"They Are Here" or "We Are There"?

Steve Williams said:

Interesting conversation

No one has told me that my room sounds dead in the past two years

My drapes serve a function

My RT 60 is perfect caesar. What's the RT60 of your room

Click to expand...

Damned , there goes my theory that Caesar is Steves alter Ego created to start things up on a slow day !

Steve Williams said:

Interesting conversation

No one has told me that my room sounds dead in the past two years

My drapes serve a function

My RT 60 is perfect caesar. What's the RT60 of your room

Click to expand...

Hey Steve,
I haven't had my room measured, but I was given similar advice by a famous acoustician- as Micro says above: I don't need to worry about rt-60 and that my excess bass is pretty much absorbed at the source, or something to that effect.

Obviously your room sounds great to you and your visitors, and that's sublime. Yet approaches and tastes will differ. I have experience with both absorption and smt diffusion. And to my taste , the difference between the 2 is the difference between dead and magical.

My only point in bringing this is up is that this is an experiential hobby. I too was experientially impoverished until I heard smt diffusion. Since Ron is doing an all out assault system, why settle and have faith that one experience is ideal? Why not try both and see what works best for his situation? As long as he is happy and gets the "we are there" experience he is looking for is all that matters.

audioguy said:

Quality AND quantity.

My preference leans toward "I am there". And that is why I use 11 speakers (and an Auro up mixer and a bunch of subs) to provide a much better sense of space than I have ever heard from just 2 channels.

Furthermore, we had a 3 piece jazz combo in our home a few years ago for my birthday. Neither technology nor speaker/electronics quality nor speaker count will ever allow me to replicate at any level what that sounded like.

Click to expand...

An audiophile after my own heart.

caesar said:

Do we really want, in addition to the usual tubes vs. ss and digital vs. analog preference fights, arguments from the trippers about whehter the magic mushrooms vs. acid transports them here or there? Or potheads arguing about indica vs. sativa creating the best illusion?

Click to expand...

I think it is more along the lines of "Who do you trust?". A listener who is routinely soused or dosed when listening or a listener who is only beset by the standard variables of gremlins, biorhythms, power line fluctuations etc. in an unenhanced brain.

Steve Williams said:

Interesting conversation

No one has told me that my room sounds dead in the past two years

My drapes serve a function

My RT 60 is perfect caesar. What's the RT60 of your room

Click to expand...

I did not think your room sounded dead when I visited either time.

my room in my previous home was a similar size and I had quite a bit of absorption around. I had a somewhat large speaker for that space, maybe not quite as large as yours. so both rooms were certainly more on the damped end of things, and had to be to deal with the level of energy and space.

I loved that smaller room in my previous home, and it took me many years to reach and surpass the musical involvement I had there.

a larger more open space can be more balanced in it's acoustics, and allow for more energy to be retained. and as you energize the room there is a higher performance ceiling for large scale music.....and more of a mess when things are not right....too.

which is why I moved to the home with a barn, and why I built my room. not an idle direction for me.

hence my point of curtains are a thing to be avoided unless the space is limited and SPL's have to be controlled. I love your room and what you have going on there.

Thanks Mike and I agree with what you have stated. For me it was a huge undertaking as it is a smaller room than my last room. Hence the use of an acoustician from start to finish. My goal was to make my speakers work in the smaller room. Bonnie delivered on her promise to me

Ron Resnick said:

"They are here" or "we are there"? Which one of these illusions should we by seeking to create to permit suspension of disbelief?

Are these incompatible objectives? Do we have to select in advance one or the other of these as an objective for our audio systems?

Does certain equipment achieve one of them and other equipment achieve the other?

Which is harder to achieve?

I want to achieve "we are there."

Click to expand...

Echoing some of the above posts, for me, I want the system and my room to disappear. To maximally get out of the way of the music. It therefore seems logical that such fidelity would reveal all ambient cues in the recording/mastering.In either case there should be "more there there". It should be palpable, fleshed out but not etched - lifelike.
The case of a symphony orchestra is a special one. I think it is very difficult to bring that illusion into a domestic living room.
Cheers
David

Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Echoing some of the above posts, for me, I want the system and my room to disappear. To maximally get out of the way of the music. It therefore seems logical that such fidelity would reveal all ambient cues in the recording/mastering.In either case there should be "more there there". It should be palpable, fleshed out but not etched - lifelike.
The case of a symphony orchestra is a special one. I think it is very difficult to bring that illusion into a domestic living room.
Cheers
David

Click to expand...

