Originally Posted by Roger Dressler
Thanks much for the considerable reply. Sorry to get you off on a tear. I think we'll need a beer summit to settle this properly.
My original intention was to steer clear of the merit issues altogether, which speakers give best effects, etc. I'm only focusing on the statement that DSX adds no new signals.
It may help if we see the overall text Chris posted
a) He clearly states that DSX adds reflections.
b) In my read of the last sentence, the use of extracts' does not mean removes from the source, but derives from the source. In other words, DSX applies appropriate frequency response and perceptual processing to the audio in real time to create the new side wall reflections that are being added to the presentation.
Even if one had a recording from a concert hall that included side-wall reflections, I'd be very surprised if any algorithm could even find them, let alone redirect them.
Based on the above, I'm sticking with my original conclusion, that DSX adds new signals to the presentation. I am not making any value judgment, just asserting the point.
Hi, Roger, thanks for the reasoned reply. I'm still not reading it "your" way--esp. as it contradicts other documentation I've seen. But, in any event, it is very ambiguous. IMO, The question
that Chris asks is from the perspective, as I read it, of a consumer who's heard mysterious--erroneous--rumors about added reflection info.--not, as I read it, a positive or affirmative statement describing what the process actually does in this regard. But, in any event, the fact remains that the process--whatever it is--is benign. As was your original post--and, no, you didn't wind me up; just reacting to a lot of what I regard as misinformation around here. Perhaps reactionary naysayers will at least give the processing some study and audition time before slamming it blindly (that's all it will take). Then let them slam it, if they must, or can, for real and informed reasons.
Also, I kinda got stranded at my desk in a "tween" mode--I didn't feel well enough (something I ate the night before) to do the physical things I'd scheduled, nor the intellectual work for the coming week, so I pretended that sitting in my desk chair and pontificating on AVS for a couple of hours was constructive, lol. Your post was just the harmless catalyst. (Besides, I knew from past experiences "trading fours" with you, that I was unlikely to get slammed in return!
Hey, you do know that' I'll do my best to take you up on that beer summit offer, right?!
I first saw the pics of your totally beautiful "Deadwood" theater yesterday--sorry I didn't get a chance to reply and mention this yesterday, before we all climb on the workweek merry-go-round. What an obvious labor of love. I can tell how much thought and crafting went into even the tiniest details (your responses to admirers' postings and pics of the "behind the scenes" crafting were quite intriguing). BTW: Most folks, as you know, I'm sure, hide their diffusors behind fabric. What a cool idea to expose them, and make them part of the overall aesthetic--making these a design asset. Form and function coalesce. The space is both industrial and elegant--"clean" and purposeful, but "rich"--no mean feat; it's terrific
looking! With, IMHO, a little bit of a "Danish modern" vibe (in the best sense). Very much complimentary to--and, importantly: stimulative of--my own design sensibilities. (And, not least, the perfect setting for a beer summit!)
P.S. Just re-read your post, and thought it easier to respond to another comment here. (Besides, I like postscripts...can ya tell?) Regarding algorithms' ease of "finding" early reflections and then steering them: this is simple, actually...been done for many years--they're just out-of-phase repetitions of existing signal information that decay in amplitude in predictible ways--and therefore are easily recognized; actually, what would be veritably tough to do--nigh on impossbile at this stage--is figuring out what to add reflections to, on the fly
--and, tellingly, when not to do this. And be accurate to the changing soundspaces every time. Extraction/redirection of actual signals has got
to be easier (not to mention far better sounding!) than attempting to predict what
needs to have simulated reflections-processing added to it, in some ultimately non-natural fake/phasey way, and when
. (Dolby Digital has been doing the former for almost two decades, now). Because, clearly, the Wides do not receive reflections-signals constantly (as with ill-regarded DSP ambiance add-ons), but only intermittently, when the soundspace requires. Getting this right, on the fly, with hi-resolution multi-channel soundtracks, given today's processing SOTA, seems impossible. (Note that the original HDMI spec couldn't even permit mere transmission
of these high-resolution audio channels!) Even with "sky's the limit" engineering statement pieces/proof of concept projects with unlimited funding. (IMHO, natch!) What Audyssey does with DSX is, in fact, not so revolutionary in terms of DSP execution, at all; it's merely slightly evolutionary in terms of the tools it uses, which have been used by acive steering circuits for the two surround L/R channels in the 5.1 array for decades, now. (Well, call it "1.6 decades," I guess.)
What is significant and actually revolutionary about the DSX process is its psychoacoustic modeling--that it has re-ordered the hierarchy, long dominated by Dolby, in terms of which additional surround channels have the most relative, ranked importance--and where their transducers should be placed in our home theaters--given how our ears/brains function, in terms of recreating a natural, 3D soundspace.
First beer's on you.
Make it a stout or double-bock, please!