[maf_au]

Cant discuss with you ricky,

You take answers out of context and and shoot alternate arguement.

For instance.

--> I said I had $3k of amp/speaker and it sounded good.

<-- You said no way anyone's going to force you to upgrade to $3k amp/speaker.

--> I said no-one is forcing you, if what you have sounds good, stick with it.

<-- You said "Oh no ? I was not "forced" to buy a CD player if I wanted new recordings"

You describe DIY as a bunch of non-innovative copycats who buy $50 rca jacks and act like ignorant lemmings, then reveal that you are a member of the 'moderate' diyers here, and have been for 30 years.

We aint going to agree or even disagree on much, because you keep moving the goal posts.

This thread has gotten way off topic and I'm sorry for that guys.

 

[dolifant]

I know I'm way late on this, and the thread has drifted, but, that said:

1. I believe multichannel music will not be the primary way for listening. However, artists may concieve of a work in multichannel, intended to be heard "in surround". Maybe some works were imagined in surrond in the 60's and 70's but there was not widespread multichannel available for playback. Electronic music comes to mind. I agree that acoustic jazz and most classical music is best heard in stereo, althouugh I love the 3 channel recordings that were made many years age played with the 3 front channels (Living Stereo). As` Rick said, they recorded 3 channels with three mikes, so it makes sense to play it back that way.

2. Many recordings consist of multiple tracks laid down at different times mixed together. There never was an actual performance that is being recorded for posterity. How many channels is "proper" for that situaion? So I think that part of the creative process can be the mixing and engineering.

3. I know there is another format war looming, but I think audio can hitch a ride on either the blu-ray or HD-DVD foremats. Why not? They allow high resolution audio and the players will be mass market in the not too distant future. So why won't the studios simply offer their wares on that format, with high bit rate(and possibly low) +/- multichannel tracks. People will buy the players just to have the high definition video, so there they will be. Why not put out the good sound anyway. I would love it, and would by audio only or mostly audio only Blu-Ray discs and play them with two or more speakers. The holli polli can have the mass market crap and I can get pristine sound all from a mass marketed disc.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Can't discuss with you ricky,

I am not you girlfriend and you not mine so until you buy me dinner and we take long showers together hold the "ricky".The name is "Rick" or "Rickcr42" to those I am not sleeping with and to be honest i barely know you.

Quote:

You take answers out of context and and shoot alternate arguement.

Not taking anything out of context but I am shooting the counterpoint.That in case you have no idea is what a discussion is.

You propoese a view or make a statement then it is for me to either agree or disagree so what is the problem ? Not enough "I agree with you" and too much "you are not correct" ? You pissed because I make a point ? You need to realise this is a "discussion" site and not an "agree with everyone" site so either converse or bail out.Ask questions and you get answers.Not maybe what you want to hear but answers.But you will hold the sarcastic crap.i am not a patient man and will not tolerate it at my expense EVER.Really am the bear dude

Quote:

--> I said I had $3k of amp/speaker and it sounded good. <-- You said no way anyone's going to force you to upgrade to $3k amp/speaker.

Mman ! You accuse ME of out of context ? Yeah.OK man.

Quote:

--> I said no-one is forcing you, if what you have sounds good, stick with it. <-- You said "Oh no ? I was not "forced" to buy a CD player if I wanted new recordings"

Well DUH !!!!

If they stopped making LPs and only made CDs but yet I had a turntable and no CD player what would you call it if I wanted new music ? Hmmm ? Is that choice or was I in fact "forced" to purchase the CD player ? to go along or go without ?
What would you call that ? Optional ?

Quote:

You describe DIY as a bunch of non-innovative copycats who buy $50 rca jacks and act like ignorant lemmings, then reveal that you are a member of the 'moderate' diyers here, and have been for 30 years

MODERATOR of the DIY FORUM !

Start paying attention instead of reading what you want to see so you can argue.Do at least a minimal bit of research and read full sentnces so you maybe can get it right once in a while before you attempt insult.Thirty years of building does not make me a follower so what is your point other than looking for a pissing match ? It is widely known i am no follower and do not buy into the Fanboyism here or anywhere,that i refuse to pay more than a thing is worth or use a part because it is "pretty" even though many here do actually admit to that so ?

Quote:

We aint going to agree or even disagree on much, because you keep moving the goal posts.

Wassamatta ? Can't keep up ? Too busy thinking of how to attack me to have a lucid point of your own to counter points made ?

Quote:

This thread has gotten way off topic and I'm sorry for that guys.

Again a wrong answer.

I am and have been directly on topic choosing to actually discuss the multichannel aspect and if the sound enough to move this format forward or not.My first post :

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...2&postcount=32

your first entry into the thread is pages later here :

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...2&postcount=72

to which I resonded :

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...5&postcount=73

where immediately the vieled sarcasm and challenges begin :

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...6&postcount=74


moving along fine.had already posted extensively in the thread and you come along and start crap on a personal level and it is someone else going off topic ?

Well bud here it is.I will continue to stay on topic but you will NOT continue to make this a personal thing or you will have to deal with me in a PM and not as "member" Rick.
Get back to the discussion or get out of the thread and keep your ego in check or at the very minimum have a lucid counter backed up with some minimum of factual evidence from either personal experience with the topic and technologies or some source of counter science

You decided it more fun (and far easier than any evidence) to attack me and my premises rather than discuss the pros and cons.
Not only is that "off topic" but if you continue and/or take it to the next level actually against the TOU.
Just in case you also forgot to read that document like it seems you have much of what I have posted.
No way you need to agree with me or me with you but if you both read and then understand the TOU it is you trying to make this thread about me and take it off topic.That ends right here and right now and the thread will continue on the electronics and the market place.Not you and me.

Think before responding.On topic only but if off topic or snarly and you would be better served to save it

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

1. I believe multichannel music will not be the primary way for listening. However, artists may concieve of a work in multichannel, intended to be heard "in surround". Maybe some works were imagined in surrond in the 60's and 70's but there was not widespread multichannel available for playback. Electronic music comes to mind. I agree that acoustic jazz and most classical music is best heard in stereo, althouugh I love the 3 channel recordings that were made many years age played with the 3 front channels (Living Stereo). As` Rick said, they recorded 3 channels with three mikes, so it makes sense to play it back that way.

I also doubt it will ever be the primary means of playback or every aspect of sound would need to change including stereo headphones and mobile sound systems.
I also agree there never was widespread multichannel available unless you add in Quadraphonics which for a time ALL releases by certain labels were matrixed CBS SQ even though nothing on the package stating this.The average consumer had no idea.
But that was not "surround" or even "ambient" music but special effect like the Frank Zappa "Apostrophe'" LP in Quad.The music swirls but has no actual form or structure having anything to do with any performance.
The three Ch is another case where i actually have some of the early RCA recordings and yes,a totally different experience played back in three CH.

Quote:

2. Many recordings consist of multiple tracks laid down at different times mixed together. There never was an actual performance that is being recorded for posterity. How many channels is "proper" for that situaion? So I think that part of the creative process can be the mixing and engineering.

I have to agree with that.That is why I am always worried about anything that gives the engineer more to play with for his own "artistic" interpretation since it should be about the musicians "art" though not always.I trhink the proper amount of channels is an easy call actually.As many as there are mics and instrument or vocal inputs and that should already have been determined by performaing the music.even a large scale live event will have a lot going through the board and there will be a "house mix" and "recording mix" each having different needs

Quote:

3. I know there is another format war looming, but I think audio can hitch a ride on either the blu-ray or HD-DVD foremats. Why not? They allow high resolution audio and the players will be mass market in the not too distant future. So why won't the studios simply offer their wares on that format, with high bit rate(and possibly low) +/- multichannel tracks. People will buy the players just to have the high definition video, so there they will be. Why not put out the good sound anyway. I would love it, and would by audio only or mostly audio only Blu-Ray discs and play them with two or more speakers. The holli polli can have the mass market crap and I can get pristine sound all from a mass marketed disc.

Maybe but this format war has become irrelevant by being so drawn out and in the direct comparison to other format wars too quiet.so quiet it went mostly unnoticed except by those who notice EVERYTHING to do with high end audio and most of them don't care much.I don't know what the next big thing will be but no doubt there will be one and it will have a multichannel componant that is backwards compatible with stereo

 

[maf_au]

Not taking the bait rickcr42. I'm not annoyed at you, I was pointing out that it's difficult to discuss with you. The point of the whole 'forced' example is that we were talking specifically about amplification and speakers, and you started using the LP -> CD switch as proof...

Sorry for using ricky, no idea you were so touchy...

I stand by what I have said:

* I don't believe adding DSP's to the recording or playback of music will ever improve the sound, especially when the industry decides to use it as a means to make more profit, as it has in the past.

* Adding channels does not improve the sound quality. It forces detrimental economies on important components that reduce the sound quality. That goes for any budget except 'unlimited'. This is simple maths. Is it really any wonder that 128k mp3 is considered good by the general population given the quality of the average HT reciever these days? The industry had done this to itself.

* If it works for you, that's fine by me. In my experience, the money is better spent on improving 2 channel stereo.

 

[rickcr42]

Ok then.If on topic then all good and what has gone before never happened.

Quote:

* I don't believe adding DSP's to the recording or playback of music will ever improve the sound, especially when the industry decides to use it as a means to make more profit, as it has in the past.

already there at the recording end for all phases and if you have a hone theater receiver or integrated also there.A DSP is no more than code written to produce an effect (eq,dolby,etc) once the signal is in the digital domain which all modern recordings are at some point and all home theater ttype playback systems.No matter if the dolby surround is used or not the signal is still in the digital domain once it passes through the input jacks.

Quote:

* Adding channels does not improve the sound quality. It forces detrimental economies on important components that reduce the sound quality. That goes for any budget except 'unlimited'. This is simple maths. Is it really any wonder that 128k mp3 is considered good by the general population given the quality of the average HT reciever these days? The industry had done this to itself.

