[bfreedma]

If you’ve never experienced multichannel sound, the only way I can explain it to you is to say that it is as much an improvement over stereo as stereo is over mono.

I think the reason there are long discussions on spatiality of sound is because many headphone users just can’t conceive of what spatial sound sounds like, since they’ve never experienced it themselves. If you’ve heard it done properly, it’s a self evident improvement.

Running 7.2.4 Atmos, so fairly sure I’ve experienced multichannel

 

[bigshot]

Yep! Do the overhead speakers make a big difference with music? I’m running a slightly modified 5.1.

 

[castleofargh]

5.1 headphones exist for a long time. Making multichannel IEMs may be impractical, but the boundary is mute between small headphones and larger planar IEMs, and some drivers are very small now.

So I am not sure what I need to understand. Please tell me. I'll patiently learn.
I actually have one of those budget 5.1 headphones - poor implementation, now disassembled at my desk...but I was curious at one point.

5.1 headphones don't work too well. Multidriver headphones already had a long history of sucking. So there is that. But for the specific job of translating directional clues, the best you get is some cues of direction from the outer ear(if the drivers are far enough, small enough, and at the right place). But you still bypass the impact of the rest of the head and torso, and room reverb. For the remaining HRTF, the DSP of the headphones could use a generic version(from a dummy head), and then hopefully some people would come close(and some wouldn't). Same with reverb, it's easy enough to add some reverb to a signal, but will it be convincing? Again that depends. So we just have several variables, each enough to have our brain go: "wait a minute, that's not how it works!".

It's much safer to either have sound sources at a legit distance so all of our HRTF is applied naturally and we feel like the sound comes from the right direction and distance(and we all do when using the same setup!), or to have a unique channel at the ear, processed with the right measurement for each specific listener(demands measurements of sort). Anything in between will require the acoustic and processing parts of both solutions or it just won't be correct and chances are, it won't feel right. So, it's an unlikely choice for the future.

I count multidriver IEMs as a unique channel at/in the ear.

 

[PhonoPhi]

One of main points starting these arguments was to check whether scientific discussion based on facts and hypothesis is possible here. From the most of the last comments, it is crystal clear then quite to the contrary, the arguments are driven by personal experiences, opinions, etc, as per "you can really understand only if you truly experience it".

Are horses more natural than steam engines? Sure!
It took some time and efforts to shift the prevailing paradigm...

Finally, in a spirit of some comments above - bringing not seemingly antithetical cable discussions - did you really experience all the cables? No!?

Thank you, the case is closed

P. S. Again, the physics allows complete wave front reconstruction, compact capable transducers are available at reasonable cost now, the software is feasible (first precedents were mentioned).
So any "surround sound" can be reproduced at ears despite whatever prevailing paradigm is now and especially subjective personal experiences based on century-old developments...

How and when it will be done will be largely determined by consumer interest and manufacturer innovations to compete in the markets.

 

[bigshot]

One of main points starting these arguments was to check whether scientific discussion based on facts and hypothesis is possible here. From the most of the last comments, it is crystal clear then quite to the contrary

I think you are under informed on the subject and don't know the difference.

This forum isn't really about pure theoretical science. It's about practical applied science... specifically scientific principles applied to reproducing recorded music. Sure shooting surround sound straight into the ears is the most direct way to do it. Or perhaps putting an HDMI jack on the back of your skull and plugging in direct. Or projecting music with lasers into your brain... But none of these technologies really exist.

There are standards used when music is recorded to ensure the playback on the other end of the chain is as close to the monitored sound as possible. It involves calibrated response, mastering and a standardized speaker setup. Now as an individual, you are free to recalibrate however you want. Color the sound. Compress it. Expand it. Run it through tubes to distort it. Or listen using headphones for convenience's sake. That is all fine. It's your choice. But if you want your playback to have a high degree of fidelity to the original intent, you set up a speaker system that reflects the same standards studios adhere to. Those standards were established using scientific principles.

 

[PhonoPhi]

I think you are under informed on the subject and don't know the difference.

About the horses and steam engines? Or the cables?

Would the statement that someone "under informed" without stating the specifics (scientific facts, arguments, hypothesis) be so subjective and anti-scientific (and would it work mightily in proverbial cable discussions)?

Absolutely, I am severely under-informed about your subjective experience and opinion.
I "do not know the difference" between your opinion and "cable believers."

 

[bigshot]

You don't have any experience or knowledge of the importance of room acoustics and speaker placement on the sound of recorded music. You also don't appear to understand what multichannel sound is and what it adds to recorded music.

We have been through this routine before. Someone with little understanding of the science regarding a particular subject, but a strong personal preference comes in to sound science. They argue with us a while without knowing what they are talking about. We patiently explain the things they don't understand until we are blue in the face from repeating ourselves. Then then the person claims victory saying we "aren't scientific enough". The next step is them getting frustrated and angry and they go away in a huff. It's a tiresome merry-go-round, but we are all used to it here.

 

[PhonoPhi]

You don't have any experience or knowledge of the importance of room acoustics and speaker placement on the sound of recorded music.

That is correct.
Why should it be important for recording the sound wave at the ears (all the details to be heard are there) and reproducing it?

That is exactly the point that needs to be discussed based on physics.

 

[bigshot]

Why should it be important for recording the sound wave at the ears (all the details to be heard are there) and reproducing it?

I have no idea what that sentence means.

 

[PhonoPhi]

I have no idea what that sentence means.

OK

 

[bigshot]

You need to slow down with your conclusions and start communicating clearly. You aren't just talking to yourself here. Try to make it clear so others can understand. I can't clearly answer a question that you haven't asked clearly.

 

[PhonoPhi]

You need to slow down with your conclusions and start communicating clearly. You aren't just talking to yourself here. Try to make it clear so others can understand. I can't clearly answer a question that you haven't asked clearly.

Since I repeated this point in several forms multiple times already, I think it is really a good point to stop here before hearing more personal opinions on what and how should I do (arguably not a proper place, but that exactly what this thread became or even more likely were "segregated" here for a good reason).
All the best.

 

[bigshot]

Feel free to claim victory and leave. I'm sure others benefitted from the points made in this discussion, even if you didn't.

 

[bfreedma]

Yep! Do the overhead speakers make a big difference with music? I’m running a slightly modified 5.1.

Not much difference with the content I have to date. I hope things will get better as ATMOS becomes more prevalent, but I wonder if the market will ever be large enough to encourage significant work/cost to be done.

More impact with movies as some of the panning and overhead sound easily lends itself to the format.

 

[bigshot]

That was kind of what I expected. You might want to get Kraftwerk's Catalogue, if you don't already have that. It is mixed for Atmos and from what I can tell from the 5.1 fold down, it should use the overhead speakers a lot.