| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » 2+3 surround sound?? (79 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 4 (79 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A revision of playback with reverberation injection or ..  OK, I am done...  Playback Listening  Forum     78  11941  08-03-2021
07-26-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,320
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 9,819
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 9,819
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 2,320
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 9,819
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 2,320
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 9,819
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 2,320
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 9,819
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 2,320
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 9,819
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 376
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.
08-02-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 26226
Reply to: 26224
A painting...
Thanks, rowuk, I need to admit that it is very new to me, and it is possible that many things that I do are wrong in context to more experienced video posters. This is also very interesting to run own mouth on a subject without preparing or thinking what I will be saying next. Writing takes longer and should have some sense; speaking is more forgiving and so much more liberating... I love the idea of video response. I still thinking about all of it. I do think there that are subjects for writing and there are for speaking. Speaking, at least in format and manner that I do is more suitable for painting a picture with a large brash….


"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
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,320
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 39
Post ID: 26227
Reply to: 26226
A Cloud of Ideas? A Charged Cloud!
We had some background for the video on this site, I think, some of it, perhaps, starting with the injection channel, years ago. I do wonder how much a "cold call" viewer, with no "background" of this video, would take away from it. I hope we will figure this out. The big thing for me is that it "clearly" tells us that we can have the benefits from surround by simply splitting the right and left stereo channels and adding that output behind us, but delayed. Pretty effing simple, if you ask me, and a real "up yours" to those who try to profit from the prevailing BS and obfuscation.

Best regards,
Paul S
08-02-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 40
Post ID: 26228
Reply to: 26219
Behringer Virtualizer
The last couple days I have experimented with Behringer Virtualizer 3D FX2000 High-Performance 3D Multi-Engine Effects Processor. It is pro machine, very non expensive that allows doing the same as Yamaha field processors can do. I was hoping to up my quality game in terms of processing quality. I was a bit disappointed the Behringer runs at 48K vs Yamaha at 44K, I expected at least a full 2X. Still I think the AD and DA should be better in Behringer. It is not to mention that Behringer allows configuring some params that Yamaha would not even dream.
 
I have sent the Behringer back today for 3 reasons.
 
1)      I did not detect any sonic advancement of Behringer vs Yamaha in any practical sonic terms.
2)      For reverberation field injection I need a remote control. Period!
3)      Behringer has so much params calibrate that I become kind of bored with it.
 
Still, if you celebrate your own anal retentiveness more than I do mine then you can experiment with it. Let me know if you find any configuration that you feel works out for you and give any advantage over Yamaha processors.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-03-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 26229
Reply to: 26182
A revision of playback with reverberation injection or Pilot System 2021
I am revising the architecture of my playback in context of benefits of reverberation fields injection. Certainly, Macondo and Melquiades stay as they are. I always had a pilot system that runs in parallel with Macondo driven by a cold SS amp. I use it for casual listening but this time I would like to integrate my freverberation fields injection, Pilot playback and video playback in the same amp/speaker configuration.
 
I am choosing 6ch reverberation fields injection architecture with 2 main channels and 4 reverberation channels at the corner of the room where I will be using the front reverberation channels as my SS Pilot system. I have my more or less peace with electronics, location and the rest of logistics but I do not have a speaker that will care my front/pilot sound. I did in the past some my own attempts to make pilot to sound more or less good, but I always failed. I listen my room driven by pilot system typically from different room or what I work or do not care how it sound but for some mysteries reasons I now would like a pilot version this time to sound well. At the same time when I use my pilot system I would like the back reverberation channels to be operational but when Macondo goes off I would like my my pilot speakers get converted into front reverberation channels with no connection change. 

So, I am opening a new project to build full range integrated front reverberation speaker and the same time pilot acoustic system. I have some ideas and I am experimenting with it now. I will be posting update.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 26230
Reply to: 26182
The reverberation injection is NOT Surround Sound
To move further I need to address a VERY important point. The reverberation injection is NOT Surround Sound, not multichannel and not any know to us typical encodings: Dolby, AC3... etc. To be honest when I hear the mentioning of Surround sound I want to vomit as I feel it is a horrible concept and always has horrible implementation. The reverberation injections has an appearance that it is the same as Surround Sound or multichannels as they complementary effect channels and some processing but they work on totally different  principles and have different objectives. Surround Sound has object to enrich depth of sound reproduction by using 3D, Auro, zillions crappy Dolbys, DTS, THX, holophonic, precedence , binaural  concepts. They partially do some reverberation injections as well, but they do a lot of more that screw ups too much in sound in my view and defers the purpose. The reverberation injection is just a processing signal and synthesizing from original sound typical reflection and reverberations that this soul dot has in other native acoustic environments. I would like anybody who is interesting about this subject and, I feel if you serious about sound reproduction then you should, to read a manual that I link below. That is one of the units that I was experimenting, and I very much feel that is worth to read and to study. I share everything is written there with exception that main channels should not driven off the processing unit.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/pdf/Yamaha-DSP-100-Owners-Manual.pdf

If you would like to experiment with it do not rush to buy the DSP-100 and there are many others and better Yamaha and not Yamaha units that do the same. If you would like to I will give you a guide over them.  The reason why I chose the DSP-100 manual is because it has nothing else but the latest version of Yamaha’s sound field processing.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 63
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 43
Post ID: 26232
Reply to: 26230
Sorry, but wrong
     I do not mean to be negative and criticize Romy, but he is wrong on surround sound. It is the implementation and not the concept which should cause vomiting, like with the vast majority of two track recording which are unlistenable. With the right engineering and reproduction, the surround experience far exceeds the two channel.     First, all “surround sound” means is that one is using any number of channels to add to the two channel experience by trying to recreate a three dimensional sound field rather than the two dimensional that stereo produces. Romy seems to be trying to equate surround sound to the experience he had with four track recordings back in the 60’s and 70’s that failed from poor miking and misunderstanding of what a concert hall experience represents.     What one should be trying to do is produce an effect that mirrors as closely as possible  what one experiences when one attends a live concert which brings joy to the listener. This is difficult as most performances rarely do this, and recordings, even in the best of engineers hands rarely capture the moment. All of us have probably listened to and own thousands of recordings, but only revert to a few of them when demonstrating their systems and listening alone.      When one attends a concert, one is not listening to just the musicians, but also the surrounding reverberation field. Matter of fact, depending to where one sits in relation to the musicians, the further one sits away or to the side , the more the surround effects overtakes the direct sound of the players. A recording engineer friend in New York has measured and feels that the direct sound from the musicians makes up probably less that 50% of the sound for the average concert listener. Thus the surround concert Hall effect is as important as the musicians playing ( think Avery Fisher vs. Carnegie Hall.)  Mono gives us a one dimensional, stereo gives us two dimensions spaced in front of us, and in the best of systems sound behind and sometimes to the sides of the speakers, similar to what one would hear in a stadium or listening through a door at a concert hall. Many channels of information can give us a closer feel to what one experiences at a live venue., especially if one can negate the negative effects of our own room's reverberations on the experience.     I have been experimenting with surround fields since my father purchased a Fisher console stereo system back in the early 60’s. I added a spring loaded reverb appliance to try to recreate at least some sense of the reverberation.(type 1. Surround). Next came the Hafler effect in the 70’s of outputting the positive speaker terminals to a speaker in the back of the room to get some of the Hall effect out of the front channels to the rear. (Type 2. Surround)In the 80’s and 90’s I experimented with the various types of decoders to either produce artificial hall reverberation based on studies of various music venues (type 3. Surround and what Romy is using), and four channel recordings either on tape or vinyl (type 4. Surround.)Next in the early 2000’ds was Dolby digital and dts which recorded 5 to 8 channels of information to obtain a surround field of the musicians and the hall. (Type 5. Surround.)Finally, in the past few years, Dolby Atmos, DTS Pro and Auro 3D have produced 12 to 36 channels of both hall and reverb information to get close on the best recordings by the best engineers to the live concert experience. (Type 6. Surround).
     Romy has by far the best two channel system that I have ever heard. Recently, he has added a reverberation field mimicking what one would hear if one attended a concert in that particular hall engineered, while still keeping his front channels at their same level. This has given him to my ears a superior listening experience to what he had.     I have gone another way. I have set up a 16 channel system with 7 floor Edgar horns, six inexpensive height, and one overhead speaker (all under $150 each) and one subwoofer channel, all controlled by a Trinnov Altitude 16 pre-pro, which is a computer with software which can do speaker and room frequency, amplitude and timing correction, plus channel decoding. In addition, it can remove hall information in a two or multichannel channel recording and send that information to the proper surround channel. All are using Behringer active crossovers and relatively inexpensive ($100 to $400 per channnel the total of 31  amplifier channels. Each channel has less than +/- 2 db inter and intraspeaker amplitude variation and less than 0.1 seconds time alignment variation at the primary listening position. Using Auro 3D for multi channel and Auromatic decoding for two channel recordings, I have now what I would consider to be the best recreation of a concert hall experience I’ve ever heard with a large percentage of recordings I,ve kept over the years.       All of my analog and digital recordings have been transposed to hard drives except for about 75 of my best SACD discs. Gone are my Walker turntable with Kondo cartridge and Curl phono stage, and my Ampex 351 tape deck with several hundred 15 ips second generation master recordings from the best studios, all sold after transposing to digital disc drives. Except for the Edgar horns and Trinnov pre- pro, I have less than $10,000 invested in the system, less than I paid 20 years ago for one amplifier or preamp.   I am sure Romy will elucidate what he has heard with my system. I have found his two channel to be the best by far of what I’ve heard and his surround experience has started him on the right track towards what can be obtained. But his method of obtaining it by using artificial reverb information from concert halls far removed from the recording, while satisfying, has been superseded by what can be obtained with the best processors available. On the other hand he does come close to what I have for a few hundred dollars compared to over $19,000 for my processor alone. As in everything high end, the cost increase far exceeds the value obtained. 
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 26233
Reply to: 26232
I do not agree as well, sometimes with myself....
Bill, I know that we have a designment on this and the more I am thinking about it the more departing from your view of Surround Sound. What is interesting is that we are taking about the very same thing and have no disagreement about the result, but we choose different ways to name it. I feel that trirm Surround Sound is fundamentally spoiled but bad implementations of the past. It has a big and ugly stigma in my view and if one refers to anything with term of Surround Sound then anybody have very clear idea what it is and what objectives are. What you do might be considered as properly done “Surround Sound” as you surround a listener with “sounds” and properly time also the sources. They might be reverberation sounds, reflection sounds, independent channel sounds or whatever you or “they” want to put in there. In my case I inject into room acoustic distortions and to be absolutely honest:  I would not need to even to have a surround channel to do so.
 
Let me to explain. Pretend we have a “perfect” and ideal reverberation/delay processor that generates all needed reverberation and do not crew up main sound. Then we would not even need the surround channels and all necessary “room enhancement” would be produces by ONLY main speakers. Would you call this installation as Surround Sound installation?
 
 I am am experimenting with it now and I can show some interesting results. Sure, I do not have a “perfect” reverberation processor and I have what I have. Still, running it on my secondary “pilot” system (when you hear it you will be laughing for a long time) and presuming that ALL sound go over this “perfect” reverberation processor (assuming the sound got worse to begin with) I am able to recreate probably 30%-40% of hall reverberation effect with just two channels. Agals the main channels sound become significantly worse….


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,320
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 45
Post ID: 26234
Reply to: 26233
Adapting To What We Are Given
Who the hell knows how a given LP was recorded, mixed down, mastered, mothered and stamped, etc., etc, except it probably was NOT a simple "figure 8" mic. Whoever tried to "standardize" this process never got many recordings I care to listen to. If we start out with a typical "stereo" LP, who knows exactly how it was put together, start to finish?  As for "2-track", plenty of "stereo" recordings are mixed down from multiple tracks laid down during different sessions, even different studios! Basically, we have maybe a couple thousand LPs, and we try to get the most and best Music from them. Good luck! I really don't even care about "stereo", except I tend to get "the best sound" from what calls itself this, also it gets me the most bang for the buck, and the least grief, of any format I have heard. I am only convinced by results. And part of "results" for me is keeping my LPs. I stopped trying to "understand" everything about the process years ago. If I can split my front channels without screwing up gain or messing with the front channels (not a given!), then I will give this a go. And I will probably never learn more than necessary to "get the job done".


Paul S
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 26235
Reply to: 26234
Not really
Paul, what you are saying is slightly irrelevant in context of reverberation insertion. It is absolutely irrelevant how it was recorded,  mixed etc as we do not recreate the original acoustic environment of recording space. Instead we in bed whatever recording is into an acoustic environment that we synthesize.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
anthony
Posts 283
Joined on 08-18-2014

Post #: 47
Post ID: 26236
Reply to: 26232
What is it we give away
 Bill wrote:
     I have set up a 16 channel system with 7 floor Edgar horns, six inexpensive height, and one overhead speaker (all under $150 each) and one subwoofer channel, all controlled by a Trinnov Altitude 16 pre-pro, which is a computer with software which can do speaker and room frequency, amplitude and timing correction, plus channel decoding. In addition, it can remove hall information in a two or multichannel channel recording and send that information to the proper surround channel. All are using Behringer active crossovers and relatively inexpensive ($100 to $400 per channnel the total of 31  amplifier channels. Each channel has less than +/- 2 db inter and intraspeaker amplitude variation and less than 0.1 seconds time alignment variation at the primary listening position. Using Auro 3D for multi channel and Auromatic decoding for two channel recordings, I have now what I would consider to be the best recreation of a concert hall experience I’ve ever heard with a large percentage of recordings I,ve kept over the years.



Thanks for this information Bill.  Were the 16 channels (I counted 15 in your description) an all-at-once installation or have you worked up to that many channels in steps with the Trinnov 16?  Say 4 channel then 8 then 15 or something like that.  Would be interesting to gauge incremental changes in the "effects".

I can see why Romy is working at this problem the way he is given his system topology.  I too am reluctant to put all sources through a processor given how much effort has been made to keep unnecessary (DSP etc.) electronics away from Macondo/Melquiades, but if it is possible to only put the surrounds/reverbs through the processor while getting much of the overall soundfield benefits of your Type 6 system above, then perhaps this may be the best solution in this instance.  It seems that in audio to get more here you have to give a little there, and I agree that Macondo/Melquiades is something special for stereo playback, but what would be given away to go Type 6?  Rhetorical, of course.  The only way to really know is lots of time to experiment with more capable processors and loudspeakers in the room.  I wish I knew, this is a really interesting.      
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,320
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 48
Post ID: 26237
Reply to: 26235
Yes, Romy, Just So
Romy, I actually said what you just said; sorry you did not get it. This is why your idea will "work" for me. All that "native ambience" stuff is fine; but who knows what it is, or how much, or what it's worth in a "typical" recording, let alone how to "process" it out? And now, who cares?


Best regards,
Paul S
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 49
Post ID: 26238
Reply to: 26236
Wait.
Anthony, it is true that Bill and me wen to two different directions to achieve the similar result. The reason why I did not go with Bill direction as I feel the best results he gets with native multichannel recordings. I feel my approach is more interesting for juts 2 channels as it has no encoding for reverberation and the injections are generated in real time. I would need another couple week and I will finalize what I am doing now and then I would like to see what approach have more benefits. I very much would like to invite Bill then and to hear his opinion as he has much more experience with what he calls “surround sound” a I call “reverberation injected sound”. I did a lot already and I found a spectacular solution for front effect channels and might play VERY wonderful as pilot playback. That was the key, I have a proper processor, amps, back channels, and I need to figure out not how to do it but what it all would mean for my listening experiences, so far, the results are VERY promising. You for sure might do whatever you want but I would recommend do not waste time and money with it for now. As I finish, I will publish me recommendation how anybody can try it for less than $100. Yes, one more thing: I would LOVE to hear Bill’s Trinnov processor as a … DAC. It might be a very good DAC…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-04-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,819
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 50
Post ID: 26239
Reply to: 26232
Interesting debate...
 Bill wrote:
But his method of obtaining it by using artificial reverb information from concert halls far removed from the recording, while satisfying, has been superseded by what can be obtained with the best processors available.

Bill, this is an interesting debate. I very intentionally not interested to get additional reverberations information from the original recording. You get it from dedicated channels of original recording, if it was recorded properly and the hall worth it then, the result indeed incredibly good.  How many of recordings you have that were recorded well (from multichannel perspective) AND would be music that you want? We are subordinates of recording engineers’ taste and style and let agree that most of the recording hall do not have good acoustic to begin with. Why would I need to have multichannel audio to recreate the dreadful acoustics of Avery Fisher Hall? 



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 4 (79 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A revision of playback with reverberation injection or ..  OK, I am done...  Playback Listening  Forum     78  11941  08-03-2021
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