Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 47543 times.

Bob in St. Louis

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13248
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #140 on: 3 May 2017, 01:59 am »
No, I can't say I have. The closest I have come to an ambio experience is Bob Carver's Sonic Holography which I use in my desk top system. I know it is a poor comparison but its the closest I could use as an example.
I think you'll like this. Although, sadly, the demos links are dead. So I guess you'll have to use your imagination about how great they sound.
- >>HERE<<
and
- >>HERE<<

There's a lot of reading material there. Let me know when you're finished.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #141 on: 3 May 2017, 12:16 pm »
I think you'll like this. Although, sadly, the demos links are dead. So I guess you'll have to use your imagination about how great they sound.
- >>HERE<<
and
- >>HERE<<

There's a lot of reading material there. Let me know when you're finished.

Thanks, is there software to download to try it?

Bob in St. Louis

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13248
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #142 on: 3 May 2017, 01:11 pm »
Thanks, is there software to download to try it?
No, none at all. Just two two speakers and the ability to play stereo. 

Phil A

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #143 on: 3 May 2017, 01:37 pm »
Just an observation from someone who has had surround sound in systems since around 1980 or a bit before (when I was 5 yrs. old of course :green:).  I currently have a bunch of systems.  Some two channel and some combined multi-channel and 2-channel, including the main system where I run 11.1 or 7.1.4 (in Atmos terms).  A big part of it is set-up.  Looking at the pic of the OP system, it appears to be something optimized for surround sound and the manner of the set-up probably is not conducive to hearing a top notch 2-channel demo. Conversely, my systems are set-up as two channel that happen to do multi-channel very well, however, they are not optimized for that and it would be hard to do an apples to apples comparison.  I've not heard an immersive surround system (including at shows) for music that would be something to make me shift my priorities.  Probably a couple of times a year, I'll listen to multi-channel DSD files on one system and while it is something that I enjoy for that listening period, my preference is still a good two channel system. 

In my old house, the main system had 4 Rel subs (for years) in it mainly for bass management for multi-channel music and I dispensed with that in the new place, mainly due to the fact that multi-channel music is not of much interest to me (also room layout) vs. what I get from two channel is more satisfying musically.  So I use two Rel subs for music and have a separate big sub for HT (had lightning damage so Fedex just dropped off a big box with a Power Sound Audio sub).  Way back in the day I also had a friend who worked at a high end shop and did tons of installs and deliveries over a 6 year period.  Have never heard anything I preferred in multi-channel other than it is nice to have a novelty change of pace once in a while.  To each their own.

OzarkTom

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #144 on: 3 May 2017, 01:53 pm »
(when I was 5 yrs. old of course :green:)



What a youngster!

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #145 on: 3 May 2017, 02:03 pm »
My HT rig is setup for immersive audio more than two channel although I made sure to use a tape measure to get my front speakers the exact same distance from the MLP.
My desktop rig is where I do most of my two channel listening.


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #146 on: 3 May 2017, 02:08 pm »
My HT rig is setup for immersive audio more than two channel although I made sure to use a tape measure to get my front speakers the exact same distance from the MLP.
My desktop rig is where I do most of my two channel listening.




fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #147 on: 3 May 2017, 03:04 pm »
Thanks OP and AJ for those links, I'm finally checking them out.

rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 5463
  • Rollo Audio Consulting -
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #148 on: 3 May 2017, 03:38 pm »
Just an observation from someone who has had surround sound in systems since around 1980 or a bit before (when I was 5 yrs. old of course :green:).  I currently have a bunch of systems.  Some two channel and some combined multi-channel and 2-channel, including the main system where I run 11.1 or 7.1.4 (in Atmos terms).  A big part of it is set-up.  Looking at the pic of the OP system, it appears to be something optimized for surround sound and the manner of the set-up probably is not conducive to hearing a top notch 2-channel demo. Conversely, my systems are set-up as two channel that happen to do multi-channel very well, however, they are not optimized for that and it would be hard to do an apples to apples comparison.  I've not heard an immersive surround system (including at shows) for music that would be something to make me shift my priorities.  Probably a couple of times a year, I'll listen to multi-channel DSD files on one system and while it is something that I enjoy for that listening period, my preference is still a good two channel system. 

In my old house, the main system had 4 Rel subs (for years) in it mainly for bass management for multi-channel music and I dispensed with that in the new place, mainly due to the fact that multi-channel music is not of much interest to me (also room layout) vs. what I get from two channel is more satisfying musically.  So I use two Rel subs for music and have a separate big sub for HT (had lightning damage so Fedex just dropped off a big box with a Power Sound Audio sub).  Way back in the day I also had a friend who worked at a high end shop and did tons of installs and deliveries over a 6 year period.  Have never heard anything I preferred in multi-channel other than it is nice to have a novelty change of pace once in a while.  To each their own.

  Honest good experience. For me movies only.


charles

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #149 on: 6 May 2017, 10:23 am »
I was checking out the upcoming immersive audio demo at High End Munich from Storm Audio:
http://www.stormaudio.com/en/news/

and noticed they are using active speakers from Ascendo Immersive Audio. These speakers are designed for immersive audio from the ground up, are thin and can be used on wall, go down to 55 HZ. and can be connected via ethernet (say what?).
If anyone has opinions on these speakers I would love to hear them.

https://www.facebook.com/audioandcinemasystems/videos/1830995917149503/

http://aia-cinema.com/products/loudspeakers/

Letitroll98

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 5618
  • Too loud is just right
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #150 on: 6 May 2017, 11:02 am »
Can you describe the immersive audio soundstage, specifically how it relates to 2 channel stereo?  For example the stereo soundstage has depth, width, and height with a recreation of hall ambiance on good recordings.  Again on good recordings, images are placed logically within that soundstage as if you were at the recording venue.  Does immersive audio provide this and more, or is it something different?

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1114
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #151 on: 6 May 2017, 01:07 pm »
Dan, does your preamp have more than one output? Or do you have a pair of y-cables?
If so, I've already linked a very inexpensive way to answer all questions for oneself, no virtual guesswork.

cheers,

AJ

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #152 on: 6 May 2017, 01:45 pm »
Can you describe the immersive audio soundstage, specifically how it relates to 2 channel stereo?  For example the stereo soundstage has depth, width, and height with a recreation of hall ambiance on good recordings.  Again on good recordings, images are placed logically within that soundstage as if you were at the recording venue.  Does immersive audio provide this and more, or is it something different?

When I listen to a nice two channel setup I like a nice sound stage that extends left and right, front and back. If that is all I ever experienced it would be satisfying, compared to only having one speaker playing mono like a radio. I found when I added a vertical sound stage that also extends from floor to ceiling you could pinpoint the musicians in a natural sense. The height of the piano, the microphone for the singer, fingers moving up and down the frets of a standup bass. The funny thing is in an auro3d setup you cannot localize any of the speakers unless you put your ears right up to them.
The codec matters a lot in my room for music upmixing. I prefer Auro 3D over Atmos. For movies i like both but Auro is more dynamic for upmixing. If a movie has an atmos soundtrack I prefer Atmos.
I think the engineers at Abbey Road do a good job describing immersive audio in this clip. In a nutshell once you experience a good immersive setup you can't go back. The speaker layout they use for Sennheisers AMBEO codec at Abbey Road is the same layout used for Auro3D:

https://youtu.be/yMlFN8V4qW4

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #153 on: 6 May 2017, 02:01 pm »
For anyone else who wants to try immersive audio get yourself down to a movie theater and watch a movie mixed in atmos or auro 3d:

http://www.regmovies.com/Theatres/auro

Letitroll98

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 5618
  • Too loud is just right
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #154 on: 6 May 2017, 02:40 pm »
I found when I added a vertical sound stage that also extends from floor to ceiling you could pinpoint the musicians in a natural sense. The height of the piano, the microphone for the singer, fingers moving up and down the frets of a standup bass. The funny thing is in an auro3d setup you cannot localize any of the speakers unless you put your ears right up to them.

I actually have that in my stereo setup, there is a significant vertical component and I can't locate the speakers unless I walk up to them.  From the video it seems as though they were more interested in special effects than producing a realistic soundstage with added ambience.  I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the performance, I want to hear it as if I'm in the audience with the added channels producing the sound of the hall.  I couldn't get this from the ancient 5.1 systems I had years ago, at least for music programs, so I went back to stereo sound.  If it sounded like enhanced stereo I could be interested, if it's 10' high drum sets (as described in the video) I'm out.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #155 on: 6 May 2017, 03:45 pm »
I actually have that in my stereo setup, there is a significant vertical component and I can't locate the speakers unless I walk up to them.  From the video it seems as though they were more interested in special effects than producing a realistic soundstage with added ambience.  I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the performance, I want to hear it as if I'm in the audience with the added channels producing the sound of the hall.  I couldn't get this from the ancient 5.1 systems I had years ago, at least for music programs, so I went back to stereo sound.  If it sounded like enhanced stereo I could be interested, if it's 10' high drum sets (as described in the video) I'm out.

The performers are in the front of the room, it doesn't sound like you are in the middle. I didn't like 5.1 or 7.1 for music as much as I did two channel. I doubt I can convey with words, do you have a set of headphones? If so their are some immersive audio headphone tracks I can post. I can't say it is the same as speakers but at least you can compare two channel headphone tracks to immersive tracks.
I think trying to convey an immersive sound stage with terms used to describe 2 channel is very limiting. I can post a couple links that go into more details if you are interested:

https://youtu.be/iZ8gX3ARPUM

https://youtu.be/yaiSRWqEG8w


Phil A

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #156 on: 6 May 2017, 04:32 pm »
If immersive audio is one's thing, there are several things from places like AIX records (e.g. http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/bd_3d/mozart_bd_3d.html) that have a surround and also a stage mix (like one is in the center of the players) - http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/bd_3d/mozart_bd_3d.html

jimtranr

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #157 on: 6 May 2017, 04:45 pm »
I actually have that in my stereo setup, there is a significant vertical component and I can't locate the speakers unless I walk up to them.

The same here in both of the two-channel systems I use for "serious" listening, and that's largely because I've treated both less-than-ideal rooms to deal with standing wave, speaker boundary interference, and other reflection issues. No "glued to the middle" sweet spot here.

Jim   

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1114
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #158 on: 6 May 2017, 08:27 pm »
I want to hear it as if I'm in the audience with the added channels producing the sound of the hall.  I couldn't get this from the ancient 5.1 systems I had years ago, at least for music programs, so I went back to stereo sound.
All >4ch upmixers I've heard so far are poor, at least compared to stereo. They all had a negative effect on the main LR channels.
At this point its painfully obvious no one here has heard stereo+ mch.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #159 on: 6 May 2017, 10:55 pm »
So I watched John Wick today using the Dolby Surround Atmos upmixer, really nice, much better than 7.1 surround. Then I did a comparison with Auro 3D and Auro 3D was MUCH more dynamic. I think it is because I have my upmix settings turned up all the way it really enhances that sense of immersion. With Atmos you can't adjust how much you engage the height channels. The other thing I noticed was that the third layer with Auro using the voice of god channel really makes a big difference with things like thunder claps, fly overs and the like. It is almost like the ceiling opens up above you.