Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 46699 times.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #20 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:58 pm »
Maybe you already heard the term Point Source.

Do you use active or passive crossovers in your system?

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1114
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #21 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:07 pm »
This isn't a  test but more of a review:

http://www.avsforum.com/auro-3d-music-upmix-demo-stormaudio-isp-3d-16-elite-prepro-ces-2017/
Well, given that gents taste in music I will have to withhold judgement for myself (no offense to rap/electronica fans). :wink:
So even the retroactively updated Marantz still allows adjustments?
I'm interested regardless, because I currently use a HK AVR with Logic7 to synthesize surround channels of my "stereo". The front 2chs are "pure stereo". I could envision using an Auro capable processor similarly (for all rears plus front heights), unless they somehow managed to synthesize front acceptably for me. Guess we'll see.

JohnR

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #22 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:11 pm »
I think there is a bit of confusion about what immersive audio is and how it is different from multi-channel.

I read (perhaps not carefully enough) the audioholics interview and am still not all that clear on the difference, other than that perhaps immersive is the goal, multichannel is the delivery mechanism, and somehow there are practical consequences based on how the sound is originally recorded. Regardless, your setup is like this diagram, where "T" is the "Voice of God" speaker?



Mag

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #23 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:12 pm »
I have not used a 5.1 system in about 10 years or more so couldn't say. Immersive audio is the addition of a vertical sound field in addition to the horizontal sound field. This article does a pretty good job explaining the difference:

IMO imersive audio can also be achieved by exciting the room by cranking up the volume. Typically I listen at 95 to 100 decibels C weighted, Nearfield listening. However I have rafters in my room so like there is lots of reflections going on to create the immersion effect.


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #24 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:17 pm »
Well, given that gents taste in music I will have to withhold judgement for myself (no offense to rap/electronica fans). :wink:
So even the retroactively updated Marantz still allows adjustments?
I'm interested regardless, because I currently use a HK AVR with Logic7 to synthesize surround channels of my "stereo". The front 2chs are "pure stereo". I could envision using an Auro capable processor similarly (for all rears plus front heights), unless they somehow managed to synthesize front acceptably for me. Guess we'll see.

I am a huge fan of HK products. That being said the Auromatic upmixer is completely adjustable by you for your taste so you dial it in for your room and preference. How hard would it be to add height channels in your rig? All Auro does is add an option, just like Logic 7. It is there to use if you want. You can still listen in 2 channel by pushing a button.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #25 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:20 pm »
IMO imersive audio can also be achieved by exciting the room by cranking up the volume. Typically I listen at 95 to 100 decibels C weighted, Nearfield listening. However I have rafters in my room so like there is lots of reflections going on to create the immersion effect.

I love playing concert videos from www.qello.com like that but with auro engaged. I just played the Clapton/Winwood reunion at MSG like that or Queen live at Wembley. It is about as close as you can get to being there.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #26 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:25 pm »
I read (perhaps not carefully enough) the audioholics interview and am still not all that clear on the difference, other than that perhaps immersive is the goal, multichannel is the delivery mechanism, and somehow there are practical consequences based on how the sound is originally recorded. Regardless, your setup is like this diagram, where "T" is the "Voice of God" speaker?

VOG is the white speaker pointing down at the sofa. You get that there is a vertical soundfield right? That the soundstage is now up and down in addition to left and right, front and back? It is a really big difference in my space.






JohnR

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #27 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:32 pm »
Quote
You get that there is a vertical soundfield right? That the soundstage is now up and down in addition to left and right, front and back?

Um, yes I got that. I'm just asking if your setup is as depicted in the diagram.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #28 on: 30 Apr 2017, 03:35 pm »
Um, yes I got that. I'm just asking if your setup is as depicted in the diagram.

Yes, you can check the pics I posted. I have some additional speakers not used in the auro format. I have two wide channels and two rear surround channels I use occasionally with other formats. One speaker in the Auro diagram I don't use is a height center channel, i just use one.

fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #29 on: 30 Apr 2017, 04:09 pm »
I'd never get that by my wife, but it is very interesting thinking about it.
i'm guessing you have a sub array as well?

Austin08

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #30 on: 30 Apr 2017, 04:13 pm »
What if you don't sit in the sweet spot?
I think their is a BIG difference between multichannel and immersive audio with immersive having a vertical field in addition to a horizontal one.

Sweet spot!!! Yeah, I build my stereo system for myself. I seat in the same seat and same position most of the time when listen to my music. The chair is belong to the King only :)I think most of us do that too. (Who care if my spouse, friend doesnot get the sweet spot) When I wander around the house, i don't care about the image, clarity.... etc ...

Immersive sound!!!  Imo, there will always be a trade off. You want clarity, focus....you got to stick with simpler set up. If you want additional vertical sound field then ESL or Magnepan will do the trick just fine. Adding more speaker will create more problem like timing which is hard to deal with.

Being say that I like Auro 3d for what it does and it sounds excellent with the right application. But at the end of the day, when all lights turned off, my 2 channel audio system would come alive. (Too sad, I haven't had much listening time lately)


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #31 on: 30 Apr 2017, 04:29 pm »
I'd never get that by my wife, but it is very interesting thinking about it.
i'm guessing you have a sub array as well?

Yes, sub is Sunfire TSEQ 10.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #32 on: 30 Apr 2017, 04:34 pm »
Sweet spot!!! Yeah, I build my stereo system for myself. I seat in the same seat and same position most of the time when listen to my music. The chair is belong to the King only :)I think most of us do that too. (Who care if my spouse, friend doesnot get the sweet spot) When I wander around the house, i don't care about the image, clarity.... etc ...

Immersive sound!!!  Imo, there will always be a trade off. You want clarity, focus....you got to stick with simpler set up. If you want additional vertical sound field then ESL or Magnepan will do the trick just fine. Adding more speaker will create more problem like timing which is hard to deal with.

Being say that I like Auro 3d for what it does and it sounds excellent with the right application. But at the end of the day, when all lights turned off, my 2 channel audio system would come alive. (Too sad, I haven't had much listening time lately)

Adding more speakers add more choices, not problems. The fellows at Marantz built a really capable processor that lets you tweak audyssey until you get it just right for your room. However certain recordings sound better in certain formats, I agree with you there. I just like having the choice to switch and a vertical soundfield adds a beautiful immersiveness on most recordings. i have asdjusted my settings so you can't even tell which speakers are engaged, it just seems like the band is in the front of the room going at it.

Folsom

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #33 on: 30 Apr 2017, 05:33 pm »
This sounds fruitless to me. Few systems even sound like the recording, let alone like the music in the recording, what good is 10 speakers that don't actually sound like the music?

Come over to my place and I'll give you a demo. I'll show you how real or not real things sound just based on the recording, no extra speakers needed to get you there.

roscoe65

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 806
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #34 on: 30 Apr 2017, 06:16 pm »
You heard it boys:  we can all sell our two-channel systems and buy a Marantz AVR and 9 bookshelf speakers.  We've been told we've been doing it all wrong.

I own a Marantz AVR with height channels for HT use.  If anyone thinks that this sound better than my Tubes/Omega/Altec/Goodmans systems they are are either deaf or have no idea how good a two channel (or mono, for that matter) can sound.

I remember when I was 19 years old and the most impressive sound at the showroom was the big Polk SDA's with their ambience recovery.  I grew up and realized that you can't cheat your way around good sound.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #35 on: 30 Apr 2017, 06:29 pm »
You heard it boys:  we can all sell our two-channel systems and buy a Marantz AVR and 9 bookshelf speakers.  We've been told we've been doing it all wrong.

I own a Marantz AVR with height channels for HT use.  If anyone thinks that this sound better than my Tubes/Omega/Altec/Goodmans systems they are are either deaf or have no idea how good a two channel (or mono, for that matter) can sound.

I remember when I was 19 years old and the most impressive sound at the showroom was the big Polk SDA's with their ambience recovery.  I grew up and realized that you can't cheat your way around good sound.

Can you post pics?

thunderbrick

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 5449
  • I'm just not right!
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #36 on: 30 Apr 2017, 06:46 pm »
Sweet spot!!! Yeah, I build my stereo system for myself. I seat in the same seat and same position most of the time when listen to my music. The chair is belong to the King only :)

Precisely.  So, what's the problem? 

If I wander around doing chores I can listen to NPR or CDs on separate min-systems in the kitchen, two in the basement, one in my wife's sewing room, or in the detached garage.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #37 on: 30 Apr 2017, 07:19 pm »
Defending 2 channel is like defending the horse and carriage. If you feel like investing in buggy whips go for it, I'll get a Porsche (with Auro 3D of course)

http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2016/12/an-impressive-3d-sound-experience-in-the-new-panamera/

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #38 on: 30 Apr 2017, 07:22 pm »
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of room for old school vinyl with tube amps and the like. It just confirms how much 2 channels sucks when you need tech from the fifties to try and make it suck less.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #39 on: 30 Apr 2017, 07:32 pm »
I don't care how sincere your title is, it's still clickbait.

But I will ask a question or two. Are you listening to music recorded in stereo, or are there recordings specifically made for this? If stereo, is it simply processed to get the 10.1 effect? If you only have one rear speaker hooked up, what do you hear (I'm seriously curious about this one)?
One last question. Are those pics of your living quarters?

That is a really good question. I chat in these forums with members who have hundreds of multichannel SACD's, DVD-A, Blue Ray's, and now immersive audio recordings in auro, atmos, and DTS.I never tried it yet. I stream most music and just use the auromatic upmixer. I prefer live concert recordings over concertvault.com and qello.com and also use Tidal.
My Sony UHPH1  can play any type of disc so I suppose I am due to get some of those multichannel recordings.
So, the music I listen to has been recorded in stereo so far. It is simple to upmix it, you just select auro 3D on the remote. I have tried the Atmos upmixer for music but it wasn't for me.
I have 2 rear speakers hooked up but my marantz processor doesn't engage them for auro. i would need to buy a processor by datasat, trinnov or storm to get auro in more than 10 channels.
It doesn't sound like 10 speakers, it just sounds like you are surrounded in a bubble of sound. With 5 or 7 channel I was always aware of the surround speakers, particularly when music emanated from behind you. Auro 3D avoids that. The performers just sound like they are in the front of the room, very natural. There are exceptions like when i play riders on the storm. The thunder in the beginning of the song comes from above you, like real thunder. But for the most part it just envelops you on typical recordings.