Why Haven;t You Tried Immersive 3D Audio Yet?

[Ralph Glasgal]

You would have to prove with a listening panel that these interactions are audible. Speakers interact with everything in the room just as instruments in a concert hall interact with everything on the stage and in the audience. With subwoofers in a small room you have a case, and maybe that is where this inease comes from.

[Ralph Glasgal]

Thanks, I don't own the Yamaha unit but was just getting opinions.

What do you think of Carver Sonic Holography? I use it in my desktop system and it sounds great in the nearfield.

Fantastic! Carver was a pioneer in this field. He once told me that the little Sonic Holography processor was his best seller. At that time only analog processing was possible so his circuit could not do the job well. His method is not recursive so there is crosstalk remaining due to crosstalk cancellation. Also he did not insist that the speakers be moved much closer together which makes it even harder to get a good result. But for its time it was a wonder.

[semente]

You would have to prove with a listening panel that these interactions are audible. Speakers interact with everything in the room just as instruments in a concert hall interact with everything on the stage and in the audience. With subwoofers in a small room you have a case, and maybe that is where this inease comes from.

 

(Acoustic) instruments produce sound/music in a room, whilst the purpose of speakers is reproducing recorded sound/music.

You cannot compare the two.

 

 

Some info on speakers/driver interaction:

 

Comb Filtering, Acoustical Interference, & Power Response in Loudspeakers | Audioholics

 

R

[STC]

(Acoustic) instruments produce sound/music in a room, whilst the purpose of speakers is reproducing recorded sound/music.

You cannot compare the two.

 

 

Some info on speakers/driver interaction:

 

Comb Filtering, Acoustical Interference, & Power Response in Loudspeakers | Audioholics

 

R

 

Your reference is Audioholics against Ralph's 40 over years research in Ambiophonics.?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

Your reference is Audioholics against Ralph's 40 over years research in Ambiophonics.?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

 

I'll look for a better reference, and will read Ralph's research too.

I suspect he'll agree with me.

[STC]

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

 

I'll look for a better reference, and will read Ralph's research too.

I suspect he'll agree with me.

 

I was just highlighting the reality. Sometimes, we have to be objective and actually go through the process ourselves.

 

About comb filtering, how many of us actually know how it affects the sound. As an example, you can read everywhere that you are not supposed to place more than one center speaker for HT to avoid comb filtering. But have you actually placed two or center speakers and experiment that yourself?

 

Another example was the slap test to test the room acoustics. Contrary to what I have read, treating the two spots actually kills the enjoyment in my room.

 

Another example, corner placement of subwoofer supposedly would increase bass. That doesn't happen in my room. That the worst place I could place my sub !

 

We have heard so much about time alignment and speakers polarity. I have witnessed a well reviewed audiophile setup HF drivers to be wrongly wired and went on undetected for a long time.

 

One of my speaker's wires were internally miswired. They were out of phase due to reversed polarity. The same speakers were in the dealer showroom. The dealer himself installed the speakers at my place. It took me more than two hours to figure out that. I still wonder why the many visitors to the dealers place didn't notice that earlier.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[witchdoctor]

Fantastic! Carver was a pioneer in this field. He once told me that the little Sonic Holography processor was his best seller. At that time only analog processing was possible so his circuit could not do the job well. His method is not recursive so there is crosstalk remaining due to crosstalk cancellation. Also he did not insist that the speakers be moved much closer together which makes it even harder to get a good result. But for its time it was a wonder.

 

Thank you ralph, you have really shared a lot of good info in this thread. I am using a Sunfire Processor with Sonic Hologrophy and a Carver AV 505 amp in my desktop system in the nearfield and it sounds very good.

[witchdoctor]

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'll look for a better reference, and will read Ralph's research too.

I suspect he'll agree with me.

Semente, how many times do I have to tell you to get some experience. You are imagining stuff and then trying to create sentences to describe what you have imagined. It would be GREAT if you installed some type of 3D audio system and shared your experience, we could all learn from that.

[audiventory]

STC is correct. To amplify, yes, a domestic concert hall will not be perfect but neither is the human brain. The home concert hall may actually work better than many real ones for people not in the best seat. Yes, depending on the type of surround speakers, the hall reverb reaching the ear may not be what you would have in Carnegie Hall but that is no reason not to have surround speakers. Disney Hall does not sound as good as the Musikvereign in Vienna so should we boycott Disney?

 

When I read your post, I got idea, that don’t come to me before:

 

1. For acoustic concerts we look for a «naturalness». I understood it as music like in concert hall.

 

2. But sound in a concert hall is not «natural» initially. And «natural sound» is abstract term. Because only system [musical instrument + hall] do sound.

 

3. In the best case we can re-create, what we have in the concert hall, where sound was recorded. But it will «natural sound» for this hall only.

 

 

 

In a 5.1 surround recording, the rear pair may be the hall ambience so if you process this pair to cancel the crosstalk you have the directional dynamic rear hall ambience where it should be and you can do without convolved ambience.

 

Does you mean [wave formed for left ear penetrate to right one] as crosstalk?

 

I.e. we isolate ears like in headphones?

[STC]

https://cloud.aria3d.com/#/welcome/listening

 

 

And scroll to the SoundCloud at the bottom of the page.

 

http://www.lowbeats.de/test-software-app-xivero-amtra-und-amtra-play/

 

What do you think about isolating the ears?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

I was just highlighting the reality. Sometimes, we have to be objective and actually go through the process ourselves.

 

About comb filtering, how many of us actually know how it affects the sound. As an example, you can read everywhere that you are not supposed to place more than one center speaker for HT to avoid comb filtering. But have you actually placed two or center speakers and experiment that yourself?

 

Another example was the slap test to test the room acoustics. Contrary to what I have read, treating the two spots actually kills the enjoyment in my room.

 

Another example, corner placement of subwoofer supposedly would increase bass. That doesn't happen in my room. That the worst place I could place my sub !

 

We have heard so much about time alignment and speakers polarity. I have witnessed a well reviewed audiophile setup HF drivers to be wrongly wired and went on undetected for a long time.

 

One of my speaker's wires were internally miswired. They were out of phase due to reversed polarity. The same speakers were in the dealer showroom. The dealer himself installed the speakers at my place. It took me more than two hours to figure out that. I still wonder why the many visitors to the dealers place didn't notice that earlier.

I am as much into experimenting as the next guy but I know my own limitations.

On the other hand, it is thanks to theory that we have recording, analogue and digital sources, amplifiers, speakers...

 

Imagine two drops of water hiring the surface some 10cm apart; as the ripples from each of the drops overlap the waves will change:

 

 

 

This is what a single wave looks like:

 

 

 

 

ISVR - Institute of Sound and Vibration Research

 

 

 

Regarding your subs, enjoyment and accuracy don't always go together.

Have you measured you room response and the subs' output?

 

 

 

Finally I would also not use other audiophiles' experiences as proof of anything.

Many have enjoyment instead of accuracy as their goal, some have rudimentary (accuracy-) listening abilities, some don't use adequate music and methodology for testing.

 

I was once at a bake-off with a handful of seasoned audiophiles.

We were comparing modified/optimized amplifiers and CD players and I was standing to the side of the sofa in front of the left speaker.

Strangely no one else noticed that the tweeter wasn't working in that speaker, even though they were sitting in or close to the sweet spot but to be fair I was the only one who knew the recording.

This anecdote is a good illustration of why you need good methodology and adequate music for evaluation.

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.: here's another credible source for "interference"

 

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/interference.htm

[STC]

I am as much into experimenting as the next guy but I know my own limitations.

On the other hand, it is thanks to theory that we have recording, analogue and digital sources, amplifiers, speakers...

 

Imagine two drops of water hiring the surface some 10cm apart; as the ripples from each of the drops overlap the waves will change:

 

 

 

This is what a single wave looks like:

 

 

 

 

ISVR - Institute of Sound and Vibration Research

 

 

 

Regarding your subs, enjoyment and accuracy don't always go together.

Have you measured you room response and the subs' output?

 

 

 

Finally I would also not use other audiophiles' experiences as proof of anything.

Many have enjoyment instead of accuracy as their goal, some have rudimentary (accuracy-) listening abilities, some don't use adequate music and methodology for testing.

 

I was once at a bake-off with a handful of seasoned audiophiles.

We were comparing modified/optimized amplifiers and CD players and I was standing to the side of the sofa in front of the left speaker.

Strangely no one else noticed that the tweeter wasn't working in that speaker, even though they were sitting in or close to the sweet spot but to be fair I was the only one who knew the recording.

This anecdote is a good illustration of why you need good methodology and adequate music for evaluation.

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.: here's another credible source for "interference"

 

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/interference.htm

 

My room is a box in box with golden ratio dimension. The width of the outer brick wall is 4 inch wall with 4 inch gap and another 4 inch wall impregnated with Rockwool. It is definitely not a eye candy.

 

I had an acousticIan help with the measurements. RT60 was 0.28s ( I think) and blah blah blah. Countless measurements during my stereophonic era.

 

Now, I don't even bothered with measurements.

 

The point is - to enjoy realism the measurements need not be too precise. I don't even think an absolute flat FR is necessary. There is video in my playlist of a horrible FR response and actual sound in my room where I asked listeners to guess which supposed to sound correct.

 

If I were to build my music room again, I would just make it completely covered with rockwool and fill them up with convolution speakers.

 

You mentioned that you detected the defective tweeter even though you wasn't sitting in the sweet spot. If you ask me that was not surprising as HF drops sharply off axis. Even Alan Shaw, the Harbeth designer, conducted a demo during a show without the tweeters connected by mistake and he wondered why he didn't detect them earlier.

 

Accuracy is not utmost important when it comes to music. If that's the case, vinyl would not be making a comeback.

 

Thanks for the ISRV. We can now go back to the OT. I have used their animation to explain about crosstalk cancellation but i can't find the actual link.

 

Here are the links which I saved. The explanations to the diagrams are my own and not necessarily the correct interpretation.

 

This is how the waves in a reflection free room travel before reaching us

 

 

 

Diagram 1

*

*

The same source is now being reproduced in stereo. Note how the competing waves are distorted compared to the real sound.

 

 

Diagram 2

*

In ambiophonics setup with RACE technology we are able to reproduce the sound exactly as how the live sound would reach our ears.

*

*

*

Diagram 3

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

My room is a box in box with golden ratio dimension. The width of the outer brick wall is 4 inch wall with 4 inch gap and another 4 inch wall impregnated with Rockwool. It is definitely not a eye candy.

 

I had an acousticIan help with the measurements. RT60 was 0.28s ( I think) and blah blah blah. Countless measurements during my stereophonic era.

 

Now, I don't even bothered with measurements.

 

The point is - to enjoy realism the measurements need not be too precise. I don't even think an absolute flat FR is necessary. There is video in my playlist of a horrible FR response and actual sound in my room where I asked listeners to guess which supposed to sound correct.

 

 

There is the caveat.

Accuracy is not necessary to provide enjoyment; I can be moved listening to music in the car or on a laptop via youtube.

Accuracy is necessary for realism.

But I agree that 2 or multi-channel stereo doesn't provide accuracy when it comes to recreating space.

 

For me, I'll take (more) accurate timbre over (more) accurate space any day (since we can have both).

As Wagner once said to his friend Nietzsche at the Festival Theatre in Bayreuth "remove your spectacles, music is only to be listened to".

 

And you can always use DVD if you really need the visual aspect of music.

 

If I were to build my music room again, I would just make it completely covered with rockwool and fill them up with convolution speakers.

 

That seems like a good idea for immersed sound.

 

You mentioned that you detected the defective tweeter even though you wasn't sitting in the sweet spot. If you ask me that was not surprising as HF drops of sharply off axis. Even Alan Shaw, the Harbeth designer, conducted a demo during a show without the tweeters connected by mistake and he wondered why he didn't detect them earlier.

 

Accuracy is not utmost important when it comes to music. If that's the case, vinyl would not be making a comeback.

 

It's interesting that you mention vinyl because vinyl has very poor channel separation, which in turn affects stereo imaging.

Perhaps one of the reasons why some people (excluding myself) prefer vinyl is that channel bleeding masks the spatial limitations of stereo reproduction (making it in turn more immersive?).

 

But is vinyl making a comeback because it is more musical?

Some people seem to think so, others don't.

 

But I strongly disagree that accuracy is not important when it comes to music.

And this is easy to illustrate with an image:

 

[STC]

The weakest link in accuracy is your room. I want realism. Current technology is good enough to recreate realism.

 

If I want accuracy, I would stick to soloist recorded in mono and playback them in a single Omni directional speakers.

 

If accuracy is so important, then how come in the experiment conducted in the 50s with live and recorded sound in a concert hall was so difficult to differentiate?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

The weakest link in accuracy is your room. I want realism. Current technology is good enough to recreate realism.

 

If I want accuracy, I would stick to soloist recorded in mono and playback then in a single Omni directional speakers.

 

 

It might help if you could define "realism" (which may prove difficult) but from what you've written so far it looks as though you favour spatial "realism" over other aspects of music reproduction.

 

When you pick up the sound of a piano in a room, the mic will capture the sound of the instrument and it's interaction with the room in a specific point in space.

Playing back the recording with a single speaker will not reproduce the ambience of the recording even if there are spatial cues in the recording that result from the reverberance of the piano in the room.

On top of that, reproducing the recording in a reverberant room will result in the addition of reverberant interaction and the addition of another layer of confusion so using an omnidirectional speaker may produce more immersion but not more accuracy.

 

 

The weakest link in accuracy is your room. I want realism. Current technology is good enough to recreate realism.

 

If I want accuracy, I would stick to soloist recorded in mono and playback then in a single Omni directional speakers.

 

If accuracy is so important, then how come in the experiment conducted in the 50s with live and recorded sound in a concert hall was so difficult to differentiate?

 

Let's look at it closely.

 

- First they recorded each instrument in mono with a single instrument per channel in a non-reverberant (anechoic) environment.

 

- They then reproduced the recording of each instrument/channel trough a single speaker positioned on stage.

 

- The music was (re)produced in a natural reverberant space which added the spatial cues, just as if each speaker was an instrument producing sound then and there.

 

- The listeners were sitting from afar in the audience where the ratio of direct sound vs. room sound favours the latter.

 

- Finally, the AR speakers were quite accurate as speakers go (they still are in some aspects).

 

 

R

[STC]

Semente, I am not qualified to discuss about the principles behind sound reproduction.

 

I let other qualified persons to deal with them and I am only interested in their end product.

 

The only reason I engaged you so far is to say, give it a try and not to be concerned with the technicality.

 

I appreciate your contribution but I like to move on to discuss the shortcomings and further improvements with my 3D setup. I am currently desperately looking for someone in pro sound who could help me to use RME with my current setup. You know how to get RME working with JRiver?

 

Cheers!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

Semente, I am not qualified to discuss about the principles behind sound reproduction.

 

I let other qualified persons to deal with them and I am only interested in their end product.

 

The only reason I engaged you so far is to say, give it a try and not to be concern with the technicality.

 

I appreciate your contribution but I like to move on to discuss the shortcomings and further improvements with my 3D setup. I am currently desperately looking for someone in pro sound who could help me to use RME with my current setup. You know how to get RME working with JRiver?

 

Cheers!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Can't help you there.

Good luck.

[audiventory]

It's interesting that you mention vinyl because vinyl has very poor channel separation, which in turn affects stereo imaging.

Perhaps one of the reasons why some people (excluding myself) prefer vinyl is that channel bleeding masks the spatial limitations of stereo reproduction (making it in turn more immersive?).

 

But is vinyl making a comeback because it is more musical?

Some people seem to think so, others don't.

 

But I strongly disagree that accuracy is not important when it comes to music.

And this is easy to illustrate with an image:

 

 

 

This image may be considered as good visual example for vinyl. (If delete «calibrated»/«uncalibrated» remarks).

 

At right side of the picture is brighter. It is like right side «sound better».

 

But if we take real image, that take shot, the real image may be more like to the left side.

 

And right side is distorted. But considered as more qualitative.

 

I.e. real image «sound worse» than distorted right side.

 

Vinyl add harmonics and may sound brighter than original.

 

It is not bad. It is not good. It is only vynil sound signature.

[Ralph Glasgal]

These are comparative frequency response curves for standard stereo, two speaker Ambiophonics, and SRS. The responses were measured at NYU by Tsai-Yu WU and you can download the entire thesis and AES paper at the Ambiophonics website archive. The red line is the ideal response. Blue is stereo, green is SRS, and orange is Ambiophonics. The scale is 10 dB per cell so the peaks and dips in stereo are quite significant. The curves are for three signal types, mono, partly different and fully different.

[gmgraves]

I see a lot written on this board about audio and a lot of what is written about seems like a traveler confused by a mirage. Recorded audio is a glimpse of a live performance with its own limitations. Last I looked you can't fit a piano in a microphone and extract it at the other end.

