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

[maelob]

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. 

[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.

 

[Surge]

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 ;)

[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?

[bbosler]

 

19 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.

 

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 😉

 

 

[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. 

[Surge]

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.)

[Surge]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

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…

 

[bbosler]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

Agreed . My statement  "not to place instruments where they would not otherwise be" concerned early 4 channel when they would put an instrument someplace just because they could. Like drums behind you....

 

I too enjoy the creativity the artists are now showing with the immersive mixes. 

[bbosler]

2 minutes ago, Surge said:

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.

 

That's just wrong. In a concert hall sound is coming at you from many directions. There is no way the reflections in your room can mimic the reflections you hear in a hall. A properly recorded surround mix with a properly set up surround system will get much closer than relying on your room reflections

 

5 minutes ago, Surge said:

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…

 

My Trinnov system does a very fine job of processing all my channels. Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the current state of the art. That you have never experienced a good system set up for immersive audio. You are guessing.

[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. 

[Surge]

I use a Trinnov Altitude 32 and it’s great. But that’s for film - totally different. With film 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.

[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. 

[Surge]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

Same thing. Read it. You are using a mic to make inferences about how your ears hear. Many problems with that.

[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.  

[Surge]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

Great. 

It’s actually your knowledge that is (remarkably) incorrect. 

You are not recreating the Berlin Phil accurately unless the recording was done there, in multi-channel. The vast majority of music is recorded in 2 channel as you must be aware. So to listen to that you are creating fake tracks to drive all of your speakers.

 

Again, it’s fun and I’m sure a very impressive sound stage — but it’s not realistic. Never will be. Compared to say a pair of XVX in a proper room.

 

Enjoy! That’s the main thing. It’s a hobby after all.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Surge said:

Same thing. Read it. You are using a mic to make inferences about how your ears hear. Many problems with that.

Not even close. 
 

The mic has nothing to do with human hearing. It just measures the room accurately. Human hearing comes into play with the correction curves used when listening. These are of course made with human hearing in mind. 

[Surge]

Music comes from front and reverberates in the room. Just like a concert, so it is in a room.

If you have ever heard a world-class 2 channel system, it can sound like an intimate jazz club and a large concert hall. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Surge said:

Great. 

It’s actually your knowledge that is (remarkably) incorrect. 

You are not recreating the Berlin Phil accurately unless the recording was done there, in multi-channel. The vast majority of music is recorded in 2 channel as you must be aware. So to listen to that you are creating fake tracks to drive all of your speakers.

 

Again, it’s fun and I’m sure a very impressive sound stage — but it’s not realistic. Never will be. Compared to say a pair of XVX in a proper room.

 

Enjoy! That’s the main thing. It’s a hobby after all.

I attended a recording a few weeks ago. They recorded 64 channels. 
 

Can you tell me about your favorite recordings that only used two channels?

[Surge]

Every music recording - or just about, is mixed to 2 channels. Last time I chatted with my friend who runs a studio, he was not putting mics on the ceiling and behind the audience…

 

I would much rather have a fantastic 2 channel DAC, amp, and 2 world class speakers than compromised gear in order to recreate music as it was NOT intended to be recorded or heard ;) 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Surge said:

Music comes from front and reverberates in the room. Just like a concert, so it is in a room.

If you have ever heard a world-class 2 channel system, it can sound like an intimate jazz club and a large concert hall. 

I’ve heard many world class systems. 
 

When people who made the recordings tell me the recordings sound most accurate on a multichannel system, and give me many reasons, I believe them. 
 

When a world class recording engineer sits in my listening room and tells me it’s the only way to reproduce his recordings, I believe him. 
 

Most people in our wonderful hobby have no clue about modern room correction and multi channel reproduction. I talk to manufacturers all the time who no next to nothing about it. This is how old and inaccurate information gets spread. 

[bbosler]

9 minutes ago, Surge said:

 

 

5 minutes ago, Surge said:

The vast majority of music is recorded in 2 channel as you must be aware. So to listen to that you are creating fake tracks to drive all of your speakers.

 

Wrong again... it is not recorded in 2 channels. it is mixed down to 2 channels,

 

Why is mixing it down to 5 channels or more so unacceptable when mixing down to 2 is not? It is the same argument that popped up when the standard went from mono to stereo. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Surge said:

Every music recording - or just about, is mixed to 2 channels. Last time I chatted with my friend who runs a studio, he was not putting mics on the ceiling and behind the audience…

 

I would much rather have a fantastic 2 channel DAC, amp, and 2 world class speakers than compromised gear in order to recreate music as it was NOT intended to be recorded or heard ;) 

The correct terminology is “mixed down” to two channels. That’s because they start with many more. 
 

Tons of engineers put microphones all over recording venues. Some who don’t, attempt to recreate the reverb other ways, in the side and rear channels. 
 

Your “I would rather” is a false dichotomy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, bbosler said:

 

 

Wrong again... it is not recorded in 2 channels. it is mixed down to 2 channels,

 

Why is mixing it down to 5 channels or more so unacceptable when mixing down to 2 is not? It is the same argument that popped up when the standard went from mono to stereo. 

100% right. 
 

Mixing down to 2 is worse than 5 or more! Crunching everything into a small space is a huge compromise.