|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
It's not really important who actually said that - suffice it to say that's somebody who made a career of trying to discredit "audiophile beliefs":
I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall.
Follow Ups:
Too bad. It was one of the most interesting threads I have ever seen there.
But, I guess, that can only serve as additional motivation for moderators over there to lock the thread down.
carcass93
"It's not really important who actually said that - suffice it to say that's somebody who made a career of trying to discredit "audiophile beliefs":"
That is flatly untrue. Sean Olive is a scientist who has devoted his career to studying what characteristics people prefer in speakers. It just happens that the results may overthrow some beliefs about audio, but that is normal with any good research.
Here's is the text quoted without attribution (against the rules but the mods so far show no sign of caring) from a post on Hydrogen Audio by Sean Olive, without providing a link (I have provided the link below) so that one could easily check the context:
"I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall."
This is clearly a statement of preference for listening to stereo recordings in multichannel, and the he notes three things he likes about it.
1) He gets a center channel. There's no center channel with only two speakers.
2) He gets a wider sweet spot that way.
3) He gets "a sense of envelopment and spaciousness" which is missing in stereo. On this last, please note there may be many senses of envelopment and spaciousness, different with each system, and in his multichannel system, Sean gets one he prefers to what happens in stereo (taken universally). I have many times on this forum noted that many sometimes confuse universal and particular. Some confuse them in this thread.
Here's some things Sean said in the next post at HA, no. 75:
"I agree that the discussion on 2 channel versus multichannel is off topic and I am happy to abandon it.
"I only brought it up because we seem to have people in this forum willing to sit in a tiny sweet spot while listening to overpriced, directional speakers with terrible off-axis response that we are told are both highly room-dependent and loudspeaker/listener position dependent -- all for the purpose of what? To listen to stereo, which Bell Lab scientists said back in the early 1930s was completely inadequate to convey the realism of a live music performance to an audience.
"For me, that is a terribly misguided use of effort and money because there too many inherent compromises in sound quality, given what is possible today with music recording and reproduction science and technology. We can do so much better, and we should.
"As an industry we have failed to learn and acknowledge the Bell Lab science that is almost 80 years old! And we are now repeating ourselves by ignoring the loudspeaker science that has been known since the mid-1980s from Floyd Tooles' work at the National Research Council."
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
... about neither what Olive thinks about audio, nor what you think is appropriate.
I posted it mostly as a curiosity, as a glimpse of never-ending circus that is HA, and clueless "scientists" that heavily infest that place (and this one, only a little bit).
but they didn't believe me. Now you've confirmed it and more.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
It's that no one cares what carcass' intent was. HA is a very funny place.
If Carcass thinking HA is a joke and that to Carcass Olive has no credibility was all you cared about, why did you stray so far away from that very precise issue??
I'm starting doubt myself, after reading Pat's contributions to this thread.
Because dammit you succeeded! With Pat's help, of course.
given that he said this earlier (following the first twenty contributions):
The information is irrelevant to me and to any discussion in this thread.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
rw
... to be even more disoriented than he really is.
hearing the synthesized tricks employed by the Logic 7 car stereo decoder over listening to the original recording. Watch the cool Logic 7 video here .
rw
The Logic 7 system does not seem to be limited to use in car stereos. You seem to be showing some prejudice. What does it have to do with his qualifications as an audio researcher?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Nothing more nothing less. Clearly many of us have heard stereo through multichannel with processors like the one Sean uses. Sean has problems with conventional stereo and many of us have problems with stereo synthesized into multichannel. I think the point is the divide calls into question any relationship between Sean's opinions and our likely opinions. IOW if that is what he likes I probably won't like his products.
ironically I have heard the Revel Ultima Salons and thought they were pretty good. Just not as good as what I have.
That would be a logical conclusion if HK International's products, or their research studies, were built to suit Sean Olive's opinions. Or if he were testing speakers with stereo synthesized into multi channel. But it's pretty obvious that neither of those are the case. The Revels are excellent. What do you have?
P
Soundlab A3s and a Vandersteen sub
Very nice.
P
and read the list of licensees. All I find are car companies.
rw
You have a relevant point? Or are you just showing your prejudices?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
what did you find in Lexicon's link for the product other than the four car companies? Something? Anything? Did you follow the link? Did you find mention of anything else?
rw
I didn't look. The information is irrelevant to me and to any discussion in this thread.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
The information is irrelevant to me and to any discussion in this thread.
I guess that explains your twenty posts. :)
rw
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
rw
Logic 7 is good for more than auto sound and your own link said so, if you bothered to read it.
There is a white paper you must have neglected to read, too.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
to become relevant? Sure, the whitepaper talks about the 1989 design. It does not, however, make any mention of where it is used today. Except of course for the four car licensees.
rw
Come on, out with it.
Oh, and Lexicon makes its own products with Logic 7.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
You do read, don't you? This is from the link you provided.
"It plays normal stereo recordings in full and satisfying surround, with a wide sound stage and increased envelopment, while standing ready to play encoded material in full surround. Multi-channel recordings encoded with LOGIC 7 technology, play in every system capable of handling two-channel material, and can be broadcast with standard equipment. LOGIC 7 encoders and decoders are available now from Lexicon, and integrated receivers that include LOGIC 7 technology are on the market today. An integrated decoder chip is also available."
http://www.lexicon.com/logic7/index.asp
What point are you trying to make? What is the relevance of your meanderings?
As for the facts, see link below--there is the logo on the front panel, or you could download the user guide . . .
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
What point are you trying to make?
I'll be happy to repeat for your benefit: "Clearly he prefers hearing the synthesized tricks employed by the Logic 7 car stereo decoder over listening to the original recording"
As for the facts, see link below--there is the logo on the front panel...
Ok, it is also found on their cinema processor. A home theatre application is where my matrix decoders are found as well. I agree with Kal Rubinson's assessment:
"Sometimes it works well and, more often, it is simply phase-y, diffuse and annoying. "
To each his own.
rw
You forgot a couple of things. You should hone up your research skills.
I expect Sean Olive knows how to use Logic 7 and other upmixers better than most. His text also indicates he uses other umpmixers.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
He prefers using matrixed upmixers.
rw
You originally said he prefers car stereo upmixers! Now you've chagned it to preferring to listen to stereo recordings using upmixers, which is a different thing.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
is different from other Logic 7 decoders?
rw
Certainly the hardware products are different.
Is Windows 7 always the same for every computer?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Is Windows 7 always the same for every computer?
is always the same for a given flavor (32 bit vs 64 bit). Only the drivers differ. That's why you don't have to buy a computer, motherboard, or processor-specific flavor.
Did I make a pronouncement either way on that?
I'll disregard these comments of yours since nothing at all changed:
"Now you're changing your story to be more correct! You originally said he prefers car stereo upmixers!"
rw
*
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
from an application software's standpoint regardless of which brand of computer, chipset or processor you choose to run it.
rw
works identically from an application software's standpoint and even that is still not strictly correct. It's the user interface rather than the kernel that works identically regardless of which brand of computer, chipset or processor you choose to run it.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Edits: 07/06/10
You put the same software on any Win7 machine and it works exactly the same.
rw
"You put the same software on any Win7 machine and it works exactly the same."
This is not true. The processor must support the instructions that are used in the software. The software must not call on drivers that are missing on a particular machine, etc. Even if all the operating system calls work as intended then with different hardware the actual execution of instructions will vary, including the speed of operation (which will affect the sequence of computation and I/O) and the pattern of memory references (a function of page faults and cache misses, etc.).
Not to mention the myriad (hyper-astronomical) ways a system can be configured, many of which will affect the performance and ability of a computer system in real-time applications, such as audio. At least in the past, some computer vendors bundled their own extensions to Windows with their products. These have had deleterious affect on system performance on occasion.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Do you think or have evidence that the car stereo version of Logic 7 works inherently different from that of other Logic 7 decoders? I'm speaking from the user's perspective, not in minutiae about their power supplies, mounting brackets or connectors.
rw
The system seems to have evolved over the years, at least to a certain extent. It also comes in different configurations. I would assume that the installations in the various luxury cars are all customized. From all that I've read the various techniques of "steering", etc. were developed to address the problem of movie sound. Its applicability to two channel unencoded music is dubious, no matter how many PhD degrees an employee touting the product might happen to have. (Sean Olive is an employee of Harmon and they own Lexicon.)
When I am listening to music seriously I sit on the midline between my two speakers and may roll my chair forward and back a bit according to the recording. I am definitely unconcerned with the size of any "sweet spot", but then I'm not peddling any gadget, either.
When I am in my car I sit off to the left side and watch the road. It is not possible to listen to classical music in my car properly due to the noise level. I could play loud rock music if I wanted to destroy my hearing. The last thing in the world I am concerned about is whether the imagining in my car is good, so I am not about to trade in my old BMW 5 series for a new model with these gimmicks.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The last thing in the world I am concerned about is whether the imagining in my car is good, so I am not about to trade in my old BMW 5 series for a new model with these gimmicks.
My TL came with a six channel Panasonic ELS surround system capable of playing multi-channel DVD-A discs. A demo disk came with the unit, but honestly in the seven years I've had the car, I never listened to it. The only steering I do with the car controls the front wheels. :)
rw
I observed that the Logic 7 page and the *white paper* found there make ZERO mention of where it is used other than in cars. That is an observation of fact. As for the DC-2 you referenced, do you understand the term "legacy product"? Does that ring any bells? Yet another observation of fact is that unit is no longer sold. That implies to me the current availability of true multi-channel music content has rendered the twenty year old technology obsolete. I have a similar matrix capability on my HT receiver and never use it.
rw
Why not use whatever means to create the input to that imagined event. I will find myself switching between Logic7, DTS, Dolby and Stereo reproduction all the time. Once I settle on a section I note the setting on the "liner" notes.
I was an early adopter of digital delay systems in the 1980, and still have - though no longer use my Advent 500 Delay unit. I have paid careful attention in the setup of my surround modes so that they are all level matched - even to stereo only. It's easy to make a surround sound system sound awful. Think about how much time you have spent "dialing in" your front system speakers. It takes a lot longer to do this for a surround system.
Some recordings are just terrible in surround sound though - sometimes. I think, because the producer adds his own idea of "Ambiance" to the mix. One classic example is SuperTramp's "Crime of the Century" No mater how I set up my system it sounds best in Stereo, with the ambiance in the production sending the sound all around the room.
I recently had an amazing experience with a multichannel system. Steve Schell and I have fiddled with multichannel over the years, and never liked it. I spent quite some time in Ray Kimbers large room at RMAF, and didn't care for the sound. But that was under show conditions which is always difficult.
A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine called me up and invited me to listen to a new multichannel he just finished. He has a very nice room, and some large horn speakers, and subwoofers. His room has always sounded great, but not way outstanding.
As soon as I entered the room it was apparent that he really nailed the setup. With the lights off, I couldn't even hear the drivers, the experience was like entering a live music venue, it one of the most impressive audio experiences that I've ever had.
R. Drysdale
. . . is NOT something you want to hear in a good live performance venue. Too much echo distracts from, and confuses, the direct sound coming from the stage. The "hall sound" should be subliminal at best. (A possible exception being Gregorian chant in a large church, where the long reverb times allow the overtones to develop and contribute to the meditative/reverential atmosphere).
A multichannel system which "correctly" reproduces the subliminal ambience of a good venue would require an extremely dead room, and surround speakers with exceptionally wide dispersion, operating at very low SPLs.
I suppose it depends on where you are. In the choral society, we stand behind the orchestra in our usual church venue, and the ambience from the orchestral music can certainly be enveloping, nothing subliminal about it. I suppose if you sit up close, that may happen, too.
In most concert halls I have been in, I have never noticed the pin point stereo imaging found on some recordings, nor do I often find that enveloping upper bass response that some systems produce because of too much bass for accuracy--though I don't deny that can be pleasant.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
You definitely hear from a different perspective when you're "in the band" than when you're seated out in the hall. When you're singing behind the orchestra, there is probably a wall not far behind you, and a high ceiling above, so you're getting almost as much reflected sound as direct sound from the orchestra, and are immersed in the ambience. The best "stereo" sound I've ever heard live is with the fiddler on my left, the flute player on my right, and the guitar in my lap. Sitting up close to an orchestra (or a big brass band), you just get overwhelmed with the sheer massiveness of the sound: there is "imaging" of where the instruments are, but those images are BIG, not pinpoint. Mid-hall or further back, it's more like big mono. That's where too much reflected sound can muddy up the direct sound from the stage.
You probably won't be surprised to hear that I kind of like Sean Olive. I think he's doing some seriously good things for good sound. I disagree with him on this one, though. 5-channel and 7-channel surround is "enveloping," and I can understand how, if you listened to it all the time, stereo would then sound wrong. But I'm convinced that the 5 and 7 channel stereo is what is wrong. When they start remixing all my classic jazz recordings in surround with the goal not of "enveloping" me, but of recreating the ambience of the performance venue, then I'll be interested. Until that time comes, 2-channel still rules and, in my system, it hangs a rock solid center image in front of me.But a couple of things said in this thread are just not accurate and are bordering on personal. One is that Olive has spent his career trying to discredit audiophile beliefs. That's nonsense. Harman International has audiophile companies in its roster and what Olive spends his career doing is very carefully constructing, running, evaluating, altering and re-running tests aimed at understanding how we hear what we hear and what we prefer. Like all research, it has gaps you can squeeze through if his conclusions challenge your personal beliefs, but I assure you he didn't have challenging your beliefs in mind. He had his job in mind, which is helping his company develop products that professionals, audiophiles and regular consumers will like and buy.
Second, having actually read his columns, I disagree with Analog Scott that Olive "seems to be against the idea that taste in sound may actually vary from person to person." I don't think he's against that idea at all. Doing the kind of research he does, I'm sure he has observed it many times. What that research has revealed, though, is that more often than not, most people (and it cuts across age, sex, and listening experience) end up preferring the same stuff. Another thing it has revealed, over time, is that people's blind, subjective impressions of sound very often reflect what is seen in the measurements. Imagine that.
I don't find this at all surprising. Given a fair comparison -- matched volumes, inability to see the price tags, logos, fancy or plain cabinets, etc. -- I expect most people to have very good ears. Our ears and brains are very well engineered. It's our minds that get in the way.
P
Edits: 06/26/10
Ponk,
You probably won't be surprised to hear that I kind of like Sean Olive. I think he's doing some seriously good things for good sound. I disagree with him on this one, though. 5-channel and 7-channel surround is "enveloping," and I can understand how, if you listened to it all the time, stereo would then sound wrong. But I'm convinced that the 5 and 7 channel stereo is what is wrong. When they start remixing all my classic jazz recordings in surround with the goal not of "enveloping" me, but of recreating the ambience of the performance venue, then I'll be interested. Until that time comes, 2-channel still rules and, in my system, it hangs a rock solid center image in front of me.
I knew it would happen!! I agree with ponk!! :) Logic 7 never ever sounded any good to me, nor does multichannel. That crap about no center channel while I suppose it is TECHNICALLY true, is just wrong as you mention here.
But a couple of things said in this thread are just not accurate and are bordering on personal. One is that Olive has spent his career trying to discredit audiophile beliefs. That's nonsense. Harman International has audiophile companies in its roster and what Olive spends his career doing is very carefully constructing, running, evaluating, altering and re-running tests aimed at understanding how we hear what we hear and what we prefer. Like all research, it has gaps you can squeeze through if his conclusions challenge your personal beliefs, but I assure you he didn't have challenging your beliefs in mind. He had his job in mind, which is helping his company develop products that professionals, audiophiles and regular consumers will like and buy.
Well I knew it couldnt last :). You may be right, but I would add that his company has an interest in discrediting stereo for the most part. Selling a bunch of hk receivers, jbl and infinity speakers is more what Harmon is after than Revel sales if you ask me.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
"Well I knew it couldnt last :). You may be right, but I would add that his company has an interest in discrediting stereo for the most part. Selling a bunch of hk receivers, jbl and infinity speakers is more what Harmon is after than Revel sales if you ask me."
No, we still agree. There is no doubt that the money is in HK and JBL, but really, no one needs to promote multi-channel over stereo. Those of us hanging onto quality 2-channel systems are a vanishingly small minority, an endangered species. And if a financial interest in multi-channel is your argument, it applies to every company that has any multi channel audio to sell. In the simplest terms, it is in a company's financial best interest to sell five speakers instead of two. So by your definition, Wilson should be big proponents of surround sound. We're not really disagreeing on this one. I'm just giving a bit of integrity the benefit of the doubt.
P
...by your definition, Wilson should be big proponents of surround sound.
I've yet to see a single MC system.
rw
Can't say I've ever seen a Wilson ad. I've seen their web site, though.
P
The one where bass-reflex Infinity speaker is compared to dipole electrostatic/bass reflex hybrid Martin Logan, both being SINGULAR speakers tested in MONO? Take note - they are tested not for FR or any other irregularities, but for what sounds better subjectively , for listener's preferences in other words.What do you think about Olive's arguments vs. AJinFLA arguments? BTW, normally AJinFLA is the last person I, and just about everyone else here, would agree with on anything.
Also, what do you think about supposed deficiencies of stereo reproduction, quoted in my original post? Is your system, for instance, affected by any of these? If it's not, and supposed issues are actually non-issues in your opinion - would you call the person who made those arguments QUALIFIED to talk on the subject of high-quality sound reproduction?
Please don't stray into listing Olive's credentials or body of work, relevant or not - just a simple question, based on that, or many other like it, quotes from him.
Edits: 06/28/10
I'm not interested in the arguments on HA, but I've read Olive's blog. I don't agree with his opinion of the deficiencies of stereo. I know many people who would agree, who would prefer the enveloping quality of 5 or 7 channel stereo to the sound stage presented by good stereo imaging. I don't think there's anything wrong with that preference, I just don't share it.
Regarding the Martin Logans, I've spent many hours listening to hybrid Martin Logans. Blind, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that some well-designed but inexpensive bass reflex speakers were preferred over them by the majority of the experienced listeners on this board.
P
carcass93
"Take note - they are tested not for FR or any other irregularities"
You should actually check this. They would not have been able to determine whether the measured results correlated with the listener preferences--and they did! Maybe you should check them out on the link below. I'll make it easy for you: click on Slide 28.
Now, when you do subjective preference tests, the results will tell you, in your own words, "what sounds better subjectively, for listener's preferences in other words."
It's the same with testing in mono vs. testing in stereo. Sean Olive and Floyd Toole are among the world's greatest experts on the subject of speaker testing. According to them, mono testing works better.
In your remarks about your original post, you mention "supposed deficiencies of stereo reproduction," without listing them clearly.
-For example, there is no center channel in two channel stereo, period, so the writer is obviously correct.
-As to comparisons of width of sweet spots, I haven't heard his multi-channel system, so I cannot speak from my own experience which is better, though that potential exists with multi-channel. For that matter, you don't profess to have heard his system, either.
-The same goes for the sense of "a sense of envelopment and spaciousness" with his system vs. two channel stereo. You haven't heard his system, either.
carcass93
"would you call the person who made those arguments QUALIFIED to talk on the subject of high-quality sound reproduction?"
I'm pretty sure he's more qualified than you are since you don't even seem to understand he said. The quotation in your first post is hardly sufficient to judge how much the author "QUALIFIED to talk on the subject of high-quality sound reproduction?" However, what he says seems to me to correct.
His overall qualifications in that field depend on those things you consider to be straying, that is, Sean Olive's "credentials and body of work," both of which are beyond reproach.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
.. or lack thereof.Reading your post - you haven't been able to refute ANY of my points, instead repeating "they are right, and you are wrong" ad nauseum. Main subject of that test was, in fact, listener's preference - sorry if you haven't been able to comprehend it, and not much I can do to help you with that.
I especially like "Sean Olive and Floyd Toole are greatest experts blah blah blah ..." bit, in response to the post that questions that exact "blah blah blah" aspect, with clear illustration of what exactly was done wrong.
Regarding deficiencies of stereo reproduction - I take it that your system suffers from the same drawbacks as Olive's, which is why you seemingly agree with him. Either that, or you simply don't understand what's being discussed (center channel etc.).
Lastly, despite my asking politely, you in fact DID stray into appeal to authority, again without realizing that it's that same authority that's being actively questioned here. I'm sure if we were to discuss ravings of someone downright crazy, like Arnie Krueger for instance, your main argument would still be his background as EE, and 100 years of experience in low-fi audio reproduction.
Oh, and BTW - the number of typos and errors in your post is alarming, and probably suggests that you're taking this stuff a little too personal. Why would that be?
Edits: 06/28/10
I debated with myself whether to bother, but it's clear you do not know what the fallacy of arguing from an authority is. Of course, accepting arguments from authorities in their own fields is not a fallacy. It's arguing that because someone is expert in one field, that he/she must be expert is some unrelated field. Some here were shocked when someone asked jj if he would reject an opinion in psychometrics from Einstein: jj said he would because Einstein was not an expert in psychometrics whereas he (jj) is, and is familiar with other expert opinions in that field.
carcass93
"Also, what do you think about supposed deficiencies of stereo reproduction, quoted in my original post? Is your system, for instance, affected by any of these? If it's not, and supposed issues are actually non-issues in your opinion - would you call the person who made those arguments QUALIFIED to talk on the subject of high-quality sound reproduction?
Please don't stray into listing Olive's credentials or body of work, relevant or not - just a simple question, based on that, or many other like it, quotes from him."
Of course, you have just improperly excluded the things that are relevant to whether Sean Olive is an expert on high quality sound reproduction and you want to use an irrelevant criterion, to wit, whether one finds one's own stereo system deficient in certain ways.
Sure, my 2 channel stereo system doesn't have a center channel. Whether that's a deficiency depends on your point of view. According to Sean's preferences, it is, and also research going back many decades indicates a center channel can add add to realism. I've not been notably impressed with stereo played through a multichannel system, though in that system it was better than without. But then, I've not heard the system(s) Sean uses, and apparently, neither have you. His equipment seems to threaten you.
Sean thinks that a center channel can enable the stereo image to be wider, more stable, and less colored than in stereo. Stereo is an illusion which manages to sometimes be plausible, as Julian Hirsch used to say. Not having heard Sean's system, I don't know whether I would prefer to hear stereo recordings over it.
The same thing with the sense or feeling of envelopment and spaciousness. I haven't heard Sean's system so I don't know whether I would prefer it or not. You don't pretend to have heard it, either, though you obviously feel threatened by it.
Now, when you bring up whether Sean Olive is a qualified expert on high fidelity sound reproduction, this is rather more complicated than whether I am pleased with my own system or not. In fact, it is irrelevant. Sean is qualified as an expert in high fidelity sound reproduction by his training and his accomplishments in research. It's the same with a physican or a lawyer: they are qualified in virtue of their training and experience. In neither case does that come under the argument from authority fallacy.
What is clear is that Sean Olive's preference for listening to stereo recordings through upmixing to multichannel is not particularly relevant to to the question of whether he is an expert on the reproduction of sound. You have employed the fallacy of an irrelevant argument, often know as the "Red Herring" fallacy.
Why are you so threatened by scientific enquiry?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I think that's just weird.
jj is an expert on psychometric tests and is one of the inventors of lossy compression, including MP3. Based on his recent posts on various forums, e.g. the Womb Forum, he has definitely mellowed since my first encounter with him in on net.audio twenty years ago.
Check out mistake #1. (next to last slide)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There is absolutely no danger saying he is a modest man.
Wizards
He also doesn't follow instructions very well as the following posts illustrate. :)
rw
except for some of the players.
Funny, my system sounds the same too.
We should never forgive him for those lossy codecs...;)
And how is that his responsibility? He did testing, and as far as I know was never in a position to decide on what was used. Do you know something more?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
His post would lead anyone to believe that he was far more than just a tester.
And then there is this: "Until 2002, he was the primary researcher and inventor of AT&T's contributions to the MPEG-2 AAC audio coding algorithm."
maybe you should re-read his resume that you posted. He appears to be a prime player in a lot of things, and certainly not just a tester.
rw
nt
Because c93 might not know who jj is. I told a story involving jj and he might not know who he is. I think it's more jj's resume.
Do you have some problem with that?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Isn't he that old bearded deaf guy, who not only spreads nonsense about audio on HydrogenAudio forum, but also had a nerve to appear in Winer's junk video, only to further embarass himself?
If it's any consolation - he's definitely less crazy, and more well-behaved, that some other nutjobs, like said Winer or Krueger, for instance.
jj's name gets tossed about here frequently, especially by you. Its unlikely he is unknown. Particularly since he was here for so long, and had such a lame-out at the end.
It is nice to have a hero, though.
You mean when he got a new job?
jj once told me he enjoyed the controversies.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
HA! I meant, "Flame-out," not "lame-out," though they both work...
What's weird was that I posted a link to a site containing talks that jj gave just a few days ago.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
if you'd posted a link to his personal bio...just a bit too much hero worship around here already.
Have a great 4th Tony!!
"Of course, accepting arguments from authorities in their own fields is not a fallacy."
If you are arguing with me and quoting a third party as your authority, then this will be convincing to you, since you accept that authority. But why should I accept your authority? Your authority might be mistaken or corrupt. If I have not already made a survey of the field I would have no way of knowing if your authority is suitable. I could, of course, accept your choice of the third party, but then I would be accepting you as an authority on selecting authorities.
In the end we are each, individually, forced to come to our own conclusions using our own senses, our own minds and a set of authorities that we choose according to our own knowledge and belief. The argument from authority is seldom convincing to a person who makes a habit of using his own mind. In a debate, the argument from authority is almost never convincing unless both parties subscribe to this authority for the subject matter under debate. In a totalitarian society, the argument from authority does have force, but in this case it is literal force. Thus we have the authority of the EPA which declares that CO2 is a pollutant and those who do not obey will ultimately be confronted by a bunch of armed men. Similarly, we have the moderators at HA, the inquisitors who rule that posts are in violation of "TOS 8". They enforce HA's epistemological dogma by physical banishment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
I take it you have not. Get over it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Second, having actually read his columns, I disagree with Analog Scott that Olive "seems to be against the idea that taste in sound may actually vary from person to person." I don't think he's against that idea at all. Doing the kind of research he does, I'm sure he has observed it many times. What that research has revealed, though, is that more often than not, most people (and it cuts across age, sex, and listening experience) end up preferring the same stuff. Another thing it has revealed, over time, is that people's blind, subjective impressions of sound very often reflect what is seen in the measurements. Imagine that."
I may have over simplified my conclusions but much in the same way as I think Sean is trying to oversimplify things as well. I think with the idea of "majority rule" with preferences the minority do get dismissed. I get that choice for a manufacturer. But to make a blanket statement of superiority does imply that minority diversions in opinions and tastes are somehow wrong. They are classified as things such as "noise." It is that "noise" Sean seeks to eliminate in using mono tests. IMO he seeks greater clarity and unity in his results rather than actual "accuracy." If the results are more "noisy" in stereo than in mono does that not *possibly* mean that there is more to judge in stereo and different people of different tastes will diverge more from the median when there is more to consider in one's preference?
Image the "noise" he must get when he varies the program material. Kinda like what audiophiles do when they actually listen at home.....in stereo.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scott. I don't think Olive is trying to manipulate his results. He may inadvertently BE manipulating his results. To some degree, everyone does. The objective of good methodology is to minimize it.
I think two things have contributed to his testing in mono:
1) He, or someone at Harman, has invented an effective way to blind A/B speakers (the speaker mover); INDIVIDUAL speakers. He tests what he has the tools to test.
2) Lack of personal belief in the importance of imaging. This comes through in Sean's writing, particularly casual responses. Soundstaging is just not something that seems to be important to him as a listener, so testing in mono serves him well enough. And it does serve him well. While it may leave imaging untested, his speaker testing methodology seem to test everything else pretty well, including dispersion. Will this result in Harman speakers with great tonal balance that don't image well? I don't know.
Majority rules? Of course. We're talking about research that will ultimately be used to develop and market products. The ultimate goal is to please more listeners and capture greater market share. But as long as his quest for the preferences of the majority keep leading him to greater accuracy, his "majority rules" will even serve audiophiles who couldn't care less about the preferences of the majority. Or at least they'll serve this one. So far I almost always find the more accurate to be the more musical. But I am also one of Sean's "image obsessed," listeners, so I'll have to keep an ear out for that. Where I really disagree with him is in the notion that there is something wrong with the center image of a stereo pair. If there is, there is something wrong with the system.
P
> > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scott.> >
I have no problem with that.
> > I don't think Olive is trying to manipulate his results.> >
Manipulate is a loaded word. I beleive he is sincere and wants the best results he can get. But it looks to me like he has an afinity for definitive results.
> > He may inadvertently BE manipulating his results. To some degree, everyone does. The objective of good methodology is to minimize it.> >
That is what I suspect he is doing via oversimplification. I suspect he is drawn towards results that are less ambiguous. He claims that the results form testing in mono is both more sensitive and tracks with stereo tests. he says there is more "noise" with testing in stereo. For me there in lies the rub and I have just asked Sean about my concerns here on the HA thread. We will see how he responds. WTF is "noise" in blind perceptual preference tests? I *suspect* that the results are simply less conclusive in stereo than in mono. Is that "noise" or is that simply a more complex yet more accurate "signal?" In stereo there is more independent qualities to judge hence more opertunites for divergence in preferences. Is that noise? IMO trying to eliminate such "noise" is an act of oversimplification and a sublime dismisal of diversity in opinions. I suspect he wants simple and decisive answers for complex questions that ultimately will wrought more ambiguous answers. I think in effect this amounts to an aversion to diversity in taste.
> > I think two things have contributed to his testing in mono:
1) He, or someone at Harman, has invented an effective way to blind A/B speakers (the speaker mover); INDIVIDUAL speakers. He tests what he has the tools to test.
2) Lack of personal belief in the importance of imaging.> >
I think you give him less credit than I do here. I don't think he is dissing imaging. he has given his reasons. Mono tests are more "sensitive." and they track stereo tests. I question whether or not they are really more sensitive just because they wrought more consolidated results. i think there is an underlying assumption there that preferences will consolidate as the data gets "better." It seems to me he is judging the lesser consolidation in the stereo tests as a lack of sensitivity when I suspect it is simply indicitive of diversity in taste since there are more elements to subjectively wiegh against each other. I don't think more "complex" results means less sensitivity. I have a hard time wrapping my head around any rationale that would lead one to consider results of listening tests that don't represent actual in the field usage as anything but less acurate than results of listening tests that better represent actual consumer usage i.e. mono tests instead of stereo.
> > Majority rules? Of course.> >
I agree and said as much. i do get the business part of it.
> > We're talking about research that will ultimately be used to develop and market products. The ultimate goal is to please more listeners and capture greater market share. But as long as his quest for the preferences of the majority keep leading him to greater accuracy, his "majority rules" will even serve audiophiles who couldn't care less about the preferences of the majority.> >
"Greater accuracy?" Accuracy to what reference?
> > Or at least they'll serve this one. So far I almost always find the more accurate to be the more musical.> >
How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one.
> > But I am also one of Sean's "image obsessed," listeners, so I'll have to keep an ear out for that. Where I really disagree with him is in the notion that there is something wrong with the center image of a stereo pair. If there is, there is something wrong with the system.> >
I agree with you there.
"How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others.
Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)
P
> > "How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others. > >
I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use.
> > Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)> >
OK but you did claim a corolation between levels of "accuracy" and "musicality." if you can't measure musicality I'm not sure how you corolate it with measured accuracy.
"I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use."
I'm not sure you can get a pretty flat response from a pretty distorted speaker, in fact I suspect you can't, but in any case, that low distortion is a goal, along with a relatively uncolored response, is a given. I'm not going for a noisy uncolored speaker (I think that might be an oxymoron), I'm going for the cleanest, least-colored speaker possible. And mind you, I understand that this is a very lofty goal, but usually, the closer you get, the better I like the results. YMMV.
P
Thank you for the clarification. I got the impression that it was only about frequency response when there are many other ways a speaker can distort.
For me, it's all about chasing an apparent purity in acoustic instruments and voices, and most of that is in the midrange, which is why I'm satisfied with relatively small speakers and no sub. And it's about imaging, which is where I depart from Dr. Olive. I'm a long-time headphone listener, and as far as balance, purity and coherency are concerned, it is very difficult for any speaker system, in any room, to equal a reference headphone set up. But they simply cannot image like stereo speakers can. And I almost never listen to music as background, so imaging is most of my reason to own speakers.
P
" The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. "
Looks like a "delusional audiophile belief"....... [0;
more channels. I know how important everything is in two channels and what a hassle locating all the speakers in MC is. No thanks!
Well I'm happy the guy likes listening to his multi-channel system.
I'm counting audiophiles out as being the next force driving towards more realism in audio reproduction. My money is that it'll be the movies and/or gamers that fuel the future of realism in audio playback. No doubt in my mind it's going to be multi-channel and I'm betting it's going to be capable of beating the pants off of even the best stereo recordings.
I can hardly wait.
The music stage is always "IN FRONT"! There is no "BACK"! The "ambiance" or concert room effects are "ENCODED" in the front channels. All good stereo has a "phantom" center channel!A "GOOD STEREO" playback is all that is necessary for the full "Concert Hall" effect.
Multichannel recordings were, are, and always will be "UNNECESSARY", for live sounding playback!
Edits: 06/25/10
'
If I can get some foxy babe off a recording and into my listening room I promise to never post on AA again.It's all FAKE
Edits: 06/25/10
"Perspective - Use It or Lose It. If you turned to this page, you're forgetting that what is going on around you is not reality. Think about that."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
:> )
nt
They are two completely different concepts. That's why I have 2 systems. I don't like synthesized matrixed surrounds discrete is the way to go. That said some of the discrete surround mixes have me scratching my head.
Hi
This is a subject (the stereo image) that I have been interested in for some time.
It seems to me that the issue has several layers, the first of which being how recordings are made vs how do we hear in X and Y planes.
Given there is little one can do about recordings unless you’re willing to work at that end, an examination of basic stereo is in order.
In a reflection free space, two nearly perfect speakers produce a very strong phantom image when both are driven with an identical signal, like the “floating in your head” image one has with headphones, the image instead floats in front of you. Caused by inter-aural crosstalk, there is also a maximum angle where one looses that ability so most speakers are at about 60-80 degrees front view.
When there are close reflections near the speakers, if they have re-radiation at the edges, if the spread the signal out in time, the ability to form a concrete phantom image is reduced or defeated.
This happens because the speaker and it’s surrounding area radiate clues as to it’s physical location. The mono image depends on NOT having clues from the speaker interfering or competing with it..
At the same time, the ability to make a stereo panorama is similarly harmed because the only image that can be recorded is the one extending between the two sources. While on can use “tricks” using the pinna response, these are still only tricks. It is commonly thought that reflected room sound adds realism, but in reality one is normally stuck with much more than is desirable for a good stereo image.
The popularity ot larger systems like electrostats, magneplanars and Horns is due in part to the fact that they have “directivity” in the form of a reduced radiation to the sides and produce a larger “direct field” in front where the direct sound is significantly louder than the reflected sound.
To the degree one can listen in the direct field, the better the stereo image and the measured response looks much like the speaker when listened to or measured outdoors or anechoic. Often less directional speakers like cones and domes measure better at a meter but might have a response more like + - 10 or 20 dB at the listening position (the latter representing a variance of 40dB or 10,000:1 in level).
So, with the speaker one has room interaction, it’s ability to actually reproduce the signal with minimal spreading in time and it’s ability to radiate sound without or minimal a spatial signature that says “here I am” to your ears..
One can tell when a speaker has little signature if you play one by itself playing a voice etc. It is easy to tell what direction it is with your eyes closed but the less source signature it has, the harder it is to ‘hear” how far away it is, to localize it’s depth. That is because when you reduce the clues, all you have to go on is what is in the recording and it doesn’t include the speakers position.
The speakers I work on at work, these are for larger spaces than living rooms but the goals at least for sound quality are the same while the difficulties greater. As they became more like one acoustic source in time and space, I found it became much harder to tell the distance using my ears and the stereo image became much stronger, enough to work for a large audience.
All of this "floating in space" hinges on playing back something and here is where the chain is weakest because the item in question is a product intended to be liked.
Acoustically, it may not be obvious but even recording a real stereo image live is very hard.
As a result, only occasionally are recordings made where what you hear is what you would have heard live. Mostly, recordings are panned position mono sources which works pretty well because your ears primary detection is via loudness. A sense of space can be added with a wide variety of reverberations end so on. Each is a work of the producers art, played back in real time, assembled over weeks / months a sliver at a time.
Since most loudspeakers do not produce a strong enough center phantom image, a center channel (L&R summed) was the next step, with speakers that did produce a good phantom image, this allowed a wider angle for the L&R to be used. I think the next step was to add a L-r and R-l extraction which gave the difference information from each channel.
Anyway, we then went to the movie 5,7 etc formats and the rest is history sort of.
Back to the product, the point is much of today’s recorded product is intended to maximize the average playback system. Since so many loudspeakers are (imho) are lame excuses (sonically) for an accurate reproduction system, the recordings are best suited for those.
Is it any wonder the race has been to have smaller and smaller loudspeakers combined with the “loudest” recording possible (given the state of what is generally the weakest, most error filled link in any playback system the loudspeaker). The power of marketing and SAF sensitivity has killed dynamic range I suppose.
Anyway, I know others than myself are interested in “stereo”, as you say “looking through a window” like I said I am interested in this.
I have also been “fiddling around” with a microphone thing which captures a stereo image the way it seems to me that it should work. I have a music recording (some kids in an Irish folk group) which I will add shortly but if you’re interested in such things as window recordings, down load the Harley recording at the bottom of the page at the link. Leave it as a wave file (mp3 @320k conversion totally kills the fireworks), try it with headphones first, keep in mind, it is a very “quiet” sounding recording with a wide dynamic range, it has no compression or limiting and the bike is pretty loud.
I am planning to record the fireworks again this year with the latest 2ch version.
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/technical%20downloads.html
Best,
Tom Danley
When I hear multichannel done properly (if it ever is), I'll reconsider but it simply sounds unreal to me at this point. More work to be done and the jury is still out but the prosecution is winning on points.
I haven't auditioned the system of which he speaks so I can't say that it isn't actually better than two channel stereo.
First a little background on the conversation. The quote above was in response to a claim Sean made that he simply can't stand listening to two channel stereo anymore. The comment stemmed from a discussion about the problems with the narrow sweet spot one gets from electrostatic speakers. I pointed out to him that even his Revel speakers have a sweet spot and that this was an inevitable effect of two channel stereo.
As for his citation of why he likes this system better...I think he makes an issue out of a few nonissues. I don't care that the sweet spot is narrow with two channel stereo. If it bothers Sean then that is *his* problem. The wider sweet spot is of interest *only* if all else is equal. His claims about the problems with a "phantom" center image that one has to settle for with two channel stereo is again a non issue for me. I have literally had several people search behind my system for a center speaker because they were so convinced by the center image. I don't know how the "phantom" quality of my center imaging could be a problem if it is so convincing that guests think I am punking them and literally look for a speaker that is not there.
This leads to a question about imaging. IMO *all* imaging is "phantom" in nature unless the image is coming directly from a speaker. I find imaging directly from a speaker to be distracting and destructive of the aural illusion of imaging. This may be indicative of very different taste in sound between Sean and myself. Although Sean seems to be against the idea that taste in sound may actually vary from person to person(but that is a different subject)
Then he speaks of the "sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction." Can't say that my experience mimics Sean's. With some source material the illusion of transportation is pretty convincing with my system. But I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that I have a very dead listening room which allows for the acoustics of the hall on the recording to dominate the sense of space while Sean's test room is not as dead and may need surround sound to overcome the sound of the test room. Also I wonder just how "accurate" any synthesized surround sound dirived from any two channel recording could possibly be? And what of the many two channel studio recordings that really don't have an original acoustic soundspace, does this system add an invented soundspace? Seems to me like a highly colored system that may or may not actually enhance the stereo effect and sense of realism.
When someone basiaclly says what I have is unlistenable and I've got something better it raises a red flag since I know what I have doesn't suck at all. Given the excellent illusion my system creates with the best source material it makes me wonder how good Sean's system could be if it is really that *different* than mine. It's not an ego thing either. I have no problem with someone else thinking two channel stereo sucks. But since I think it doesn't it just sends the message that we have very different goals.
and I'll be happy to buy them from you if you're not using them. They absorb EMF when placed atop large laminated transformers like those found in my tube amps. HP has been using them for decades. While VPI discontinued them a while back, Shakti Stones are used for the same purpose (and he has a bunch of them, too).
rw
rw
N/T
on iPod stations and found Harman has tuned theirs (obviously theirs is "A") to be notably bright and thin sounding. To each his own as they say!
rw
... over testing speakers in mono (advocated by Olive) vs. in stereo. After reading the passage from my original post, where his stereo has no center fill, practically no sweet spot, and no sense of envelopment and spaciousness, I can begin to understand why one would want to test in mono.
It only takes an even bigger nutcase to make another nutcase (AJ) appear more or less normal, I guess...
Let's see how carcass93 mangles the English language:
-no center channel = no center fill NOT!
-a much wider sweet spot than stereo = no sweet spot in stereo NOT!
-*a* sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction = no sense of envelopment and spaciousness in stereo NOT!
But then c-93 apparently has never heard Sean Olive's multi-channel system and hence c-93 could not have compared Sean's system with stereo.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Once past that English critique, what was the point of your reply? Could it have been a modified "tu quoque" argument? Or just a straight ad hominem?
I pointed out that c93 quoted a text written by Sean Olive, and then totally misrepresented what Sean Olive had said. Sean says something, c93 pretended he said something else. It's a common tactic here, unfortunately.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Pat, I've been following right from the start. That I haven't been posting in the thread doesn't mean I haven't been "following the discussion." You, our self-avowed expert in logic and language, ought to know that. Your retorts seem to have lost a bit of their intellectual force recently. Are you OK?
If you wish to claim that carcass "totally misrepresented" Olive's position, then first you ought to directly quote from Carcass rather than paraphrase. Your own modifications to Carcass' sentences are a change in meaning not implied by the poster. Then secondly show how Carcass' statements do not represent Olive's position. You don't do that. You only claim it. Maybe I'll call that an appeal to your own authority, but whatever it is, it doesn't work. Typing "NOT" after a phrase only lowers this "discussion" that I haven't been "following" to the level of schoolyard taunts.
There may be interpretive differences between what Carcass wrote and what Olive intended, though I would hardly characterize the difference as "totally misrepresented." There's plenty to debate there without resorting to calling someone out on his English usage, particularly when your own is quite poor (at least in your last post).
Sean Olive, as quoted by carcass93
"I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall."
carcass93
"After reading the passage from my original post, where his stereo has no center fill, practically no sweet spot, and no sense of envelopment and spaciousness, I can begin to understand why one would want to test in mono."
Sean Olive's text seems pretty clear to me, except that c93 did not place it in any context. c93's characterization above is a total misrepresentation of what Sean Olive said.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
You are so completely off-base that it is sad rather than laughable. I really used to think that at least you'd put up a good argument. Those days seem long lost.
The "context" which Carcass omits is complete in Olive's post. That "context" makes the meaning of "...gives me a center channel (missing in stereo)..." very clear, and guess what? I think you are wrong in your interpretation.
What's more, even if Carcass was stretching it a bit in the "center channel" issue, stretching one out of three of the points while getting the other two spot-on is hardly a "total misrepresentation."
You have grossly misrepresented Carcass, it seems to me.
Or can't you tell me?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Let's see. There were three points you brought up. One point I concede based on your absurdly pedantic reading of "center channel" vs. "center fill." Thus, it must be the other two where I think Carcass was "spot on." Point of fact, here's my quote: "What's more, even if Carcass was stretching it a bit in the "center channel" issue, stretching one out of three of the points while getting the other two spot-on is hardly a "total misrepresentation." "
Do YOU remember what they are? Here's Olive's sentence: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Sooooo anywho: the two that Carcass got spot on are: 1) sweet spot ("ALSO MISSING," meaning there is none, which ought to give you pause about the issue I'm conceding to you (note the use and context of the word "also." Study this closely)) and 2) that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is ENTIRELY DEVOID IN 2 CHANNEL REPRODUCTION. Meaning, It ain't there either. It is ENTIRELY DEVOID.
Carcass 2 clear points, 1 debatable point. Next?
Nope, you miss the subtleties the English language is capable of.
So you admit the obvious point that 2 channel stereo lacks a center channel, so c93 is flat out wrong.
Sean says with a center channel, he can get a wider sweet spot than with2 channel stereo. Again, what's your problem?
Now with the third, you change the language: it's not "that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness," it's "a" sense of envelopment and spaciousness, as found in the types of system he likes, as compared to stereo, which lacks it. But you do not seem at all interested in a fair and reasonable interpretation.
Meanwhile, you don't bother to mention c93's vicious and unfounded attacks on the qualifications of a respected audio researcher.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Nope, you miss the subtleties the English language is capable of."
Hardly. Your focus has been on the wrong word(s). Since you are the one who has brought up context several times, perhaps you ought to look at the other words in the sentences in question so you may construct a more thorough understanding of the intent.
"So you admit the obvious point that 2 channel stereo lacks a center channel, so c93 is flat out wrong."
I admit that a stereo sytem by definition lacks a physical center channel, but again, reading the entire paragraph quoted, and those lovely words that Olive chose to use, I suggest only that the point is nebulous enough to not merit the argument. But since you continue to press, I ask again that you read the full text to see how words are used. Please pay close attention to context. Also note how individual words are used. Sometimes the way a word is used at a later point in a paragraph can help define its use in a case where the meaning is not entirely clear.
Here's Olive's quote: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Note how he state that the "much wider sweet spot" is "also missing." Again, note the word "also" in front of "missing." The word "missing" first appears in reference to the center channel. The use of "also" means that the word "missing" has the same function in the sentence. "A much wider sweet spot" is not something one can buy along with a pair of cables and half-and-half for the morning. It is, however, a result - an effect - of the system being described. Thus, the center channel that Olive is "given" is an effect. This is clearly underscored by the very subject of the sentence itself: it is not the configuration or number of channels that gives Olive the center channel, it is "the up-mixing." Again, an effect is being described, not an object. The effect being referred to is the information that now comes from the center speaker he has added, and it is created by his "upmixing" of stereo information to be able to create the "missing" information.
So no, Carcass is not flat out wrong at all.
"Sean says with a center channel, he can get a wider sweet spot than with2 channel stereo. Again, what's your problem?"
Well Pat, I wouldn't have a problem if that was what he said. But he didn't say that. You have modified his sentence to fit your agenda, and THAT is with what I have a problem.
Here's what Sean says: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
He says that the much-wider sweet spot is "ALSO MISSING." He doesn't say it is bigger than the traditional. He says the traditional system's sweet spot is NOT THERE. AT ALL. MISSING. AWOL. And as he never defines what that sweet spot is wider than, it is not possible to understand his quantification. Had he said, "the center fill through the upmixing gives me a much wider sweet spot than the sweet spot of a traditional two-speaker set up," I wouldn't bat an eye. Funny how his choice of words creates the ambiguity. There's that subtlety of the English language for you.
"Now with the third, you change the language: it's not "that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness," it's "a" sense of envelopment and spaciousness, as found in the types of system he likes, as compared to stereo, which lacks it. But you do not seem at all interested in a fair and reasonable interpretation."
Are you serious?? Pat, I gave you the quote in its proper context. My own change of words has no effect on the substance of the argument. To claim so is disingenuous on your part. What is "fair and reasonable" about that?? Pat, meet kettle.
I can't be bothered with repeating the same thing over and over about the meaning of "a sense of...," and "devoid of." I've posted about that in this thread a couple of times already. Maybe you might consider reading those posts rather than skimming and reacting? It is clear to me that you are too pedantic to understand usage, and won't take your own advice about paying attention to the context. It doesn't really matter, as you make me laugh.
"Meanwhile, you don't bother to mention c93's vicious and unfounded attacks on the qualifications of a respected audio researcher."
Why should I? If that was your real issue with Carcass, you should have called him out on that specifically, instead of hurling your own insults back (your attack on his English). You clearly don't find the act of insult so disturbing as you throw around plenty of your own. My problem, as I described to you before, is with your attempt to replace the interpretation of rather ambiguous words and phrases with inarguable Pat-approved hypocrisy.
While the center channel for HT content is primarily used for dialogue, such is not true for music recordings. So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
rw
2 speaker stereo does not have center channel. Sean's multi-channel has a center channel.
Nothing in Sean's text denies that there can be some center fill in the stereo image in 2 channel stereo. Sean likes stereo recordings better with a center channel in his multichannel system.
If you want to know in more detail why Sean Olive prefers to listen to his multichannel system, even with stereo recordings, you should ask him. I have not said whether I agree or disagree with him on that issue, or whether I think everything he recommends is practical for me personally. I am concerned with deliberate misrepresentations of what he said.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Take two:
So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
Nothing in Sean's text denies that there can be some center fill in the stereo image in 2 channel stereo...
No, that is the incorrect assumption you made that C93 mis-characterized Olive's intent.
rw
I have never denied that a center channel has something to do with center fill. Some people with multichannel systems prefer to do without a center channel, like Eysespy, and some prefer to have one, like Sean Olive.
You are now subtly change the issue to a "needing a center channel."
E-stat
"So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
You are asking me to answer for Sean Olive, and you're quite right that I am refusing to do so. If you want to know what he thinks on the matter, you should ask him.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I have never denied that a center channel has something to do with center fill.
Sure you did. That's what started the conversation. Here, let's review your comments again:
-no center channel = no center fill NOT!
Either a center channel has something to do with center fill or it does not. Olive found his center fill lacking in two channel and *boosted* it by adding another speaker. What else would you do with one? Like Tony, I'm done.
rw
Maybe you can begin to understand that when they appointed you to be a moderator at Audio Review, I decided to severely cut back my participation there.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
If there is confusion it's not to be blamed on c93. It starts with the confusing text from Sean Olive and reaches its nadir with your post, where you don't bother to even write in complete sentences, thereby minimizing the possibility that we can understand your point. Since we can't understand your point, you can claim we have misunderstood you, ensuring, in your mind at least, that you can not "lose" the "point". However, for most of us this is not a contest, a debate or any other kind of "match". More likely it is an opportunity to learn and to help others. You seem to have other goals. What they are I can not say.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sean Olive, as quoted by carcass93
"I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall."
carcass93
"After reading the passage from my original post, where his stereo has no center fill, practically no sweet spot, and no sense of envelopment and spaciousness, I can begin to understand why one would want to test in mono."
Sean Olive's text seems pretty clear to me, except that c93 did not place it in any context. c93's characterization above is a total misrepresentation of what Sean Olive said.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Thank you for being specific. Now we can specifically disagree. Perhaps c93's restatement is not a perfect paraphrase of the original, but it seems like a reasonable summary to me. It is definitely not a total misrepresentation.
Having used a center channel speaker in the summer of 1962 the three of us, Brad Meyer, Clark Johnsen and I found that it was beneficial on some material, e.g. the stereo Mercury Living Presence recordings, It was possible to increase the angular separation of the left and right speakers from the listening position, with the amount depending on the level of the center speaker. For most recordings the benefit was slight, certainly not enough for any of us to go to a three channel system once our group split up and we went our separate ways. The center speaker was mostly an experiment that we tried because we had lots of speakers and amps sitting around that summer.
In my experience if one has imaging problems then this is best addressed with system set up, especially speaker positioning and other room related adjustments. There are many ways stereo recordings are made and it may even be necessary to make adjustments according to the recording. If the setup is sound then it is usually possible to fine tune for a particular recording by adjusting the listening position. (Of course in all cases one must adjust the playback gain and polarity for each recording.) Even with 5 speakers, 7 speakers, or 1000 speakers, if you are playing only two channel material you've got nothing more than a big stereo system, and probably not a very good one at that for various reasons (such as probable comb filtering).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Perhaps c93's restatement is not a perfect paraphrase of the original, but it seems like a reasonable summary to me. It is definitely not a total misrepresentation."Stuff and nonsense.
1) 2 channel stereo does not have a center channel, so Sean is obviously correct, no ambiguity there at all. This has zilch to do with whether there is some center fill in 2 speaker stereo, so c93 misrepresents Sean Olive.
2) Sean thinks stereo does not offer the same sense of envelopment and spaciousness found with his multichannel system. This does not deny that there can be some sense of envelopment and spaciousness in stereo, and c93 clearly misrepresents sean there.
3) Let's add what is not mentioned in Sean's quoted text but elsewhere, though c93 brought it up, anyway. None of this has anything to do with the reasons Sean Olive finds speaker testing is best done in mono.
Did you see where c93 said Sean had not measured the speakers used in the tests with the visiting high school students?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/01/10
Olive: "...a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction..."
Carcass' paraphrase: "...and no sense of envelopment and spaciousness..."
Let's compare "entirely devoid of" with "no sense of."
What do you get, Pat?
Well, here's what your analysis says: "2) Sean thinks stereo does not offer the same sense of envelopment and spaciousness found with his multichannel system. This does not deny that there can be some sense of envelopment and spaciousness in stereo, and c93 clearly misrepresents sean there."
How far off base could you be? Are you even reading the texts you quote? Do you re-read your own posts before hitting "Post Message?"
This thread is making you look vindictive and foolish. Maybe you just have too much angst about Carcass to be able to think clearly and rationally.
The text carcass93 quoted
"I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall."
I have often pointed out that one really needs to quote in context. Sean is obviously answering a question, and he said that:
"The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
So, we have a context of comparing of what happens in his multichannel system with stereo recordings as opposed to 2 speaker stereo. Sean mentioned 3 things, two of which are so obvious one wonders how anyone could misunderstand them, but that didn't stop c93 or E-stat. So, Sean says his own system can provide "a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Now, the article used is "*a* sense of envelopment and spaciousness" in his system that is not found in stereo, but this is hardly to say that stereo cannot have *any* sense of envelopment and spaciousness. I'm sorry that the subtleties of language and textual interpretation elude you.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
With every "clarification" you make, you move farther away from the clarity of Olive's statements. Your pedantic reading of the text in question has far less to do with what is being said and much more to do with your general dislike/disagreement with Carcass and E-stat. Given that everyone can read Olive's statement, I hope everyone actually does. Then your argument will have to stand on its merits, rather than on your teflon rhetoric.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As is Robert Young. Many times I have pointed out that there are universal and particular propositions. In this case, Sean Olive was referring to the sense of envelopment and spaciousness in this particular system which he prefers to what is found in stereo (in which the meaning is general). Now, I have no idea why you and Robert Young would confuse universal and particular as you both seem intelligent enough to know the difference--possibly to get at me, possibly laziness, possibly some other reason. C93 and E-stat have their own agendas.
But check out this from post no. 75 in the HA thread, linked below, where Sean Olive said:
"I agree that the discussion on 2 channel versus multichannel is off topic and I am happy to abandon it.
"I only brought it up because we seem to have people in this forum willing to sit in a tiny sweet spot while listening to overpriced, directional speakers with terrible off-axis response that we are told are both highly room-dependent and loudspeaker/listener position dependent -- all for the purpose of what? To listen to stereo, which Bell Lab scientists said back in the early 1930s was completely inadequate to convey the realism of a live music performance to an audience.
"For me, that is a terribly misguided use of effort and money because there too many inherent compromises in sound quality, given what is possible today with music recording and reproduction science and technology. We can do so much better, and we should.
"As an industry we have failed to learn and acknowledge the Bell Lab science that is almost 80 years old! And we are now repeating ourselves by ignoring the loudspeaker science that has been known since the mid-1980s from Floyd Tooles' work at the National Research Council."
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Many times I have pointed out that there are universal and particular propositions. In this case, Sean Olive was referring to the sense of envelopment and spaciousness in this particular system which he prefers to what is found in stereo (in which the meaning is general). Now, I have no idea why you and Robert Young would confuse universal and particular as you both seem intelligent enough to know the difference--possibly to get at me, possibly laziness, possibly some other reason. C93 and E-stat have their own agendas. "
You've misread the context, and worse, you yourself have confused the general and the specific.
""I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall.""
"5 to 7" doesn't sound like a specific system. It sounds like at least a couple of systems. That is reinforced by the follow-up phrase that describes that he uses "an up-mixer like a Logic 7" with these "5 to 7" channels. Catch the "like??" This is not a "specific" system, Pat. It is a general description of a (preferred) multi-speaker version of a stereo. Why would Olive prefer an arrangement like this (again, not a specific system but a general description of a type of system)? First, for a center channel. Why would he want a center channel? He's using an up-mixer to place sounds from a stereo source. Why? For center fill. Ok, so I see where he's going here. However, the problem of lack of center fill or information "between the speakers" is not a system problem but a recording/mastering problem (at least I don't experience this problem with my system, but with some recordings). Your statement that the center speaker doesn't exist in stereo is true, but the point is really somewhere else: what would that speaker DO? What happens without one? The effect is what is important, and Olive is missing the effect of center-fill information in a traditional two-channel system, so he adds a center speaker.
Second, he states that the up-mix gives him "a much wider sweet spot (also missing)." This is a confusing statement. Is it a question of degree, or is it a question of existence? His word-choice challenges a clear reading. However, taken in context, I read that to Olive, a wide soundstage (can't use "wider" until you define "wide") is possible with his type of preferred system because a traditional stereo doesn't have one ("also missing"). Not just "less wide," but "missing."
Third, he speaks of "a sense of" something. "...A sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction." That sense is "entirely devoid" in a traditional two-channel rig. He is describing the effects that he prefers coming from a 5- TO 7- speaker system that uses an up-mixer LIKE a Logic 7. He is describing a type of multi-speaker arrangement, not a specific one. That ought to be clear. He didn't say that it was "better" in his generalized multi-speaker system: he said it was "entirely devoid" in two-speaker systems. So from this I gather that the SYSTEM description is a general one, but the preferred effects are very specific (either there or not-there).
Again Pat, I'll quote you: " In this case, Sean Olive was referring to the sense of envelopment and spaciousness in this particular system which he prefers to what is found in stereo (in which the meaning is general)."
It ought to be clear that you have misread. He is NOT referring to a particular system at all. His word choice is poor and confusing, but in the context of the description, I'll stand by my interpretation over yours.
"Now, I have no idea why you and Robert Young would confuse universal and particular as you both seem intelligent enough to know the difference--possibly to get at me, possibly laziness, possibly some other reason."
Perhaps the reason that I disagree with you is that I believe you are wrong. That for me is plenty reason enough to post. Your reasons why I may have posted my disagreement are silly, and to suggest them does you, Tony and me a disservice.
"He is describing a type of multi-speaker arrangement, not a specific one."
That's still more particular than just "stereo," whether it be one or two systems. That's particular in logic as opposed to universal. Of course, he could have more than one type of upmixer and utilize a single system to listen with 7, 5, or 2 channels. In any case, 2 channel stereo as such doesn't give him what he prefers.
Now, can we infer anything at all about the quality of stereo available to him? Not really, just that he prefers a type of multi-speaker arrangement and upmixing of stereo to 5 or 7 channels. Not everyone prefers to listen to stereo in multichannel, but because Sean does is no reason to attack his qualifications and credibility as a researcher.
I am surprised you and Tony would justify an attempt to attack, based on no evidence whatever, the qualifications and credibility of a researcher like Sean Olive, because IMHO, that's basically why this thread was started.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
You are purposefully misinterpreting what is being said to deflect the focus of the criticism in this sub-thread. It is YOUR interpretation that I attack. Do you understand the difference between that and an attack on Olive's credentials? You should, but you pretend that you don't.
""He is describing a type of multi-speaker arrangement, not a specific one. (RY)"
That's still more particular than just "stereo," whether it be one or two systems. That's particular in logic as opposed to universal. Of course, he could have more than one type of upmixer and utilize a single system to listen with 7, 5, or 2 channels. In any case, 2 channel stereo as such doesn't give him what he prefers. (PatD)"
Sorry, I think you are wrong. A 2-speaker system is more particular than the options inherent in a "5- to 7-speaker system." In either situation, what we don't know is equally shared (type of speaker, frequency response, ambient room temperature, other equipment, whatever you want to ask), but what IS known is more precise in the case of a "2-speaker system" than in a "5- OR 7- speaker system." Get it? the former has 2 speakers. The latter has 5, or it may have 7, or it may even have 6. And yes, he mentions a particular up-mixer, but qualifies it with the word "like," i.e., "it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7." That isn't specific Pat: it's a generalized description using any number of up-mixers that are "like" a Logic 7. The way I, and several others, read his less-than-clear description is that he is describing the Type of system he prefers, not the Actual system itself (because of the variables presented).
"Not everyone prefers to listen to stereo in multichannel, but because Sean does is no reason to attack his qualifications and credibility as a researcher."
What are you talking about?? Aren't you the one who used to shot "Logical fallacy!" every time someone strayed into that territory? What do you do when you land there? I didn't attack his qualifications or his credibility. I think he was being very clear about why he listens to a multi-speaker version of stereo. It is you with whom I disagree. I may have different preferences than Olive, but that isn't germane.
"...because IMHO, that's basically why this thread was started."
Really? So what? You made a silly attack on Carcass' English, and I questioned both your English in turn and your strict interpretation of Sean Olive's rather confusing quote. And I'm still waiting for you to explain the difference between "no X" and "devoid of X."
I already explained that Sean does not find the same sense of envelopment and spaciousness in stereo that he does in his preferred kinds of multichannel arrangements. Stereo is devoid of the kind of thing he wants. There is no difficulty at all *if* you are trying for a sensible interpretation. Sean's post was not perfectly written (not all forum posts are), but that doesn't mean one is thereby licensed to make it mean anything want to attack him.You now talk of "a" two speaker system rather than the general term, stereo.
I never said *you* attacked Sean Olive's qualifications but C93 has done his best (not very good) and E-stat has tried in his own little way, too--and you have said zilch against it.
Added in edit: carcass93 has now pretty much confirmed what I have said about his aims in this thread and worse. See link.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/02/10
"I never said *you* attacked Sean Olive's qualifications but C93 has done his best (not very good) and E-stat has tried in his own little way, too--and you have said zilch against it."
You are right: I stand corrected, as I misread your post about who was supposedly attacking whom.
I'm not saying "zilch" about it because these particular attacks are just like all the other attacks that occur here, and I really don't care about them, though they can be hysterically funny and often so juvenile one has to wonder if there ought to be an age of consent for participating here. My concern, or issue if you will, is with the hypocrisy of those who get riled up about attacks, then go on the attack themselves. Attack me as opposed to my thoughts or ideas or opinions, and I have no problem attacking back. But to whine about attacks, then go on the attack, that's poor.
is note that Sean obviously prefers the *enhanced* center fill provided by adding a *true* center channel. Is that an attack upon him?
rw
N/T
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Lose sense of humor around here one day, wake up screaming the next. ;)
There are different kinds of idols.
Or, it might just be irony.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Thank you for your patience. Mine remains exhausted. I believe you are pursuing a Sisyphean task. I finally read the HA thread this morning and it doesn't change my opinion. If I learned anything new, it was the possibility that there is a correlation between narrow taste in audio and narrow taste in wine. (It will probably take at least a night's sleep to contemplate the ramifications of this observation.)
I don't normally read HA, because almost always when the discussion turns interesting up some a**hole busts someone for a "TOS 8 violation". All in the spirit of "science" no doubt. As I understand it, HA was originally created to debate CODECS. Perhaps at one time this was a relevant topic, but with progress in computer technology this has been rendered obsolete. Why anyone who cares about sound quality would find a need for minute savings in bit rate is utterly beyond me. If there is a significant savings (as with satellite radio) then the result is atrocious, and if there is a small difference in quality (e.g. 320 Kbps MP3) the cost savings are minuscule. I have no clue why HA continues to exist.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I don't normally read HA, because almost always when the discussion turns interesting up some a**hole busts someone for a "TOS 8 violation"."
Exactly, and it's a shame. Every once in a while I try again figuring that a mature adult should be able to read anything and extract such useful information as exists without incurring undesirable blood pressure increases and a heartfelt desire to punch someone. Sadly I'm not man enough to do it in general but I can occasionally follow a link and read a few posts and then run for it. They remind me of a gang of high-school bullies lurking around the corner awaiting a victim. I guess some never outgrow it.
Perhaps the name is telling as all it takes is a breath of fresh air and a spark of intelligence to cause an explosion...
I know this is off-topic, but I appreciated your comment. As far as the actual topic, arguing about arguing, that's gotta be the biggest waste of bandwidth in creation.
Rick
... to have some very peculiar membership requirements.
That's for someone looking from outside, of course. If you ask one of the members, I'm pretty sure you'll hear something about spearheading world science, and holy anti-audiophool jihad.
Back one summer in the mid 1960's when my roommates were Clark Johnsen and Brad Meyer we had lots of KLH-6s between us. Normally, we had a center channel that was driven with a mixture of L and R. This enabled us to use a slightly wider spacing on the left and right speakers. Sometimes we doubled up the outside speakers for a total of five KLH-6s, but this caused diffraction problems with the highs.
The three channel matrixing worked well with the Mercury Living Presence prerecorded tapes that were mixed down from three tracks to stereo.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> ...when my roommates were Clark Johnsen and Brad Meyer... <
The mere fact that all three of you survived is a testament to... what? Mammoth endurance? Colossal patience? The resilience of the human condition? What? lol.
I'd ask for stories but I think the result would be better imagined. :)
No conflict over audio in those days. This was before digital.
It was Brad Meyer who introduced me and Peter Moncrief to stereo through a demonstration he orchestrated that was put on by Bill Bell, the proprietor of The Music Box, in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Bill Bell came with a some Klipschorns and a two channel Ampex machine and gave a demo in the library of our high school. As I recall we got very realistic reproduction of a live jazz trio, but the best results came when Brad's Neumann microphone was used, rather than the mikes that Bill Bell had brought. This was around 1960, I don't recall the exact year.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
with discrete playback where the natural acoustics of the recording venue are captured can sound quite impressive and natural. I've yet to hear, however, any synthesized flavor with two channel content which relies on phase difference tricks to provide any greater realism for me. Yes, you can hear something from the rear, but it sounds contrived and immediately artificial. What ambient cues exist on the recording are lost. Been there, done that. Scrapped it.
YMMV
rw
...my Quadraphonic Kenwood receiver set-up back in the 1970s wasn't even near SOTA?
It was a Santana album where one of the percussionists was placed in the back right corner of the image. Some thought that was kinda cool, but I just wondered why they did that. I used a Dynaco Quadaptor with double Advents for a while in '72-'73. At first, it did add some apparent "spaciousness", but the cool effect wore off and ended up stacking them in the front instead for a more lifelike image size.
rw
nt
I like the realistic soundstage, the phantom center channel I get (vivid center image) as opposed to the "center of the band" or "instruments coming from all sides" effects of arbitrary surround algorithms that really have nothing to do with the reverb times of the original venue.
Surround is great for movies, but for music the surround effects are usually just annoying. Some like the "envelopment" but at live concerts I don't find myself enveloped by sound - rather you get a sense of colaboration between the visual elements of the venue (distance to walls, materials used for wall and floor coverings) and the sonics of the venue. When you hear music in a large concert hall, the sound (and reflected sounds) make sense for the kind of venue and seating position. I think it has to do with our sensitivity to phase/timing differences between our ears and how this relates to what we see. (This goes back to our hearing system having these features for determining the origin of sounds that are emanating from some animal or threat which helps us to react in a life-preserving manner).
But to take a 2-channel recording and add a bunch of channel matrixing and delay effects is not to come closer to the original venue, it's just adding a bunch of delays and giving a SENSE of spatiality. This may be IMPRESSIVE but for many folks it's sort of a novelty and for others still, like myself, it's just downright annoying.
As for subjective "spatiality", I find I enjoy watching concerts in 2.0 or 2.1 a lot better than the 5/6/7.1 mixes, which very often take too many liberties with instrument placement. This is especially true when audience sounds are recorded in rear channels (which is fine - it gives you that in the audience feel) but then INSTRUMENTS come from back there as well.
In the Eagles Hells Freezes over, you get half the band sitting in row 22 and you're in row 13. Why are they sitting back there if on the screen they are on stage? Apparently recording engineers TRIED to use multichannel recording platforms for capturing venue acoustics, but most consumer level users found this to be a sort of boring use for multichannel. They too wanted that "enveloped, middle of the band effect". So that is what most multichannel mixes are now like IMHO, which is why I really don't care for most of them.
I think liking the "middle of band / enveloped" surround mixes is fine. But to say arbitrary surround DSP algorithms that make spacey positional effects are superior to well recorded and reproduced stereo is not just a stretch, it's rather silly.
For this reason I listen to all music DVD's in 2.1, all stereo in 2.0 or 2.1 and all movies in their NATIVE surround format. I never use DSP algorithms for anything, ever. Never used one. Friends have brought me over to hear their new 7.1 channel A/V units and keep flipping from "bathroom" to "church" to "sport stadium" to "concert hall". The reverb effects are downright annoying and soon friends are asking me how to get their system sounding good. First thing I tell them is to disable all DSP algorithms and listen to concert DVD's in PCM2.0 and watch movies in their NATIVE surround format aka - set their AV unit to "auto" and let it decode what is there on the disc.
Cheers,
Presto
With no intent to single you out, I wish folks would take care in making distinctions between stereo, 2-channel, 2.1, 2.0 and etc.. I get the impression many AVR owners for example, believe the process of "pure audio" is the same purity as what's offered in a dedicated stereo system requiring no processing disablements.
To me, 2.1 means a AVR or Pre/Pro is in effect to attain the sub channel.
Perhaps, in your case, it is your intent to convey how you make do with a MC device.
What of the following, if anything, is ACTUALLY missing with quality stereo system?
- "phantom" center channel
- wide sweet spot
- sense of envelopment and spaciousness
I can tell you right now - on mine, none of these. I can see how #2 may be a problem with certain designs (electrostats), but that's rather exception.
To put ot differently - how crappy must the system be, that one has to engage in DSP games in order to get all of the above (actually, as you noted correctly, a SURROGATE of all of the above)?
I can see how #2 may be a problem with certain designs (electrostats)...
I have some comments on that observation. :) It is true that electrostatic panels are by their nature quite directional. It is also true that most designs do involve a very narrow sweet spot with some involving a head-in-a-vise sort of specificity. The Sound Lab design addresses that issue with its single diaphragm, multi-faceted panels. While each facet is flat (curved panels have linearity challenges), they are arranged in a curve to provide a range of dispersion angles. My U-1s have a 90 degree radiation pattern which provides a wide virtual image. There are other models with 22 or 45 degree panels intended for use in arrays to increase both level and coverage area. Ray Kimber has demonstrated triple 22 degree models and dual 45 degree flavors at CES and RMAF, respectively.
rw
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: