| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » 2+3 surround sound?? (79 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 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  14633  08-03-2021
08-03-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
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 9,852
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 65
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 9,852
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 2,333
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 9,852
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 286
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 2,333
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 9,852
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 9,852
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
08-05-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 65
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 51
Post ID: 26243
Reply to: 26239
Replies
Will try to answer all questions here.

Romy: I understand why you do not wish to use the term “surround sound”, but it is the accepted term for what we are discussing. You may add other terminology, but it only muddies the debate until others accept it.

Romy:    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?  

 We would still need the surround channels as unless phasing distortions are add, the false room information would still be stuck in the front dimension. One can do it with headphones using a Smyth Realizer, but I think not with speakers.

Paul: 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"

 Romy has done this by feeding the front channels their normal information then feeding his processor the same information which is the given a reverberation field. While this allows the main channels to not be negatively affected, This is not optimal for two reason. In a perfect two mike recording, one still has the reverberant field mixed in on the main channels which will affect the reverberation field. On multimike recordings, there is no correct sound field for the reverberant field to work with.

As for getting the most and best from your thousands of recordings, I’ve also had thousands of master tapes, vinyl, cd's, DAT's, etc., and find over the years I've narrowed down my recording I’ve kept to several hundred, and listen usually only to what I consider to be the best performances or sound reproduction, and I bet you have too. These will probably also be the best recording to add a reverberant field or correctly obtain the recording's Hall sound for the surround effect.

Romy: 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.

You are correct, but again, the reverberant field you add is dependent on what was recorded in the first place. The only time your field would be a facsimile of the concert hall you are trying to emulate is if the original recording was a two mike, probably omni's, done in a completely dead sound stage without its own reverberation. You use your main speakers for this and add your reverberant field to front and back surround speakers for the effect.

Anthony: 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".

Sorry, there are actually two subwoofer channels. I am planning on going to one subwoofer and one back floor channel so I can add  2 so-called wide side channels for Dolby atmos and DTS Pro to see what happens. It’s supposed to improve the side imaging as the space between the front and side channels is over the 60 degree ideal. I doubt it will do much good as the Auromatic field supposedly compensates for the space.

 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 g

OK. This will be a long answer. The Trinnov is a very special processor. It’s actually a computer with audio only processing using its own program. It uses a special four mikes built into one which can measure time alignment very accurately for all drivers and 16 channels. They also have units for 20, 36 and 44 channels. Each channel does the following:

  1.  Measures the amplitude across a 16 to 20k frequency range for each driver and speaker to 0.1 dB.
  2. Can act as a 24/96 active crossover from first to fourth order for each driver. With small speakers will allow the bass information from whatever frequency range chosen, and transmit it to one of the woofers or subwoofers in the room with correct time and amplitude alignment relative to the original speaker.
  3.  Will time align each driver within 1/10 millisecond for each speaker.
  4. Will time align each speaker to the others in the room.
  5. Allows the listener to adjust the frequency response of each driver to their wishes. 
  6. Allows the listener to adjust the delay to expand the relative room volume.
  7. Allows the listener to adjust the volume of each speaker.
  8.  Adds the BBC dip if asked to.
  9. If the speakers are not properly set up in space, will align them to what is considered their optimal virtual position for the different decoding systems.
  10. Does up to 24/96 a/d and d/a encoding and decoding. The more expensive models do 24/ 196. 
  11.  Accepts up to 16 channels of information through hdmi, and two channel through spdif. 
  12.  Does a/d conversion of analog balanced or rca input, then will do multi-channel conversion if asked to.
  13.  Decodes Dolby Atmos, DTS Prox and Auro 3 D and Auromatic decoding. Will take the information from whatever number of channels there are on the recording, try to separate the stage from the hall information, and transmit the correct special information to the proper speaker.


     The whole process, once understood after several hours of reading their beautifully thought out 160 page instruction booklet only takes about 10 minutes to record, encode and present to the listener. The listener can then go ahead and change any of the parameters of each speaker and driver to his heart's content. After much experimentation and fiddling over four weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that all of the attempts to improve on the Trinnov's algorithms only marginally improved the sound obtained. And I can definitely say, that the sound I have now is far ahead of anything I’ve obtained in the past. I believe Romy would also agree on that point. 

Disadvantages of the unit:   There are only two things I have a complaint with. First is the inability to decode sacd or dsd recording. The unit only works with pcm, but will do flax and Aflac. Of course, no unit out there that I know of will do these things, and most sacd or dsd recordings are transferred to pcm when worked on and then reencoded to dsd. This is too bad as most of my multitrack recordings are sacd's, but I do have an OPPO 205 unit which does dsd to pcm decoding so it is not really a problem.Second is the price of the unit. Compared to other preamp processors, but considering the amount of money I’ve spent over the years on so-called high new equipment and wires.

Romy: 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 have no idea how good the DAC's are on the unit, but maybe one day I’ll remove the jungle of wires behind the unit and bring it to Romy's for an evaluation of the two systems. I can say though that the sound I am obtaining now is light years ahead of what I had with high end two channel dacs and the Marantz top of the line 8805 pre-pro I sold to get this unit.

Romy: 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 agree and that is why I'll bet that none of the multiple hall reverberation fields on your unit does not emulate that dreadful place, or Fenway Park for that matter.

Very few recordings are top notch. The best multitrack are sacd's from Reference Recordings and Pentatone, and two track are best from the golden days of the 50's and 60's before the engineers without ears got at the recordings. On the other hand, I’ve been to your place and seen the thousands of vinyl and cd's on your shelves, but you always pick from a black folder of about 25 cd's and previously from a few vinyl recordings to demo your system. I believe that you would agree that you can't make a purse out of a sow's ear from 95+% of the recordings out there, but I have heat to play a recording over the past four weeks on my system that didn't sound better than it did in two channel. And the multichannel recordings have taken on a feeling of being present at the performance that cannot be obtained with two track.

No matter which approach you decide on of the six, there will always be an improvement over stereo. One does not need super high end speakers except possibly for the main channels. Matter of fact, all of my and Romy's surrounds are inexpensive speakers mated with zip wire to inexpensive amplifiers, but the sound improvement would not allow either of us to go back to two channel. Or would you disagree with that Romy?
08-05-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,333
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 52
Post ID: 26244
Reply to: 26243
Down the Road
Bill, I can see how you got where you got, one step at a time, and I do understand the theory behind the convolutions. I also get that there may be "native ambience" in some recordings I listen to. Something I've worked on over the years is getting more from sub-prime recordings, and during this time I've learned some things about what makes a recording "good" for my listening. And this is not always a "perfect recording", in the "audiophile" sense. My situation now is that most of the sound that does not add to the Music is sort of "set aside", like ticks and pops from an LP. My understanding from Romy's descriptions is that his way of doing the "rear channels" does not rely on "good ambience", or anything else, in particular, being in the front channels to begin with. If it's there, fine; if it's not there, fine. Perhaps it might even be some sort of "phase dithering". Who can say? I can tell you, at this point, if I have to "figure it out" before I do it, it might never get done before I croak!



Best regards,
Paul S
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 53
Post ID: 26245
Reply to: 26243
I am still experimenting with myself.
 Bill wrote:
No matter which approach you decide on of the six, there will always be an improvement over stereo. One does not need super high end speakers except possibly for the main channels. Matter of fact, all of my and Romy's surrounds are inexpensive speakers mated with zip wire to inexpensive amplifiers, but the sound improvement would not allow either of us to go back to two channel. Or would you disagree with that Romy?
   
It is a loaded question. I can comment only about my way to do the things as in the way how you do it there are too many methodological unknowns to me, and I never tried it myself. In my case when I introduce only one single new feature to classic stereo (inject reverberation) the difference is very profound and indeed I do not think that anybody who did it would be ever go back to classic stereo. I am still in process to form my final opinion about and that I do now but one way or other the reverberation injection will stay in this listening room. I am not ready to call “zip wire” attitude as a “final solution”, still looking into it but for sure many of the changes I am observing do challenge what we know about “perfect sound” in just stereo.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 54
Post ID: 26246
Reply to: 26245
Hm, no good for now....
I think I am falling with my idea of integrating front reverberation channels with pilot channels.  The Dunnoy works great as a pilot channel, but I am not so wild with the whole idea of front reverberation channels. The front reverberation channels, it feels, do not a lot with reverberation from what I observe but it rather widening sonic presentation. The delays for front reverberation channels are not too high and the sound from front reverberation channels do interacts with sound of main channels.  I am very close from stopping to use front reverberation channels and keep juts back reverberation channels but this will kill the idea of integration is with pilot… Still thinking about it….


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 65
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 55
Post ID: 26247
Reply to: 26244
Recordings
Paul: for two channel recordings:For Romy's method to work perfectly, there should be no ambiance in the recording so that he can fill in the room ambiance with his stored reflections program. I don't think how many mikes used would make a difference, just lack of inherent ambiance.For my system to work perfectly using Auromatic, Dolby or DTS, the r3cording should be as few mikes as possible with as much ambiance information as possible to be able to extract a facsimile of the hall.Most recordings fall in between these two parameters so the quality of the reproduction of the ambiance information will vary.The advantage of the Trinnov is that it is able to get as close to a perfect frequency response and time alignment as possible, possibly far better than can be done through driver and speaker positioning, and that it can take a modest speaker and improve both of those parameters significantly. Again, at about 100 times the cost of Romy's method.
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 56
Post ID: 26248
Reply to: 26247
....even more!
 Bill wrote:
For Romy's method to work perfectly, there should be no ambiance in the recording so that he can fill in the room ambiance with his stored reflections program. I don't think how many mikes used would make a difference, just lack of inherent ambiance.

This is accurate but I would change from “method to work perfectly” to “to be effective”. With recordings that have a lot of own hall reverberation information the audible contribution of the room reverberation injection significantly less effective. However, it is purely from Sonic point of view. From perseptial point of I feel that even with recordings which have a lotta ambient information the reverberation channels also add if not direct Sonic benefits but significantly reducing criticality of perception the main channels. what reverberation channels do in addition to extend perception of space is an introduction of amazing softness and kindness in the room. Air classical stereo compared to injected stereo in a room feels dry, cold, analytical and forces listening perception defend itself. with a reverberation injected sound it feels like sound in the room become organically a part of your organic psyche. when I begin experimented with this my wife from kitchen was screaming that what the hell I changed that it's beginning to sound so nice. I had yesterday an amazing experience, no kidding first time in my life. It was raining and I was sitting in my listening room with windows wide opened. I was listening and I recognize that the rain became too loud and decided to close the windows. How huge my surprise when I recognize that it was not the sound of the rain but it was the sound of noise from my recording complemented with preparation injections…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,333
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 57
Post ID: 26249
Reply to: 26248
Gain?
Romy, I suppose you have to buffer when you split the front channels, and you have to gain 6 dB. How, exactly, are you doing the split now, from, say, phono stage to rear speakers?

Best regards,
Paul
08-06-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 58
Post ID: 26250
Reply to: 26248
Notes from the trenches.
OK, here are some notes. I do not generalize them, juts my notes from my listening and my current conclusions.
 
All processors are different. Ridiculous but fact. I have 4 of them and they all with the same reverb parameters sound different. I do not know if it is because they are over 30 years old but I slightly prefer the sound on one processor over another…  for a given music… and given recording. How important it is? Absolutely not important. The differences between reverberation effect of different recording makes the things looks like irrelevant as far as quality processing concern...

The reverberation front channels do not work for me. I do not think that I will be able to find anything that can successfully work with Macondo. Dunnoys are very nice, but I can clearly here that it is not multi-amped acoustic system.  Playing Dunnoys alone is fine but along with Macondo with short reverberation time is not good.
 
I have returned to 4ch configuration. The 6ch configuration is not good for me. The benefits to have front reverberation is very negligible but there is a hurtle for main channels. The only benefit of the front reverberation is widening soundstage but in kind of strange ways. I think to use the front reverb I need to rearrange the speakers.  I do not want to spend next 10 years to learn how position speakers in reverberate room. So, from now and on ONLY 2 reverb channels in the back…
 
To my surprise the bass for reverb channels is important, not the depth of the bass but the hue of the base. I have a strong distaste toward to ported bass as if I hear my staccato bass reflects with typical ported genetic “Um” I get distracted to immeasurable less degree if it was the sound of Macondo but I did notice the effect in a reverberated room if to be intentionally anal-retentive


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
maravedis
Posts 1
Joined on 08-07-2021

Post #: 59
Post ID: 26251
Reply to: 26250
NXT type surrounds
Romy,

Did you ever experiment with DML or BMR type drivers for ambience channels?

https://www.tectonicaudiolabs.com/audio-components/bmr-speakers/

https://uk.kef.com/products/t101-satellite-speakers

There is something quite wonderful about how they work playing along with horns - they might be ideal for the front channels?

Best, James
08-07-2021 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,852
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 60
Post ID: 26252
Reply to: 26251
2+3 becomes 2+2
James,
 
I never tried or heard about DML or BMR type drivers. I looked them up and a few things they do give me a cold shoulder.   It is not about a selection of driver type or the topology of front channels. I though initially that it was important. Or let me to say this: I thought that all aspects of integration of main channels with front channels is something that important and the quality of that integration is something that might improve or compromise the use of the front channels as a concept. Based upon what I experienced, unless somebody or something convince me otherwise, I concluded that front effect channels are fundamentally bad idea. It is unfortunate, in my view, that Yamaha topologically combined the excellent idea of reverberation fields injection with the idea or what they call front presence speakers.
 
The presence speakers meant to give theater-like wide ambiance and in my view a bed idea that came from home theaters and used of feeble main channels. I can achieve a full presence effect and indeed to do my presentation wider. The wider doe does not mean better. Whatever I need to do with sonic presentation width Macondo does already itself with no presence speakers help.
 
So, I am sticking with 2+2 configuration for now.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 3 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  14633  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