Article: Objective and Subjective Review Of My 7.1.4 Immersive Audiophile System

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, bobflood said:

Congratulations on assembling a truly unique in the world system! It brings a smile to my face to see how much you enjoy it!

 

Maybe a system like this could be built in areas where there are enough people who would be willing to pay by the hour to listen to music in this way. I know it would not be cheap but it would be affordable for those who could never own a system like this.

 

Rock on!

I’m so happy my enthusiasm and enjoyment of music through this system shines through. It’s truly an amazing experience. 
 

Hmmm, ticket sales to recoup the cost. 😆

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

And to visit the Twin Cities is also a plus. Maybe with a great tour guide *hint hint*

 

So Cool for Chicago....

Absolutely!

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, keeper said:

It’s been a great read from start to end, but i’d be interested in a normal working man system.

What would someone build in a standard lounge for everyday use?

I'm with you 100%

 

Systems exists at all price levels, and less expensive gear has never been better. I set out to do the absolute best I could, but I also realize it's a bit over the top for most people. More to come on additional ways to do this for sure. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

@The Computer Audiophile
Chris,
feilcitations for having such an otherworldly system, and even more that hyper-exceptional sensual experience with this 1in@kind system.
There is a part in my brain that envies you a bit, while my ratio tells me - loud and clear - that this isn't my journey.
Would you think that people with less audio optimized spending plans may profit from the same  software architecture / processing you utilized, with a less ultra HE quality system, i.e. POLK or KLIPSCH combined with Topping/SMSL multichannel DAC & Class D amplification?
Just trying to map this exceptional story into a budget aware household scenario, where the whole system may cost less than one of your monoblocks ...
Kudos to @mitchco for his unbelievable wizardry in DSP/DRC.
Best , Tom

 

 

Hi Tom, I absolutely encourage people to do this at any level they wish. As you know, great things are possible with less expensive components now days. Add in DSP form Mitch, and people should be thrilled with the results. I love Klipsch, and think the performance for what one pays is really good. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here's the one I have - https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Printemps-Miraculous-Mandarin-Mussorgsky/dp/B08NVGHHS5/

[The Computer Audiophile]

@DuckToller, another really neat way to do this would be with wireless speakers. Although a power cord is far from wireless. Perhaps PoE surround speakers because the twisted pair cable is easier to snake through places and length isn’t an issue. 
 

There are many creative ways to do this. All valid and fun. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

About George and All Things Must Pass, perhaps you know this already: Quite a few of the songs were written by George during the Beatle days, and in particular, if you remember from the Get Back documentary when George quit the band during the Let It Be sessions, during the few days before he came back he wrote Wah Wah.  "I don't need no wah wah," i.e., "I don't need all the crying and noise I'm getting from you guys."  I'd Have You Anytime was from a period before Let It Be when he was hanging out with Dylan and The Band and they were influencing his songwriting.  (George became friendly with Dylan, Eric Clapton with J. Robbie Robertson.)

Love the info Jud. I know next to nothing about him, but now I really want to know more. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, bbosler said:

the one Chris mentioned above

 

 

Make sure you got the Blu-ray, not the SACD as pictured. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Desertpilot said:

Thank you for posting this thread and including Mitch's thoughts.  Mitch is working with me right now to "tame" my 5.1 system, using Audiolense XO, through an ExaSound multichannel DAC (S88).  I'm very excited to hear what his DSP filters can do for my system.  My music is classical surround (nowadays, I typically download the DXD 24/352.8 surround version).  I love what I get now but anxious to hear with his filters.

 

Marcus

Hi Marcus, @mitchco’s work is as important as any component in the system. I hope you enjoy it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, Mantheunknown said:

Great article Chris,

 

Could you please elaborate on how you integrate/use Hapi Mk2 and Anubis.  What feeds it/them and I suppose they feed the amps.  Have you listened to DSD 256 through them.  Your opinion?

Thank you

Cheers

 

 

I'm happy to discuss all of this. I love it! However, the full details are coming in an article I have in the queue. 

 

The short version is this: I have both a MacBook Pro and my CAPS Twenty  computer as sources for the system. Everything uses Ravenna over Ethernet. I've configured two sources on the Anubis, one for each computer. I can select the source with the tap of a finger on the Anubis front screen (sitting next to my listening chair). The sources are setup as Dolby 7.1.4 configurations within the Anubis menu. Anubis does the volume control as well. It's like a preamp, but before the DAC. It can also be thought of as an extension of the DAC.

 

The Anubis sends the audio to the HAPI MK2, which is just setup to convert digital to analog and connects straight to the amplifiers. 

 

This is how my setup looks.

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Armstrong said:

Thanks Chris for this very thorough latest instalment from yourself and Mitch on your Immersive system. Peter McGrath certainly has the experience to tune by ear. I had a long chat with him at the Munich show where he shared some valuable words of wisdom with me.

 

From Mitch's comments it's clear that although DSP is necessary, he was careful to keep it to a minimum.

 

The next point you made is particularly interesting too me…

 

With the Wilson Alexias you, of course, have a full range speaker and as Mitch noted he ensured all the other non-bass producing speakers have been set to go as low as they're capable of. Firstly I will just note that there is a school of thought that advises to hand over as much bass as possible to a subwoofer(s) so the other speakers don't need to work as hard. Perhaps though this isn't a concern for the Wilsons as they're designed so well.

 

Secondly in addition to your full range Alexias, of course, you also have your Wilson Audio Lōkē subwoofer, and this is being used as the LFE (low frequency effects channel) only.

 

In my case my Avantgarde Trios need the short Basshorns to become full range speakers. The Trios despite their size or rather because of their size reach to 100hz and so are regarded as satellite speakers. In terms of frequency reach alone they could be regarded similar to bookshelf speakers, which need a sub.

 

The pair of Short Basshorns can accept either the speaker input, extended from the Trios or an XLR input. For my MCH system I use the XLR input fed from my Exasound DAC. I found it was a pain to keep switching between Speaker input and XLR input when I go between MCH and Stereo sources though, because it means toggling a switch at the rear of the Basshorns and because of their position close to the corners, this is tricky to reach on one of the Basshorns. My solution has been to blend the front left and right channels 1 & 2 into the LFE channel 4, attenuated by 24db using HQPlayer's Matrix Pilepline tool. For two channel sources I actually prefer this to the speaker feed.

 

Then my other dilemma was that I didn't want this blend to occur when I actually play MCH sources, thinking the bass is present on the LFE channel; but as you've pointed out that is not, or at least usually not the case. LFE is for additional effects only, at least with Atmos.

 

That explains why some of the Apple Spatial music I've been listening to sounded a little lightweight (including George Harrison). So thanks again. Now I can be lazy and use the blend at all times.

 

My only concern is that if I encounter recordings where most of the bass is sent to the LFE channel, I could encounter excessive bass. So far that's not been a problem though and this change to include the blend is sounding better.

 

A lot of traditional MCH recordings are 5 channel anyway and are missing the .1 channel, so they would definitely require this blend.

 

That goes to show how inconsistent MCH/Immersive recordings are. We've always had inconsistency with recordings from their production through mixing and mastering. Now with Immersive/MCH those inconsistencies are multiplied.

 

On the positive side though, as you've detailed in your subjective listening report, Immersive can better allow us to appreciate music we may not have appreciated or under appreciated up to now.

 

For me it's almost becoming a requirement for my full enjoyment of classical music. I'm not so sure about other genres though.

 

Hi Geoffrey, interesting times indeed! While Atmos has been around for ten years in video, Atmos music is still very new. If we only consider Atmos music in high end audio, it's in its infancy, with unlimited potential. I honestly believe we are in beginning another golden age of audio playback. The high end isn't the niche pushing a heavy rock up hill this time. We are accepting what the masses have decided is the standard, Atmos, and perfecting it. This is a recipe for success.

 

@mitchco sent me this video during the configuration of my system. It details the LFE channel and why certain decisions are made on the content creation side. Really interesting. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Geoffrey Armstrong said:

Hi Chris, I tend to agree. With Apple behind Atmos music, is could really take off. Thanks for sharing the video. Interesting indeed, and it has to be admitted there is inconsistency on the consumer side too.

Inconsistency indeed. I exchanged email with Morten from 2L this morning, and he said the jury is still out on the "right" level for the LFE. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Bert at The Spirit of Turtle just released some lossless TrueHD Atmos downloads. I purchased and am downloading now. 
 

https://spiritofturtle.com/collections/9-1-binaural-headphone-dolby-atmos

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

@The Computer Audiophile Sorry if I had missed the information, where in your setup does the Dolby Atomos decoding happen before it is passed on to the convolver?

Yes, before the convolver. 12 channels of PCM are sent to the convolver. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I should have been more clear, which software is responsible for this decoding? Is Roon able to decode Atmos to PCM?

macOS decodes Dolby Digital Plus (lossy), and the Dolby Reference Player decodes TrueHD Atmos (lossless). 

 

I’m doing something additional that I’ll explain in another article. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, garrardguy60 said:

One additional point about All Things Must Pass, which might of value to you, Chris, as a George Harrison newbie. As an old boomer, I grew up with the original ATMP vinyl and for the past 20 years have mostly listened to it via the 30th anniversary CD released in 2000.

 

If you're coming to ATMP for the first time with the new, 50th anniversary release, even if you're just listening in two-channel, you're getting a slightly but significantly different experience in that Giles Martin did the following in the remix: He noticeably elevated both George's vocals and the bass on all tracks.

