Thread: DSD passthrough HDMI - No need for a quality player?

Posts: 371
Page: prev 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 38 next

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 December 5, 2010 (241 of 371)
Ian S said:

I just looked up ITU and found http://www.timefordvd.com/ref/dts.shtml

The obvious problem with adhering exactly to the advocated layout is that of room width and size. The rear speakers are wider apart than the front ones as well as 20° back from the listener.

You need either a vast room or the front speakers and listening position huddled together.

I conclude the ITU standard is mainly reserved for the very wealthy few who can afford a vast room for their own listening indulgence,The rest of Hi-Fi humanity have to make do with stereo from only two full range speakers.

It appears that for AV, Dolby labs specify a different layout.

Ian - It is important to realize that the ITU standard was developed in the era prior to digital controllers. Using DSP, digital controllers today can compensate for unequal distances quite transparently in terms of delay and level. So, the space requirements for an ITU configuration are dramatically reduced. The only important setup issue is to maintain the channel-to-channel angles of ITU.

It is also true that DSP bass management and the use of a subwoofer allows the use of smaller speakers in many or even all channels. Consistent interchannel voicing is important, however. Others may disagree, but from my experience, DSP EQ - Audyssey, ARC, etc. - does a very good job of achieving this, even with speakers of dissimilar sizes. It's best to start with same manufacturer speakers with similar characteristics, however.

Multichannel is growing because many past constraints from more limiting analog-era setup issues are addressed by digital controllers.

There is a trove of information that you will find useful at this link:

http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round/

I encorage you to read through as many of Kal's columns as you can.

The Dolby and DTS 5-channel layouts allow a range of speaker setup angles and are consistent with ITU.

Post by tailspn December 5, 2010 (242 of 371)
diw said:

I should mention it required orientation of the front speakers along the long wall of the rectangle, which most do not consider optimal positioning acoustically.

I find that orientation by far the most desirable acoustically. Every recording control/monitoring room setup I've ever seen also uses it.

Tom

Post by Ian S December 5, 2010 (243 of 371)
stvnharr said:

Ian,
Your first post here was in regards to a means of correcting the low end response of your speakers. Before you spend any money trying to do this, you may wish to just move your speakers a little. The following link is a good way to set up 2 speakers and get smoothest bass response in the room. Maybe it could work for you too.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=215930&highlight=Master+Set&r=

This is essentially what I use, and I have also listened extensively to professionally done speaker setups using this method.

Steve

Thanks.

I haven't moved the big speakers since about 1993. I'm a bit stuck for where they can go so I more or less put them in a triangle with the listening position, with the front about 1 metre out from the back and side walls and then moved them about a bit to get the best stereo effect and also fortunately there is not a bass anti-node at the listening position. With the chair (settee) forward away from the wall there is something of an anti-node and less bass.

Behind one of the speakers there is a brick and marble hearth extending out 18 inches from the wall and extending most of the rooms width, so it, therefore they, can't go any further back to the wall.

The room's not a plain rectangle, but has the hearth on most of one end with a bay on the remainder of that end. There is a large windowed bay at one end of one one side wall.

It's partly why I bought the Stradas, to see how it goes with satellites and sub as I can move those around. They make an image from closer so I can move the chair away from the wall, have rear speakers behind it to the sides, etc.

Post by stvnharr December 5, 2010 (244 of 371)
Ian S said:

Thanks.

I haven't moved the big speakers since about 1993. I'm a bit stuck for where they can go so I more or less put them in a triangle with the listening position,

Ian,
Irregularity in a room is actually fairly good, though it helps if the wall behind the speakers is straight and without irregularity. If you read thru and can understand most of the information in the link, much easier for me as I am familiar with it all, you may be able to pick up some things that you could do without changing too much. You could move the speakers apart from one another a bit, for starters.
If you read thru the steps you will notice that you set each speaker separately, first one speaker and then move the other one out to get the sound most cohesive and in phase. There is no real use for a tape measure as distances from room boundaries are irrelevant.
The only relevant fact about 2 speakers in a room is where one speaker sits in relation to the other speaker. The objective is to get each speaker to load the room with sound equally which will then make the two speakers as close to a single sound source as can be. If this can be accomplished, there is complete phase coherency making for smooth in room response evening out most of the peaks and nulls that come from phase additions and cancellations.

But, this is all off the thread topic of center channel or no center channel.

Steve

Post by Ian S December 5, 2010 (245 of 371)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
Ian - it's not as complicated as this thread would make it appear.