Never said it did and in fact am a two channel type person but said if we must have it how I think it should be done.My opinion only though based on experience of what does work,does not work,what IS possible and what is just dreaming.We will have multichannel at some point and only a matter of what format it takes.
Do I use mutlichannel for music ? Only for "live" recordings where the natural L-R ambince information is already there from the mics picking it up accidently and totally a passive design (zero additional active circuitry).It flat out does not work with studio recrdings though we all know when it comes to the next generation of multichannel music it will be the artificial studio recording where it will be used and that wrongly."forced" ambience in some cases,artificail special effects in others and some will like it,some not but no doubtr the attempt at a standard will be and is there for multichannel.really no where else to go since most things new are old anyway (as is this )

Quote:

* If it works for you, that's fine by me. In my experience, the money is better spent on improving 2 channel stereo.

I think two channel stereo is fine as is and any improvements bring a new set of problems.Better to mature a method than to constantly change formats on us and have us play catch up just to get it as good as what went before.My vinyl system beats my CD system and no amount of "tweaks" have changed that yet.
Hell,even my open reel tapes whip my CDs but with limited software available to meam stuck playing "locals" mostly.
I am not an audio snob and use the methods that take me to the original and in my case live recordings are enhanced with amnience extraction methods though two channel studio recordings are not.
I aso like to use my headphones viewing DVDs at night with full surround sound so another place where multichannel is in full use in my home.

I have also in my time heard "digital hall simulation" where a mathmatical model of a particular hall (measured in the hall from a set listening postion)was entered into memory and played back over a multichannel array and the realism was uncanny so I know what is possible and for my money better that method if multichannel is to come into my home than anything currently being proposed.
Surround works for movies but not music.Only ambience recreation works there .It is my personal beleif once the recreation is down simulation would be an easy next step but the way they attack it now no wayy

 

[maf_au]

Studio ambience is possible...

I've got a couple of recordings where (real) studio ambience has been accidentally included, one in the form of musicians having a quiet word out the back while their buddy is playing a solo. so it is possible, but doesn't neccesarily add to the recording, apart from indicate that the recording is probably not constructed from separately recorded tracks. I guess, it's possible too that it could be added to the recording to deceive the listener, but I don't think so in this case.

Never noticed it for some years, but it shone through after a general system spring clean, mostly involving updated source. It's a good resolution indicator, and I use it as a test track now. It'll be interesting if I can ever decipher what they're saying...

The other one is a pianist humming and mumbling along to the music he's playing. Very distracting.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Never noticed it for some years, but it shone through after a general system spring clean, mostly involving updated source. It's a good resolution indicator, and I use it as a test track now. It'll be interesting if I can ever decipher what they're saying...

try to run it through dolby surround with the rear channels brought up in level a bit and with no center channel activation.
If a true ambient signal that has travelled a distance (to any hard surface such as a wall or ceiling) it will arrive back at the mic out of phase so the L-R dolby standard may recover it.But that ONLY if it is an ambient signal and not just background chatter which will be IN phase and the only way to isolate it for hearing what it is would be a parametric eq dialled to that frequency band using a very narrow bandwidth boost to lower the sounds just above and just below the sound you want to hear.
Not for while litening to music but just to hear what it is to satisfy curiosity.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

try to run it through dolby surround with the rear channels brought up in level a bit and with no center channel activation.

better yet not

Anything performed in a small size area can also be reproduced fine with two loudspeakers in an average room since both are plausible as occurring in an area of that size.
It is only the large venue performance that needs any aid,the performance that no way could it fit in your room, and that "aid" is to expand the room and set "size" of the event to what originally took place which means additonal channels combined with delay working on the out of phase signal.A bit more involved but that is the essence of ambience extraction of what is already there.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Last night we went to go see Batman Begins in our local IMAX theater. It was *unbelievable* Forget about the incredible picture quality, it was the sound system that really blew us all away. I barely ever go to movies anymore since getting my own home theater set-up, and I know the movies are hurting for that very reason (among others). After the movie we were all enthusing about it and I said I thought if all movie theaters converted to a system equivalent to what we just experienced, it would single-handedly save the movies by giving people a reason to go back to the theater, make it worth their $10, and offer them something they couldn't get anywhere else. But then some others said that there would be no reason to see a movie like Million Dollar Baby like that, and I have to agree, it wouldn't necessarily enhance a movie like that as much as Batman Begins. I see multi-channel the same way. There are certain artists whose work just screams out for a multi-channel treatment, and others who would barely benefit. Personally, I often enjoy music with complicated mixes, lots of objects moving around in space, voices and instruments appearing out of thin air here and there. Music that's consciously not trying to create a "realistic" presentation, but exists in a sort of musical hyperspace, where no rules apply, a world of its own. I don't see any problem with taking stuff like that and instead of being limited to moving elements along in a plane if front of me, expanding the possibilities to have elements move around over my head, behind me, and on all sides. I like multi-channel music in general of what I've heard in my own system. If it's too much, or badly done, I can always revert to the simpler 2-channel mix, no harm done. Is it appropriate to do that with a recording of a guy and his guitar? Would that enhance it any way? Probably not.

You need to hear Linkin Park's Reannimation album in 5.1!

My December in particular is amazing!!!