|
General Asylum: RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? by pictureguy General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
For Sale Ads |
108.225.233.177
In Reply to: RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? posted by josh358 on July 18, 2012 at 17:37:42:
Many years ago, at the 'dawn' of 4 channel....I experimented with the Dynaquad system. You could buy an add-on box with 4 speaker outputs.
I saw the schamatic and realized you could hook up speakers from + to + and derive the 'difference' information. A pair of speakers in series did fine. I ran 2 amps so I could bias the level front / rear easily. No remotes in 'dem days, either.
Point? Live recordings were terrific. The ambiance of the recording venue came thru perfectly. It was like sitting IN the crowd. The band remained front / center but crowd noise and reflected sound were life-like. Keep in mind this was with a pair of JBL4311s front of an SAE power amp and my Kenwood and RSL 3600s (JBL 4311 copies) in the rear.
Later, when amps went to 4 discrete channels, you had stuff like QS or SQ 'matrix' and a few other synthetic programs.
Studio stuff, however, was flat. All from the front with NO surround feeling at all. Could these old recordings be 'fixed' if the multi-channel masters still exist?
Now, using the right mic from a good position in a live environment almost automatically yields the out of phase portion of the signal which comes out of the rears.
While a good engineer can add this back in, I suspect and make is seamless, I can't imagine all the crushed dynamics re-releases this could lead to in going over the vintage stuff from the 60s on.
So, it would appear that multi channel CAN also be Hi-End. Now, Anyone up for an all-Maggie HT setup? Just imagine the logistics of such a setup. A big stack of (fill in blank) amplifiers. Dedicated power for 'em. You'll need it. Signal processing pre. I have no idea about source. Computer maybe?
If anyone in SoCal has a good setup, invite me over for a listen.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Why is surround sound not "high end"? - Raymond Leggs 21:27:41 07/14/12 ( 67)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 10:02:46 07/18/12 ( 3)
- RE: Why surround sound is not "high end?" - Sumflow 23:55:15 07/20/12 ( 2)
- RE: Why surround sound is not "high end?" - Raymond Leggs 15:09:53 07/21/12 ( 1)
- RE: Why surround sound is not "high end?" - Raymond Leggs 15:16:47 07/21/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - hahax@verizon.net 21:19:08 07/15/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 12:21:26 07/15/12 ( 12)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - josh358 17:37:42 07/18/12 ( 4)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 07/18/12 17:57:35 07/18/12 ( 3)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - josh358 18:15:52 07/18/12 ( 2)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 21:26:33 07/18/12 ( 1)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - josh358 06:52:29 07/19/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - 3db 04:47:56 07/18/12 ( 1)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 09:08:57 07/18/12 ( 0)
Is there a conflict here? ;-) - Kal Rubinson 13:03:42 07/15/12 ( 4)
- LOL !! - AbeCollins 13:32:27 07/15/12 ( 3)
- RE: LOL !! - pictureguy 18:42:22 07/15/12 ( 2)
- Too much information. It was just a jab. (NT) - Kal Rubinson 07:17:57 07/16/12 ( 1)
- RE: Too much information. It was just a jab. (NT) - pictureguy 08:11:45 07/16/12 ( 0)
For me, multichannel is better than stereo - Tubo 10:23:25 07/15/12 ( 2)
- Now that's a convincing argument - Craiger56 20:48:16 07/15/12 ( 1)
- RE: Now that's a convincing argument - middleground 09:49:49 07/17/12 ( 0)
Says who? - mark111 09:50:18 07/15/12 ( 0)
I spent a lot on a surround system.. Just not as much as on my two channel - Elizabeth 09:16:33 07/15/12 ( 16)
- Elizabeth which Bryston do you have? nt - theob 09:38:25 07/15/12 ( 15)
- Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - Elizabeth 10:18:50 07/15/12 ( 14)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - theob 12:57:20 07/15/12 ( 0)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - theob 12:12:53 07/15/12 ( 12)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - Raymond Leggs 12:31:54 07/15/12 ( 4)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - abs1 13:41:45 07/15/12 ( 3)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - tmsorosk 15:05:06 07/15/12 ( 2)
- Sometimes the used bargain is a great relief from over the top high prices.. - Elizabeth 15:54:30 07/15/12 ( 1)
- RE: Sometimes the used bargain is a great relief from over the top high prices.. - Raymond Leggs 16:01:45 07/15/12 ( 0)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - theob 12:28:14 07/15/12 ( 6)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - Dawnrazor 22:46:57 07/15/12 ( 3)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - theob 05:44:44 07/16/12 ( 2)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - Dawnrazor 21:23:58 07/18/12 ( 1)
- RE: Bryston BP-26 and 1.5 phono, plus Bryston 4B-SST2 nt - theob 05:58:16 07/19/12 ( 0)
- RI bought the DEQ2496 on a whim and have never really explored it's capabilities, i do use it pass through - Elizabeth 13:49:41 07/15/12 ( 1)
- RE: RI bought the DEQ2496 on a whim and have never really explored it's capabilities, i do use it pass through - theob 15:11:50 07/15/12 ( 0)
Space and Pride - genungo 08:37:48 07/15/12 ( 0)
You are too concerned with labels. (NT) - Kal Rubinson 07:49:26 07/15/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - middleground 06:47:49 07/15/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - middleground 06:42:15 07/15/12 ( 0)
fine for movies - tmsorosk 05:57:37 07/15/12 ( 15)
- Wrong. - Kal Rubinson 07:48:14 07/15/12 ( 13)
- RE: Wrong. - Paully 10:47:54 07/15/12 ( 12)
- RE: Wrong. - josh358 17:07:03 07/18/12 ( 3)
- RE: Wrong. - Paully 17:39:27 07/18/12 ( 2)
- RE: Wrong. - josh358 17:51:36 07/18/12 ( 1)
- Right - tmsorosk 17:53:11 07/18/12 ( 0)
- RE: Wrong. - middleground 11:31:55 07/16/12 ( 0)
- Methinks you misunderstood Kal's comments - willkayakforfood 11:19:18 07/15/12 ( 6)
- And music from a 2-channel system also has reflected sound; engineers realize this (good ones) and so create. - tinear 16:05:10 07/15/12 ( 1)
- But it comes at you from the wrong direction! (nt) - Kal Rubinson 17:53:59 07/15/12 ( 0)
- RE: Methinks you misunderstood Kal's comments - Pally 13:35:16 07/15/12 ( 0)
Yup. (NT) - Kal Rubinson 12:58:40 07/15/12 ( 0)
Ambisonic encoding / recording may get much closer to correct surround recording. Interesting link, - cfb 12:28:21 07/15/12 ( 1)
- Perhaps. - Kal Rubinson 13:00:56 07/15/12 ( 0)
RE: fine for movies - middleground 06:42:53 07/15/12 ( 0)
I think it's the material - Frihed89 00:42:07 07/15/12 ( 4)
- not like Star Wars - pbarach 13:31:30 07/18/12 ( 1)
- RE: not like Star Wars - Raymond Leggs 14:57:05 07/18/12 ( 0)
RE: I think it's the material - abs1 04:33:27 07/15/12 ( 1)
- Nice. - Kal Rubinson 08:45:45 07/15/12 ( 0)
Different mind sets. - Teresa 23:32:29 07/14/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - russ69 22:51:43 07/14/12 ( 0)
RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - Iron Knee 22:29:03 07/14/12 ( 0)