"The Great Capitulation" (1 Viewer)

[Robert Elliott]

Hi John,

They must be on crack. Only explanation I can come up with. Setting two speakers side by side that output the same signal would only serve to increase the loudness which is not the effect intended by THX/Dolby. Otherwise, they only need to use 1 speaker and specify a level increase similar to what they do with LFE. Or are they just trying to get us to buy more speakers...

 

[Sean M]

So far as I know, based on what I've read, the two rear speakers sitting side by side in Ultra 2 are not outputting the same exact signal. Ultra 2 processes the signal going to each rear slightly differently to create imaging from the two speakers. I'm not sure how they do it, or if it works, since I haven't heard it, but the review of Ultra 2 was very positive.

 

[ThomasL]

Richard, you haven't used a recent version Office lately, have you? I'd hate to have to use that beast on a x386. But not to get into a PC discussion, here is a link from Dolby Labs stating their policy on rear speakers.
Link Removed
cheers,
--tom

 

[Robert Elliott]

Hi Thomas,
I believe that was 'Robert' you were referencing. Not to get in a debate about PC's, but yes I have and can you say 'bloated beyond all reason?'
Thanks for the link. Great benefit and to the point. One or two rear surrounds carrying the encoded 3rd surround channel - which indicates the output is the same - and a minimum of 4 ft. between them.
Man, I am disappointed no one jumped on the LFE reference and questioned that - with all the SACD/DVD-A guys flipping out on Outlaw (prior to its release), I though that would get a response. I still have hope though.

 

[Larry B]

And for a completely different viewpoint:

Once one's tastes extend beyond action/special effects movies, there is little to be gained from using more than 2 speakers.

Larry

 

[David Judah]

I'd have to disagree, Larry. Some of us interested in multi-channel music, don't go into it with a 2 channel mindset and try to determine if it is better with more channels.
Instead, we appreciate it as a completely different way of listening to music(placing the listener in a different space in relation to the performers).
Think(or listen)outside of the box.
DJ

 

[Michael Marklund]

David,

Perhaps what Larry is trying to say, is that beyond action movies, there really is no need for 6.1,7.1,10.2. Being There, When Harry Met Sally, or Citizen Kane probably would not be any better in 6.1 or any other suround form. If one actually watches movies without Arnold or from Skywalker Ranch, then 2 speakers will suffice.

Additionally, as far as sacd/dvd-a is concerned, I've never sat in the middle of an orchestra or band. The only thing I hear around me is the audience. Don't really need 5+ speakers to hear the fans. I would prefer 2 speakers for music b/c that's where I'm used to listening at concerts/symphonies. Again, perhaps Larry was referring to this point of view. Then again, I may be wrong. Just my $0.02.

MM

 

[ling_w]

Michael,
A concert hall is considered good or bad sounding because of the wall the hall sounds. If the whole hall is heavily padded, then it would sound very very different. Concert halls listeners always listen for 1st reflection, which is usually the side wall 1/2 way from you to the orchestra. There is even ceiling reflections that could be heard.
And a church would emphasize all those attributes even more.
Most good 2ch recordings folds the side, rear and top reverberation into the front channels as delayed out of phase signals, or they completely discard them. So you end up hearing alot of reverb through the front speakers. Surround processors with ambiance extraction capability often pulls those out of phase information and place them in the side/rear speakers. Although it is far from pure realism.
All sound arriving at the listner has a loudness and direction it is coming from. To capture and reproduce that information from all 3 dimensions, a proper method has to be deployed. DVD-A of recordings that were mixed down from 36 mics to 5 channels will not preserve any sort of the original performance.
To truely do that, you will need Ambisonic, which captures all the direction and loudness of every sound in the concert hall/church/wherever and store the information from each dimension on one channel. So with 4 channels (including mono,) all the information that arrived at a single point where the listener would have been is captured. On playback, reconstruction of the sound that should come from ANY speaker at ANY location could be done purely based on those 4 channels of vector information.
Regarding DVD-A/SACD, placing the listener in the middle of the orchestra is not what's going to sell DVD-A/SACD. I thought that type of confuse-surround-sound is what killed Quadraphonics.
As far as movies, who cares how many channels. It is all artificial synthesized pseudo sound anyway. Multichannel for music is the interesting part.

 

[Michael Marklund]

ling,

Point taken. Although I have never been exposed to or heard of the Ambisonic you have extolled here, it sounds like it could have been a better solution to the curent crop of sacd/dvd-a. Compromises must always be made.

Again, though, 2 speakers for listening to music suits me just fine. Ignorance is bliss? Perhaps. But I really can't imagine B's 9th, 4th mov (choral) with speakers all around me. It may be interesting to be in the music, but I prefer it in front of me.

MM

 

[ling_w]

Michael,

With speakers all around you, it is not to hear the choral to the side, the tympanii behind you... But to hear the hall sound. With Ambi recordings, it is not uncommon for listeners to point out where the first reflection point of the concert hall is. Chesky is doing some recordings where you have to place a set of speaker on the first reflection point. I think that is a little extreme, having to have a bizzare 6.0 setup just to listen to Chesky SACD's.

Ambisonic is a recording/playback format. It will use whatever carrier format that is available, whether it is 4 channels of DVD-A, SACD, DD or DTS. I guess the main issue is having the decoding capability and auto format recognition on the procssors.

 

[Larry B]

Michael:

You understood my point correctly, and articulated it better than I had. Thanks...

Larry

 

[Larry B]

Ling:

Multichannel for music is the interesting part.

I have no yet experienced it but am keeping an open mind.

Larry

 

[ThomasL]

I'd disagree and say that more than just action movies benefit from multi-channel sound. In fact, I was watching PBS's Ulysses Grant special on American Experience the other night and I was surprised at just how much better it sounded in DTS NEO6 than in just regular tv stereo. Subtle affects such as crowd cheering (you know the Ken Burns documentary style that everyone uses these days) when showing old black and white photographs was more enveloping in the surround mode. Sure, these affects are subtle but I found myself watching many tv programs using either DPL II or DTS NEO6. I'm sure this is a matter of preference like everything else.

As for music, I still listen to everything in stereo/2 channels. I'm not against multi-channel music mixes but the main problem I have is that I have to sit in one exact spot to get the affect. Usually when listening to music, I am moving about and stereo seems to match better to that behavior.

cheers,

--tom

 

[David Judah]

If one actually watches movies without Arnold or from Skywalker Ranch, then 2 speakers will suffice.

Perhaps, but I have been suprised on more than one occasion by the ambience provided by multi-channel even in a dialog driven movie without alot of special effects.

For example, in the movie The Gift there is a scene at a party where two of the characters talk outside. Keep in mind there is no action involved, just dialog between several actors. The rears were effectively used to capture the sounds of the woods around the actors. It was very immersive and I doubt that it could have been captured as effectively with two channels.

It's not that two channels wouldn't suffice, but in some situations a multi-channel set-up offers more flexibility to the sound designer and can increase the sense of realism in a scene.

DJ

 

[ling_w]

I have no yet experienced it but am keeping an open mind.

I was like that too. Some audiophile friend always demo'd his Lexicon MC-1 mult-channel setup with music. It sounded nice, but I wasn't going to get all that extra equipment for my system just for that, that is until I decided to take the plunge myself. I went ahead because of HT, not because I wanted to hear music in mult-channels. But I got alot more out of multi-channel music than I would have envisioned.

The big part is the expense. To convert a 2 ch system to a multi-channel one while keeping the quality similar is not cheap. Buying a 3-5 ch amp of similar quality to suppliment the 2ch amp, buying multiple speakers similar to the original mains, buying a processor that sounds close to the original 2ch preamp, buying sub and more sub that is not all BOOM, buying a DVD player that is at least as good as the CD transport, and cables, forget about keeping the same quality cables as in the 2ch system. Then there is the video part. I probably could have upgraded my 2ch system 2X.

I am not here to say that movies or video soundtrack don't benefit from multi-channel setup. But the fact that all the sound is artificially generated by someone on a mixing board, adding fake reverb, panning it around in 5 channels... It just doesn't require critical listening. You'll hear a chopper fly over and think it is cool, but one will never think if it sounds real. Even in those non-action scenes, one will hear things from surround channels, but we will just notice that something coming from that direction, rarely does one think how real it is to the overall sound. We all know movies sounds fake. Every piece of sound is dubbed over. Even the outdoor dialogue scenes sounds like they are in a studio.

With music, that is a different thing. We are always trying to hear how close the sound is to the real thing, whether it is 2ch or multi-channel. If a surround processor transforms a 2ch recording into something where I take notice of the surround sound or speakers, then it failed.

 

[Keith Ro]

I am not here to say that movies or video soundtrack don't benefit from multi-channel setup. But the fact that all the sound is artificially generated by someone on a mixing board, adding fake reverb, panning it around in 5 channels... It just doesn't require critical listening. You'll hear a chopper fly over and think it is cool, but one will never think if it sounds real. Even in those non-action scenes, one will hear things from surround channels, but we will just notice that something coming from that direction, rarely does one think how real it is to the overall sound. We all know movies sounds fake. Every piece of sound is dubbed over. Even the outdoor dialogue scenes sounds like they are in a studio.

Aren't you talking about 2 totally different things? --

1. Live music/events recorded in a hall. Hear the attempt is to reproduce the acoustics of the venue as accurately as possible. According to you 'Ambisonic' does this well.

2. Music or Movie soundtrack recorded onto multiple tracks in studio and then mixed down to 2 or 5.1 or 6.1 tracks.

You seem to be writing off every studio based album ever recorded as not worthy of 'critical listening.'Neither one is inherently superior or inferior, they're just different.

Also, I have to disagree with the poster who says that 5.1 etc. only matters for action blockbusters. The sense of ambience in 'Elizabeth' is amazing...you actually 'feel' the difference between outdoor scenes, small rooms and large cathedrals. Really adds to the realism.

 

[ling_w]

I am talking about the best way to utilize the 5.1 system I have.

I am actually talking about 3 things (somehow, the 3rd thing came into the picture.)

The 3rd is processing 2ch recording into multi-channel sound by process of ambiance extraction and main channel processing (in my case via Meridian's Trifield.)

I didn't say Studio recordings are not worth of critical listening, but I would not try to close my eyes and try to feel if I am transported to the original venue. I would listen to it for other reason.

It is also the reason the above Trifield mode comes in on 2ch recordings, since it converts many pan-pot mixed studio recording, which simulates a soundstage based only on loudness between the 2 speakers to something that also include (among other things) the delay in sound our ears usually perceive when sound are situated across different parts of the soundstage. It seems heresy to actually modify the L&R sound, but it is to correct what bad recordings discarded in the first place.