen? Because the ear/brain is mighty clever, and can separate the two acoustics - and the recording's acoustic will dominate because the overall message in the recording is far, far stronger than what's happening in your music room.

 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This is completely wrong - what one is aiming to do is to reproduce all the ambiance in the recording with the highest level of fidelity - this will automatically override the listening room acoustics.

 

Fas24, what ambiance that you are referring to? 

[fas42]

46 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Fas24, what ambiance that you are referring to? 

 

If a system works to a sufficiently high degree you can hear the ambiance of the spaces that the recording was made in - these will vary dramatically from recording to recording, depending on how each was done: huge, middle sized, intimate - even when the music is dead quiet you can hear that space, from just the background murmuring that all spaces seem to breed.

[STC]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If a system works to a sufficiently high degree you can hear the ambiance of the spaces that the recording was made in - these will vary dramatically from recording to recording, depending on how each was done: huge, middle sized, intimate - even when the music is dead quiet you can hear that space, from just the background murmuring that all spaces seem to breed.

 

Is it possible we are describing two different things when we refer to ambiance?  

[fas42]

Highly possible - just looking at Wikipedia, one has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambience_(sound_recording)

versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presence_(sound_recording). In the sense explained there, Presence is probably the better term to use.

[fas42]

Hadn't noticed this bit in the "other" thread until now, where AJ said, "He has posted AES papers about the design method and proof of concept measurements? Where? ", referring to me. This is typical of everyone who chooses to misunderstand what my message is - almost everyone, IOW; whereas what I'm saying is remarkably simple at the core. Which is probably why it's so hard to grok ...

 

I achieved my results purely accidentally the first time - and others have done similar at times, I can see that by what their comments are about some experience. But unlike just about everyone else, I was immediately captivated by this behaviour, and pursued trying to "capture" it, and understand it - to this day.

 

So, I'm doing nothing unique, not in the slightest - there is no "design method" or "proof of concept" - because it's nothing more than aiming to achieve a certain level of quality in the playback, so that conventional stereo projects a convincing 3D illusion everywhere you choose to listen to it. Meaning, multi channel is completely unnecessary ...

 

What is that "certain level of quality"? In numbers, I can't say - but my ears tell me, every time. The quality refers to what is actually produced by the transducers, as driven by the amplifiers - the sound generated by the diaphragms of the speaker drivers.

[fas42]

STC mentions getting 3D perspective using his methods - is there anything particular you can say happens when a true mono recording is played via these means? What I'm looking for is whether anyone has perceived the soundstage tracking one's position in the room, when playing these recordings.

[STC]

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

STC mentions getting 3D perspective using his methods - is there anything particular you can say happens when a true mono recording is played via these means? What I'm looking for is whether anyone has perceived the soundstage tracking one's position in the room, when playing these recordings.

Correction. Not my method. There were numerous AES papers about cancellation of crosstalk. To understand crosstalk, you don't need special recording or processor like Ambisonics or BACCH or RACE ( note: Ambisonics is different from Ambiophonics). 

 

Just take your best stereo recordings and move your speakers ( need not be wide dispersion but it  too will also work) closer and place a divider in between the speakers right up to your face. You will hear magic of 3D. Attempt that with PC speakers as it is easier to make the barrier and move the speakers. 

 

But it if you only listen to vocals from the side and get all exicited about hearing the vocal in the center than this is not for you. It more about retrieving the hidden information in ordinary recording.