Can somebody please explain why two speakers is the right number? No you can't because it isn't the right number. If it was a PA system at a concert would only use two speakers right? Maybe if it was in closet but last I checked they place speakers around the auditorium.

Take a moment and ground yourself and see if you can answer that question, why two speakers? If you don't know start with this book, chapter 15-

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485726927&sr=8-1&keywords=floyd+toole

in section 15.8 the author discusses upmixing algorithms. My favorite is Auro 3D. To me trying to achieve the best SQ with two speakers is like trying to cross the ocean in a row boat, more effort than its worth, YMMV. Please check this out:

 

Auro-3D Music Upmix Demo with StormAudio ISP 3D.16 Elite Pre/Pro at CES 2017 - AVSForum.com

 

OK. I'm a bit late to this thread, but I would like to register my thoughts on this question anyway.

 

As I see it the problem, it's two fold: First of all, I find that it's difficult enough to get TWO channels right in the average listening room, much less four channels or more. I was a pioneer in the technology when the stereo/Hi-fi industry tried to get us interested in multi-channel sound back in the mid Seventies. I suffered through seperation-less SQ and QS and the difficult to get to work JVC Q-4 sound with the subcarriers on the record (which didn't work unless tracking was perfect and which wore away after only a few plays even with state-of-the-art playback equipment including the best Shibata Styli. Of course, digital audio, both LPCM and SACD solved the early problems with channel separation and tracking problems, but this brings us to, what I consider, the second problem. The recordings themselves. They talk about how stereo is insufficient to provide a credible image of an ensemble playing in real space. first of all, this is untrue. It arose as a mantra of many audiophiles because most have never heard a true stereo recording; i.e. one done right! Very little stereo recording is being done these days and in fact, very little has ever been done, commercially. The pundits are correct when they say that what passes for stereo in commercial recordings is insufficient insufficient to provide a credible image of an ensemble playing in real space! The reason is because 99% of all commercial recordings, including classical, are not stereo, they are merely two channel recordings. With those two channels being mixed down from multiple microphones feeding multiple channels. Depending upon the musical genre, these channels can be mixed into two channels only or mixed into two separate channels and a phantom third channel in the middle (consisting of L+R). This is NOT stereo.

 

If you heard a real stereo recording, it would be made with two microphones and only two microphones* arranged in one of a number of coincident microphone arrangements: XY, A-B, ORTF, Blumlien, or M-S. XY, A-B and ORTF use cardioid pattern microphones and M-S uses either a figure-of-eight mike in conjunction with either an omnidirectional mike or a cardioid (either will work, but usually omni mikes are only used in performances with NO audience because of audience noise being picked-up by the back of the omni). The result would be a wide, deep and high stereo soundstage with imaging so real that you can close your eyes and aurally "see" where every instrument in the ensemble is located in relation to every other instrument; right-to-left, front-to-back, you can even hear that the brass instruments in the back of the orchestra behind the woodwinds are up on risers, and the triangle seems to float above the percussion section just as it does in the concert hall!

 

Why aren't all recordings made this way? There are a number of reasons. One is the fact that post 1950's pop music is so studio bound using electrical and electronic instruments in such a way that the idea of true stereophonic sound is rendered pretty much ridiculous. Two channel jazz has always been recorded with a phantom middle channel so that the ensemble is broken into three sub-sections; right left and center with the vocalist or named soloist generally anchored dead center. Early on, it became traditional (starting with C.R. Fine of Mercury records and Lewis Leyton at RCA Victor) to record using spaced omnidirectional microphones because early stereo recording was more or less viewed as an experimental "step-child" to the money making part of the record business which was monaural records. Since classical had been traditionally captured with either a single omni directional microphone, or a figure-of-eight ribbon (like the ubiquitous RCA 44BX). When capacitor microphones from Neumann and Telefunken appeared after the war, omni condenser mikes took over from the ribbon 44s due to their much flatter and more extended frequency response (Both the RCA 44 and the 77DX fell off rather sharply above 10KHz - fine for 78RPM discs most of which had nothing on them above about 7.5 KHz, but inadequate fro LP). Since single condenser omnis were being used to capture full orchestras in the early 50's, after the introduction of magnetic tape, it was deemed proper to leave the centrally mounted (stage-wise) single omni for the bread-and-butter mono release, and flank it with two other omnis to pick-up the left and right channels for the stereo release. This became traditional and most early "stereo" recordings were made this way. But they aren't really stereo because the two omnis are not phase coherent and therefore give a rather strange sound stage under the best of conditions. Still, they were better than what was to come in the 1960s. Record companies decided that since multi-channel tools had become available for pop recording, that it would make classical and jazz recording better too. The idea was to throw forest of microphones up, with literally as many as a single microphone per instrument and record each instrument separately, on it's own track. and then mix the whole thing down to two-track in post production. The bean-counters figured this would be cheaper, because you bring the talent (the orchestra) in sit 'em down, record the piece, then get the expensive musicians OUT. The engineers and producers could then vacillate over the balances until their hearts' content! This then became the norm, and to a certain extent it still is. Just watch a PBS broadcast of a classical orchestra and count the microphones.

