Surround Sound for Stereo Music…Sacrilege??

[Diesel57]

Herbu

I am exceedingly curious what you found "dumb" about TLS Guy's post.
He is one of the most knowledgeable people here and has a lot of experience. His post was informative, and even his reply to you was full of information... in spite of your "dumb" rebuke.

Click on his avatar. See where it says:
Received:+5,518 / 10 / -2 Trophy Points:113
That means he has received 5,530 responses, (like Agree, Like, Winner, Dumb, etc).
Of those 5,530 responses, 5,518 have been positive... 10 have been neutral... and 2 have been negative like your "Dumb".

He has 113 "Trophy Points", which is the max you can have. Those points are determined by the responses you have.

My point: You should be prudent with your responses, especially the negative ones. And just because you may not agree with something doesn't make it "dumb". Reply in words about that which you disagree, so we can all see and discuss. Simply leaving a negative review with no explanation is very bad form.

Herbu where do you see me quoting or stating TLS Guy post is dumb...where?...what he brought forward is enlightening and informative and with that being said, pay a little more attention, I didn't direct anything to TLS Guy nor would I refer to anyone or any questions and information given here as dumb, you're addressing the wrong person...

It all depends on what you listen to. For the PLIIx algorithm to work there has to be accurate phase information especially from the ambient field.

The upshot of this is that it is not going to work for pop music that is close miked and heavily processed. In addition a lot of the electronic instruments are direct fed with no ambient information. So it is not surprising that this genre of music will sound awful with these algorithms.

Classical music on the other hand is largely miked in a distant field with sparring use of spot mics. In addition there is no processing such as artificial echo. Careful attention is paid to phase.

The upshot of this is that in a good recording there is an abundance of accurate ambient information. If a coincident technique is used, like I used to use, then the ambient information is totally preserved in the recording. Therefore a phase dependent algorithm can accurately reconstruct direction.

The other issue, is that reproduction is about the creation of an illusion. It only takes very minor problems to destroy the illusion. Therefore you can not have any inferior speakers in the mix. All must sound very close to identical, with the exception of extreme low end extension. One poor speaker pair will ruin it.

I spent enormous time in design and R & D to make my front stage absolutely seamless, and minimize interference from the center channel. Unfortunately most center channels have a dispersion pattern that totally precludes a seamless integrated front stage, because of severe lobing error of the center speaker.

Both surrounds and backs are powerful accurate speakers, with a tonal balance that matches the fronts. None of them are odd man out.

This all means that processed two channel sounds very nearly as good as discrete multi channel classical recordings. The BPO purchases have BD Mater HD 5.1 and two channel CDs in the package. They are almost indistinguishable, which convinces me that the Dolby algorithm does recapture and properly direct the ambient envelope.

Well made recordings which is the rule among classical labels and the exception in the pop genre do give a wonderful recreation of space and distance perspective with Dolby PLIIx music, on my rig any way. The improvement is not subtle it is overwhelming, and sounds anything but flat.

You can tell it works by the applause which appropriately comes from the surrounds and backs.

 

[Diesel57]

It all depends on what you listen to. For the PLIIx algorithm to work there has to be accurate phase information especially from the ambient field.

The upshot of this is that it is not going to work for pop music that is close miked and heavily processed. In addition a lot of the electronic instruments are direct fed with no ambient information. So it is not surprising that this genre of music will sound awful with these algorithms.

Classical music on the other hand is largely miked in a distant field with sparring use of spot mics. In addition there is no processing such as artificial echo. Careful attention is paid to phase.

The upshot of this is that in a good recording there is an abundance of accurate ambient information. If a coincident technique is used, like I used to use, then the ambient information is totally preserved in the recording. Therefore a phase dependent algorithm can accurately reconstruct direction.

The other issue, is that reproduction is about the creation of an illusion. It only takes very minor problems to destroy the illusion. Therefore you can not have any inferior speakers in the mix. All must sound very close to identical, with the exception of extreme low end extension. One poor speaker pair will ruin it.

I spent enormous time in design and R & D to make my front stage absolutely seamless, and minimize interference from the center channel. Unfortunately most center channels have a dispersion pattern that totally precludes a seamless integrated front stage, because of severe lobing error of the center speaker.

Both surrounds and backs are powerful accurate speakers, with a tonal balance that matches the fronts. None of them are odd man out.

