Yes because the more speakers are used the LESS phantom sources have to be created.
Clearly you don't understand the physics of stereo triangle. The propagation speed of the interference field phase isobars of the wavefront is less than speed of sound of a singular source. The velocity vector magnitude is less than unity. It is quite unnatural situation for our perception.
Superposition of all sound sources arriving at eardrums is what we hear.
Propagation speed of interference field is completely irrelevant. It is like intersection of two light beams with rotating sources.
Identical twins with identical voices singing in perfect synch is same thing.
Once more than one source is involved, triangles are involved.
Don't get hung up on a pointy one.
Propagation speed of interference field is completely irrelevant. It is like intersection of two light beams with rotating sources.
Identical twins with identical voices singing in perfect synch is same thing.
Once more than one source is involved, triangles are involved.
Don't get hung up on a pointy one.
Stop acting condescending.
It was you who misunderstood what I was saying earlier on. You might want to go back and reread what was actually said. No comprehension problem on my side as far as I can tell.
You might know that phantom source localization is pretty poor at angles that are not in the horizontal plane and not directly in front or the back of us. Hence more discrete sources will reduce localization error.
Colorized? What the heck are you talking about? Or do you really know?
You really should not comment on things you know nothing about. 3D does not colorize anything, and neither does Atmos.
The system might be able to handle older sound-tracks, but will it be able to be manipulated in the same manner and to the same extent as a "native" process?
"True" or not, my instinct says no. Something is bound to get "lost in translation". And dewardh's "colorized sound for colorized movies" - doesn't seem that far off. (..of course that doesn't mean that "colorized" doesn't improve things.)
Moreover I don't expect that a more complete "conversion" will be a uniform process. (ie. a completely automated process.)
Last edited:
SRS object audio
Hi there: Great explanation for the SRS "OBA" syatem, which uses 6 computer size speakers spread over the front and 4 pole mounted speaker boxes at several mid room locations. ...regards Michael
Hi there: Great explanation for the SRS "OBA" syatem, which uses 6 computer size speakers spread over the front and 4 pole mounted speaker boxes at several mid room locations. ...regards Michael
Yes it can. Atmos is a layered system. Any mix that is either 5.1 or 7.1 can be converted with Atmos processing. The first movie in Atmos was mixed by Pixar in 7.1, not in Atmos. The Atmos processing was added later. There is no native process, it starts with a 5.1 or 7.1 mix, and the Atmos processor scales the sound from there.
I guess colorization wouldn't seem far off to a person who knows nothing about the system. It does not change the base 5.1/7.1 mix, but it adds a layer of spatial information over it via processing.
Sorry, but your instinct is not based on fact, and once again you are commenting on something you know very little about. In one of the Demo's I heard, Around The World in Eighty Days, and the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang were both used with the Atmos system. Both of these soundtracks are based on the Dolby code 40 format with 5 channels across the front, and mono surrounds. Chace Labs split the surrounds using their proprietary software, and the Dolby mixers created the Atmos mix. It was just as spatially effective as The Incredibles demo that played before it.
The process is not automated at all, and it probably will never be. Besides, how can you make this claim when you don't know squat about the system? You have a habit of throwing crap against a wall, and seeing what sticks. The problem is, nothing sticks.
Last edited:
Let's keep it polite, please.
I believe that MTF should be a good indicator of some specific characteristics of an audio system, it probably will take some effort to find the appropriate measurement technique and relate it with listening perception. In this audio show I just came back from, I have heard various impressions of our system during the show, but particular comment was that one visitor liked the penetration capability of our system even though our room probably had the simplest arrangement in the show.
In the beginning, I was a bit worried because systems in other rooms were larger and more powerful, so I often walked around the room and to the door to hear things from the perspective of visitors, I discovered that penetration was quite good just inside the door. The bass of a system next door was so strong that I sometimes get a feeling that in supplemented our bass response, but the main music was still clear. Not sure whether three is a way to but this into quantifiable numbers or not, but it certainly was an interesting experience.
In the beginning, I was a bit worried because systems in other rooms were larger and more powerful, so I often walked around the room and to the door to hear things from the perspective of visitors, I discovered that penetration was quite good just inside the door. The bass of a system next door was so strong that I sometimes get a feeling that in supplemented our bass response, but the main music was still clear. Not sure whether three is a way to but this into quantifiable numbers or not, but it certainly was an interesting experience.
I'm not making claims, I was *speculating*. It was also quite obvious that it was speculation - you even remarked upon it. Please do not misrepresent my post (..see Forum rule 3).
Note: The movie references are interesting, but what about a transfer of common stereo music-only?
The reason for my suspicions is simply an over-riding history - one filled with the "latest and greatest" technology that will make great improvements on stereo with previously recorded stereo (..just music). While not always the case, these "improvements" have overall been utter failures (in this context).
Honestly, I hope all of these older stereo recordings can be vastly improved in a uniform manner. But prior experience suggests something a great deal less than the exuberance you display for this new format.
Additionally, I'll be kind and provide one more caution (and again, with a suggestion):
Instead of insults and slights about how I, dewardh, or any other doesn't have either any understanding, or so little understanding as being utterly incapable of making any sort of comment whatsoever on whatever subject as you so deem, why not try a little kindness and offer some specific links with specific cites in context to material that will better inform us?
If nothing else, it's got to take less time than your abusive replies. Plus, it's something you can always refer others back to - potentially saving you more time and perhaps engender a discussion that's informed enough that it doesn't fill you with utter contempt.
Last edited:
