Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. Read 47356 times.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #200 on: 11 Oct 2017, 06:55 pm »
If you want to build a high WAF immersive audio system use SVS bed channels and the elevation speakers for height channels:

https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation

Sonance84

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 25
  • moe.ron
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #201 on: 5 Nov 2017, 08:55 pm »
Sgt Peppers now available in immersive audio via Dolby Atmos.

I'd love to hear that!

Bob in St. Louis

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13248
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #202 on: 13 Mar 2019, 01:21 pm »
That would be me.....
I've thought about it, but it's not really breaking any rules.
As long as folks stay civil, I can't give a legit reason that a multi-channel topic shouldn't stay.
But I do see what you're saying.  :lol:

Kenneth Patchen

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 1166
  • Just like that bluebird
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #203 on: 13 Mar 2019, 01:57 pm »
Could we start a thread on why 2 channel sucks compared to Submersive audio?




fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #204 on: 13 Mar 2019, 03:23 pm »
Now even the critics agree with the witchdoctor, two channel STILL sucks compared to immersive audio:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1562x2ztuffv0o/Widescreen%20Review%20February%202019%20issue.pdf?dl=0

Are you running an immersive system now? How many speakers in the theater room?

ServerAdmin

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #205 on: 13 Mar 2019, 03:59 pm »
Guys, give it a rest please. Thanks.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #206 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:17 pm »
Yeah, my system sucks because it's two channel... Witch Doctor, you just can't play nice with others, can you?

The title of this thread is NOT your system sucks.
It is two channel sucks COMPARED to immersive audio.
Do a blind test in your own room, with your own gear that is level matched and THEN tell me I'm wrong. That is how I came to the this conclusion and every guest that has compared the same way using my system.
My processor sounds fantastic in the 2 channel pure direct mode. I could live happily ever after UNLESS I compared it to the Auromatic mode. Then it just rings hollow.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #207 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:26 pm »
Are you running an immersive system now? How many speakers in the theater room?

Hi, in my media room I have a 15.1 system and can use 3 types of immesrive setups:

Auro 3D- 11.1
Atmos- 7.1.4
DTS Neo-X- 9.1.2

I did not upgrade from Neo-X to DTS-X in the media room because Neo-X was designed primarily for music and really makes great use of wide channels.

In the man cave I have an Atmos/DTS-X 5.1.4 system.

Around the house/office I use 2 channel systems within the DTS PlayFi ecosystem.

Here are pics of the media room (Marantz 7702 processor/Paradigm ACTIVE Reference Speakers)








fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #208 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:35 pm »
I would like to hear such a system one day. It reminds me of the Pink Floyd show i saw in the 70's with speakers mounted all around the auditorium with channels separated and panned around like Quad. There's no way I could get that past the spouse though, if I had a mancave sure, but I don't have one.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #209 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:38 pm »
Don't shoot the messenger. Doug Blackburn spends his days reviewing systems ranging from the meager to the cost no object for many years. He can listen to what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Probably checked out more kilobuck systems then most:

"Also as ususal Auromatic made music sound so great I stopped listening to music in stereo mode,preferring the Auromatic option for every type of music I tried"- Doug Blackburrn on page 3-

https://www.stormaudio.com/media/wsr_stormaudio_iisp_3d1612_review_december2017lowres__067250400_0949_22122017.pdf

Guys, if Auromatic makes stereo virtually unlistenable what else can you say? That it doesn't suck?

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #210 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:43 pm »
I would like to hear such a system one day. It reminds me of the Pink Floyd show i saw in the 70's with speakers mounted all around the auditorium with channels separated and panned around like Quad. There's no way I could get that past the spouse though, if I had a mancave sure, but I don't have one.

I hear you about WAF, that may be a deal breaker for some.
The cost of admission however has come way down. You can get an immersive 11.1 receiver that is capable of Auro-3D
for around $1000 from Denon/Marantz. 
I use those tall stands because active speakers are heavy. For most discrete wall/ceiling mounts would be fine. Unlike atmos you don't have to cut holes in your ceiling for auro.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #211 on: 13 Mar 2019, 05:49 pm »
Cheap and cheerful immerive audio (including auro 3d)

If you already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system get one of these:

https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr7012/marantz-sr7012-9.2-ch-x-125-watts-a/v-receiver-w/heos/1.html

and 4 or 5 of these, they are cheap, come with the mounting brackets, and sound great to my ear (using in a desktop system currently and also have one ceiling mounted as a VOG channel):

https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/bossoundwareblka/boston-acoustics-soundware-4.5-speaker-atmos-dts-x-on-wall-speaker-black-each/1.html

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #212 on: 13 Mar 2019, 06:35 pm »
Guys, give it a rest please. Thanks.


I've followed this thread over time and it seems to have come back like a bad STD for some reason. 1) Music is recorded in stereo - save some very special recordings - but in either case - a proper 2 channel setup will reproduce them perfectly as intended.  OK - take your best shot at me LOL. I've designed recording studios, screening rooms and cost-no-object custom audiophile systems.  That said ...


I do like multi-channel systems. They can be as simple as 5.1 to start - depending on the size of the room, multiple sides, and multiple rears. For mega-rooms there may be 5 front channels. It's always nice to have full range mains for accurate music reproduction. And the number of LFE channels dependent on the room volume, construction and a whole lot more. FInally, ceiling speakers - most rooms will need 2, larger 4. If you need more than that - you have a crazy insane room and should consider opening a theater and selling tickets.


Now as to whether music sounds better with multiple speakers versus a stereo pair. If we consider Lexicon processors or better, they can create some good effects. That depends on exceptional room acoustics and construction. Without that, time smear and resonences to name a few will be disasterous.


I have a reference room with 2 channel and can play any well made recording and get solid center, far left and right, even side and rear with sound good film sound tracks.


Not to be a snob, I also have a film reference multi-channel surround system as well - full range left / right. Center to match the L/R except below 80hz. 2 surrounds per side, 2 rear surrounds. 4 ceiling speakers. I also have dual LFE channels. (If you really want the headroom and the ability to move air - 4 x 18" LFE channels will blow your mind - BUT you need a room that won't bend in the process - we've measured wall movements with a laser that move up to an inch in and out like a passive radiator!)


Now I'm not saying all this to cause a war. But let's be real. Rooms have impact. Budgets have impact. Personal taste has impact. But in the end it can all be quantified and measured.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #213 on: 13 Mar 2019, 06:51 pm »

I've followed this thread over time and it seems to have come back like a bad STD for some reason. 1) Music is recorded in stereo - save some very special recordings - but in either case - a proper 2 channel setup will reproduce them perfectly as intended.  OK - take your best shot at me LOL. I've designed recording studios, screening rooms and cost-no-object custom audiophile systems.  That said ...


I do like multi-channel systems. They can be as simple as 5.1 to start - depending on the size of the room, multiple sides, and multiple rears. For mega-rooms there may be 5 front channels. It's always nice to have full range mains for accurate music reproduction. And the number of LFE channels dependent on the room volume, construction and a whole lot more. FInally, ceiling speakers - most rooms will need 2, larger 4. If you need more than that - you have a crazy insane room and should consider opening a theater and selling tickets.


Now as to whether music sounds better with multiple speakers versus a stereo pair. If we consider Lexicon processors or better, they can create some good effects. That depends on exceptional room acoustics and construction. Without that, time smear and resonences to name a few will be disasterous.


I have a reference room with 2 channel and can play any well made recording and get solid center, far left and right, even side and rear with sound good film sound tracks.


Not to be a snob, I also have a film reference multi-channel surround system as well - full range left / right. Center to match the L/R except below 80hz. 2 surrounds per side, 2 rear surrounds. 4 ceiling speakers. I also have dual LFE channels. (If you really want the headroom and the ability to move air - 4 x 18" LFE channels will blow your mind - BUT you need a room that won't bend in the process - we've measured wall movements with a laser that move up to an inch in and out like a passive radiator!)


Now I'm not saying all this to cause a war. But let's be real. Rooms have impact. Budgets have impact. Personal taste has impact. But in the end it can all be quantified and measured.

Your observation that music is recorded in two channel is poignant, I must agree. I like to listen to two channel in a desktop system with JBL speakers that are patterned after the M2 monitor. I tried the Pro JBL monitors but prefer my class A amp. I like to try and replicate what the engineer heard in this setup using MQA files based on the master.
But for sheer scale and dynamics of a LIVE event immersive is untouchable IMO.

Evoke, it would be awesome if you could post some pics of your listening rooms, thanks!

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #214 on: 13 Mar 2019, 08:14 pm »
Another critic chimes in, Auro 3D for music upmixing:

As far as my chosen tracks go, the Auro-3D upmix aced ’em all. Fun times, and motivation enough to check out the Auro-3D upgrade on my Marantz SR-7010. It turns out I may have been missing out by not leveraging Auro-3Ds prowess at upmixing 2-channel (and even mono) music tracks. Marc Henninger

https://www.avsforum.com/auro-3d-music-upmix-demo-stormaudio-isp-3d-16-elite-prepro-ces-2017/


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #215 on: 13 Mar 2019, 08:18 pm »
Video of the PMC/Bryston SP4 demo at the Bristol Show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUytlzyhXaY

maplegrovemusic

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 228
  • Please Be kind to your ears .... Treat your room
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #216 on: 13 Mar 2019, 08:55 pm »
Witchdoctor - Glad you have something you are so passionate about . Sounds like something most would enjoy , if they only heard it . I had not heard of this immersive thing . Will research and see what I can come up with . I have a Anthem d2 Processor I just picked up  , Also Have  a pair of JBL 305 and 308 I could give this a go possibly .

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #217 on: 13 Mar 2019, 10:50 pm »
Witchdoctor - Glad you have something you are so passionate about . Sounds like something most would enjoy , if they only heard it . I had not heard of this immersive thing . Will research and see what I can come up with . I have a Anthem d2 Processor I just picked up  , Also Have  a pair of JBL 305 and 308 I could give this a go possibly .

I just picked up a Paradigm PW Amp which runs ARC room correction, amazing integration between sub and speakers. It puts you in a bubble of sound. Did you get a good deal on the d2?
The JBL's are used in some studios to actually mix immersive soundtracks. I have seen pics with the 308's as bed channels and the 305's on high stands as height channels, it'll sound great IMO.

maplegrovemusic

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 228
  • Please Be kind to your ears .... Treat your room
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #218 on: 13 Mar 2019, 11:14 pm »
Witchdoctor - It is the original model , not the d2v  I might of overpaid a little . Been looking off and on for a couple years for a local sale . Haven't been in a big rush on that one. I assume I would need at least one more speaker for the "immersive" setup . I will have to research this as I've never heard of it . Is it mainly taking a 2 channel source and using some software in the receiver to add the channels ?

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #219 on: 14 Mar 2019, 01:43 am »
Witchdoctor - It is the original model , not the d2v  I might of overpaid a little . Been looking off and on for a couple years for a local sale . Haven't been in a big rush on that one. I assume I would need at least one more speaker for the "immersive" setup . I will have to research this as I've never heard of it . Is it mainly taking a 2 channel source and using some software in the receiver to add the channels ?

I am familiar with that model it does surround sound. You can have up to 7 speakers in a surround format as well as a sub. "Immersive" audio adds height channels above you. If you are looking at adding speakers start with a stereo pair and then add more as budget allows. First a subwoofer, then a center channel and then two more surround channels for a 5.1 system. You can also add rear surround channels for a 7.1 system. This video describes setting up a surround system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sjocJvK6rI

This video explains how to setup an "immersive" system in the auro 3d configuration which I use:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4piXwfhnFI