PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?
- Thread starter kfbkfb
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,266
Music nusiness? Is that a form of smearing of the sonic image?
Look what I found! The first 2L Auro-3D release was in 2012, Magnificat, which of course I have:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...se-trondheimsolistene-souvenir-from-2l.17000/
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...se-trondheimsolistene-souvenir-from-2l.17000/
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,266
Maybe the difference between the "you are there" of quadraphonics and 5.1 is that 5.1 is discrete, with no interaction between channels.
I have heard the "you are there" effect with Dolby Surround. I heard the effect totally destroyed in 7.1 when a moving object cogged between the speakers.
Matrix quad always has interaction and leakage between the channels.
The recordings I made with the "you are there" effect used a normal mixing console to place the musicians on a stereo stage in the front, and a special set of microphones about 30 feet away from the band and 15 feet above the audience.
I even had someone walk around the mic cluster at a distance of about 15 feet. He was saying "can you hear me now?" as he walked. Using headphones, I could hear his position correctly as he walked, and I also heard this on a Dolby Surround system when I played it back later.
I have heard the "you are there" effect with Dolby Surround. I heard the effect totally destroyed in 7.1 when a moving object cogged between the speakers.
Matrix quad always has interaction and leakage between the channels.
The recordings I made with the "you are there" effect used a normal mixing console to place the musicians on a stereo stage in the front, and a special set of microphones about 30 feet away from the band and 15 feet above the audience.
I even had someone walk around the mic cluster at a distance of about 15 feet. He was saying "can you hear me now?" as he walked. Using headphones, I could hear his position correctly as he walked, and I also heard this on a Dolby Surround system when I played it back later.
My family room 5.1 system, with three Totem Vs up front (with a 75" 4k TV), two Totem IIIs for surround, all on wall (grandkid proof), with 5 REL subwoofers, an Exasound s88 7.1 channel DAC, also a Surround Master vIII,
and a Coleman 7.1SW switcher, and a Marantz AV7705 SSP - has all PS Audio monoblocks - 3 Stellar M1200s, 2 Stellar M700s for surrounds (the Totem speakers with their superlight proprietary woofers sound their best with gobs of power, which the PS Audio monoblocks provide - plus they are Class D but with a tube output stage and small, so all the components are in a Salamander cabinet.
The point is - PS audio monoblock amps sing for multi-channel audio (as well as stereo)!
WOOPS! throw in a PS Audio P15 Power Plant on its own 20 amp circuit for everything but the subwoofers, which are on their own dedicated 20 amp circuit!
And I have many of PS Audio - Octave Records - DSD downloads, I very much like most of them!
and a Coleman 7.1SW switcher, and a Marantz AV7705 SSP - has all PS Audio monoblocks - 3 Stellar M1200s, 2 Stellar M700s for surrounds (the Totem speakers with their superlight proprietary woofers sound their best with gobs of power, which the PS Audio monoblocks provide - plus they are Class D but with a tube output stage and small, so all the components are in a Salamander cabinet.
The point is - PS audio monoblock amps sing for multi-channel audio (as well as stereo)!
WOOPS! throw in a PS Audio P15 Power Plant on its own 20 amp circuit for everything but the subwoofers, which are on their own dedicated 20 amp circuit!
And I have many of PS Audio - Octave Records - DSD downloads, I very much like most of them!
Getting back to the subject of this thread - most "audiophiles" are not into surround sound. Many of them can hardly afford what the addiction requires them to spend for 2 channel, let alone adding more channels.
But some of us are into surround sound. Particularly my family room 5.1 system, and even more so my theater 11.12.7 system when its finally done with renovation/upgrade, sound great whether in 2 channel or multi-channel! Note my theater does not have any PS Audio gear in it, though I gotta tell you, if not for so many many channels, it would certainly sound great using the Stellar M1200 monoblocks for all of the 11 main floor channels - but no, I am not doing that! HA!
But some of us are into surround sound. Particularly my family room 5.1 system, and even more so my theater 11.12.7 system when its finally done with renovation/upgrade, sound great whether in 2 channel or multi-channel! Note my theater does not have any PS Audio gear in it, though I gotta tell you, if not for so many many channels, it would certainly sound great using the Stellar M1200 monoblocks for all of the 11 main floor channels - but no, I am not doing that! HA!
Had a wild hair once “pheeot” I’d take the HDtracks’ files of Steve Miller’s ‘The Joker’ album and try an Up-mix that I’d like better than the old-weird Quad version.
Well it was one of the worst mastered things I’ve ever heard; seems my cash ain’t nothin’ but trash.
A bigger issue is that many audiophiles are quite wealthy and can afford whatever they please.
The saddest issue is the High End media that guides them continue on the 2ch forever path, encouraging
them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on turntables, needles, and vinyl pressings.
What a waste.
People always try to solve "problems" by throwing money at it. I guess that's fine if you have it.
I doubt when I was even a teen if I could have heard the difference between a $5,000 and $30,000 speaker. ( in a home environment). I can be wrong, of course, and frequently am, but I doubt anyone else can either.
Hard to believe someone would spend $1MM dollars on a "music listening room". But of course if you do, you will love it and think it's the best in the world and be proud of yourself that you can finally hear that old vinyl the way it was intended.
That was one reason I stopped subscribing to the magazines decades ago. I read some of the most ridiculous descriptions of how equipment "sounds", and not just speakers. I mean I guess reviewers have to make a living but Jeez Louise it got crazy.
I wonder how many small audio startup companies got killed because of biased reviews or just being ignored entirely.
I doubt when I was even a teen if I could have heard the difference between a $5,000 and $30,000 speaker. ( in a home environment). I can be wrong, of course, and frequently am, but I doubt anyone else can either.
Hard to believe someone would spend $1MM dollars on a "music listening room". But of course if you do, you will love it and think it's the best in the world and be proud of yourself that you can finally hear that old vinyl the way it was intended.
That was one reason I stopped subscribing to the magazines decades ago. I read some of the most ridiculous descriptions of how equipment "sounds", and not just speakers. I mean I guess reviewers have to make a living but Jeez Louise it got crazy.
I wonder how many small audio startup companies got killed because of biased reviews or just being ignored entirely.
A bigger issue is that many audiophiles are quite wealthy and can afford whatever they please.
The saddest issue is the High End media that guides them continue on the 2ch forever path, encouraging
them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on turntables, needles, and vinyl pressings.
What a waste.
However, some audiophiles are value conscious. That friend of mine, who I mentioned earlier, with the $25,000 pair of speakers and the 500 wpc McIntosh monoblocks: He bought all of the stuff lightly-used at fire sale prices around the time of the 2008 financial panic. IIRC, he paid about $8k combined for all of the stuff. While that is still a pile of money, I guess you could say that he had a "Warren Buffet" audiophile system.
Then, of course, his wife banished him and the system to their unfinished basement. LOL
[Edit: And his playback system was all digital, no vinyl.]
This is 100% sour grapes, but I am just so very frustrated that if I had that kind of money, I'd spend it on much more worthwhile things than hand-crafted nano-diamond cartridge needles made by an order of blind monks in Abruzzo.A bigger issue is that many audiophiles are quite wealthy and can afford whatever they please.
The saddest issue is the High End media that guides them continue on the 2ch forever path, encouraging
them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on turntables, needles, and vinyl pressings.
What a waste.
Like what? A $100,000 sports card perhaps? People spend money on all sorts of silly things. Putting it all into perspective high end audio even at ridiculously inflated prices is still a bargain. If I were rich I would seek out what I felt to be the best product regardless of cost. On the other hand I would never assume that the most expensive item is the best.
I think that the scalper prices people were paying recently for Taylor Swift tickets to be the greatest swindle/money waste of all time!
Folks tend to prefer what they have (and can afford) and put down what others have that they don't have. HA!
Although I got rid of my turntable many many years ago, early 90s, I have heard turntable based stereo systems which sounded wonderful. But I went digital and multi-channel and would not myself go back to turntable.
What may be silly spending to you, or me, may be rationally affordabe, or quantitatively addictable, to someone else!
Although I got rid of my turntable many many years ago, early 90s, I have heard turntable based stereo systems which sounded wonderful. But I went digital and multi-channel and would not myself go back to turntable.
What may be silly spending to you, or me, may be rationally affordabe, or quantitatively addictable, to someone else!
My wife thinks that we are all batshit crazy. She is correct.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 107
Anybody here remember Herman Horne, the audio-obsessed character on Stan Freberg's 1958 CBS Radio series? Horne dismissed any hi-fi enthusiast who listened to music, claiming music was only good for checking wow and flutter.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,566
I see some headphone listeners mess around with intentionally introducing crosstalk to try to simulate speakers in a room too. I'm going to bluntly say... this doesn't work like that. But they think so apparently. The amount of digging through decimal dust searching for clues when we just have matter of fact gear that delivers to play with can be astounding.
I mean, if a recording sounds better with the channels folded together or partially folded together, that's a fair thing to say. Kind of a brutal critique with that! "Your discrete mix is so botched it sounds better when I bleed the channels together!" Well, OK!
It's fair to have opinions like that about some released mixes. The idea that this might be so widespread or something that we should actually avoid discrete mix delivery for kludged mistakes... Well, it's time for a sanity check when that happens!
There are some phoned in novelty surround mixes out there for sure but lets try to stay sane and celebrate discrete delivery. Someone can work on their mixes if there's a problem! We're not entertaining alterations baked into delivery formats! I've heard some of those examples and I might even agree the weak mixes sounded better altered but just no no no no no we're not going back to delivery formats that alter and skew the program!
Also this has nothing to do with 4.0 or 5.1 channel formats. This is about partially folding a weak sounding 4.0 mix down to mono and preferring the resulting sound.
Also also, some of those quad mixes that were to be put to encoded vinyl were monitored in the studio with the audio run through the encode/decode system! Listening to the altered version and making mix decisions based on that! Equal parts logical and messed up with that but that was a thing. So some of those quad mixes would actually sound unintentional hearing the raw discrete master.
I mean, if a recording sounds better with the channels folded together or partially folded together, that's a fair thing to say. Kind of a brutal critique with that! "Your discrete mix is so botched it sounds better when I bleed the channels together!" Well, OK!
It's fair to have opinions like that about some released mixes. The idea that this might be so widespread or something that we should actually avoid discrete mix delivery for kludged mistakes... Well, it's time for a sanity check when that happens!
There are some phoned in novelty surround mixes out there for sure but lets try to stay sane and celebrate discrete delivery. Someone can work on their mixes if there's a problem! We're not entertaining alterations baked into delivery formats! I've heard some of those examples and I might even agree the weak mixes sounded better altered but just no no no no no we're not going back to delivery formats that alter and skew the program!
Also this has nothing to do with 4.0 or 5.1 channel formats. This is about partially folding a weak sounding 4.0 mix down to mono and preferring the resulting sound.
Also also, some of those quad mixes that were to be put to encoded vinyl were monitored in the studio with the audio run through the encode/decode system! Listening to the altered version and making mix decisions based on that! Equal parts logical and messed up with that but that was a thing. So some of those quad mixes would actually sound unintentional hearing the raw discrete master.
A turntable is esential for me. My preference for music is that of the sixties, seventies and early eighties. Much of that music has never been released digitally and likely never will be. Many digital releases are brickwalled so I am forced back to the vinyl to get decent sound quality.
That being said I don't play records on a regular basis but rather make digital copies, often playing the vinyl only once or twice. That procedure helps preserve not only the vinyl but the life of my expensive stylus/cartridge. Once recorded digitally the ticks and pops can easily be removed, "IZotope" does a near perfect job of that.
Interesting to note that even clean/new vinyl can have a few ticks and pops but normally they go unnoticed. I'm often surprised after making a clean sounding needledrop finding it contains a few ticks. In any case they are very easily removed.
Most people do not have what I would consider a decent turntable/arm and cartridge. Not to mention a good preamp. Being analogue attention to detail in all those areas matters a great deal.
Who does that? You can't really simulate speakers with headphones as the sound just doesn't image from the front. What the blending does do is make the stereo image larger (or smaller with in phase blending). It gives the illusion of greater separation. The same thing happens with speakers but to a lesser extent.
Many of the CBS SQ mixes were done that way. They sound good decoded by a full logic decoder, as intended. They sound fantastic decoded by a Tate.
The discrete versions also sound fantastic, although you might say a little odd in that they are perhaps a bit too discrete. I don't think that anyone is complaining about that though. Also they were released in that hyper discrete form on Q8.
Last edited:
At least with a $100K sports car you can attract some females. I don't think there's many that get excited over high dollar audio systems...
Sports card, not car! I don't think that too many females would be impressed by a piece of cardboard with a hockey, baseball or football; players picture on it! Or maybe $1,000,000 for a super bowl football!
If I had the money I wouldn't mind a classic car, or a classic sports car! Audio is still a much cheaper hobby!
Similar threads
