 
|
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 |
70.39.108.222
In Reply to: RE: And 2-ch stereo is not fake BS? It's ALL an illlusion.... posted by AbeCollins on June 12, 2021 at 10:26:18
You must not have any realism in your stereo system.I do, all the time, on most stereo recordings!
Just use a very little imagination,
You must have a very poor setup sound system IMO!
Ask E-stat if his sound is fake.
All the photos of your system show box speakers plastered against the front wall.
I see where you are coming from.
Edits: 06/12/21 06/12/21 06/12/21Follow Ups:
l
Nice try but you're making very little sense.First you say I must not have any realism in my system, and then you go on to say that you just use a little imagination. To me that implies that YOUR system lacks realism and you have to resort to wild imagination for musical enjoyment. Which is it?
What does E-Stat have to do with this? All music reproduction is FAKE in one way or another. Do you think 2-ch stereo offers a true representation of the live event? Maybe with enough imagination ;-)
Lets see some photos of your system. Is it real or is it Memorex?
Edits: 06/12/21 06/12/21
between that which microphones actually pick up and what *spatial decoders* arbitrarily add to the signal.
Don't know about you, but playing stereo content through all the "surround" modes in the HT system sounds hokey to these ears. Enjoy such if you like.
True multi-channel, however, is a different animal. You are getting the results of additional microphones placed elsewhere in the hall. Not some circuit deciding how to play difference and phase games.
. . . supporting the additional channels are generally going to sound better than synthesized output to those additional channels based on a reduced-channel input. However, I would also question your use of the word, "arbitrary" with respect to what the various decoding modes add to the signal. One person's "arbitrary" is another's "necessary". I mean, we're not talking "synthesized stereo" from the '60's anymore.
Edits: 06/18/21
However, I would also question your use of the word, "arbitrary" with respect to what the various decoding modes add to the signal.
I've just never found that formulaic diddling and derivation with phase and channel difference products results in anything that sounds real.
You cannot effectively synthesize that which was never captured in my experience. YMMV.
"You cannot effectively synthesize that which was never captured in my experience. YMMV."I'm not advocating that we all jump on the surround bandwagon but we're not talking about old fashion "synthesizing that which was never captured".
In the case of Atmos and some other modern methods the effects are created and "captured" in the studio and not simply synthesized on playback. It has to be "decoded" on playback. So it's not like Apple will force you to listen to Atmos. You can decode it if you wish.
Edits: 06/18/21
in the case of Atmos and some other modern methods the effects are created and "captured" in the studio...
Largely after the fact in a *remastering* process. Not captured initially.
"...Share with me this monumental, live performance with my beloved Los Angeles Philharmonic, remastered in Dolby Atmos audio technology for the first time on Apple Music alongside my collection of Deutsche Grammophon recordings with the LA Phil, in rich, remarkable 3D sound."
"Dolby Atmos is a revolutionary, immersive audio experience that enables artists to mix music so the sound comes from all around and from above."
All around and from above? Never, ever attended a concert like that. Do they put some of the artists on trapezes above the audience?
Indeed, the artists aren't up there on trapezes - but some of the reflected sound emanates from above. Nice try at the reductio ad absurdum though! ;-)
in two channel on earbuds?
Too funny!
I'm not talking about earbuds - I'm talking about an Atmos system with discrete speaker sources.
I'd like to return though to another statement in one of your posts earlier in this thread: "You cannot effectively synthesize that which was never captured in my experience." In view of that assertion, I'd like to get your appraisal of the following Youtube video:
View YouTube Video
This level of detail and motion was interpolated from the original 1899 film - it was not there in the original. And yet, only by the post-processing interpolation do we see that it somehow WAS there in the original after all. ;-)
I'm not talking about earbuds
Apple is!
"By default, Apple Music will automatically play Dolby Atmos tracks on all AirPods and Beats headphones with an H1 or W1 chip, as well as the built-in speakers in the latest versions of iPhone, iPad, and Mac."
This level of detail and motion was interpolated from the original 1899 film...
Does it look real to you? Not me. More frames and someone's use of an airbrush do not reality make.
BTW, if you need another Maggie center for the job, I've got one I'm no longer using. ;)
Regarding the 1899 film, I guess we'll have to disagree, because the modern update with the interpolated information looks WAY more real to me than the original film does.
BTW, thanks for the offer of the Maggie center channel - I'm trying to figure out a way I could use it. How much are you asking?
Sent you a PM. HP stacked his.
Yes - I realize that Apple is not talking about a Atmos system with discrete channels...That is the topic of this thread. They are merely embedding derived *effects* into a two channel stream. From a Denon manual :
Simulation. Virtualization.
As I commented earlier, this is merely a black box "digital signal processing solution" as Denon puts it. Someone said they liked the old Dyna Quadaptor's tricks using phase and channel difference products. I tried one as a teenager in the 70s, but sold it months later for lack of realism. I really wanted for it to work, but alas the results were hokey sounding. Double Advents sounded more realistic stacked.
We have different system priorities on our paths to experiencing realism.
While I believe that discrete (not derived) multi-channel is the ultimate answer - it is only once you get the core system resolution elevated to what is possible. Harry Pearson had a pretty darn good MC / HT system in Room 1: EMM Labs transport, EMM Labs DAC6E, Conrad-Johnson MET1, Edge Electronics five channel amplifier, Nordost Valhalla cabling throughout driving Magnepan 20.1 mains, stacked CC5 centers, 3.6 surrounds and five Nola Thunderbolt subs. And gave me a copy of the "Absolute Sound SACD Sampler" using content he chose to illustrate the value of MC. We're not talking the use of an AVR or processor using cheap op amps. Sounded pretty darn good and was great for movies. Now which system did he listen to on a regular basis and was the primary platform for reviews? It wasn't that one.
Room 3 always had the most spookily realistic sounding two channel systems. I don't have the budget for a commensurate quality MC system (just a decent one as home theater) and have no interest sacrificing its quality just for more channels. Now, if I had Ray Kimber's budget...
Atmos is Apple's marketing shtick for the masses wearing Airbuds and Beats.
...with the interpolated information looks WAY more real to me than the original film does.
It lifted quality from dreadful to merely artificial looking. Rendered more like a smartphone camera effect.
Edits: 06/20/21
nt
| 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 ]
