|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 9, 2019 11:21:16 GMT -5
As far as I can tell the article is essentially discussing changes in how GAMES will be programmed and rendered. When you play a movie or audio recording you are simply rendering content that has been created and stored. In contrast, and unlike when you play a movie or video, a game must actually MANUFACTURE all that content in real time. (They're going to take lots of shortcuts, and use prefabricated bits and pieces, but your character can stand in an infinite number of spots. Therefore, they can't figure out exactly what the world should sound from where he's standing until he gets there.)
This can all require a massive amount of processing power to do well....
That's why they're talking about limitations on the number and types of objects available to game programmers on particular game box platforms. And this is all very important ion terms of what next year's games will be able to do... and how they will look and sound. (Remember, though, that all of that calculation and rendering is being done by the game console, which is why optimizing it is such a big deal.)
However, as far as I can tell, after all that, the resulting output is still expected to be played on a standard Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (or DTS:X Pro) audio system.
They're not asking the user to add more speakers, or more rows of speakers, in different places. And they're certainly not going to be expecting most gamers to buy a whole separate system to play games if they already have a high-end home theater system.
They're also talking about "headphone virtualization".... which could lead to some interesting advances that may also apply to us. Imagine audio processing that would enable a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X movie to sound right, in "full 3D", when playing on a standard pair of stereo headphones. (We really only have two ears so, in theory, assuming we can eliminate the room from the equation, stereo headphones should be plenty.)
(And imagine if you could do that, and have it sound even pretty good, with just one pair of stereo speakers.)
This is all cool stuff - especially if you're actually into gaming... But I don't expect it to have much effect on home theater any time soon...
Thanks Keith. It seems like your analyses are always underplaying the importance of more speakers and it seems fair as higher speaker numbers have been described as a subtle improvement with differing degrees of support with content. I hope Emotiva can at least address nospams point that the chipsets of the expansion modules may not easily parallel. Is there anyway we can get an update on what we should expect as to it’s limitations/abilities soon? I keep feeling like Lloyd in dumb and dumber saying “so your telling me there’s a chance”. 🤦🏼♂️
|
|
|
Post by nospam on Oct 9, 2019 14:25:29 GMT -5
The last digit in x.x.x.4 is for spatial speakers? What do you mean by "spatial" speakers. I consider all speakers spatial in 3D audio. This notation usually describes floors.subwoofers.heights.tops Dts:X Pro (30.2) Floor (17) - 14 floors + 3 bottom speakers Subwoofers (.2) Height (8) - Top Middles considered heights Top (5) - 4 Tops + Oh/Top/VoG
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Oct 9, 2019 15:51:46 GMT -5
In video games, sound may be the only way to determine if someone is close enough to take you out. Spatial speakers I take are those which can indicate if another player is really close by (meaning the speakers are really close by ... probably tops mounted to the ceiling according to your nomenclature). Decades ago, I played only halo and some gears of war ... until I got too old and the young ones with the mods killed me off while rubbing my nose in it. They told me they could always tell the old players because of how slow they were. lol.
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Oct 9, 2019 15:58:11 GMT -5
As far as I can tell the article is essentially discussing changes in how GAMES will be programmed and rendered. When you play a movie or audio recording you are simply rendering content that has been created and stored. In contrast, and unlike when you play a movie or video, a game must actually MANUFACTURE all that content in real time. (They're going to take lots of shortcuts, and use prefabricated bits and pieces, but your character can stand in an infinite number of spots. Therefore, they can't figure out exactly what the world should sound from where he's standing until he gets there.)
This can all require a massive amount of processing power to do well....
That's why they're talking about limitations on the number and types of objects available to game programmers on particular game box platforms. And this is all very important ion terms of what next year's games will be able to do... and how they will look and sound. (Remember, though, that all of that calculation and rendering is being done by the game console, which is why optimizing it is such a big deal.)
However, as far as I can tell, after all that, the resulting output is still expected to be played on a standard Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (or DTS:X Pro) audio system.
They're not asking the user to add more speakers, or more rows of speakers, in different places. And they're certainly not going to be expecting most gamers to buy a whole separate system to play games if they already have a high-end home theater system.
They're also talking about "headphone virtualization".... which could lead to some interesting advances that may also apply to us. Imagine audio processing that would enable a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X movie to sound right, in "full 3D", when playing on a standard pair of stereo headphones. (We really only have two ears so, in theory, assuming we can eliminate the room from the equation, stereo headphones should be plenty.)
(And imagine if you could do that, and have it sound even pretty good, with just one pair of stereo speakers.)
This is all cool stuff - especially if you're actually into gaming... But I don't expect it to have much effect on home theater any time soon...
Thanks Keith. It seems like your analyses are always underplaying the importance of more speakers and it seems fair as higher speaker numbers have been described as a subtle improvement with differing degrees of support with content. I hope Emotiva can at least address nospams point that the chipsets of the expansion modules may not easily parallel. Is there anyway we can get an update on what we should expect as to it’s limitations/abilities soon? I keep feeling like Lloyd in dumb and dumber saying “so your telling me there’s a chance”. 🤦🏼♂️ Sounds like @keithl is signaling SEM has low priority. I'm 80% sure I'll return RMC-1 when dirac is announced ... not supporting a short path to 11.5.8 (i.e. more than 16 channels) will be the remaining 20% for me. I've come close to returning the unit several times, but some other unexpected events kept me in the game. www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 9, 2019 16:40:15 GMT -5
The "big jumps" were when we went from monaural to stereo, and from stereo to surround sound, and perhaps from surround sound to object oriented formats. Although I know a few people who would argue that diminishing returns started right after we figured out how to take a live performance and actually record it to listen to later. (Would you really want me to tell you that you'd need at least 128 channels to get it right - so you'd better start saving up right now?)
A lot of people want to expand past 16 channels, so the output channel modules are actually right at the top of the list, and they'll be available soon.
The simple fact is that Dolby has not released the next version of Atmos yet - which is the one that will be supporting those extra channels. You're not going to see a detailed list of capabilities and limitations until Dolby tells us all what they are.
However, our architecture is very flexible, and has been specifically designed to accommodate all of the possible permutations, so we WILL be able to handle it all properly when we get those details. Our priority is simply to continue to support the standard as it continues to evolve.
Thanks Keith. It seems like your analyses are always underplaying the importance of more speakers and it seems fair as higher speaker numbers have been described as a subtle improvement with differing degrees of support with content. I hope Emotiva can at least address nospams point that the chipsets of the expansion modules may not easily parallel. Is there anyway we can get an update on what we should expect as to it’s limitations/abilities soon? I keep feeling like Lloyd in dumb and dumber saying “so your telling me there’s a chance”. 🤦🏼♂️ Sounds like @keithl is signaling SEM has low priority. I'm 80% sure I'll return RMC-1 when dirac is announced ... not supporting a short path to 11.5.8 (i.e. more that 16 channels) will be the remaining 20% for me. I've come close to returning the unit several times, but some other unexpected events kept me in the game. www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 9, 2019 17:00:29 GMT -5
That's sort of true... but I think you're also sort of missing the point.
There are no such thing as "spatial speakers"....
Assuming it does what it's supposed to, a properly working object oriented system can place an object ANYWHERE in 3D space.... And that means anywhere from "miles away" to "an inch over your head". What they're talking about is optimizing the system to make small differences in very close distances more easily noticeable...
Your home theater is optimized to convey a lot of information...
They're taking about the equivalent of using a magnifying glass... concentrating more speakers closer together near the center to convey more fine detail. However, since, in most cases, the output of their program is going to end up being played out of an ordinary Atmos or DTS system.... It's more a matter of thinking of it that way than of physically making it that way. (You may someday see a "special gaming configuration" for DTS:X or Atmos... but only a few hardcore gamers will ever actually use it.)
In video games, sound may be the only way to determine if someone is close enough to take you out. Spatial speakers I take are those which can indicate if another player is really close by (meaning the speakers are really close by ... probably tops mounted to the ceiling according to your nomenclature). Decades ago, I played only halo and some gears of war ... until I got too old and the young ones with the mods killed me off while rubbing my nose in it. They told me they could always tell the old players because of how slow they were. lol.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 9, 2019 17:00:48 GMT -5
The "big jumps" were when we went from monaural to stereo, and from stereo to surround sound, and perhaps from surround sound to object oriented formats. Although I know a few people who would argue that diminishing returns started right after we figured out how to take a live performance and actually record it to listen to later. (Would you really want me to tell you that you'd need at least 128 channels to get it right - so you'd better start saving up right now?)
A lot of people want to expand past 16 channels, so the output channel modules are actually right at the top of the list, and they'll be available soon.
The simple fact is that Dolby has not released the next version of Atmos yet - which is the one that will be supporting those extra channels. You're not going to see a detailed list of capabilities and limitations until Dolby tells us all what they are.
However, our architecture is very flexible, and has been specifically designed to accommodate all of the possible permutations, so we WILL be able to handle it all properly when we get those details. Our priority is simply to continue to support the standard as it continues to evolve.
Sounds like @keithl is signaling SEM has low priority. I'm 80% sure I'll return RMC-1 when dirac is announced ... not supporting a short path to 11.5.8 (i.e. more that 16 channels) will be the remaining 20% for me. I've come close to returning the unit several times, but some other unexpected events kept me in the game. www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmosThat’s very exciting to hear. Thanks Keith
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Oct 9, 2019 17:51:30 GMT -5
In video games, sound may be the only way to determine if someone is close enough to take you out. Spatial speakers I take are those which can indicate if another player is really close by (meaning the speakers are really close by ... probably tops mounted to the ceiling according to your nomenclature). Decades ago, I played only halo and some gears of war ... until I got too old and the young ones with the mods killed me off while rubbing my nose in it. They told me they could always tell the old players because of how slow they were. lol. Most guys now play with headphones. Even my 7.2.4 Atmos system is not as good as a $100 set of phones for gaming. I have to turn the surround sound system up way to loud to get close to the headphones. I don’t know how just those two headphone speakers do such a better job, but they do.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 9, 2019 18:31:27 GMT -5
In video games, sound may be the only way to determine if someone is close enough to take you out. Spatial speakers I take are those which can indicate if another player is really close by (meaning the speakers are really close by ... probably tops mounted to the ceiling according to your nomenclature). Decades ago, I played only halo and some gears of war ... until I got too old and the young ones with the mods killed me off while rubbing my nose in it. They told me they could always tell the old players because of how slow they were. lol. Most guys now play with headphones. Even my 7.2.4 Atmos system is not as good as a $100 set of phones for gaming. I have to turn the surround sound system up way to loud to get close to the headphones. I don’t know how just those two headphone speakers do such a better job, but they do. I think it depends on the game too. If you’re doing a run and gun with respawn all that noise can just get annoying without any breaks and that’s where you get the majority of the kids. If your stalking without respawn on something like hardcore search and destroy the atmosphere of having it run on a full system while you’re creeping around with a suppressed rifle is a good way to go. It feels more like a hunt (I’ve only experienced 7.1). I might just have to get back into some gaming when this system is put together. BEQ these games. You’re not going to feel a 60 hz gunshot in your chest from headphones.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 9, 2019 19:17:18 GMT -5
So I might be getting ahead of myself and it might be unrealistic expectations, but if what nospam said is true that storm audio is supporting 15.1.8 and 13.1.10 that should mean that Dolby’s upcoming release supports at least 15.1.10 I would think (Maybe it doesn’t work that way of course). I at least assume storm audio is dependent on Dolby as well though. Throw in the vog and front center height or 17.1.10 and I don’t see how Emotiva wouldn’t seriously disrupt the market. It doesn’t really sound like the system itself is going to be what limits us though and it wouldn’t seem fair for Dolby to limit one vendor and not the other.
Freeing up the single LFE channel for something else like the vog or a front center height while allowing us to utilize the zone 2 out as LFE to a external bass module for BEQ and perhaps stereo bass still sounds like a good idea to me. I’m not sure how complicated that would be if possible for the option. This would give the 3 processors essentially 18 usable channels and allow increments of 18,22,26, and 30 for the RMC-1.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 9, 2019 22:10:06 GMT -5
The "big jumps" were when we went from monaural to stereo, and from stereo to surround sound, and perhaps from surround sound to object oriented formats. Although I know a few people who would argue that diminishing returns started right after we figured out how to take a live performance and actually record it to listen to later. (Would you really want me to tell you that you'd need at least 128 channels to get it right - so you'd better start saving up right now?)
A lot of people want to expand past 16 channels, so the output channel modules are actually right at the top of the list, and they'll be available soon. The simple fact is that Dolby has not released the next version of Atmos yet - which is the one that will be supporting those extra channels. You're not going to see a detailed list of capabilities and limitations until Dolby tells us all what they are.
However, our architecture is very flexible, and has been specifically designed to accommodate all of the possible permutations, so we WILL be able to handle it all properly when we get those details. Our priority is simply to continue to support the standard as it continues to evolve.
That's sort of true... but I think you're also sort of missing the point. There are no such thing as "spatial speakers"....
Assuming it does what it's supposed to, a properly working object oriented system can place an object ANYWHERE in 3D space.... And that means anywhere from "miles away" to "an inch over your head". What they're talking about is optimizing the system to make small differences in very close distances more easily noticeable...
Your home theater is optimized to convey a lot of information...
They're taking about the equivalent of using a magnifying glass... concentrating more speakers closer together near the center to convey more fine detail. However, since, in most cases, the output of their program is going to end up being played out of an ordinary Atmos or DTS system.... It's more a matter of thinking of it that way than of physically making it that way. (You may someday see a "special gaming configuration" for DTS:X or Atmos... but only a few hardcore gamers will ever actually use it.) I had this sort of discussion with a couple of friends of mine, one who has been hifiing for as long as I have, whilst the other is newer, having started in the surround sound era. Us stereo guys understand that we don't need a speaker every few degrees, we know about and understand imaging. Whereas the "surround sound" guy thinks he will need 30 plus speakers to place his objects. We actually played a couple tricks on him using the 5.1.2 set up but with 7.1.4 speakers hanging around and then asking him to point to which speaker the object was coming from. He didn't believe us until we showed him the 4 speakers with no wires connected. Imaging, what enables the law of diminishing returns to apply. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 9, 2019 22:33:38 GMT -5
The "big jumps" were when we went from monaural to stereo, and from stereo to surround sound, and perhaps from surround sound to object oriented formats. Although I know a few people who would argue that diminishing returns started right after we figured out how to take a live performance and actually record it to listen to later. (Would you really want me to tell you that you'd need at least 128 channels to get it right - so you'd better start saving up right now?)
A lot of people want to expand past 16 channels, so the output channel modules are actually right at the top of the list, and they'll be available soon. The simple fact is that Dolby has not released the next version of Atmos yet - which is the one that will be supporting those extra channels. You're not going to see a detailed list of capabilities and limitations until Dolby tells us all what they are.
However, our architecture is very flexible, and has been specifically designed to accommodate all of the possible permutations, so we WILL be able to handle it all properly when we get those details. Our priority is simply to continue to support the standard as it continues to evolve.
That's sort of true... but I think you're also sort of missing the point. There are no such thing as "spatial speakers"....
Assuming it does what it's supposed to, a properly working object oriented system can place an object ANYWHERE in 3D space.... And that means anywhere from "miles away" to "an inch over your head". What they're talking about is optimizing the system to make small differences in very close distances more easily noticeable...
Your home theater is optimized to convey a lot of information...
They're taking about the equivalent of using a magnifying glass... concentrating more speakers closer together near the center to convey more fine detail. However, since, in most cases, the output of their program is going to end up being played out of an ordinary Atmos or DTS system.... It's more a matter of thinking of it that way than of physically making it that way. (You may someday see a "special gaming configuration" for DTS:X or Atmos... but only a few hardcore gamers will ever actually use it.) I had this sort of discussion with a couple of friends of mine, one who has been hifiing for as long as I have, whilst the other is newer, having started in the surround sound era. Us stereo guys understand that we don't need a speaker every few degrees, we know about and understand imaging. Whereas the "surround sound" guy thinks he will need 30 plus speakers to place his objects. We actually played a couple tricks on him using the 5.1.2 set up but with 7.1.4 speakers hanging around and then asking him to point to which speaker the object was coming from. He didn't believe us until we showed him the 4 speakers with no wires connected. Imaging, what enables the law of diminishing returns to apply. Cheers Gary It seems like instead of tricking someone you could of set up a blind a/b and seen if it makes a difference on what they’d prefer. I’m going to try this when I get the opportunity. You’re absolutely right if no one prefers higher channel count layouts when they experience em in a blind test what would the point be. I don’t intend on keeping more gear than I can tell the difference with.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 10, 2019 1:05:25 GMT -5
I had this sort of discussion with a couple of friends of mine, one who has been hifiing for as long as I have, whilst the other is newer, having started in the surround sound era. Us stereo guys understand that we don't need a speaker every few degrees, we know about and understand imaging. Whereas the "surround sound" guy thinks he will need 30 plus speakers to place his objects. We actually played a couple tricks on him using the 5.1.2 set up but with 7.1.4 speakers hanging around and then asking him to point to which speaker the object was coming from. He didn't believe us until we showed him the 4 speakers with no wires connected. Imaging, what enables the law of diminishing returns to apply. It seems like instead of tricking someone you could of set up a blind a/b and seen if it makes a difference on what they’d prefer. I’m going to try this when I get the opportunity. You’re absolutely right if no one prefers higher channel count layouts when they experience em in a blind test what would the point be. I don’t intend on keeping more gear than I can tell the difference with. While tuning up some gear the 3 of us had had a few drinks, as you do, and ended up in a discussion about how many channels/speakers we were going to have in our 3 dimensional setups. We, the 2 "stereo guys" couldn't convince the "surround sound" guy that imaging was more relevant than a simple maximising of the channel/speaker count. So we did a blind (no, we weren't that drunk) test on him, by leaving the extra speakers in place, just not connecting them. Call it a "trick" or a "blind test", same result Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 10, 2019 8:14:58 GMT -5
It seems like instead of tricking someone you could of set up a blind a/b and seen if it makes a difference on what they’d prefer. I’m going to try this when I get the opportunity. You’re absolutely right if no one prefers higher channel count layouts when they experience em in a blind test what would the point be. I don’t intend on keeping more gear than I can tell the difference with. While tuning up some gear the 3 of us had had a few drinks, as you do, and ended up in a discussion about how many channels/speakers we were going to have in our 3 dimensional setups. We, the 2 "stereo guys" couldn't convince the "surround sound" guy that imaging was more relevant than a simple maximising of the channel/speaker count. So we did a blind (no, we weren't that drunk) test on him, by leaving the extra speakers in place, just not connecting them. Call it a "trick" or a "blind test", same result Cheers Gary That would be kind of like offering someone one glass of wine and saying it’s the best you have during a wine tasting so no use in tasting more. I get that if they’re satisfied it’s proof they could save money and not go out and find their favorite bottle which may cost more. And their whole entire life they could believe they only have to drink that one bottle and they’d be experiencing the best wine. But given an assortment of wine they may choose a different bottle out of the fact that they do actually have a preference for another one. So what we may be in agreement with here is ignorance is bliss. The real test is when they choose your bottle of wine over the more expensive revered bottles in a blind test. And as foolish as it sounds to keep discussing the “surround guy” as evidence that eclipses all the other reviews I’ve heard of say how simple wide channels can help aid the room despite the imaging capabilities of the front and side surrounds it just doesn’t make that much sense to me to apply to much weight into something that I can experience myself. And someone saying they need 30 channels seems like a foolish statement. No one needs 30 speakers or even 11. That would be like saying every car needs a v12 with a top speed of 200 to be on the road. It won’t take anything away from me if I find I can be happy with less speakers even if others feel they benefit from more than I thought I benefited. I’d never say a 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 system couldn’t sound great and it always surprises me how a specific owners thread about how to manage more speakers draws in uninterested crowds as if this is what’s being said. When I do go from a atmouse movie as it was put to a really good one with more, will the difference in experience be worth what I consider a relatively small cost? Nothing but the actual experience is relevant with that question.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 10, 2019 10:02:41 GMT -5
As for why headphones manage to do a much better job with certain things... I would say that this applies equally to games and binaural recordings - for exactly the same reason. You only have two ears. So, whether a sound is coming from the left front speaker or the left rear surround (or the left middle height speaker), it comes into the same two ears, in more or less the same proportions. The ONLY way you can tell which source it's coming from is because our human brains are so adept at utilizing information like how the shape of our heads and ears affect the sound. By interpreting several different aspects of what's coming in, your brain can detect whether that sound entered from the front of your ear, or wrapped around the back edge, or bounced off the far wall,
That's why, when we set up a surround sound system in a room, there are so many details that affect how it sounds, and how well you can localize sound sources. And that's why the room has such a major effect on the entire process.
When you listen to a live recording of a concert that recording already contains a wealth of this sort of information - part of which is what we generally call "room ambience". Then, when we play this in our room, this information is mixed with, and superimposed on, the information about the room we're sitting in. It's as if you could take the experience of hearing the concert where it was originally recorded... And ALSO take the experience of what you would hear if the band was playing in your listening room...
And sort of superimpose those two on top of each other... (No matter what you do, unless you outfit your room as an anechoic chamber, it is going to interfere with the other image, at least a little bit.)
(Imagine projecting a slide show onto a painting instead of a blank screen.... and doing your best to get the projected picture bright enough and sharp enough that you would no longer notice the painting underneath.)
Well, with headphones, you essentially get to bypass the room, and listen to the recording itself on "a blank screen for the sound". BINAURAL recording is the process of recording exactly what each ear would have heard at the original event, and reproducing the sound going to each ear with headphones, and the result is stunning. (But they work rather poorly when listened to on speakers - because the contribution from the acoustics of your room distracts from the effect.) And, with a well recorded and mixed regular recording, the mix engineer has specifically "left a little room for it to sound about right after some of the acoustics from your room have gotten mixed in".
(That's why some headphone amplifiers have extra circuitry that "simulates what you would be hearing if you were listening in a room with speakers".)
Now, with something like a game, it gets even more interesting. In that situation, there is probably no "real original room" at all, and everything you hear is "being made up". It's similar to the difference between taking a photo and painting a picture. So, if the game designer wants to portray a conversation while walking in the woods, he or she must not only create the dialog, but the sound of the footsteps, and the crickets, and the leaves rustling. And, if she wants it to sound truly realistic, then she'd better not forget the reflections of all those sounds off the trees, and how those reflections sound a little bit different when you're walking under trees, or on pine needles instead of sand. And, of course, all of that carefully crafted detail is going to have a much better effect if it isn't competing with the reflections of those sounds from your living room walls, and the sound of your carpet, and your ceiling.
With headphones, you can get just the experience the designer designed.... and avoid all the distracting outside influences.
(Or, to look at it from a different angle, the designer doesn't have to worry about being careful to only use obvious cues that the sound of your room isn't likely to mess with too badly.) It's sort of like the difference between creating a painting that will look great when properly lit in a museum.... and creating a mural that has to look "at least OK" in ANY living room, store front, train station, or bus stop kiosk. Headphones offer the benefit of a very carefully controlled listening environment. (And, even though headphones are far from perfect, even their differences and flaws are simpler and easier to correct for than all the potential differences between rooms.)
In video games, sound may be the only way to determine if someone is close enough to take you out. Spatial speakers I take are those which can indicate if another player is really close by (meaning the speakers are really close by ... probably tops mounted to the ceiling according to your nomenclature). Decades ago, I played only halo and some gears of war ... until I got too old and the young ones with the mods killed me off while rubbing my nose in it. They told me they could always tell the old players because of how slow they were. lol. Most guys now play with headphones. Even my 7.2.4 Atmos system is not as good as a $100 set of phones for gaming. I have to turn the surround sound system up way to loud to get close to the headphones. I don’t know how just those two headphone speakers do such a better job, but they do.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 10, 2019 10:49:56 GMT -5
I absolutely agree..... But there is one additional factor....
And that factor is "How well does it work in sub-optimal conditions?"
For example, If I were to set up a really good pair of stereo speakers, in a really well-designed room, and sit in my chair, correctly positioned in the middle of the front row, I could achieve perfect imaging. And, if our hero is giving his monologue, while standing directly in the middle of the screen, that's exactly where his voice will seem to be coming from.
And, from there, adding a center channel speaker would make no difference, and really shouldn't be audible.
But what happens if I move my chair three feet to the left? Now the hero should sound like he's standing three feet further to the right relative to me (that's where his picture is on the screen - which hasn't moved.) But what will happen with the stereo setup is the exact opposite. By moving three feet to the left, I have moved closer to the left speaker, so his voice will be louder in my left ear. As a result, while his image has moved to my right, the sound of his voice has been "pulled" even further to the left than the distance I've moved, and now they don't line up at all. BUT, if his voice was coming out of a center channel speaker, which was physically located under the center of the screen, his voice would still seem to come from where his image is standing.
This is a huge issue in a movie theater, where some people are sitting in the center, and some on the far left, and some way in the back corner. And it can also be a factor even in a modest sized home theater. More speakers help maintain proper imaging if you need it to work over a relatively large area.... or if your viewers actually may be moving around.
Note, however, that we've neglected to mention an awful lot of "all things being equal" factors here. For example, assuming you don't have an infinite budget, will 24 separate $200 speakers sound anywhere near as good as one pair of $2400 speakers? And do you really have room for that many speakers?
And how many of what type of speakers will actually fit into your room... and your budget? This question came up years ago... when many people were forced to decide between a pair of good stereo speakers and a low-cost HTIB. (The scale may be different but the same question is still alive and well.)
There was a time when theaters had a single pair of large speakers in the front of the room. (Believe it or not there was a time when most theaters had a live orchestra - sitting in one corner up front.)
Now, a typical Dolby Atmos cinema installation is 32 speakers (with an optional additional 32)... not counting subs.
I had this sort of discussion with a couple of friends of mine, one who has been hifiing for as long as I have, whilst the other is newer, having started in the surround sound era. Us stereo guys understand that we don't need a speaker every few degrees, we know about and understand imaging. Whereas the "surround sound" guy thinks he will need 30 plus speakers to place his objects. We actually played a couple tricks on him using the 5.1.2 set up but with 7.1.4 speakers hanging around and then asking him to point to which speaker the object was coming from. He didn't believe us until we showed him the 4 speakers with no wires connected. Imaging, what enables the law of diminishing returns to apply. Cheers Gary It seems like instead of tricking someone you could of set up a blind a/b and seen if it makes a difference on what they’d prefer. I’m going to try this when I get the opportunity. You’re absolutely right if no one prefers higher channel count layouts when they experience em in a blind test what would the point be. I don’t intend on keeping more gear than I can tell the difference with.
|
|
|
Post by steelman1991 on Oct 10, 2019 12:21:46 GMT -5
@keithl - any chance you could change your posting style and type your response "after" the quoted post, rather than "before". 1st world problem I know, but not having to scroll below you're response to see what you are replying to would be a huge benefit to me . Thanks
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 10, 2019 12:59:58 GMT -5
Headphones offer the benefit of a very carefully controlled listening environment. I like that sentence! A very clear, concise, argument for headphones. Not quite as concise as Mr. Hand highlighting Spicoli's three word response on the blackboard: "I Don't Know", but a truly simple and accurate statement.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 10, 2019 15:52:06 GMT -5
While tuning up some gear the 3 of us had had a few drinks, as you do, and ended up in a discussion about how many channels/speakers we were going to have in our 3 dimensional setups. We, the 2 "stereo guys" couldn't convince the "surround sound" guy that imaging was more relevant than a simple maximising of the channel/speaker count. So we did a blind (no, we weren't that drunk) test on him, by leaving the extra speakers in place, just not connecting them. Call it a "trick" or a "blind test", same result That would be kind of like offering someone one glass of wine and saying it’s the best you have during a wine tasting so no use in tasting more. I get that if they’re satisfied it’s proof they could save money and not go out and find their favorite bottle which may cost more. And their whole entire life they could believe they only have to drink that one bottle and they’d be experiencing the best wine. But given an assortment of wine they may choose a different bottle out of the fact that they do actually have a preference for another one. So what we may be in agreement with here is ignorance is bliss. The real test is when they choose your bottle of wine over the more expensive revered bottles in a blind test. And as foolish as it sounds to keep discussing the “surround guy” as evidence that eclipses all the other reviews I’ve heard of say how simple wide channels can help aid the room despite the imaging capabilities of the front and side surrounds it just doesn’t make that much sense to me to apply to much weight into something that I can experience myself. And someone saying they need 30 channels seems like a foolish statement. No one needs 30 speakers or even 11. That would be like saying every car needs a v12 with a top speed of 200 to be on the road. It won’t take anything away from me if I find I can be happy with less speakers even if others feel they benefit from more than I thought I benefited. I’d never say a 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 system couldn’t sound great and it always surprises me how a specific owners thread about how to manage more speakers draws in uninterested crowds as if this is what’s being said. When I do go from a atmouse movie as it was put to a really good one with more, will the difference in experience be worth what I consider a relatively small cost? Nothing but the actual experience is relevant with that question. Just for completeness, for most of the day we were trying out various combinations of speaker layouts in the room (ie; many bottles of red wine to choose from). Between the 3 of us we had 20 or so speakers to try, plus the 5 already set up in the room. I also brought my lightweight overhead gantry gear and we set that up for trying various ceiling speaker layouts. What we did wasn't an A versus B comparison, just a simple test of imaging, "where do your ears tell you the sound is coming from". Nothing more. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 10, 2019 16:02:49 GMT -5
I absolutely agree..... But there is one additional factor....
And that factor is "How well does it work in sub-optimal conditions?" For example, If I were to set up a really good pair of stereo speakers, in a really well-designed room, and sit in my chair, correctly positioned in the middle of the front row, I could achieve perfect imaging. And, if our hero is giving his monologue, while standing directly in the middle of the screen, that's exactly where his voice will seem to be coming from.
And, from there, adding a center channel speaker would make no difference, and really shouldn't be audible. But what happens if I move my chair three feet to the left? Now the hero should sound like he's standing three feet further to the right relative to me (that's where his picture is on the screen - which hasn't moved.) But what will happen with the stereo setup is the exact opposite. By moving three feet to the left, I have moved closer to the left speaker, so his voice will be louder in my left ear. As a result, while his image has moved to my right, the sound of his voice has been "pulled" even further to the left than the distance I've moved, and now they don't line up at all. BUT, if his voice was coming out of a center channel speaker, which was physically located under the center of the screen, his voice would still seem to come from where his image is standing. This is a huge issue in a movie theater, where some people are sitting in the center, and some on the far left, and some way in the back corner. And it can also be a factor even in a modest sized home theater. More speakers help maintain proper imaging if you need it to work over a relatively large area.... or if your viewers actually may be moving around.
Note, however, that we've neglected to mention an awful lot of "all things being equal" factors here. For example, assuming you don't have an infinite budget, will 24 separate $200 speakers sound anywhere near as good as one pair of $2400 speakers? And do you really have room for that many speakers?
And how many of what type of speakers will actually fit into your room... and your budget? This question came up years ago... when many people were forced to decide between a pair of good stereo speakers and a low-cost HTIB. (The scale may be different but the same question is still alive and well.)
There was a time when theaters had a single pair of large speakers in the front of the room. (Believe it or not there was a time when most theaters had a live orchestra - sitting in one corner up front.)
Now, a typical Dolby Atmos cinema installation is 32 speakers (with an optional additional 32)... not counting subs Of course you're right, but isn't that the case anyway no matter how many speakers you have? If you are closer to a speaker where the say the gun is fired from it will be louder (in comparison) to where the exploding projectile lands on the other side of the room (screen). So you won't get the "true" effect that the sound mixer intended eg; both sounds equal in volume. Plus the time alignment factor. There is no escaping the effects of physical location no matter how many speakers there are. It could be argued that more speakers means that there is better chance that you will be sitting close by one of them Cheers Gary
|
|