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.
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.
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 So all my experience is with outdated systems.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
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
I believe that Ambisonics uses four recorded tracks. You can't derive an Ambisonic signal from a stereo pair.
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
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
But I hear RL calling and must away be.
Cheers
eStatic
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.
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
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
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.
Dont know if this will be of intrest in this thread....
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/almusvcu.html
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/almusvcu.html
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
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
There is, or at least use to be, a "circle surround white paper" available on the net that went into some detail about how circle surround works. Once again, the cs3xjr. is a very flexible product, if you dont use it as a circle surround decoder, it can also be used with a digital 5.1 setup to derive extra ambience channels, which like I said, was actually how it was marketed.
kevyjo,
I finally got my surround and back channels set up and running and tried the music dsp modes on my Rotel rsp-1066 and as you suggested they would, they sound like crud. Well, one is usable with organ music (but, hey, got 104 organ CDs 🙂 ). Anyway I will be getting one of those cs3xjr as soon as I can budget for it.
eStatic
I finally got my surround and back channels set up and running and tried the music dsp modes on my Rotel rsp-1066 and as you suggested they would, they sound like crud. Well, one is usable with organ music (but, hey, got 104 organ CDs 🙂 ). Anyway I will be getting one of those cs3xjr as soon as I can budget for it.
eStatic
Hi. After taking some years off from diy speakers to do diy music I’ve returned to the issue of ambience. In the picture here you see in the upper left hand corner one of two MTMs I built. The second MTM is symmetrically placed on the right. I recently hooked up an old Yamaha DSP-100U and so far I like it very much. (really need to spend a lot more time listening, however). Anyway the high quality of the effect was of some surprise as I had found the unit useless both in the 4 channel mode and in 6 when placed at approximately the same vertical and z axis position as the mains. I should point out that “Above and behind“ is the position Yamaha specifies as most desirable; so d’Oh!
Is there anyone else who uses a Yamaha DSP-100U (and is willing to admit it in public 😉
I’m planning to add more ceiling level ambience channels. The first two should be installed by next week. These are not diy, just a pair of Definitive Technologies BP-2X. But after that I’m back in diy city for the other channels.
Is there anyone else who uses a Yamaha DSP-100U (and is willing to admit it in public 😉
I’m planning to add more ceiling level ambience channels. The first two should be installed by next week. These are not diy, just a pair of Definitive Technologies BP-2X. But after that I’m back in diy city for the other channels.
Attachments
I´m currently using three yamaha ax1 for a total of 12 ambience channels. I only use them for classical music. For me using ambience works at its best with a stereo dipole (main speakers next to each other right at the center and after some crosstalk cancellation). Also, high and mid frequencies should be tamed down at the ambience channels, specially at the rear.