Random Stuff About Surround Sound

[atrocity]

I thought I was the only one that thinks binaural sounds awful, glad to hear it's not just me.

And stereo over headphones is just plain weird to me. Having the soundstage sat entirely inside my head panned between my ears is very disconcerting. Maybe you have to have grown up as part of the iPod generation to get used to that.

I'm 62 and love headphones (good ones, anyway).

 

[Owen Smith]

I am however (and I guess these things must be related) extremely sensitive (enjoyably so) to stereo imagery from speakers. Image precision is one of the most important things I look for in a loudspeaker - and a lot of well regarded speakers actually massively disappoint me in that regard.

I know what you mean. At times I've been listening to stereo stuff where I could have sworn blind I'd got some surround mode engaged by accident because the Centre speaker was playing things. Only to find on checking and disconnecting it that it wasn't and it is just excellent stereo imaging.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I am however (and I guess these things must be related) extremely sensitive (enjoyably so) to stereo imagery from speakers. Image precision is one of the most important things I look for in a loudspeaker - and a lot of well regarded speakers actually massively disappoint me in that regard.

I also like well imaging speakers. How have you been disappointed? It always struck me that more than half of the issue was due to setup. But back in my 2 channel days I owned Dahlquist DQ-10s, Magneplanar Tympanis, and ML electrostatics. All of which imaged exceptionally well but in different ways. Coincedentially all were dipoles. All threw up a huge image with sound often extending beyond the outer edges of the speakers. They also gave a perspective of height. I dont think they could ever perform that way in a surround setup. I wouldant even be able to fit 5 of those monsters in my listening room today.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

So I thought I'd check out the Involve site again & see what the latest stuff is there on th SM v3. Pretty much the site is broken. Front page shows up nothing works except for that. Gotta be bad for sales and general public image.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

So I thought I'd check out the Involve site again & see what the latest stuff is there on th SM v3. Pretty much the site is broken. Front page shows up nothing works except for that. Gotta be bad for sales and general public image.

Seems to be working for me.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Seems to be working for me.

Worked for me earlier afternoon then not later. On 2 browsers. Of course I'll check again.

 

[Soundfield]

I know what you mean. At times I've been listening to stereo stuff where I could have sworn blind I'd got some surround mode engaged by accident because the Centre speaker was playing things. Only to find on checking and disconnecting it that it wasn't and it is just excellent stereo imaging.

Yes, I loathe centre speakers with a passion! Far from being of any benefit, I find they actually ruin a decent stereo image. Their only value is as firewood as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Soundfield]

I also like well imaging speakers. How have you been disappointed? It always struck me that more than half of the issue was due to setup. But back in my 2 channel days I owned Dahlquist DQ-10s, Magneplanar Tympanis, and ML electrostatics. All of which imaged exceptionally well but in different ways. Coincedentially all were dipoles. All threw up a huge image with sound often extending beyond the outer edges of the speakers. They also gave a perspective of height. I dont think they could ever perform that way in a surround setup. I wouldant even be able to fit 5 of those monsters in my listening room today.

I'm really speaking about moving coil speakers.

I don’t think there’s much ‘setting up’ required for an intrinsically well imaging speaker (other than pointing them in the right direction). The design of the speaker is the overwhelming factor in my experience – some designs are fundamentally incapable of imaging well however much you fiddle about with them.

After buying more loudspeakers over the years than I’d be prepared to admit to, I have found that the ones that image well always have the same two common characteristics. They have a small number of drive units (the best often only having one full range or a coaxial / concentric combination) and have a very narrow baffle. I’ve often thought that the minimal disruption to the wave-front such an arrangement ensures equates to getting as close as you can to having a point source. Certainly the dispersion characteristics of multi-drive unit speakers (and their attendant complex cross-overs) can be a nightmare (just listening to the tonal colour and ‘phasiness’ of pink noise changing as you sit down , stand up or move about can be very shocking when you’ve just spent a fortune on some so called ‘time aligned’ beast!). My current floor-standers are 20cm wide and have 3 small closely spaced drive units and as expected, they image very well, beyond the confines of the speakers and with a vertical and horizontal ‘sweet spot’ so large it isn’t really worth mentioning.

Electrostatics are another matter altogether, with another set of strengths and weaknesses but I also do not have room for two, let alone four, dipoles, so its largely academic.

 

[Owen Smith]

Yes, I loathe centre speakers with a passion! Far from being of any benefit, I find they actually ruin a decent stereo image. Their only value is as firewood as far as I’m concerned.

I find I need a Centre speaker for films and TV, if only because these days the dialogue is mixed to be barely audible above the music and sound effects. Having a Centre speaker allows me to bump up the dialogue level a db or two so I can hear it.

For music I agree completely, Centre speakers are to be avoided almost at all costs. I often disable it and let my Oppo mix what is in the Centre channel into left and right mains for 5.1 music.

