A key thing is that I don't get the "good stuff" all the time, but because the system is enhanced in important areas the general standard is still excellent, better than all but one setup I heard at the recent hifi show.
@Soundtrackmixer: Note that my current system is a lowly HT setup, with the anciliary speakers in place, which means, or did mean, that "proper" surround sound could be experienced - the extra speakers are now disconnected. There have been many humourous moments when only well into listening to a particular CD did I realise that the main unit was still in surround sound mode - it defaults to that setting every time you put a disk in - the fact that the rear speakers were happily doing their thing made no difference to the sense of "spaciousness" ...
@ra7: the experience is most certainly not learnt. I was just doing the usual tweaking rounds 26 years ago, except I was being more fastidious, anal than most about it perhaps, and suddenly it just happened - chalk and cheese barely covers it. It was a true WTF moment, and I instantly knew where I was going from then on. Plus, the illusion failed very quickly - I didn't understand at all what was important with regard to maintaining system quality, and I struggled for years trying to get a handle on things ...
@Soundtrackmixer: Note that my current system is a lowly HT setup, with the anciliary speakers in place, which means, or did mean, that "proper" surround sound could be experienced - the extra speakers are now disconnected. There have been many humourous moments when only well into listening to a particular CD did I realise that the main unit was still in surround sound mode - it defaults to that setting every time you put a disk in - the fact that the rear speakers were happily doing their thing made no difference to the sense of "spaciousness" ...
@ra7: the experience is most certainly not learnt. I was just doing the usual tweaking rounds 26 years ago, except I was being more fastidious, anal than most about it perhaps, and suddenly it just happened - chalk and cheese barely covers it. It was a true WTF moment, and I instantly knew where I was going from then on. Plus, the illusion failed very quickly - I didn't understand at all what was important with regard to maintaining system quality, and I struggled for years trying to get a handle on things ...
Yes. Another picture I use is that the end wall behind the speakers is ripped off and your listening room is attached via that opening to the recorded space. If that were to happen in reality just imagine what the sound would be like if you moved around inside your room, to all corners, but never into the recording area itself, while listening to the music coming through the opening ...
absolutely
how about Gradient Helsinki 1.5?
from: Gradient Helsinki 1.5 loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com
from: Gradient Helsinki 1.5 Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I own a set of Summas, but I didn't realize that Geddes compared the Gradient Revolutions against his own speakers. (Albeit an early version.)
Interesting stuff, particularly since the Gradient is a variation on one of the speakers in this test, and the Summa has some things in common with the Behringer.
More info here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103813-objectives-loudspeaker-small-room-9.html#post1244561
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...p-dr-geddes-other-experts-11.html#post2015755
What's totally, totally wrong in that picture? Think about it ...
Okay, the speakers are not stabilised with respect to the room, the bass, in spite of the decent sized drivers, will be truly appalling - I wouldn't spend 2 seconds listening to this, it would be a mess ...
My wee little B&W bookshelfs, years ago, could deliver very convincing bass, not gut wrenching, but the sharp, visceral bite of the bass guitar was all there; to me, a lot of the bass "lesser" systems produce is in the category of waterbed bladder "noises" - bluuurp, bluurp, bluurp ...
Last edited:
@Soundtrackmixer: Note that my current system is a lowly HT setup, with the anciliary speakers in place, which means, or did mean, that "proper" surround sound could be experienced - the extra speakers are now disconnected. There have been many humourous moments when only well into listening to a particular CD did I realise that the main unit was still in surround sound mode - it defaults to that setting every time you put a disk in - the fact that the rear speakers were happily doing their thing made no difference to the sense of "spaciousness" ...
I hope you are aware that trying to get surround sound from a CD is not even close to getting discrete surround sound from SACD, DVD-A or Bluray disc. If this is your reference, then you are on a different planet than I am on the topic of surround. My perspective comes from pure discrete multichannel sources whether lossless (DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD 5.1 or 7.1) or completely uncompressed (LPCM 5.1 or 7.1).
Anytime a processor is used to "extract" surround cues, the results are never consistent or reliable. Perhaps that is why it made no difference to you in terms of spaciousness. If you start off at the bottom of the barrel, don't be surprised if you get bottom of the barrel results.
To take this in a slightly different direction, I attended a number of amazing demos today. Most were image related, but some was audio.
