I am going to be as gentle as I can.
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You speculated, and I returned with the facts. If that is upsetting, I am sorry - but I prefer facts over speculation and ones personal "feelings".
You are out of luck here, stereo is dead and done to companies like DTS and Dolby. Besides, think about it - music is a spatially static medium. Once things are panned into place(or recorded in a stereo mike setup), it does not move.
We are not talking about stereo, so you are already starting off on the wrong foot with your analysis. DTS and Dolby are multichannel audio companies who have not done ANYTHING with stereo since VHS. You cannot assume you experiences with stereo will be the same as with multichannel.
Once again, we are not talking about stereo. Markus never mentioned stereo, I never mentioned stereo, and neither has anyone else who has posted information on these two products.
So here is why I am annoyed with you. This is the second time you have asked me to change what I do, to accommodate what you do. So I am going to twist this back on you. Why don't ask instead speculating? Let me refresh history here. Two links to both DTS and Dolby products were already posted, and yet you did not read them, and preferred to "speculate" instead. So I am going to ask you for a little kindness - more questions, less speculation. The latter has about as much value as a used piece of tissue.
I type 110wpm. So it takes me far less time than your intelligence insulting speculative comments. Can you see how easy a perspective can be switched around?
I want to make this perfectly clear. You are being profoundly hyperbolic and inflammatory here. You do not know me PERIOD, and contempt is an awful strong emotion for me to have with a person I don't know. So let's skip all of the fire and brimstone, it is not helpful to the discussion at all.
Once again the throwback. Why don't you ask questions first, and perhaps that could engender a meaningful and informed discussion. When somebody is always giving the orders on how some one else should behave, they are being blind to the fact that their own actions can positively or negatively affect the tone of the discussion. Take a good look in the mirror. That perspective can change a whole lot of things.
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You speculated, and I returned with the facts. If that is upsetting, I am sorry - but I prefer facts over speculation and ones personal "feelings".
You are out of luck here, stereo is dead and done to companies like DTS and Dolby. Besides, think about it - music is a spatially static medium. Once things are panned into place(or recorded in a stereo mike setup), it does not move.
We are not talking about stereo, so you are already starting off on the wrong foot with your analysis. DTS and Dolby are multichannel audio companies who have not done ANYTHING with stereo since VHS. You cannot assume you experiences with stereo will be the same as with multichannel.
Once again, we are not talking about stereo. Markus never mentioned stereo, I never mentioned stereo, and neither has anyone else who has posted information on these two products.
So here is why I am annoyed with you. This is the second time you have asked me to change what I do, to accommodate what you do. So I am going to twist this back on you. Why don't ask instead speculating? Let me refresh history here. Two links to both DTS and Dolby products were already posted, and yet you did not read them, and preferred to "speculate" instead. So I am going to ask you for a little kindness - more questions, less speculation. The latter has about as much value as a used piece of tissue.
I type 110wpm. So it takes me far less time than your intelligence insulting speculative comments. Can you see how easy a perspective can be switched around?
I want to make this perfectly clear. You are being profoundly hyperbolic and inflammatory here. You do not know me PERIOD, and contempt is an awful strong emotion for me to have with a person I don't know. So let's skip all of the fire and brimstone, it is not helpful to the discussion at all.
Once again the throwback. Why don't you ask questions first, and perhaps that could engender a meaningful and informed discussion. When somebody is always giving the orders on how some one else should behave, they are being blind to the fact that their own actions can positively or negatively affect the tone of the discussion. Take a good look in the mirror. That perspective can change a whole lot of things.
While stereo is certainly dead for film, it is certainly not dead, and has a glowing future, for music distribution. I think that those who seek the "you are there" experience should go the film route as it is where multi-channel is under continuous development. So I see the "you are there" being done in two channel as a dead end. However, as I said, two channel will not die for a very long time as a medium in an of itself which can yield a very impressive "they are here" illusion.
This is also why I simply do not see having a "stereo". It makes no sense to me when a good setup can be done which can do both stereo and multi-channel - this way one can have it all. But surprising to me this has not caught on nearly as fast as I had expected it to. Perhaps the slow economy has killed the trend, but back before 2007 no new (largish) home would be built without a home theater. Today I do not see much growth in hi-end HT, just Bose type packaged systems which completely fall short of what is achievable.
This is also why I simply do not see having a "stereo". It makes no sense to me when a good setup can be done which can do both stereo and multi-channel - this way one can have it all. But surprising to me this has not caught on nearly as fast as I had expected it to. Perhaps the slow economy has killed the trend, but back before 2007 no new (largish) home would be built without a home theater. Today I do not see much growth in hi-end HT, just Bose type packaged systems which completely fall short of what is achievable.
I second that opinion Earl. There is no reason that two of the front channels of a home theater system can not be the playback system for stereo recordings. Most of the problem is with the low quality sound that has prevailed in the HT market. The little is better mentality that so many have bought into that Bose did push on the public. I never understood the thinking that the rear channel speakers in a surround system should have a limited bandwidth. that makes so little sense if you truly want exceptional sound and lifelike imaging even in a movie situation. If you want a bird or a person speaking behind you why wouldn't you want excellent full range reproduction. This should have increased the market for great speaker systems instead of creating a market for mediocre speakers we would never want for a front channel sound system.
Once the wifes heard "Small is just as good" from Bose, it was all over for the rest of us.
That this lie has been perpetrated on a gullible public is a sin of biblical proportions (well at least to me
) Just goes to show that, just as in politics, you can never go wrong telling people what they want to hear.
That this lie has been perpetrated on a gullible public is a sin of biblical proportions (well at least to me
) Just goes to show that, just as in politics, you can never go wrong telling people what they want to hear.
Hi Guys
I think maybe there is a discussion going on about the sailing conditions on two different oceans.
I have heard some of our speakers from work in both in my living room as well as large spaces including some installed in one of the converted Omni-max to Imax theater and my impression would be more like this.
To make the stereo image some of us think of, where if properly captured or studio created, we could hear a person walk left to right between the loudspeakers , without being aware of the loudspeakers as sources, one needs a fairly particular set of conditions .
Among the many things which can destroy that is when the difference between the distance to the R and L source exceeds a fairly small amount. On a large audience plane, you cannot have everyone or even all that many in the ideal place.
Also, as a general rule, the larger a loudspeaker system becomes (as the required acoustic power grows), the more of a complex radiation pattern it produces and the less able it is to project the image without dominating. In large sound, the ubiquitous line arrays depend on that kind of complex interference to “work” and so even when fed a mono signal to L and R, only produce the faintest trace of mono phantom, even on axis, even in at the mix board. You do not want to string out a single impulsive input event into a long train of individual direct and reflected arrivals unless you want “concert sound” and less intelligibility.
On the other hand, while true Stereo is limited in a large space, what is needed in the theater is localization to support what we are seeing. Our eyes dominate our senses but sound reassures what you see is (like having the dialogue from the right while the person speaking on the left, doesn’t). At work, the phantom image is not used for stereo but to make the voice sound like its in the center when you can’t actually put a speaker in the center (like some Churches).
What we can do very well is hear where a loudspeaker is and that is more like large scale multi-channel sound. In the converted Omnimax to Imax theater I saw / heard in Chicago, they used our SH-96’s behind the screen and the 4 TH-50 subwoofers on the floor.
http://blog.svconline.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/msi_imax.JPG
For that they were using a L,C,R and upper C system and one would have direct screen / source localization even if the speakers couldn’t produce a mono phantom on their own..
Where an ability to make a good phantom image in large sound does seem to matter are in these systems.
Electronic Acoustics
I heard my partner Mike play a Trumpet at a very large Church in Atlanta with one of these systems and with a knob at the mix board, the room could go from totally dry (sort of like outdoors on a quiet day) all the way to a huge cave, all while Mike walked all around the room playing and it never sounded fake or artificial and reached the suspension of acoustic disbelief, gave me goose bumps at one point.
Best,
Tom Danley
I think maybe there is a discussion going on about the sailing conditions on two different oceans.
I have heard some of our speakers from work in both in my living room as well as large spaces including some installed in one of the converted Omni-max to Imax theater and my impression would be more like this.
To make the stereo image some of us think of, where if properly captured or studio created, we could hear a person walk left to right between the loudspeakers , without being aware of the loudspeakers as sources, one needs a fairly particular set of conditions .
Among the many things which can destroy that is when the difference between the distance to the R and L source exceeds a fairly small amount. On a large audience plane, you cannot have everyone or even all that many in the ideal place.
Also, as a general rule, the larger a loudspeaker system becomes (as the required acoustic power grows), the more of a complex radiation pattern it produces and the less able it is to project the image without dominating. In large sound, the ubiquitous line arrays depend on that kind of complex interference to “work” and so even when fed a mono signal to L and R, only produce the faintest trace of mono phantom, even on axis, even in at the mix board. You do not want to string out a single impulsive input event into a long train of individual direct and reflected arrivals unless you want “concert sound” and less intelligibility.
On the other hand, while true Stereo is limited in a large space, what is needed in the theater is localization to support what we are seeing. Our eyes dominate our senses but sound reassures what you see is (like having the dialogue from the right while the person speaking on the left, doesn’t). At work, the phantom image is not used for stereo but to make the voice sound like its in the center when you can’t actually put a speaker in the center (like some Churches).
What we can do very well is hear where a loudspeaker is and that is more like large scale multi-channel sound. In the converted Omnimax to Imax theater I saw / heard in Chicago, they used our SH-96’s behind the screen and the 4 TH-50 subwoofers on the floor.
http://blog.svconline.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/msi_imax.JPG
For that they were using a L,C,R and upper C system and one would have direct screen / source localization even if the speakers couldn’t produce a mono phantom on their own..
Where an ability to make a good phantom image in large sound does seem to matter are in these systems.
Electronic Acoustics
I heard my partner Mike play a Trumpet at a very large Church in Atlanta with one of these systems and with a knob at the mix board, the room could go from totally dry (sort of like outdoors on a quiet day) all the way to a huge cave, all while Mike walked all around the room playing and it never sounded fake or artificial and reached the suspension of acoustic disbelief, gave me goose bumps at one point.
Best,
Tom Danley
Why would you think I hadn't. I have.
Note:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-199.html#post3416786
Which continued on to:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-199.html#post3416954
5.1 or 7.1? (which is really the only thing commented on in the paper with regard to transferring prior art to this newer format.)
I don't care about 5.1 or 7.1 with respect to music reproduction.
As far as market share is concerned - multi-channel has never even had the chance to die (..it never really "started"). Stereo has, and so far will continue to dominate music as the format.
I wish that weren't so (I recognize that stereo is fundamentally flawed), but to be able to overcome stereo's market dominance for music listening - prior stereo recordings must be capable of being transferred to the new format in a manner that is uniform - with results so substantially better (with *every* transfer) that it would actually prompt consumers to make that purchase.
-as far as new sound formats with film are concerned - don't care, never did and never made an express or implied statement to suggest that.
Last edited:
Because of the way you had replied. Object based audio separates a sound and its spatial properties. It's pretty obvious that a channel that carries both components (e.g. "old" multichannel mixes) doesn't benefit from the possibilities of an object based approach.
Which replies, and in what way?
As a starter reference:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-196.html#post3416005
For any format (with respect to music listening) to be rendered irrelevant, will necessarily require converting prior art to that new superior format. Without that, "stereo", "binaural", etc. will remain relevant.
That's what I was "wondering" with this post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-197.html#post3416029
..the material you provided doesn't seem to *specifically* address my question, and suggests that any transfer (as you've stated): "doesn't benefit from the possibilities of an object based approach". Again, if that's the case then it doesn't render stereo (et al.) irrelevant.
Not sure what you're trying to say. Define two objects for L and R and you're done.
Of course this won't make use of new capabilities. Just like mono didn't benefit from the invention of stereo.
Would someone kindly, precisely delineate, differentiate the "you are there" from "they are here" illusion?
As far as I'm concerned it's a volume thing: low volume gives "they are here" or better said, "they are there", as in somewhere past the speakers. Up the volume to the realistic levels, and it most certainly becomes a "you are there" experience. Of course, I'm talking pure stereo here ...
Edit: or is it purely that you can have someone talking over your shoulder ... the "I want to sit in the middle of the orchestra ! " experience ...
Frank
Last edited:
When I stated that stereo is dead, I was saying it within the context of new technology to advance the state of the art, and how the record companies value it. Let's be honest, the percentage of well recorded "they are here" recordings out there is infintestantly small. There have been no new advances in the stereo format since two channel went digital. Yes there have been improvement in individual manufacturers DAC's or cartridges, but they have been product differentiation moves that often don't really have an audible improvement on the sound. They just sound "different". Let's be honest, the record companies do not put a high value on their content. For them(based on their actions over the last decade), they are more interested in selling in volume, than to actually improved the product. CD's are generally gone from brick and motar stores, and iTunes dominates two channel music sales. iTunes IMO is the lowest common denominator when it comes to sound quality. DVD-A came and went, and SACD is gasping its last breath of air, and now high definition downloads are here, but you cannot get audiophiles to turn loose their vinyl. On the recording side, major record labels have become profoundly cheap with their recording budgets, so it makes it very difficult to create high quality "they are here" recordings. That requires money and time, both of which they have shown they have no stomach for. This is why I say stereo is dead, nobody is doing much of anything to improve it, so it remains the after thought that it currently is. Classical music is the only genre that I have heard improvements in quality. Everything else has basically gone backwards.
Been saying this for years. I can play anything from mono to 7.1 on all of my systems, and that cannot be said for a two channel system.
Dr. Gedlee, high resolution multichannel music has not caught on with the folks that would directly benefit from it(audiophiles) because they refused to embrace it. I cannot tell you how many excuses they come up with to hold on to their turntables and old speakers. "It cost too much for me to upgrade" is the most common comment I hear. That is because they want to build a multichannel system based around their old speakers, instead of realizing you can build a new system for a very reasonable price - often less than their original two channel system costs. Audiophiles can think of more ways to not upgrade than toes and fingers found in NYC.
There really has been huge growth in high end, mid line, and even low end of HT. Low cost receivers sound better today than they ever have, and they can represent a good value as well. Some features that have always been found on high end HT equipment has now trickled down to the low end. We have advanced room correction, lossless high bit and sample rate audio, you have Dolby 96khz that upsamples 48khz audio, and uses a apodizing filter to remove jitter and errors on a Bluray disc. Dts announced that their version of the object oriented MDA will be in receivers later this year. We have Dolby 9.2, DTS Neo 11.1, and Audyssey DSX 11.1 to give our movies a more immersive experience. Multichannel music recording has advanced so quickly technique wise, and reached such a high level of quality and transparency(see DXD recording format) that you cannot tie images to the speakers themselves. These days with a decent playback system and a good multichannel recording, you can transport yourself into any concert hall in the world. For multichannel folks, this is a very exciting time. I just do not see that kind of exciting coming from two channel.
According to NDP, the sales of HT equipment increased 5 percent in 2012, a much higher rate than of two channel audio(excluding headphones). That sales increase was pretty evenly between the high end, and the low end(and of course everything in between).
"You are there" is best defined by multichannel audio recording/playback system where you can capture the orchestra and the ambiance of a hall(and properly place it in front, to the sides, and behind you), and play it back in your room. If done well, you can be transported into any concert hall in the world.
"They are here" involves creating a two channel recording so well done, it sound like the performers are in your room.
As far as I'm concerned it's a volume thing: low volume gives "they are here" or better said, "they are there", as in somewhere past the speakers. Up the volume to the realistic levels, and it most certainly becomes a "you are there" experience. Of course, I'm talking pure stereo here ...
You cannot get "you are there" from stereo. There are not enough spatial cues recorded, and not enough speakers to be spatially accurate during playback. It is a frontal experience only. Volume plays no role in this.
Edit: or is it purely that you can have someone talking over your shoulder ... the "I want to sit in the middle of the orchestra ! " experience ...
Frank
That would be a no.
Soundtrackmixer.
You make it sound like the record companies will not spend any money on a quality recording for the stereo format. Is this really true or is part of it the demise of so many of the better recording studios and the advent of the home recording studio and poor recording technique? If the powers that be are so dead set against spending the money on two channel recording why would they then spend what must be more money on a multichannel recording session? It seems that this would just up the cost considerably over the two channel methods with all the extra equipment that is needed to create that original master? Perhaps I am missing something in your argument. I have nothing against moving to multichannel playback, I could sell many more high quality speakers that way! Not esoteric priced goods, something that is reasonable but sounds as good as what many audiophiles would pay for a single hi end speaker in that market. You mentioned the receiver you were using to do your movie playback and it alone was about $6000 just for that unit, more than most people are willing to pay for the entire systems they have in their homes. So where are you drawing the lines or distinctions here? A Yamaha receiver is going to cost a fraction of that, though I have never liked the sound of their equipment it is a large purveyor of this type of consumer goods. I value your opinion as you seem to be connected with today's trends in the industry as that is your profession. I have long ago moved away from the stuck on vacuum tubes crowd and the gotta have an old Altec A7 in my living room. But there is still some nice audiophile quality gear that sounds great, and records sure seem to be making a comeback even if it is just for nostalgia reasons.
You make it sound like the record companies will not spend any money on a quality recording for the stereo format. Is this really true or is part of it the demise of so many of the better recording studios and the advent of the home recording studio and poor recording technique? If the powers that be are so dead set against spending the money on two channel recording why would they then spend what must be more money on a multichannel recording session? It seems that this would just up the cost considerably over the two channel methods with all the extra equipment that is needed to create that original master? Perhaps I am missing something in your argument. I have nothing against moving to multichannel playback, I could sell many more high quality speakers that way! Not esoteric priced goods, something that is reasonable but sounds as good as what many audiophiles would pay for a single hi end speaker in that market. You mentioned the receiver you were using to do your movie playback and it alone was about $6000 just for that unit, more than most people are willing to pay for the entire systems they have in their homes. So where are you drawing the lines or distinctions here? A Yamaha receiver is going to cost a fraction of that, though I have never liked the sound of their equipment it is a large purveyor of this type of consumer goods. I value your opinion as you seem to be connected with today's trends in the industry as that is your profession. I have long ago moved away from the stuck on vacuum tubes crowd and the gotta have an old Altec A7 in my living room. But there is still some nice audiophile quality gear that sounds great, and records sure seem to be making a comeback even if it is just for nostalgia reasons.
Kindhornman, they don't want to spend the money PERIOD. And this is why the recording studios that do high quality work(which costs money) have gone out of business. I quit doing any recording work for the major labels back in the mid 90's, because I found that I could not do good work with the budget they were constant presenting to me. This is not to say good recordings don't happen. They just rarely happen coming from the major lables - it is mostly the independent labels that push for quality.
They don't. This is one of the reasons DVD-A and SACD are dead. They cut the budget so much, nobody could afford to do multichannel recordings for these formats. The record companies never support either format with marketing, or PR.
So you understand. In todays music world you spend the least amount of money are recording, mixing, and mastering, so you can sell to the masses which increases revenue and profit. If I can do a rap album in my basement studio, and it sells 800,000 units, the record labels are going to definitely be interested in my work. That is how it rolls today.
Actually the receiver was closer to $4500 dollars, the 7 speakers and subwoofer around $6000, and the big 60" flatpanel in the room was $1900 on sale. I have a co-worker who spent $27,000 for two speakers, $6000 for his pre-amp, $17,000 for his amp, and I don't know how much for his sources. He is a audiophile, not just a casual listener. You can always build your system piece by piece as I did. I bought the receiver and two speakers, and over time I added more speakers and a sub. Later I added the flat panel so I could enjoy concert video's on Bluray on this system.
I would suggest that you check out Yamaha's new AVENTAGE line of receivers. They sound so much better than any receiver or pre-pro Yamaha has ever made. They raised their own bar of quality far higher than I would have expected from them.
While vinyl sales are increasing, let be real here. It only represents 1.6% of all music sales from 2012. The quality of the pressings is not very good, and the vinyl itself does not seem as robust in quality as the old school vinyl. What is driving these sales? DJ's, not the average consumer.
There is an old Biblical scripture that says "seek and you shall find". If you get out there and look and listen, you can put together a multichannel system for FAR less than I put mine together, and still have great sound. Most people just don't look.
You can get a more convincing audio scene with two speakers if they were set up using ambiophonics. If you want surround, a panambio set up will be much better than multichannel. The problem is, if audiophiles discriminate against multichannel....they certainly won't give ambiophonics a try
But, I agree that stereo is dead. I would prefer multichannel to stereo. But ambiophonics, matrix, ambisonics, binaural......these are the best ways to achieve realism.
