Problems with believability in audio

[Kal Rubinson]

Well, it's been years since I experimented with it. But once it is dialed in, it doesn't sound spatially deficient as it is good at reasonably fooling one into thinking that it isn't.

"Dialed in" how?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Stereo sound from 5 speakers equidistant won't give you a feeling of live music, which would never sound like that.

We're not talking about stereo from 5 speakers. We are talking about discrete high resolution 5 channel sources.

 

[zerostargeneral]

@Bonzo,

Have you read ink on paper bound by leather, books by Hesse or Conrad? Do you own lace up shoes?

Do you believe that a gigantic amount of ignorance trumps a small amount of knowledge?

Is the moon made of cheese when Kim Kardashian posts on insta' ?

Rope anyone?

Kindest regards, G.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Doesn't that depend on what kind of speakers the 5ch are and what amps are driving them?

Not really. Only that they are of requistely high quality. (I know that is probably anathema to many here.)

What if it is 5 ch of Wilson or Magico? Is that better or worse than 2 ch of the same?

A friend of mine has superb Magico multichannel system and, definitely yes, it is better in multichannel than in stereo.

 

[hopkins]

They can be omnidirectional but, even when not, they cannot fail to capture aspects of the recorded space.

Ok, whatever - how much "recording space" is needed to enjoy a recording is not a question I lose sleep over. Getting the best out of music I like seems more rewarding than having to limit my listening based on (insignificant) recording criteria.

I get that you have not listened to single mic and/or mono recordings since you were a teenager, and that you find multi-channel to be a great kick. In that context, I am not surprised that you don't understand that there could be more to sound quality than what is reproduced through multi-channel systems using speakers that don't perform as well when listened to individually.

Whether one way of listening is superior to the other does not really matter - they are just very different and hopefully traditional recordings will still be available for future generations to enjoy.

(There's even a stereo recording of this available, as two discs survived, each recorded with a seperate microphone at the same time).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal Rubinson is using B&W without processor I believe.

Ancient info. The B&Ws were replaced by Revels and, then, by KEFs. Yes, there is no processor, per se.

That's not howMCH works - rear channels have ambient info, not same info as front channels.

Fixing the typo. However, there are situations where the composer/performer explicitly intended for there to be voices and/or instruments elsewhere or off-stage and multichannel can do that thrillingly.

To clarify - by processing I meant something like Auro 3d/Atmos which processes more than the 5 channels. Even without a processor like those, a multichannnel preamp is required, but is taking 5 channel source into 5 channel pre into 5 amps, or a multichannel dac like exasound.

No such processing is involved. We are (or, at least, I am) talking about discrete multichannel recordings in PCM or DSD which have not been processed or packaged into a CODEC and which are, in every way except channel count, identical to the PCM or DSD on a CD, SACD, BD or file.

To be specific, I am playing discrete multichannel files with resolutions up to 32/384 or DSD256. The playback software (Jriver) on my PC feeds a multichannel DAC which, in turn, feeds power amps and speakers.

Ok, then there is still a processor in the multichannel DVD player...nevertheless there is always a processor...

Nope. No disc player. BTW, what sort of "processing" do you think is necessary in a disc player?

 

[Kingrex]

Ancient info. The B&Ws were replaced by Revels and, then, by KEFs. Yes, there is no processor, per se.

Fixing the typo. However, there are situations where the composer/performer explicitly intended for there to be voices and/or instruments elsewhere or off-stage and multichannel can do that thrillingly.

No such processing is involved. We are (or, at least, I am) talking about discrete multichannel recordings in PCM or DSD which have not been processed or packaged into a CODEC and which are, in every way except channel count, identical to the PCM or DSD on a CD, SACD, BD or file.

To be specific, I am playing discrete multichannel files with resolutions up to 32/384 or DSD256. The playback software (Jriver) on my PC feeds a multichannel DAC which, in turn, feeds power amps and speakers.

Nope. No disc player. BTW, what sort of "processing" do you think is necessary in a disc player?

I bet that had an incredibly immersing sense. And the scale is probably off the charts.

