[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 It just is not done because there is no consumer demand for it

And therefore it is true. I was talking about what is realistic in our own situation. Even if what you say is possible, you say it is not available, and there is no demand for it.

With our home equipment. Albert Hall. Not Realistic.

With as-yet unmarketed recording methods and alternate home equipment? Who knows, but it's probably going to have to be highly sophisticated gear, and the history is not good.

 

[rickcr42]

BTW-imagine a DSP engine that would respond to information coded directly to the medium (CD or whatever) that would translate the actual hall information to the "in room" multiple loudspeaker array that would be to some standard.

Every room would have the same basic setup no matter what the size or nature of that room,just as Dolby Surround has a standard though too losse,so once the DSP was
"individualised" for that room through a microphone and pulse the actual concert hall parameters would self adjust to that room so in effect ALL systems would portray the space in an identical manner.Madison Square Garden would ALWAYS be MSG !No mater what size the room the acoustics would emulate the original point of origin,the venue.

If I had the brains and the loot I would make such a system a reality and rake in the dough on the liscencing fees

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

With our home equipment. Albert Hall. Not Realistic. With as-yet unmarketed recording methods and alternate home equipment? Who knows, but it's probably going to have to be highly sophisticated gear, and the history is not good.

Wrong again.

AR experiments proved it not only could be done but for a reasonable cost now that we have accepted more than two loudspeakers as a norm but when proposed no way would the average family allow it.I have researched this extensivly,followed along with every epoch of multihannel sound and done my own experiments so I know what is and is not possible.

 

[maf_au]

Yes, but. but...

The more drivers you throw into a cabinet, and the more cabinets you put in a room, the harder it is to get anything approaching accurate sound.

That's just the speakers. Room effects are multiplied when you increase the number of speakers in the room. what are you going to do about a polished floor, or a shag carpet? Or a steel frame chair, or a wall of windows down one side of the room?

Look what the movie theatres do to try and get 'standard' sound - they are virtually turning into acoustically dull ampitheatres for exactly the same reasons to remove room effects. When set up well, the results are impressive, but only because of the control they have on the type of sounds that make a good movie soundtrack.

 

[rickcr42]

that is where a DSP becomes essential if actual recreation of a known space is the goal and not just a special effect to try and fool people into beleiving a studio recording is live (though once the hall parameters are entered i see no reason for the DSP not to place the band in a particular venue).

Speakers play only what they are sent as signal so if that signal says "100 feet away and up 25 degrees with and attentuation tate of X..." it will reproduce that signal accurately.
I am thnking an array of 11.1 speakers would be the ultimate but could be done with 7.1 if a ceiling speaker was added to set hall ceilng height.
there is a reason the small ensmeble sounds like it is right there on playback or a small scale piano performance can sound so real (if you get the dynamics rights,tone less so) in a fair size listening room and that s the recording already has the "mix" of all size/area cues and these FIT the same saize as the playback room.To make this large scale performance "fit" you need to expand the room boundries and that can only be done with additional speakers at that axis combined with the proper signal mix of delay/reverb/decay for that section.
Done right you could even modify the same hall for "full of people" or "empty sound check " sounds.This was actually an area that a fair amount of experimentation went into in the eighties and nineties but the limitations were on the software and hardware of the time and not the ideas.The huge amount of logic chips to have that musch computing power then was out of the financial reach of anyone not having a Gov. Lab grant but now ?
now just a matter of doing it and then selling it is my thought.

then again the consumer industry would fk it up so bad it would be another experiment tossed into the same trash heap as Quad was.That could have worked if they only had a clue what they were trying to accomplish instead of trying to impress 16 year olds who we all know do not have the loot to make an entire sector of an industry go and if not for the woman of the house wanting "home movies" surround sound also would have failed

 

[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 but when proposed no way would the average family allow it.

Hmm. Exactly what was proposed?

Forgive my skepticism, but I would expect more resistance from the recording companies that the average family. In fact, the average family will buy what's on the shelf which looks good, is in their price range, has a good brand, etc. From what I've seen, most of them don't even do much more than a cursory listen to the gear before they take it home.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Hmm. Exactly what was proposed?

Back then even a "bookshelf" loudspeaker was huge by today's standards so adding another two meant floor space and accomodation.Fine if you are a single man.Not so fine if you are married and you like a harmonious relationship (peace with the wifey

)

So it had to not just be good but DAMN GOOD ! Good enough that the wife said "I like it.Buy it" to have a shot at the average living room but since they never really figured out what they wanted Quad to be,an effect or ambience simulation,it never had a chance at family integration

what surround sound did is say "you can take any old crappy speakers and add them to your stereo speakers and have the glorious sound of the movie theater in your home"

Marketing genious.That is when teeny weeny little speaker systems started to crop up but wait ! where the hell is the bass ? Right here : a teeny little boom and thud box that could be hideen behid the couch !!!!

So adding the additional channels meant zero perspiration for the woman of the house who could hide "those ugle audio thingies" anywhere in the room and still have a pretty good approximation of the theater sound.

Why ? How ?

Because unlike with music,movie surround sound does not need to fill in the spaces between the rear event and the front event but just have a single directional sound to let a person know "something is coming" which is then panned to the front to tell the listener "something is here" which is reinforced by the actual VISUAL image holding your attention.Genious !
Since most of your brain is focused on the visual medium and anything "on screen" is in the front speakers and everything "off screen" in the side/rear speaker the requirements are low for the off screen content so the additional amplifiers and speakers can in fact be crap and still work.

Not for music though which is a totally AURAL medium and where your entire focus is on the sound not the sights.One of these days they will give us all our music with video content so no one will ever question the quality of the sound.It will suck but no one will notice

 

[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 Speakers play only what they are sent as signal so if that signal says "100 feet away and up 25 degrees with and attentuation tate of X..." it will reproduce that signal accurately.

I so dearly wish that what you say about speakers was true.

Really.

I think we are on different paths. You are proposing to submit music to a DSP in the effort of processing ambience from the recording and play it back through as many as 11.1 transducers.

On the other hand, I go out of my way to improve the listening quality of the recordings I have and can buy, by removing as many DSP's and other unneccesary junk as I can from the signal path, and making sure that what's left is of the best affordable quality.

Applying that rationale to 11.1 sound would be very, very expensive...

This is before we get the recording companies to actually record and sell suitable recordings.

Don't leave your day job

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I so dearly wish that what you say about speakers was true.

It is.

Really

They reproduce what goes in and if that is a signal delayed by 50 ms then the sound will seem to come from 50 feet away as long as it also has the proper frequncy attenuation that distance would have in that particular hall

Quote:

I think we are on different paths. You are proposing to submit music to a DSP in the effort of processing ambience from the recording and play it back through as many as 11.1 transducers.

Quote:

On the other hand, I go out of my way to improve the listening quality of the recordings I have and can buy, by removing as many DSP's and other unneccesary junk as I can from the signal path, and making sure that what's left is of the best affordable quality.

Seems to me you have no path.First want to know how to do it then say you do not want to.

Quote:

Applying that rationale to 11.1 sound would be very, very expensive...

never said cheap but already there is a push to 7.1 and that is /could be adequated if the other paths are electronically mixed at increments

Quote:

This is before we get the recording companies to actually record and sell suitable recordings.

Taking that approach why bother with the thread ? A defeatist attitude and nothing will ever get done.It is not the ones putting out product to blame if the customer accepts that product and with most happy with lossy compression at a low bitrate andything else is doomed anyway so why worry about "quality" at any juncture ?

Because there always will be those who not only seek it but demand it or a place like headfi would not exist.No where else in society could serious adults discuss the merits of two $500 cables with a straight face and not be locked up for insanity except for a high-end audio site.So since that is an acceptable discussion i see no reason pushing the frontiers of the auduio art when there is a known need not also valid as a topic even if it never comes to pass.

Quote:

Don't leave your day job

Soon man.Very soon.At that time I will not just discuss the possible but sell it to you

 

[HiWire]

I think I am also at the opposite side of the spectrum. Two speakers, or headphones, as it were, and as little processing as possible on the system end. Let the recording engineers do the work. My computer's 4.1 speaker set already causes problems with cables everywhere... I can't imagine the chaos (and wallet-pummeling) that would result from installing 11 speakers into a small room.

Just my opinion

 

[maf_au]

rickcr42,

Speakers only _try_ to do what you suggest. With varying degrees of success. With a virtual wave of your hand, you have elevated them all to one perfect level. It's just not that simple.

My path has been consistant. I started off saying that we have to be realistic about what is achievable at home, and that Albert Hall is not realistic. You told me otherwise, and that AR showed it could be done for reasonable cost. When I point out that doing the simple stuff right for many channels is very, very expensive, you say "never said cheap"

I'm not the one proposing to put 11.1 channels into everyone's loungeroom. I'm after SQ, and as far as I can tell, SQ has been slowly marching downhill since the advent of HT. When you think about it, that makes sense, because the system price paid has stayed the same or decreased, which means less $ spent per channel, more processed signal paths, more corners cut.

Even ignoring room effects which you gloss over completely, unless you can solve the SQ at the speaker for less money issue, all the 11.1 idea will do is to drive sound quality down further. that's not defeatist, that's fact. Go down to the mega store and hear it for yourself.

Look on the bright side. If you can produce this stuff and get me to buy it, probably everyone will buy it

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I can't imagine the chaos (and wallet-pummeling) that would result from installing 11 speakers into a small room.

No matter it is coming and we will not have a say in it if we do not speak up.To deny multichannel "music" is not the next big thing is to not pay attention to trends how the industry works and this is the only place left for them to explore AND make more loot by selling you the gear.
The history of multichannel sound says they come back to this at least once every decade and now that we have multi-channel suround sound in most homes at both the family level with home theater and the personal level at the computer no way this is not the direction we are headed.

no one asked me if I wanted my LPs replaced with the CD yet it happened anyway and no one will ask on this just "here it is,deal with it" if the only input is from industry insiders looking at how they can weasle more money with a minimum of cost in both the research and manufacturing ends.

do the research.everything isa out there and not just where we came from but where we are headed and in the process of right now as I type.i just prefer ambience "extraction" to ambience "simulation" which leaves far too much up to "artisitc interpretation" for me to be comfortable considering what passes for "art"

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Look on the bright side. If you can produce this stuff and get me to buy it, probably everyone will buy it

I wish !

I am small potatoes man and my "I will sell it to you" nothing on such a grand scale but just trinkets when compared directly.Mere toys for grown up kids

Something of this magnitude is for the Sony's of the world where being in total control of both ends of the food chain (CBS Records record side/Sony Electronics playback side) and with extensive research and fabrication facilities they could spend the time and money to do it right,if they wanted to.
When we are talking about a purely "nothing added freshly squeezed O.J." format it means a closed system where mic placement is essential to model the hall in a way that can be translated back easily and without any serious holes in the overall image/that means pros and I am not close to that in stature though i wish i was

BTW-the "artificial" ambience simulation part would come in -

once a room/hall/arena is modelled and coded into a DSP it would be a simple matter to punch in your favorite hall or arena for playback of even studio "canned" sounds.not saying this will ever happen in my lifetime or how it would be done if it does but just how I would do it if i was in charge of all things audio

 

[markl]

Quote:

no one asked me if I wanted my LPs replaced with the CD yet it happened anyway and no one will ask on this just "here it is,deal with it" if the only input is from industry insiders looking at how they can weasle more money with a minimum of cost in both the research and manufacturing ends.

Rick, you make it sound like we live in some Stalinist state-run economy.

Nothing can be forced down consumers throats if they don't want it. The market will decide if multi-channel music has merit or not. The audio manufacturers have no control over that.

No one forced CD on people, they put it out on the market and people liked it, even if it was for the wrong reasons-- convenience, durability, and portability instead of sound quality. They *wish* they could "force" people to adopt new standards, if they could, SACD and DVD-A would have replaced the CD, but they didn't (sadly).

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by maf_au Taking a theoretical approach to this problem is one path to madness... If the goal is to reproduce the exact acoustic and ambience of a live performance, then recording it (even perfectly) is an abomination. It implies that there is a perfect performance, ambience and acoustic, which arguably do not exist. There are too many variables. Of course, once this recording is replayed, large parts of the acoustic and ambience are lost or distorted via the mixing desk and/or users equipment and room. The best pathway we have to satisfactory reproduction of musical performance is via the best available recordings and the best sounding equipment, set up to the best of our ability in a reasonable room (if our reproduction involves speakers). We do this because our desire to surround ourselves with music exceeds the accessibility and practicality of live music, but I doubt (m)any of us consider what we experience at home as superior to our live musical experiences. We need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve with our home equipment. Albert Hall is not realistic in a living room, but we can have a reasonably convincing and enjoyable reproduction of our favorite music with relatively little effort. Personally, I find that a few closely miked acoustic instruments and voice are hard to beat on a good system. Never really had much joy with massed instruments or anything heavily amplified, even though the rendition can still be enjoyable. Michael

I am not even saying one can recreate Alberts Hall in one's home. I am talking about making a Stradivari sound as good as a student violin in one's home, if one is willing to try.

We know that a student violin sounds not so good. Playing a student violin in your own living room sounds even worse because the room is too small. Has any one compared their best stereo speakers wiht their best source and best recording of best violins to a student violin in a living room played by an amateur? The stereo system is going to fail miserably in this kind of test. Not that I do this comparison too often, but I also played the violin as a kid and I walked into a hi-fi show and not a single system can make a Stradivari violin recording sound like a real violin, not even a student violin whose sound I am familiar with. Some of these systems cost $50k-100k USD, and yet their fidelity is only enough to impress audiophiles but not even amateur musicians. What is sonically missing in these stereo speaker systems compared to a live performance? Something must be missing. Now I believe it is ambience. How do I know that? Because I added ambience using my speakers to my K1000 listening and found that violin's timbre, as well as evry other instrument's, becomes more natural and more believable. I listen to Binuaral MP3 and realize it readily trounces my SACDs in terms of dimensionality and I again realize the importance of ambience.

When I hear something that is truly exceptional, I want to know why so I can exploit it further. That is not a theoretical approach, but just good old curiosity.

Back to the Haas effect. The ear integrates early reflections within the first 60 ms or so and fues them with the direct sound. The fusion process changes the quality of the direct sound as well. Generally it becomes more clearer, warmer and more spacious. How many times have I wondered why I can't make the sound a lot more clearer and a lot more warmer at the same time by audiophile apporved tweaking (tubes, cables, etc.)? There always seems to be a trade-off between transparency and warmth, or some compromise in-between. Only now I realize that live music can sound super warm and super clear at the same time becuase the ear integrates a lot of ambient information into direct sound. In a stereophonic recording direct sound is, and has to be, much more prominent than it is supposed to be. With all that ambience missing, the ear is not going to find the timbre of instruments very natural. Just play a recorder or a guitar or any instrument you can find against your best stereo speaker system and you will realize a whole lot is missing in stereo hi-fi. I am not saying there is an easy way to improve upon stereo hi-fi but there is certainly lots of room for improvement, not based on snake oil but firmly established psychoacoustic principles known for decades.