The Signature Sound Lounge

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share you ideas and experiences.

The Signature Sound Lounge

Channels, channels, and more channels!

24.62.233.140

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ The Signature Sound Lounge ]

Hey, Rich! In the beginning there was mono. Then came that new-fangled stereo, which many claimed was an abomination, not to mention way too expensive (twice as many components!). Now we have 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 7.1, etc. SACD, DVD-A, mp3, Redbook. Can you peer into your crystal vacuum tube and see where all this is headed, and will anyone care before too long?

Follow Ups:

Re: Channels, channels, and more channels! - Rich Brkich 07:52:18 11/03/03 (2)
Hi Bill, I think you know I'm not much of a fan of multi-channel sound. I have not seen any significant demand for multi-channel high-end type Hi-Fi gear to date, especially given the way the economy has been during the past few years. Most audiophiles are standing pat and just trying to squeeze out some dollars to improve their two channel rigs, much less think about going multi-channel.
Anyway, while mutlichannel sound is (has) becomming predominate in the home theater area which will lead to certain trickle down effect in other areas of the audio hobby. It is showing up in car audio, though so far this is limited to the aftermarket arena as I think there are only a handful of cars offering multichannel OE systems. These systems always tend to by video related, not audio related where most people still seem to be happy with thier 2 ears listening to two speakers.
The problem for the audiophile in persuing multi-channel sound is more complex with the biggest issues being cost and logistics. It is one thing to mount some small (generally inexpensive) speakers in the rear wall or rear ceiling where they and their wires can be hidden, but an audiophile is going to want to properly place (i.e. not shoved in the corner on the floor facing the worong way) place five or six similar or identical speakers in a room with all that neat long (and expensive) cable runs to the front end of the system. I'm lucky if I can get 1 out of 10 customers to pay proper attention to room acoustics (room treatment) becuase of spousal concerns/issues, does anyone really think that these same folks have a snowballs chance in hell that their spouse will let them get away paying for and sticking five speakers all over their room. So, except for those few lucky guys who have dedicated listening rooms or forigiving spouses, there is noy going to be any great surge to multi-channel sound in the Hi-end HiFi arena. As well, there is the addtional factor that the vast majority of audiophiles listen to two channel based recordings (the great classical and jazz recordings of the lates 50s and 60s, pop and folks music music from the past 40 to 50 years). Then there is this countries demand for current two channel recordings to satisfy the neads of a large young audience that listens to music via two channels via products like portable CD/MP3 players, PCs, and boom boxes.
Now don't color me as a strictly 2 channel HiFi purist. Mutli-channel music when properly recorded and played back well is very impressive. It is just that there is a large inertia associated with 2 channel HiFi and any transition to multi-channel sound in the audiophile/high-end audio arena is going to take a long time.
Rich Brkich
- Re: Channels, channels, and more channels! - UmpyBill 16:35:45 11/03/03 (1)
  Rich,
  You bring up an interesting point about room treatments. One of the topics I have been exploring lately is (gasp!) equalization. The classic "audiophile" approach to room-dependant frequency response errors, once the appropriate speakers have been discovered, is to fiddle with speaker placement, cables, and maybe acoustic treatments such as RPGs and ASCs. This is usually done by trial and error. I'm convinced that some people's favorite speaker is chosen by his room and not his ear. A more scientific method would be do do some digital EQ using an RTA in conjunction with a house curve target response. Any thoughts?
  - Re: Channels, channels, and more channels! - Rich Brkich 19:42:20 11/03/03 (0)
    Digital EQ is no panacea. Some examples:
    1) A speaker with a few db peak somewhere in the midband caused by a driver cone resonance. Digital EQ can help reduce the magnitude of this peak, but the resonance is still there, but less obvious. I tend to think a better designed driver without that resonance peak that does not need digital EQ to correct it would sound better.
    2)Direct vs. reflected sound. If we are EQing to correct for room response anomalies and you have a stereo set-up with one speaker that has a higher ratio of reflected to direct sound than the other (as heard at the listening position), digital EQ cannot correct for that imbalance in the ratios. Only room treatment can affect that ratio.
    3) Bass EQ. This is one area where digital EQ can do very good things, but if the correction asked for by the EQ is too gross, driver excursion can be pushed past linear limits.
    You are right though, speaker selection has much to do with the with the room and digital EQ would be a good tool to use to adress certain broad response issues. EQ is always best when used judicously.
    Rich Brkich

Post a Followup:

Moniker (Username):
Password (Required):	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail:
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ The Signature Sound Lounge ] [ Comment ] [ Delete ] [ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

McShane Design