 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.78.86.10
In Reply to: RE: Stereo vs. multichannel: what are your thoughts on this statement (inside). posted by carcass93 on June 24, 2010 at 12:14:29
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
