Problems with believability in audio

[ssfas]

Watts became cheaper, transistors also cheaper than valves, small speakers cost less in materials than larger speakers and a highly polished aluminium face plate will add several thousands in profits as well. The business, led by the quest for ever greater profit, will (IMHO) end up ending it (why would young people spend £100’s of thousands on mediocre-sounding audio esoterica instead of a house, or business? ).

The reason is because people living in smaller spaces with less disposable income, and many people with money and space and interest in music but not hifi, prefer smartspeakers and other devices that provide far better dispersion than hifi. The single biggest factor that rules hifi out for the vast majority of people is the limitation to a fixed listening position reserved for one person.

We were at the Palais Garnier in Paris in October 2017 when Devialet opened a demo space to the left of the main foyer for their Reactor speaker, a smaller version of the Phantom speaker. We went to a show and returned the next morning (we were passing) for a listen. I was amazed. It was an octagonal room about 11m across and a single €1,000 unit could throw the sound across the space with no apparent point source and no apparent dips in the sound level wherever you stood in the room. When the product was released a few months later we bought a couple of them and my wife has been using it almost daily ever since.

Attempting to defeat the 'religion' of two channel is tilting at audiophile windmills.

Appreciating what can be done with a highly dispersive speaker to fill a room with sound, as opposed to a 2-channel image at a single point, when I built my music room I installed both a conventional 2-channel stereo system and a 6-unit ceiling system. The latter is hifi quality, with an excellent frequency response and streams at up to 24/192 PCM. The dispersion is so good it is impossible to detect as a point source. It is often preferable to the 2-channel system.

 

[ssfas]

The recording was of a male singing group. The presentation was extremely convincing. There was an incredible sense of the singers in front of us while we sat in a stone cathedral.

When I was young and naive I never thought hifi could reproduce a sound like this:

or this:


Now that I am much older and perhaps a little wiser, I know it is an utterly ridiculous proposition.

 

[morricab]

When I was young and naive I never thought hifi could reproduce a sound like this:
View attachment 152265
or this:
View attachment 152267

Now that I am much older and perhaps a little wiser, I know it is an utterly ridiculous proposition.

This is why I tell people to focus on getting max realism with much smaller ensembles...it is somewhat less ridiculous...

 

[Rensselaer]

The reason is because people living in smaller spaces with less disposable income, and many people with money and space and interest in music but not hifi, prefer smartspeakers and other devices that provide far better dispersion than hifi. The single biggest factor that rules hifi out for the vast majority of people is the limitation to a fixed listening position reserved for one person.

We were at the Palais Garnier in Paris in October 2017 when Devialet opened a demo space to the left of the main foyer for their Reactor speaker, a smaller version of the Phantom speaker. We went to a show and returned the next morning (we were passing) for a listen. I was amazed. It was an octagonal room about 11m across and a single €1,000 unit could throw the sound across the space with no apparent point source and no apparent dips in the sound level wherever you stood in the room. When the product was released a few months later we bought a couple of them and my wife has been using it almost daily ever since.



Appreciating what can be done with a highly dispersive speaker to fill a room with sound, as opposed to a 2-channel image at a single point, when I built my music room I installed both a conventional 2-channel stereo system and a 6-unit ceiling system. The latter is hifi quality, with an excellent frequency response and streams at up to 24/192 PCM. The dispersion is so good it is impossible to detect as a point source. It is often preferable to the 2-channel system.

Oh I think I know what you’re advocating. I hear it at my dentist’s office from not only speakers in the ceiling but also in the elevator going up to his floor, music everywhere. They must be smart speakers, hooked up to some sort of streamer as they were all playing the same song in unison. No adverts either.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is the sense of being in a context, dimensionality, in the presence of, or however the multi-channel virtues are described, are those as important, more important or less important than the music itself?

That is a loaded question. Certainly, the music itself is most important, regardless of the medium. I think you might be asking whether "multi-channel virtues" are as important as other parameters of recording/reproduction but, then, you should define the other parameters you are considering.

I figure the processing takes place in your head.

Inevitable and unavoidable.

This is why I tell people to focus on getting max realism with much smaller ensembles...it is somewhat less ridiculous...

Agreed.

 

[morricab]

That is a loaded question. Certainly, the music itself is most important, regardless of the medium. I think you might be asking whether "multi-channel virtues" are as important as other parameters of recording/reproduction but, then, you should define the other parameters you are considering.

Inevitable and unavoidable.

Agreed.

Not inevitable and unavoidable...absolutely necessary! Your brain is the thing that makes sense out of all these pressure waves vibrating in your ears...

 

[ssfas]

Oh I think I know what you’re advocating. I hear it at my dentist’s office from not only speakers in the ceiling but also in the elevator going up to his floor, music everywhere. They must be smart speakers, hooked up to some sort of streamer as they were all playing the same song in unison. No adverts either.

Streaming from multiple audio systems at the same time wirelessly (I maxed out at 20), and at 24/192 PCM data rate, is a massive technical problem. Although each unit is an individual system, one is designated as the master unit and sends the data to the other units in the same zone - incredibly fast. Using Roon or Amazon HD, or more recently Innuos Sense, you can send to multiple zones. Grouping the zones on the ground floor of my house gives 6 + 4 + 5 + 5 = 20 speakers, covering about 130 sqm in one space in level sound. Each unit can be designated left, right or mono, so they can provide stereo imaging.

It's a hifi quality product that is primarily sold as a home automation product. People realise how they can get very good sound without needing a conventional hifi system and at much lower cost.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Not inevitable and unavoidable...absolutely necessary! Your brain is the thing that makes sense out of all these pressure waves vibrating in your ears...

It makes both sense and nonsense of it. It allows us to enjoy the sounds and also unable to be objective about them.

 

[Lagonda]

Must be a very deep closet...

Its not a walk in closet, it is a drive in closet. And classical music is in a corner on a top shelf !

 

[bonzo75]

Having only two channels of source information is a big impediment to achieving believability. FWIW.

All based on the logic that performers are in front of you. As if the performer split themselves into L&R. Mono is actually better for believability than stereo

 

[mtemur]

It’s very unfortunate that we’re stuck with just two channels. That’s mainly due to the limitations of vinyl, which was the dominant medium back then by a large margin.

R2R tape advanced quickly from one track to three, which, in my opinion, is ideal for realism. A three-channel setup—with a center and two sides, all using the same speakers and amps—would be fantastic.

To me, quadraphonic, 5.1, or 7.1 formats are misguided, unserious attempts to recreate a musical event. A properly executed three-track system, with equal quality across all channels, offers the ultimate stereo experience.

By the way, I’m excluding quadraphonic records because they don’t provide equal quality across all channels. It’s just a gimmick, and I don’t see any real potential there.

 

[bonzo75]

R2R tape advanced quickly from one track to three, which, in my opinion, is ideal for realism. A three-channel setup—with a center and two sides, all using the same speakers and amps—would be fantastic.

Yes it is very important to have the third speaker same as the L&R, not like where they have a small box and two big L&R. I have heard quad 2905 with 3ch CDs

 

[mtemur]

Yes but it is very important to have the third speaker same as the L&R, not like where they have a small box and two big L&R. I have heard quad 2905 with 3ch CDs

I agree. That’s why I kept saying “same speakers and amps” for all channels.

 

[ssfas]

It’s very unfortunate that we’re stuck with just two channels. That’s mainly due to the limitations of vinyl, which was the dominant medium back then by a large margin.

R2R tape advanced quickly from one track to three, which, in my opinion, is ideal for realism. A three-channel setup—with a center and two sides, all using the same speakers and amps—would be fantastic.

To me, quadraphonic, 5.1, or 7.1 formats are misguided, unserious attempts to recreate a musical event. A properly executed three-track system, with equal quality across all channels, offers the ultimate stereo experience.

By the way, I’m excluding quadraphonic records because they don’t provide equal quality across all channels. It’s just a gimmick, and I don’t see any real potential there.

Two channels were all that were needed to place and separate voices on a cinema screen. Although developed by Alan Blumlein at EMI in the UK in 1931, it was not considered worthwhile or necessary for audio recordings. A stereo recording of Mozart was made at Abbey Road (EMI's main studio) in 1934, but it didn't catch on.

Two channel imaging of audio commenced in the USA around 1955, but only prevailed in the UK about 10 years later. The Beatles only first released in stereo in 1967.

So it is easier to argue that only one channel is really necessary for sound because it took about 30 years after stereo recording and replay was patented for it to catch on at all, most people still continued to listen in mono (via radio, in the car) and with smart speakers mono is increasingly prevalent.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It’s very unfortunate that we’re stuck with just two channels. That’s mainly due to the limitations of vinyl, which was the dominant medium back then by a large margin.

R2R tape advanced quickly from one track to three, which, in my opinion, is ideal for realism. A three-channel setup—with a center and two sides, all using the same speakers and amps—would be fantastic.

To me, quadraphonic, 5.1, or 7.1 formats are misguided, unserious attempts to recreate a musical event. A properly executed three-track system, with equal quality across all channels, offers the ultimate stereo experience.

By the way, I’m excluding quadraphonic records because they don’t provide equal quality across all channels. It’s just a gimmick, and I don’t see any real potential there.

Yes it is very important to have the third speaker same as the L&R, not like where they have a small box and two big L&R. I have heard quad 2905 with 3ch CDs

theory is just fine. but media rules and delivering three great analog channels to end users billions of times was never going to fly.

i think we are very lucky that digital recording and playback did not occur until AFTER the golden age of performance and recording.

i built my room to accommodate SACD 5.1 and tried it for 18 months then threw it out since my vinyl smoked it. 3 channel analog.....a whole different thing. but not real world to pursue based on media access.

my separate Home Theater with 9.3.6 Dolby Atmos is wonderful for what it can do.

 

[bonzo75]

theory is just fine. but media rules and delivering three great analog channels to end users billions of times was never going to fly.

digital in 3-ch or MCH is quite good, you get past the lack of believability that accompanies digital in 2-ch. As I said in an earlier post, my only interest in 2-ch stays to play back golden era recordings

 

[hopkins]

Two channels were all that were needed to place and separate voices on a cinema screen. Although developed by Alan Blumlein at EMI in the UK in 1931, it was not considered worthwhile or necessary for audio recordings. A stereo recording of Mozart was made at Abbey Road (EMI's main studio) in 1934, but it didn't catch on.

Two channel imaging of audio commenced in the USA around 1955, but only prevailed in the UK about 10 years later. The Beatles only first released in stereo in 1967.

So it is easier to argue that only one channel is really necessary for sound because it took about 30 years after stereo recording and replay was patented for it to catch on at all, most people still continued to listen in mono (via radio, in the car) and with smart speakers mono is increasingly prevalent.

From a practical standpoint, I really appreciate listening to a single speaker as it gives much more freedom in terms of speaker placement and listening position (due to room modes, stereo cross-talk, etc...). I like the way the sound fills the room with a single speaker. As pointed out by some in this thread, multiple speakers may be superior than two speakers in that regard. I wish stereo had never been invented - then I could listen to all my albums in mono! Converting from stereo to mono always results in significant loss of fidelity (as you have some signal cancellation).

 

[Mike Lavigne]

quad channel analog tape can be great too properly recorded and played back but so what?

 

[bonzo75]

quad channel analog tape can be great too properly recorded and played back but so what?

This is a theory thread

 

[tima]

That is a loaded question.

Asked in good faith. I have scant clues on the desire for surround sound. You have the opportunity to explain. While you may not be among them there are those for whom the technology is equally important.