Post by tailspn October 22, 2008 (261 of 314)
|
|
raffells said:
Yes. Now try answering the question.
Not possible. Our experiences are completely different, and I do not have the ability to translate mine to you. I can only say from my experience, the difference in sense of depth and space is far more convincing, and to me realistic, than the same program's stereo mix. And that simply has nothing to do with amplifier foibles. They may have a contribution, assuming that they are not oscillating, but compared to the weight of the additional information contained in a surround mix, any amplifier characteristics are non consequential.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie October 22, 2008 (262 of 314)
|
|
If one is "lucky" enough to have 5 full range speakers of equal quality (almost impossible when you have a system that acts as double duty for video), then 5.1 makes PERFECT SENSE. In the real world, because of cost and space considerations, the front speakers usually carry the "weight" of the sonic pallette....thus the preponderance of high-end, stereo-only players. I love surround, and when it's done well, it is a thing of beauty. Most classical albums use the rears for ambience, and the 4.0 remasters done by Pentatone lack a separate LFE channel which means that anyone with a 5.1 set-up (unless they are FULL range) will simply have NO bass. The same problems existed with DVD-Audio and I would sometimes default to two channel and the bass would literally jump out of the speakers (full-range). Unless one is a recording engineer and knows PRECISELY what was on the master tape, surround can sometimes be a crap shoot as the bass is dissipated by use of the lesser quality surround speakers. With all the DSP modes on current processors, stereo isn't so bad and you can usually find one DSP mode which sounds good (maybe NOT great)! Welcome to the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
If one is "lucky" enough to have 5 full range speakers of equal quality (almost impossible when you have a system that acts as double duty for video), then 5.1 makes PERFECT SENSE.
I don't see why that's so difficult, unless you went over the top when buying your front speakers. I used to have less quality rear speakers when I started with Dolby Surround but when I got into SACD, on the second-hand market I bought two more pairs of speakers identical to my front pair. I admit they're currently not in a perfect circle with all the right angles but that doesn't spoil my listening pleasure. Oh, and yes, I'm married but I already had a surround sound set-up in my room before I got to know her (and she generally enjoys the sound, too).
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
'In the real world, because of cost and space considerations, the front speakers usually carry the "weight" of the sonic palette' - guess what? The same applies to MCH in most recordings of classical music. This is no reason to only use stereo - I would hope no-one would seriously advocate a mono recording of a solo cello (or similar).
'Most classical albums use the rears for ambience, and the 4.0 remasters done by Pentatone lack a separate LFE channel' - agreed up to this point - 'which means that anyone with a 5.1 set-up (unless they are FULL range) will simply have NO bass' - this though is just not true! There is something rather useful called bass management and this steers all sound below a certain (chosen if allowed) frequency to be sent to the .1, even if the recording is 4.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 or 5.1
'I love surround,' - good - 'and when it's done well, it is a thing of beauty.' - Absolutely, so rather than engaging in pseudo-surround via DSP's (all of which happen after converting the signal to PCM), why not simply engage bass management (not always handled in PCM)? This is much nicer "real world" which is also far more accurate to the engineers and artists intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It strikes me that "high-end" (although I feel a better term would be "high-cost" - these are not necessarily one and the same thing) manufacturers are perpetrating gross misstatements that are all too willingly swallowed hook, line and sinker by the "high-end" press and repeated ad nauseum until many readers start to believe that it must be true; after all, they surely wouldn't knowingly feed their readers lies? The human psychology kicks in and starts to override the critical faculties until the brain submits and there we have it, faith replacing reason. All they seem to worry about is fiddling about (and thus disturbing the intended pure signal) in the analogue domain rather than sticking to the lossless digital domain until the very last minute - after all, if one's player has even the most basic of error correction facilities, once the digital signal is read (correctly), then it doesn't matter if the transport is £10, £100, £1000 or £10000 as the receiving decoder cannot possibly tell the difference between the set of digital information from one transport and another.
One could well posit a logical argument that once into the analogue domain (i.e. decoder and speakers) that a more significant investment can bring a greater sonic return and I would wholeheartedly agree with this (up to a point). The "high-end" manufacturers and press have yet to fully come to terms with the excellence (c.f. just 10 years ago, non-discrete DSP's or the iPod) of what is commonly marketed as "room correction". These "room correction" systems (in the more recent better examples) not only manage to correctly identify speaker distance (and hence set timing delays, eliminating the need for a perfectly circular distribution of speakers) but also manage to make the tonal characteristics of all of the speakers the same by altering the balance of the analogue signal feed (many are PCM, some manufacturers claim otherwise - but there should always be a pinch of salt on hand!) Some even manage to identify and mitigate the effects of standing waves, thus negating even the need to add in bass traps etc. Now, given all of the advances that has been made in these areas, one must really question which set of manufacturers is now "high-end".
Ultimately though, the real limitation which makes a lot of "high-end" spending worthless is the listening environment. If one lives very close to a major airport, motorway or trainline (or to a lesser extent any normal home environment) then unless one can indulge in the sort of noise isolation beloved of modern concert halls (actually mounting the auditorium on rubber "feet" and having multi-layered exteriors) then the everyday noises of life intrude at some level rendering the very esoteric sounding no different (apart from a few snatched micro-seconds) than their mass-market competitors.
My test of whether a manufacturer is truly "audiophile" or not is to ascertain if they make an MP3 or iPod supporting product (clearly excluding purely loudspeaker manufacturers) with the same brand label as their "high-end" products and thus supposedly placing such players into "audiophile" territory, similarly with turntables (always an inherently lossy and degraded sound format). If so, they are peddling snake oil to these customers. Now, one has to ask oneself, if they are prepared to sell such shaky products as "audiophile" then what other claims they make should one be questioning?
|
|
|
Post by 51surr October 23, 2008 (266 of 314)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
It strikes me that "high-end" (although I feel a better term would be "high-cost" - these are not necessarily one and the same thing) manufacturers are perpetrating gross misstatements that are all too willingly swallowed hook, line and sinker by the "high-end" press and repeated ad nauseum until many readers start to believe that it must be true; after all, they surely wouldn't knowingly feed their readers lies? The human psychology kicks in and starts to override the critical faculties until the brain submits and there we have it, faith replacing reason. All they seem to worry about is fiddling about (and thus disturbing the intended pure signal) in the analogue domain rather than sticking to the lossless digital domain until the very last minute - after all, if one's player has even the most basic of error correction facilities, once the digital signal is read (correctly), then it doesn't matter if the transport is £10, £100, £1000 or £10000 as the receiving decoder cannot possibly tell the difference between the set of digital information from one transport and another.
One could well posit a logical argument that once into the analogue domain (i.e. decoder and speakers) that a more significant investment can bring a greater sonic return and I would wholeheartedly agree with this (up to a point). The "high-end" manufacturers and press have yet to fully come to terms with the excellence (c.f. just 10 years ago, non-discrete DSP's or the iPod) of what is commonly marketed as "room correction". These "room correction" systems (in the more recent better examples) not only manage to correctly identify speaker distance (and hence set timing delays, eliminating the need for a perfectly circular distribution of speakers) but also manage to make the tonal characteristics of all of the speakers the same by altering the balance of the analogue signal feed (many are PCM, some manufacturers claim otherwise - but there should always be a pinch of salt on hand!) Some even manage to identify and mitigate the effects of standing waves, thus negating even the need to add in bass traps etc. Now, given all of the advances that has been made in these areas, one must really question which set of manufacturers is now "high-end".
Ultimately though, the real limitation which makes a lot of "high-end" spending worthless is the listening environment. If one lives very close to a major airport, motorway or trainline (or to a lesser extent any normal home environment) then unless one can indulge in the sort of noise isolation beloved of modern concert halls (actually mounting the auditorium on rubber "feet" and having multi-layered exteriors) then the everyday noises of life intrude at some level rendering the very esoteric sounding no different (apart from a few snatched micro-seconds) than their mass-market competitors.
My test of whether a manufacturer is truly "audiophile" or not is to ascertain if they make an MP3 or iPod supporting product (clearly excluding purely loudspeaker manufacturers) with the same brand label as their "high-end" products and thus supposedly placing such players into "audiophile" territory, similarly with turntables (always an inherently lossy and degraded sound format). If so, they are peddling snake oil to these customers. Now, one has to ask oneself, if they are prepared to sell such shaky products as "audiophile" then what other claims they make should one be questioning?
Well Said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Better still, You explain how 5 creates more depth? I have already listed a number of problems that 5 amps or more can do to make things worse.
Please stick to facts not opinions.
A very good point. However, in the end, there is a lack of multichannel players out there and this is my real beef. Stereo does indeed provide an excellent experience, but to my ears and many others, multichannel is preferred. And in the end, this is what it is all about. Preference.
We can have all the facts in the world about which is "better", but in the end my ears are not yours and yours are not mine. I think we can agree upon this.
I simply feel that manufacturers are not representing those of us who would like to buy equipment with multichannel playback. For some reason they are only catering to those who prefer stereo. Why do labels like Pentatone and Harmonia Mundi continue to make what to my ears and those of many others what we consider to be excellent multichannel recordings?
I can no more explain why to my ears I hear more depth in multichannel than you can in listening to stereo.
|
|
|
Post by raffells October 23, 2008 (268 of 314)
|
|
threerandot said:
I can no more explain why to my ears I hear more depth in multichannel than you can in listening to stereo.
