Which Way To Go?

Autor

Beitrag

deaf
Stammgast

#51 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 06:35

Sorry to jump in guys, but let us get a few facts straight.
Stereo does not mean 2 channels, it means something solid in Latin.
The original stereo setup consisted of 5 channels, in the work done by Bell Labs, in a 3 microphone setup in the centre supported with 2 mics outside the main array for ambient pickup, which required 5 speakers,arrayed in a arc infront of the audience.Alan Blumlein across the atlantic had a 4 channel pickup, using a coincident pair of a figure of 8 microphones, which required 4 speakers,2 in front and 2 behind for ambience.
Now how did this become 2 speakers, you know why?
Because the stylus of a cartrige could not pickup more than
2 channels and records could only have 2 sides to a groove.
hahahaha 2 channel is a compromise, developed into a art form; SACD a marketing stunt by SONY and PHILIPS to still earn licensing fees on a format,which they lost, after the patent for CDs completed 25 years as a consumer product,the CD layer in SACD is tampered to sound inferior to the DSD technology which is crap anyways;DVD-A sounds amazing if done right but is plauged by the 65 odd members of the DVD format committee coming to a agreement,and on the user side involves complex setups and menus to even start hearing the music.
Conclusion CD will stay for a long time but will always be a compromise due to its 2 channel limitation,which actually is a workable compromise in my mind as long as the 2 channels is correctly done.
Regards.

square_wave
Inventar

#52 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 07:36

Very true deaf. I agree two channels is compromised. But as you rightly said, it is the only workable format right now unless somebody comes out with a better one and everyone in the industry and customers accept it. This is a tall order. Then there is the issue of spending a fortune of multiple speakers. Most people still have not some to terms with spending around a lac for a pair of speakers. Just imagine buying 4 or 5 speakers of the same caliber. I guess 2-channel will stay for a long time for music.

SUB_BOSS
Gesperrt

#53 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 07:48

Dear Sivat

SUB_BOSS wrote:

If mariah carey could come into my room I would spend a lots on Audio

Why would you need audio anymore ;-))

It should've read
If mariah carey could come into my room I would not spend a lots on Audio

SUB_BOSS
Gesperrt

#54 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 07:53

Dear Mr.Neutral :

Fidelity is trueness to the source. The source is a recording session at a studio. Live recording is very rare. If you listen to Dido even on an inexpensive system like Pulz, it sounds like she is singing in your ear. That's good enough for me.

Fidelity is very much trueness to the source, but every uncle brand here makes you feel that the singer is close to your ear adn that doesn't make it Hifi, but how true the tonality or transparency is a diffrent issue altogether and thats where a line is drawn between a great, good , mediocre, bad and a horrible component.

ravi
Ist häufiger hier

#55 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:16

Deaf, that is very interesting information, thanks! So we are actually listening to a very compromised system of reproduction, just because the original record grooves couldn't support more than 2 channels - and we go hoarse crying about the amount of oxygen in cables! Any references that you may have to material on this?

This is something like the modern railroad track pitch that was determined by the size of two horse's asses!

Hey square.. what do you mean by saying stereo is the only workable format.. didn't you listen to the man? If the original "stereo" had more than two channels, I think going to multi channel deserves a serious consideration - dont you reconsider your previous conclusions in light of the facts from Deaf?

sbfx
Stammgast

#56 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:25

Yes I agree with Deaf but I'm sure deaf will agree with me that the 4/5-ch stereo the way it was intended to be is not infact what the new formats like DVD-A and SACD are doing today.

The placement of the speakers in the Orignal stero format wasn't anything like the multi-ch formats today.

Regards,

Satyam.

ravi
Ist häufiger hier

#57 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:33

Satyam,
Thats true. It only proves that we should not blindly go with stereo even where realistic reproduction is concerned - there are deeper considerations involved in deciding which can sound more realistic - unless there is physical/mathematical proof to the contrary that 5.1/7.1 formats will never reproduce a "stage" better than 2ch, we should not laugh away multi.

square_wave
Inventar

#58 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:42

ravi schrieb:

That is exactly what I was trying to convey…………..I am sure there is a better way of getting good soundstage than with two speakers. Let it come along and if it sounds right, I will accept that provided I have the budget. “Multi-channel” the way sacd and dvd-a is doing is not the way I like it. They are basically trying to convert a HT setup to work for music which is not going to work for me.

benkenobi
Hat sich gelöscht

#59 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:51

deaf schrieb:

this has been discussed in much greater detail in another forum. remeber reading about this..

SUB_BOSS
Gesperrt

#60 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 08:58

Hey all...is there a hard n fast rule that music has to be heard the soundstage way why always imagine thers's a stage in front of us...music can be enjoyed if it sounds good..phrrff I think I have opened a can of maggots

[Beitrag von SUB_BOSS am 21. Sep 2005, 09:00 bearbeitet]

benkenobi
Hat sich gelöscht

#61 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 09:03

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

already opened by Ravi

kspv
Ist häufiger hier

#62 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 09:42

While acknowledging what Deaf said (that 2-channel was a compromise), I would like to make the following two points.

1.) There are trade-offs (complexity of technology as well as expenditure involved at the studio and the consumer ends, versus resolution, imaging etc.) in every kind of audio format. When we are talking of 2-channel versus multi-channel audio, we are talking within this paradigm. The question here is, if I have "X" amount of money to spend on an audio system, which format would provide me the best amongst several trade-offs available with least complexity? Practicality is the moot point! We are not talking of a situation where infinite money can be spent, infinitely complicated technology can be employed at both studio and consumer ends (the "N.1" format), that can provide infinitely better resolution and imaging.

2.)To my understanding, the multichannel recording that A.D.Blumlein or Bell envisaged, was very different from the 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, and 8.1 formats put forward by Dolby & DTS.

deaf
Stammgast

#63 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 09:49

First a reply to Satyam,yes the original Bell Labs and Blumlein techniques, vary from current multichannel DVD-A /SACD technique, which are based on the ITU standards, which if you look at carefully, combine parts of both the pioneers;i.e a centre speaker from Bell Labs and surround from Blumlein.The end is not as simple as that, as ITU did some serious work in room related psychoacoustic phenomena before they came up with the (0) degree centre (30)degree mains and (110)degree surrounds, with all channels equidistant from the listener.So that answers the concept of 5 channels for music currently.
Soundstage in audio is a secondary target in any audio system,as tone and musicality are primary targets.Once we get the primary targets, secondary targets are a welcome bonus,e.g a system with great soundstaging but inaccurate tone will lead to fatigue,but the reverse is will not result in fatigue.
Hope my input helps
Regards.

kspv
Ist häufiger hier

#64 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 10:16

Since the minimum number of channels required to achieve some kind of soundstage (if not the best) is two, can I assume from Deaf's posting, that one should first start with two channels, try to achieve tonality and musicality in that setup, and when a satisfactory level is achieved, should shift to the multi-channel format to get the "bonus"?

If the 5.1 channel format is designed as per psycho-acoustics, how come the channel number is increasing to 6.1., 7.1, and now 8.1? Is there any benefit in this? Beyond two, how many channels?

pramod
Ist häufiger hier

#65 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 10:35

funny that disussions is on sacd and dvd-audio well tell me how many titles are released on sacd and dvd-audio

http://www.sa-cd.net/
i am sure most of u have visited this site and there is hardly *ANY* artists that i like well i dont know much about dvd audio but i think the story is same there too
I am not a big fan of western classical (most sacds released are of western classical)and i also wonder will our very own Indian music(film,classical...)will ever b relesed in these formats and the awareness of these formats among general public is not very good so i think these formats have pretty much difficulty staying afloat
good old faithfull cds have come a long way and they sound pretty good compared to what was offered 10-12 yrs back

benkenobi
Hat sich gelöscht

#66 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 10:52

i love western classical..
should listen to Rossini or Schubert or even Paganini..
Awesome!

benkenobi
Hat sich gelöscht

#67 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 10:53

kspv schrieb:

that's a very interesting question u have raised.

benkenobi
Hat sich gelöscht

#68 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 10:54

i sometimes feel that these guys have an understanding with receiver manufacturers and the rest of the audio industry just to sell.
5.1 is far as i would be willing to go..but a very good 5.1 setup would be better than a mediocre 7.1 or even 9.1 setup.

[Beitrag von benkenobi am 21. Sep 2005, 11:00 bearbeitet]

deaf
Stammgast

#69 erstellt: 21. Sep 2005, 13:36

On the number of channels that really will immerse one in a realistic acoustic envelope, the magic number is 8.This is for music not film.Channels 6&7 are determined in their positions by research done in the 1990s,which are to emmulate first reflections from the wall in an venue,but at a height 15 degrees above listening height and forty-five degress left and right from the listening position.The difficulty is channel no.8, to emmulate reflections from the ceiling which we hear in any live performance. We still have to understand how the brain deciphers this information, and work is going on in this field.
The miking technique for the 8th channel is under work too.
Holliman has done work for 10.2 in film,but that is in regards to movies and not music.

Neutral
Stammgast

#70 erstellt: 24. Sep 2005, 17:48

Two very important factors favour stereo over multi-channel.
1. It is very difficult to position yourself at the sweet spot of a multi-channel system.
2. If a fixed amount of resources is assumed, we are in deep trouble. For eg. I managed a fairly decent stereo setup for just Rs 25,000. With that amount, I would only have got crap in multi-channel.

Fact is multi-channel is driven by home theatre, not by music.

deaf
Stammgast

#71 erstellt: 24. Sep 2005, 18:36

Neutral schrieb:

Dear Nuetral please see my post regarding the histoty of stereo, so here it is.
Sorry to jump in guys, but let us get a few facts straight.
Stereo does not mean 2 channels, it means something solid in Latin.
The original stereo setup consisted of 5 channels, in the work done by Bell Labs, in a 3 microphone setup in the centre supported with 2 mics outside the main array for ambient pickup, which required 5 speakers,arrayed in a arc infront of the audience.Alan Blumlein across the atlantic had a 4 channel pickup, using a coincident pair of a figure of 8 microphones, which required 4 speakers,2 in front and 2 behind for ambience.
Now how did this become 2 speakers, you know why?
Because the stylus of a cartrige could not pickup more than
2 channels and records could only have 2 sides to a groove.
hahahaha 2 channel is a compromise, developed into a art form; SACD a marketing stunt by SONY and PHILIPS to still earn licensing fees on a format,which they lost, after the patent for CDs completed 25 years as a consumer product,the CD layer in SACD is tampered to sound inferior to the DSD technology which is crap anyways;DVD-A sounds amazing if done right but is plauged by the 65 odd members of the DVD format committee coming to a agreement,and on the user side involves complex setups and menus to even start hearing the music.
Conclusion CD will stay for a long time but will always be a compromise due to its 2 channel limitation,which actually is a workable compromise in my mind as long as the 2 channels is correctly done.

So there you are, positioning is no problem, as equidistant is the rule.
The financial aspect you are correct, full on.
Lastly, properly done multi-channel betters 2 channel the above proves it.
Regards