2 Speakers are better than 5.1?

[jimfisheye]

The basic audio fidelity of Fantasia is a bit dodgy, as is easy to hear. The problem is in the 1950s it was transferred from Fantasound which used a second 35mm film with additional optical soundtracks, to 35mm 4 track magnetic. The sound was transferred across a road on telephone wires because they couldn't get the two sets of equipment any closer, and there was considerable high frequency loss on the telephone wires. Skip forward 40 years and a huge amount of work was done in the late 1990s to recover the audio from a fairly beat up 4 track magnetic print. It's been cleaned up more digitally since. But if only we could go back to a Fantasound 35mm soundtrack print we'd gain a lot of fidelity. Probably wouldn't even need equipment to play it direct, just scan it in 4K or similar and then process it on a computer.

Oh, so it's been effectively lost! Dang, sounds like my Pompeii story except much worse! That was at least still the 4 track quad. Well, that's sad then.

 

[Sal1950]

Just don't see it happening anytime soon. JMHO.

At our age, at least in our life-times. LOL

Friends always seemed impressed but apparently not enough to set themselves up.

Sadly that's been true for 2ch also.
Going back to the days when everyone had at least small stereo receiver, when I would visit
most of their houses, one speaker was next to the listening chair being used as a table and
the other in a corner of the room somewhere.. They had no idea how to setup the speakers
for proper imaging, or even if they did, the wife dictated the rooms appearance.
When they would listen to mine I'd get, "oh that's really kool, BUT -----

 

[jimfisheye]

The idea would be to calibrate similar to how amps do it now, put the mic at the seating position and let the computer do the work. Could even upload results to AI and have it spit out the 'solution'. With multiple drivers in the sound bar pointed in different directions can certainly come close, even today.

I'd never say never, there's plenty of things we take for granted that didn't exist 10, 20, 30 years ago. Time will tell if this delivers as a complete solution or just languishes in its current state as a knockoff surround "better than nothing" option. But technology seems to have a way of compensating in ways unimaginable by us mere mortals.

I'm hardly an optimistic person by nature but when it comes to iteration improvements over time, well just look at a cell phone for example of what can be accomplished when there's willingness and widespread adoption.

This would still require impossible physics. The shitbar literally ricochets sound off your walls and ceiling.

Think this through. In a properly treated room - ie. with sound dampening dialed in to where you are hearing only the recorded sound and not the echos of it bouncing around the room - a soundbar would have the ricocheted channels literally silenced. You'd actually stop it from working at all in a more properly treated room for music!

We kind of don't want sound reflective surfaces at all. A theoretically perfect reflective surfaced room would be worse than a cave and just absurd. Ever played with a delay box and turned the echo feedback up all the way? So, that wouldn't work. Soundbars will only ever be for movie soundtracks in poorly treated rooms where no one is ever interested in music listening. These are the modern boombox. Remember your friends that only had a boombox?

We can create very directed sound! You may have read about directing audio for advertisements in a very narrow beam to hit people walking by on the street and that kind of thing. That needs to come from a straight line though. You still can't ricochet it off surfaces - at least not with full music fidelity.

We'll see a magical improvement in speaker tech before some impossible ricochet tech. It might become mundane to stick little flat speaker discs around the walls and ceiling that have full fidelity in miniaturized form.

 

[Owen Smith]

Oh, so it's been effectively lost! Dang, sounds like my Pompeii story except much worse! That was at least still the 4 track quad. Well, that's sad then.

It isn't known if the original optical Fantasound is lost, Disney have been very tight lipped on the subject. Possibly in the late 80s and early 90s when the 4 track 35mm magnetic was restored it would have been too hard to either rebuild the Fantasound equipment or scan it and have a computer do it so they went with the 4 track magnetic. And now that it is much more plausible to do it by computer maybe Di$ney just don't want to spend the money and would rather keep using the restoration they already have. Given how much archival stuff they have for Fantasia I'd be surprised if they don't have the optical soundtrack. But who knows given that over the last 20 years Disney have very firmly gone back down the corporate money grabbing route. There's no way Tron Legacy or Fantasia 2000 would have been made under the current management, and we should look back on that era as a golden one for Disney. We need another Roy Disney.

 

[mandrix]

It isn't known if the original optical Fantasound is lost, Disney have been very tight lipped on the subject. Possibly in the late 80s and early 90s when the 4 track 35mm magnetic was restored it would have been too hard to either rebuild the Fantasound equipment or scan it and have a computer do it so they went with the 4 track magnetic. And now that it is much more plausible to do it by computer maybe Di$ney just don't want to spend the money and would rather keep using the restoration they already have. Given how much archival stuff they have for Fantasia I'd be surprised if they don't have the optical soundtrack. But who knows given that over the last 20 years Disney have very firmly gone back down the corporate money grabbing route. There's no way Tron Legacy or Fantasia 2000 would have been made under the current management, and we should look back on that era as a golden one for Disney. We need another Roy Disney.

Ah. No love for Walt? J/K.
The Disney brothers were very special. I don't know if you've been to Disney World here in Florida - I haven't been past the front gate when it was being built- but I have more than an inkling of the scope of taking so much swampy land and turning it into what it has become. In today's dollars it would be super expensive for such a vast area before one building is erected. Walt's vision, and it was as tightly held a secret as possible, especially when buying up all the land.

That Disney is different today reflects general corporate decisions made to reward the top echelon and big investors. Is the way it is pretty much everywhere these days.

When I was very young, Sunday evenings spent watching Walt's show are still fond memories.

BTW, I once dated one of the ladies that played the "Minnie Mouse" character, decades ago. Met her and friend at a convenience store and invited them to a party at a friends house.

 

[Owen Smith]

Ah. No love for Walt? J/K.

Roy Disney was Walt's nephew and was a guiding light in the 1990s and instrumental in getting Fantasia 2000 made. We need the next generation or two after Roy now to save Disney.

 

[mandrix]

Roy Disney was Walt's nephew and was a guiding light in the 1990s and instrumental in getting Fantasia 2000 made. We need the next generation or two after Roy now to save Disney.

Right. The elder Roy was Walt's brother, and the junior was Roy's son, hence Walt's nephew.

 

[barfle]

I don't have deep pockets either

Friends always seemed impressed but apparently not enough to set themselves up. I have 1 friend who has had 5.1 for a decade now and one other who just recently took the plunge. He had a pair of Dynaudio 6" powered and a Mackie sub. He shopped 2nd hand to get 9 more and we set up for 7.1.4.

I don't have deep pockets either! More of a scavenger with expensive tastes. I'm not sporting 12 mono block amps and B&W or Adams speakers here! I think I did well scaring up the AR9 speakers. All 2nd hand. The amp I grabbed for the 6 new channels when I suddenly decided to expand from 5.1 to 7.1.4 is a Rane MA 6S. Someone had it and didn't need it and I refurbished a computer for them.

My other amps are Crown Powerbase from my small/med PA system. The surround system is their 2nd job.

Everything is pretty calibrated and dialed in! Scavenged all the same.

I probably have the most sophisticated setup of anyone I know these days, but the audiophile community in Boise seems to be pretty small.

One of my early mentors had a bedroom in his house set up as a stereo listening room. Tri-amped, all homebrew including the phono preamp, and it was spectacular. I had a starter stereo setup at the time, bought at a BX in Germany while I was in the Army, and I decided that the only way I could compete was by going quad, so that’s what I did.

Fast-forward to today, and I finally felt the freedom with our house to build the room I wanted to build. Link to the build is in my signature, and it will only be done when I’m carried out.

 

[stoopid]

This would still require impossible physics. The shitbar literally ricochets sound off your walls and ceiling.

Think this through. In a properly treated room - ie. with sound dampening dialed in to where you are hearing only the recorded sound and not the echos of it bouncing around the room - a soundbar would have the ricocheted channels literally silenced. You'd actually stop it from working at all in a more properly treated room for music!

We kind of don't want sound reflective surfaces at all. A theoretically perfect reflective surfaced room would be worse than a cave and just absurd. Ever played with a delay box and turned the echo feedback up all the way? So, that wouldn't work. Soundbars will only ever be for movie soundtracks in poorly treated rooms where no one is ever interested in music listening. These are the modern boombox. Remember your friends that only had a boombox?

90-something percent of music listeners don't have sound treatment either. That is only the niche of the niche. The net is wide enough to capture sales and be viable for most.

I've thought about it (clearly more than you have or have the objective capacity to). Maybe turn down the condescending tone a couple thousand decibels.

Boombox? Hardly, thanks for the strawman.

 

[MidiMagic]

I don't have deep pockets either

Friends always seemed impressed but apparently not enough to set themselves up. I have 1 friend who has had 5.1 for a decade now and one other who just recently took the plunge. He had a pair of Dynaudio 6" powered and a Mackie sub. He shopped 2nd hand to get 9 more and we set up for 7.1.4.

I don't have deep pockets either! More of a scavenger with expensive tastes. I'm not sporting 12 mono block amps and B&W or Adams speakers here! I think I did well scaring up the AR9 speakers. All 2nd hand. The amp I grabbed for the 6 new channels when I suddenly decided to expand from 5.1 to 7.1.4 is a Rane MA 6S. Someone had it and didn't need it and I refurbished a computer for them.

My other amps are Crown Powerbase from my small/med PA system. The surround system is their 2nd job.

Everything is pretty calibrated and dialed in! Scavenged all the same.

I also do not have deep pockets. I hate the fact that they are turning surround sound into an expensive hobby. I do not want Atmos or anything else that requires an expensive speaker array, an expensive player, an expensive recording format. I want a standard system that can be set up by anyone and which uses media that reaches through the ages.

Whatever system is used should work with LP, CD, and FM radio.

 

[Owen Smith]

90-something percent of music listeners don't have sound treatment either. That is only the niche of the niche.

I have carpet in my lounge where my system is setup. This is partly because I don't like having cold feet, but also I'm aware how much of a good start it is in sound treating the room. I don't have any other specific treatments, and there's a curtain over a window on one side and a door and a wall to the dining/kitchen on the other side so left/right aren't even symmetric.

 

[Sal1950]

This would still require impossible physics. The shitbar literally ricochets sound off your walls and ceiling.

Except for here, I try not to be too harsh on the "shitbars" and their true capabilities around the net.
It's the Joe Sixpacks that are buying into the whole Atmos/multich deal and keeping things booming
at the current rate. Our little corner of enthusiasts have little to do with it. Don't burst their bubble. LOL

 

[stoopid]

I have carpet in my lounge where my system is setup. This is partly because I don't like having cold feet, but also I'm aware how much of a good start it is in sound treating the room. I don't have any other specific treatments, and there's a curtain over a window on one side and a door and a wall to the dining/kitchen on the other side so left/right aren't even symmetric.

That's about the extent any of us (people who care at all) treat our listening spaces. This forum represents those who care, the say top 20% of avid music listeners. Most people don't engage or even know about this forum. So even taking a poll here would be moot, it would only represent a minority and most radical of the user base.

These spatial/virtual techs work and no they won't work in a studio with wall to wall treatments, but .001% of listeners fall under that umbrella. And perhaps (really crazy idea forthcoming!) if this new tech proves to actually work and be viable, we might not need treatment where it may have actually been beneficially in our homes.

I mean, crazy to think newer tech would ever supplant older tech. That's why we still ride in to work on horse and buggy.

Because the original sub topic seems to be getting muddied -- speakers are never going away, these virtual system use speakers for their projections. It's how we will use these speakers and project sound into the space is what might. The cost savings comes into single packaging and algorithms carrying the bulk of the workload in making the spatial effect, effective. OUR cost savings comes in not having to string a bunch of speakers around the room or deal with powering wireless speakers, or any of the other plentiful cons in current legacy solutions.

 

[stoopid]

Except for here, I try not to be too harsh on the "shitbars" and their true capabilities around the net.
It's the Joe Sixpacks that are buying into the whole Atmos/multich deal and keeping things booming
at the current rate. Our little corner of enthusiasts have little to do with it. Don't burst their bubble. LOL

There's a lot of gatekeeping in hobbyist communities. The idea of something cheap replacing something that's currently expensive runs against the grain of our psyches. It can manifest as a defensive form of buyer's regret, when it comes down to it.

 

[Sal1950]

I had a starter stereo setup at the time, bought at a BX in Germany while I was in the Army,

Thanks for your service and welcome home brother.
US Army 1969-70 RVN.

I hate the fact that they are turning surround sound into an expensive hobby. I do not want Atmos or anything else that requires an expensive speaker array, an expensive player, an expensive recording format. I want a standard system that can be set up by anyone and which uses media that reaches through the ages.

Top quality and leading edge audio has always been expensive and multich just that X much more.
I understand your personal feelings but don't condemn todays medium for its costs.
If you have the desire and funds the results are wonderful, I celebrate where we are now compared to 40+ years ago.

There's a lot of gatekeeping in hobbyist communities. The idea of something cheap replacing something that's currently expensive runs against the grain of our psyches. It can manifest as a defensive form of buyer's regret, when it comes down to it.

Very true that!

 

[jimfisheye]

So there's a ray of hope but it's firmly behind a wall of bureaucracy and service to shareholders.

I also do not have deep pockets. I hate the fact that they are turning surround sound into an expensive hobby. I do not want Atmos or anything else that requires an expensive speaker array, an expensive player, an expensive recording format. I want a standard system that can be set up by anyone and which uses media that reaches through the ages.

Whatever system is used should work with LP, CD, and FM radio.

I guess I want both!

Like you said, I want any music I produce to be accessible to the lowest common denominator and genuinely still delivering the music. Focus on the music itself.

Boy o boy though I really like the ambitiousness of turning things up to 11!
Sorry, I meant 12.

It's an extension of the surround play we were already going overboard with starting with quad. It's purely the grifting over the decoder software that torques me. Actually pony up the money to spend on 12 speakers and then you get hit by that before you can listen to a single note.

There are a lot of options for speakers and amps that can be set up and dialed in for a reference system without getting into mono block amps and speakers like Adams or B&W.

 

[jimfisheye]

90-something percent of music listeners don't have sound treatment either. That is only the niche of the niche. The net is wide enough to capture sales and be viable for most.

I've thought about it (clearly more than you have or have the objective capacity to). Maybe turn down the condescending tone a couple thousand decibels.

Boombox? Hardly, thanks for the strawman.

Yeah, no one wants to spend money on any room treatment. It's just not sexy like new gear! Snobby or condescending? I can sort of appreciate where that might come from. I'm not meaning to suggest contracting someone to build a whole special purpose room. If "sound treatment" sounds too posh... Just a few load bearing rugs and wall hangings might do a lot. You just need to make a room make sense.

Seriously, mess around a bit! This isn't a 1% snobby thing. Just a little fussing with a room leads to more accurately hearing that sexy expensive gear you just bought! To the point that modest equipment in a modestly treated room will out perform boutique gear in an echoy room.

Live bands will often hang a backdrop on the stage with logos/artwork/etc. Look closer and you see the thing is thick like a stage curtain. They're touring with their own room treatment.

Anyway, I was riffing on the physics. And physics feels condescending and insulting when it gets in your way! I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. Maybe someone will invent something I can't even comprehend right now. But the shitbar thingy relies on ricocheting audio off walls sans dedicated speakers. It's a niche thing for niche movie mixes and it IS crafty and effective for that. Going in circles now... But I was riffing on the physics there. I don't think it will ever be possible to make a "smart" surface that is a perfect audio reflector one moment and a dampener the next. But we'll just have to see.

I built ("built" haha) taller bass traps recently. Owens Corning 703 and burlap. Two triangular shaped for the front corners 2' across and 1' deep and 9' tall. Under $200.

 

[Sal1950]

Yeah, no one wants to spend money on any room treatment. It's just not sexy like new gear! Snobby or condescending? I can sort of appreciate where that might come from. I'm not meaning to suggest contracting someone to build a whole special purpose room. If "sound treatment" sounds too posh... Just a few load bearing rugs and wall hangings might do a lot. You just need to make a room make sense.

Focus on bolded paragraph 3, the meat of the above.

 

[jimfisheye]

^^^ That's dead on.

 

[Owen Smith]

Yeah, no one wants to spend money on any room treatment. It's just not sexy like new gear!

I forgot, as well as carpet on the floor I have artex on the ceiling. It was there when I bought the house, but it means the ceiling is a textured surface rather than flat and that will break up reflections. I have no idea how much difference it makes, and it is far too much work to remove it to find out.