synthetic ambience

[kevyjo]

I don't want the best possible reproduction of a recording.
I want the best possible simulation of being in a space appropriate to the recorded performance.


to me, the above statements are completely contradictory. If a reproduction acurately simulates the expirience of being in a space appropriate to the recorded performance, does this NOT mean it can be the best possible reproduction?? I'm already a blasphemer of "pure hifi" because I believe in surround sound because it sounds better. I'm no purist by any measure. I would just suggest to you that you might try using a different vehicle to get to where you want to be with youre audio system.

[eStatic]

SY:
You're so boring, all I can do is agree with you

kevyjo: "You know, you really really should try out the CS3xjr. It is a rediculous deal at $130,.."

Sounds like an excellent idea. I will add that to my plans. And please be not afraid, if I find that the additional channels sully the music I will cease such defilement Otherwise, seeing that your musical soul is already in jeopardy...

kevyjo:
"By the way, you asked above I'f those of us who were apposed to synthetic ambience have really listened to such systems. I have listened to many, some really high end. What I would ask, have you listened to a really high end system that incorportates surround without synthetic delays"

I have to confess, I have been out of the audio loop (so to speak) for 12 years. So all my experience is with outdated systems. Perhaps the CS3xjr will shed the scales from my ears. Errant though I may be, I really do try not to judge before the fact.


eStatic

[SY]

durived surround, be it abisonics, quad sound, or circle surround signals are in all two channel recorded music.

I believe that Ambisonics uses four recorded tracks. You can't derive an Ambisonic signal from a stereo pair.

[kevyjo]

I did not know that about ambisonics....anyway. Estatic, about 8 years ago there was a new processor that came out that was a derived surround, but was a big improvement over just a hafler chip or dolby pro-logic in that it derived 5 different, full bandwith channels out of a stereo signal, the technology was circle surround. The processor flopped, probably because it was over $1000, but circle surround came back as dolby pro=logic 2. The little CS3xjr. was originally a device for people to get extra channels out of there 5 channel dolby digital or DTS systems, but its also a circle surround processor, so it can be used either way. Since its a separate component, it would be easy to split its signal and add more channels if you wanted, and the surround decoding is really excellent, its amazing what it can do for just simple 2 channel stereo, and as far as movies go, It gets close enough to DD or DTS, I dont even bother with them. If I seem rather passionate about this topic it is because I also looked long and hard for a system with the right amount of ambience, and it was very frustrating, but I feel that I have found a system that I finally really like

[eStatic]

Um... the CS-3X seems to be $299.00 and it seems to say nothing about stereo music use. I am a bit perplexed, not knowing where I went wrong in my search.

But I hear RL calling and must away be.

Cheers

eStatic

[kevyjo]

That is it's normal price, but if you go under "smart store" it lists its sale price at $129. Like I said, it was marketed as a "special effects" channel decoder, but it can be used as a 5.1 circle surround decoder. The MM1 is actually more geared toward use for music, but its $249. They essentially work the same, but the mm1 has a music mode where the center channel is only slightly used. I have the 3xjr. only decoding the surround channels, so the stereo signal is left alone, my integrated amp has two pre-outs so I can do it this way. To use the 3xjr. without a "hard center" channel, you need to have either an extra set of stereo speaker jacks, a second set of pre-outs, or a headphone jack that is not disabled when youre speakers are on. Most sytems will have one of these, but if you dont, I'd suggest the MM1. You may want a "hard center" channel anyway, I just prefer not to use it because it messes with my speakers imiging.

[eStatic]

kevyjo,

Thanks, found it. The MM-1 does look more interesting but the price is a little to high for a "just do it" approach. Think I'll wait till my dipolar subs are finished and see if anything is left in my budget.

eStatic

[kevyjo]

yes, the MM1 is still a deal, but it does essentially work the same as the CS3xjr, with the exception of having easier control of the center channel fill.

[MWP]

Dont know if this will be of intrest in this thread....

http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/almusvcu.html

[eStatic]

Not sure I can figure out what to do with this but it does look interesting and definitely worth checking out. Much thanks for the posting, MWP.

I don't suppose anyone can refer me to a white-paper type thingy on the some the current encoding processes. I'm so out of date and rusty I need all the help I can get.

eStatic