|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.246.51
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 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
Follow Ups:
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: