PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?

[Kal Rubinson]

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.

True but only for some types of music. For live acoustic events, like classical and jazz concerts, the "surroundscape" is real and multi-dimensional.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

True but only for some types of music. For live acoustic events, like classical and jazz concerts, the "surroundscape" is real and multi-dimensional.

Agreed

 

[jimfisheye]

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.

Hyper-realism for the win!
I think a lot of people would be surprised and disappointed if they heard true accurate field recordings of a space. At any rate, such a thing demands a very well tuned performance space to begin with and then the performance just nailing it. Because this will include the performance space acoustics and everything - ie. not just the isolated performance itself - you better have a reference system to play it back on or what you hear will get obscure and distant.

Some of you have heard bootlegs. Those are true field recordings from a location in a performance space. Yeah, some of them are dictation quality devices and more accurately called studies of distortion. Some freaks out there are smuggling in great mics though. That's what a natural recording from a spot in a performance room sounds like. Pretty different than the isolated hyper realistic studio mix, right?

 

[par4ken]

Because it is limited to a fraction of the spectrum.

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.

Not really the "channel" is capable of full bandwidth even if not normally used that way!

I get the point that the "." is just a separator not a decimal place but I still think it is a dumb way to describe an audio system format. I don't have a better naming scheme in mind other than maybe use hyphens instead, perhaps 5-1-4. No confusing "decimal" point that way!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I get the point that the "." is just a separator not a decimal place but I still think it is a dumb way to describe an audio system format. I don't have a better naming scheme in mind other than maybe use hyphens instead, perhaps 5-1-4.

I don't see an issue but if I ruled the world, it would be 5/1/4.

 

[jimfisheye]

7/1/4 in the US but 1/7/4 in the UK, right?

 

[Electric Moo]

Our problem is the ground plane is in the way all the time.

Things like birds & fish are the only true surround creatures.

Zero gravity is the way of the future.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

7/1/4 in the US but 1/7/4 in the UK, right?

Only for Brit bass freaks.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I get the point that the "." is just a separator not a decimal place but I still think it is a dumb way to describe an audio system format.

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.

I always thought the .1 came about from the LFE being meant to handle only the lowest of the 10 octaves, or 1/10 (.1) of the musical scale. Even if it's wrong, it does make some sense.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I always thought the .1 came about from the LFE being meant to handle only the lowest of the 10 octaves, or 1/10 (.1) of the musical scale. Even if it's wrong, it does make some sense.

Mebbe but what accounts for the 5? Or the 2 in 2.0?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Mebbe but what accounts for the 5? Or the 2 in 2.0?

Those are whole numbers. They represent the full range channels.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Those are whole numbers. They represent the full range channels.

Kal knows that...

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Kal knows that...

Then why ask? Did i miss a joke?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Then why ask? Did i miss a joke?

Vide supra.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Vide supra.

Ok . I see. Sorry. Jokes on me

 

[jaybird100]

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…

Did you, perhaps, give him information on how to contact Involve?

 

[barfle]

Did you, perhaps, give him information on how to contact Involve?

I mentioned them to him, and he wasn’t interested in a quad decoder. The whole idea of quad vinyl seemed to be outside their area of interest. But once Dave gets the preamp going, they might nave an interest in that product, and I’ll bring it up again.

 

[mercury]

Bacch4mac is one of the most revealing solution for listen stereo recording with convincing surround effects, I have also the realiser and a dolby atmos setup, but bacch4mac give me more to think about the recordings, the spatial cues are in the stereo recordings but due the crosstalk cancellation it’s not easy to listen on conventional stereo setups, give it a try!

 

[esimms86]

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.

For me, it’s genre related. A British period drama or the film adaptation of a stage play would work best for me without surround. The most important feature, particularly given my 73 year old hearing, is the clarity of the dialogue. For CGI-infused action movies(which I, admittedly, seldom watch), I find surround sound to add to the fun. Bombs detonating around me or helicopters swooping in overhead from behind me just add to the fun.

 

[esimms86]

Bacch4mac is one of the most revealing solution for listen stereo recording with convincing surround effects, I have also the realiser and a dolby atmos setup, but bacch4mac give me more to think about the recordings, the spatial cues are in the stereo recordings but due the crosstalk cancellation it’s not easy to listen on conventional stereo setups, give it a try!

I’d love to have a chance to listen to a Bacch 3D system. Perhaps someday I’ll have $7,000 in discretionary spending to purchase such a system. Of course, Bacch 3D is based on measuring a personalized HTRF, plus it does have a rather limited sweet spot(unless immediately behind the person in the sweet spot). It is built on a foundation of stereo and it has little to nothing in common with a 5.1 or Dolby Atmos mix. In fact, surround mixes need not apply. Mind you, this is not a criticism; it just works off of a different paradigm. And the perceived soundstage is a product of the stereo mix. As I’ve said, I don’t have any direct experience with Bacch 3D but I would expect that listening to a live recording of, say, a five piece band would be absolute heaven.