I agree that a symphony orchestra is very difficult to reproduce accurately. But, any unamplified music we are used to hearing in a concert space is difficult, even solo recitals, string quartets, etc.

I was an audiophile long before I became a frequent concert goer. I enjoyed music at home, but as I increasingly attended live concerts, a growing disappointment began to set in. I became increasingly aware that my stereos were coming up considerably short vs. my sense of what I heard live. I figured my system was just inadequate, and that I just needed to upgrade my system to get closer to live sound. Eventually, I thought, stereo and recordings would get better. I just had to keep searching.

Increasing affluence enabled me to upgrade many times. I also carefully auditioned many fine systems at dealers, at friends, at other demos and at home. My sound improved somewhat, but there was still disappointment whenever I returned home from a live concert. The recoded music I played could be deeply enjoyed, but the sound still always seemed like something was missing.

Ten years ago, I decided to add Mch Home Theater to my very nice stereo setup. I did this in a way that would use the front channels for both, but that neither would be compromised sonically. I initially had no plans for music listening other than in stereo. But, I bought my first Mch SACDs out of curiosity and to evaluate the sonics of the Mch side of my system. One SACD was a Philadelphia Orchestra rendition of the Mahler 6th Symphony under Eschenbach in a live recording I had attended. I was stunned in the first 30 seconds, and all the following listening I did confirmed that this was indeed a far better replica of the sound I had experienced live. More recordings and comparisons to the stereo versions made clear to me that Mch was a huge step to better reproduction of the live event. I am now acutely aware, even when listening to all out, mega stereos, of the compromised, missing elements in stereo reproduction, even at its best.

I am not saying it is in all senses perfect. But, I had never heard a sonic improvement over many decades that was even close to this in reproduced realism.

Since then, I have bought only a handful, literally, of stereo recordings. I have amassed a library of thousands of discretely recorded Mch discs, which make up > 98% of my listening. I have never been happier as a music listener, and I no longer am nagged by the sense that something is missing. Something is undoubtedly still missing, but far, far less than before to the point of insignificance. My enjoyment of recorded music in the "we are there sense" via Mch is the happy fulfillment of many years of audiophile searchings.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I was stunned in the first 30 seconds, and all the following listening I did confirmed that this was indeed a far better replica of the sound I had experienced live. More recordings and comparisons to the stereo versions made clear to me that Mch was a huge step to better reproduction of the live event. I am now acutely aware, even when listening to all out, mega stereos, of the compromised, missing elements in stereo reproduction, even at its best.

I am not saying it is in all senses perfect. But, I had never heard a sonic improvement over many decades that was even close to this in reproduced realism.

Since then, I have bought only a handful, literally, of stereo recordings. I have amassed a library of thousands of discretely recorded Mch discs, which make up > 98% of my listening. I have never been happier as a music listener, and I no longer am nagged by the sense that something is missing. Something is undoubtedly still missing, but far, far less than before to the point of insignificance. My enjoyment of recorded music in the "we are there sense" via Mch is the happy fulfillment of many years of audiophile searchings.

Click to expand...

We have had similar revelations - the difference being that I would argue that the differences you hear in MCH on a symphony recording are no less important on virtually all recordings - but mostly non-studio recording. As I noted in a previous post, my "ah ha" moment came when my wife hired a 3 piece jazz combo to play in our home for a past birthday. I was stunned at how the very best audio system I had ever heard fell so far short of what I heard in my home that evening. So far short.

But unlike you, in addition to MCH recordings, I have found the use of 3D up-conversion of 2 channel recordings using my surround processor (Datasat RS20i) and AuroMatic (with some very important judicious settings) to be an improvement as well. No other "up-converter" I tried worked as they all sounded "processed/fake".

Prior to retiring, I was a member of about a 150 to 200 person (church) choir for about 25 years (accompanied by about a 20+ piece orchestra). We made numerous recordings but one was done (recorded and mixed) very professionally. Last evening, I found that CD on my server and played a number of cuts, initially in 2 channel. I then replayed them with AuroMatic. In stereo, I was enjoying a recording in my listening room. Expanded to 3D, I sat where the music director stood. The choir had vertical layering as it does live; it expanded well beyond the speakers, as it would live; the density of the voices horizontally was far more realistic; and, of course, the depth layering was far superior as well.

Well, that means that there at least two of us who feel this way who post here!!

audioguy said:

We have had similar revelations - the difference being that I would argue that the differences you hear in MCH on a symphony recording are no less important on virtually all recordings - but mostly non-studio recording. As I noted in a previous post, my "ah ha" moment came when my wife hired a 3 piece jazz combo to play in our home for a past birthday. I was stunned at how the very best audio system I had ever heard fell so far short of what I heard in my home that evening. So far short.

But unlike you, in addition to MCH recordings, I have found the use of 3D up-conversion of 2 channel recordings using my surround processor (Datasat RS20i) and AuroMatic (with some very important judicious settings) to be an improvement as well. No other "up-converter" I tried worked as they all sounded "processed/fake".

Prior to retiring, I was a member of about a 150 to 200 person (church) choir for about 25 years (accompanied by about a 20+ piece orchestra). We made numerous recordings but one was done (recorded and mixed) very professionally. Last evening, I found that CD on my server and played a number of cuts, initially in 2 channel. I then replayed them with AuroMatic. In stereo, I was enjoying a recording in my listening room. Expanded to 3D, I sat where the music director stood. The choir had vertical layering as it does live; it expanded well beyond the speakers, as it would live; the density of the voices horizontally was far more realistic; and, of course, the depth layering was far superior as well.

Well, that means that there at least two of us who feel this way who post here!!

Click to expand...

There are more than two, I get the benefit of MCH too, my favorite Wilson system was Wilson duettas in MCH in a 15 x 15 room introduced to me by fitzcaraldo.

The issue with MCH is limitation to MCH recordings, and I prefer the tonality of vinyl and the timbre of a couple of horns and a couple of panels that cannot be set up in MCH. But if I had decided to stay digital only and cones, I would have gone MCH, in fact, auro 3d. I have not seen any system replicate choral and Mahler's 2nd like I have seen an Auro 3d do it - the overhead speaker lets you get the depth of the seat from the stage, the bass and staging and imaging and all that stuff that audiophiles are forever trying to correct take care of itself. Less than 1% of 2 ch systems can exceed a simple MCH set up IMO, as most audiophile are forever struggling with room speaker match, imaging, bass, etc. However, the other issue with MCH is that it takes away that journey fun

bonzo75 said:

However, the other issue with MCH is that it takes away that journey fun

Click to expand...

Not if you are an addict like I am. Just more stuff to choose from !!! New processors or source items or passive room treatment or SSP tweaks or speaker placement or bass tuning or room correction target curves or ......................

That said, I do now find myself doing much, much more listening and much less lusting or diddling!!

Amen, brother. I am aware of the potential of Auro 3D, and I have heard good things about Auromatic synthesis, which may be the best way to augment 2D or even stereo recordings. However, I am not yet ready for Auro myself in terms of listening room real estate. I have heard discrete Auro 3D on music recordings, but all too briefly as yet. And, I remain lukewarm to the concept of Mch synthesis vs. discrete Mch recordings.

The real point is that the sense of the confining walls of the listening room can be largely overcome by Mch systems using additional speaker channels conveying the space, ambience and envelopment of the larger concert spaces we hear in live performance. Yes, passive/active/DSP methods are useful in "optimizing" the room and getting it out of the way. I am a big believer in DSP EQ, and I consider it essential.

But, that consideration of the room alone is insufficient to address the bigger problem of first capturing and then reproducing more information from the complex direct/reflected sound field heard live via the recording. Stereo restricts and compromises that much more than 5, 7 channels or more.

Fitzcaraldo215 - Where do you purchase your MCH recordings from?

We are there to me is more impressive. There is a lot of information that can be collected in the recording that can't be engineered in,especially in live,minimal mic'd,and classical recordings. I would say when you can tell where the audience is by mic placement that still blows my mind. Hearing chairs creaking is another. Maybe it is both and recording dependent,either way it is exciting.

audioguy said:

Not if you are an addict like I am. Just more stuff to choose from !!! New processors or source items or passive room treatment or SSP tweaks or speaker placement or bass tuning or room correction target curves or ......................

That said, I do now find myself doing much, much more listening and much less lusting or diddling!!

Click to expand...

I have been on board the MCH bandwagon for 40 years now, hard to believe. I'm fine with the Yamaha processors, and I like the hall effects in 8.4 for vinyl (9.4 for home theater) with ambience retrieval, no MCH recordings required. I have never actually been to another audiophile's sanctum sanctorum that had a properly implemented MCH setup for music listening, it would be interesting to hear.

cjfrbw said:

I have been on board the MCH bandwagon for 40 years now, hard to believe. I'm fine with the Yamaha processors, and I like the hall effects in 8.4 for vinyl (9.4 for home theater) with ambience retrieval, no MCH recordings required. I have never actually been to another audiophile's sanctum sanctorum that had a properly implemented MCH setup for music listening, it would be interesting to hear.

Click to expand...

So you upmix vinyl? There is one guy on the west coast with 5 or 7 apogees in MCH

bonzo75 said:

So you upmix vinyl? There is one guy on the west coast with 5 or 7 apogees in MCH

Click to expand...

It isn't really upmixed. The two front channels are analog only from turntable to phono head amp to phono pre to DHT preamp to active crossover to amps to front speakers. The surrounds are layered in by directing the two channel signal to the Yamaha Pre-pro, where they are digitized, crossed over for bass control for the subs , and shunted to the surround speaker amps. Works a pip and sounds completely natural to me when using the YPAO and tweaking the volume matching. Turn off bass or turn off the surrounds with a button on the remote if so desired and I want to listen to standard two channel, which is almost never. With two channel digital, I can use the digital processing for all channels if desired. I have several MCh discs, but seldom listen to them because I am fine with two channel stuff with ambiance processing.

If I listen to two channel only, I will usually listen using the bass panels on the Analysis speakers as full range, crossosver-less speakers with a DHT driver into one of the VFET amps, very tasty in it's own way.

Yamaha offers numerous hall modes derived from actual listening spaces rather than generic digital derivatives. There is something to accentuate every kind of music to taste, and I can even add the center channel but never do with two channel source material.

cjfrbw said:

It isn't really upmixed. The two front channels are analog only from turntable to phono head amp to phono pre to DHT preamp to active crossover to amps to front speakers. The surrounds are layered in by directing the two channel signal to the Yamaha Pre-pro, where they are digitized, crossed over for bass control for the subs , and shunted to the surround speaker amps. Works a pip and sounds completely natural to me when using the YPAO and tweaking the volume matching. Turn off bass or turn off the surrounds with a button on the remote if so desired and I want to listen to standard two channel, which is almost never. With two channel digital, I can use the digital processing for all channels if desired. I have several MCh discs, but seldom listen to them because I am fine with two channel stuff with ambiance processing.

If I listen to two channel only, I will usually listen using the bass panels on the Analysis speakers as full range, crossosver-less speakers with a DHT driver into one of the VFET amps, very tasty in it's own way.

Yamaha offers numerous hall modes derived from actual listening spaces rather than generic digital derivatives. There is something to accentuate every kind of music to taste, and I can even add the center channel but never do with two channel source material.

Click to expand...

Extremely interesting, would like to hear it one day

bonzo75 said:

Extremely interesting, would like to hear it one day

Click to expand...

Sure, PM if you are going to be in the area. Most people like it or are too polite to say they don't. I would like to hear the OTHER members' MCH systems, heh, heh!

It ain't OC disorder, but just my comfy laboratory of audio psychosis. It is different from the vid in details now, but generally conveys the idea.

https://youtu.be/q-otl3n46QY

It's listening through several layers of compression, recorded with a small Sony sports cam.