Overrated 5.1 surround sound

[jonnythan]

Talk about blind, wild ranting.

FWIW, TrueHD and DTS HD are lossless compression.

 

[jcPanny]

Revelation!

GreenJelly,
I just had a revelation, I am going to buy the Bose surround sound system with iPod dock.

My wife loves that small cubes, they are so cute. Since the quality of the speakers does not matter, this is the ultimate system. If one of my friends thinks that it sounds crappy, I will blame it on the music industry and Steve Jobs!

 

[MDS]

The truth is, that most people cant tell the difference bettween compressed audio and the non-compressed audio. But if you know what to look for you can pick up on it. The compression removes frequencies that are alike. Parts of Cymbols and parts of a Guttar that are simular. If you look and study the compressions, you can find the week points and you can tell the difference. It takes training of the ears, but its their.

How would you 'study' the compression and find the weak points? An MP3 or other lossy compression encoder does not work the way you describe.

Higher frequencies of compression become less likely to hear these gaps. With 5.1 surround sound you got 5 different channels, all with seperate compression issues. When you add it all together, there are possibilities that one channel covers the areas of the rest of the areas.

So a 5.1 surround mix has each channel compressed separately and then combined? Not even close.

It's ok to rant and rave about compression and how it might be noticeable in some instances but one needs to learn how things actually work before throwing out a bunch of nonsense that was meant to support the theory that lossy compression is bad.

 

[GreenJelly]

http://pcworld.about.com/news/Oct022001id64123.htm

These results are based on NORMAL users... like I said, you can learn how the two different. Sound, and you can become REALLY good at telling the difference. Train yourself in the ways the individual compression works, and what to listen for. Then Play a Uncompressed Peace of Music, then a Compressed Peace of Music... Keep doing this over and over again, with different Music, and you will get a very keen understanding.

Now why is this important? Because music is more then what you hear, and what you think about the sound you hear. Its about how it makes you FEEL! its that wonderfull chill that goes down your spine when Tom Petty hits that note, on that music peace that touches your sole. Though we may not recognize the differences, the differences do exist. I buy good music, and good equipment, because I want to hear what the Artist wanted the music to sound like. I DONT want to hear what some computer thinks I want to hear, or what some music technician who is compressing songs for companies thinks is good.

I watch movies in their original formate. Even if I have a square TV set. I never watch movies in Full Screen. Why? Because I want to see what the Cameraman saw, what the director intended, and what the camera director set up. The spend hours and days setting up for one single 15 second shot... and I am going to chop off the ends of that shot? HELL NO!

My feelings of music are the same.

Also...

I also NEVER said that each channel is compressed seperately then combined.... Please re-read my statement...

hell, let me re-write it, with a few extra words, though I again think my original statement was clear, though very brief.

5.1 you get 5 DIFFERENT channels, all with seperate compression flaws. When YOU (a listner) add it all together, there are possibilities that each channel covers the flaws of another channel.

For a detailed read of How MP3 Compression works (and most other Audio Compression) read http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/articles/mp3.htm

Now keep in mind that it took decades to come up with a way in which to compress audio as much as they do now. It was a VERY difficult task for the people who developed these standards, and I remember reading 10 year old articles about the HUGE problems they where facing at doing this.

 

[jonnythan]

What are you even talking about? Do you have a point or something??

 

[emorphien]

I don't think he does, AND PLEASE GET IT RIGHT, it's piece, not peace!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Not even close. You don't combine channels in 5.1 The bitstream is decoded and goes on to its merry way to their separate channels. But, we are all here to learn.

 

[emorphien]

Not even close. You don't combine channels in 5.1 The bitstream is decoded and goes on to its merry way to their separate channels. But, we are all here to learn.

I don't think that's what he said at all, I think you're misinterpreting him. While he made plenty of mistakes I think what he said there is at least not making a wrong assumption about how the technology works. The compression errors in one channel might be made less noticeable to many listeners because you have at least 4 other channels producing different sounds from the movie track that might mask compression artifacts in another channel.

Now, whether you or I agree with that is a separate issue.

 

[3db]

Umm what apple tree did you fall off of?

One day, when the music industry decides that it will start selling high quality surround sound MP3's, we will never see this change.

On top of it, most MP3 players dont support Bitrates over 200

I am going to have to double encode my personal library... One copy for my portable devices (lower bitrates), and one for my HTPC system (higher bitrates).

Prologic can do wonders to stereo, and can make some music (TRANCE) shine like you cant beleive...

My daughterrs both have MP3 players and they can play 320Mbit encided MP3s.

 

[GreenJelly]

Not even close. You don't combine channels in 5.1 The bitstream is decoded and goes on to its merry way to their separate channels. But, we are all here to learn.

So when the 5 channels of audio enter your head, you hear all 5 channels independently? You dont hear a complete sound environment that includes directional sound?

You keep assuming that I am talking about hardware combinding the sound... I keep triing to tell you that I am talking about how your brain prossess the sound, and combinds it into what we know as music, explosions, etc...

If you hear all 5 channels COMPLETELY independantly, either you have a REALLY bad system, or you are superman, and you wear red underwear.

As for having a point... I have a VERY valid point, and that is we are stuck listening to a compressed format when watching movies. Rather then the actual sound that comes from the actors voice, the sound mixer, or sound effects expert, we hear a compressed version that isnt true.

Mike

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't think that's what he said at all, I think you're misinterpreting him. While he made plenty of mistakes I think what he said there is at least not making a wrong assumption about how the technology works. The compression errors in one channel might be made less noticeable to many listeners because you have at least 4 other channels producing different sounds from the movie track that might mask compression artifacts in another channel.

OK. Now, after re-reading it I can see what you are saying what he tried to convey, thanks.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So when the 5 channels of audio enter your head, you hear all 5 channels independently? You dont hear a complete sound environment that includes directional sound?

You keep assuming that I am talking about hardware combinding the sound... I keep triing to tell you that I am talking about how your brain prossess the sound, and combinds it into what we know as music, explosions, etc...

If you hear all 5 channels COMPLETELY independantly, either you have a REALLY bad system, or you are superman, and you wear red underwear.

As for having a point... I have a VERY valid point, and that is we are stuck listening to a compressed format when watching movies. Rather then the actual sound that comes from the actors voice, the sound mixer, or sound effects expert, we hear a compressed version that isnt true.

Mike

OK. I re-read your post there and see what you really meant, not in the electric chain but in the acoustics afterwards.

We have a compressed sound because it has been shown that it works very well indeed. That our brains naturally cannot hear every bit of sound produced and that naturally some of the acoustic sounds are in fact masked. This is indisputable research, a fact.

So, the question then becomes, how much compression can we stand before detecting an audible difference. That to is pretty well known and is architecture specific to a codex and its algorytm. This area of acoustics have had a lot of research connected to it.
Sound&Vision had a test of various codecs a while back, tried to find it for you but didn't at the moment. Some codecs are most difficult to differentiate from uncompressed CD masters.

I seriously doubt that two compressed channels would increase the loss of content that would not naturally be lost anyhow from multiple signal sources/speakers.

 

[emorphien]

I have no issue with compressed audio used in movies as usually it is of a quality high enough (and as mtrycrafts said, proven to be hard to distinguish based on the capabilities of human hearing) that it's not noticeable when I'm enjoying the movie. If it were a musical segment, perhaps a trained listener might start to pick it apart.

There are of course some exceptions, where the sound in a movie is done poorly enough that compressed or not, it will distract you. I find that takes a lot though, and I would imagine that most people put less emphasis on the utmost fidelity in their home theater as opposed to their 2 channel stereo (if they even have one).

 

[GreenJelly]

Sorry for not beign clear in my statements... Its hard to be perfect all of the time.

Which brings me to my Rant... Im NOT happy with good enough... if I was happy with good enough, I wouldnt have just finished spending $5000 on audio equipment. Hell most peoples cars dont cost that much...

But I must conclude that my *****ing is pointless cause its not going to change anything...

I wonder if Digital (HD) Radio is also a compressed standard... Probably... Man... The world stinks...

BTW Emorphien, you live near me... Im in Rochester NY... Cool...

 

[MDS]

As for having a point... I have a VERY valid point, and that is we are stuck listening to a compressed format when watching movies. Rather then the actual sound that comes from the actors voice, the sound mixer, or sound effects expert, we hear a compressed version that isnt true.

As far as I can tell your 'point' is that lossy compression is evil and just totally wrecks the experience because you spent a few bucks on audio equipment and think that the sound you hear just isn't right because you perceive certain flaws.

It couldn't possibly be that your audio equipment isn't as good as you think or that your room acoustics suck or that the original recording was mixed and/or mastered in a manner that you don't find pleasing or your perception is flawed .... ad nauseum.

The MP3 article cited in a prior post is actually a pretty good high-level view of the process. If it was read and understood, the section on perceptual coding should have been enlightening.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If it were a musical segment, perhaps a trained listener might start to pick it apart.
).

Some time back Delos made some DD 5.1 classical music with the video stamp so it would play on a DVD player. You may want to investigate this and see if they are not as good as CD

 

[GreenJelly]

My only issue is that I want to hear what it sounded live... Im an audiophile, I dont want near perfection... I want perfection.

As far as room dynamics, etc. I do my best, even my equipment isnt the best... I only have a B&W 603x4 with a 600 center and a 601 sub. So it may not be perfect, but that doesnt stop a man from dreaming of a day when compression is no longer used in movie playback.

 

[markw]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

My only issue is that I want to hear what it sounded live... Im an audiophile, I dont want near perfection... I want perfection.

Here's the flaw in your logic The sound you hear in the movies never existed in a "live" environment. Do you really think they stage all thgose shots with five microphones to capture the sounds from the directions they eminate from? Do you know what a foley operator does?

That's like thinking tinkerbell was actually a tiny actress with wings. But, I gotta say, I wouldn't mind having the one from the live action Peter Pan flitting around my domicile. ..the wife might not like it, though.

Perhaps a few courses in in the cinema arts might serve you well as to what's real and what's not.

 

[Nick250]

My only issue is that I want to hear what it sounded live... Im an audiophile, I dont want near perfection... I want perfection.

As far as room dynamics, etc. I do my best, even my equipment isnt the best... I only have a B&W 603x4 with a 600 center and a 601 sub. So it may not be perfect, but that doesnt stop a man from dreaming of a day when compression is no longer used in movie playback.

Compared to speaker choice, room acoustics and the media, compression is just blip in the radar IMO. You may have already addressed this and I missed it, but have you analyzed the room and put the necessary the room treatments in place yet?

Nick

 

[mtrycrafts]

. ..the wife might not like it, though..

Oh, you are killing me.