This all means that processed two channel sounds very nearly as good as discrete multi channel classical recordings. The BPO purchases have BD Mater HD 5.1 and two channel CDs in the package. They are almost indistinguishable, which convinces me that the Dolby algorithm does recapture and properly direct the ambient envelope.

Well made recordings which is the rule among classical labels and the exception in the pop genre do give a wonderful recreation of space and distance perspective with Dolby PLIIx music, on my rig any way. The improvement is not subtle it is overwhelming, and sounds anything but flat.

You can tell it works by the applause which appropriately comes from the surrounds and backs.

, Thanks, I listen to all types of music, jazz being my 1st preference but most important is that you've shared not just with me but with many others that there are other options to obtain stereo to the listening ear...THANK YOU

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... I do not care for surround sound, ...

That is perfectly a valid personal choice.
ps. Interestingly though as soon as you step away from your 2.1 listening, everything in nature is surround sound.

 

[Diesel57]

I am exceedingly curious what you found "dumb" about TLS Guy's post.
He is one of the most knowledgeable people here and has a lot of experience. His post was informative, and even his reply to you was full of information... in spite of your "dumb" rebuke.

Click on his avatar. See where it says:
Received:+5,518 / 10 / -2 Trophy Points:113
That means he has received 5,530 responses, (like Agree, Like, Winner, Dumb, etc).
Of those 5,530 responses, 5,518 have been positive... 10 have been neutral... and 2 have been negative like your "Dumb".

He has 113 "Trophy Points", which is the max you can have. Those points are determined by the responses you have.

My point: You should be prudent with your responses, especially the negative ones. And just because you may not agree with something doesn't make it "dumb". Reply in words about that which you disagree, so we can all see and discuss. Simply leaving a negative review with no explanation is very bad form.

Herbu, I do apologize to you and to all, I just went back to the post and saw what I checked off and surely that was the wrong response, TLS Guy's post enlightened me how to obtain stereo sound with a different setup...MY APOLOGIES ONCE AGAIN

 

[mtrycrafts]

Herbu

Herbu where do you see me quoting or stating TLS Guy post is dumb...where?......

Well, it was attached to his very 1st post, post #2. Yes indeed you added that like/dislike attachment, not a new post with that comment. I saw it.
You must have removed it as that feature doesn't seem to have an expiration time to it and no longer is showing.

 

[Diesel57]

Well, it was attached to his very 1st post, post #2. Yes indeed you added that like/dislike attachment, not a new post with that comment. I saw it.
You must have removed it as that feature doesn't seem to have an expiration time to it and no longer is showing.

Yes, it was there and surely it was a mistake, I was surprised when it was bought to my attention that I responded with a dumb reply, I appreciate the folks here even more when a negative response is given and it's confronted and I'm one that invites a response when I'm wrong or I'm out of line, It's a great place to obtain knowledge, information with a great supporting cast...THANKS

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

I play most of my classical 2 channel recordings in Dolby PLIIx music. This gives by far the most realistic sound. As other s have pointed out this works much better on a 7.1 system versus 5.1 and is perhaps the best argument for putting together a 7.1 system.

There are good reasons why this should be so. Having the hall ambience coming though the front sound stage obscures detail. In a good two channel recording the phase relationships are preserved. The rear hall ambience is out of phase, and so audience noise and response does come from the surround speakers largely. In my large collection of masters that I made the result is as good as discrete. I used either crossed X/Y figure of 8 using a stereo microphone, or matrix m-s with one capsule omni and the other figure of 8 left right. Most often I used the m-s technique, as the recordings were for radio broadcast and those listeners with mono sets including desk top radios automatically got a perfect mono playback, as the figure of 8 capsule cancels. When I play these recordings, they are as good as discrete multi channel with pretty much complete front back separation.

If I play the discrete multi channel discs of the BPO form the Philharmonie, and compare them to the 2 channel stream the perspective is to all intense and purposes identical.

The works for most of my recordings but not all. I suspect it is due to differences in mic technique.

However on the whole the clarity is enhanced not having all the ambience included in the front sound stage, and left right localization remains excellent. Opera playback from streaming sites is markedly improved.

The other bonus is much better perception of depth. For instance orchestral perspective is much enhanced with the brass realistically coming from the back over the orchestra.

Music from cathedral spaces is just uncannily realistic.

I can get the BBC via a tunnel. I have been enjoying the Proms of late. In PLIIx the Royal Albert Hall is captured to perfection. I have watched the Mahler 3rd symphony from this years season and the off stage Flugel horn in the third movement was captured so well it was spooky. You could here the horn reverberating all round the hall.

The one caveat is that I have 7 excellent speaker channels from highly capable speakers. Both surrounds and backs make excellent stereo pairs. Although the speakers have unique designs, I designed them and they all have virtually identical tonal balance with none standing out. The system is also very carefully set up and calibrated. I have to say I have not been able to duplicate these results on systems with much less capable surrounds and rears. I was just lucky when I build my new front set 10 years ago, that I had one of my broadcast monitor pairs to use for the surrounds, and my former reference studio monitors to use as the rears.

So I can attest that Dolby PLIIx music really does deliver. The DTS Neural THX also works, but I think biases the stage too much to the center.

Great response. I have not read the thread yet, but I can bet you will be criticized. The point of my article was some material *may* work better in surround, and it's entirely up to the listener. I agree, however, with your observations of PLIIx. I was working with Jim Fosgate at the time he was developing it, and he really dialed it in before turning his baby over to Dolby.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

so basically one simply needs an AVR which supports Dolby PLIIx?

Yup. Your mileage may vary, though. Void where prohibited by law.

 

[hk2000]

The mind is the most powerful of all processors. Why do we need technology to define precisely what we're seeing and hearing? I say stereo is the most accurate presentation of live music. You don't need speakers to reproduce the reflections, let you're room do that. Unless you're in a completely open environment, any additional speakers (aside from a subwoofer) will just sound fake and unrealistic. even your claim about the center channel is needed to anchor the center sounds when you're moving around is inaccurate- good speakers- like the NHT's Focused Image Geometry speakers- will always have a perfectly centered image regardless where you sit- I know, I listen to them daily. The science behind that design is light years ahead of anything else. Why NHT abandoned it, more importantly, why didn't every audiophile get one of those when they where available is a mystery to me!

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

The more primitive surround formats seem to do the best with stereo recordings, IMO. Dolby pro logic in it's various iterations, and even something as simple as a Hafler Dynaquad, fall into that category. I use a home-brew Hafler approach in the basement rig.

The problem with the brilliantly-conceived and simple Hafler circuit is it offers almost no separation. And Dolby Pro Logic really doesn't work well on stereo music, especially with the center channel engaged. Pro Logic is very center-heavy. The attack and release times of the control voltages in the logic circuitry have been slowed down to avoid audible artifacts. And the single rear channel (or two mono rears) is bandwidth-limited at approximately 7 kHz; the upper limit of good AM radio. I spent a decade comparing Pro Logic to Jim Fosgate's analog surround circuits at trade shows and in dealers, and his old Pro Plus surround through his 6-Axis surround technology really worked batter for unencoded stereo music. Pro Logic only seemed to work better on flawed movie soundtracks; ones that needed a very hard center. So, with the utmost of respect, I can't agree.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Glad I got up early today and saw this article, it made me blow the dust off my AVR user manual and actually read about the subject! During my experiment with my Yamaha RX-A1020 I find listening to NET radio, that mode cannot access Dolby PLIIx, whereas in CD (compact disc) mode, I do get a choice in the OPTION menu for it. NET radio comes across as MP3.

Yamaha, from their first DSP-1 unit, had a disdain for active-matrix surround technologies, and instead, they favored their digital reverb technologies. They had a huge investment in it. As I mention in the article, it is not surround sound. There may be enough phase problems on NET radio that PLIIx may get tripped up, but it works on CDs. You have a very, very nice receiver, regardless.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

It all depends on what you listen to. For the PLIIx algorithm to work there has to be accurate phase information especially from the ambient field.

The upshot of this is that it is not going to work for pop music that is close miked and heavily processed. In addition a lot of the electronic instruments are direct fed with no ambient information. So it is not surprising that this genre of music will sound awful with these algorithms.

Classical music on the other hand is largely miked in a distant field with sparring use of spot mics. In addition there is no processing such as artificial echo. Careful attention is paid to phase.

The upshot of this is that in a good recording there is an abundance of accurate ambient information. If a coincident technique is used, like I used to use, then the ambient information is totally preserved in the recording. Therefore a phase dependent algorithm can accurately reconstruct direction.

The other issue, is that reproduction is about the creation of an illusion. It only takes very minor problems to destroy the illusion. Therefore you can not have any inferior speakers in the mix. All must sound very close to identical, with the exception of extreme low end extension. One poor speaker pair will ruin it.

I spent enormous time in design and R & D to make my front stage absolutely seamless, and minimize interference from the center channel. Unfortunately most center channels have a dispersion pattern that totally precludes a seamless integrated front stage, because of severe lobing error of the center speaker.

Both surrounds and backs are powerful accurate speakers, with a tonal balance that matches the fronts. None of them are odd man out.

This all means that processed two channel sounds very nearly as good as discrete multi channel classical recordings. The BPO purchases have BD Mater HD 5.1 and two channel CDs in the package. They are almost indistinguishable, which convinces me that the Dolby algorithm does recapture and properly direct the ambient envelope.

Well made recordings which is the rule among classical labels and the exception in the pop genre do give a wonderful recreation of space and distance perspective with Dolby PLIIx music, on my rig any way. The improvement is not subtle it is overwhelming, and sounds anything but flat.

You can tell it works by the applause which appropriately comes from the surrounds and backs.

PLII and PLIIx can work very well on closely-mic'ed studio recordings. I cited the best example I know of, "Amused to Death" by Roger Waters. Phase integrity is very important, though, and that's why some recordings on CD don't work well, most cassettes don't work well, and off-the-air or internet radio may not work well.

Also, I am assuming that the center speaker lobing you refer to is from a horizontal center speaker. I don't consider horizontal centers to be very serious (regardless of the quality) because of all the problems they introduce. A vertically-aligned mid/tweeter helps, but the center is still too low in relationship to the left and right, and there is still lobing at the frequencies usually reproduced by the multiple lower-midrange drivers that are invariably lined up next to one another.

Your comment about 5.1 and 2-channel CDs that compare favorably in surround is spot on. It's really difficult to tell if you're listening to 5.1 surround or 2-channel run through PLII processing.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

This article, though otherwise is well done, is missing any mention of the elephant in the room: discrete surround sound mixes. For example "Amused to Death" won the 2016 Grammy for Best Surround Sound Album. This article fails mention this release or even this award (which has a long history of awesome mixes).

Thanks for mentioning that. It's important, and an omission. I made the disclaimer early in the article that my piece was only about 2-channel sources, not discrete surround mixes, referring to the stereo CD of "Amused to Death." Good catch, though, and thanks.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

I listen to everything in Stereo 2.1 or 2.0. I do not care for surround sound, which I put up with at the movies only because I must. To each his/her own. Peace and goodwill.

I appreciate the response. I am old enough to recall the advent of stereo around 1957, and for years after, there were people who vehemently insisted that stereo was a gimmick and that monaural sound was superior. And, in a few ways, it was. And as I stated in the article, my small, high-end 2-channel system has no surround capability, on purpose.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

However the only relevance is how play back of discrete multi channel stacks up against "recovered" multi channel from the 2 channel version of the same recording. That is the acid test.

And, as you stated, discrete multi-channel is pretty hard to distinguish from 2-channel played back through PLII. I've done enough blind tests on really good systems over the years to know. I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you.

 

[TLS Guy]

PLII and PLIIx can work very well on closely-mic'ed studio recordings. I cited the best example I know of, "Amused to Death" by Roger Waters. Phase integrity is very important, though, and that's why some recordings on CD don't work well, most cassettes don't work well, and off-the-air or internet radio may not work well.

Also, I am assuming that the center speaker lobing you refer to is from a horizontal center speaker. I don't consider horizontal centers to be very serious (regardless of the quality) because of all the problems they introduce. A vertically-aligned mid/tweeter helps, but the center is still too low in relationship to the left and right, and there is still lobing at the frequencies usually reproduced by the multiple lower-midrange drivers that are invariably lined up next to one another.

Your comment about 5.1 and 2-channel CDs that compare favorably in surround is spot on. It's really difficult to tell if you're listening to 5.1 surround or 2-channel run through PLII processing.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Yes, you are correct about the lobing I'm referring to.

As I have said many times before here center speakers are a huge challenge. Producing a seamless front stage and excellent speech discrimination and really good music reproduction I think is a monumental challenge.

My solution is mains with Joe's MTN layout which gives excellent horizontal dispersion with limited vertical dispersion and good focus.

The center channel is conceived and built round the SEAS prestige coaxial drivers in a TL.

The lower driver is full range, the upper driver just increases power handling in the bass by providing BSC though and active network. These drivers have a slight suck out in the 9 K region and a falling response above 12K. This slightly impairs speech discrimination. I the last revision I used the tweeter in the upper driver to equalize out the suck out and flatten the response to 20 KHz. I know Dennis Murphy has had a lot of trouble with these drivers and they do present a challenge.

This center has a nice coned dispersion pattern over the listening area and helps minimize interference with the mains. In a domestic situation the center is generally place too close to the mains, which is one of the many challenges of centers in home HT.

With a lot of work this front stage is seamless at all listening distances. As opera singers move across the stage their is absolutely no change in the timbre of their voices.

This is unusual but for me it has worked out very well.

So the front stage now looks like this.

These are the surrounds and rears.

These are the speakers now used as surrounds, and are the only speakers not TLs. They are sealed.

These are the rears with the two TL lines biamped with x-over at 180 Hz.

Bob Carver heard those when he was in town helping a colleague with this Carver ribbon speakers. I was in Grand Forks ND then. Bob stayed all afternoon. Those speakers started in 1979 were very difficult to get right. There was extensive revision in 1984 and over 10 years as modelling improved. I started with floppy discs on and Apple IIe! I had a lot of generous help from the good folks at Dynaudio also for which I am very grateful.

With transfer from Grand Forks to Benedict the bass line was rebuilt to take advantage of George Auspurger's work.

Many musicians and composers heard their works in editing on those speakers over the years.

I think it is a valid system for evaluating multi channel reproduction. The whole system is driven by seven dual channel Quad 909 amplifiers.

 

[ARES24]

I am still sticking with my plan;
1. Win lottery
2. Hire TLS to design HT room
3. Build said room
4. Have TLS trouble shoot
5. Enjoy bliss!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes, it was there and surely it was a mistake, I was surprised when it was bought to my attention that I responded with a dumb reply, I appreciate the folks here even more when a negative response is given and it's confronted and I'm one that invites a response when I'm wrong or I'm out of line, It's a great place to obtain knowledge, information with a great supporting cast...THANKS

Well, that is great
And, understandably easy to make with those tags.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Great response. I have not read the thread yet, but I can bet you will be criticized. The point of my article was some material *may* work better in surround, and it's entirely up to the listener. I agree, however, with your observations of PLIIx. I was working with Jim Fosgate at the time he was developing it, and he really dialed it in before turning his baby over to Dolby.

Didn't the Shure brothers developed prologic before Fosgate?
I have a paper from them or had and that was my 1st prologic processor with a center channel.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The mind is the most powerful of all processors. Why do we need technology to define precisely what we're seeing and hearing?

Well, the mind is wonderful. Certainly evolved over the eons to its present form and state.
But evolution didn't involve reproducing sound with speakers. Nature was it and so it evolved to work with nature, natural sound in it.
But, it also has flaws. Easily confused and misled. One reason we do DBT for credible results.

I say stereo is the most accurate presentation of live music.

I and many others with much higher credibility will say you are totally wrong on that.

You don't need speakers to reproduce the reflections, let you're room do that.

Oh, but in in a live presentation, no speakers, each instrument is a speaker and much better quality than any speaker you can buy. So, to have it reproduced, you need a speaker for each instrument in its proper location. Then, you might get closer.
In the meantime, we'll just struggle with as many as we can to assist in getting to the more realistic sound presentation any way we can.

Unless you're in a completely open environment, any additional speakers (aside from a subwoofer) will just sound fake and unrealistic.

Well, if one accepts science, this is also wrong.

even your claim about the center channel is needed to anchor the center sounds when you're moving around is inaccurate- good speakers- like the NHT's Focused Image Geometry speakers- will always have a perfectly centered image regardless where you sit- I know, I listen to them daily. The science behind that design is light years ahead of anything else. Why NHT abandoned it, more importantly, why didn't every audiophile get one of those when they where available is a mystery to me!

Life is full of mysteries. I guess all others just had a different idea from yours.
Enjoy what you have.