 

This new mix has been criticized in a lot of places (a number of "real" critics and many folks on SHF), but I personally love the new mix. The critics I think have been approaching it as, pick one or the other. I don't see it that way. I see the new mix as delivering a new perspective on an old friend. 

 

Anyway, so I know that the  older versions of ATMP are not available in 5.1 or Atmos. However, since you're exploring George's work, I thought this would be of interest. (FYI, from what I can tell, the old/new taxonomy on streaming services is: Spotify has the new one  as ATMP 50th anniv and the "original" as ATMP 2014 remix.)

 

BTW, ATMP is considered to be a not particularly well recorded album (in terms of, for want of a better phrase, hi-resolutionness). This just shows you that music is as important as sound quality. Also, ex post facto, George was said not to be a fan of the "wall of sound" approach that was used on ATMP (he worked with Phil Spector), but there weren't any/enough original bare tracks to remix it as a non-wall of sound album. (I believe this was recorded on 8-track machines. Eight track reel to reel at 30 ips, not 8-track tapes under your car seat.)

 

Finally, I concur with an earlier poster, you definitely should check out the Concert for Bangladesh. There's both an album and a video of the full concert.

 

Finally, finally, if you have Apple TV+, I recommend episode 1 of '1971: The Year That Music Changed Everything," That episode focuses mainly on John Lennon's politics, Marvin Gaye and the protests against the war in Vietnam, which may not be your cup of tea, but that's not my point. You can skip thru all that stuff, and seek out the 5 or 10 minute segment where they talk about George, and show good original footage of him preparing for the Concert and what a big deal it was. It was the first big benefit concert, the template that Live Aid and all others followed, in the same way that the Beatles originated large venue rock concerts six years earlier with their Shea Stadium gig.

 

Hope this is of interest!

 

EDIT: Salient point, which I forgot to note, is that Concert for Bangladesh is relevant because George is doing his ATMP songs, not his Beatles stuff.

 

 

Wow, thanks so much for all the information! Invaluable. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, esimms86 said:

Chris, how cool would it be if you could partner up with videographer/audiophile Jana Dagdagan to document your system. As I'm sure you're aware, Jana used to work for Stereophile magazine and, more recently, has been working with John Darko and others. Here is an example of Jana's beautiful and painstakingly thorough work:

 

 

And if you're wondering how well surround sound music reproduction can be captured with a binaural dummy head, then you should check out the following video from around 8:15 to 12:20(you can ignore the rest, consisting of a product pitch in French):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7bGrmY0FZQ

 

Short of having an Audiophilestyle open house, this is as close as the rest of us might come to experiencing your system.

 

 

 

I’ve always like her videos, and I’m not a video guy. I’d love to do this with her. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, maelob said:

All i can say is wow just wow, probably one of the best immersive audio set ups in the world.  You should seriously consider doing tours of your system.  Lot of us would be happy to pay to listen to a system like that. 

Thanks for the kind words. I honestly think it's a one of a kind system right now. I spent hours listening this morning and afternoon, and I still can't believe how good this sounds.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Surge said:

I’m totally not into multi-channel music, nor DSP. While it may sound great, my goal is to reproduce a live event, and I’ve never been to live concert where there was a violin behind me. Two-channels, when setup properly, can image almost behind you (e.g., Roger Waters Amused to Death / Q Sound). 

And imagine if you had spent the same budget on 2 speakers and 2 amps instead of 12 how much better it would sound!

 

But all is not lost - get a nice projector and screen and you have a home theatre ;)

Thanks for the opinion. I respect it, but it shows your lack of experience with the subject. 
 

Every recording engineer I’ve talked to, said multichannel is the best way to reproduce a live event. Controlling the sound from all sides is the only way to accurately reproduce a live event from all sides. When I went to the symphony a few weeks ago, I heard a lot of sound/reverb coming from the side and back of me. 
 

In addition, you’ve never been to a live concert with a violin behind you, because that’s the way it has traditionally been done. Concert venues need to maximize revenue and provide a decent sound for all seats. This leads to homogenized sound for most. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Surge said:

I’m totally not into multi-channel music, nor DSP. While it may sound great, my goal is to reproduce a live event, and I’ve never been to live concert where there was a violin behind me. Two-channels, when setup properly, can image almost behind you (e.g., Roger Waters Amused to Death / Q Sound). 

And imagine if you had spent the same budget on 2 speakers and 2 amps instead of 12 how much better it would sound!

 

But all is not lost - get a nice projector and screen and you have a home theatre ;)

Last, if you aren’t using DSP, you must have a perfect room. I’ve never seen such a room, but would love to see yours. 
 