 

[MidiMagic]

I thought I was the only one that thinks binaural sounds awful, glad to hear it's not just me.

And stereo over headphones is just plain weird to me. Having the soundstage sat entirely inside my head panned between my ears is very disconcerting. Maybe you have to have grown up as part of the iPod generation to get used to that.

The Bauer circuit works to take the stereo out of your head.

And I made a mic array that puts surround sound in the binaural headphones. It gives the "you are there" effect that I want in all surround systems.

 

[Soundfield]

The Bauer circuit works to take the stereo out of your head.

For you maybe, but all those simple inter-channel bleed circuits ever do for me is to reduce the stereo separation inside my head. Useless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

For you maybe, but all those simple inter-channel bleed circuits ever do for me is to reduce the stereo separation inside my head. Useless as far as I'm concerned.

Over all I am a big fan of speaker listening. The only time I was really into headphones was when I was quite young & living with my parents. How else ya gonna enjoy a doobie & Led Zep at 2 am?

Now that I am less young if my hearing goes downhill in a significant way I'm sure I'll be giving headphones a try again. As loud as needed and boost that treble as much as needed! I've never had a really good pair of cans but I can tell the E stats are out of my price range but a lot to choose from below that.

The Bauer circuit didn't work for me say 30 years ago when I tried it. However I have heard some really good effects on drama plays by the BBC using dummy head recording. A shame they didn't do something like that with Hitchhikers Guide.

 

[Soundfield]

However I have heard some really good effects on drama plays by the BBC using dummy head recording. A shame they didn't do something like that with Hitchhikers Guide.

They still do a few binaural programmes every year - but even with the dummy head stuff I get absolutely no sense of front to back discrimination- it just sounds, well, odd!

 

[atrocity]

Postal = crazy in a violent way. It comes from so many US postal workers being pushed to the edge due to the demands of their job.

Yes. Since 1979 my jobs were all ones requiring concentration, yet were often situated in noisy environments. I learned that headphones worked great for me partly because I could enjoy the music and partly because the single distraction of the music was far, far less distracting than multiple conversations and other human noises.

I'm retired now but still find headphones absolutely essential for situations where attention to sonic detail is important. Generally that means when digitizing analog sources. But sometimes I just enjoy music that way simply for its own sake.

 

[par4ken]

I still recall that when I purchased my first stereo cassette deck it came with two microphones. I remember placing them in the room about six inches apart and listening to the decks output via headphones, just monitoring people talking and general room noise/ambience. That sound was rather amazing, very realistic giving me my first impression of what binaural audio was. It makes me wonder if the dummy head is of any real value, or needed at all. I never got into purchasing or listening to any real binaural recordings though, except (as I recall) one of those flexible plastic records that came with an audio magazine. I don't remember it being that impressive though but I might be thinking of a sonic holography (flexible record) that I remember listening to and found equally unimpressive.

Like most here I prefer speaker to headphone listening, phones just don't image at all in the front. That being said headphones are excellent for monitoring recordings or late night listening. Electrostatics phones are the best sound wise, again great for monitoring or when doing restoration, every detail is crystal clear (almost exaggerated or magnified).

Rear speakers placed to the sides produce a similar effect as headphones, but with front speakers added the missing frontal quadrant is fully restored!

The ear is very sensitive to phase via headphones, for some it helps localise sound sources for others that doesn't seem to work, however I always find that any extra phasiness increases the spaciousness of the reproduced sound, even if that spaciousness is more like the ambience of a large room rather than distinct sound sources. Many laugh at the very idea of quad headphones, but I swear by them. The sound produced is much fuller than with conventional headphones, spread out much more (but still lacking anything from the front). Stereo listening through quad phones greatly benefits from enhancement via a simple quad decoder. My home brew decoder simply blends the rears out of phase and the fronts in phase. As you turn up the rear blend the sense of spaciousness greatly increases. The best effect is usually less than full blend. You then increase the front blend a bit to bring back the lost vocals. The overall effect is an enhancement of regular stereo, richer fuller even close to that of discrete quad via phones. JVC model 5944 has a phase switch for the back channels, when engaged adds much of that same type of spaciousness to stereo. And of course the Phase 2+2 headphones, with their ambience expanders and binauralators change the soundfield greatly but I can't say which setting is best they just all sound different, not necessarily realistic but still rather cool. Matrix decoders like the SQ full logic ones are not that effective over headphones. As you can imagine pumping back and forth between the front and rear headphone elements doesn't give much more than a regular stereo affect. A misadjusted decoder though is very easy to hear via phones, as so it is a useful tool for servicing/alignment purposes.

 

[furui_suterioo]

I still recall that when I purchased my first stereo cassette deck it came with two microphones. I remember placing them in the room about six inches apart and listening to the decks output via headphones, just monitoring people talking and general room noise/ambience. That sound was rather amazing, very realistic giving me my first impression of what binaural audio was. It makes me wonder if the dummy head is of any real value, or needed at all. I never got into purchasing or listening to any real binaural recordings though, except (as I recall) one of those flexible plastic records that came with an audio magazine. I don't remember it being that impressive though but I might be thinking of a sonic holography (flexible record) that I remember listening to and found equally unimpressive.

Like most here I prefer speaker to headphone listening, phones just don't image at all in the front. That being said headphones are excellent for monitoring recordings or late night listening. Electrostatics phones are the best sound wise, again great for monitoring or when doing restoration, every detail is crystal clear (almost exaggerated or magnified).

Rear speakers placed to the sides produce a similar effect as headphones, but with front speakers added the missing frontal quadrant is fully restored!

The ear is very sensitive to phase via headphones, for some it helps localise sound sources for others that doesn't seem to work, however I always find that any extra phasiness increases the spaciousness of the reproduced sound, even if that spaciousness is more like the ambience of a large room rather than distinct sound sources. Many laugh at the very idea of quad headphones, but I swear by them. The sound produced is much fuller than with conventional headphones, spread out much more (but still lacking anything from the front). Stereo listening through quad phones greatly benefits from enhancement via a simple quad decoder. My home brew decoder simply blends the rears out of phase and the fronts in phase. As you turn up the rear blend the sense of spaciousness greatly increases. The best effect is usually less than full blend. You then increase the front blend a bit to bring back the lost vocals. The overall effect is an enhancement of regular stereo, richer fuller even close to that of discrete quad via phones. JVC model 5944 has a phase switch for the back channels, when engaged adds much of that same type of spaciousness to stereo. And of course the Phase 2+2 headphones, with their ambience expanders and binauralators change the soundfield greatly but I can't say which setting is best they just all sound different, not necessarily realistic but still rather cool. Matrix decoders like the SQ full logic ones are not that effective over headphones. As you can imagine pumping back and forth between the front and rear headphone elements doesn't give much more than a regular stereo affect. A misadjusted decoder though is very easy to hear via phones, as so it is a useful tool for servicing/alignment purposes.

I think I wrote this before, the JVC quadraphones are much more directional with a 2ch input than discrete 4ch(except for monitoring). I have them connected to a 2ch 4-way balance joystick(2 stereo outputs), with one of the stereo outputs reversed, and both phase switches on the quadphones in rev position. This setup will make a standard foobar stereo downmix of say DSOTM Parsons mix sound way more quad-y than listening directly to the discrete source. It still gives me chills, the quadphones just can't accomplish this sound field on their own.
What was this thread again?

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Well, at the risk of steering this thread back on topic....
The Involve site worked fine for me today. Mainly I just wanted to see what stuff they had to say about the new v3. My attention was drawn to:

"Improving on the Surround Master V2, V3 adds an optical port for PCM digital input, cuts down on heat with a more efficient power supply design and an even cleaner sound presentation thanks to an upgrade to the audio path design."

This brings up two questions in my mind; if it's not trade secret stuff what upgrades were made in the audio path? And can you expand on the claim "an even cleaner sound presentation"? It seems you are comparing to the v2 & finding an audible improvement?

Thanks!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Well, at the risk of steering this thread back on topic....
The Involve site worked fine for me today. Mainly I just wanted to see what stuff they had to say about the new v3. My attention was drawn to:

"Improving on the Surround Master V2, V3 adds an optical port for PCM digital input, cuts down on heat with a more efficient power supply design and an even cleaner sound presentation thanks to an upgrade to the audio path design."

This brings up two questions in my mind; if it's not trade secret stuff what upgrades were made in the audio path? And can you expand on the claim "an even cleaner sound presentation"? It seems you are comparing to the v2 & finding an audible improvement?

Thanks!

Eh, hoping to hear from Chucky on this....

 

[4-earredwonder]

Well, at the risk of steering this thread back on topic....
The Involve site worked fine for me today. Mainly I just wanted to see what stuff they had to say about the new v3. My attention was drawn to:

"Improving on the Surround Master V2, V3 adds an optical port for PCM digital input, cuts down on heat with a more efficient power supply design and an even cleaner sound presentation thanks to an upgrade to the audio path design."

This brings up two questions in my mind; if it's not trade secret stuff what upgrades were made in the audio path? And can you expand on the claim "an even cleaner sound presentation"? It seems you are comparing to the v2 & finding an audible improvement?

Thanks!

'More efficient power supply .....cleaner audio path .... cuts down on the HEAT' all received my rapt attention. Seems it betters the V2 in more ways than one and not for [IMO, the unnecessary] optical port!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

'More efficient power supply .....cleaner audio path .... cuts down on the HEAT' all received my rapt attention. Seems it betters the V2 in more ways than one and not for [IMO, the unnecessary] optical port!

Yes I agree they say betters the v2 in more ways than one. Let's see how Involve can substaniate that!