PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Also...many TV shows produced since the late 1980s have Dolby Surround encoded soundtracks (probably motivated by the more widespread adoption of stereo sound for TV around that time).

I use my Dolby Pro-Logic (1) decoder often since I videotape many of these shows from the DTV subchannels such as Comet TV and lately I videotape some shows from Hulu [time shifting Stargate Atlantis now] (all offer stereo sound which is good enough to work for Dolby Surround decoding).


Kirk Bayne
 
There is a small handful of us on the forum that own a Smyth Realiser A16. All I can say is, don’t dismiss Dolby Atmos listening through headphones until you’ve experienced the A16. And its precursor, the A8, did a pretty credible version of 3.0, quad and 5.1!
I've been reading the odd post about the "Realiser" lately. It sounds like something that might have huge potential, it almost sounds like science fiction. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like an artificial way to generate a binaural signal, fine tuned to the listeners ears. Still I can't help but thinking that it would be best suited to gaming applications. If it provides not just realistic directional sound but quality sound as well then it might be great for music as well. I'm not ready to try it out for myself but I am interested in knowing more about it.

One question, the big problem with headphones is that they don't image in front, is that any different with the Realiser?
 
Last edited:
I can certainly see using streaming to try things out before you buy them. And there is also little doubt that a lot of the Atmos content (and other potentially desireable content , like Revolver )isn't even available on physical media. It just is not a proposition that works for my particular set of weirdness and cantankerousness.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading the odd post about the "Realiser" lately. It sounds like something that might have huge potential, it almost sounds like science fiction. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like an artificial way to generate a binaural signal, fine tuned to the listeners ears.
Not really. It mimics the soundstage of a real loudspeaker system/room (yours or anothers) using only the headphones.
One question, the big problem with headphones is that they don't image in front, is that any different with the Realiser?
With the right sources and setup, yes.
 
I don't even watch movies often but when I do it's usually not even with the surround system turned on. I'm not even curious.

And I thought I was the only one who did that. I find watching a movie in surround sound too distracting. Perhaps that is how the people feel who cannot listen to music in surround.
 
Not really. It mimics the soundstage of a real loudspeaker system/room (yours or anothers) using only the headphones.
Yes but to do that using only two drivers it must be creating the same sound that we would hear with our ears naturally, with the exact time phase and frequency characteristics as sitting in the room with with those speakers active. That sounds to me like what binaural does but in a simpler manner by using a dummy head. I would surmise that it perhaps shares some similarity or relationship with Ambisonics as well?

Just trying to wrap my head around how such a thing could possibly work. Also does it require some kind of earbud that sits inside the ear? I would think that headphone drivers over and outside the ear might have some limitations.
 
And I thought I was the only one who did that. I find watching a movie in surround sound too distracting. Perhaps that is how the people feel who cannot listen to music in surround.
I rarely watch a film/movie and if I do its usually in stereo. Surround/Atmos is for music :51QQ
I understand you guys, but I like everything in surround sound. Music, movies, video games. It's all good to me
 
Even more baffling @par4ken : I walked into a high-end audio salon and talked to the proprietor about buying new speakers for a surround system...Revel Performa F52 towers for the fronts; Performa F32 for the surrounds; large dedicated Revel center speaker; smaller Revel speakers for the rears, REL subwoofer. You know, cheap stuff. LOL

As were discussing things and my interests, he blurted out, "And who wants to listen to music in surround?" He clearly implied that no one wants to do so. Why would a shop owner say something like that to a customer? Especially since he also sells AVR's, HD TV's etc. :unsure: I went home and rebuilt my beloved AR speakers instead.
I recently found a brick and mortar store locally named The Stereo Shoppe. They have a handful of stereo demo areas set up, but they also have a dedicated Atmos room, and I was wowed by the sound in it. Raymond, the proprietor, has been working with me to upgrade my surround system. He sold my my Marantz 7706 pre-pro at a sale price, and he is setting up a new turntable with a CD-4 compatible cartridge and stylus. So just because the word “stereo” is part of the name, that doesn’t necessarily mean they reject 3-12 channel systems.

Now, if he would just carry Involve Audio products…
 
Yes but to do that using only two drivers it must be creating the same sound that we would hear with our ears naturally, with the exact time phase and frequency characteristics as sitting in the room with with those speakers active. That sounds to me like what binaural does but in a simpler manner by using a dummy head. I would surmise that it perhaps shares some similarity or relationship with Ambisonics as well?

Just trying to wrap my head around how such a thing could possibly work. Also does it require some kind of earbud that sits inside the ear? I would think that headphone drivers over and outside the ear might have some limitations.
Again, just from reading about the Smyth and minimal understanding of the acoustics of ears, it adjusts lousness and phase and maybe a few other parameters to mimic what your own ears hear when sounds are moved around your head. Since everyone’s head and ears are different, it must be set up to an individual with a process that has some similarities to room calibration, but using the owner’s head and ears.

All of which makes me skeptical of an Atmos release for headphones. But I haven’t actually heard one of those, either. I have heard a handful of binaural recordings, and was not impressed by their localization.
 
By definition, two channel, quad, 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos are all STEREO:

View attachment 111797
At one time the term Four Channel Stereo was widely used. Quadraphonic and all its variations was just a made up word. To most people stereo still means just two channels. In photography stereo refers to viewing slightly different images with two eyes. By extension If we had more than two eyes I guess that the term would still be valid!:alien:

I like the term Quintaphonic (five channel) as well. I have much less fondness for the number channel naming convention. How does a lfe channel rate only a 0.1?:confused:
 
Atmos IS made for theater . If I lived in zero gravity and my favorite band was playing in zero gravity them atmos may make sense because the musicians would be free to float around the space and not be tied to the stage.
 
Atmos IS made for theater . If I lived in zero gravity and my favorite band was playing in zero gravity them atmos may make sense because the musicians would be free to float around the space and not be tied to the stage.
Your favorite band probably didn't record your favorite music on a stage to begin with. It was in a recording studio, and the parts were probably not even recorded on the same day. The stereo soundscape is an artificial creation, as is the surroundscape. Both treatments are part of a creative process. One is more creative than the other IMO. Neither reflect reality.
 
I don't just want to say it will never happen with full fidelity.

Here's the thing. Audio reproduction reached the level of true virtual reality around 50 years ago give or take. Genuine virtual reality. Not just like a great "realistic" animation like where video is at in gaming today but actual really happening in the room with you real life accurate sound reproduction.

It was "money no object" expensive then. Not free today but a few zeros have been shaved off and there are a few more things ready to go off the shelf.

Any audio reproduction purporting to aim at audiophiles that isn't full fidelity is going to fail. The binaural folddown with the head tracking attempt as it works today is maybe at the level of 'realistic animation' at best. It's cartoonish and obviously so. Higher level and some interesting elements but very obviously not real. The cheapo stuff is still absurd.

If that level can be reached and interactive immersion can be nailed with full fidelity, that's an obvious thing to pursue! Surround sound is a soundstage that you need to interact with. There's more to take in than possible with static head position. That's one of the neat "larger than life" effects of surround sound!

Eyebrows are starting to be raised though! Some of the cartoonish stuff is better fidelity than some novelty products out there. That's saying more about said novelty products (ie soundbars and the like) but I think someone is going to actually pull this off in the near future. Computer speeds plateaued since 2011 or so. And gaslighting like Apple is into now isn't going to do anything creative. When someone bridges the gap with optical connected circuits and CPU chips instead of heat producing electrical connections and genuinely brings in the next generation of computers we're going to see some interesting stuff and some genuine virtual reality. Probably with visuals too.
 
Yes but to do that using only two drivers it must be creating the same sound that we would hear with our ears naturally, with the exact time phase and frequency characteristics as sitting in the room with with those speakers active.
In a general sense, yes.
Just trying to wrap my head around how such a thing could possibly work. Also does it require some kind of earbud that sits inside the ear? I would think that headphone drivers over and outside the ear might have some limitations.
Well, you could read their docs or reviews to find out but there is calibration/compensation for phones, too.
 
I like the term Quintaphonic (five channel) as well. I have much less fondness for the number channel naming convention. How does a lfe channel rate only a 0.1?:confused:
Because it is limited to a fraction of the spectrum. :p

Actually, the "." is not a decimal point but a separator. Thus, you can use full-range speakers for the height channels in 5.1.4 setup.
 
Back
Top