Without DSP in a less than perfect room, you’re hearing the room rather than the accurate reproduction of the recording. 
 

OK, one more thing. There aren’t many recordings of live events. Almost all recordings involve patching in parts after many re-do attempts. Do you have a live recording of a live event that you suggest is best?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

 

1. Most recordings are not from live events. Therefore, your goal to reproduce a live event from anything other than a live recording is impossible.
2. The soundstage you get from a stereo recording is almost always an illusion. It never existed. It is just as fake (for lack of a better word) as any multichannel immersive recording
3. The goal of well done  immersive audio is not to place instruments where they would not otherwise be. At least it shouldn't be, and those experiments from the very early days of multichannel are way behind us.
4. I will venture that you've never heard immersive audio done well or you wouldn't make posts like this that show you have not

 

 

other than that, you were spot on 😉

 

 

I agree mostly with this Bruce. However, the goal should never be singular. I love some recordings, such as Grateful Dead’s American Beauty, with harmonizing vocals raining down from the height channels. It’s creative and sounds fantastic. 
 

I’ve come to think of stereo reproduction as having an unnatural focus in front. It’s like cupping one’s ears from behind. Sure you can hear quite a bit better this way, but it is far from realistic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Surge said:

Regarding why DSP is not great, especially for music, read these articles. For a low price-high value system, DSP is great. But when you’re into Wilson Audio speakers I believe you are doing them a massive disservice by using EQ!

https://www.psaudio.com/copper/article/dealing-with-small-room-acoustics-part-one/

 

Making EQ adjustments to compensate for low-frequency room nodes is an effective technique for evening out in-room bass response. By why is it that making EQ adjustments in the stochastic zone’s frequencies is generally less significant for improving our sound? It’s because the amount of audio information here is so great that your brain operates as a filter, and ignores a lot of the information. It’s also because, as noted, the higher-frequency modes are very close together and not as severe. EQ can certainly be effective in the midrange and high frequencies to address other issues, like a speaker that’s overly bright, but it should be used judiciously so as not to degrade the overall signal integrity more than is really necessary. Be cautious to generally only adjust to reduce “gremlin peaks “rather than boost vacuous dips, for example.

 

Add to this the reality is the fact that the measurements obtained by the measurement microphone are not truly representative of what your ears are hearing. Your ears come in pairs, each in a different position to each other, whereas your measurement mic will most likely be a single omnidirectional microphone. The mic is only going to be able to give a representation of what audio signals are being put into the room. Your ears hear a much more sophistically processed and filtered stereo sound, compared to the microphone, which takes in everything and does not filter what it “hears.” (And keep in mind that different measurement mics can have different frequency responses.)

That article is a joke.
 

Plus, I’m not using EQ. I use 65,000 tap convolution filters with accurate time and frequency domain response. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Surge said:

 

Hope you’re not upset. By posting this to the world and inviting feedback, you are getting it ;)

By by accounts, 8x Alidas, 1x center, and 2x Alexx V set you back nearly the cost of a pair of XVX. Yikes! Now THAT would be a world class system.

 

When you are a concert like a symphony, instruments are in front of you. You are hearing 2nd and 3rd order (and higher) reflections from the venue. You will get that with a properly setup 2 channel system - it is mimicking the venue: sound emanates from the front only. A properly designed and treated room will create the feeling of being in a jazz club or concert hall.

Movies are all that multi-channel should be used for. Here we have artificial / fabricated stories and venues. The dinosaur behind you, etc.

 

The other problem with DSP and EQ is that it does not take into account more than one channel. In reality, with multiple channels firing in the room, you get a mess of attenuation, cancellation, phase shifts, etc…

 

You couldn’t upset me if you tried Surge. Seriously. I don’t take offense at any of your posts. 
 

Your information is just plain incorrect. If one’s room can mimic a concert hall like when the Berlin Phil is playing, by definition it can’t also mimic a small jazz club. With multichannel I certainly can mimic any venue on earth. 
 

Your understanding of modern DSP is incorrect. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Surge said:

I use a Trinnov Altitude 32 and it’s great. But that’s for film - totally different. You have a team of audio engineers creating an immersive sound field in 5+ channels.

 

Very different than live music, where instruments are IN FRONT of you and that’s it.

 

Multi-channel music is fun to hear, I’m sure. But it’s not real. Depends on your goals - I like to recreate live music when I listen to music. 

 

And 99.9% of music content is 2 channel - and by trying to matrix it to multi-channel, you are adding a new layer of distortion and inaccuracy.

I highly recommend you research this before digging yourself deeper in that hole. 
 

There is no such thing as music that only comes from the front, unless one listens in an anechoic chamber. The MN Orchestra plays at Orchestra Hall. The only way to reproduce that is to use a multichannel recording.