I think we already have this figured out, but it's impractical.Once we get 3D projected holograms figured out
I think we already have this figured out, but it's impractical.Once we get 3D projected holograms figured out
I think we already have this figured out, but it's impractical.
How does that set up work when you are listening to 5.1 because the wides are not great for stereo image?
, I could afford them, and for some reason, furniture is really hard to buy in these parts. Still, I enjoy my room, whether or not the TV is on.
Thanks for the photo journey thru your Hi-Fi life!The end result completely justified the effort. We currently enjoy essentially no-compromise sonics for both stereo and multi-channel music along with fantastically immersive movie viewing.
Thanks for the photo journey thru your Hi-Fi life!
I very nice listening room you've been able to achieve.
Well of course it's wrong and always has been. It's simply a BS line from the 2ch elitists who have always looked down on any type of multich rig.wanted to share some practical workarounds for no/low-compromise multi-purpose systems. In the high-end two channel world there is an accepted doctrine that basically states: "Thou shalt not combine home theater and stereo in the same system, or the latter will sound like crap!" While it took some effort and expense, it would seem that I've largely proven this adage wrong.
Yep, it's pretty much as simple as that. Take a properly well configured stereo setup and add the same magic to the surrounds and you'll have a vastly superior system than any obtainable with only 2 channels.The trick was applying a high-end two channel best practice loudspeaker placement strategy. All bed loudspeakers and the MLP placed well away from the walls rather than the typical HT strategy of loudspeakers up against the walls.
Not the dreaded cogging effect again! IMHO pair wise mixed discrete does in fact work if the speakers are close enough together. It can work well in an automobile (not the modern cars with rear door mounted speakers that you can't hear in the front). The cogging effect is similar to hole in the middle stereo. If you want to eliminate it you can simply move the rear speakers forward, as shown in the Audionics diagram. I personally have little/no problem with the lack of perfect front to rear panning. Adding more and more discrete channels or even derived channels to fill in the holes can also be done at the cost of complexity.The speaker placement is really directed by the desire to use "pure unadulterated discrete".
The real problem is that pure discrete worked in 2-channel stereo, but it does not work in (any number)-channel surround. The human hearing system can hear level panning in sounds moving between left and right, but it cannot do the same thing with sounds moving between front and back without the listener turning his head.
The discretists are "solving" their problem by adding more channels and speakers along the sides. Instead of one big cogging jump between front and back, they divided it up into two little cogs between front and mid and between mid and back.
The correct solution is an undoing of discrete. Dolby Surround actually got rid of the cogging problem. There was a crossfeed in that matrix that provided the correct aural signals for front-back panning. But such a crossfeed undoes their "pure unadulterated discrete".
Not the dreaded cogging effect again! IMHO pair wise mixed discrete does in fact work if the speakers are close enough together. It can work well in an automobile (not the modern cars with rear door mounted speakers that you can't hear in the front). The cogging effect is similar to hole in the middle stereo. If you want to eliminate it you can simply move the rear speakers forward, as shown in the Audionics diagram. I personally have little/no problem with the lack of perfect front to rear panning. Adding more and more discrete channels or even derived channels to fill in the holes can also be done at the cost of complexity.
I have never ever listed to Dolby surround or Dolby PLII with music that sounded any good to me!
I'm sure that the effects that you complain about could be eliminated with Ambisonics. Bill Sommerwick used to rave about Ambisonics in the MCS review. He would often preach that Pair Wise Mixing doesn't work.
I recently purchased a Troy Ambisonic Processor, so will be giving it a listen as soon a I remember where I put my 8 pin DIN plugs. It was designed for automotive use so I may have to move my speakers to get the proper effect. I've heard mixed reviews of Ambisonics as well but currently have no opinion in the mater,
Me either,I don't hear any noticeable artifact in my set up I would describe as "cogging"
Eh, wot now? Are those cogging or clogging shoes? Michael Flatley wants to know.Me either,
The use of identical speakers in all 4, 5, or 7 base positions, properly arranged, with identical amplification, will remove any problems that some folks find causing issues. Not sure why so many seem to miss the need for this simple requirement?
What 2ch audiophile would ever agree that using different speakers in the L & R channels, or different amps, or improper positioning is acceptable and OK?
And who puts their coggs along the side walls anyway?
![]()
After reading some of these posts, I almost feel a need to try something different than the nearly identical Exhibit A set-up I listen with! But I currently only use a 4.0 or 4.1 decoder / surround synthesizer. I am ready with a center, and the old trusty 5.1 AVR, but use it only for discrete that is designed for it.Exhibit A, 50 years ago:
![]()
Long before 7 ch surround became a thing I did an article for MCS Review that was titled An Octophonic Decoder. It was my first experiment into more than four surround sound. It was pretty darn simple. Basically a Scheiber type 4 corner decoder with a Dynaquad front/back and left/right decoder hybrid. It worked very well considering no separation logic enhancement. It was my first lesson that something better can be achieved with more than just a quad set up.
I have a few Dolby matrix surround CD's (Mancini, ELP) that I think are quite good. However I admit I don't have stereo versions to see how regular 2 ch sound decodes as a comparison.
Same here! It is literally my goal in the next 3 months. Apparently what we hear is mostly the room.Wow I've never felt more bad about having no acoustic treatment or not having equivalent speakers until now.
New summer project, I guess!
Enter your email address to join: