|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.142.209.123
In Reply to: RE: But... posted by E-Stat on June 18, 2014 at 15:11:12
Sorry I did not answer your question. I used a 2 channel input. Now I understand a little getter why I did not like it. So, you are saying most sound cards have a 5.1 output? Di quadrophonic stereos provide 4 different audio signals? Did they require special music formats?
Follow Ups:
So, you are saying most sound cards have a 5.1 output?
The better aftermarket ones do, but stock ones imbedded with the motherboard often do not. In my last computer, I used a Turtle Beach card that did. The built in capability with my current Dell Studio does not.
Di quadrophonic stereos provide 4 different audio signals?
That's really the whole point. With any multi-channel format. A discrete signal is sent to each of however many channels there are.
Did they require special music formats?
Absolutely. The original quadraphonic format from the 70s used otherwise two channel vinyl with the back channels encoded as high frequency carriers above 40 kHz. You won't find a five channel MP3. You won't find a five channel WAV (CD format). That realm only exists with video based formats like DTS, Dolby Digital, etc. and audio formats like DVD-A, SACD and Blu Ray music.
Now I understand a little getter why I did not like it.
Think about it for a minute. You're at a concert. Rock concert in a sports arena. Classical concert in a music hall. Church music recital in a large cathedral. In every case, the performers are in front of you on a stage. With a few esoteric exceptions in the classical world, there aren't people performing behind you. If you recall, Amar Bose went to Boston Symphony Hall and measured that what most folks actually hear is 11% direct and 89% reflected content. So he built a speaker that sprayed 89% of the content (8 heavily equalized midranges) behind it and 11% (one) in front. What he totally missed is that the indirect content we hear in live environments is shifted in time and often in frequency. Ambience is delayed radiation of the primary signal. And it usually doesn't possess the same bass fundamentals since the wavelengths are long and not as sensitive to time. What he ended up with is a speaker that creates caricature sized images of solo instruments and voices.
For an extreme example, have you ever been in a large cathedral and heard Gregorian Chants (or heard a good recording of such)? You hear the voices and when they stop, you continue to hear the ambience as the sound decays over time. This is what fools your brain into thinking "I'm in a really big space". Which is truly the case when you hear it live. Bose completely missed the boat because 901s spray the indirect content against the back wall at the same time that the forward radiation is generated.
What true multi-channel music seeks to do is replicate the natural delayed ambience found in live music. On the other hand, sending the very same content to the back channels (your experiment) is like imagining that there are the performers on stage playing music before you and a clone of the very same performers playing the same content at the same time behind you. Huh? Don't know about you, but I've never experienced that in a live situation in my 57 years.
It is quite understandable that you find stereo content sent simultaneously to front and rear channels unsatisfying. It's not real.
When I was 16 in a galaxy long ago and far away, I owned two pair of Advent speakers and bought a Dynaco Quadaptor. It was a simple device that you attached to the outputs of your stereo receiver/integrated/power amp. You then attached the "fronts" to it - signal unchanged - and the rears which were sent a phase difference signal intended to mimic natural reverberation and hall ambience.
You could then control the relative front to back gain and the overall level of the rears. The most realistic settings required that you set the gain to be just audible . Most definitely not the same level as the fronts. While it was kinda cool for a while, it wasn't long before I sold it. Today, my Emotiva processor has a number of simulated ambience modes like the early Dynaco unit. The problem for me is that ultimately, they just really don't sound any more natural than the Quadaptor. You cannot create realistic sounding ambience after the fact IMHO.
You either have discrete multi-channel or you don't. For the main music system, I've tried to optimize room size, speaker placement and treatments to help replicate that natural sense of ambience.
Your picture of the Quadradapter made me think about the Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram (great name). I actually use this equipment in a secondary system and really find that it works for me in creating realistic ambiance. On the other hand I don't like it's effects in my main system. I also think it's effectiveness is very dependent on location of speakers. Reviews are generally mediocre but I like it for what it does in the right situation.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/carver-c9.html
Sim
Bobbie always was into messin' with signal with "correlators" and "hologram generators". :)
a
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: