Daddy Dee Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Shawn, I'd sure be interested to hear your take on the pros and cons of each method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 9 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 9:36:30 AM Royster wrote: HOG WASH........ Read Dope from Hope vol 15, no. 6 760061 and YOU will have the blueprint for a supurb 3 channel stereo. ---------------- What little do you know? James Bongiorno is probably the most anti-HT hi-fi designer out there. His trinaural circuit is ALL ANALOG. The guy does not even believe in CD players. Trinaural has nothing to do with HT. I was never saying that a summed channel does not work. Just there are now more sophisticated approaches ... read the original links I posted above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 1:12:48 PM Number 9 wrote: ---------------- On 7/2/2005 9:36:30 AM Royster wrote: HOG WASH........ Read Dope from Hope vol 15, no. 6 760061 and YOU will have the blueprint for a supurb 3 channel stereo. ---------------- What little do you know? James Bongiorno is probably the most anti-HT hi-fi designer out there. His trinaural circuit is ALL ANALOG. Before you mouth off, do your homework. I was never saying that a summed channel does not work, just there are now more sophisticated approaches ... read the original like I posted above. There is life beyond Hope. ---------------- What are you trying to say? That "Dope From Hope " is wrong, somehow less advanced than Bongiorno? You are on a KLIPSCH ownned site and have the bad manners to inmply that the DFH is somehow less......? Makes me wish I hasd the BS button artwork to post. I stand by my comments. The fact is that the afore mentioned DFH is as I stated. That is what I know. That is why I referenced the sorce. You on the other hand chose to dull out opinion as if it were fact. As far as doing MY homework I have trired both of the process's mentioned. I find that the DFH design works best for Khorns with a scalla center (that is what i run) in my room. YOU my wish to list a system in your profile, that way maybe us dullards can grasp where your experience is comming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 9 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 1:44:09 PM Royster wrote: What are you trying to say? That "Dope From Hope " is wrong, somehow less advanced than Bongiorno? ---------------- I'm not saying the Dope from is wrong. There are no absolutes. I had the original brochures back from the late '60s with the UBER setup of Klisch corners with a Belle in the middle. I'm not saying the whole concept is invaled and that YOU do not like it or hear a benefit.l But what I AM saying, DFH is a less sophisticated solution to the problem than what James Bongiorno has come up with. Yes. I don't think you read what is going on behind trinaural, otherwise, you would not have made the HT comemnts. If you read what James Bongiorno has to say, he is very much PRO three-speaker setups. But wanted a much better solution than what has been put out there till today. FYI. All McIntosh gear (amp, tuner, CDP). Forte IIs, formerly Cornwalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardhead Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 12:55:33 PM Number 9 wrote: What I really meant to say: Is if you look at (for example) what takes place with trinaural or trifield, espescially the science and reasoning behind it, it is far more sophisticated than a summed channel. If you read some of the discussions about it, they also talk about the many downsides to just a simple summed channel. Trifield, ambisonics and trinaural in fact recognize the benefit of a middle speaker, but just try to do it better. In fact, ambisonics began as research back in the 1960s. So why knock down progress and improvement? ---------------- Number 9-- Nope, nope, what you're saying is still too foolish to let it pass without comment. That Bongiorno idiot says he's trying to get stereos to sound like headphones, for goodness sake! You're confusing the passage of time with "progress" and "different" with "improvement." You're also confusing buzz words with legitimate concepts. "Trifield"? "ambisonics"? "trinaural?" Give me a break! Better yet, give yourself a break and learn what the derived third channel concept is really about. If we called it "Hypertrionic Sound" and charged you $2000.00 for the "Hypertrionic Sound Magnaprocessor", would you like it any better? Let me make a guess: you laid out $1500.00 for one of those "trinaural processors," didn't you? Yipes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Number 9, Ok, could you please lead me into your highly sophisticated world by helping me understand some of the following? The items in quotes are from the http://www.ampzilla2000.com/trinaural.html site. "In other words, you cannot just add a summed center channel and be off to the races because the power levels end up being totally destroyed." I know it is simplistic but what is wrong with using a potentiometer to tame this problem? How are the power levels being destroyed? "The only way to do this is to re-vectorize the composite stereo information." What exactly does this mean? Is he claiming that he is decomposing the stereo signal, recreating the point source for each sound and then recreating the signal as though there was a center channel microphone? "In addition, the cross-coupled error information is virtually eliminated from the opposite speaker and split between the corresponding right-center or left-center pair." What exactly is cross-coupled error information? What are the right-center and left-center pairs? I also get very leery of anything that says: "Of course, like all other new experiences, one must LEARN or should I say RE-learn how to listen in order for the ear-brain link to correctly interpret this new sonic information. This process may take typically a week or two." I didn't take weeks to "RE-learn how to listen" when switching from mono to stereo. That would seem to be much more of a drastic change than adding a center channel, no matter how it is derived. (End of quotes from the http://www.ampzilla2000.com/trinaural.html site.) Also, I checked Merriam-Webster Online, Cambridge Dictionaries Online and Rane Professional Audio Reference and I could not find entries for trifield and trinaural. What do the terms mean? I did find Ambisonics in Rane: Ambisonics A British-developed surround sound system designed to reproduce a true three-dimensional sound field. Based on the late Michael Gerzon's (1945-1996) ( Oxford University) famous theoretical foundations, Ambisonics delivers what the ill-fated quadraphonics of the '70s promised but could not. Requiring two or more transmission channels (encoded inputs) and four or more decoded output loudspeakers, it is not a simple system; nor is the problem of reproducing 3-dimensional sound. Yet with only an encoded stereo input pair and just four decoded reproducing channels, Ambisonics accurately reproduces a complete 360-degree horizontal sound field around the listener. With the addition of more input channels and more reproducing loudspeakers, it can develop a true spherical listening shell. As good as it is, a mass market for Ambisonics has never developed due to several factors. First, the actual recording requires a special tetrahedron array of four microphones: three to measure left-right, front-back and up-down sound pressure levels, while the fourth measures the overall pressure level. All these microphones must occupy the same point in space as much as possible. So far, only one manufacturer (first Calrec, bought by AMS, bought by Siemens, sold, now Soundfield) is known to make such an array. Next, a professional Ambisonics encoding unit is required to matrix these four mic signals together to form two or more channels before mastering or broadcast begins. Finally, the consumer must have an Ambisonics decoder, in addition to at least four channels of playback equipment. It sounds to me like this requires that the original signal be recorded to very specific standards where as L+R works with existing recordings. Thank you in advance for your help on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 9 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Hardhead ... it is healthy to be a little skeptical, and I am of that persuasion too sometimes. But are you skeptical or just plain argumentative in this case? If it is skeptical, live and let be then. I'm not going to preach my religion on to you. Here is a link to a review by Kalman Rubinson of his listening experiences with Trinaural. http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/904music/ There are also a couple of listener comments on AA and AK, which are basically positive. No, I have not bought one, but if I could (I just don't have the room for it in my current home setup) I would jump on it. As for James Bongiorno ... well ... why would you think he is an idiot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 9 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 4:31:08 PM scriven wrote: Also, I checked Merriam-Webster Online, Cambridge Dictionaries Online and Rane Professional Audio Reference and I could not find entries for trifield and trinaural. What do the terms mean? ---------------- Did you try and look at my original links? Did it possibly occur to you that these are trade names? Are these are not legit if it is not in a dictionary? Come on, this is absolutely silly ... Trifield is a process owned by a company in the UK through 5 different patents. Ambisonics has been written about for years. Some links where Trifield and Ambisonic are discussed ... http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/201/index16.html http://www.ambisonic.net/beyond51.html http://www.guidetohometheater.com/dvdplayers/305meridian/index2.html http://mistervideo.net/work/FAQ/Sound.html http://www.agmworld.com/tss.html http://www.sascom.com/AGM_ESsEX_main.html http://www.trifield.demon.co.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ---------------- On 7/2/2005 5:45:53 PM Number 9 wrote: Did you try and look at my original links? ... ---------------- Yes I looked at them. Did you miss that I was quoting from one of them? I also read the Rubinson review. He raised many of the same questions that I did. I would be more interested in a comparison between the Trinaural processor and a L+R center instead of a 2 channel setup. I can make most of the same statements about a L+R center he made about the Trinaural processor. Ok, now I understand that Trifield is a form of Ambisonics - indicating that it is useless for existing 2 channel recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 My limited experience with the third, center channel has been good. The best has been with a center vocalist which is well defined to begin with. It can be spooky, then. Maybe this can be anticipated with headphones. If there good mono, in the the middle of your head, presence, then that may well show up in the center speaker. I've not tested this theory. Artto has posted something reporting what is my experience too. The proper volume level of the center changes from recording to recording. Certainly it changes depending on how close you are to the center relative to the flanking units. PWK implied the need for adjustment in the DFH. He noted that when commecial pre-amps have a center output, the control for level is not conveniently located. I infer this means he found need for level adjustment on a regular basis. Note that his two mini-box designs were adjustable. Regarding commercial pre-amps: On the Mac C-26 the level control it is on top. This is fine unless you put the C-26 in the walnut cabinet. What were they thinking? This whole issue of how well a passive or active center channel works shouldn't be much of surprize. We're doing some adjustment to the playback system which the recording engineer couldn't anticipate or work toward. Best, Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Dee, "I'd sure be interested to hear your take on the pros and cons of each method." First so people don't freak out over this... I think either approach can be better then two channel listening. For the Summed center channel approach.... On the plus side... *Very* inexpensive as far as deriving the center channel itself. It can even been done such that a center channel amp isn't needed. As it is a totally passive approach there is no chance of steering artifacts like pumping and breathing and image instability. Ditto extra noise and such getting into the setup. It can usually be integrated into existing setups pretty easily. The center tends to get run at a reduced level compared to L/R (more of a fill) so you can get away with a 'lesser' center channel compared to more active approaches. Is consistent... if you have heard one method of doing this you have pretty much heard them all. On the negative side.... The method of deriving the center channel simply sums all the right channel info with all the left channel info and sends it to center. This can reduce the apparent width of the soundstage depending upon how loud the center channel is. Anything that is supposed to be in just the left side or right side no longer is. It is now being reproduced by center and that side. Because the central material is still being reproduced by three speakers off center listeners don't have as much of a hard 'locked' center as they do with an active approach. Moving off center the image shifts less then in 2 channel listening but more then in a system employing steering for the center channel. Along with this because central material is still being reproduced by three speakers you still have comb filtering effects. Passive approaches don't have the ability to time align the center channel with the L/R electronically. To actually do this you have to physically move the center channel which isn't always possible. This reduces the 'blend' between all three speakers compared to a time aligned/steered system. Passive approaches can only derive a single surround channel and it is mostly just a duplicate of the front channels. At best it has 3dB of seperation compared to the fronts because the fronts still have all the info in them too. A mono surround channel isn't natural compared to ambiance in a hall. In a hall you are surround with information that differs from basically every direction. Passive approaches don't have a way of delaying that surround channel so unless the rears are further away from the listener then the front channels the Haas effect can move the perceived directions of the main soundstage toward the rear. For active approaches... Positives: Steering (if done well) reduces comb filtering. Instead of a central singer/speaker coming from two or three speakers it only comes almost entirely from one. Comb filter is a sort of phasey sound that has always been part of two channel listening (so some 'miss' it when it is gone) but is not natural in the real world. How many people do you talk to that speaker from more then one place at a time. When done well with a good center channel vocals and such just can get spooky how good they can sound. This means the center channel can become the most important speaker in the system, if it isn't up to the task it is more obvious then in a passive approach. On the plus side if the center is a great speaker the active approach will better utilize it. Some modes have ways of controlling how much steering is used to the center to help offset for lesser center channels and some even have passive 'fill' settings too. The steering also locks in the soundstage much more for off center listeners. Active approaches can offer many different adjustments to how they do their processing so it can be tuned very much to the listeners tastes. Or adjust by recording if needed/desired. Active approaches can do a dramatically better job of pulling out(steering) ambiance in the recordings and sending it to surround speakers. This can offer 2 or even 4 channels of differing info in the rear that makes the rear soundstage sound much more natural then a bunch of speakers reproducing correlated (mono) surround. Done well this can sound *very* close to discrete multi-channel recordings. Active approaches can offer time alignment and rear channel delay for a better mesh of all the speakers and also to avoid the Haas effect of the surrounds pulling info to the rear by mistake. Negative: Not all modes are created equally. Bad modes using steering can sound horrible. There is a large difference between good modes and bad modes, a person that has only heard bad setups can be turned off without really hearing what is possible. Steering can get tripped out on sources with bad phase relationships between channels. How badly depends on the mode and any additional processing that may be done to help balance the signal. Costs considerably more then passive approaches. It is a bigger investment to do this well. Implementing this tends to require larger changes to the system then the passive approaches. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Mark, " It sounds to me like this requires that the original signal be recorded to very specific standards where as L+R works with existing recordings" Ambisonics *IS* meant to be used with Ambisonic encoded recordings. It can be used with regular recordings but it sounds odd when used in that manor IMO. There is a mode based on Ambisonics for 'normal' recordings called 'Super Stereo' but I don't like it. It makes things sound very distant IMO. The mode from MG that sounds best with un-encoded material is 'Trifield'... again IMO. That works very well with unencoded sources. This one is sort of an interesting approach as it is sort of active/passive mode as it doesn't use steering for the center channel. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Mono rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Shawn, Thanks for the info. Allan, Of course, you are right! What ever was I thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivervalleymgb Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I know this is an old thread, but this is what the listening room at Hope was in the 70's: Two Klipschorns in the corners and a Belle in the center. My first introduction into 3-channel stereo systems was from my cousin that was a devotee of the Bell Labs research into 3 channel sound. He played nothing but Command records that were recorded for this type of system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted July 11, 2010 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2010 Three-channel stereo.........it's just heresy, it will never work ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.