 

[bonzo75]

@Bonzo,

Do you own lace up shoes?

For squats and deadlifts the shoes have straps on top of the laces. For squats heel is raised by 15mm and deadlift shoe is flat. Both soles are extremely hard no compression unlike solid state complex crossover cones playing modern recordings

For running laces too as well as for formal shoes which are required less and less with WFH

Prefer to slip on no lace otherwise

 

[morricab]

Ancient info. The B&Ws were replaced by Revels and, then, by KEFs. Yes, there is no processor, per se.

Fixing the typo. However, there are situations where the composer/performer explicitly intended for there to be voices and/or instruments elsewhere or off-stage and multichannel can do that thrillingly.

No such processing is involved. We are (or, at least, I am) talking about discrete multichannel recordings in PCM or DSD which have not been processed or packaged into a CODEC and which are, in every way except channel count, identical to the PCM or DSD on a CD, SACD, BD or file.

To be specific, I am playing discrete multichannel files with resolutions up to 32/384 or DSD256. The playback software (Jriver) on my PC feeds a multichannel DAC which, in turn, feeds power amps and speakers.

Nope. No disc player. BTW, what sort of "processing" do you think is necessary in a disc player?

Signal steering of course.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Signal steering of course.

Can you be more specific? The content has separate data for each channel.

 

[microstrip]

Ok, all I can say is that the many multi channel demos I have heard didn’t feel more real…they in fact felt more artificial…

It would be great if you referred how real sounded the best multi channel systems you listened, not the poor ones.

The best I listened was an all Martin Logan system and it sounded extremely good - a great feeling of being in the concert hall. As far as I have seen, setting up a good multichannel system needs expertise - not just running some a auto set up ...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Ok, all I can say is that the many multi channel demos I have heard didn’t feel more real…they in fact felt more artificial…

Over the years, the majority of all the audio systems that I have heard, regardless of cost or configuration, were disappointing. So what?

 

[morricab]

Over the years, the majority of all the audio systems that I have heard, regardless of cost or configuration, were disappointing. So what?

Don’t disagree, but I have yet to hear a truly convincing multi channel system and have heard at least some truly amazing two channel systems.

 

[morricab]

It would be great if you referred how real sounded the best multi channel systems you listened, not the poor ones.

The best I listened was an all Martin Logan system and it sounded extremely good - a great feeling of being in the concert hall. As far as I have seen, setting up a good multichannel system needs expertise - not just running some a auto set up ...

Ok, none of them sounded very real.

 

[morricab]

Can you be more specific? The content has separate data for each channel.

So, are you saying the rear channels, which normally would be just room ambience, tracks recorded that way? How is that generated during the recording process? Is it really recorded with multiple microphones, or is this somehow synthesised from the original stereo recording?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So, are you saying the rear channels, which normally would be just room ambience, tracks recorded that way?

I can't parse this. Are you saying:
1. "So, are you saying the rear channels, which normally would be just room ambience, are recorded and played that way?"
2. "So, are you saying the rear channels, which normally would be just room ambience, are enhanced in some way?"
or something else?
I would answer "Yes" to option 1.

How is that generated during the recording process?

How is what generated during the recording process?

Is it really recorded with multiple microphones, or is this somehow synthesised from the original stereo recording?

Aha! Yes, it is really recorded with multiple microphones. The actual arrays are determined by the recording engineers and they may vary in how they choose to capture a particular performance in a particular space.

Of course, there are many recordings in which the center and surrounds (or more) are synthesized either from multitracked session sources or from the original stereo sources but I am not a proponent of this, especially the latter.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Don’t disagree, but I have yet to hear a truly convincing multi channel system and have heard at least some truly amazing two channel systems.

Agree on the multichannel setups …

 

[tima]

However, there are situations where the composer/performer explicitly intended for there to be voices and/or instruments elsewhere or off-stage and multichannel can do that thrillingly.

Mahler's 2nd and 8th come to mind.

 

[SoundMann]

"Dialed in" how?

The processor has adjustable filters and parameters.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The processor has adjustable filters and parameters.

Yeah, well, it's a manipulated effect, imho. So, OK if you like it.