First DTS:
My quest for the DIY Smyth Realizer may be moot. DTS has done it (almost) with no measuring of the HRTF. I was amazed. They did the typical demo, put us in a room with an 11.1 surround system and played each speaker with a voice identifying it. OK. Then we put on some small Senhesseir headphones and they did it again. Same sound, same speakers with the voice, but i was all in the headphones. Yes, it sounded identical. But it was not the speakers - I checked. I was amazing. Left, right, center, high front right, high front left, rear, etc. The sound came from the speakers, not the headphones.
It was not as good on music, movies and games, but still pretty convincing. I was amazed they could do that well without a HRTF. It's called DTS Headphone:X and will be appearing in playback devices later this year. Any headphone, or even earbuds.
Also went to the Dolby 3D demo. It wasn't 3D sound, as I had hoped, it was just normal surround that wasn't great. It was the TV that was 3D. No glasses, real 3D. Beautiful. Not as deep or exaggerated as cinema 3d with glasses, more subtle and natural. Life of Pi looked very good.
There is a lot of cool stuff out there. 3D cinema at 60fps and 14 foot-lamberts on the screen is a joy to behold. It was one of those cliche "A veil has been lifted" moments.
First DTS:
My quest for the DIY Smyth Realizer may be moot. DTS has done it (almost) with no measuring of the HRTF. I was amazed. They did the typical demo, put us in a room with an 11.1 surround system and played each speaker with a voice identifying it. OK. Then we put on some small Senhesseir headphones and they did it again. Same sound, same speakers with the voice, but i was all in the headphones. Yes, it sounded identical. But it was not the speakers - I checked. I was amazing. Left, right, center, high front right, high front left, rear, etc. The sound came from the speakers, not the headphones.
It was not as good on music, movies and games, but still pretty convincing. I was amazed they could do that well without a HRTF. It's called DTS Headphone:X and will be appearing in playback devices later this year. Any headphone, or even earbuds.
Also went to the Dolby 3D demo. It wasn't 3D sound, as I had hoped, it was just normal surround that wasn't great. It was the TV that was 3D. No glasses, real 3D. Beautiful. Not as deep or exaggerated as cinema 3d with glasses, more subtle and natural. Life of Pi looked very good.
There is a lot of cool stuff out there. 3D cinema at 60fps and 14 foot-lamberts on the screen is a joy to behold. It was one of those cliche "A veil has been lifted" moments.
Well, 99% of the material out there is not encoded with true multichannel, so for me the game is to make the best of what I've got, and can get easily. And, I don't see what the point is, to have completely distinct sounds emerging from the side, or behind me, most musical events rely on what's happening being in front of you, that's where the real action is; and the "spaciousness" that is created by the cues coming through enhances that. As an example, some late 80's pop has massively deep acoustics encoded on them, that's where they designed to appear to come from; trying to move that around you via DSP manipulation would only lead to a bizarre listening experience I would think.
The other big plus of "fixing up stereo" my way is that all those really unlistenable CDs you only ever gave a spin once, and then let gather dust at the back of your collection, suddenly come to life. Yes, they become a joy to listen to, and I reckon that's worth putting in a bit of effort to have happen ...
Sure, that's perfectly understandable and most people would agree. But I both enjoy listening to my system and I enjoy tinkering with it. Audio is my hobby, after all. It isn't everyone's.
And since I've heard what is possible to do, I at least have a goal.
It occupies my time. Some people build model trains or go sailing instead.
Trouble is, this is still gimmicky; Lexicon did it the right way with their OTT DSP processor, but that's now been dumped ...
Since you're around,
, when you did the demos did everyone "get it", or were there some people for whom the illusion didn't happen? In other words, was it a universal experience, or are some people's hearing different enough so the effect doesn't register?
Doing single sound source vs complicated sound sources can be very different. I am not sure whether you were listening to more complicated performances or not.
Real 3D without glasses sounds interesting, can you moving around and still see good 3D? Hope I get to see it some time in the future. If it really get's 3D right, then we can hope to see some real exciting stuff. My personal view is that 3D TV will end up much like stereo.
I don't go by what is not there, I seek out what is there. I have 276 music and concert videos on Bluray disc, 564 multichannel SACD discs, 65 multichannel DVD-A discs, and about 250 of my own personal multichannel recordings in my archive that grows 2 recordings each week. This is more material than I have time to listen to in a year or more - and the list grows by the week. If I just sat on what I have, then I would go nowhere. Secondly, it is apparent you don't attend live events much, because if you did, you would realize that the experience is not just front loaded, it is a very immersive experience with spatial cues 360 degrees around us. The crowd is very much a part of the experience as we don't go to concert venues and sit by ourselves in silence.
The other big plus of "fixing up stereo" my way is that all those really unlistenable CDs you only ever gave a spin once, and then let gather dust at the back of your collection, suddenly come to life. Yes, they become a joy to listen to, and I reckon that's worth putting in a bit of effort to have happen ...
I have always believed that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it will never be a fashion model. A bad recording is a bad recording. You can salt it, pepper it, and drown it in marinade, but in the end it is still a bad recording.
I heard this demo about 4 months ago. It was really quite good, and repeatable on many different types of headphones. However, let's be honest, this is a licensed take on the Smyth product, and it helps DTS that the creator of the Smyth Realiser is a former DTS executive and engineer.
This is DTS's answer to Dolby Headphone. Dolby usually comes out with something first, and then DTS answers back with something similar and makes it better IMO.
Dolby has been shopping their 3D sets to the Hollywood studios for about 4 months now. While this set is good for on location production, it is not suitable for 3D visual effects in post. The lack of depth really hampers what the creators really want to see, as the software is fully capable of deep depth, but the hardware is limited in that area. Visual effects guys don't like those kinds of limitations. For me, both passive and active with glasses is still the best 3D available to both visual effect guys, and for us at home.
Once you get past basic stereo, there is a whole new and interesting world out there full of great technology. Now if we can get storytellers to properly use this technology without becoming a slave to it, we are really going to be in to something.
Au contraire ... I rarely go to "big" events or shows, because the sound is mangled 98% of the time by the "pro" PA systems, by the time I leave I heave a sigh of relief to be able to get away from the "mess". I say that percentage because several times it worked, the "professionals" actually switched their brains on for a second or two, and got the sound right.
But I actively seek out live, non-amplified music making, be it a lone busker or a full scale big band to "calibrate" my hearing. The latter was fun, standing on the other side of the usual rubbish PA setup, a couple of feet from the ground level stage, a dozen people about 12 feet away going for it. The volume was glorious, deafening, made my head vibrate -- that's what the thrill's about!
Having crowd noises on live CDs sounds "wrong", because it's coming from far behind the performers, who are facing me. But that's OK, it still does the job of bringing the ambience to the equation; I still get the markers of the show happening in a huge place ...
Not a fashion model, but worth listening to. When I hear the damage studio, "pro" gear does to the sound of decent recordings I wouldn't ever think of putting a more testing recording through one ...
Sure, that's perfectly understandable and most people would agree. But I both enjoy listening to my system and I enjoy tinkering with it. Audio is my hobby, after all. It isn't everyone's.
And since I've heard what is possible to do, I at least have a goal.
Please also try my cross-firing technique. The idea is simple, aim each speaker at or near the first reflection point of the opposite wall.
Vary toe-in to get the ratio between direct and reflected sound right. Depending on your speaker's off-axis response you might need to apply equalization.
Attachments
Last edited:
Markus -yes, I've tried that. I was interesting, but with my rig it just didn't sound as good as pointing the speakers at me.
It did seem that the majority were amazed and did get it. The demos became legendary. I actually saw jaws drop. May not have impressed 100%, but some people just don't care about that sort of thing. Overall the demos were very well received.
Just read the DTS fine print and it seems the audio has to be encoded in DTS-HD with the room info embedded in the stream. No going to work for legacy software, it seems.
I dunno, I didn't ask everybody.
It did seem that the majority were amazed and did get it. The demos became legendary. I actually saw jaws drop. May not have impressed 100%, but some people just don't care about that sort of thing. Overall the demos were very well received.There wasn't much 3D off axis. Even on axis it was subtle. But it was less "In Your Face" than most stereoscopic images. In some ways, it's not a bad transition to 3D from flat. I imagine it will get better, deeper.
I've heard the Dolby headphone process and didn't think much of it. This was much better.
Just read the DTS fine print and it seems the audio has to be encoded in DTS-HD with the room info embedded in the stream. No going to work for legacy software, it seems.
Ask, and you will get answers.
It is revealing that you use the "window into the recording space" analogy. I've heard similar remarks from Pano and Markus and have used that parable myself. So we are basicly in the same boat with this "you are there - but not really".
I don't doubt that your "look into the recording space" is more precise than mine (and more convincing than mine because of that), but that should be the result of more attention to detail - which you have taken the effort to spend.
Rudolf