| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » 2+3 surround sound?? (37 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (37 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
07-26-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,303
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 26
Post ID: 26213
Reply to: 26212
Whoda Thunkit?!?
Thanks for sharing, Romy! "Micro" and "macro" "schematics" would be a nice adjunct, to show how you hook up electronics and speakers, as well as speaker positioning. Of course, lots of recordings are treated with synthetic reverb, so those are getting "extra reverb" with your injection system. Since you mention "just cheap speakers" for the reverb, I suppose you have not re-deployed your Tannoy injection speakers for use as delay injection? I'm not entirely clear, but I think you said you use the Barringer for delay, and the amp for that channel is "just an amp", without delay capabilities? Ironically, plenty of the "normal" surround systems do have delay options for the rear channels. Again, I'm hoping the "macro schematic" will clear up where you put the delayed speakers, and you will say +/- what relative level you run them.


Best regards,
Paul S
07-26-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 26214
Reply to: 26213
Here it comes....
ReverbChenalls.png


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-26-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 28
Post ID: 26215
Reply to: 26214
Some questions...
There are some questions that I am looking answers and I do not have a firm position so far:

1)      How the quality of reverberation channels speakers and their amplification impact sound or the depth of the psychoacoustic trickery. 
2)      Are all sound field processors equal and if they not then what characteristic is more important. 
3)      Do all manufacturers use the same sound field algorithms? 
4)      The time alignment looks like completely irrelevant for reverberation channels speakers 
5)      Do prod reverbs more interesting then hi-fi makers? The Behringer Virtualizer 3D FX2000 for instance can do much more then Yamaha DSP Z9  and if you use something like Z9   for reverberation  injection then you do not use 99% of Z9  unit. 
6)      Are any sound field processors that permits to bypass the AD/DA conversion and run it direct? I ask as I have a LOT of run to use current sound field processor to run my reverberation channels with no proceeding. They do very convent -180 degree pilot playback that I running all time nowadays.




"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-27-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,303
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 29
Post ID: 26216
Reply to: 26215
Live At The Village Gate
Much clearer with the drawings; thanks again, Romy. So, if I listen to my old jazz LPs recorded live at The Village Gate with the DSP-Z9 on that setting I would be getting a double dose of ambience, along with the extra stuff the recording engineers threw in to make the LP sound "realistic"? As to your question about the standardized sound field processing, the answer is no, of course. Not to mention "normal" stereo is a proprietary mix-down in the first place, and it typically includes "artistic" "cross pollination" of right and left channels to make swell stereo. Also, digital sources are no more standardized, end to end, than analog sources. What I'm saying is, we might never get to the bottom of all this stuff, and we'll probably have to do what we do get done by ear, with more or less random efforts, at least for a while, until we can establish "what matters" amongst varying variables, until we can consistently implement and predict acceptable results.

For those trying this at home, Romy has a zillion input/output, fully buffered, active Placette pre-amp, with a pass-through, for keeping output impedance, gain and isolation where one needs it to be to do this. YMMV. Any "pro-type" mixer board should do, as well; but plenty of home stereo pre-amps will not do it.

So far, the more I learn about this "system", the less I know, apart from "it works". Kinda like the PP3000...


Paul S
07-27-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 26217
Reply to: 26216
Not sure what you are trying to say...
Paul, I think you are taken it in a wrong direction in my view. It is absolutely relevant what your main speakers do, play mono, or stereo, how and why it was mixed. It is what it is, and we do not interact with main sound in any way or form. It feels to me that we do not use the Village Gate or any other short reverberation time programs as it has two short delays and the sound of reverberation channels become to “talk” with sound of main channels. You want the sound from main and reverberation channels to be completely separated entities that has nothing in common in terms of “primary sound”. You should “hear” your reverberation channels only when you abruptly stop music. The objective of reverberation channels is not change primary sound but to trick your mind and put your perception in the condition what you perceive the primary sound differently.  I am not expert with the subject, and I juts begin to experiment with it but that is what I feel so far.
 
I am not sure what you wanted to say by comparing reverberation channels with PP3000. Whoever was lucky to get properly working PP3000 know what this machine can do. Again, I am not trying to convince neither you or anybody else and what you do in terms of your own experiments, or you own believes is only your business. From what I hear now is that you are repeat the patters that you had with PP300:  express a lot of skepticism without trying the PP3000. I understand that in case of PP3000 it was a high entrance fee lottery with very low chance to win but in case of reverberation channels there is practically no entrance fee.  All that you need is $50 worth old receiver with psychoacoustic futures, most of them from end 80s and 90s. I think your skepticism would be much more valuable if you try it and then express your judgement.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-27-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,303
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 31
Post ID: 26218
Reply to: 26217
Not Skeptical but Amazed!
No, I see the comparison with PP3000 just as you've described it. I actually love it that in both cases they "just do the job", and I especially love it that in this case it really is "very little" to get it going, as well. My "tone" is not due to skepticism, rather I am gob smacked, even tickled, that your solution simply circumvents all the "considerations" that are built into our media and our playback systems (and our "thinking" on these matters), and the resultant complexities that have frustrated so many for so long. It's the proverbial cutting of the Surround Gordian Knot. Congratulations, and Thanks Again!


Best regards,
Paul S
07-31-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 26219
Reply to: 26217
Hm....
In context of my recent discovery how to use and what kind of benefits of reverberation channels have to sound reproduction I have a few interesting ideas how faulty entire high-end premises is. It is not a funny judgment but it is certainly a different perspective expressed from very much jungle of high-end audio. I am contemplating to make a public presentation of concept and probably to load it at you too for something for this, we are talking about public benefits. Can you give me reasons not to do it?



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-31-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,303
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 33
Post ID: 26220
Reply to: 26219
Do It!
HL Menken was kind of a jerk in some ways, but he also got a lot right, including: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nobody_ever_went_broke_underestimating_the_intelligence_of_the_American_people

Although, these days, I think first of Fox News when I hear this, it certainly applies to "high end hi-fi", as well.

Sure, in truth, plenty of people have gone broke trying to market "high end" hi-fi. But plenty of people went broke over-spending on "high end" hi-fi gear, too. And, as Clark said, these losses pretty much amount to "a tax on stupidity", since 99% of punters have no idea what they've gotten themselves into, in the first place. It's always time for some coherent commentary on the shitstorm of disinformation that is "high end audio", and any useful directives would be a real windfall, for those with ears who can also hear. Since the original idea here all along has been to discuss sound, listening, and music in the context of audio, it's not like this would be any kind of change. More like hitting the re-set button on the computer. No sponsors to placate. Can't beat the venue.


Best regards
Paul S
07-31-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 26221
Reply to: 26220
Strange development.
Well, I feel very interesting. I had a lot in my mind before recording the video above and even though I shared a small portion if of it took for me remarkable fast to do it and I did not go over the pain of writing it or thinking about what I saying. I am contemplating now to open my own youtube channel with video version of my site. The mission and intend of my video channel will not change but the communication might be much simplified.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-01-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,303
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 35
Post ID: 26222
Reply to: 26221
What About the Library!?!
This site is absolutely the best collected thinking and "information library" on hi-fi I have found, in almost 60 years at this, and your writing, belabored or not, is at the heart of it. Having edited and published a non-profit, monthly "literary journal and calendar" for 10 years, I can certainly understand why you want a change. I hope everyone took notes. While I wouldn't say the "long format" is the key here, I do believe it keeps the usual quipping down, encourages people to dig a little deeper.  YouTube has "everything" on it, all right; but the responses rarely seem to add anything. Won't know 'til you try it. One thing for sure, people just love videos; you'd probably "pick up traffic". With your family situation and the schedule it implies, I've been amazed at your output!

Best regards,
Paul S
08-01-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,768
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 36
Post ID: 26223
Reply to: 26222
I flipped the video above from my gDrive to youtube
https://youtu.be/ZRDbNZ7den4


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-02-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 374
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 37
Post ID: 26224
Reply to: 26221
The Art of Video?
Maybe it is just me but I cannot help thinking that videos simply take up more time and space for the same content. Let us take Romys video. 40 minutes. How many pages would have been a post with identical content? How long would it take me to read and understand that written content? When reading, I can scan content, focus on things that are more difficult and then put the pieces together. With a video, there is no pre scan. In the case of Romy‘s video, I watched it twice - 80 minutes and I still need to go back again for some details. If I wanted to post a video response (which will not happen as on this subject I have no well formed ideas), I would have an investment of many hours compared to minutes for blog text. Sure, that is my problem - or is it?
Granted, it is more fun to see someone talking, story telling. For a personal diary with optional feedback, this format has its charm. I know that there is technology to create running transcripts from text. I am not sure that this would accomplish the same thing as it is more like a presentation where someone just reads the slides.
With the video we also do not have full text search. Goodsoundclub has been a searchable resource for me.
One last point, seeing and hearing Romy „muse“ about a subject is also entertaining. A voice, a picture makes a more complete experience even if there is not more „meat“.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Page 2 of 2 (37 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts