Any benefit to separating sounds?

[Randy Robinson]

because, as it is right now, you have to EQ and TRIM and MIX the audio tracks to get them to sound good through a 2-channel setup.... but if you implement my idea then you will be basically leaving the audio alone and it will get played as how it was intended without any tweaking to the sound...

 

[Randy Robinson]

you can leave the audio virtually untouched and in a pristine condition !!

 

[Randy Robinson]

Is this starting to make sense ? or am I just crazy ?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I wouldn't say you're crazy, nor is your idea. But at the very least it will need input from someone with way more smarts n I got, and a great deal of refinement. One of the reasons not to leave audio untouched is because it will tend to sound like S. (not highs like SSSSSS @Pogre!) The beautiful refined sound of condenser mics and EQ vs the sound of a band in a garage is worlds apart. Lol

 

[Randy Robinson]

I am not saying I want it to SOUND like a live venue, but I was just comparing it to a live band in the sense that each band member or instrument has it's own speaker/ monitor..

 

[shadyJ]

Sorry, but this idea is solving problems that don't exist. You can have separate tracks and separate speakers for individual instruments, but your ear is going to integrate it all the same in the end anyway. A good stereo system can image very well. A system where you have a speaker for every instrument might maybe be able to image a bit better, but obviously it would be hugely impractical. And it would only work for one type of band setup. And also think about what your room acoustics are doing to each speaker- that must be factored in. The challenges of calibrating a stereo pair to typical room acoustics is well understood, but you are advocating an entirely new system that may not be as amenable to traditional room acoustics. Remember that distortion is not a factor. Your setup would also do nothing to address the 'mud range' problem, insofar as it exists. Traditional recording techniques are already very good at addressing these problems.

A much superior alternative to your idea would simply to use an expanded front stage system, as can be done with object oriented system speaker placement. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but I don't think your idea does anything to improve what can be done with, say, a five speaker front stage running a sound mix from DTS:X or Atmos. I am not even sure it would offer a significant improvement over a well setup stereo system. You should look more into how speakers 'image' and how they present a soundstage. Of course, its not just the speakers but the recording and mixing techniques as well.

 

[Randy Robinson]

I agree with you in some ways shadyJ.... that is what my idea was really to expand the front sound stage. Sure 5.1 and greater surround sound systems exist, but they are not realistic. You do not sit in the middle of a band and they play around you. They play in FRONT of you. So in a way my idea is essentially a 7.1 surround that exists in front of you. Like I said I am no expert on all this, I only know a little about all this stuff. However, I did read lots of how they mix music and how they have to adjust for the problem of intermodulation and competing frequency space. That is pretty much how my idea was born. Well keep a multi track recording as a multi track and play each track through a designated speaker for that track, to a certain extent of course, that way you would get a better sound stage as well. Because when you are listening to a live band they are playing with in a certain space and the sound comes from that certain space, not all the sound comes from one little area (the speaker) although a LARGE loudspeaker would solve some of those issues of soundstage, but with my idea the speaker would have to be fairly large as well. It would be for the exotic the upper range of audiophile that wants a NEW way to listen to and play with music.

 

[Randy Robinson]

but if nothing else, just create a speaker system with the vocals separate, almost like a 3.1 setup. I think that sounds better then a 2.1 setup .... because in my case with my receiver it does not have the option to do a 3.1 setup, only 2.1 or 5.1 or 7.1.

 

[shadyJ]

I see what you are saying, that each speaker acts like an instrument itself. The problem is, conventional recording techniques are not at all geared for that. Remember that each instrument has its own directivity pattern. How do you get the mic to correspond to that? How to you get a speaker to recreate that? It is basically impossible, but conventional recording and mixing techniques get can get a great lifelike sound out of traditional instruments and musicians, but they have to put it all in one soundstage. I recommend you read Floyd Toole's Loudspeakers and Rooms. He does cover all of this.

Also keep in mind there is no inherent qualitative advantage into limiting a speaker into playing the content of a single instrument. Speakers are designed to play complex content, and good ones do that very well.

You should look into object oriented sound mixes and systems. That does have the ability to have a recording of of each instrument kept as a separate object. DTS:X, Aurasound, and Atmos can have a front stage speaker system of up to 6 speakers, so each instrument can have a precisely imaged location. This would be a lot better than having a speaker for each instrument, because it can sound holographic, plus it has the flexibility to recreate any kind of sound stage the recording engineer can dream up, whereas your imagined system would only be able to handle one kind of music setting.

 

[yepimonfire]

I know this is sort of hard for everyone else to understand because I am the one who is thinking all of this.
One factor I am thinking of is this : Intermodulation Distortion
Intermodulation (IM) is the interaction of two or more frequencies. This interaction creates new frequencies that are the sum and difference of the reference tones, e.g., 100 &1000 Hz, may produce sidebands of 1100 and 900. Intermodulation adds non related, highly dissonant frequencies that are far more objectionable than harmonic distortion, and audible at levels lower than any other nonlinear distortion. Music is made up of many simultaneous frequencies making IM distortion a major concern. It is consistently agreed that IM is more detrimental than other forms of nonlinear distortion.

I know that this can be slightly avoided by a 3-way loudspeaker design, but then you have crossovers to consider and those provide a whole different level of complexity.

Side note... do they even really make 5-way loudspeakers anymore ?

A 4 way, active xover system with each driver covering no more than three octaves is ideal. Not only does this avoid things like IM distortion, but when done properly it avoids things like beaming. A 4 way system allows one to use different sized drivers for each set of octaves. While driver size isn't necessarily correlated with frequency response, it's certainly correlated with off axis response. When sound waves become significantly smaller than the diameter of the driver, they start beaming. Outside of horn loading, the only way to avoid that is to use appropriately sized drivers based on the frequency range. Two way designs are a compromise between cost and form factor.

For practicality and economic purposes, a three way speaker with a subwoofer should be sufficient.

Having a single speaker play one instrument at a time is pointless. Drum sets, for example, often have a range from 50hz-20khz.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Verdinut]

I agree with yepimonfire in that, for all practical and economic purposes, a three-way speaker with a subwoofer should be sufficient. I have three of them for my front channels. They are actively bi-amped (sub + mid & tweeter) and I can have an overall frequency response of 20-27KHz ± 3dB with low harmonic distortion and inaudible intermodulation distortion.

A four-way speaker may in theory be preferable, but you risk having more phase and dispersion problems with each addition of bands, apart from important increase in cost.

 

[shadyJ]

The addition of a sub makes the system a 4-way, of course, but I know what you mean. I have heard some outstanding 4-way speakers though, but I wouldn't trust one unless I know it was solid, like the Revel Salon 2 or something like that. It is some serious speaker engineering to see a well-done 4-way.

 

[Verdinut]

The addition of a sub makes the system a 4-way, of course, but I know what you mean. I have heard some outstanding 4-way speakers though, but I wouldn't trust one unless I know it was solid, like the Revel Salon 2 or something like that. It is some serious speaker engineering to see a well-done 4-way.

Not in my setup. My speakers operate as a 3-way system: one 15" subwoofer + two 5¼" mid-woofers + one air motion ribbon tweeter in each of the three cabinets. X-overs are at 190 Hz (active) and 3500 Hz (passive).