Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 27112 times.

witchdoctor

Immersive Audio Is Just Better!
« on: 30 Apr 2017, 01:10 am »
Don't get me wrong, two channel is fine for a desktop but for the main listening room it is WAY too expensive compared to immersive audio. Why do you see six figure systems on display at Axpona or these other shows? Because that what it costs to make 2 channel suck less. If your idea of audio fun is gluing your ass to the sweet spot and pretending it doesn't suck just move around the room a little to see what I mean.

Do me a favor, buy 10 decent book shelf speakers and a sub and get yourself a Marantz or Denon receiver, get the Auro 3D upgrade and just leave it on. You can thank me later while you move around the room and it sounds great everywhere and an orchestra sounds like an orchestra not a facsimile.

« Last Edit: 17 Mar 2019, 05:18 am by witchdoctor »

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #1 on: 30 Apr 2017, 01:17 am »
How to setup auro 3D

https://youtu.be/N4piXwfhnFI

The Marantz 7010 receiver and the Auro 3D upgrade is $200 additional-

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B014MWT9YY/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

dB Cooper

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #2 on: 30 Apr 2017, 04:05 am »
In my experience, the 'sweet spot' is more constricted in multichannel, not less.

I'd rather have two great speakers than eight sh!tty ones, which is the tradeoff you have to make at a reasonable price point (and unless your room is YUUUUUGE.).

As for why you see megabuck audio systems almost exclusively at the shows now, it's because it's less work to sell ten $60K systems than 100 $6K systems. It's also why I may have attended my last audio show.

Mag

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 1974
  • Patience my @#$, I'm gonna kill something ...
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #3 on: 30 Apr 2017, 10:00 am »
I was a multi-channel guy for many years because I could never get 2 channel to image right in my less than ideal rooms. But I had heard two channel image beautiful at my girlfriends place however the speakers were not set up conventional, it was just the way the sound reflected off the walls and I happen to be sitting in the sweat spot.

I think in a lot of rooms you would be hard pressed to get two channel to image properly and multi-channel is the way to get that immersive sound.

In the last four years I've been using 4 channel stereo because I purchased speakers that can image properly (phantom image) in an unconventional setup. The sound is more immersive than my previous multi-channel set up.

So IMO if you can't get 2 channel to image properly usually due to room dimensions than multi-channel is the solution but that can be problematic too because of room dimensions.

Nick77

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #4 on: 30 Apr 2017, 11:04 am »
A controlled directivity CD design speaker might also help. 

Austin08

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #5 on: 30 Apr 2017, 12:42 pm »
It is all depend on your listening reference and the material that you listen to. I agree that I enjoy multi channel when I listen to blu ray concert and movie but IMO, when it comes to 2 channel music, nothing can beat a properly set up 2 channel system.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12983
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #6 on: 30 Apr 2017, 01:06 pm »
Don't get me wrong, two channel is fine for a desktop but for the main listening room it is WAY too expensive compared to immersive audio. Why do you see six figure systems on display at Axpona or these other shows? Because that what it costs to make 2 channel suck less. If your idea of audio fun is gluing your ass to the sweet spot and pretending it doesn't suck just move around the room a little to see what I mean.

Do me a favor, buy 10 decent book shelf speakers and a sub and get yourself a Marantz or Denon receiver, get the Auro 3D upgrade and just leave it on. You can thank me later while you move around the room and it sounds great everywhere and an orchestra sounds like an orchestra not a facsimile.
How to setup auro 3D

https://youtu.be/N4piXwfhnFI

The Marantz 7010 receiver and the Auro 3D upgrade is $200 additional-

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B014MWT9YY/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
I think you are kidding us or you are referring only to action blast movies not to music. Iam familiar to 5.1 systems and all they sucks with music, mainly with Classical music.
These your two posts looks merchandising imo.

Jazzman53

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #7 on: 30 Apr 2017, 01:11 pm »
To each his own of course but I went from 5.1 back to two channel for music playback when I built my DIY hybrid ESL's and it was the right choice for me.  I still prefer and kept my 5.1 setup for movies though.

The superiority of my 2-channel setup was once again confirmed in my mind when I heard a multi-channel setup of five $25K Martin Logan full range ESL's with subs at the 2013 Axpona audio show in Jax, FL.  As compared to my home two channel rig, I found the imaging to be smeared and confused (mine being more precise and listenable).

I will never go back to multi-channel for music playback.     

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1045
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #8 on: 30 Apr 2017, 01:46 pm »
The basic premise is true and has been known for decades, as for example, summarized here http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136

Quote
In the usual stereo audio presentation, a partial sound stage consisting primarily of the front elements of the sound stage is created by two channels, either sampled from several microphones set in the original sound field or more often by a mixdown of many microphones placed both in proximity to the performers and out in the hall to capture the ambience. The information presented by the two channels, in either case, is a small fraction of the information in the original sound field. Additionally, this fraction is presented to the front of the listener. The presentation does not create an envelopment experience, where one is immersed in the original sound field, as the information is not present. While some processors mimic the effect, such effects are not based on the actual venue but rather on some hypothetical model of a venue. : In holographic or auralized two-channel presentation, a presumed human head-related transfer function (HRTF) is used to create an impression of sound arising from other than the front of the listener. This works well in headphones or with interaural cancellation for one listener facing directly ahead and on the central axis between the loudspeakers. This method can, with some difficulty, produce an immersive effect for one point in the sound field, assuming that the subject maintains the proper head position, and the subject's head has an HRTF like that of the presumed functions. The ultimate form of this is, of course, binaural recording, where an actual head model is used to capture the information for one head location. : Beyond two-channel presentation, one can think of analytically capturing an original sound field to some degree of accuracy. This would require the use of many channels, perhaps placed in a sphere about the listener's head in the simplest form, requiring very high data rates (1000 to : 10 000 channels, perhaps) and creating a very high probability of influencing the sound field in the space with the microphones and the supporting mechanisms. As a result this technique is currently infeasible, and is likely to remain infeasible, for basic physical reasons as well as data-rate reasons, and actual analytic capture of the spatial aspects of a sound field in this fashion is unlikely

However, what is also true is that maybe close to 99% of recorded music is stereo. I have yet to hear a synthesized 2>mch presentation that sounded better across the front (no argument about the rears, i.e. vs none).
Guess I'll have to hear this Auro for myself, as I doubt there are any tests to support this (synthesized vs stereo).

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #9 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:20 pm »
In my experience, the 'sweet spot' is more constricted in multichannel, not less.

I'd rather have two great speakers than eight sh!tty ones, which is the tradeoff you have to make at a reasonable price point (and unless your room is YUUUUUGE.).

As for why you see megabuck audio systems almost exclusively at the shows now, it's because it's less work to sell ten $60K systems than 100 $6K systems. It's also why I may have attended my last audio show.

Thanks for your reply. I use the Auromatic upmixer on music and movies. It can be adjusted for your taste. This adjustment is key in making the sweet spot the entire room. You can't do that with a multichannel SACD, Atmos, DTS-X or any of the other upmixers as far as I know.

http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7009/EU/EN/WBSPSYxsrykwfr.php

I don't advocate poor speakers, there are a LOT of great bookshelf speakers available. Just find a sub/sat system you like and add 4 extra surround channels and mount them high on the walls above your current L-R and Surround L-R channels. You can add a top surround on the ceiling if it fits in your space but not required.

https://rslspeakers.com/product-comparison/



witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #10 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:23 pm »
It is all depend on your listening reference and the material that you listen to. I agree that I enjoy multi channel when I listen to blu ray concert and movie but IMO, when it comes to 2 channel music, nothing can beat a properly set up 2 channel system.

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.

JohnR

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #11 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:26 pm »
Well, I'm always interested in hearing about better multichannel synthesizers.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #12 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:26 pm »
I think you are kidding us or you are referring only to action blast movies not to music. Iam familiar to 5.1 systems and all they sucks with music, mainly with Classical music.
These your two posts looks merchandising imo.

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:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/auro-3d-interview


witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #13 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:32 pm »
To each his own of course but I went from 5.1 back to two channel for music playback when I built my DIY hybrid ESL's and it was the right choice for me.  I still prefer and kept my 5.1 setup for movies though.

The superiority of my 2-channel setup was once again confirmed in my mind when I heard a multi-channel setup of five $25K Martin Logan full range ESL's with subs at the 2013 Axpona audio show in Jax, FL.  As compared to my home two channel rig, I found the imaging to be smeared and confused (mine being more precise and listenable).

I will never go back to multi-channel for music playback.   

I think there is a bit of confusion about what immersive audio is and how it is different from multi-channel. Here is a pic of my rig which will better compare the two. Notice the height speakers in front.















witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #14 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:35 pm »
Here is a look at the back surrounds, notice the height channels and the speaker on the ceiling pointing down is the "voice of god" channel.



FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12983
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #15 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:39 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:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/auro-3d-interview
I suggest you try an OB two way or a plain simple direct one way fullrange.
An 10.1 receiver with 11 boxed speaker and more than 20 xovers are hard to fix even by software.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #16 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:40 pm »
The basic premise is true and has been known for decades, as for example, summarized here http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136

However, what is also true is that maybe close to 99% of recorded music is stereo. I have yet to hear a synthesized 2>mch presentation that sounded better across the front (no argument about the rears, i.e. vs none).
Guess I'll have to hear this Auro for myself, as I doubt there are any tests to support this (synthesized vs stereo).

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/

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #17 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:44 pm »
I suggest you try an OB two way or a plain simple direct one way fullrange.
An 10.1 receiver with 11 boxed speaker and more than 20 xovers are hard to fix even by software.

Thanks, I don't have space for an OB as i use a projector screen. I do have a 2 channel desktop rig I enjoy. There is nothing that needs to be "fixed" in the main rig as far as I can tell.:




FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12983
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #18 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:51 pm »
Thanks, I don't have space for an OB as i use a projector screen. I do have a 2 channel desktop rig I enjoy. There is nothing that needs to be "fixed" in the main rig as far as I can tell.:



Maybe you already heard the term Point Source.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #19 on: 30 Apr 2017, 02:51 pm »
The basic premise is true and has been known for decades, as for example, summarized here http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136

You linked to a fabulous white paper published in 2000 that states:
Beyond two-channel presentation, one can think of analytically capturing an original sound field to some degree of accuracy. This would require the use of many channels, perhaps placed in a sphere about the listener's head in the simplest form, requiring very high data rates (1000 to : 10 000 channels, perhaps) and creating a very high probability of influencing the sound field in the space with the microphones and the supporting mechanisms. As a result this technique is currently infeasible, and is likely to remain infeasible, for basic physical reasons as well as data-rate reasons, and actual analytic capture of the spatial aspects of a sound field in this fashion is unlikely.

Here we are 17 years later and what was infeasible in 2000 is feasible now and for a sensible price too!