I don't know what your point is here and frankly you are guessing again. You haven't mixed with my system so any comments about it being inferior is just more erroneous theorizing.
There is no standard like this as far as I know. The main reason why is the other decoders will not stand up to a pro's ear or an audiophile's - mine does.
There is no standard like this as far as I know. The main reason why is the other decoders will not stand up to a pro's ear or an audiophile's - mine does.
And why is that? Could it be that you have never ever explained what your "system" really does? So we have to keep on guessing. The only thing you say is that your "system" is the best thing since sliced bread.
Stereo provides better spatial reproduction than mono. What would be the reason for 5 discrete channels or more to deliver an inferior spatial reproduction when compared to stereo?
What makes you so sure about that?
What you don't get is there are other new decoders out there and some other companies lurking in the shadows. I have already told you enough of what you need to know.
What you think is stereo and people have adopted as the defacto standard for it imho is not "true stereo". You are generally listening to an image that is distorted in space and confined down into a slice of pie. I am the anti-thesis to all that stuff you read about binaural, surround sound, and wave synthesis being different from stereo. Ehh wrong! Think again - Stereo is wave synthesis, binaural, and surround sound most people just haven't heard it or realized it yet.
None of your business.
Would be interesting to see what a multi-channel Quantec in an MDG 2+2+2 setup can do. As I said earlier in this thread I don't like unnatural smoothness in the reverb tail.
Forunately I don't have many bad studio recordings. But if multi-miked orchestra recordings from the big labels could benefit from this device, too...
If wasn't so expensive.
I didn't exactly want to get into the specifics. It was an attempt at honesty. You want a solution to the problems with the room and I gave it. Maybe it would have been better if I just lied and said I used some commercial decoder.
it's easy and cheap to say "Bose (...) misguided craze"
Would You call John Watkinson ("Art of Sound Reproduction" and many more) or David Moulton ("Total Recording" and many more) misguided crazy person (aka audiophool proposing crazy schemes)?
or Stu Hegeman or Hiroyuki Yoshii?
interestingly they both turned from gigantic and iconic monuments of controlled directivity to simple omni
on images attached: Lowther-Hegeman and Onkyo Grand Scepter
best,
graaf
Attachments
Last edited:
Well I was still trying to help. And you didn't hear too much marketing ** from me - at least I admit that the other decoders are trying to do the same thing. So in a sense my system is more about perfection than anything new. I feel like I have perfected the basic system I have told you about and I guess I could just try to give it away and be mister hero or whatever but the truth is people like you and others are probably going to argue with me until my dieing day and I am no savior of audio or the like. It's just another system like any other but precisely refined. And even if I showed it to you right here and now you would probably over think it and dismiss it based on erroneous theory.
Funny, I guess I have a sort of "Hexaphonic" system, though the term is new to me.
6 channels, 6 speakers. You see, I run one of those goofy old Yamaha DSP-1 units from the '80s. The Yamaha generates 4 channels of surround or ambiance from a 2 channel input.
So I have my main stereo pair, a L&R surround slightly behind me, and the L&R front ambiance speakers on the wall behind the mains. It works very well if used in moderation. Often I just use the back surrounds and not the front DSP-1 channels (behind the mains).
Cool thing about the subtle use of the surrounds it that I "get more" out of the mains. I don't so much hear the surround channels as notice more space and detail in the mains. Soundstaging in the mains is better, and musical lines are easier to follow. I really enjoy it.
6 channels, 6 speakers. You see, I run one of those goofy old Yamaha DSP-1 units from the '80s. The Yamaha generates 4 channels of surround or ambiance from a 2 channel input.
So I have my main stereo pair, a L&R surround slightly behind me, and the L&R front ambiance speakers on the wall behind the mains. It works very well if used in moderation. Often I just use the back surrounds and not the front DSP-1 channels (behind the mains).
Cool thing about the subtle use of the surrounds it that I "get more" out of the mains. I don't so much hear the surround channels as notice more space and detail in the mains. Soundstaging in the mains is better, and musical lines are easier to follow. I really enjoy it.
I thought I tried everything with my fullrangers, but even now I found out that the 901 is usually just placed around 40 cm from the walls. Seemed too crazy to me to try something like that, so I can't say.
Sorry, but I have a problem with the basics, I don't want to disturb the discussion, but maybe others will benefit, too.
Does a usual surround mixer just pan between the front and the rear speaker of the same side? And what is a decoder? Does it replace the mixer, or does it correct that rudimentary method by re-calculating the ready mix?
Does a usual surround mixer just pan between the front and the rear speaker of the same side? And what is a decoder? Does it replace the mixer, or does it correct that rudimentary method by re-calculating the ready mix?
When mixing in "real" surround, a signal can be mixed to any channel. Directional properties of sound fields are retained to a high degree.
A "decoder" just processes the final mix and derives signals that are assigned to additional speakers. These signals are either matrixed (embedded) into the two stereo signals (e.g. Dolby Surround) or derived based on certain algorithms (e.g. Dolby Pro Logic II).
A "decoder" just processes the final mix and derives signals that are assigned to additional speakers. These signals are either matrixed (embedded) into the two stereo signals (e.g. Dolby Surround) or derived based on certain algorithms (e.g. Dolby Pro Logic II).
Hi,
Not that that is what I said, but never mind.
I am not particulary calling anyone engineering Omni's or related (and the list is quite a bit longer) crazy.
What I did say was that there was in a certain period of time a fashion (or craze) for omnidirectional designs. All replete with lengthy academeic papers as to why they where better. This fashion has since largely died down and the academic output is nowadays generally seen as flawed.
As to why individuals do what they do, you need to ask them.
Ciao T
Not that that is what I said, but never mind.
I am not particulary calling anyone engineering Omni's or related (and the list is quite a bit longer) crazy.
What I did say was that there was in a certain period of time a fashion (or craze) for omnidirectional designs. All replete with lengthy academeic papers as to why they where better. This fashion has since largely died down and the academic output is nowadays generally seen as flawed.
As to why individuals do what they do, you need to ask them.
Ciao T
Maybe concluded on wrong assumptions
I havent had much believe in omnis, until now
From my recent experiments something tells me that omnis should either be based on multiple drivers, or the drivers should be placed very close to the floor
But who wants a small speaker that looks like a cheap sub
I've never had a surround system playing in my home (except the proprietary Andrea von Salis quadrophonia), but what I can say is that a stereo recording, no matter how it is produced always sounded messy when I listened to it turned 90° (I tried that with different recordings years ago with my Spendors). When stereo works that has nothing to do with soundfield, only with the "decoder" in our heads.
women
it has really very high WAF, my wife like it a lot in piano black finish, it does look like a small sub but not cheap sub
and there are certainly worse things around like sewer pipes loudspeakers fo example
anyway, if an audiophile can show off with his turnable setup and valves, the loudspeaker can look like small sub
best regards,
graaf
Last edited:
I agree, no wavefiled synthesis is needed but speakers and the room and the decoder in our heads as a system
What do you mean by "turned 90°"? This is not how multichannel audio works. Upmix algorithms had and have all sorts of problems and limitations, that's why multichannel audio like we know it today was invented (see Toole for more details). The problem is that the industry that would benefit the most from multichannel audio didn't adopt it (yet): the audio industry. The technical platform is there but instead of using it, guys like Key "invent" a "new" upmix algorithm. This will not change things to the better.
Last edited: