Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!? - Page 204 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th March 2013, 10:24 PM   #2031
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
For any format (with respect to music listening) to be rendered irrelevant, will necessarily require converting prior art to that new superior format.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2013, 10:46 PM   #2032
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
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.
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 by fas42; 20th March 2013 at 10:58 PM. Reason: typos ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2013, 11:28 PM   #2033
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
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.
I honestly don't think I can state it more plainly than in my previous post..
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2013, 11:38 PM   #2034
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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).
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2013, 11:45 PM   #2035
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
Would someone kindly, precisely delineate, differentiate the "you are there" from "they are here" illusion?
"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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2013, 11:48 PM   #2036
ra7 is offline ra7  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Blog Entries: 1
A good summary, soundtrackmixer. Thanks for that.

The reality for me is that I simply don't have a room that I can dedicate to HT. And that is the case for the majority, I'm guessing. So, if mortals like me still want to enjoy music, it has to be stereo, or headphones.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 12:05 AM   #2037
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 02:32 AM   #2038
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kindhornman View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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 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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:15 AM   #2039
diyAudio Member
 
Melo theory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Gulfport fl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I LIKE YOU
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:20 AM   #2040
diyAudio Member
 
picowallspeaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Two channels music replay has not even started yet, go figure.
First you have to make the right ( or left, if you are ambidextro ) step
into it, if not, all the judgements are false
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB Linkwitz Orions jrling Swap Meet 0 13th March 2010 05:26 PM
Finally finished my orions srfranci Multi-Way 5 24th July 2009 11:29 AM
My week with the Orions, or 'why do we bother' cuibono Multi-Way 56 26th October 2008 12:51 AM
Can the Dynaudio C1 be beaten by a DIY design obiwan Multi-Way 16 22nd July 2007 10:19 AM
How hard to clone the Orions? Chaucer Multi-Way 46 8th July 2005 02:01 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2