 

When record companies make surround mixes of their productions all they do, usually , is just remix the plethora of separate tracks that make up their "stereo" releases and this sounds even less like the immersive concert experience than does a multi-mike, multi-track two channel production. Those ares the reason why surround or "3D recordings" are not generally popular with many audiophiles. When I hear most of them, I want to run from the room screaming. We need technology in service to the music, not the other way around. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

*some good stereo recordings use accent mikes on some of the harder to capture instruments. This is fine as long as they stay subordinate to the overall stereo pair.

 

 

If you wish to further read on these subjects, I have a a well researched and amply illustrated blog that will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about how REAL stereophonic recordings are made. After reading this, all you will need (besides the gear) is about 20 years of experience, trying this stuff out for yourself and you too can make good, jaw-dropping Stereo recordings.

 

Audio and Recording World

 

Read from the bottom to the top for the proper order of articles.

 

Enjoy!

[STC]

I remember you now. You used to be active in RAHE newsgroup in the 90s.

 

Thanks for the post. The problem with Stereo is not only in the recording but also with the playback. You could only improve so much with the current method.

 

Meanwhile, have you read

 

http://www.ambiophonics.org/Ambiophone/Ambiophone1.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[audiventory]

For acheving effective number of speakers (no more and no less) need model wave field in choosen room.

 

May be sometime are 2 enough. May be 3. May be 12.

 

This number of speakers must create sound field from record.

 

I only don't sure that a record (even multichannel) have all necessary information for creating original sound field.

 

As result, must be created audio holographic system.

[STC]

For acheving effective number of speakers (no more and no less) need model wave field in choosen room.

 

May be sometime are 2 enough. May be 3. May be 12.

 

This number of speakers must create sound field from record.

 

I only don't sure that a record (even multichannel) have all necessary information for creating original sound field.

 

As result, must be created audio holographic system.

 

Maybe. But I can be waiting for such recording and system to be available. What is the alternative practical method to improve the listening experience of the current format? I am willing to give it a try.

[semente]

OK. I'm a bit late to this thread, but I would like to register my thoughts on this question anyway.

 

As I see it the problem, it's two fold: First of all, I find that it's difficult enough to get TWO channels right in the average listening room, much less four channels or more.

 

(...)

 

When record companies make surround mixes of their productions all they do, usually , is just remix the plethora of separate tracks that make up their "stereo" releases and this sounds even less like the immersive concert experience than does a multi-mike, multi-track two channel production. Those ares the reason why surround or "3D recordings" are not generally popular with many audiophiles. When I hear most of them, I want to run from the room screaming. We need technology in service to the music, not the other way around. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

(...)

 

Enjoy!

 

 

Great post and thanks for the link; I'll look into it.

 

It surprises me to see audiophiles worrying so much about "3D-ness" and "soundstage" while neglecting aspects of reproduction that are far more important such as "tonal balance" that so many speakers just don't get right, people who listen to classical music where timbre is paramount.

Shouldn't we get our priorities straightened?

 

R

[audiventory]

Maybe. But I can be waiting for such recording and system to be available. What is the alternative practical method to improve the listening experience of the current format? I am willing to give it a try.

 

I'm interesting sound holography. But while I don't know much. I suppose, finally it should be simple-in-use system like stereo.

 

Currently emulation only possible, I suppose. Except system: 2-mic-head-dummy-capture to headphones.