in Search
Untitled Page

ARCHIVED FORUM -- April 2007 to March 2012
READ ONLY FORUM

This is the first Archived Forum which was active between 17th April 2007 and 1st March February 2012

 

Latest post 05-30-2009 1:44 AM by soundproof. 14 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 05-25-2009 9:43 PM

    Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    I have resisted "upgrading" to 5.1/7.1 for many reasons - but part of my rationale is that it is unnatural processing and delivery of sound.  We hear with 2 ears with a sound stage in front of us.  We watch movies/tv in front, we listen to the orchestra/symphony/opera/etc looking at the stage in front.  The drums or violins are not usually behind us - why do we "need" rear speakers?

    Maybe some purists or high-tech gurus can comment.

    Or is it me just again making excuses for my B&O "stereo" sound?

     

    -michael

  • 05-26-2009 1:39 AM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    I only listen to music in stereo mode.
    5.1- The benefit is only for watching movies.
    Maybe this is fashion!
    Maybe this is just an excuse for the purchase of additional B&O speakers.

     

    BS 1, BeoCom 2, 2x LC 2, Form 2,  BS 2, BS 3, 2x Beo 4, BS 5, BM 5, BL 5,Beo 6, BS 6, 2x A8, BV 8-40, BL 8000, 3x A9 Keyring, Serenata, BeoTime, BeoTalk 400

  • 05-26-2009 1:56 AM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    Hello,

    I do use the 5.1 Dolby Digital mode when watching movies and switch to the stereo mode when listening to music.

    As said, the benefit of the 5.1 Dolby Digital is for the movies and musical DVD/ Bluray/ games (PS3, Xbox 360).

    Cheers,

    Guy

    --= "Everything gets done with Patience" =-- --= "Less is More" - Mies Van der Rohe"

    --= BV10 46", BL8K, BL4K, BL2, BS Ouverture, BC6000 (Mk3), BT1100, Beo4 , A8 and ...the Atomic Floyd "Airjax+Mic" earphones =--

  • 05-26-2009 2:26 AM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    A little bit of history here. Stereo doesn't mean "two speakers" - it derives from stereophonic, "solid sound."

    Blumlein, who invented the principle and applied the required technology, in his patent actually specifies the possible use of multiple recording units and a multitude of speakers. He was of the belief that at least three speakers were required, with a centre speaker filling in a potential dead spot. (A principle which B&O adhered to, and implemented in their Beolab 5000 amplifier released in 1967, deriving its centre-channel signal from a clever use of the L/R signals).

    One famous early stereo demonstration used 80 microphones and 80 speakers. Another, in Radio City Music Hall, used three enormous speakers - and yes, one was a centre speaker.
    Meridian, today, offers the TriField option on its amplifiers, as they are convinced that stereo needs the centre channel.

    So why do we only have two channels today?

    Because two channels is what could be "easily" coaxed out of a vinyl record, with the stylus reading the two sides of the groove it was traveling inside.
    Which means that the convention people swear by today, as the pure way of listening to music, is a result of a technological obstacle. (It was also aesthetically easier to sell two speakers than three or more, something which had an impact on the popularity of the format.)

    That said, stereo with only two speakers is quite good for music listening.
    However, today we don't have the limitations of the two-channels from vinyl, and companies are performing true multichannel recording with multiple microphone points, for multi-channel recreation, in order to provide an enveloping sound experience.
    And as mentioned in the thread the cinema industry has embraced surround sound since it became possible to provide multi-track with movies.

    As mentioned by the thread starter, I'm also skeptical of multitrack music experiences where you do not get a sense of having the performance in front, as this is an ages long manner of presenting music to an audience, and it matches what one experiences at concerts. I also rarely find much pleasure in faux multi-track mixes where they've just added a little ambience to the side and rear surround channels.
    But the true multi-track recordings, where you're literally inside the orchestra or at the POV of the conductor, are quite something and should be experienced.

    A lot of the confusion as to stereo/two derives from stereoscopy, which tries to create a feeling of 3-D by presenting two related images, taken at mutual offset, to create an impression of depth. Stereo still comes from gr. stereos, solid -- and refers to a sense of solidity to the images created.
    The eyes only require two images, and these also result from very narrow cones of perception. (The depth perception area is a small section of the total visual perception field).
    It's different with ears, which receive information from all angles, including reflections which are important for localization of sound sources. (Even the shape of your outer ear has impact upon the manner in which you perceive sound).

  • 05-28-2009 6:48 AM In reply to

    • majand
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 02-26-2008
    • Helsinki
    • Posts 72
    • Gold Member

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    soundproof:
    Because two channels is what could be "easily" coaxed out of a vinyl record, with the stylus reading the two sides of the groove it was traveling inside.

     

    To my understanding, in vinyl, one channel is the horizontal movement of the stylus, and the other is vertical, ie. bottom of the groove. still the two channels possible, though.

     

    Pekka

  • 05-28-2009 6:58 AM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

  • 05-28-2009 9:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    but what is a "more pure" representation of the sound.  I guess if the rear speakers project sounds that are supposed to come from behind the "viewer" and are recorded as such that is one thing - but how much of 5.1 is creating something that is inherently unnatural?  

    What happens, for example to older movies (recorded in stereo) and played through a 5.1/7.1 system?

    What is the post-processing and what influence does that have on the sound experience?

     

    -michael

  • 05-28-2009 11:57 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    You can listen to 2-channel using just the L/R front speakers, in a surround set-up. You'd only send sound to other speakers if it was a multi-channel mix.

    Personally, I prefer having the action in front of me. But my post above concerns the limitations of two-channel, with regards to what was originally envisioned by the inventor of Stereo, who realized that for a truly realistic representation, there should be many channels. Which is why they tried 80, one speaker for each instrument. Big Smile All in front of the listeners.

  • 05-29-2009 1:23 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    As someone who has engineered and produced both stereo and 5.1 music recordings, I've got to say that I far prefer the 5.1 recordings, if they are reasonably well done (and some in my collection are breathtakingly stunning).  Almost no comparison, for musical impact (including conventional orchestral recordings done in 5.1).  

    However, mechanically upmixed stereo recordings played back as fake surround generally leave me underwhelmed.  

    Soundproof correctly notes that you can listen to stereo (L, R only) with a surround system, and I do a lot of that.  However, I also would like to note that there is no reasonable way to listen to true surround recordings with a stereo system.  Mechanical conversions are called downmixes and they also leave me underwhelmed.  

    The benefit of true surround is in the quality of envelopment that occurs.  I find it very satisfying and powerful.  

    I hope this is of some help.  

    Best regards,  

    Dave

    Dave Sausalito Audio LLC
  • 05-29-2009 1:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    Interesting - and as I learn more, the question then is what to do have 5.1/HDMI output from a DVD/BluRay and the Aux input of a B&O or the way their speakers are configured (i.e. Powerlink)?

     

    -michael

     

  • 05-29-2009 4:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    Dave Moulton should correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't that much difference in how the BL5s process an analog signal compared to a digital one. Yes, if your source is digital, then it's good to pipe it as such to the speakers, to avoid a conversion.

    But if you have a separate processor for surround, just let that take care of the various channels, at whatever sample rate they have, and then send this as analog to the speakers. The BL5s will just send it through its signal chain, amplifying as desired, without changing the quality. I swear.

    Have tried this, with a very, very critical ear. The reason s/pdif initially sounds better is because it's louder. Once you match the volume of the analog signal, you find they are similar. (Dependent upon the quality of your external processor, of course.)

    Therefore, if you have resolutions in excess of 24/96, just send them to the BL5s as analog from a pre-out connection. I'm doing that, and I do not feel that I am compromising quality.

    And yes, properly executed 5.1 or 7.1 is wonderful!

  • 05-29-2009 4:39 PM In reply to

    • Alex
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Bath & Cardiff, UK
    • Posts 2,990
    • Bronze Member

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    But then surely the quality of the D/A conversion and volume scaling in the surround sound amplifier itself comes into question. The BeoLab 5s may process things identically once the initial A/D conversion has taken place, but that doesn't mean the signal they're receiving is as good as it can be...

     Weekly top artists:                   

  • 05-29-2009 5:43 PM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    Well, as I write: (Dependent upon the quality of your external processor, of course.)

  • 05-29-2009 6:56 PM In reply to

    • Alex
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Bath & Cardiff, UK
    • Posts 2,990
    • Bronze Member

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    But that's where I feel very few bits of hardware can actually match the BeoLab 5 as a package. No matter how good the conversion of your processor is, there's no way it can match a straightforward PCM-passthrough from your CD/DVD-A player.

     Weekly top artists:                   

  • 05-30-2009 1:44 AM In reply to

    Re: Stereo vs 5.1/7.1

    Well, there are a few B&O cd-players that don't have s/pdif out, and where you have to rely on the analog conversion in these, while sending the signal to BL5s. And the DACs inside these do not approach the quality of those in the BL5s. There are some very good processors on the market, with excellent DACs, and they're not necessarily expensive.

    I just made certain that I would also have an s/pdif option - but for movie surround, I'm perfectly at ease with the quality of the analog signal which reaches the BL5s.

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)