0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 27112 times.
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 3Dhttps://youtu.be/N4piXwfhnFIThe 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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).
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.:
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!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 27 queries.