Jump to content

Two-channel enthusiasts converting to multi-channel?


Chris A

Recommended Posts

" The quotes are to remind me to point out I am not suggesting the
processing of the audio streams, but simply reading metadata and routing
them accordingly"

How can you take 4 channels of input and 'route' the audio over x number of speakers without using a bunch of processing? Routing is just another word for steering...all the metadata does is remove some (certainly not all) of the assumptions about where you might steer the various pieces of the audio with some clues on where to steer it. The steering still needs to occur which involves all the same processing as something like PLII or L7.

That sort of system really exists already but it doesn't need the metadata. DPLII and Logic 7 are also both encoding formats as well as decode/playback. You can take a multichannel input and encode that down to two channels of audio. DPLII and L7 decoders/processors look for the encoded queues on where to steer the audio back into multi-channel. I've taken multi-channel audio and L7 encoded down to two channel and used L7 to get back to multi-channel. It sounds very very close to the original discrete multi-channel mix. And just like you propose if you don't have any processing it is a perfectly normal sounding 2 channel audio. If you have 4 speakers the L7 decoder handles that, if you have it handles that, if you have 7 it handles that too.

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shawn, to answer your question would require I work out the system.

What I am doing is pointing out the issues of the current system which the majority agree is not working.

I have suggested that my own knowledge of how digital data streams work suggests that current methodology is way to complex to support the end of simple audio needs. While the age of the LP still required rather expensive and complex cutters that required very specialized skills to produce quality results, the system was inherently simple and open to anyone with the money. Elvis just walked into Sun, plunked down a few bucks, and cut a recording.

At the time I first researched how to produce a multi channel recording, there was no mastering software available that didn't cost a fortune. Further, you also then had to deal with AC-3 rights and Meridian Lossless Processing, a system no more complex than Winzip but enshrined as a "gatekeeper" cost to protect music interests.

None of these algorithms are beyond Dave Mallette (and a host of others) to logic flow or Joe Nerd to program. But they are proprietary and require both proprietary software to produce and proprietary hardware to decode. None of that is necessary, and all of it is very detrimental to the music industry. People have had it with new formats, obsolete equipment they paid good money for, and having to figure out how it works. Ipod is successful because it's a no brainer, not because you can get anything like decent reproduction out of it.

Like so many things, we accept the situation because of the old belief, nurtured by every manufacturer, rights management organization, licensing group, etc that "If there was a better way, we'd do it that way."

If you believe that, you believe the our current tax system represents the best, most effective, efficient, and fair system of taxation possible.

When I say no processing, I mean that the digital format would be the engineers choice. The metadata would be added "on the fly" at the source for the kind of recording I do, or in the mix for created music or movies. But it would not alter the digital stream of the music itself. Every consumer would get a bit for bit master and that is what they would hear. The "processing" would be simple routing information like a zip code. No change to the information but insurance that it gets to the right address.

Any digital format would "look" just like any other except for the added metadata.

As to digital formats, anyone who remembers and was heavily involved with the old Commodore Amiga system like I was is fully aware that all these formats are redundant. In the early and mid 90's I worked with a team that built simulators using that machine and OS as the core processing unit that are still very impressive by todays standards. That OS manadated a single file type for bitmaps, for vectors, for audio, and for documents. The audio format, if still in use, would have worked perfectly in the system I described because the designers simply defined how to represent various bit and sample rates of audio...and left everything else open to the programmer.

Everybody agrees that the music industry is dying of starvation in the middle of a grocery store. I am simply stating that with the systems I just described I'd likely have been well established and making a decent living recording and publishing the music I love, niche that it is. While increased bandwidth makes the only route to that more possible than it was when I first became interested, one still needs universal physical media and playback systems to deliver high definition surround audio experiences to users in a low cost, easy to use medium. Those means and methods remain mired in a chain of revenue producing patents, standards, and such that block artists and small producers from playing and leave only the big pockets in the game...and if it isn't going to make them a bucket of cash they could care less so unless you are into what they like, forget about it.

Okies, I think that's about all I've got to say about that. [:#]

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

"What I am doing is pointing out the issues of the current system which the majority agree is not working. "

Not sure who the 'majority' are but the existing surround system systems have sold far more audio equipment in the last 10 or 15 years then anything stereo only.

"The metadata would be added "on the fly" at the source for the kind of recording I do, or in the mix for created music or movies. But it would not alter the digital stream of the music itself. Every consumer would get a bit for bit master and that is what they would hear. The "processing" would be simple routing information like a zip code. No change to the information but insurance that it gets to the right address."

Sorry, but that system would still need to alter the data. Say you build a mix that had chunks with 7 channels of audio in it. You play it back on a 2 channel system. Either you are going to perform some type of downmix to two channel (which involves altering the data) or you are going to be playing it back missing a bunch of the audio. Likewise if it only had 5 channels in it but was played back on a 7 channel system there needs to be a method of utilizing the playback system.

"one still needs universal physical media and playback systems to deliver high definition surround audio experiences to users in a low cost, easy to use medium. "

How many people do you know that don't own a DVD player?

"Further, you also then had to deal with AC-3 rights and Meridian Lossless Processing, a system no more complex than Winzip but enshrined as a "gatekeeper" cost to protect music interests."

Dolby Media Encoder SE will deal with this for under $600. Lossy AC-3 is *dramatically* more complex then Winzip BTW. It has to analyze the data using a perceptual audio model to throw away data it thinks is not needed as well as to look for correlated information between channels that it can reduce for smaller sizes. Lossless Meridian Lossless Packing which is Dolby TrueHD is closer to Winzip since it is bit-perfect. It is already built to scale to handle increased number of channels using the equivalent of metadata.

The idea of using extensions within data to enhance audio formats at a later data has also already been done. Look at how DTS added ES and 96/24 support to their core audio. On playback it still means needing upgrades to the receiving equipment to understand how to utilize the extensions. From talking to DSP engineers that dealt with this this method also requires MORE DSP power then just decoding a format that didn't use extension data like this.

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play a live recording over two channel. It does not have correct imaging, the audience isn't on stage with the performers. The halls ambiance is being reproduced from the completely wrong direction.

One live recording that comes to mind..."Cream Live at Albert Hall" puts the musicians in their proper place on stage and the crowd behind me and to the sides.

In the real world you can listen to a performance and move your head or whole body without having the imaging shift side to side.

Agreed. As soon as I move 2 feet out of my sweet spot, all is lost.

In the real world the instrument we are all most familiar with (voice) isn't riddled with comb filtering artifacts.

If that's what my tubes are doing, I'll take it any day over a stale sounding AVR. [:o]

I'd love to have the opportunity to hear a 7.1 system that is completely comprised of tubes and horns. [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What I am doing is pointing out the issues of the current system which the majority agree is not working. "

OK, so where is all the material? Why is the music industry contracting yearly? Why are audiophiles (like me!) clinging to obsolete formats?

For something that is working I must be missing something here. I can make surround recordings that will transport your mind. Unfortunately, I can't get them to you. Does that sound like it's working?

Sorry, but that system would still need to alter the data

No, it wouldn't. You are working within current schema. I presume it would be the way you would do it. I wouldn't do it that way. Adding metadata to digital data without altering the original data isn't rocket science.

Dolby Media Encoder SE will deal with this for under $600.

For which you get nothing. Another gate keeper whose R&D costs have long been covered.

Lossy AC-3 is *dramatically* more complex then Winzip BTW.

No idea what that means or the context. Of course it is. Looked at what I wrote and do not undertand this comment. However, the AC-3 code is old, huge profits have been made from it, and it should be in the public domain...even though it really sucks it is at least supported ubiqitously.

Shawn, I am just not going to get into a debate about how great current media is. If you want to believe our current standards are the end all, fine. Let me show you (unless you already know how...I am making no presumption here) to make a stunning surround recording. It's easy. Now, distribute it in a form that will play on anything from a clock radio to a maxed out surround system with each playback being as close to the master as that system is equipped to deliver.

If you can do that, I am good and ready to learn. Otherwise, what I've described stands unless you think our technology simply cannot solve this easy problem.

Or perhaps the surround systems are capable of perfection but some disease has rendered humanity encapable of producing an engineer who can produce a half decent recording...

Feel free to tout the present system and perhaps you think those of us who find it lacking in ability to recreat an acoustic space/time event are just too picky.

I, for one, apparently am.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" If that's what my tubes are doing, I'll take it any day over a stale sounding AVR. "

Not your tubes, just the L/R speaker trying to phantom image a front and center vocal. Two speakers playing identical material interfer with each other and cause many small cancelations between them. There are also four differing arrival times for vocals when there should only be two. All this is unnatural compared to the rear world, voices are always created from a single point in space. That vocals have always sounded this artifical way in two channel can sometimes take a little unlearing when moving beyond two channel. Compared against the real world though it is obvious which is more realistic.

There is plenty of surround equipment well beyond a stale sounding AVR. Get a pre-pro and use it with tube amps if desired. I ran tubes up front in my systems for many years.

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"OK, so where is all the material? "

The whole point is you don't need all new material for music in surround. That is the point of things like DPLII, L7 and Trifield. It works with existing music. As for other material seems to me there is more and more lossless multi-channel coming out every week then there has ever been available before.

"I can make surround recordings that will transport your mind."

Perhaps, but I have also been listening in surround for a long time now.

"Unfortunately, I can't get them to you."

Why can't you get them to me? It isn't terribly hard to do. Send me five wav files and I'll send you back a Dolby Digital encoding of them on a DVD that would play in any system.

Or you could use one of the open source codecs to do the same thing. Check out flac for example which would have higher quality then Dolby Digital.

The tools are available, use them.

"I wouldn't do it that way. Adding metadata to digital data without altering the original data isn't rocket science. "

I'm talking about when the distributed audio doesn't match the playback system. The audio is going to have to be changed to accommodate this in any reasonable scheme. Unless you think the studios are going to make a couple of dozen mixes of the same album for all the different possible system configurations that are out there. If so how exactly are you planning on delivering this sort of thing which is going to take up an enormous amount of space and bandwidth?

"No idea what that means or the context. Of course it is. "

If you don't understand the difference between lossless compression(Winzip) and lossy compression(AC-3) you really shouldn't be commenting on this.

"If you want to believe our current standards are the end all, fine."

I don't think they are the end all. I do however think they are far better then you give them credit for. To me it looks like you are hung up on bad mixes and blaming that on the delivery format. It isn't the delivery format that you really have any issue with, simply the engineering choices of those making the music. Instead of trying to come up with a delivery format that is never going to go anywhere you have a far better chance of showing what can be done with existing delivery formats and pushing for more quality music.

"Feel free to tout the present system and perhaps you think those of us who find it lacking in ability to recreat an acoustic space/time event are just too picky."

You haven't heard 2 of the 3 systems I'm talking about. Your chosen speaker setup is not taking full advantage of any of the three I have mentioned and IMO has other problems. You aren't really in a strong position to comment on a supposed inability of them to recreate an acoustic space. When I play back music the acoustic space changes from small intimate settings to large halls and everywhere in between. If you aren't getting that perhaps you need to try something else. For S&Gls I can even alter the acoustic space of anything that occurs within my room. Want it to sound like a large hall, I can do that.

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shawn, you have no idea what I am talking about and I don't want to get into a debate. Again, if you are satisfied I am satisfied for you. At least I understand why you were confusing AC-3 with a compression algorithm now.

Further I do not use AC-3 and would not. Stuff coming out of it sounds like the victim of a transporter accident.

I've mastered a number of DVD-A's and not one of them comes out without suffering differences from the master stream. My bad perhaps. OTOH, there is really nothing the operator does other than point it in there and accept the outcome unless you want it messed with. Not quite sure how it gets so messed up.

Further, all except a few of the commercial releases sound even worse. The ones that do sound decent are all manipulated. Fine, the kind of recordings I do don't need manipulation unless the medium can't handle them otherwise.

I am sure I am just ignorant here and deaf as well. I was simply trying to open a discussion of speculation on what the future might bring, not bring out the calvalry to defend the current standards and the music system that brought it to us.

Finally, audiophiles are only a tiny force...if you can call it that...in the marketplace anyway, and of that insignificant number only a small part really care about acoustic space anyway. Your last paragraph mentioned those processors that can create any size space. Chief, I've heard those and they make me want to puke and remind me of the old Fischer spring reverbs we used early in my engineering career. Oh, yes, mightly improved...but still just as fake.

However, I am very pleased it works for you. Dial up St. Marks and enjoy. Pink Floyd will sound great in there.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further I do not use AC-3 and would not. Stuff coming out of it sounds like the victim of a transporter accident.I

Dave - I absolutely love your comment on it sounding "Like the victim of a transporter accident". Very clever!

In answer to the original question - YES!

Cheers,

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - I absolutely love your comment on it sounding "Like the victim of a transporter accident".

Not a chance use, my friend. Processing of digital audio signals for routing purposes is acceptable to the point that the audio signal itself comes out bit for bit as it went in. Just like a transporter...

Star Trek wasn't just a good show, it also provided rules to live by.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read that there is a new DTS Neo "X" that is "...capable of supporting hundreds of channels." Just what that means is a bit vague, but they demonstrated an 11.1 setup apparently. Of course, also no way to tell just how the master tracks emerge from this, but could be interesting.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A properly set up sub "disappears".I use my sub for 2 channel listening; and you can not tell where the bass comes from.

I know a properly set up sub disappears. I understand this concept, but it hardly ever really does happen. I have heard one or two that I could not pick the sub out right away. I still feel that is a gong is hit on the right side of the sound-stage, or on the left, the bass should not come from the same point in space. That is what I was getting at. My sub actually comes from a central location currently. I was not talking about my system though. A friend of mine does use two tub subs with La Scalas and the bass coming from one side of the sound-stage is great. Trust me, when a dumpster is dropped outside to my right, the bass from that comes from my right in real life. If a 4" mortar is set off to my left, the bass is off to my left in real life. Bass does have some small direction in it. At shorter distances this does not matter because most of the bass is reflected anyway.

On a completely side note. I am trying to get recommended title for SACD, DVD Audio, HDCD, and BR music for a database that I could make available here to the forum. I am looking for all types of music. I enjoy classic rock the most, but all great sounding advanced formats are welcome. Specific titles and format please. I know some of the SACDs are mixed form poor recordings and therefore are not of the highest quality and want to weed these out. I started collecting this info here: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/147522/1528904.aspx#1528904

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Okay, so I'll start first with an observation:

The most recent high-fidelity recording formats, i.e., SACD, DTS Master Audio, DVD-A, etc. are also multi-channel formats now in that they are being used for high-fidelity music reproduction.

My question is:

If you have been a two-channel music enthusiast, have you converted to a multi-channel setup (i.e., one of the typical 5.1/7.1 configurations) that also performs dual-use for music?

Chris

This is a good subject to restart, I think. The reason to talk about this subject is that there are increasing amounts of good multichannel recordings hitting the market, and the experience can be quite good (including Blu-Ray music/video performances, such as classical music BDs). I also notice that there are folks that have separate two-channel rigs from their HTs, and this is a puzzle to me. I've found that integrating the investment into one HT/two channel rig just makes a lot of sense.

I'd like to add a constraint:

Please, let's not argue about the validity of multichannel formats or whether or not you happen to be a current or former recording/mixing/ mastering specialist.

However, discussing your personal experience with current and specific multichannel titles is "in-bounds".

The original purpose of this thread was to hear from rank-and-file folks on their experiences going/not going to multi-channel systems after being a two-channel enthusiast. I find that some multichannel material works very well, and other recordings, well, not so well.

Surprise! It's the same story for two-channel recordings, too. [:-*]

Chris...your local multichannel and two-channel enthusiast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, without rehashing all the details again I'll state my opinion:

1. "Stereo" is dual channel mono and inherently incapable of delivering a true image of an acoustic space time event. Applause does not come from the front nor does an organ's bombarde division.

2. Excellent, organic "surround" has been available since the 70's in the form of Hafler's circuitry. In the worse case of mixed material it does no harm, in the best case of well recorded dual microphone ribbon or omni pattern stereo recordings it does a marvelous job of placing the out of phase rear reflections and such where they belong.

That's about it in a nutshell. I submit it will still be years before modern circuitry and engineers learn to provide a true surround image, though as Chris mentioned, a few have approached the ideal. In my own case, my experiments (hopefully soon to be resumed) a few years back with SoundCube and my Virtual Presence concept tell me that surround CAN be done as organically and naturally as stereo if you eschew the nasty steering circuitry and use 4 discrete channels.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, without rehashing all the details again I'll state my opinion:

Roger that.

For those that haven't already posted: this isn't an esoteric subject--so please feel free to join with your experiences and thoughts if you haven't already.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly happy staying 2.1, but I do use a Onkyo 886 as my video/digital preamp, so if some day comes when I have the cash to build them, power them, and the space to place them a 5.1 jubscala set up would be pretty excellent. I just don't think that day is in this decade. I enjoy mutli-channel mostly for film, but once you go big on a stereo system the costs involved to moving up is just to much for me at this point in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off I know I can't turly replicate a concert. I do enjoy the imaging with 2.1 channels. I also enjoy multichannel music especially DDPLIIz. For me, this is great for vocals and jazz with horns. The music has a more airy and spacious feel. It is possible to like both setups depending on what your are listening to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If I had the room, I would run LaScalas as fronts and heresy's as the sides and rears.

Until I do, its a Synergy 5.1 system with the fronts sitting on top of the LaScalas, which are going to be run off of my Mac gear.

IMHO DTS Master is the best I have heard, and it comes on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which also solves the problem of staring at a blank wall.

What I discovered while recovering from an injury, was that running the DTS into the Elite and sending it out to just the 2 ch fronts was the best of both worlds.

Sounds like rear channels are stripped, center is divided and sent to the fronts, sound is wonderful.

The TOTL Synergy stuff just can't punch with the LaScalas

My vote is for DTS Master 5.1... Stereo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool thread.

I have not gone to multichannel simply because I don't have a room that could do my OCD desires for home theater justice. So it's a bunch of 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 rigs. It works for us, as we listen to music all day, every day, in pretty much laid back ambient use as opposed to dedicated music geek-out sessions.

I only have one system that is associated with video in any way. We use it mainly for sports viewing. It was funny to read about the Hafler Dynaquad upthread, as I use basically the most simplistic version of that approach on my video system (no Hafler processor, just rely on wiring and gain controls on the rears...yeah, it's basic). This works great for sports, sufficient for the few movies we actually watch, and works on any two channel signal so is compatible with everything we've got.

One of these days I'll get with the program and move to the twenty-first century approach. Go multichannel. Digitize the music collection. Consolidate whole house control for it all. Lots of things on the to-do list.

I think I'll go relax and contemplate that while listening to my super-retro-hi-fi two-channel Klipsch rig. Two channel may only be a window to the performance, but at least this system provides a big ***, clean window to observe from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...