We are talking about the reproduction of concert hall performances of classical music. That is what dominates the catalog of available Mch SACD releases.

Ian S:
I don't listen to much classical music. I can't stand the scraping sound of that sticky coarse bow scratching on the strings. To me it's pretty much like fingernails on a blackboard. For 5 or 6 years I sat near them in School Orchestras, I played in small ensembles with them. Made me cringe then and now.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
It all starts from the premise that concert hall sound is a combination of direct plus reflected sound. the Haas effect - check the Wiki article.

Ian S:
Thanks for the link. I knew, and forgot, much of that from reading it decades ago so it was interesting to read it again and learn a bit more.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
The problem with 2-channel stereo is that it only reproduces sounds from the front, not from all around you as in the concert hall. The sound in your own room from reflections off of the 2-channel source can in no way reproduce what was heard in the concert hall.

Ian S:
I want to not have a live room colouring the sound so I don't really have much reflection in my room as a great deal of it is coated with acoustic absorbent material expressly to deal with ambience / reverb / reflections. It's very different from many rooms with their hard floors / walls / windows / no soft furnishings. I want to hear what's on the disc and not have it mangled by the room.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
You must first understand and accept the macro issue of how do we hear sound at a live performance. Go and listen.

Ian S:
I'm very well aware of the acoustic of vary many environments including large and small concert halls, church halls, cathedrals, underground trains. As I said I know what two rear speakers adds and that can't be had from conventional stereo, that's why I drop the quality for film and TV and use the E800 and the rears. I've not been able to match that front quality from a preamp or AV receiver, I've not spent mega bucks on them but I have customers who have and they are all, to my ears, a lot poorer in quality that my direct wired affair Like I said, even the $140 Shallco silver switch was an unpleasant addition to the signal path. I'm not going to drop the quality that low just to use rear speaker for music. I'm unable to tolerate shrill rough grainy brash bad treble like most people are. It would mean cutting out the treble to make it listenable. But I like treble, so it HAS to be clean. It's why I've gone to such lengths with all the components and removal of copper track, etc. I am listening to a DSP, it's in the sound card and receives data direct from the motherboard. The DACS are 10mm away from it and the output stage 10mm further. DSP itself is not the problem, everything else with / on the way to / from preamps is.

The only question is about the centre front speaker. All my careful and methodical experimentation so far demonstrates that for Film and TV it's rubbish.

The classical hall thing is not a big issue for me, but I'd like to anyway one day have acceptable sound from the rear speakers. The soundcard will, when I've waved the magic wand over it, output two rear channels of the same quality as the front, but I'm not yet doing it as I don't connect the 'pute to the TV as I have a 6 year old Sony 36" CRT but when I buy a flat panel I will. Then well see if any software actually works with this card to do the 5.1 thing without the centre and sub and also if they are doing multi channel SACD like the experimental stereo demo SACD legal downloads a pal just found on the internet that did play back in stereo and sounded good. I think they were playing back in 24 192 or maybe 32 192. If there are multi channel examples, then I could possibly borrow a decent speaker and amp for the centre and see how it sounds.


Thanks Carl for writing out all that explanation. I did read the FAQ before posting and I didn't see anything in there that so clearly spelled out the details about 5 channel classical recordings, concert halls, and the replication of that experience at home.

Maybe what you wrote could be added to the FAQ so other people new to this particular use of SACD can learn the principals without having to ask?

Cheers,

Ian

As to the Princeton research...

There are no reflections involved in that. You can see them playing the sounds in an anechoic chamber.

They mention a possible use in the coming 3D TV.

The phase difference / time difference to our two ears from a point source 45° and a given distance in front of one side of us and 45° behind the same side, same distance, is exactly the same.

I can only presume that we can tell it's behind and not in front due to our ears kind of facing forwards and modifying the in coming sound enough.

So maybe Princeton found a way to muffle some of the sound enough to make it sound the same as that coming from behind.

Listening to the fly buzzing in their little video did kind work for me, ie, circled around my head, not brilliantly well, but enough to hear what they are on about compared to normal stereo.

Post by DSD December 5, 2010 (246 of 371)
rammiepie said:

Maybe this IS the Twilight Zone....

You may be right if I had not heard Quad, surround sound and multichannel and rejected all three this thread would scare me away from trying any of them.

After hearing demonstrations of Quad from 4 channel 15 IPS master tape copies at speaker manufacturer "Orchestral Sound" in 1974, I discovered that 2 channel Stereo is what I like and why! Some of the material was at first intriguing such as a Jazz Quartet with one instrument in each corner of the room, but I grew uncomfortable and irritated in a matter of minutes, switching back to 2 channel stereo was HEAVENLY!

The Ravel Orchestral works with Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra in Quad also from 4 channel 15 IPS master tapes fared better as they ONLY have ambiance in the rear channels. These have been released on SACD in multichannel Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé - Skrowaczewski and Ravel: Bolero, Orchestral Works - Skrowaczewski

To this day Orchestral Sound's demo and speakers are the best 2 channel sound I have ever heard.

In the 1990's I tried surround sound in my own home and hated it immensely. And all demos I have heard of multichannel SACD or DVD-Audio make me glad I have 2 channel stereo.

Post by rammiepie December 5, 2010 (247 of 371)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

That's right evade. Change the subject. Enjoy your life of denial. De Nile be de longest river. The center channel issue completely transcends equipment issues. What the experts have said here is just as true on an Oppo or on a Playback Designs or anything else.



We have all heard the difference on multiple systems. You don't even want to try it, and that is your undeniable right. But, if you have not heard it, why make a spectacle of yourself with your irrational denials based on zero experience?

I make and I have never made any statement to the effect that my equipment is better than yours, nor will I ever. How could I? I have never heard yours, nor you mine, for that matter. All of which is totally irrelevant to the center channel issue, which is what sets you off on a mindless tangent of alarming proportions.

But, Mr. De Nile Is The Longest River (and who's denying that...BTW, it's 4180 miles long) I do have two 5.1 B&W systems so I'm not denying anything. But you're in denial that not all players, pre~amps and speaker systems sound the same........And since you're not into sound reinforcement devices which ARE VERY effective, how can you and other posters assert that my main system (sans center) is SUBPAR. Because I do take offense to that.

Fitz, If you really knew me, I am not a denial person. In fact, I'm brutally honest and I live by a simple adage: The only person you fool in the end is yourself and that's not a good idea if one is to get through this life unscathed.

Let's end this rampage (for the second time) because it proves nothing. And what you fail to realize is I cannot reasonably put a center channel in my main system because it will IN NO WAY match my mains and what's really the purpose of that?

For those, who are able, I would absolutely, unequivocally recommend a center channel!

Post by Polly Nomial December 5, 2010 (248 of 371)
rammiepie said:

But, Mr. De Nile Is The Longest River (and who's denying that...BTW, it's 4180 miles long)

Some South American scientists might want a word with you Rammie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6759291.stm

:)

Post by rammiepie December 5, 2010 (249 of 371)
Polly Nomial said:

Some South American scientists might want a word with you Rammie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6759291.stm

:)

Funny you mention that. I googled "Longest River In The World" and although there is a controversy raging that perhaps the Amazon River was THE longest, statistically, the Amazon is 3912 miles long. Unfortunately, my tape measure is not so equipped to handle those types of measurements.

Post by Disbeliever December 6, 2010 (250 of 371)
DSD said:

You may be right if I had not heard Quad, surround sound and multichannel and rejected all three this thread would scare me away from trying any of them.

After hearing demonstrations of Quad from 4 channel 15 IPS master tape copies at speaker manufacturer "Orchestral Sound" in 1974, I discovered that 2 channel Stereo is what I like and why! Some of the material was at first intriguing such as a Jazz Quartet with one instrument in each corner of the room, but I grew uncomfortable and irritated in a matter of minutes, switching back to 2 channel stereo was HEAVENLY!

The Ravel Orchestral works with Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra in Quad also from 4 channel 15 IPS master tapes fared better as they ONLY have ambiance in the rear channels. These have been released on SACD in multichannel Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé - Skrowaczewski and Ravel: Bolero, Orchestral Works - Skrowaczewski

To this day Orchestral Sound's demo and speakers are the best 2 channel sound I have ever heard.

In the 1990's I tried surround sound in my own home and hated it immensely. And all demos I have heard of multichannel SACD or DVD-Audio make me glad I have 2 channel stereo.

If DSD can not hear that mch SACD properly set up is
considerably superior & more realistic than stereo, I have to assume 1. that she has never heard a well set up system. 2. or her hearing must be defective. However I can sympathise with the fact that it is very difficult to audition a well set up 5.1 system for music that not even Sony or Marantz can manage especially in the UK. I agree that 4 channel Quad especially of the Ambisonics type is useless

Page: prev 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 38 next

Closed