Well I could offer an explanation.(until last week I listed in both)
The clues to this I have already given in an earlier response.
I will not elaborate further.
My whole point as a former surround enthusiast is that far too many people on this site make outrageous opinions out to be facts.I dont think this helps the cause..Ive said this before....Some,(in the trade)seem to make the most ridiculous of remarks.I wont expand further but it seems to me that from comments posted on this site ,the quality and detail of music or equipment doest seems to be important.
eg.In surround the centre channel doesnt seem to matter if its missing.?????
One day they are expanding on sound direction and then talking about a single subwoofer to capture all very low level bass which is then just one direction.Ok it doesnt matter?..
It doesnt seem to matter if the surround was generated from a stereo mastereither .So where does this greater depth come from ,Magic? or does that magic only apply to when the rear wall accoustics are mystically piped into the recording.Another laughable hysterical posting.
If you want to observe some interesting facts.Go to the thread where people are discussing whether they can hear the difference between stereo CD and stereo Hirez.Amazingly most of those who could tell much difference are multi channel listeners? No wonder they cannot tell the difference between genuine surround and fake surround.(Just look at the reviews of those majority of faked surround sacd releases) A serious surround listener (Bissie) has already passed some comments on this.
Yes I enjoy the different sonic location that surround gives me ,a bit like listening on cans.
However I recognize that listening to the stereo layer more accurately gives me the same perspective as a real classical concert with the sound reflecting from behind the orchestra in a proper time dimension.Even when it is studio recorded.
Moving closer to the orchestra or even within it DOES NOT and cannot give that same perspective but a different sonic perspective which you may like (I used to) but it is hardly more accurate.
Pop music can be a different kettle of fish.(covers too many areas)
Edwin pointed out in a thread something I find quite common with musicians/when they come around and listen they notice accuracy of tone rhythms etc and very very rarely if ever noticed it was surround.
So for those who think average quality surround is better than stereo with better speakers you are living in your own fantasy world..Please do not present that opinion as fact.
Otherwise I may start a New Thread..Titled Dustbin for surround sound Hype presented as facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
'One day they are expanding on sound direction and then talking about a single subwoofer to capture all very low level bass which is then just one direction.Ok it doesnt matter?..'
Right, well in terms of deep bass, the ear cannot detect the location from the primary frequency but rather uses the harmonics/overtones to provide that information. If one selects a judicious cut-off frequency then it is perfectly reasonable to root all deep bass to a single subwoofer for the biggest thump/wobble because the other speakers will give out all the location. Thus those people who hold such a position are not being inconsistent.
'However I recognize that listening to the stereo layer more accurately gives me the same perspective as a real classical concert with the sound reflecting from behind the orchestra in a proper time dimension. Even when it is studio recorded. Moving closer to the orchestra or even within it DOES NOT and cannot give that same perspective but a different sonic perspective which you may like (I used to) but it is hardly more accurate.' - here you are conflating two different ideas. A recording can offer the same distance in both stereo and MCH but (and this is the big deal) in no way can stereo recreate reflections (or sources in certain music) coming from the side or behind the listener. It may reproduce these coming from in front but that is an entirely different and entirely artificial process that isn't remotely related to a concert hall presentation. In terms of actual placing the listener, that's a subjective choice; some like to be rather close to the performers or even be on the podium, others (like me) would rather be in the "best seats" wherever they happen to be for the hall concerned.
'Edwin pointed out in a thread something I find quite common with musicians/when they come around and listen they notice accuracy of tone rhythms etc and very very rarely if ever noticed it was surround.' - if it is done right, that is exactly what should happen - the rhythms and tones become far clearer and one is just "there" - this argument supports the case for surround as one forgets that one is not actually in a hall...
|
|
|
Post by raffells October 23, 2008 (270 of 314)
|
|
in no way can stereo recreate reflections (or sources in certain music) coming from the side or behind the listener.??????
Oh cant it ? Do the microphones somehow filter out the (Not wanted) side wall and rear wall reflections.No.They have often been the cause of complaint on stereo recordings.
Someone has already stated the obvious fact that exterior sounds ie audience noise is a pain in the neck when recording.
I wonder how Bissie captured the Open space side walls in the Aho symphony.Recorded out in the open? Or indeed any outside recordings where there are no walls.
Ive yet to see anyone listening to walls but surround listeners who get their friends to clap their hand behind them seem to be a different breed.Ok I used to do such things myself. When any of the surround listeners tell me they have totally deadened their side and rear walls in their listening envoirement ( or even whether their equipment is genuine high enough quality to resolve such low level signals) I will believe.Meanwhile its getting interesting to have more discussion.
I still maintain (got this from a science researcher) that this being there is a psycological illusion caused by the sound source being nearer the ear.Makes the brain think its clearer.
|
|
