| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio For Dummies ™ » Romy the Cat's Audio recommendation: the biggest bang for a back (47 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (47 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
09-21-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 26
Post ID: 27253
Reply to: 27252
Starting From Scratch
Bill, thank you for the ton of useful information! This is pretty much what I thought, that the recordings should more or less suit the process to begin with. To be clear: regarding “un-processed” main stereo + “reverb” only, are you saying the stereo (or split mono?) signal must go from a turntable or transport/DAC source to a processer, and from there to the preamp, and from there to the main (2-channel) amps and a second (Auro 3D) processor/amp? Why start with/include the "first processer" for unprocessed front stereo +  "simple reverb"? I am supposing I mis-understood.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-22-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 27
Post ID: 27254
Reply to: 27253
Source to preamp
if there is only one output on the source, it should feed the main speaker preamp or Dac. The preamp or dac digital or analog output would the feed the pre-pro or receiver with auro 3d capability which would then feed the ambiance channels.If the source has two digital outputs, then both the main preamp and the auro pre-pro could then receive the same signal.
09-22-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 28
Post ID: 27255
Reply to: 27254
Stone Age to Iron Age Adaptation
Thanks, Bill. The system you describe sounds like my brother''s old home theater surround sound, which did a nice job with 5.1 DVDs, for concerts, opera, and musical theater. I presently use only a turntable or CD/DAC source with my hi-fi, in stereo or dual mono, using front stereo speakers only. I can feed two pairs of speakers from my (passive) TVC/preamp, so my first thought was to feed an Auro 3D from the pre-amp. However, I suppose the Auro 3D has its own volume control, and I have always avoided two attenuators in line, so perhaps better to arrange a feed-through from the source for the reverb channels?

Best regards,
Paul S
09-22-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 29
Post ID: 27256
Reply to: 27255
Agree
Agree
09-23-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 617
Joined on 01-07-2006
Post #: 30
Post ID: 27258
Reply to: 27252
If it's not there, it's not there?
Bill, if the ambience information is not on the material then Auro will not create it? It is extraction and not addition right? I'm asking because I do not listen modern digital formats, mostly old vinyl.


Cheers,
Jarek
STACORE
09-23-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 31
Post ID: 27259
Reply to: 27258
Multi-Channel vs Rear Speakers Only
Jarek, one might also consider that the "small" Auro-capable processors are 7.2 channels (larger might be 14.2). When thinking/speaking of "Auro 3D", I think we are a long way from Romy's original 2-rear-speakers "RI". It is still not clear to me if Romy's idea functions independently from ambient information that is on/in the LP or CD disc to begin with, but Bill has said explicitly that the relevant ambient information needs to be on the disc (or in the stream) to start with for his touted results. I am still barking like a lost dog about the fact that plenty of discs of mine are suspect in terms of "ambient information" I would want to feature. I allow for the possibility that Romy's "original" "irrelevant quality" rear channels might work some sort of dither effect, but that has not been the case with Quad or 5.1, that's for sure. Those are cases where some There must be there to start with.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-23-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 32
Post ID: 27260
Reply to: 27259
Auro
Auro can be set up for any number of extra speakers, from 2 to 14. One only has to set up for what he has available for ambiance speakers, from just two side or rear floor, to center, left and right side and rear, subs, to left right and center height front, and sides, and a top speaker. Usually ,the more the better recreation of the Hall ambiance.
Well recorded performances in concert halls with properly set up microphones have the hall ambiance recorded with the direct sounds. Less correct are many multi microphone recordings, and of course multitrack recordings with in your face to the artist microphones have little or no ambiance. But of course we aren't discussing those trash recording when we are trying to recreate the live in a hall concert experience. Romy's reverberation effect would certainly work with the multitrack, as that is what many recording engineers use to try to make those multitrack recording better.
What Auro tries to do is recreate what one would have heard sitting in the hall listening to the artists as they were recorded. It is not perfect for two track recordings, as the microphones are usually placed close to the musicians while the majority of the listeners in a concert hall are further out in the hall. 
In addition, it does allow 5.1 channel ambiance recordings to be spread out among the up to 14 channels giving a more natural uniform sound space. Remember, depending on where you sit in a concert hall, you are hearing nowhere from 90% direct, 10 percent ambiance sitting in or near the artists, to 10% direct 90% ambiance from the back of the hall.
With stereo playback, even with the best recorordings, all of that hall ambiance information is mixed in with the direct sound, giving the listening through a window presentation. By removing it from the main channels and recreating the hall space in your room, you have the you are there effect. If one removes as much as possible your room's reverberation through various absorbers and diffusers, one can obtain a very close to natural atmosphere. 
09-24-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 33
Post ID: 27262
Reply to: 27260
East is East, West is West?
It sure sounds like the best in the way of ambience is a ways down another road from the road Romy has taken, One big difference would be DSP, which is at the very heart of the Trinnov and the Auro 3D. Another big difference is that the optimal DSP method depends on defeating the room effects and creating its own version, while Romy insists that one “work with the room”. Can these ideas coexist? Like it or not, Bill’s method is how the pros do it these days, that’s for sure. Meanwhile, one of the unmentioned issues with this whole situation is program material, if that matters to anyone.

Paul S
09-24-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,160
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 34
Post ID: 27263
Reply to: 27262
8 things you should know about auro-3d
https://www.datasatdigital.com/info_center_articles/a-handy-guide-to-auro-3d/

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/auro-3d-bankruptcy


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-25-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 35
Post ID: 27264
Reply to: 27263
Looks Like 9 Things...
Clearly, if to retain LP or CD source and analog-fed stereo main speakers, there is the matter of backwards compatibility with any added DSP RI enhancement. From the 8 things list, it looks like current Auro is backward compatible with 5.1 surround encoded sources, if that helps anyone. Too bad about the Chapter 11, but I already own plenty of orphaned equipment.
Paul S
09-26-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 36
Post ID: 27266
Reply to: 27264
Chapter 11
All this does is keeps them from advancing their software. Companies should still be able to use the process to produce new software, manufacturers will be able to produce new pre-pros, and consumers will still be able to usectheir processors with all 2 and 5.1 channel technology cd's, dvd's and 4 k Blu-ray Discs.
09-26-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 37
Post ID: 27267
Reply to: 27266
Romy, Are 2 Rear Channels "Enough" RI?
Gotta say, it's nice having great stereo front channels; but the way typical stereo is done ensures that the "sense of space" typically "stops behind the speakers". I messed around with big OB speakers for many years, and they made some nice room effects, and I wonder now about ways to create and integrate some "random phase" sound with front firing stereo only, also whether 2 rear channels are "enough" for acceptable ambience.

Paul S
09-26-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,160
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 38
Post ID: 27268
Reply to: 27267
Paul, it is very difirent.
Actually, Paul, it has nothing to do with stereo, with two channels or four channels. The Auro or my reverberation channels, more or less properly implemented present a completely different listening environment, and a completely different listening experience. From what I hear Auro has significantly more promises. I however did not try to use my reverberation channels with much more superior convoluted reverberation processes and I did not hear Auro where main channels do not go over our processor, and I think it is a way how it should be. So, I do not know what more fruitful direction is to go, I need to try it. If you do not experiment with this personally there is no reason for you to foresee what it is. I believe that I have quite good listening intelligence, but I am completely not informed, and not trained to understand nuances of space reproduction around the main listening channels.  It is a bit ridiculous what kind of jungles high-end audio people dive into in order to get different minute aspects of sound reproduction. They can fight with each other about the height of the cable elevators, Increase humidity in the room where the turntable is spinning, or go to the insane vintage of directly heated triodes. However, such a huge concept as a creation in our small listening rooms a proper acoustic environment for proper reproduction by active means, something that from my point of view has a monumental influence to a listening experience, it's completely avoided attention by the high-end audio community. I need to admit that I am in the very same camp and for years I heard about quadros, surround sound, Dolby surround, DTS, 5, 7, 9, and 11 channels installations and I absolutely detested all of that crap. What I am talking about today has to do with the active imposing of space parameters to the listening environment without compromising any single property of 2-channel reproduction. That is all is not a perfect two-channel stereo but a completely different experience, that has hardly anything to do with typical stereo presentation.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 39
Post ID: 27269
Reply to: 27268
Alone Again (Naturally)
Well, Romy, "the industry" never really settled on anything for any reason, so many versions of pretty much everything out there, although the convolution sound processing, very generally speaking, is the pro darling these days, especially in terms of "PA" and "sound reinforcement" at hi-end venues. Like you, I have not yet heard anything from 100% digital processing that I want for the close listening I prefer, even though I do appreciate the 3D effects of the "surround sound" I have heard. Like you, I want to "amend" the analog stereo or dual mono I have evolved for close listening, and I want to do it as simply as possible. Meanwhile, it appears that the 3D effects are literally built on multi- channel output, ie, the effects are parced by the processing into more than just 2 rear channels, and I include the Convolution processing with the 3D in terms of its processing and "intended" use. I was just hoping someone else had gotten "there" first.

I think if I start dragging digital processors into the house to play with, my  wife will poison me! On the plus side, I already have plenty of drivers for extra channels!


Paul S
09-27-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 40
Post ID: 27270
Reply to: 27269
Denon AVR-X3800H
This is the least expensive way to try out Auro 3d that I could find. I'm sure there are others out there.Billhttps://www.ebay.com/itm/305160084120?
09-28-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 41
Post ID: 27271
Reply to: 27269
The Ghost of Resonating Oops
I tend to look at specs even though they might not tell much about sound. I saw that one of the DSP processors has an ambience type phase injection option for a pair of front ambience-type speakers, along with the rear ambient speakers. I am probably not describing it correctly, but I mean the extra front and rear speakers can be configured to be of the same or similar stripe. This sent my mind waaay back through the GSC archives to the days of Resonating Oops (and the Lamm L1). Which is to say, the idea has been kicked around for some time; we are still looking for a viable implementation.

Paul S
09-28-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 42
Post ID: 27272
Reply to: 27269
The Ghost of Resonating Oops
I saw that one of the DSP processors has an option to put a pair of "rear-type" ambience speakers in front, along with the main speakers. I am probably describing it incorrectly, but this sent my mind waay back in the GSC archives, to the days of resonating oops (and the Lamm L1). We are still talking about this, still looking for a viable solution.

Sorry about the double post. The 1st one did not appear at first, and then I couldn't delete it.

Paul S
09-28-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
ArmAlex
Iran
Posts 106
Joined on 02-15-2009
Post #: 43
Post ID: 27273
Reply to: 27263
The mechanism
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-09-neural-underpinnings-effects-presence.html
09-30-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 117
Joined on 03-15-2010
Post #: 44
Post ID: 27274
Reply to: 27273
Auro 3 d possibilities
https://www.stormaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/whitepaper_auro3d_home_theater_setup_guidelines_v8_13062017.pdf
This is the setup guidelines for Auro 3d. How you decide on the numbers and placement of spekerrs depends on how you want to impliment it. Obviously the higher the number of speakers and their height levels, the more accurate the sound field reproduction of the original concert hall. 
09-30-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 45
Post ID: 27275
Reply to: 27274
Recreating Music and/or Venues

Some time ago I posed two hypothetical questions: 1) How big does a system have to be to satisfactorily present Music? 2)  How big can a system get before it interferes with the Music? These are actually two takes on a very complex question, and I do not know the answer, but I do wonder if a locked idea of “perfect recreation” might lead me anywhere but to Musical satisfaction. I have also opined that a smaller system can be satisfying, and a big, powerful system is harder to implement than a smaller system, at least this is the case where “high demands” music listening is concerned. As “proof” of the small half of this, I offer the documented episode where ostensibly sane, “experienced” listeners were totally smitten with the Dunnoys. As “proof” of the big half, I offer any bad sounding big system one might hear. I am not making light of this, rather I am more or less hoping to somehow fall into my own aural wormhole without actually “recreating” anything “en-totale”, but including “enough” to bring a performance across in my listening room. Sure, I am now putting a lot of power into my listening room. But no one is going to mistake the Music I get for a live performance, are they? Certainly not when we’re talking symphonies. But I am listening for Musical Content, a subject I could take off on. I am also often “mining” performances I have heard many times. And, for all the legitimate criticisms of recordings, I have to say, I have been able to newly appreciate my records for over 60 years, now. I do realize this says as much about me as it does my systems or my records; but I also include myself and my personal perceptions in the designs and implementations of my systems over the years. For better or for worse, I really only have to fool myself.>>



Paul S
10-03-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 46
Post ID: 27276
Reply to: 27275
A trip to neural bliss - turn the stereo off
To be honest, I think that ANY stereo system gets in the way of the music - regardless of the amount of channels.

Let us jump back to the monaural records/radio years. At that time, we had one choice and were very satisfied in being able to play back music "off line" - whenever we desired. We were limited to the records that we had purchased or what happened to be on the radio, but got ENORMOUS pleasure by the fact that we were not tied to the original event. There was not a great availability of "upgrades" so our focus actually was on the music. We never asked how much system was too little or too much.

Fast forward to the availability of stereo LPs, we had a great deal of things to deal with. 1) the EQ curves were not standard2) the recording techniques created an additional level of interpretation by having the recording engineers using support microphones to "bring out" important voices in the symphonic fabric or even using left/right to separate voices. That was certainly NOT what the classical composers had going in their heads when composing, and in many cases dramatically "distorted" the geometry of the original performance.3) Upgrade possibilities became available. Starting in the 1950s, we started to get affordable quality and many options. Instead of focusing on the music, technology became the marketing argument.4) the advent of the audiophile: now instead of better specifications and performance, the pseudo science of audiophilology dragged us into many different discussions, some sonically relevant, others simply a mine is bigger, shinier, louder, faster argument

I firmly believe that we can only have our Musical presentation (with a big M) in first place, if we have control of our need to show off (even to ourselves). If we think about technology during music appreciation sessions, we need to solve that issue. It is independent of the technology. Perhaps we need to schedule geek sessions?

I do not think that there is any limit to the size of a system, the problem is our own perception. For some, this means flat black instead of shiny speaker systems, for others it means invisible in wall systems. For yet others, it means complete automation of the process for a "set and forget" implementation of surround. Yet others turn off the stereo and read scores, letting the image form totally in their minds. 

For me, reducing the amount of things to adjust on the fly has been a big help. Basically, I only use toe in between "intimate" and "spacious" and loudness to get the most plausible. The thought of surround would be only practical IF it automatically selected the right amount depending on the music played. I got at least some of that with the old Hafler L-R/R-L scheme.robin_speakers_2023.jpg


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
10-03-2023 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,658
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 47
Post ID: 27277
Reply to: 27276
Whatever It Takes (And Less Is More)
Never used the old Hafler (quad) much, mostly because I had so many mono LPs at the time, and that system (if I remember correctly) worked best with hard-panned stereo. Basically, I agree with you, and whatever I wind up with will be fairly easy to use, and I aim to keep the Music well ahead of any sound effects. Again, the idea has been and is to keep my current Music library interesting by keeping the system about the Music, itself. Still not sure if acceptabe ambience can be had with/from mono LPs, and, as you may have noticed, I'm not in a hurry to work on my system, especially when The Loudspeakers have already put a lot on my plate, Musically speaking.

Best regards,
Paul S
Page 2 of 2 (47 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