Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic. Read 47354 times.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #180 on: 13 Jul 2017, 10:22 pm »
Here are the instructions to setup your room properly for immersive Auro 3D, very easy  :thumb:

https://youtu.be/WTjdPWh4qHI


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #181 on: 14 Jul 2017, 02:44 pm »
You are a fool who never had a high end 2 channel system properly set up. Your speakers/your room are a big part of the equation.

MAK


I saw where you posted your system in another thread. Do you own the Genesis 1.2 speakers? $300K for speakers :o?

https://www.higherfi.com/speakers/genesis-12

If so I congratulate you on a pair of fine speakers. However don't you find it frustrating that it costs so much to reproduce sound with only two speakers? I don't doubt the sound is outstanding but I think it is a clear statement on the limitations of two channel rather than the benefit. I am sure it sounds great but look what it takes to build a great two channel system. This can be confirmed by attending any of the high end audio shows. It takes a lot of money to build an excellent two channel system because of its limitations.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #182 on: 14 Jul 2017, 03:35 pm »
They are using Neumann 420's at Abbey Road but I think the Neumann 120 would be better for home use.  These are professional active speakers, no amp or speaker cables required at $700 a piece. You could set up a SOTA Auro 3D Active speaker/amp system for $7K.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/KH120?utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=recording&utm_term=neumann_kh_120&device=c&matchtype=e&network=s


Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #183 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:31 pm »

I saw where you posted your system in another thread. Do you own the Genesis 1.2 speakers? $300K for speakers :o ?

https://www.higherfi.com/speakers/genesis-12

If so I congratulate you on a pair of fine speakers. However don't you find it frustrating that it costs so much to reproduce sound with only two speakers? I don't doubt the sound is outstanding but I think it is a clear statement on the limitations of two channel rather than the benefit. I am sure it sounds great but look what it takes to build a great two channel system. This can be confirmed by attending any of the high end audio shows. It takes a lot of money to build an excellent two channel system because of its limitations.


I have known people to spend large amounts of money on their sound systems. As in any sound venue - the displacement of air is directly related to the cubic volume to the listening space. That's why my office has some small bookshelf speakers whereas my main listening room has larger speakers. As for the extreme end - that can exist in the theater setting as well. I did a system with 5 front channels, 4 sides, 2 rears, 4 ceilings and 3 subs. Each speaker was a custom  Hidley/Westlake speaker. Now that is the opposite extreme of a Bose out of the box system to be sure. But I must say the room sounded insanely good.

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #184 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:33 pm »
They are using Neumann 420's at Abbey Road but I think the Neumann 120 would be better for home use.  These are professional active speakers, no amp or speaker cables required at $700 a piece. You could set up a SOTA Auro 3D Active speaker/amp system for $7K.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/KH120?utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=recording&utm_term=neumann_kh_120&device=c&matchtype=e&network=s


Very good point. It's truly amazing with high end microphones. I know a very high end audio engineer. He had a travel case with a number of exotic microphones. When he matched them to a singer or instrument it was as much art as it was science. Looking back it was much like Olivander choosing a wand for Harry Potter!

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #185 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:36 pm »

I have known people to spend large amounts of money on their sound systems. As in any sound venue - the displacement of air is directly related to the cubic volume to the listening space. That's why my office has some small bookshelf speakers whereas my main listening room has larger speakers. As for the extreme end - that can exist in the theater setting as well. I did a system with 5 front channels, 4 sides, 2 rears, 4 ceilings and 3 subs. Each speaker was a custom  Hidley/Westlake speaker. Now that is the opposite extreme of a Bose out of the box system to be sure. But I must say the room sounded insanely good.

I checked out your Ruby speakers online. I think they would be perfect for a multi-channel/immersive setup. I don't use ceiling speakers. You can mount book shelf speakers high on the wall as height channels as long as you get a 15 degree down tilt and they sound great.
Whoever had you make a custom system is very lucky, what could be better than having the designer customize the setup to match your room. Please post pics if you have any, thanks.

You know Ohm speakers actually ask for your room dimensions and then recommend speakers to match your room.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #186 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:40 pm »

Very good point. It's truly amazing with high end microphones. I know a very high end audio engineer. He had a travel case with a number of exotic microphones. When he matched them to a singer or instrument it was as much art as it was science. Looking back it was much like Olivander choosing a wand for Harry Potter!

Neumann is more known for their microphones. They did an acquisition to get in the speaker business a while back.

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #187 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:47 pm »
I checked out your Ruby speakers online. I think they would be perfect for a multi-channel/immersive setup. I don't use ceiling speakers. You can mount book shelf speakers high on the wall as height channels as long as you get a 15 degree down tilt and they sound great.
Whoever had you make a custom system is very lucky, what could be better than having the designer customize the setup to match your room. Please post pics if you have any, thanks.

You know Ohm speakers actually ask for your room dimensions and then recommend speakers to match your room.


Thanks on the Ruby. She actually sounds pretty awesome. I switched back to Alex yesterday. This time with a better processor. Enjoying the larger sound stage. When I did a lot of those systems I wasn't allowed to take pictures (argh) due to clients and their non-disclosure deals which sucked. I'll dig around the old files and see if there is anything I can post. On a funny note - I had a client with a 30 x 50 basement area in a new house. The ceiling was 9'. I told him that wouldn't work. I thought that was that. Some time later he called me back. They dug down another 10 feet. Ahhhh to have that kind of money LOL


Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #188 on: 14 Jul 2017, 04:48 pm »
Neumann is more known for their microphones. They did an acquisition to get in the speaker business a while back.


I remember the first time I saw/heard a Neumann. It was almost sexual. The mic is a work of art. It is impossible not to appreciate the enormity of its accomplishments!!!  What speaker company did they buy? I hadn't heard about that.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #189 on: 14 Jul 2017, 06:33 pm »

I remember the first time I saw/heard a Neumann. It was almost sexual. The mic is a work of art. It is impossible not to appreciate the enormity of its accomplishments!!!  What speaker company did they buy? I hadn't heard about that.

Klein & Hummel

https://www.recordingmag.com/productreviews/2014/01/84.html

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #190 on: 14 Jul 2017, 09:50 pm »
Nice article on creating an immersive auro 3d system:

https://www.svsound.com/blogs/featured-systems/thomas-from-winter-haven-fl

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #191 on: 17 Jul 2017, 12:22 am »
So I listened to two channel stereo yesterday for about 1-2 hours, turned off the subwoofer put the Marantz in Pure Direct and just listened. My speakers sound great in stereo, big soundstage, nice bass and if I was not used to auro 3d I would be pretty happy. The first thing I noticed was I had to listen much more loudly than usual to get in the zone. After about 30 minutes I couldn't get over the sensation of music coming from the front wall, like getting hit between the eyes. Now I know why people get "listener fatigue". Auro 3D sounds much more natural allowing me to listen at much lower levels and truly be in the zone. I like two channel for nearfield listening but it just grates on you after about an hour once you are used to an immersive setup in a bigger room.
This experience is mine, I don't expect someone with a different room or different speakers to be exactly the same. I just wanted to share because I was somewhat surprised.

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #192 on: 17 Jul 2017, 01:30 am »
So I listened to two channel stereo yesterday for about 1-2 hours, turned off the subwoofer put the Marantz in Pure Direct and just listened. My speakers sound great in stereo, big soundstage, nice bass and if I was not used to auro 3d I would be pretty happy. The first thing I noticed was I had to listen much more loudly than usual to get in the zone. After about 30 minutes I couldn't get over the sensation of music coming from the front wall, like getting hit between the eyes. Now I know why people get "listener fatigue". Auro 3D sounds much more natural allowing me to listen at much lower levels and truly be in the zone. I like two channel for nearfield listening but it just grates on you after about an hour once you are used to an immersive setup in a bigger room.
This experience is mine, I don't expect someone with a different room or different speakers to be exactly the same. I just wanted to share because I was somewhat surprised.


I really find your posts frustrating. You don't need to justify your perspective. I had a Lexicon multi-channel pre-amp and it was wonderful. On a lot of music with the right speaker set up the room sounded great in 7.1. At the same time it sounded equally good in 2 channel - and with no fatigue. If you spend the same amount of money on a pre-amp, amp and 2 speakers it would be a fair comparison with your system.


Your system, while very good, isn't what other posters are comparing to. Unless you do the same, you're hypothesis is not fully founded. I highly suggest you do that and then do a followup post.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #193 on: 17 Jul 2017, 02:21 am »

I really find your posts frustrating. You don't need to justify your perspective. I had a Lexicon multi-channel pre-amp and it was wonderful. On a lot of music with the right speaker set up the room sounded great in 7.1. At the same time it sounded equally good in 2 channel - and with no fatigue. If you spend the same amount of money on a pre-amp, amp and 2 speakers it would be a fair comparison with your system.


Your system, while very good, isn't what other posters are comparing to. Unless you do the same, you're hypothesis is not fully founded. I highly suggest you do that and then do a followup post.

I see what you mean, a $50K immersive system compared to a $50K 2 channel system is more of an apples to apples comparison, good point.
I know some people have a separate two channel pre-amp in their main rig just for this purpose. I have a Parasound pre-amp I am not using right now, I'll see if I can hook it up to compare.
To be fair though I would really need to get a $2500 pre-amp to make it apples to apples (the Marantz unit is around $2500). Any suggestions?

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #194 on: 17 Jul 2017, 02:24 am »
You know I have always wanted a Sunfire Classic Tube Pre-Amp, you may have given me an excuse to go find one now.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #195 on: 11 Sep 2017, 12:55 pm »
So I got the Auro 3D demo disc that has a bunch of music and movie clips. Watching the clips I was surprised to learn that natively mixed Auro 3D sounds exactly like non-natibe content that has been upmixed using the Auromatic processor. Auro 3D is lagging in content releases compared to Atmos. In my system Auro simply sounds better. Glad to know the lack of Auro 3D content is a moot point since the Auromatic upmixer renders non native content so well.

Atmos sounds great with movies but not as transparent and live sounding as Auro on music. Check out this interview with 2L's Morton Lindberg.He staes:

"Stereo is like a flat canvas while Auro 3D is like a sculpture you can move around."

http://www.auro-3d.com/blog/interview-morten-lindberg-on-auro-3d-recorded-music-is-no-longer-a-flat-canvas-but-a-sculpture-you-can-literally-move-around/

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #196 on: 11 Sep 2017, 04:13 pm »
So I got the Auro 3D demo disc that has a bunch of music and movie clips. Watching the clips I was surprised to learn that natively mixed Auro 3D sounds exactly like non-natibe content that has been upmixed using the Auromatic processor. Auro 3D is lagging in content releases compared to Atmos. In my system Auro simply sounds better. Glad to know the lack of Auro 3D content is a moot point since the Auromatic upmixer renders non native content so well.

Atmos sounds great with movies but not as transparent and live sounding as Auro on music. Check out this interview with 2L's Morton Lindberg.He staes:

"Stereo is like a flat canvas while Auro 3D is like a sculpture you can move around."


You make an incredible observation! Availability of material. Back in the day there were 2 quad stereo formats, Beta and VHS, et all, ad nauseum! Dolby took over and better or worse they own the market.


Personally, I prefer to listen to a movie in stereo. With quality speakers you get perfect center and great spacial imaging. In my room I hear sides and rear.


As ATMOS is new - engineers and artists are still "playing" with it and it's obvious - not a seamless part of the canvas as you quote above. Maybe with time they will learn how to use it correctly. In the meantime I could care less if a theater has ATMOS. Worse, a lot of theaters have dropped THX standards and are simply too loud and EQ'd poorly. The other day the right front speaker had a burnt voice coil - sure sounded great ARGH. I emailed the theater chain and they forwarded it to engineering and comped my tickets. I must say - I was surprised !!!

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #197 on: 11 Sep 2017, 05:09 pm »
I'll bet 11 channels of Marantz power + 9 Evoke Ruby speakers in an immersive setup would be absolute heaven. Remember, an Auro3D layout does not require ceiling speakers and works just fine for atmos. The speakers are mounted high on the wall above your bed channels, perfect for the Ruby's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKoyyxwP9kI

http://evokespeakers.com/ruby/

If you had 5 Eddies as bed channels and 4 Rubies as height channels it would be even better.




Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 232
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #198 on: 11 Sep 2017, 05:33 pm »
I'll bet 11 channels of Marantz power + 9 Evoke Ruby speakers in an immersive setup would be absolute heaven. Remember, an Auro3D layout does not require ceiling speakers and works just fine for atmos. The speakers are mounted high on the wall above your bed channels, perfect for the Ruby's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKoyyxwP9kI

http://evokespeakers.com/ruby/

If you had 5 Eddies as bed channels and 4 Rubies as height channels it would be even better.


Thanks, Witchdoctor -


I have experimented with Eddies as LCR and Ruby's for surround. Eddie is pretty much full range as long as there is an LFE sub. I know it sounds odd - but I had an old ULD18 Velodyne laying around for LFE. Using LFE takes the effects out of LCR but still allows the Eddie speakers to run full range. I was really careful when matching the acoustic signature with Ruby - you can certainly use all Ruby's, but the Eddie mains and Ruby surrounds are really something. I hope to do a full demo next year in Newport Beach.


Mark

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #199 on: 11 Sep 2017, 05:38 pm »

Thanks, Witchdoctor -


I have experimented with Eddies as LCR and Ruby's for surround. Eddie is pretty much full range as long as there is an LFE sub. I know it sounds odd - but I had an old ULD18 Velodyne laying around for LFE. Using LFE takes the effects out of LCR but still allows the Eddie speakers to run full range. I was really careful when matching the acoustic signature with Ruby - you can certainly use all Ruby's, but the Eddie mains and Ruby surrounds are really something. I hope to do a full demo next year in Newport Beach.


Mark

I thought it would be a good match. I hope you get the new Marantz  unit and set it up for your showroom or home too. In my room Audyssey did a great job integrating the sub/speakers and the room. I think you will be surprised how well the "Pure Direct" mode does two channel when you consider that this receiver is less expensive than a lot of integrated amps or even dedicated 2 channel preamps.