Originally Posted by mogorf
Max, no offense intended, but I'd like to leave your comments uncommented. Sorry!
No problem. I was a little busy at the time and forgot to finish the rest of my comment. It was specifically regarding this post.
Originally Posted by mogorf
Hi Guys, here's a short discussion for those interested in the subject with Chris on FB about seamless panning between fronts and surrounds with some insights on experiments done at their university labs.
Me: Hi Chris, coming back to the issue of front-surround panning you have mentioned earlier that it is simply not possible to be done seamlessly in a 5.1 array, thus development at Audyssey has lead to DSX, especially the wides with proper placement to over come this psychoacoustical phenomenon. Care to share a bit more thoughts on wha
t we miss in a 5.1 system and how DSX wides overcome the problem? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri
- Chris Kyriakakis Our sense of auditory source width is greatly enhanced by reflections from the sides. For these to be most effective they need to arrive from a specific angle and with a specific delay relative to the direct sound from the front. They also need to have a particular frequency response shaping in order to match our hearing preferences. Experiments in the literature have shown these effects quite clearly and we have also performed our own at my university lab for several years.
The information must be delivered from a discrete direction that is separate from the fronts or surrounds to be effective. So, the Wides play a key role in soundstage rendering.
If we ever got to the point where content was being authored for more channels then the Wides would also play a key role in filling the front-surround gap. We made an experimental recording of a Shakespeare play happening "in the round" around the audience. When the actor's voice appears in the right surround (there is no picture--this is all presented in the dark), and then he starts slowly walking towards the voices he hears in the front left, the result is chilling. He is in the room with you and you can swear that somebody just walked by you. When we then switch to 5.1 the illusion is gone completely.
It appeared as if you posted that as some sort of confirmation from Chris that 5.1 is not enough for seamless panning and the addition of Wide speakers would help. What I meant to say was that Chris's response doesn't specifically address the issue except obliquely.
He talks about the Wides being important for soundstage width cues and then goes on to say that IF (or when) film audio is eventually mixed for more channels (which seems to be in the works now with Dolby Atmos in some sense), that the Wide channels can then aid in smoother panning. Those are two separate things, but if read too quickly, might be incorrectly construed as, "DSX Wides will make surround panning smoother".
Originally Posted by mogorf No offense again, but do you like Audyssey?
Do you like what it does for your ears or not? If yes, then why not join the bandwagon of Audysssey fans on this thread. ...snip...
Definitely. I've stated before that I won't buy another avr without Audyssey (or some form of room correction that is proven to be at least equally powerful/effective).
But there is a world of a difference between appreciating it for what it can do, vs. blithely joining in the enthusiasm about it and thinking that it's perfect. Do I think Audyssey is an effective technology? Yes, without a doubt. But is it magic? Can it work miracles? No.
Markus has a nice little quote as his signature that goes:
"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
Sometimes I get the impression that the most enthusiastic audio fans almost have a religious fervor with respect to whatever it is they're enthusiastic about, refusing to question their items/technologies/brands of preference and unwilling to even consider the possibility that it might not be 'perfect'. Down that path lie the $5000 power cables and $135,000 speaker cables.
I really hope that this post is not taken as offensive. It is just meant to explain my take on things. I try to temper my enthusiasm a little to keep it in check. Given my propensity and OCD for improvement and the continual quest for perfection, if I didn't question things and/or the lack of proof or especially, potentially contrary evidence, I might end up following the hype and buying things like this:http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-...2gqks08np4cr71