END OF THE LINE FOR TWO-CHANNEL
vd...@my-deja.com
Nothing demonstrates the desperate plight of high-end two-channel audio
more vividly than the zombie-like fetishizing that goes on at RAO over
the likes of Arny Krueger, Steve Zipser, Howard Ferstler et al.
Nothing.
Not even the fact that High-end sales are in the toilet. Nor the fact
that Stereophile's Advertiser's Index is slimmer than Ally McBeal. Not
even the fact that there hasn't been a single innovation in high-end
audio since the transistor. No, that evey other post on RAO is some
half-assed, moronic pot-shot at these (very) marginal characters is all
the evidence anyone needs to conclude that high-end audio is like,
nowhere, man.
A suggestion: come to where the action is. Follow the lead of all your
beloved High-end gurus and come on over to home theater. Junk your 8
watt SET's and girlie 6" bass/midrange driver "mini-monitors," set up a
proper video display, get yourself five speakers and a 15" sub, get a
handful of DVD's, stuff your popcorn-hole with a tub of hot-buttered
air-popped and relax. Enjoy the show. Get with the program. Join the
twenty-first century. Throw away those aluminum hats. Release that
anger. Get real.
P.S. What's it gonna take? Stereophile's collapse? (which you surely
realize is imminent) Jazz at the Pawnshop on DVD? Mad vinyl disease?
I'm done with ya,
vdo99 (Y2K compliant)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Barry Rothman
white-out on your DSS. Have you finally gotten tired of seeing the
Criterionl version of Armageddon for the 97th time in a month (and
you've finally figured out that the movie really wasn't that good)?
Are you angry that Steven Speilberg won't issue his movies on DVD?
That even titles like The Godfather triolgy aren't on DVD? Does it
bug you that even HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, The Movie Channel, StarZ and
Encore (all 10 or so of those Encore channels) keep showing the same
movies over and over and over and over again. Are you upset that up
until Hot off the Grill comes on with Jacqui Malouf (that's for you,
Marc!), there's nothing to watch.
Hey, HT is great, don't get me wrong. But music is great too and the
possibilities are nearly endless. So much material, so much to
experience and so much fun with an audio system you enjoy. Best of
all, you get to pick the programming and there is so much more to
choose from compared to HT. And as long as there is music, there will
be audio systems. And as long as there are audio systems, there will
be a high end of some sort, be it two channel, 5 channel, 10 channel
or whatever.
Dmitri Litvintsev
> To the poor souls of RAO:
this was all pretty interesting. Now in the wake of multichannel audio
I wonder what determined
the demise of quadro (4 channel audio)?
Health Nut
I agree with multichannel all the way.
5 Nautilus 802, 5 Bryston 7BST, and soon a Meridian 861.
Convergence without compromise is the best!
Since when is Elizabeth, One True Thing, Shakespeare
in Love, etc. for low intelligence? DVD's are fun.
Did you ever hear of fun? The fact that my audio system
is my theater system is wonderful! The speakers are
symmetrical and placed in the same way any high-end
audio system is set up. This really isn't about Theta or
brand names, it's about the future, multichannel DVD-A/SACD.
s. pennock wrote in message <7pia56$q5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
>All/most of the video rentals speak to a rather low level of
>intelligence. Not only that, check my thread in this forum that
>describes the customer service I received from Theta Digital. I sent
>it all back yesterday. Nothing beats primo two channel. (And Theta
>isn't primo.)
s. pennock
Todd Krieger
I don't know if it's the end of the line for "two-channel" audio, since
portable stereo is still very popular. But the lack of good new music
this decade is getting rather depressing. (I'm getting rather tired of
listening to the likes of Mannheim Steamroller, Eric Clapton, Amanda
McBroom, Rush, Dave Brubeck, and Fritz Reiner over and over again.) I
think that has to do with the decline in demand for two-channel audio
more than the emergence of home theater.
Todd Krieger
Mikeylikst
>Now in the wake of multichannel audio
>I wonder what determined
>the demise of quadro (4 channel audio)?
The marketplace. If something doesn't sell, you stop making it.
The kind of multi channel we have now, will likely stay for some time.
Mike McKelvy
"You can't have everything, where would you put it?"
Steven Wright
http://members.aol.com/rlspeakers/RLSindex.html
Arny Krüger
<vd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7phuf4$j02$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> To the poor souls of RAO:
>
> Nothing demonstrates the desperate plight of high-end two-channel audio
> more vividly than the zombie-like fetishizing that goes on at RAO over
> the likes of Arny Krueger, Steve Zipser, Howard Ferstler et al.
>
> Nothing.
>
> Not even the fact that High-end sales are in the toilet. Nor the fact
> that Stereophile's Advertiser's Index is slimmer than Ally McBeal. Not
> even the fact that there hasn't been a single innovation in high-end
> audio since the transistor. No, that evey other post on RAO is some
> half-assed, moronic pot-shot at these (very) marginal characters is all
> the evidence anyone needs to conclude that high-end audio is like,
> nowhere, man.
>
Agreed.
jennifer
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:54:50 GMT
> From: vd...@my-deja.com
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: END OF THE LINE FOR TWO-CHANNEL
>
> To the poor souls of RAO:
>
> Nothing demonstrates the desperate plight of high-end two-channel audio
> more vividly than the zombie-like fetishizing that goes on at RAO over
> the likes of Arny Krueger, Steve Zipser, Howard Ferstler et al.
>
> Nothing.
>
> Not even the fact that High-end sales are in the toilet. Nor the fact
> that Stereophile's Advertiser's Index is slimmer than Ally McBeal. Not
> even the fact that there hasn't been a single innovation in high-end
> audio since the transistor. No, that evey other post on RAO is some
> half-assed, moronic pot-shot at these (very) marginal characters is all
> the evidence anyone needs to conclude that high-end audio is like,
> nowhere, man.
>
> A suggestion: come to where the action is. Follow the lead of all your
> beloved High-end gurus and come on over to home theater. Junk your 8
> watt SET's and girlie 6" bass/midrange driver "mini-monitors," set up a
> proper video display, get yourself five speakers and a 15" sub, get a
> handful of DVD's, stuff your popcorn-hole with a tub of hot-buttered
> air-popped and relax. Enjoy the show. Get with the program. Join the
> twenty-first century. Throw away those aluminum hats. Release that
> anger. Get real.
>
> P.S. What's it gonna take? Stereophile's collapse? (which you surely
> realize is imminent) Jazz at the Pawnshop on DVD? Mad vinyl disease?
>
> I'm done with ya,
>
Isn't that nice? He saved the best to the last....last line, that is.
vd...@my-deja.com
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> You seem a bit angry. Is your cable system out? Are you experiencing
> white-out on your DSS. Have you finally gotten tired of seeing the
> Criterionl version of Armageddon for the 97th time in a month (and
> you've finally figured out that the movie really wasn't that good)?
> Are you angry that Steven Speilberg won't issue his movies on DVD?
> That even titles like The Godfather triolgy aren't on DVD? Does it
> bug you that even HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, The Movie Channel, StarZ and
> Encore (all 10 or so of those Encore channels) keep showing the same
> movies over and over and over and over again. Are you upset that up
> until Hot off the Grill comes on with Jacqui Malouf (that's for you,
> Marc!), there's nothing to watch.
Usher! Please whack this man with your flashlight.
vdo99 (Now playing)
>
> Hey, HT is great, don't get me wrong. But music is great too and the
> possibilities are nearly endless. So much material, so much to
> experience and so much fun with an audio system you enjoy. Best of
> all, you get to pick the programming and there is so much more to
> choose from compared to HT. And as long as there is music, there will
> be audio systems. And as long as there are audio systems, there will
> be a high end of some sort, be it two channel, 5 channel, 10 channel
> or whatever.
>
> vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > vdo99 (Y2K compliant)
vd...@my-deja.com
s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
> components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
> surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
> All/most of the video rentals speak to a rather low level of
> intelligence. Not only that, check my thread in this forum that
> describes the customer service I received from Theta Digital. I sent
> it all back yesterday. Nothing beats primo two channel. (And Theta
> isn't primo.)
>
See? "Theta isn't primo" (why? because their home theater product
outsells their audio four to one?) or "My Krell blows away your
Levinson" blah, blah, blah. So label driven. So uninformed. So lame.
vdo99 (coming to a home theater near you)
vd...@my-deja.com
100...@jed.deltaforce.net>,
jennifer <har...@deltaforce.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:54:50 GMT
> > From: vd...@my-deja.com
> > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > Subject: END OF THE LINE FOR TWO-CHANNEL
> >
>
>
to a home theater while you still have your dignity.
vdo99 (raisinettes for everyone!)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Dmitri Litvintsev <litv...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> To the poor souls of RAO:
> this was all pretty interesting. Now in the wake of multichannel audio
>I wonder what determined
>the demise of quadro (4 channel audio)?
Other than because they put the 4th speaker in the dead-wrong place,
so it offered no audible advantage, you mean?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
> components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
> surround becomes distracting.
There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in England,
organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings were
compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
various ways from the two-channel data.
To Rumsey's surprise, when the data were statistically analyzed, the main
preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
unexpected result. While it was predicted that some processed results would
be so unnatural as to lead to preference for the two-channel version, it was
expected that at least two of the processors would result in a general
prefernec for the five-channel version. This was not the case, averaged over
either the 12 top listeners or the whole 22..."
The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
engineers, and other recording and balance engineers. All the listeners were
tested for hearing ability and had considerable training before taking part
in the tests.
Note that this test did not involve discrete surround-sound recordings. But
it does suggest to me that, in line with S. Pennock's comments, that it is
all too easy to degrade stereo playback even when you are trying to improve
the experience of immersion in the sound. There's an elegant simplicity to
the two-channel musical experience. It cannot automatically be assumed,
therefore, that increasing the number of playback channels---much as has been
recommended on r.a.o. by Howard Ferstler---necessarily increases the musical
experience. -- John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> C'mon Toots, why fight it? Scrap your 2 channel rig now and get thee
> to a home theater while you still have your dignity.
>
> vdo99 (raisinettes for everyone!)
Thanks for the raisonettes vdo99---actually, peanut M&Ms and Jordan Almonds
are my preference---but isn't this discussion at crosspurposes? Yes, I very
much enjoy watching movies on a good home theater with a good surround audio
system, but how does that relate to my enjoyment of music?
Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have DVD but
to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now play
the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss the
picture or the surround-sound. We are in the early days of surround-sound
_music_ recordings. 99.9999% of all music recordings are two-channel and it
seems premature, at least to me, to urge everyone to abandon the two-channel
Dave
wrote:
>In article <7pia56$q5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>> components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>> surround becomes distracting.
>
>There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
>Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in England,
>organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings were
>compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
>various ways from the two-channel data.
>
IS there anyone who can not tell multi-channel from stereo in a blind
test?
>To Rumsey's surprise, when the data were statistically analyzed, the main
>preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
>strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
>unexpected result.
To my understanding stereo is processed, just differently.
> While it was predicted that some processed results would
>be so unnatural as to lead to preference for the two-channel version, it was
>expected that at least two of the processors would result in a general
>prefernec for the five-channel version. This was not the case, averaged over
>either the 12 top listeners or the whole 22..."
>
>The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
>engineers, and other recording and balance engineers. All the listeners were
>tested for hearing ability and had considerable training before taking part
>in the tests.
>
Training?
>Note that this test did not involve discrete surround-sound recordings. But
>it does suggest to me that, in line with S. Pennock's comments, that it is
>all too easy to degrade stereo playback even when you are trying to improve
>the experience of immersion in the sound. There's an elegant simplicity to
>the two-channel musical experience. It cannot automatically be assumed,
>therefore, that increasing the number of playback channels---much as has been
>recommended on r.a.o. by Howard Ferstler---necessarily increases the musical
>experience. -- John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile
>
Basically you are saying well implemented stereo is better than poorly
implemented surround sound. However surround sound done well will
always sound better than stereo.
vd...@my-deja.com
Well, you can't make a Mounds bar (not even bite-sized) without
shredding some coconuts. Same goes for two-channel. The point being
is that both pursuits are supposed to be about enjoying oneself. With
that said, the rancor here, and the rancor that you must run across on
a daily basis is indicative of a general bankruptcy of spirit as it
relates to High-end audio. Why? Because too many folks are focused on
the contraption and not on the art. You must agree that this is a
problem that Hollywood/Cinema/Home Theater doesn't suffer from (unless
you're a Kubrick fan).
What I'm calling for is not an end to two-channel but an end to the two-
channel mind-set -- a mind-set that is increasingly defined by
worthless pseudo-scientific minutae, truly cruel personal discourse and
a rank hatred for one's fellow hobbyists. Did mono inspire this kind
of behaviour?
If I can save just one person from another soul-numbing debate of
whether polypropelene beats teflon or wheter Krell is more prestigious
than Levinson or whether Arny is more evil than Zippy than my quest
will not have been in vain.
So come, all of you -- lay down your binding-post wrenches and your dog-
eared "recommended components" issue, stop fiddling with those $200
wooden pucks and let's enjoy the coming attractions. Remember, the
revolution will happen with or without you.
vdo99 (the balcony IS open)
> --
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
Kalman Rubinson
> There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
> Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in England,
> organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings were
> compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
> various ways from the two-channel data.
>
> preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
> strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
> unexpected result.
Doesn't surprise me. The issue is, as you state further on, the use of
processing rather than the use of discrete multi-channel. In addition, there
is the issue of "preference" from a pool of listeners who are likely to be
accustomed to 2-channel as the medium for music.
> Note that this test did not involve discrete surround-sound recordings.
Just so.
> But it does suggest to me that, in line with S. Pennock's comments, that
> it is all too easy to degrade stereo playback even when you are trying
> to improve the experience of immersion in the sound.
As you know, there are more and easier ways to muck it up than to get it
right even with 2-channel. I suspect that the inevitable move to multi-
channel (personal belief) will make it even harder to get it right.
> There's an elegant simplicity to the two-channel musical
> experience. It cannot automatically be assumed, therefore, that
> increasing the number of playback channels---much as has been
> recommended on r.a.o. by Howard Ferstler---necessarily increases
> the musical experience.
Amen.
Kal
Sander deWaal
>A suggestion: come to where the action is. Follow the lead of all your
>beloved High-end gurus and come on over to home theater. Junk your 8
>watt SET's and girlie 6" bass/midrange driver "mini-monitors," set up a
>proper video display, get yourself five speakers and a 15" sub, get a
>handful of DVD's, stuff your popcorn-hole with a tub of hot-buttered
>air-popped and relax.
I don't care for movies.
That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Barry Rothman
>
> Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have DVD but
> to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now play
> the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss the
> picture or the surround-sound.
Oooooh, you hit it right on the head. The PCM track is actually much
superior in some key areas. I find the surround track to be on the
"spitty" side. Being a big JT fan, I can tell you that the tonal
qualities of his voice are more correct on the PCM track, as is the
tone of his guitar (for which I have an unfair advantage in judging -
I also own and play an Olson.) However, the one advantage to the
surround track is the more proper placement of the other band members
and JT's backup singers. Bobby Mann's guitar work is much more
pronounced and better placed on the stage on the surround version,
particularly on a track like "Only a Dream in Rio" wherein his work on
that nylon stringed acoustic electric is nothing short of magic. I
think this is due to work of Filipetti and his (and Sony's) emphasis
on creating a benchmark for the DVD product, as well as the recording
of a live event.
I also mostly listen to the PCM track, but I do sometimes like to play
the surround track when I want to listen more intently to the work of
the back up band. However, the least picky one about all this is my
son! Put on track 15, "(I've Got to) Stop Thinking 'Bout That" and my
son is sure to find his way to the family room and start boogying.
Hey, what can I say, it's become his favorite song and he usually
makes me play the studio version (from "New Moon Shine") in the car
when I take him to school in the morning. Oh, did I add that he's
only 4! :) And a budding audiophile who's very proud of his dad's
system! I can even leave the covers off of the Mini Utopias and he
absolutely has never threatened their existence.
vd...@my-deja.com
No Miss Wallsander, it most certainly is not. You don't like movies --
presumably that means you do like two-channel audio. I conclude that
this is because you can only mentally process one sense at a time.
Sort of like the chewing gum and/or walking dichotomy. Even so, I'll
save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
never have too many chicks.
vdo99 (Let's all go to the lobby!)
> --
> Sander deWaal
> c...@wxs.nl
Health Nut
Multichannel Guide to Home Theater would be a nice name
for a 'single' magazine. The future is not stereo.
The future is properly done multichannel.
I feel the momentum rolling and it is a great wave to ride!
Health Nut
Dave wrote in message <37c0c062....@news.abcs.com>...
>Basically you are saying well implemented stereo is better than poorly
>implemented surround sound. However surround sound done well will
>always sound better than stereo.
EXACTLY. If James Taylor Live was recorded with MLP or SACD
im multichannel, I doubt you'd be singing the glory of that PCM
track. Of course that assumes you have a decent multichannel setup.
Dave
>In article <7pkf4n$csf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> In article <7pjtqg$uu4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > C'mon Toots, why fight it? Scrap your 2 channel rig now and get
>thee
>> > to a home theater while you still have your dignity.
>> >
>> > vdo99 (raisinettes for everyone!)
>>
>> Thanks for the raisonettes vdo99---actually, peanut M&Ms and Jordan
>Almonds
>> are my preference---but isn't this discussion at crosspurposes? Yes,
>I very
>> much enjoy watching movies on a good home theater with a good
>surround audio
>> system, but how does that relate to my enjoyment of music?
>>
>> Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have
>DVD but
>> to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now
>play
>> the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss
>the
Well surround sound and DVD-Audio represent actual improvements which
is obviously scary to an industry like the high-end which doesn't
offer improvements just the same thing as appliance store components
with fancy internal wiring and shiny metal on the outside. I suppose
eventually there will be high-end DVD-Audio players which will sound
just the same as mass market ones. The only reasons I hear against
surround sound is that its too expensive, too complicated, too
difficult get just right, too few recordings etc. All these seem like
small problems for people who claim to be so knowledgeable with so
much money to devote to this hobby. For those who have dedicated
listening rooms which will accomodate multi-channel and the recordings
become available it will outperform stereo. If it is inconvenient or
not is irrelevant to which is better. The inconvenience of high
prices on high-end components does not seem to stop the subjectivists
praise for them.
Kalman Rubinson
> "Stereophile". The name itself is becoming antiquated.
Stereo does not mean two-channel but is derived from the
Greek term for 'solid.' With multichannel, everything,
including Stereophile, will be even more solid.
Kal
Alvin Bloom
>I conclude that
>this is because you can only mentally process one sense at a time.
>Sort of like the chewing gum and/or walking dichotomy.
The sad news, sir, is that you appear to be quite the flaming loud-mouthed fool
who knows nothing whatever of sensory data processing priorities and how the
primacy of visual processing and the conscious attention it demands tends to
draw conscious attention away from auditory processing.
However, the good news is that the Jerry Lewis Telethon takes place in several
weeks and you may rest secure in the knowledge that we will all applaud madly
and supportively upon seeing you wheeled out on stage when they get desperate
for sympathy pledges in the closing hours.
Thank you
Alvin Bloom
Robert Deutsch
wrote:
>In article <7pia56$q5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>> components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>> surround becomes distracting.
>
>There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
>Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in England,
>organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings were
>compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
>various ways from the two-channel data.
>
>To Rumsey's surprise, when the data were statistically analyzed, the main
>preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
>strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
>unexpected result. While it was predicted that some processed results would
>be so unnatural as to lead to preference for the two-channel version, it was
>expected that at least two of the processors would result in a general
>prefernec for the five-channel version. This was not the case, averaged over
>either the 12 top listeners or the whole 22..."
>
>The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
>engineers, and other recording and balance engineers. All the listeners were
>tested for hearing ability and had considerable training before taking part
>in the tests.
>
>Note that this test did not involve discrete surround-sound recordings. But
>it does suggest to me that, in line with S. Pennock's comments, that it is
>all too easy to degrade stereo playback even when you are trying to improve
>the experience of immersion in the sound. There's an elegant simplicity to
>the two-channel musical experience. It cannot automatically be assumed,
>therefore, that increasing the number of playback channels---much as has been
>recommended on r.a.o. by Howard Ferstler---necessarily increases the musical
>experience. -- John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile
>
>
I recently attended a demo of a new surround processor (name of
processor withheld to protect the innocent) which has several settings
that derive multichannel surround sound from two-channel music CDs.
The rep switched between the different multichannel simulated ambience
settings without saying anything about each setting. They all seemed
quite pleasant, but I had no real preference until the last one. That
one I really liked: better focussed than all the others, with more of
a sense of the ambience of the recording venue.
You can probably guess the punchline: the last one was STEREO!
No, this was not a *true* multichannel recording, and my seat was in
the sweet spot that's ideal for stereo listening--the preference when
sitting off-center may well be different. Makes you think, though.
Bob
Health Nut
You are comparing synthesized 5 channel to discrete 2 channel.
DUH! You say that it was not a multichannel recording... DUH!
The real comparision hasn't been made yet. The closest
comparison to 2 channel vs 5 channel (discrete) is James Taylor
Live. Sorry, but that also doesn't count. Dolby Digital is lossy,
very lossy. James Taylor, if recorded in multichannel SACD or MLP
would be much closer to a correct comparison.
The ideal comparison, for comparison sake, would
be to use the same algorithm, recording the same event (etc..)
You would need to match everything, then play it back in both
modes over the same equipment 5 of the same vs. 2 of the same,
in the same room. yada yada yada.
Phew!
Robert Deutsch wrote in message <37bee2ee...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>...
Paul Wagner
> I don't care for movies....
Hi, Sander! How was vacation?
Paul Wagner
> c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) wrote:
> > I don't care for movies.
> > That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
> >
>
> No Miss Wallsander, it most certainly is not.... I'll
> save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
> never have too many chicks.
Anyone who imagines that sexism and its corollaries are dead
may wish to notice the feminization-as-lessening employed here.
Paul Wagner
...And I was imagining, just last week, a center section in Stereophile
titled "Pentaphile," covering 5.1 developments exclusively..
Annika1980
>Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
Nothing can beat Mono when it is composed of top notch components. You get all
the ambience. You are there. An addition of an extra speaker becomes
distracting. Stereo is not all that exciting.
-Annika -----> Totally Digital !!!
George M. Middius
> Hi, Sander! How was vacation?
I'm sure it was serene and peaceful, what with you not being
there.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> Anyone who imagines that sexism and its corollaries are dead
> may wish to notice the feminization-as-lessening employed here.
Shut up, bitch.
George M. Middius
tom brennan
daily to a very nice vintage mono rig (Fisher 80AZ, Dyna PAS, Altec
605A), I can sit anywhere I want in the room and just let the music
flow. I think everyone should try mono, good cure for audio nervosa.
Tom Brennan
http://community.webtv.net/irishtom/TommysHornSpeaker
GeoSynch
> Shut up, bitch.
Paula loves to be humiliated and slapped around
and Georgie boy is more than happy to oblige her.
GeoSynch
Stewart Pinkerton
>vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) wrote:
>
>> > I don't care for movies.
>> > That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
>> >
>>
>> No Miss Wallsander, it most certainly is not.... I'll
>> save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
>> never have too many chicks.
>
>
>Anyone who imagines that sexism and its corollaries are dead
>may wish to notice the feminization-as-lessening employed here.
It won't ever be dead until we stop equating stronger with better.
Whether we *should* so stop I leave to evolution theorists. Get real!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Arny Krüger
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7pke3s$c0i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
> > surround becomes distracting.
>
I think we've got one of those cases where the test only appears to be
double blind on paper. It seems to me that an experienced listener can hear
the difference between 2-channel and multichannel with near-perfect
reliability, virtually by simple inspection. Since the listener knows what
he is listening to, the test is not double blind. This paper would seem to
net out to be describing a veiled popularity contest.
Steve Eddy
wrote:
Christ, did you actually read what he said? First, he said nothing of
it being double blind. Second, he made no mention of whether the
listeners knew which format they were listening to at the time. Third,
the test wasn't to determine whether or not someone could tell the
difference between two channel and derived multichannel but rather
which of the formats presented they preferred.
This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
worthless shithole. There are altogether too many people in here who
have such hard-ons for others that it drains most of the blood from
their brains and they end up responding to things which were never
said in the first place.
se
Sander deWaal
>> I don't care for movies.
>> That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
>No Miss Wallsander, it most certainly is not. You don't like movies --
Nope, I said I don't *care* for movies.
For the reading impaired, I should have added:
in the context of multi-channel .
>presumably that means you do like two-channel audio. I conclude that
>this is because you can only mentally process one sense at a time.
With attention, yes.
I'm one of that old school of doing something with attention,
even if it's amusement.
Darn, I must be getting old :-)
>Sort of like the chewing gum and/or walking dichotomy. Even so, I'll
>save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
>never have too many chicks.
*Miss* ???? *Chicks*?????
Where did you get *that* from?
With an imagination like that, who needs movies anyway?
>vdo99 (Let's all go to the lobby!)
Never left :-)
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Sander deWaal
>Hi, Sander! How was vacation?
One word: HOT! :-)
Sadly, my wife didn't digest French food that well, so
we had to return a week earlier than expected.
Anyway, we've had the experience of our life:
the total eclipse in Northern France!!!
Turns out, we were in about the only spot without
clouds :-)
Really, an experience like this makes one humble......
Glad we were there to witness!
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Bob Olhsson
Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
>To Rumsey's surprise, when the data were statistically analyzed, the main
>preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
>strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
>unexpected result.
Unexpected only to somebody who didn't witness the introduction of
stereo!
Entertainment is largely about the suspension of disbelief. The
illusions involved are extremely fragile and demand a great deal of
care on the part of the creators to insure that each performance will
"work" for its audience within a specific context. The moment you try
to port content intended for one medium over to another, it will almost
always be found seriously lacking because the limitations that allowed
problems to be forgiven are no longer relevent.
This is why old mono pop-music classics are generally worse in stereo
and why great LPs are often found wanting on a CD. The same factor even
holds for video vs. film. It's a question of accurate recreation of the
artist's, writer's and producer's intended context. They made ALL of
their decisions assuming some particular enviornment.
Software sells hardware. Caruso sold the Grammophone, the Broadway
musical sold the LP, rock and roll sold the 45 single and The Dukes of
Dixieland, RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence sold
stereo. Cinerama sold wide-screen theatrical surround and Star Wars
sold home theater.
Original content intended for surround is the only thing that is
capable of selling it as a new musical format. I have serious doubts
that the consumer electronics industry really understands this and in
my opinion this was precisely why quad fell flat on its face as opposed
to the various technical excuses often cited. Rechanneled surround is
going to be just about as effective as rechanneled stereo...
--
Science is about the creation and manipulation of models for the purpose of
learning about and understanding reality.
It's extremely important to not confuse one's model with reality its self!
Bob Olhsson Audio, Box 555, Novato CA 94948-0555 415.457.2620
Health Nut
Bob Olhsson wrote in message <210819991914089252%o...@hyperback.com>...
>Original content intended for surround is the only thing that is
>capable of selling it as a new musical format.
I agree that original recordings are needed--recorded from the ground
up for multichannel. Hopefully, DVD-A will bring that to fruition.
Sony and their 2 channel unit doesn't help anything.
The other kicker is that when multichanel SACD players become available
this time next year, the original 2 channel SACD player, the SCD-1,
won't be able to be upgraded to play SACD multichannel.
Who would spend $5,000.00 on a 2-channel SACD player beats me.
I'm still planning on getting the Meridian 861 processor since it seems to
be future proof, albeit at a cost. But it could do multichannel SACD
when the digital output multichannel SACD players are availble.
Of courese you could also get the Meridian 800, but I'm not that
crazy. I plan on getting the Meridian 580, the 500 series of the 800
reference DVD player. The 580 will be DVD-A compatable.
Idon't know about SACD compatability and the 580 though.
Sure the 800 DVD could do it. However, the 580 might be limited
in upgrade potential just like the 561 is compared to the 861.
I don't know what it takes to read the SACD discs; how
different could it be from reading a DVD-A player? Wouldn't
you just need a flash memory or eeprom update to your
DVD-A player?
Bob Olhsson
<healt...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>I agree that original recordings are needed--recorded from the ground
>up for multichannel. Hopefully, DVD-A will bring that to fruition.
>Sony and their 2 channel unit doesn't help anything.
There's been a great deal of original surround recording activity in
ths Sony DSD format, I understand at least as much if not more than in
high-res. PCM.
>The other kicker is that when multichanel SACD players become available
>this time next year, the original 2 channel SACD player, the SCD-1,
>won't be able to be upgraded to play SACD multichannel
Do you know that to be a fact? I wasn't aware Sony had said anything at
all about it one way or the other.
>Who would spend $5,000.00 on a 2-channel SACD player beats me.
People who aren't about to spend the 30 grand or so it would take to
upgrade their entire high-end stereo system to surround untill they
have actually heard something they think is worth that kind of
investment. Chances are they'll hear it first on their home theater
system. I say "they" because this doesn't include people at my level of
income.
>I'm still planning on getting the Meridian 861 processor since it seems to
>be future proof, albeit at a cost. But it could do multichannel SACD
>when the digital output multichannel SACD players are availble.
Meredian has always used bitstream technology so I have no doubt it
will be trivial for them to support.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio| Science is about the creation and manipulation
Box 555, | of models for the purpose of learning about and
Novato CA 94948 | understanding reality. It's very important to not
415.457.2620 | confuse one's model with reality its self!
Paul Wagner
>
> Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) wrote:
> >
> >> > That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
> >> never have too many chicks.
> >
> >
> >may wish to notice the feminization-as-lessening employed here.
>
> It won't ever be dead until we stop equating stronger with better.
> Whether we *should* so stop I leave to evolution theorists. Get real!
First of all, if evolution actually favored the limited, narrow type of
"strength" you're citing -- which appears to be restricted to muscular
strength -- women would tolerate less pain, live fewer years, and die in
greater numbers in crisis than men do, NONE of which are remotely true.
Second, the point was not to actually critique sexism, but to note what
it
is that SOME supposedly "heterosexual" men REALLY think of women,
and how it shows up sideways in the way that they demean other men.
Arny Krüger
Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
news:37becd3...@news.midtown.net...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 15:39:10 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:7pke3s$c0i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <7pia56$q5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
> >> > components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition
of
> >> > surround becomes distracting.
> >>
> >> There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
> >> Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in
> >England,
> >> organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings
were
> >> compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
> >> various ways from the two-channel data.
> >>
main
> >> preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words,
"The
> >> strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the
> >most
OK, he said it was "rigorous listening tests where two-channel music
recordings were compared under blind conditions". I interpreted that to be
"double blind". Maybe it was "single blind". That seems pretty unimportant.
> Second, he made no mention of whether the
> listeners knew which format they were listening to at the time.
That's right, and my claim is that generally multichannel sounds enough
different than 2-channel that any reasonbly skilled listener can determine
that quite quickly and with very little effort.
> Third, the test wasn't to determine whether or not someone could tell the
> difference between two channel and derived multichannel but rather
> which of the formats presented they preferred.
That's right, and my claim is that its so easy to hear the difference
between multichannel and 2-channel and correctly determine which was which
that the controlling factor in the listener's responses could have very well
been their preconceived notions about multichannel and 2-channel.
> This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
> worthless shithole.
I would say that there was a possibility of a rational discussion between
you and I up until this point. You blew it! ;-(
>There are altogether too many people in here who
> have such hard-ons for others that it drains most of the blood from
> their brains and they end up responding to things which were never
> said in the first place.
Based on the gratuitous and meaningless personal attack that John Atkinson
recently posted, "Arny's Comprehension Skills" it does seem clear that John
has as you put it, well, whatever... ;-(
Arny Krüger
Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:210819991914089252%o...@hyperback.com...
>
> Entertainment is largely about the suspension of disbelief. The
> illusions involved are extremely fragile and demand a great deal of
> care on the part of the creators to insure that each performance will
> "work" for its audience within a specific context. The moment you try
> to port content intended for one medium over to another, it will almost
> always be found seriously lacking because the limitations that allowed
> problems to be forgiven are no longer relevent.
This may need a little restating before it becomes something that everybody
can agree with.
I would say that some entertainment is about the suspension of disbelief.
For example, if you perceive a play as being a real interaction between the
players, then this takes suspension of disbelief.
However, if I go to a (truely) live performance of music, I fail to see a
requirement for the suspesion of disblief. The players are before me. I see
their instruments. If I got closer I might smell beer on their breath! Where
is the suspension of disbelief.
I would say that if I were to perceive that a recording of those musical
players was actually the the players, then that would take suspension of
disbelief.
> This is why old mono pop-music classics are generally worse in stereo
> and why great LPs are often found wanting on a CD. The same factor even
> holds for video vs. film. It's a question of accurate recreation of the
> artist's, writer's and producer's intended context. They made ALL of
> their decisions assuming some particular enviornment.
I think this is a presentation of just one of many possible sets of
perceptions.
I believe that when you say "old mono pop-music classics are generally worse
in stereo", you have to be very careful. What recordings are you referring
to? Are you referring to synthetically rechanned stereo? If so, then I
agree. Are you referring to recordings that were largely made to be sold in
mono, but some additional tracks were captured in an ad-hoc way, and
subsequently they were mixed down to stereo? If so, then I find that to be a
mixed bag. Are you referring to recordings that were made as studio
multitrack, and were mixed down to stereo and mono with equal care? I think
then it would be personal preference, but I think listeners, especially new
listeners, would be prone to like the stereo version.
I think that when you say: "why great LPs are often found wanting on a CD"
you have to be careful. What recordings are you referring to? Are you
referring to say, the Lincoln Myorga recordings where the "safety" tapes
were obviously very badly made or very badly mastered to CD? If so, then I
agree. Are you referring CD's that were made from LP cutting masters? If so,
then I genearlly agree. Are you referring to recordings that were made in
digital, and were mixed down to LP and CD with equal care? I think then it
would be personal preference, but I think listeners, especially new
listeners, would be prone to like the CD version.
When you compare video to film there is a major, major technical difference
that really throws a monkey wrench into comparisons. Video tends to present
a linear relationship between light intensity in the scene and video signal.
Film tends to work far more logrithmically. This gives vastly different
artistic effects. It has been long known that smart directors shoot, stage
action, and set lighting for what will be the final mode of distribution,
and transcription to other media may involve automatic compromises.
> Software sells hardware. Caruso sold the Grammophone, the Broadway
> musical sold the LP, rock and roll sold the 45 single and The Dukes of
> Dixieland, RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence sold
> stereo. Cinerama sold wide-screen theatrical surround and Star Wars
> sold home theater.
I presume that you are appending an "& etc." to each of the artists and
titles you mention.
> Original content intended for surround is the only thing that is
> capable of selling it as a new musical format.
So far so good, but I believe that we have to look at what is meant by
"content".
I think that at minimum, a sucessful multichannel release requires a new
mix, and I strongly suspect that some multitrack masters are unsuitable for
mixdown into a multichannel format. But I don't think that it can be
globally stated that all currently-existing multitrack masters or perhaps
even most multitrack masters would be inherently impossible to make into an
artistically-satisfying and salable multitrack consumer release because they
"were not made for multitrack releases".
I think that there is a clear and present danger that the same managers or
management philosophy who gave us all those hastily released CD's based on
the first master tape that fell to hand are still in the driver's seat, will
release some very unsatisfying multitrack consumer releases based on haste
and cost-cutting at the cost of art and good workmanship.
>I have serious doubts
> that the consumer electronics industry really understands this and in
> my opinion this was precisely why quad fell flat on its face as opposed
> to the various technical excuses often cited. Rechanneled surround is
> going to be just about as effective as rechanneled stereo...
There seems to be a variation in opinion at this point. You see, there are a
fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally listen to
multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic rechanneling of
sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally find the
erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in plain old
2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
Go figure! ;-)
Todd R
annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
>>From: s. pennock sr...@my-deja.com
>
>>Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>>components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>>surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
I agree.
To do Home theater.......
Let's say you currently have a 2 channel system, and lets suppose you spent
$5000 on it.
TO MAINTAIN YOUR EXISTING SOUND, You will have to buy 3 more speakers that
match your existing speakers in quality and size (Remember the rear channels
in AC 3 are full range), and also buy 3 more channels of amplification of
equal quality and wattage to what you own now.
Then we have to get some kind of processor, maybe a sub, and cabling for all
these extra speakers and electronics.
OR
If you have that budget of $5000 and haven't bought anything yet, you must
divide the money up amongst 5.1 lesser speakers and electronics.
Sure you can get a nice HT system for $5000, but it won't equal a 2 channel
system of the same price in sound quality.
It's either going to be very expensive or lower quality.
Think I'll pass.
TR
• I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.•
Jim Seymour
c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) writes:
[snip]
>
> Nope, I said I don't *care* for movies.
> For the reading impaired, I should have added:
> in the context of multi-channel .
Am I reading this right, Sander? (Btw: welcome back!)
Anyway... You don't care for multi-channel (surround) sound in
movies? As in: what is commonly thought of as home theater
sound? If I do understand your comment correctly: why don't you
care for it?
Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour | It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone
jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com | to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
http://home.msen.com/~jimsun | - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, ca. 1876
Health Nut
Todd R wrote in message <7pp3bb$ggd$1...@news.cl-sys.com>...
>>>Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
>>>components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
>>>surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
>
>I agree.
>
>To do Home theater.......
>Let's say you currently have a 2 channel system, and lets suppose you spent
>$5000 on it.
>
>TO MAINTAIN YOUR EXISTING SOUND, You will have to buy 3 more speakers that
>match your existing speakers in quality and size (Remember the rear
channels
>in AC 3 are full range), and also buy 3 more channels of amplification of
>equal quality and wattage to what you own now.
>Then we have to get some kind of processor, maybe a sub, and cabling for
all
>these extra speakers and electronics.
Exactly. That's why I have 5 Nautilus 802s, Five Bryston 7BST, etc..
>OR
>If you have that budget of $5000 and haven't bought anything yet, you must
>divide the money up amongst 5.1 lesser speakers and electronics.
>
>Sure you can get a nice HT system for $5000, but it won't equal a 2 channel
>system of the same price in sound quality.
I mostly agree!
Ravinious Lupinus
Jim Seymour <jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:7pp4nv$kio$6...@ink.msen.com...
> In article <37bee1a5...@news.wxs.nl>,
> c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) writes:
> [snip]
> >
> > Nope, I said I don't *care* for movies.
> > For the reading impaired, I should have added:
> > in the context of multi-channel .
> [snip]
>
> Am I reading this right, Sander? (Btw: welcome back!)
>
> Anyway... You don't care for multi-channel (surround) sound in
> movies? As in: what is commonly thought of as home theater
> sound? If I do understand your comment correctly: why don't you
> care for it?
I do not like how they seem to be conducting it lately.. simple but wild
use of panning of the left-right balance and the like..
Take for example StarWars 1.. when the "laser shot" goes wizzing by you
from left to right.. its the same sound, only panned.. there is no change in
timber from high frequency to low frequency as it passes you!
Over-done "effects" to appeal to the ignorant masses, IMHO...
Paul Wagner
>... There seems to be a variation in opinion at this point. You see, there are a
> fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally listen to
> multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic rechanneling of
> sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
> through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally find the
> erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in plain old
> 2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
What is a "DPL adaptor"?
Arny Krüger
Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37BFF4...@earthlink.net...
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> >... There seems to be a variation in opinion at this point. You see,
there are a
> > fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally listen to
> > multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic rechanneling
of
> > sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
> > through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally find
the
> > erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in plain
old
> > 2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
>
Dolby Pro Logic...
George M. Middius
> > We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
> > through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not,
> What is a "DPL adaptor"?
That's another name for the Krooturd's butt plug.
George M. Middius
Sander deWaal
>> Nope, I said I don't *care* for movies.
>> For the reading impaired, I should have added:
>> in the context of multi-channel .
>Am I reading this right, Sander? (Btw: welcome back!)
Thanks!
>Anyway... You don't care for multi-channel (surround) sound in
>movies? As in: what is commonly thought of as home theater
>sound? If I do understand your comment correctly: why don't you
>care for it?
Besides my job, I'm a musician.
I like to make music , and listen to it.
Because my days count only 24 hrs, I have to set
priorities here.
(Then why do you post so much to Usenet? Because I
can listen to music while I do this :-) )
Also, my attention span for movies seems to be a little
on the short side.........well, most of today's movies anyway.
Seems to me, that alot of them exist only because of
sound and picture effects, and not the story.......YMMV, of course.
Effects that more than once *distract* my attention from the story,
and that's where it's gone too far IMO. (old-fashioned? me??)
Reason #.3 is, that I don't want to have 5+ *quality* speakers in the
house, with associated electronics.
Can't afford that at the moment, either.
#4: I'm a sucker for tubes, so all amps should be tube amps, causing
heat, class A associated electricity bills, space problems, and a
frequent ordering of replacement tubes from Ned Carlson or Kevin Deal,
who would then become more close to me than I consider appropriate :-)
#5: I like to wait until the format war dust is settled down a little,
and I will be a little older to appreciate sitting on the couch all
night watching Jerry Springer or Wheel of fortune in 16/9 and surround
sound *grin*
#6: Our TV is currently in the bedroom, because my wife has to
rest a lot during the day.
Putting a surround system around the bed is kinda problematic,
re: # 3 and 4, not to mention the bad acoustic properties of said
bedroom.
There are probably more reasons, but I'm too lazy right now
to make them up :-)
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Paul Wagner
>
> Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:37BFF4...@earthlink.net...
> > Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> there are a
> > > fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally listen to
> > > multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic rechanneling
> of
> > > sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
> > > through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally find
> the
> > > erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in plain
> old
> > > 2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
> >
>
Ah! Thank you...
Arny Krüger
Todd R <tar...@michiana.org> wrote in message
news:7pp3bb$ggd$1...@news.cl-sys.com...
> In article <19990821020346...@ng-ch1.aol.com> ,
> annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
>
> >>From: s. pennock sr...@my-deja.com
> >
> >>components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
> >>surround becomes distracting. Home theatre is not all that exciting.
>
> I agree.
>
> To do Home theater.......
> Let's say you currently have a 2 channel system, and lets suppose you
spent
> $5000 on it.
>
> TO MAINTAIN YOUR EXISTING SOUND, You will have to buy 3 more speakers that
> match your existing speakers in quality and size (Remember the rear
channels
> in AC 3 are full range), and also buy 3 more channels of amplification of
> equal quality and wattage to what you own now.
> Then we have to get some kind of processor, maybe a sub, and cabling for
all
> these extra speakers and electronics.
>
> If you have that budget of $5000 and haven't bought anything yet, you must
> divide the money up amongst 5.1 lesser speakers and electronics.
>
> Sure you can get a nice HT system for $5000, but it won't equal a 2
channel
> system of the same price in sound quality.
>
>
> Think I'll pass.
Too cheap to make the next step, eh? ;-)
Well, don't feel odd - lots of people are in your conundrum.
One reason why specialty audio editors are still beating the 2 channel drum
strongly relates to your situation. You don't have to be a rocket scientist
to realize that sales of $5k each speakers and $5k each monoblocks are going
to fall in a hole once people realize they are going to need 5 or 6 of them.
It might already be happening. Once the market for $5k amps and $5k
monoblocks dries up, so will ads from the manufacturers who make them. Once
those ads dry up, the page count will have to drop. This will reduce the
audio voyeur market for specialty audio ragazines, and the house of cards
collapses.
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>
>Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>news:37becd3...@news.midtown.net...
>> Christ, did you actually read what he said? First, he said nothing of
>> it being double blind.
>
>OK, he said it was "rigorous listening tests where two-channel music
>recordings were compared under blind conditions". I interpreted that to be
>"double blind". Maybe it was "single blind". That seems pretty unimportant.
Yes, pretty unimportant. Perhaps a request for more details would have
been in order.
>> Second, he made no mention of whether the
>> listeners knew which format they were listening to at the time.
>
>That's right, and my claim is that generally multichannel sounds enough
>different than 2-channel that any reasonbly skilled listener can determine
>that quite quickly and with very little effort.
And your claim seems to have nothing to do with the message you were
responding to. As John related, the test was not to determine whether
one could determine that there was an audible difference between two
channel and multichannel. Rather, it was to determine which of the
presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
>> Third, the test wasn't to determine whether or not someone could tell the
>> difference between two channel and derived multichannel but rather
>> which of the formats presented they preferred.
>
>That's right, and my claim is that its so easy to hear the difference
>between multichannel and 2-channel and correctly determine which was which
>that the controlling factor in the listener's responses could have very well
>been their preconceived notions about multichannel and 2-channel.
Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
responding to. Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
could determine that there was an audible difference between two
channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
Do you understand the difference between performing a test to
determine whether someone can tell the difference between Coke and
Pepsi and performing a test to determine whether someone prefers Coke
over Pepsi (or vice versa)?
>> This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
>> worthless shithole.
>
>I would say that there was a possibility of a rational discussion between
>you and I up until this point. You blew it! ;-(
Hey, I'm perfectly willing to listen to a rational argument that these
sorts of prejudicial responses aren't what makes this newsgroup
largely a worthless shithole. So let's hear one.
>>There are altogether too many people in here who
>> have such hard-ons for others that it drains most of the blood from
>> their brains and they end up responding to things which were never
>> said in the first place.
>
>Based on the gratuitous and meaningless personal attack that John Atkinson
>recently posted, "Arny's Comprehension Skills" it does seem clear that John
>has as you put it, well, whatever... ;-(
Can't say I have read that thread. However based on your response to
John's original message, it would appear he has reason to call into
question your comprehension skills.
The only reason I bothered to respond was because I saw such a wide
disparity between what John said in his original message and your
response.
se
Arny Krüger
> Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> >
> > Health Nut (healt...@erols.com) wrote:
> > > "Stereophile". The name itself is becoming antiquated.
> >
> > Stereo does not mean two-channel but is derived from the
> > Greek term for 'solid.' With multichannel, everything,
> > including Stereophile, will be even more solid.
>
> ...And I was imagining, just last week, a center section in Stereophile
> titled "Pentaphile," covering 5.1 developments exclusively..
I think that Petersen would do well to avoid the name Pentaphile, because of
the obvious connection to pentagrams, as in what specialty audio reviewers
must be sitting in when they "hear" all that they claim to "hear". ;-) Also,
"Pentaphile" could be very short lived because > 5 channels seems to be a
trend.
Arny Krüger
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:29:39 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
> >news:37becd3...@news.midtown.net...
>
> >> Christ, did you actually read what he said? First, he said nothing of
> >> it being double blind.
> >
> >OK, he said it was "rigorous listening tests where two-channel music
> >recordings were compared under blind conditions". I interpreted that to
be
> >"double blind". Maybe it was "single blind". That seems pretty
unimportant.
>
> Yes, pretty unimportant. Perhaps a request for more details would have
> been in order.
>
> >> Second, he made no mention of whether the
> >> listeners knew which format they were listening to at the time.
> >
> >That's right, and my claim is that generally multichannel sounds enough
> >different than 2-channel that any reasonbly skilled listener can
determine
> >that quite quickly and with very little effort.
>
> And your claim seems to have nothing to do with the message you were
> responding to.
I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
> As John related, the test was not to determine whether
> one could determine that there was an audible difference between two
> channel and multichannel. Rather, it was to determine which of the
> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
Agreed. But, since it was so obvious what format was being listened to, the
same outcome might have been obtained with a simple printed questionaire. I
mean, when which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it was
written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
> >> Third, the test wasn't to determine whether or not someone could tell
the
> >> difference between two channel and derived multichannel but rather
> >> which of the formats presented they preferred.
> >That's right, and my claim is that its so easy to hear the difference
> >between multichannel and 2-channel and correctly determine which was
which
> >that the controlling factor in the listener's responses could have very
well
> >been their preconceived notions about multichannel and 2-channel.
> Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
responding to.
I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
>Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
> could determine that there was an audible difference between two
> channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
Agreed. When which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it was
written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
> Do you understand the difference between performing a test to
> determine whether someone can tell the difference between Coke and
> Pepsi and performing a test to determine whether someone prefers Coke
> over Pepsi (or vice versa)?
I understand it very well. However, we all have our ideas about Coke and
Pepsi, as we all have our ideas about multichannel and 2 channel. If you are
going to test opinions of something that is well known, why not just ask the
question. As the alleged experiment was done, there is nothing that keeps
listeners from saying to themselves: "Oh, there is that nasty old 2-channel
again, I hate 2 channel!", or
"Oh, there is that nasty old multichannel again, I hate multichannel", and
responding according to their biases, preconceived notions and/or opinons.
> >> This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
> >> worthless shithole.
> >
> >I would say that there was a possibility of a rational discussion between
> >you and I up until this point. You blew it! ;-(
> Hey, I'm perfectly willing to listen to a rational argument that these
> sorts of prejudicial responses aren't what makes this newsgroup
> largely a worthless shithole. So let's hear one.
It seems like it blew right by you the first and second times. Furthermore,
I've had to bear with your self-serving, off-topic accusations each time.
> >>There are altogether too many people in here who
> >> have such hard-ons for others that it drains most of the blood from
> >> their brains and they end up responding to things which were never
> >> said in the first place.
> >Based on the gratuitous and meaningless personal attack that John
Atkinson
> >recently posted, "Arny's Comprehension Skills" it does seem clear that
John
> >has as you put it, well, whatever... ;-(
> Can't say I have read that thread. However based on your response to
> John's original message, it would appear he has reason to call into
> question your comprehension skills.
It's the easy way out for him. For such an audio expert as he claims to be,
it sure is hard to find him talking about audio on RAO.
> The only reason I bothered to respond was because I saw such a wide
> disparity between what John said in his original message and your
> response.
And, if you'd get the idea that the alleged test has a deceptive basis, then
you'd see the connection. I think that you do, and it just pisses you off.
So you resort to personal attacks. What's new? It's people who can't argue
without making personal attacks that makes RAO as worthless as it rather
obviously is. You cast the first stone. It's people who bear steady grudges
and resort to personal attacks while avoiding discussion of issues in audio
that make RAO as worthless as it rather obviously is.
robert_...@my-deja.com
> To the poor souls of RAO:
> even the fact that there hasn't been a single innovation in high-end
> audio since the transistor.
Stanton:
That is just not true! After transistors came in, amplifiers were
typically aluminum colored. Now we have the inovation of: amplifiers are
black!
99:
> No, that evey other post on RAO is some
> half-assed, moronic pot-shot at these (very) marginal characters is
all
Stanton:
I think you are deliberatly trying to insult us half-assed types!
99:
> the evidence anyone needs to conclude that high-end audio is like,
> nowhere, man.
Stanton:
Please define: 'like nowhere man'.
99:
> A suggestion: come to where the action is. Follow the lead of all
your
> beloved High-end gurus and come on over to home theater.
Stanton:
Five channels is a fine gimic for movies. The airplane flys at you and
you hear it in front. After it flys over you, and you hear it behind.
You turn around the see where it went, but there is nothing there but
the wall? I think we need a screen in back, where the rear two channels
are.
As for using five channels for music, that could be OK, but I understand
that the per channel quality is *lacking*. Perhaps in the future there
will be a DVD disk with good qualilty channels. At that point we can all
happly switch.
99:
>
> P.S. What's it gonna take? Stereophile's collapse? (which you surely
> realize is imminent) Jazz at the Pawnshop on DVD? Mad vinyl disease?
>
Stanton:
It will take a 5 channel DVD disk that sounds good!
Bob Stanton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
vd...@my-deja.com
alvin...@aol.com (Alvin Bloom) wrote:
> >From: vd...@my-deja.com
>
> >I conclude that
> >this is because you can only mentally process one sense at a time.
>
mouthed fool
> who knows nothing whatever of sensory data processing priorities and
how the
> primacy of visual processing and the conscious attention it demands
tends to
> draw conscious attention away from auditory processing.
>
> However, the good news is that the Jerry Lewis Telethon takes place
in several
> weeks and you may rest secure in the knowledge that we will all
applaud madly
> and supportively upon seeing you wheeled out on stage when they get
desperate
> for sympathy pledges in the closing hours.
>
> Thank you
> Alvin Bloom
>
Gosh, you must be one of them there college grajits -- you know, them
big words and all. Anyway, how are you going to watch the Jerry Lewis
telethon and still maintain your auditory primacy? Two-channel disease
in its most advanced form, this guy.
vdo99 (the audience is listening)
vd...@my-deja.com
paulw...@earthlink.net wrote:
> vd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > c...@wxs.nl (Sander deWaal) wrote:
>
> > > I don't care for movies.
> > > That's beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
> > >
> >
> > No Miss Wallsander, it most certainly is not.... I'll
> > save a seat for you in the 21st century home theater bijou. We can
> > never have too many chicks.
>
> Anyone who imagines that sexism and its corollaries are dead
> may wish to notice the feminization-as-lessening employed here.
>
>
from it's called chivalry. Usher! Remove this man!
vdo99 (lights, camera, action!)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>So saving a seat for a women is now a "hate crime?" Gee, where I come
>from it's called chivalry. Usher! Remove this man!
As we all know, it's the Phoebe the Witch sort of thing he's referring
to.
But, of course, you had to butt in.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Nousaine
In article <7pia56$q5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
s. pennock <sr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Nothing can beat two channel when it is composed of top notch
> components. You get all the ambience. You are there. An addition of
> surround becomes distracting.
<<There's a very interesting paper in the September Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society. Francis Rumsey, of the University of Surrey in England,
organized rigorous listening tests where two-channel music recordings were
compared under blind conditions with multi-channel versions derived in
various ways from the two-channel data.
To Rumsey's surprise, when the data were statistically analyzed, the main
preference was for the original two-channel experience! In his words, "The
strength of the preference for the unprocessed versions was perhaps the most
unexpected result. While it was predicted that some processed results would
be so unnatural as to lead to preference for the two-channel version, it was
expected that at least two of the processors would result in a general
prefernec for the five-channel version. This was not the case, averaged over
either the 12 top listeners or the whole 22..."
The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
engineers, and other recording and balance engineers. All the listeners were
tested for hearing ability and had considerable training before taking part
in the tests.
Note that this test did not involve discrete surround-sound recordings. But
it does suggest to me that, in line with S. Pennock's comments, that it is
all too easy to degrade stereo playback even when you are trying to improve
the experience of immersion in the sound. There's an elegant simplicity to
the two-channel musical experience. It cannot automatically be assumed,
therefore, that increasing the number of playback channels---much as has been
recommended on r.a.o. by Howard Ferstler---necessarily increases the musical
experience. -- John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile>>>
Rumsey's paper was somewhat unclear about this, but it appears that he used
single listeners in a sweet spot with the common circular speaker arrangement.
He also did not use bi-directional surround channels.
In an AES workshop several years ago (1990 I think) it was determined that
centerline listeners evaluation of matrix-surround tended to converge for
listeners near the sweet spot and that surround was much more preferred by
listeners off the centerline.
In general it has been my experience that more channels usually (but not
always...given that most recordings have been specifically mixed assunming
2-channel playback) improves the realism of the playback experience especially
in the spatial domain.
I agree with Howard on the point however. 2-channel can often be equally good
(maybe better at times) with present program materials with a single listener
but making the audience larger than one means multichannel and matrix decoding
will usually be preferable.
But Rumsey's experiments were certainly interesting. A comment was also made
later that we shouldn't 'give up' on 2-channel too quickly.
Actually 2-channel will be with us for a long time. There are still thousands
of recording studios without multi-channel capability. It may never go away.
Mono surely hasn't. It has simply been placed in media where its most useful.
Check out any newscast
Howard Ferstler
Sorry I am late catching this one. Because it has my name in
it, I think I own Mr. Atkinson a reply.
Recording engineers and the like will tend to prefer clear,
clean, first-arrival signals in contrast to signals that may
more closely mimic a live-music experience. Many are sound
freaks, as opposed to music freaks (who attend live
performances for pleasure, rather than to record or analyze
them), and for them it is the clarity and direct-field issue
that is paramount, even if a phantom-center image is by
definition fake sounding.
We also do not know where these guys sat, but my guess is
that if they moved out of the sweet spot they would have
definitely preferred the 5-channel versions. While not
perfect, such surround modifications, with the
implementation of a synthesized center, will at least tend
to keep the center of the sound stage centered.
I should also note that much will depend on the steering
systems employed in a comparison such as what is noted by
Mr. Atkinson. In many cases, center levels and surround
levels are set too high, and in just as many, the steering
systems are not all that good. I suggest that the person who
did this series of comparisons do them again with a
processor like one of the Lexicon DC or MC models, or even
with a passably good model like what Yamaha offers in its
upscale designs, but with the center levels attenuated about
3 dB.
Also, many recording engineers just have to be having
problems with surround sound. They have spent decades
mastering two-channel techniques, and now - rather suddenly
- they are having to figure out a way to intelligently not
only record hall ambiance and put it in the surround
channels, but they are also having to figure out how to
install a center channel, without having the overall blend
screwed up by a simultaneous phantom center.
I do not blame them for preferring two channels, even though
two channels will be less "realistic" than what five
channels can deliver, particularly when it comes to centered
soloists and off-center listening positions.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have DVD but
> to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now play
> the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss the
> picture or the surround-sound. We are in the early days of surround-sound
> _music_ recordings. 99.9999% of all music recordings are two-channel and it
> seems premature, at least to me, to urge everyone to abandon the two-channel
> experience.
Yes, I have compared the two-channel version to the
five-channel version myself. I also usually do not watch the
picture (it is tedious to darken my room and pull down the
screen to view my front-projection system), and instead have
a small, auxiliary 5-inch monitor on hand to allow me to
access the menu.
With only two-channel playback, you lose a LOT. First off,
the original surround program has a "hard" center, which
makes Taylor's voice sound real. With a phantom center, you
get the usual four-arrival effect, which I think completely
screws things up. I do not think you lose much in the
surround-ambiance department, however, because there is not
a great deal of ambiance in the recording during the music
sections. Its strong point is the three-channel front. (I
have for sometime said that the biggest deal with
surround-sound music is not the surround channels, but the
center channel.)
Second, when you switch in some kind of decent steering with
the two-channel version (in my case, I used my Yamaha
DSP-A3090 in its "classical/opera" mode, with the center
level attenuated about 3 dB), you really do get a decent
simulation of the 5-channel program (assisted also by the
Yamaha front, as well as rear, surround channels), but the
center lacks the precise focus of the original. Much, of
course, will depend on the quality of the steering employed.
I think that many traditional audio buffs are going to have
to unlearn a lot as this new technology hits us. This not
only includes listeners, but also recording engineers. The
current politically correct thing in audio is focus,
imaging, and up-front detail, as experienced from the sweet
spot. Now that we are being presented with concert-hall
realism in recordings, people who were traditionally caught
up in the hi-fi clarity thing are going to have to
re-evaluate their priorities and rethink their ideas of what
high fidelity is all about.
It is not perfect, but 5-channel sound will give us a better
soundstage than ever before (particularly from
non-sweet-spot positions) and will also now allow a decent
simulation of a concert hall's ambiance.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have DVD but
> > to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now play
> > the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss the
> > picture or the surround-sound.
>
> superior in some key areas. I find the surround track to be on the
> "spitty" side. Being a big JT fan, I can tell you that the tonal
> qualities of his voice are more correct on the PCM track, as is the
> tone of his guitar
I am curious about how a four-arrival, phantom-center event
can sound more "realistic" than a hard center that does not
have interchannel phase and comb-filtering artifacts such as
what you will get with spaced speakers handling mono
signals.
Also, much will depend on the center speaker itself. If it
sounds radically different from the left and right mains
(and definitely if this difference involves inferiority),
they obviously the tonal balance will be inferior.
Spitty surrounds can be the result of speaker problems or
surround levels set too high.
Howard Ferstler
Mike Bates
>
> Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, the James Taylor Live at Beacon Theater concert is a must-have DVD but
> > to let you into a dirty little secret: after I watched it once, I now play
> > the two-channel 48k tracks on my music rig and I don't actually miss the
I agree, I am using an ARC decoder with a pretty high resolution
2 channel system. With the added ambiance in the rear and a good
center channel (mine is currently being upgraded with an Innersound
electrostatic cell ala DIY ;-)) the recreation of the musical event
from a two channel source is more realistic and much more musically
involving.
> It is not perfect, but 5-channel sound will give us a better
> soundstage than ever before (particularly from
> non-sweet-spot positions) and will also now allow a decent
> simulation of a concert hall's ambiance.
My L/R speakers are very directional. They are truly a 1 person
speaker until..... the added channels are turned on. The sweet
spot is still there accept it being limited to a 1' x 1' area
it is now 6' wide. The 1' x 1' sweet spot is still better in
absolute terms but I hope to fix that with a horizontally placed
directional cell above my projector screen.
Mike Bates
GO TRIBE !!!!
> Howard Ferstler
Health Nut
Paul Dormer wrote in message <37d2e1b7...@news.clara.net>...
>It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
>complete pain in the ass ;-(
Awwww. Poor babies. We wouldn't want them to have to work
for a living.
Howard Ferstler
> I recently attended a demo of a new surround processor (name of
> processor withheld to protect the innocent) which has several settings
> that derive multichannel surround sound from two-channel music CDs.
> The rep switched between the different multichannel simulated ambience
> settings without saying anything about each setting. They all seemed
> quite pleasant, but I had no real preference until the last one. That
> one I really liked: better focussed than all the others, with more of
> a sense of the ambience of the recording venue.
>
> You can probably guess the punchline: the last one was STEREO!
>
> No, this was not a *true* multichannel recording, and my seat was in
> the sweet spot that's ideal for stereo listening--the preference when
> sitting off-center may well be different. Makes you think, though.
>
> Bob
I think that many traditional audio buffs are going to have
to unlearn a lot as this new technology hits us. This not
only includes listeners, but also recording engineers. The
current politically correct thing in audio is focus,
imaging, and up-front detail, as experienced from the sweet
spot. Now that we are being presented with concert-hall
realism in recordings, people who were traditionally caught
up in the hi-fi clarity thing are going to have to
re-evaluate their priorities and rethink their ideas of what
high fidelity is all about.
It is not perfect, but 5-channel sound will give us a better
soundstage than ever before (particularly from
non-sweet-spot positions) and will also now allow a decent
simulation of a concert hall's ambiance.
Howard Ferstler
Paul Dormer
>Doesn't surprise me. The issue is, as you state further on, the use of
>processing rather than the use of discrete multi-channel.
It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
complete pain in the ass ;-(
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Arny Krüger
Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:37d2e1b7...@news.clara.net...
> k...@is2.nyu.edu (Kalman Rubinson) wrote:
>
> >Doesn't surprise me. The issue is, as you state further on, the use of
> >processing rather than the use of discrete multi-channel.
>
> It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
> complete pain in the ass ;-(
Doesn't it come with the territory when they make multi-track masters? ;-)
Kalman Rubinson
> k...@is2.nyu.edu (Kalman Rubinson) wrote:
>
> >Doesn't surprise me. The issue is, as you state further on, the use of
> >processing rather than the use of discrete multi-channel.
>
> It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
> complete pain in the ass ;-(
That's why they call it work. They'll get better at it when it
becomes standard.
Kal
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
>It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
>complete pain in the ass ;-(
multichannel recording format.
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>
>Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>> And your claim seems to have nothing to do with the message you were
>> responding to.
>
>I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
Ok...
>> As John related, the test was not to determine whether
>> one could determine that there was an audible difference between two
>> channel and multichannel. Rather, it was to determine which of the
>> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
>
>Agreed. But, since it was so obvious what format was being listened to, the
>same outcome might have been obtained with a simple printed questionaire. I
>mean, when which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it was
>written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
That's indeterminate. John stated that the tests involved a number of
different, derived multichannel sources which the listeners may or may
not have had any prior exposure to. While some many well have been
two-channel bigots, to think that similar results could have been
obtained merely by a printed questionaire is rather simpleminded.
Going back to the Coke analogy, that would be like saying all one had
to do is ask someone whether they preferred Coke over any of four
other unknown colas which the participants may or may not have sampled
previously.
I fail to see why you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that
simply because there would be obvious differences between the formats
presented that preference could be divined merely by a printed
questionaire without those alternate formats having been sampled.
>> Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
>responding to.
>
>I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
Ok...
>>Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
>> could determine that there was an audible difference between two
>> channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
>> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
>
>Agreed. When which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it was
>written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
preferred by the listeners.
>> Do you understand the difference between performing a test to
>> determine whether someone can tell the difference between Coke and
>> Pepsi and performing a test to determine whether someone prefers Coke
>> over Pepsi (or vice versa)?
>
>I understand it very well. However, we all have our ideas about Coke and
>Pepsi, as we all have our ideas about multichannel and 2 channel. If you are
>going to test opinions of something that is well known, why not just ask the
>question. As the alleged experiment was done, there is nothing that keeps
>listeners from saying to themselves: "Oh, there is that nasty old 2-channel
>again, I hate 2 channel!", or
>"Oh, there is that nasty old multichannel again, I hate multichannel", and
>responding according to their biases, preconceived notions and/or opinons.
What exactly is "well known"? Is it "well known" that if one likes
Coke that they will always prefer Coke over anything else, even if
they have never sampled it?
If it's so well known that we all have our ideas about Coke and Pepsi,
I have to wonder why those two companies think it prudent to spend
billions of dollars per year on advertising. All those billions
certainly aren't being spent simply to alert the public to their
existence.
No, the reason most of those billions are being spent is to retain
brand loyalty. They don't believe that most people are as inherently
bigoted as you seem to believe.
>> >> This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
>> >> worthless shithole.
>> >
>> >I would say that there was a possibility of a rational discussion between
>> >you and I up until this point. You blew it! ;-(
>
>> Hey, I'm perfectly willing to listen to a rational argument that these
>> sorts of prejudicial responses aren't what makes this newsgroup
>> largely a worthless shithole. So let's hear one.
>
>It seems like it blew right by you the first and second times. Furthermore,
>I've had to bear with your self-serving, off-topic accusations each time.
I'll make a note to renew my subscription to the Psychic Friends
Network.
>> The only reason I bothered to respond was because I saw such a wide
>> disparity between what John said in his original message and your
>> response.
>
>And, if you'd get the idea that the alleged test has a deceptive basis, then
>you'd see the connection. I think that you do, and it just pisses you off.
>So you resort to personal attacks. What's new? It's people who can't argue
>without making personal attacks that makes RAO as worthless as it rather
>obviously is. You cast the first stone. It's people who bear steady grudges
>and resort to personal attacks while avoiding discussion of issues in audio
>that make RAO as worthless as it rather obviously is.
The listeners were presented with two-channel and a number of derived
multi-channel formats and were asked which they preferred. Where's the
deception?
se
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>
>Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>> The only reason I bothered to respond was because I saw such a wide
>> disparity between what John said in his original message and your
>> response.
>
>And, if you'd get the idea that the alleged test has a deceptive basis, then
>you'd see the connection. I think that you do, and it just pisses you off.
>So you resort to personal attacks. What's new? It's people who can't argue
>without making personal attacks that makes RAO as worthless as it rather
>obviously is. You cast the first stone. It's people who bear steady grudges
>and resort to personal attacks while avoiding discussion of issues in audio
>that make RAO as worthless as it rather obviously is.
Oh, and why on earth would it piss me off?
se
Arny Krüger
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:18:46 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>
> >> And your claim seems to have nothing to do with the message you were
> >> responding to.
> >
> >I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
>
> Ok...
>
> >> As John related, the test was not to determine whether
> >> one could determine that there was an audible difference between two
> >> channel and multichannel. Rather, it was to determine which of the
> >> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
> >
> >Agreed. But, since it was so obvious what format was being listened to,
the
> >same outcome might have been obtained with a simple printed questionaire.
I
> >mean, when which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it
was
> >written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
>
> That's indeterminate. John stated that the tests involved a number of
> different, derived multichannel sources which the listeners may or may
> not have had any prior exposure to. While some many well have been
> two-channel bigots, to think that similar results could have been
> obtained merely by a printed questionaire is rather simpleminded.
OSAF.
> Going back to the Coke analogy, that would be like saying all one had
> to do is ask someone whether they preferred Coke over any of four
> other unknown colas which the participants may or may not have sampled
> previously.
Nice decepetive claim. The question at hand had two possible answers, not 5.
> I fail to see why you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that
> simply because there would be obvious differences between the formats
> presented that preference could be divined merely by a printed
> questionaire without those alternate formats having been sampled.
OK, you fail to see it. I see it. I can live with that.
> >> Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
> >responding to.
> >
> >I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
>
> Ok...
> >>Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
> >> could determine that there was an audible difference between two
> >> channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
> >> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
> >Agreed. When which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it
was
> >written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
> Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
> difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
> preferred by the listeners.
The road to hell and experiments with inadequate controls, poor
interpretations and misleading results is paved with good intentions.
> >> Do you understand the difference between performing a test to
> >> determine whether someone can tell the difference between Coke and
> >> Pepsi and performing a test to determine whether someone prefers Coke
> >> over Pepsi (or vice versa)?
> >I understand it very well. However, we all have our ideas about Coke and
> >Pepsi, as we all have our ideas about multichannel and 2 channel. If you
are
> >going to test opinions of something that is well known, why not just ask
the
> >question. As the alleged experiment was done, there is nothing that keeps
> >listeners from saying to themselves: "Oh, there is that nasty old
2-channel
> >again, I hate 2 channel!", or
> >"Oh, there is that nasty old multichannel again, I hate multichannel",
and
> >responding according to their biases, preconceived notions and/or
opinons.
> What exactly is "well known"? Is it "well known" that if one likes
> Coke that they will always prefer Coke over anything else, even if
> they have never sampled it?
Again, a very deceptive and misleading analogy. It is my experience that
most people have an opinion about their preference for either Coke or Pepsi.
I think that letting people sample the two casually or in a controlled
setting right before asking people their opinion would change very little
about their opinions. Their opinion was set long ago.
> If it's so well known that we all have our ideas about Coke and Pepsi,
> I have to wonder why those two companies think it prudent to spend
> billions of dollars per year on advertising.
The target for the ads are the newbies who have no opinion. Note that the
ads are generally youth-oriented.
>All those billions certainly aren't being spent simply to alert the public
to their
> existence.
The target for the ads are the newbies who have no opinion. Note that the
ads are generally youth-oriented.
> No, the reason most of those billions are being spent is to retain
> brand loyalty. They don't believe that most people are as inherently
> bigoted as you seem to believe.
The target for the ads are the newbies who have no opinion. Note that the
ads are generally youth-oriented.
> >> >> This is a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a
> >> >> worthless shithole.
> >> >
> >> >I would say that there was a possibility of a rational discussion
between
> >> >you and I up until this point. You blew it! ;-(
> >
> >> Hey, I'm perfectly willing to listen to a rational argument that these
> >> sorts of prejudicial responses aren't what makes this newsgroup
> >> largely a worthless shithole. So let's hear one.
> >It seems like it blew right by you the first and second times.
Furthermore,
> >I've had to bear with your self-serving, off-topic accusations each time.
> I'll make a note to renew my subscription to the Psychic Friends Network.
A person does not need to be a psychic to realize what your claim that my
post is "a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a worthless
shithole" means.
> >> The only reason I bothered to respond was because I saw such a wide
> >> disparity between what John said in his original message and your
> >> response.
> >And, if you'd get the idea that the alleged test has a deceptive basis,
then
> >you'd see the connection. I think that you do, and it just pisses you
off.
> >So you resort to personal attacks. What's new? It's people who can't
argue
> >without making personal attacks that makes RAO as worthless as it rather
> >obviously is. You cast the first stone. It's people who bear steady
grudges
> >and resort to personal attacks while avoiding discussion of issues in
audio
> >that make RAO as worthless as it rather obviously is.
> The listeners were presented with two-channel and a number of derived
> multi-channel formats and were asked which they preferred. Where's the
> deception?
The deception is that this was anything but a public opinion survey using a
preselected preconditioned group of people.
"The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
engineers, and other recording and balance engineers."
The author evangelizes a bunch of people and then tests them, and some of
his friends to see if they evidence his conditioned responses.
Rumsey = Pavlov
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:FGy7...@research.att.com...
> In article <37d2e1b7...@news.clara.net>,
> Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
> >It seems that many audio engineers find mixing in multi-channel a
> >complete pain in the ass ;-(
> Not too surprising, given the tools and the lack of a proper
> multichannel recording format.
Agreed.
Arny Krüger
> > > Arny Krüger wrote:
> > >
> > > >... There seems to be a variation in opinion at this point. You see,
> > there are a
> > > > fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally
listen to
> > > > multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic
rechanneling
> > of
> > > > sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them
back
> > > > through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally
find
> > the
> > > > erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in
plain
> > old
> > > > 2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
> > >
> > > What is a "DPL adaptor"?
> >
> > Dolby Pro Logic...
>
> Ah! Thank you...
In my case it is really DPLE - the enhanced version of DPL with uncorrelated
L & R surround information.
>
Arny Krüger
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:18:46 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> >> disparity between what John said in his original message and your
> >> response.
> >
> >And, if you'd get the idea that the alleged test has a deceptive basis,
then
> >you'd see the connection. I think that you do, and it just pisses you
off.
> >So you resort to personal attacks. What's new? It's people who can't
argue
> >without making personal attacks that makes RAO as worthless as it rather
> >obviously is. You cast the first stone. It's people who bear steady
grudges
> >and resort to personal attacks while avoiding discussion of issues in
audio
> >that make RAO as worthless as it rather obviously is.
>
I can't read your mind, but in my arrogance, I think I can tell when you are
pissed off. ;-)
robert_...@my-deja.com
nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
> john atkinson wrote:
>
>
> But Rumsey's experiments were certainly interesting. A comment was
also made
> later that we shouldn't 'give up' on 2-channel too quickly.
>
> Actually 2-channel will be with us for a long time.
Your message was interesting reading and I agree with what you said.
I remember reading that in the 1930's someone (Disney? or Bell Labs?)
did sterio effect testing. They used a live orchestra in one room and
the speakers in another room. ( A nice test if you can afford it, and it
certainly avoids the problems of record and playback distortion.) They
used simple microphone placement and simple speaker placement. (The
speakers were spaced at the same distance as the microphones.)
Their conclusions were: that two channels sounded more realistic than
one channel. Three channels sounded slightly sounded beter than two.
Having more than three channels gave very little improvment.
I tend to believe what they found.
It is interesting they *didn't* find that having four channels or five
channels made the system sound worse. That is because they didn't try to
create 'surround sound' by puting ch 4 and ch 5 in the rear.
Regards,
Bob Stanton
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Their conclusions were: that two channels sounded more realistic than
>one channel. Three channels sounded slightly sounded beter than two.
>Having more than three channels gave very little improvment.
works of Harvey Fletcher.
>I tend to believe what they found.
Chapter 13, "The AES Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication"
by Harvey Fletcher, edited by Jont Allen ASA 1995, ISBN 1 56396 393 0 hardback.
>It is interesting they *didn't* find that having four channels or five
>channels made the system sound worse. That is because they didn't try to
>create 'surround sound' by puting ch 4 and ch 5 in the rear.
Robert, are you arguing that putting channels in the real will always
make a system sound worse?
Ravinious Lupinus
>
> >... There seems to be a variation in opinion at this point. You see,
there are a
> > fair number of people such as myself who at least occasionally listen to
> > multitrack presentations based on fairly crude, simplistic rechanneling
of
> > sound. We take two track consumer releases and sometimes play them back
> > through a DPL adaptor and believe it or not, at least occsaionally find
the
> > erporduction more satisfying than playing those same recordings in plain
old
> > 2-channel, 2-speaker stereo.
Yes, distortion *CAN* be pleasing..
Just don't be like Howard, and claim the playback system is more
"accurate"!!!
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>> >Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>> That's indeterminate. John stated that the tests involved a number of
>> different, derived multichannel sources which the listeners may or may
>> not have had any prior exposure to. While some many well have been
>> two-channel bigots, to think that similar results could have been
>> obtained merely by a printed questionaire is rather simpleminded.
>
>OSAF.
Eh? Sorry, my silly-ass acronym (SAA if you will) vocabulary is
somewhat limited.
>> Going back to the Coke analogy, that would be like saying all one had
>> to do is ask someone whether they preferred Coke over any of four
>> other unknown colas which the participants may or may not have sampled
>> previously.
>
>Nice decepetive claim. The question at hand had two possible answers, not 5.
I wasn't referring specifically to my previous analogy, rather the use
of soft drinks in general.
> > I fail to see why you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that
>> simply because there would be obvious differences between the formats
>> presented that preference could be divined merely by a printed
>> questionaire without those alternate formats having been sampled.
>
>OK, you fail to see it. I see it. I can live with that.
I'm happy for you.
>> >> Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
>> >responding to.
>> >
>> >I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
>>
>> Ok...
>
>> >>Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
>> >> could determine that there was an audible difference between two
>> >> channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
>> >> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
>
>> >Agreed. When which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if it
>was
>> >written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
>
>> Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
>> difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
>> preferred by the listeners.
>
>The road to hell and experiments with inadequate controls, poor
>interpretations and misleading results is paved with good intentions.
I fail to see why testing for preference is somehow illegitimate.
>> What exactly is "well known"? Is it "well known" that if one likes
>> Coke that they will always prefer Coke over anything else, even if
>> they have never sampled it?
>
>Again, a very deceptive and misleading analogy. It is my experience that
>most people have an opinion about their preference for either Coke or Pepsi.
>I think that letting people sample the two casually or in a controlled
>setting right before asking people their opinion would change very little
>about their opinions. Their opinion was set long ago.
I wasn't speaking solely of Coke and Pepsi. I specifically said "over
anything else, even if they have never sampled it." Certainly those
who have already sampled Coke and Pepsi and made a choice between the
two would be less likely to switch.
But in the paper John described, the analogy is having someone who
drinks say, Coke being asked to try several other soft drinks they had
not previously sampled before. In which case it's hardly inconceivable
that when presented with a soft drink which tasted better to them than
Coke they would subsequently express a preference for that alternate
soft drink.
>> If it's so well known that we all have our ideas about Coke and Pepsi,
>> I have to wonder why those two companies think it prudent to spend
>> billions of dollars per year on advertising.
>
>The target for the ads are the newbies who have no opinion. Note that the
>ads are generally youth-oriented.
Because that's their largest market segment. You'd probably be
hard-pressed to find any child who hasn't a preference of soft drink
by the time they're in grade school. And those preferences are often
dictated as much by what their peers and/or parents may drink. The
primary thrust of the advertising is to make people feel good about
the choice they made.
>> >> Hey, I'm perfectly willing to listen to a rational argument that these
>> >> sorts of prejudicial responses aren't what makes this newsgroup
>> >> largely a worthless shithole. So let's hear one.
>
>> >It seems like it blew right by you the first and second times.
>Furthermore,
>> >I've had to bear with your self-serving, off-topic accusations each time.
>
>> I'll make a note to renew my subscription to the Psychic Friends Network.
>
>A person does not need to be a psychic to realize what your claim that my
>post is "a perfect example of what makes this newsgroup largely a worthless
>shithole" means.
Good. That will save them some time and money.
>> The listeners were presented with two-channel and a number of derived
>> multi-channel formats and were asked which they preferred. Where's the
>> deception?
>
>The deception is that this was anything but a public opinion survey using a
>preselected preconditioned group of people.
>
>"The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
>engineers, and other recording and balance engineers."
>
>The author evangelizes a bunch of people and then tests them, and some of
>his friends to see if they evidence his conditioned responses.
Where was it stated that the group was evangelized?
se
Arny Krüger
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:45:46 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com> wrote in message
>
> >> That's indeterminate. John stated that the tests involved a number of
> >> different, derived multichannel sources which the listeners may or may
> >> not have had any prior exposure to. While some many well have been
> >> two-channel bigots, to think that similar results could have been
> >> obtained merely by a printed questionaire is rather simpleminded.
> >
> >OSAF.
>
> Eh? Sorry, my silly-ass acronym (SAA if you will) vocabulary is
> somewhat limited.
Opinion Stated as Fact.
> >> Going back to the Coke analogy, that would be like saying all one had
> >> to do is ask someone whether they preferred Coke over any of four
> >> other unknown colas which the participants may or may not have sampled
> >> previously.
> >
> >Nice decepetive claim. The question at hand had two possible answers, not
5.
> I wasn't referring specifically to my previous analogy, rather the use of
soft drinks in general.
I thought this was about surround versus 2-channel.
> > > I fail to see why you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that
> >> simply because there would be obvious differences between the formats
> >> presented that preference could be divined merely by a printed
> >> questionaire without those alternate formats having been sampled.
> >
> >OK, you fail to see it. I see it. I can live with that.
> I'm happy for you.
I'm sad for you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> >> >> Once again, your claim has nothing to do with the message you were
> >> >responding to.
> >> >
> >> >I think you've missed my meaning. Let's see if we can clear this up.
> >>
> >> Ok...
> >> >>Once again, the test was not to determine whether one
> >> >> could determine that there was an audible difference between two
> >> >> channel and multichannel. Rather it was to determine which of the
> >> >> presented formats were preferred by the listeners.
> >> >Agreed. When which alternative you are listening to is as clear as if
it
> >was
> >> >written on a page, why not just write it on a page?
> >> Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
> >> difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
> >> preferred by the listeners.
> >The road to hell and experiments with inadequate controls, poor
> >interpretations and misleading results is paved with good intentions.
> I fail to see why testing for preference is somehow illegitimate.
It's not. However, if you preselect your disciples and friends to do your
preference testing, and then provide a preference test that is about as
obvious as comparing Coke and Sprite, one has to ask, why bother with a
"taste test".
> >> What exactly is "well known"? Is it "well known" that if one likes
> >> Coke that they will always prefer Coke over anything else, even if
> >> they have never sampled it?
> >Again, a very deceptive and misleading analogy. It is my experience that
> >most people have an opinion about their preference for either Coke or
Pepsi.
> >I think that letting people sample the two casually or in a controlled
> >setting right before asking people their opinion would change very little
> >about their opinions. Their opinion was set long ago.
> I wasn't speaking solely of Coke and Pepsi. I specifically said "over
> anything else, even if they have never sampled it." Certainly those
> who have already sampled Coke and Pepsi and made a choice between the
> two would be less likely to switch.
You seriously think that the people in this group had never heard surround
and 2-channel before?
> But in the paper John described, the analogy is having someone who
> drinks say, Coke being asked to try several other soft drinks they had
> not previously sampled before.
You seriously think that the people in this group had never heard surround
and 2-channel before?
>In which case it's hardly inconceivable
> that when presented with a soft drink which tasted better to them than
> Coke they would subsequently express a preference for that alternate
> soft drink.
If its a comparison of Coke and Sprite, why bother with a taste test?
> >> If it's so well known that we all have our ideas about Coke and Pepsi,
> >> I have to wonder why those two companies think it prudent to spend
> >> billions of dollars per year on advertising.
> >
> >The target for the ads are the newbies who have no opinion. Note that the
> >ads are generally youth-oriented.
> Because that's their largest market segment. You'd probably be
> hard-pressed to find any child who hasn't a preference of soft drink
> by the time they're in grade school. And those preferences are often
> dictated as much by what their peers and/or parents may drink. The
> primary thrust of the advertising is to make people feel good about
> the choice they made.
Agreed..
> >> The listeners were presented with two-channel and a number of derived
> >> multi-channel formats and were asked which they preferred. Where's the
> >> deception?
>
> >The deception is that this was anything but a public opinion survey using
a
> >preselected preconditioned group of people.
> >"The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
> >engineers, and other recording and balance engineers."
>
> >The author evangelizes a bunch of people and then tests them, and some of
> >his friends to see if they evidence his conditioned responses.
>
> Where was it stated that the group was evangelized?
I guess you don't see the connection to being a student and being a person
who is evangelized. Like I said, a mind is a sad thing to waste.
robert_...@my-deja.com
Three channels sounded slightly sounded beter than two.
> >Having more than three channels gave very little improvment.
JJ:
> That's not what Fletcher reports in Chapter 13 of the collected
> works of Harvey Fletcher.
Stanton:
What did Fletcher report?
JJ:
> Robert, are you arguing that putting channels in the real will always
> make a system sound worse?
>
Stanton:
No not always, if fact five channels could make an improvment for movies
and even music.
Our ears can tell the direction sounds come from. Left and right sound,
and front and back, we can tell.
When we listen to live music, we hear the orchestra coming from the
front and the reverb coming form the sides and back. That is what should
be heard with five channel sound.
When listening to a recording of a piano playing, I don't want to be
'surrounded' by the piano. I don't want the sound of a little clone of
the piano coming out of the rear speakers.
So, if they were to make a recording such that the sound from the front
(insident), came out of the front speakers, and the sound from the rear
(reverb) *only*, came out the rear speakers that would be fine. What
are the chances five channel recordings will be like that? I
believe, five channel recordings will be jazzed up and gimmiced. They
will 'surround' you with unnatural sounding music.
Mike Bates
True, recording engineers will be able to do just that. However the
better engineers will have the ability to do it right. For example
do you think Doug Sax, Bob Ludwig, Tom Jung, or other great engineers
will throw a Cello in the left rear channel to jazz up a recording?
It may take a while, but I say the extra channels will be a better
format. I know 2 channel can be done very well, but 5 will take
us to another level and closer to the performance. In the mean
time, I'm getting ready by using a decoder that simulates the
extra 3 channels with excellent results.
Try it, you might like it.
Mike Bates
Paul Wagner
> True, recording engineers will be able to do just that. However the
> better engineers will have the ability to do it right. For example
> do you think Doug Sax, Bob Ludwig, Tom Jung, or other great engineers
> will throw a Cello in the left rear channel to jazz up a recording?
>
> It may take a while, but I say the extra channels will be a better
> format. I know 2 channel can be done very well, but 5 will take
> us to another level and closer to the performance. In the mean
> time, I'm getting ready by using a decoder that simulates the
> extra 3 channels with excellent results.
>
> Try it, you might like it.
I AM trying it, and love it.
Personally, still being a fan of early Clumsy Stereo (Sonny exclusively
in one channel,
Cher in the other...), I can't wait to hear what some of the more
extreme producers do.
I'd LOVE to hear the Brandenburgs with one instrument in each channel,
having the
various melodies rise and fall and contrapunt from disparate sources in
the room!...
Brian Leupp
>
> In article <7prq3k$78j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <vd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >So saving a seat for a women is now a "hate crime?" Gee, where I come
> >from it's called chivalry. Usher! Remove this man!
>
> As we all know, it's the Phoebe the Witch sort of thing he's referring
> to.
Reading minds, dangling prepositions-- you're just full of mischief
lately, aren't you?
> But, of course, you had to butt in.
Perhaps you should correspond in a private forum if this so offends you,
Jim.
Brian
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
st...@q-audio.com (Steve Eddy) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:45:46 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>>>Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
>>>difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
>>>preferred by the listeners.
>>
>>The road to hell and experiments with inadequate controls, poor
>>interpretations and misleading results is paved with good intentions.
>
>I fail to see why testing for preference is somehow illegitimate.
Me neither Steve. This was _not_ a listening test to see if people could
detect a difference between two-channel playback and surround sound.
Instead, the listeners were rating four different DSP algorithms for
deriving surround sound from a two-channel feed under blind conditions.
While all the algorithms performed that prime function, all four also
introduced various kind of impairments -- coloration, phasiness, image
instability, etc -- that caused them to be ranked lower than two-channel
stereo, when the data were analyzed statistically. I don't understand
why some commentators are having problems with this.
I have heard some excellent derived surround sound, BTW, with both the
Meridian and Proceed processors. But the success of the synthesis is very
music-dependent. In my own experience, simple, spaced-omni recordings
fare best, presumably because the low correlation between the stereo
channels enhances the sense of spaciousness in derived-surround
playback.
>>>"The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
>>engineers, and other recording and balance engineers."
>>
>>The author evangelizes a bunch of people and then tests them, and some
>>of his friends to see if they evidence his conditioned responses.
>
>Where was it stated that the group was evangelized?
Francis Rumsey is a member of the Audio Engineering Society's review
board and is chairman of the AES membership committee. Given that Rumsey's
paper was peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, Arny
Krüger's characterisation of his listening panel as being "evangelized"
seems, to me at least, to somewhat of a "shoot-from-the-hip" comment, and
not one based on any knowledge of the test protocol nor of the actual
paper itself.
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Ravinious Lupinus
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7q790v$bod$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>>Because the test was not intended to determine whether there was a
> >>>difference among the formats, but which of the presented formats were
> >>>preferred by the listeners.
> >>
> >>The road to hell and experiments with inadequate controls, poor
> >>interpretations and misleading results is paved with good intentions.
> >
> >I fail to see why testing for preference is somehow illegitimate.
>
> detect a difference between two-channel playback and surround sound.
> Instead, the listeners were rating four different DSP algorithms for
> deriving surround sound from a two-channel feed under blind conditions.
> While all the algorithms performed that prime function, all four also
> introduced various kind of impairments -- coloration, phasiness, image
> instability, etc -- that caused them to be ranked lower than two-channel
> stereo, when the data were analyzed statistically. I don't understand
> why some commentators are having problems with this.
They "object" to said testing.. as they believe that you must level match
all signals to within +/-0.1dB from 20hz to 20khz.
Which is pretty much asinine, as if you must level match beyond a simple
gain setting.. you've pretty much established they do sound different!
granted, as lon as the eq'ing is greater than what is normally audible..
say .1-.5dB in the midrange.. maybe as much as 3dB at the extremes.
robert_...@my-deja.com
Mike Bates <bat...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It may take a while, but I say the extra channels will be a better
> format. I know 2 channel can be done very well, but 5 will take
> us to another level and closer to the performance. In the mean
> time, I'm getting ready by using a decoder that simulates the
> extra 3 channels with excellent results.
>
> Try it, you might like it.
>
> Mike Bates
Stanton:
No doubt five channels has the potential to be better than two channels.
My other concern is the way five channels is now achieved. Doesn't the
present method of matrix and decoding, degrade the technical quality? I
look at it as an obsolite way of compressing five channels on to the old
CD disk format. If the quality is reduced, by decoding, I'll wait till a
more modern method of compression is used.
Regards,
Bob Stanton
Steve Eddy
wrote:
>Francis Rumsey is a member of the Audio Engineering Society's review
>board and is chairman of the AES membership committee. Given that Rumsey's
>paper was peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, Arny
>Krüger's characterisation of his listening panel as being "evangelized"
>seems, to me at least, to somewhat of a "shoot-from-the-hip" comment, and
>not one based on any knowledge of the test protocol nor of the actual
>paper itself.
I think it just boils down to the fact that the message was signed:
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
It seems to him you are some sort of Rasputin of audiophilia. And
after my own exchanges with him, I believe there's considerable merit
to the comprehension argument which doesn't help.
I don't know if it's because what he reads gets filtered through his
own prejudices, or he's only taking enough time to read every third or
fourth word, or there's some organic cause. Bottom line is that it
makes communicating with him a rather frustrating experience.
Doesn't really matter though. I'm following Felix's lead and this will
probably be my last or next to last post here.
If you haven't already, check out Audio Asylum. The atmosphere there
is about as close to that of TAN that I've come across so far.
se
jennifer
same small handful of regulars to do all the shedding, do you? <g>
I appreciate your technical input.
Jen
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Steve Eddy wrote:
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:28:38 GMT
> From: Steve Eddy <st...@q-audio.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: Re: END OF THE LINE FOR TWO-CHANNEL
Paul Wagner
>
> Oh stick around, Steve. New blood is good blood...you don't expect the
> same small handful of regulars to do all the shedding, do you? <g>
>
> I appreciate your technical input.
LOL!
I second Jennifer's motion. Stick around, Steve -- your clarity in
communicating is refreshing...
George M. Middius
> Stick around, Steve -- your clarity in communicating is refreshing...
How ironic.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7q790v$bod$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37c50768...@news.midtown.net>,
>
> board and is chairman of the AES membership committee. Given that Rumsey's
> paper was peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, Arny
> Krüger's characterisation of his listening panel as being "evangelized"
> seems, to me at least, to somewhat of a "shoot-from-the-hip" comment, and
> not one based on any knowledge of the test protocol nor of the actual
> paper itself.
Please explain why a search on "Rumsey" at
http://www.aes.org/journal/journal_search.cfm comes up with "no matches
found"
OTOH, I do get a hits searching for "Rumsey" in the conference paper page:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/preprints_search.cfm
Indeed, I get a hit for
"Controlled Subjective Assessments of 2- to 5-Channel Surround Sound
Processing Algorithms"
Abstract:
"'Surround synthesis' algorithms are designed to process ordinary 2-channel
stereo signals for reproduction over a larger number of loudspeakers,
delivering enhanced spatial characteristics. A series of controlled
subjective tests was carried out to determine the front imaging and spatial
impression qualities of processed material, using conventional unmatrixed
2-channel program material as a source. Compatibility with the 2-channel
original was assessed and listener preference was established. Results
suggest that in general the front image quality is reduced and the spatial
impression slightly improved by processing, and that expert listeners tend
to prefer unprocessed material to that which has been processed."
"Preprint Number: 4654 Convention: 104 1998-05 "
Looks like this is a conference paper and not a JAES paper!
I think it is pretty well known that conference papers are not peer
reviewed, but JAES articles are. There is some review of conference papers,
but it stops well short of a true peer review. Most of what is reviewed is
form, not content.
So, unless the AES database is in error, Mr. Atkinson's claim that this was
a peer-reviewed article is FALSE.
My claim that the listeners were people that Mr Rumsey evangelized is based
on Mr' Atkinson's own words:
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=515231335
"The listeners, BTW, were some of Rumsey's tonmeister students, BBC R&D
engineers, and other recording and balance engineers"
"Students" = persons evangelized by the author.
Any comments, John? ;-)
Glenn Zelniker
> I think it is pretty well known that conference papers are not peer
> reviewed, but JAES articles are. There is some review of conference papers,
> but it stops well short of a true peer review. Most of what is reviewed is
> form, not content.
>
> So, unless the AES database is in error, Mr. Atkinson's claim that this was
> a peer-reviewed article is FALSE.
John is not making a FALSE claim. The AES database just isn't up to date. The
article is in the most recent JAES.
Glenn @ Z-Systems
jennifer
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Glenn Zelniker wrote:
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:43:56 -0400
> From: Glenn Zelniker <gle...@z-sys.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: Re: END OF THE LINE FOR TWO-CHANNEL
>
You just broke Arny's heart.