Surround Sound - How many speakers needed? - Page 14

That what I meant. Although personally can't view it as "invention" when all they did was adding DPL centre channel derived from LR and RR (instead of the "old" FL and FR). The reason being is that Ir. Tjandra Ghozali, founder of AUVI Magazine in Indonesia, have used this very application since the release of Dolby AC-3 LaserDiscs (he just never patented it).

At the time, since there is no movie actually designed with DPL IIx in mind, his application is more akin to DPL IIz (albeit it is more "believable" to my ears because it is based on "centre rear" extraction as opposed to "height" extrapolation).

I doubt Mr. Ghozali was using the patented Surround EX encoder, a he was not encoding soundtracks as was the case with Lucasfilm.

Of course not. He uses a DPL pre-pro and use the RL and RR as the input and use the pre-pro to extract the centre channel out of those channels. Which, by the way, 100% how the Dolby EX works.

In conclusion, you don't need a Dolby-released EX decoder to do so, you can use any DPL receiver and just use the 3-ch Logic option to do Dolby/THX Surround EX. (As explained by various AV magazines, THX and Dolby themselves.

In fact, that's how the EX was "invented", just like the way Ir Tjandra Ghozali discovered.

Smyth wired binaural heaphone, Carnegie Hall listening experience, is expensive (>$3k)
www.smyth-research.com/technology.html

But, as someone here pointed out here, the processing is NOT in the headphones.
It can be in your PC.

J. River's Matt Ashland (creator of .ape), and with only 2 points less IQ than me, is building filtering+room tuning compatible path into MC15.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=58646.0
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=59171.0

Combine with Kleer wireless, bit perfect(?), USB dongle+wireless DAC
http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,Devi...ries,rWave.htm
http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,solo,DACs,rDac.htm

Add a commodity wireless head position, like Smyth has, and we can move around our home Carnegie Hall and hear the changed sound.

Not quite there yet, but getting awfully close.

iq100
the best way to delete an idea is to post one of your own.

Even live at Carnegie Hall, each ear hears some of what the other ear is hearing. The issue is whether using in ear microphones to record what each ear has heard at Carnegie Hall, two channel accurate/monitors at home, and the proper filtering/processing we can cause the ears to experience the same sound they heard at Carnegie Hall, using only two channels at home. I don't see why in theory the processing to accomplish this could not be done. Do you?

Think of the room as part of each speaker box, and the speaker designed to accomodate its box, in a manner that delivers the wanted sound to each ear. Now it may be that even with two channels that the equations are insolvable. We know there are noise eliminating headphones. It is not clear we could not cause each ear to hear what they heard at Carnegie Hall?

iq100
the best way to delete an idea is to post one of your own.

Just for clarity, EX decodes the surround outputs and creates 3 new outputs, Ls, Rs, and Cs. It does not only derive a Cs output.


Yes. I was just responding to your misconception that there were no inventions involved in EX.


I am quite familiar with how EX works. I was at Dolby for 25 years and helped launch EX and PLIIx.

No. Only that it is very difficult and has never been done in any commercially viable way before. But the theory is correct.

Unfortunately the head tracker interferes with the 3-D emitter system, or vice versa, anyone wanting to buy a research unit with 20 hours on it pm.

Yes, exactly. RL and RR as input -> DPL processor using Logic 3 mode, the output becomes RL, RR and RC. RL and RR outputs are essentially identical to its input (minus the RC info) and RC is extracted from the RL and RR input as I mentioned.


There is no misconception of "invention" although I wrote it as such. I know there is no "invention" or "development" since it's a recycled technology. Hence I mentioned Mr Ghozali's experiment as "discovery".


Then why you asked what you asked? Most probable you were the one who gave me (well, my magazine) the info to begin with. And sorry to say that even THX claim EX, and I quote, "that's a mistake, we should never launced EX". I really think it's a cool yet underutilized format.

I can assure you, I never gave you any explanation about EX even remotely resembling this:
Nor did anyone at Dolby or THX, for that matter.

never claimed
to be coming from you. Hence the "IIRC"


Regardless, all my comments go back to one thing:

If it's not presented "that way" in the theatres (be it mono, stereo, Dolby Surround, 5.1 config, 6.1 EX config, 7.1 config -- in the case of Toy Story 3), then the point of "home theatre" is moot because it's no longer bringing the theatre experience home anymore.

And once we went away from the actual sound (and picture) representation, where are we going to draw the line? Colourization, 3D-ization of 2D movies?, Discrete 7.1 from an originally mono movie? (such as the multi-ch version of Psycho soundtrack on BD... weird sounding, IMO).

I found this interesting:
http://www.qsound.com/demos/virtualbarbershop_long.htm

iq100
the best way to delete an idea is to post one of your own.

just too bad they don't sell Qsound standalone unit. The same goes with SRS. I'd love to use Qsound and SRS (sparingly) for my sound production.

Here is another one that sounded pretty convincing when I played using only two Boston Acoustics VR3s.
http://www.qsound.com/demos/jet_wmv.htm
Best 3D results was outdoors, in my "poor man's" anechoic chamber, as m. zillch calls it .

My hope is that an in the ear based microphone recording system which represents what the ear originally heard, either at 'Carnegie Hall' live performance, or in the studio according to the 'tastes' of the studio artists, would be a new '3D open source format'. Maybe called '3D .ape'. Then playback PC based systems, like Matt Ashland/J. River, could provide room tuning filter synthesis tools, to recreate the original 3D listening experience, with only two accurate speaker channels. To me that would be beyond 11.2. It would be
∞.1 or maybe that is ∞.∞

I would ask Matt Ashland (creator of the .ape format) to help create this format and room tuning filters, but Jim Hillegass will not allow me to post in the proper Interact forum.

I believe the audio analysis and equations are rather well known, and contained in published papers by now.

iq100
the best way to delete an idea is to post one of your own.

Thanks for your response. I am encouraged!
It would seem that with today's fast processors, and relatively inexpensive room tuning microphones, two monitor speakers/channels should be able to be tuned to provide the original 3D listening experience. Kind of a room tuned to provide two pseudo headphone signals, one to each ear, so as to provide the exact desired 3D effect? I would think the new '3dApe' format could include a reference track to be used for the initial room tuning.

The best designs use less.
Given two ears, I am going to guess that using two accurate monitors and the proper processing will provide an easier mechanism for delivery of the desired wavefront to each ear, than speakers scattered all over a sometimes randomly shaped room.

iq100
the best way to delete an idea is to post one of your own.

They do (or at least did; you may have to buy them used).

An example of a SRS standalone processor was the a Hughes AK-100. It was also a trend in mini Aiwa stereo systems for a while, IIRC, along with BBE, for some year(s) and also some Sennheisser headphone systems.

Standalone QSound processors are still on the market I believe as well.

I think QSound has successfully duped many into thinking the "virtual haircut" demo, "originally made for one of our clients" as they've carefully worded it, is just their proprietary electronics in action. I suspect it is simply a binaural recording, doesn't use their electronics in any shape or form, and wasn't even made by them, however a cursory web investigation I made failed to find the true original source. [I suspect they've long vanished hence the "public domain" aspect of the recording. Anyone can post it on the web and make any claims about it they want since the original people are long gone.]
---

iq100, headphone use is considered a prerequisite for listening to binaural recordings properly but if you insist on using speakers you might be interested in researching various attempts at canceling inter-aural cross talk.

Polk had some speakers with "SDA" (not to be confused with the Hughes SRS, "sound retrieval system" I was just mentioning!) where in addition to being hooked up to the amplifier they also had an umbilical link to each other and played an out of phase version of the other side of the room's sound along with their own main signal. People have also attempted this with extra speakers on their own, sometimes playing the L-R signal akin to a Hafler surround setup (what Dolby surround sound was originally based on) but with the extra speakers in the front of the room, not the back.

Carver attempted his own inter-aural crosstalk cancellation scheme electronically via his "sonic holography" button found on some of his older preamps and receivers.

Yup! Used to own one of the Hughes and BBE units. However, the floor noise of the original units were pretty high. SRS too. It's quite sad that to use QSound, BBE and SRS all of us have to buy the plugin version for computer-based multitrack recorders.

I vote for 7.1. Two left, Two right, front, rear, above. It's enough, I think.

I have been involved with sound for many years. I have studied Psycho Acoustics (Perception of sound by human ear) as well as my own experiments.
Through the years I have tried every conceivable configuration with a wide variety of speakers. Having said this, I am a firm believer that a quality 5.1 system will deliver fantastic sound for an average to above average consumer. The only exception to this would be an extemely oversized room.
For these situations, I strongly suggest evaluation on a "case by case" basis.
And always remember: The Human Ear and the perception of sound is like a fingerprint...Each of us are different and hear sounds differently as well. Anything and everything in the listening environment will affect the sound quality of your audio system, regardless of the number of speakers used.

Yes, it's pretty ancient . . . but an animal's ears point toward what its eyes are looking at. Can an animal hear what's behind them. Yes they can, but without the acuity.

Folks, we're animals. Yep, it's true. Although our ears SEEM to be aimed to our right and left, the folds channel the sound better from in front of us than either side.

And thus, friends of audio, is what we MUST pay attention to when setting up audio speakers.

Take the "normal" 5.1 setup. Left and right speakers at 6 to 7 feet above the floor. Center channel sitting somewhere on the video screen or it's stand, sub is located wherever on the floor (that's OK) and rear channels somewhere behind us, many times aimed at the floor in the ceiling.

See where I'm going with this?

Of course there's the balancing pots we all know and love. Gonna stand where to adjust them? Get the point?

The MOST EFFECTIVE SURROUND SOUND SYSTEM POSSIBLE IS AT EAR LEVEL WHEN LISTENING. Listening to what? Who cares? Ear level folks.

Think EAR LEVEL when you place your speakers and you'll have it right.

agreed.

and forget about the "newfangled" IIz configuration, God-channel etc.

If you've been to an actual mixing studio. The speaker configurations is.... drumroll please... 5.1 and all at ear level!!

Agreed.

What doe the size of the room have to do with the number of speakers? To me, the issue is the relationship of the listeners to the surrounds. If you sit too far in front or behind them (as in 2 rows of seats), the surround effect will not knit properly with the front stage. In that case a 7.1 system (4 surrounds) is invaluable.


Huh? Animals like cats don't count? Their outer ears rotate, as do those of so many others.


No. That is not a normal setup you are describing. It may be all too common, unfortunately.


True for the front speakers, but not the surrounds. They sound better elevated a couple of feet.


The surrounds in dubbing stages are not at ear level. And if the goal of home theater was restricted to replicating exactly what is heard in movie theaters or music mixing studios, it would be a rather boring hobby. I for one want to hear movies at home sounding better than in theaters, and happily, I do. I'll say the same for 5.1 music mixing studios, but I've only been to a few (they are pretty rare these days), and the gap isn't as stark.

There will always be the group who hops on any new bandwagon. Therefore, a market is always available. But I am a firm believer to let the room dictate the speaker arrangement. For most I suspect that 7.1 will meet or exceed their needs and/or expectations.
Thanks!

for surround sound eight speakers are well enough,but woofers and sub woofers may also be attached with them for more better sound.

Having never sat in a 7.1 or greater equipped room, I can say that a well set up 5.1 has always provided excellent sound quality to me.

But it so hard to play a DTS-HD Master 7.1 sound track on a 5.1 system, correctly. I am loving them on my 7.1 set-up.

Maybe you were kidding--no emoticlue to be sure.

But it's just as easy to play DTS-HD 7.1 in a 5.1 system, correctly, as in 7.1.

You can't play 7.1 distinct channels of sound in a 5.1 system, as you can in a 7.1 system. So, on a 5.1 it is incorrect.

A 7.2 system is perfect I think. In a Home Theater environment..

There is indeed a correct way to play back 7.1 DTS tracks in a 5.1 system. It has to do with playing the complete 5.1 presentation embedded in the file. It will sound the same as a standard 5.1 mix. That does not make it incorrect.