Not just for "classical concerts in churches" but for any live acoustic performance, classical or not.
Sure, why not!?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Multichannel System for Music - Standards, Setup, Thoughts, etc.
- Thread starter Fitzcaraldo215
- Start date
That's what I was going to reply -- but I thought I'd wait for people much more knowledgeable than me to provide more substantive input first. I will add that, in my reading about upmixing on the interwebs, I've come across quite a few positive comments from people using upmixing, and have not seen much (if any) discussion from people who tried it carefully and decided to stick to pure 2-channel. But perhaps I just missed the negative comments due to confirmation bias.
My own experience, FWIW: Like @Sal1950 and a couple of others on this thread, I started upmixing my 2-channel music a while ago (in my case initially using DTS Neo:6, and then Auro-2D), and now I don't think I could go back to listening to 2-channel without upmixing. Recently I've started trying out Auro-3D, and, although I'm still exploring, and have a highly suboptimal setup, I think the 3D addition can really augment the sense of presence. (For me, for both rock and classical music; not sure how much I like the 3D addition for jazz).
I just added it up: I have been upmixing stereo for almost 20 years. My musical tastes are very eclectic so I can comment on pop, jazz, and classical repertoires. In summary, the results vary. The performance parameters of the upmixer are critical determinants, and frankly some of the popular upmixers over those years have, in. my opinion, been simply dreadful - too much center channel, too much surround energy, distorted soundstage, and on and on. However, there have been good ones, beginning in my experience with Lexicon Logic 7, which has gone through several iterations and is now in yet another, immersive, one which I have not yet heard. Meanwhile I acquired Auro-3D and I find it to be very pleasant. I like having some ability to adjust the kind and degree of upmixing and this offers limited control. Not all recordings respond in the same way.
Studio recordings dominated by pan-potted soundstage images are least modified, but any amount of added synthesized reverberation (likely a Lexicon Pro product) is revealed as "ambiance" or "envelopment" in the surround channels. I like this. It includes me in the performance. In demonstrations of my system to visitors many comment on how good the "soundstage" is, often attributing it to the speakers. At this point I switch the upmixer off, the illusion collapses to the front, and disappointment is registered. Upmixing works for all musical genres and venues - real or synthesized. If you don't like it there is a "bypass" icon, but in my long experience it is rarely used. In the absence of real multichannel recordings of the music we like, upmixed stereo is highly rewarding. Even if multichannel recordings existed there is the real possibility that all listeners may not agree with the spatial balance chosen by the engineer. I have heard many impressive recordings, but also a few that were simply annoying - just like stereo.
Studio recordings dominated by pan-potted soundstage images are least modified, but any amount of added synthesized reverberation (likely a Lexicon Pro product) is revealed as "ambiance" or "envelopment" in the surround channels. I like this. It includes me in the performance. In demonstrations of my system to visitors many comment on how good the "soundstage" is, often attributing it to the speakers. At this point I switch the upmixer off, the illusion collapses to the front, and disappointment is registered. Upmixing works for all musical genres and venues - real or synthesized. If you don't like it there is a "bypass" icon, but in my long experience it is rarely used. In the absence of real multichannel recordings of the music we like, upmixed stereo is highly rewarding. Even if multichannel recordings existed there is the real possibility that all listeners may not agree with the spatial balance chosen by the engineer. I have heard many impressive recordings, but also a few that were simply annoying - just like stereo.
Thinking about this reminds me of "back in the day", when you had a stereo record player and system , but a "left over" mono ,vinyl disc to play.
I'm sure there was expectation bias but I never had the experience of "yecch that sounds terrible, turn off one channel so I can listen to it, in mono, the way it was recorded". Playing it on a stereo always sounded better. They even used that as part of the sales pitch for stereo ("enhances mono recordings").
A similar and analogous situation also comes to mind , when I was "between speaker systems" and twice had the stereo set up with miss-matched loudspeakers. My brain HATED it. But i wonder if I could have passed a blinded test. One time the miss matched pair was bad but the second time both speakers were good ones. I bring this up because I have two relatively unduplicatable stereo speakers. I am considering buying five of whatever I use to expand to MCH. Of course going from 2.0 to 5.4 or 7.4 is a big jump in complexity too.
Looks like there are plug ins too that will work(for upmixing Two Channels to Three or more) with JRiver that can do some of these things. One I just looked at the website of is Halo by Nugen.
It is $500. Gulp! Maybe they have an LTE version for home users, or maybe some list members know of similar software that is less expensive.
@Sal1950 refers to hisself as "the Cheapskate Audiophile" I may add "Audio Bottom Feeder" to my signature.
I did just pay MSRP for an Oppo 205. But under current circumstances that was a very fortunate bargain.
I am very interested in the SST Trinaural, but it is against my religion to pay $3,000 for a box with half a dozen op amps in it, no matter how sophisticated its matrix might be and no matter who designed it.
I'm sure there was expectation bias but I never had the experience of "yecch that sounds terrible, turn off one channel so I can listen to it, in mono, the way it was recorded". Playing it on a stereo always sounded better. They even used that as part of the sales pitch for stereo ("enhances mono recordings").
A similar and analogous situation also comes to mind , when I was "between speaker systems" and twice had the stereo set up with miss-matched loudspeakers. My brain HATED it. But i wonder if I could have passed a blinded test. One time the miss matched pair was bad but the second time both speakers were good ones. I bring this up because I have two relatively unduplicatable stereo speakers. I am considering buying five of whatever I use to expand to MCH. Of course going from 2.0 to 5.4 or 7.4 is a big jump in complexity too.
Looks like there are plug ins too that will work(for upmixing Two Channels to Three or more) with JRiver that can do some of these things. One I just looked at the website of is Halo by Nugen.
It is $500. Gulp! Maybe they have an LTE version for home users, or maybe some list members know of similar software that is less expensive.
@Sal1950 refers to hisself as "the Cheapskate Audiophile" I may add "Audio Bottom Feeder" to my signature.
I did just pay MSRP for an Oppo 205. But under current circumstances that was a very fortunate bargain.
I am very interested in the SST Trinaural, but it is against my religion to pay $3,000 for a box with half a dozen op amps in it, no matter how sophisticated its matrix might be and no matter who designed it.
Last edited:
Warning, old story:
I uppmixed a lot with my early analog Dolby system. The back channel was extracted sensing for a 180deg phase which worked great for upmixing analog 24+ track music that was full of phase shift. So the surround channels played something, and it depended on ones taste to like it. The Centre was more difficult. The later Dolby analog system hooked on everything that had the same level left and right and could be distracting as it destroyed the half left and half right positions, but then added an extra speaker to take the weight from the others. It worked for analog stuff having channel separation of around 35db, like Laserdisk or LP, but failed often on digital having 70db+ separation, basically treating left and right completely independent - the Dolby Centre channel extraction seemed not to like it, something I read that stopped companies issuing more analog Dolby surround mixes on CD.
I did try it in MP3 type of source material and did not like as I thought the subtle to be extracted information was no longer present. Sure, the 70db left right separation was gone, but I was not sure if left and right had been harmonized before encoding. But I could be wrong there. And, a room eq DSP probably makes most sense for Mch.
Sure, I just used the church setting as an extreme example, but it applies to all Concert halls too....
Anyone else find the result of post-processing up-conversion very sensitive to position of surround speakers relative to MLP?
I find that if the surrounds (and this is with surrounds trimmed to the same SPL as fronts with Pink noise) are close to being in line with the MLP ( as might happen if the MLP is flush against the back wall) so that the surrounds are basically side speakers, the resulting sound is more like headphones imaging which some people might like but one I find too artificial. If the surrounds are behind the MLP or I move forward, the result is a front stage as before but the stage pops out in a 3D like fashion but still in front of me. This I like.
I find that if the surrounds (and this is with surrounds trimmed to the same SPL as fronts with Pink noise) are close to being in line with the MLP ( as might happen if the MLP is flush against the back wall) so that the surrounds are basically side speakers, the resulting sound is more like headphones imaging which some people might like but one I find too artificial. If the surrounds are behind the MLP or I move forward, the result is a front stage as before but the stage pops out in a 3D like fashion but still in front of me. This I like.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Thanks for responding Floyd. It was your book that led to my thinking on the multi channel line and of course it does make sense in many ways.
The critical factor in upmixing seems to be the software and as this aspect isn't yet fully developed, the ability to accommodate the various solutions and their updates. Therefore I assume it is best to acquire some sort of box that can cope with all this. Or do people use computers?
That is one approach. Another is to have the surrounds placed/moved forward of the MLP which greatly enhances the spread and wrap of the frontal stage but is much less likely to produce anomalous effects from the side/rear. I believe that Floyd has made some similar observations, as well.
I have had my surrounds forward instead of right at the sides for many years. Moving them around, as I have done many times, I always seem to like the surrounds' sound better when a little forward of the MLP vs. at the side or behind. When I mentioned that to my dealer he said Floyd had found the same.
YMMV - Don
Last edited:
Interesting. Of course, putting the surrounds ahead of the MLP works only if you have a dedicated music setup not a shared HT/music setup since the HT sound is specifically engineered for rear production in the side and rear speakers.
But, I think it is difficult to generalize this for music since the nature of “surround” varies so much.
For example, I have a couple of multi-channel SACD content that is mastered from original separate tracks (not up-converted from stereo). I don’t like listening to them in multi-channel side or rear speakers at all. The separation between the front and surround is too much (very similar to what happens when you separate the mains too much). It creates a large gap in sound stage rather than a smooth wrap around. It feels like some instruments are off stage or that the drum set is stretched across some 12 feet!
I can very well imagine that putting the surrounds in front of the MLP is the right solution for this type of content as a way to expand the stage rather than wrap it around.
At the other extreme, there are the post-processing modes which exploit the additional speakers for different purposes. The simplest is the “Hall effect” type of processing which is similar to what reverb effects do. Feed the content at lower volumes and with a delay (with or without repeats at decaying volumes) to surrounds to simulate the reflections in a large hall. These seem to do best with surrounds at the sides or behind the MLP giving an impression of a far larger space behind or on the side.
Others seem to be designed to bring the sound stage ahead of the mains than behind them to create stage depth and a more immersive experience from it. This seems to do best with speakers behind the MLP (or with no direct sound aimed at MLP).
Given so much variance in what is intended, I am not sure there is a speaker position that fits all.
But, I think it is difficult to generalize this for music since the nature of “surround” varies so much.
For example, I have a couple of multi-channel SACD content that is mastered from original separate tracks (not up-converted from stereo). I don’t like listening to them in multi-channel side or rear speakers at all. The separation between the front and surround is too much (very similar to what happens when you separate the mains too much). It creates a large gap in sound stage rather than a smooth wrap around. It feels like some instruments are off stage or that the drum set is stretched across some 12 feet!
I can very well imagine that putting the surrounds in front of the MLP is the right solution for this type of content as a way to expand the stage rather than wrap it around.
At the other extreme, there are the post-processing modes which exploit the additional speakers for different purposes. The simplest is the “Hall effect” type of processing which is similar to what reverb effects do. Feed the content at lower volumes and with a delay (with or without repeats at decaying volumes) to surrounds to simulate the reflections in a large hall. These seem to do best with surrounds at the sides or behind the MLP giving an impression of a far larger space behind or on the side.
Others seem to be designed to bring the sound stage ahead of the mains than behind them to create stage depth and a more immersive experience from it. This seems to do best with speakers behind the MLP (or with no direct sound aimed at MLP).
Given so much variance in what is intended, I am not sure there is a speaker position that fits all.
Mine is mixed-use and actually used for HT most of the time. I still prefer them a little forward; keeps the action in front of me and with them just a little forward you still get the sense of "sides". I do have rears as well.
Yup. No video in my system.
Yes, if you have a 7.x, the sides can be moved forward even for HT. Matter of taste and room dimensions. With 5.x, that is not a good option for HT.
Back at the CEDIA Harman booth again with the Arcam gear today.
Right at about the 6:30 point on the video the presenter starts braggin on the DAC's used and having the lowest jitter, etc and it's importance to SQ.
Some nice new stuff coming at not too back breaking prices.
Maybe we can get one on the torture rack some day.
Right at about the 6:30 point on the video the presenter starts braggin on the DAC's used and having the lowest jitter, etc and it's importance to SQ.
Some nice new stuff coming at not too back breaking prices.
Maybe we can get one on the torture rack some day.
Last edited:
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
I've recently tried comparing stereo upmixing in JRiver and Foobar2000 at my office/desk area, and have decided that I prefer the former.
My surrounds are located 120 degrees off-centre and are ~1.7m away from the LP (JBL LSR305 xo 120Hz @ 24dB/oct). The fronts are Neumann KH120s 45º (xo 80Hz @ 24dB/oct [jriver]+ 80Hz @24dB/oct [miniDSP] and are 0.75m from the LP. I would have greatly preferred if I could move KH120s further forward but lack of space and severe FR anomalies at this position makes this impossible.
I think I vastly prefer this setup over plain stereo 9 out of 10 times for both music and movies (works with streaming too using the JRiver's WDM driver e.g. amazon music, spotify, netflix -- but with some minor (but fixable) hiccups).
It's not ideal to have a centre channel in my setup as I have a large monitor in front of my desk and I don't want to have the centre speaker pointing/angled down and hanging directly above the monitor.
I am not particularly fond of the LSR305's treble as well, and may replace them with the Kali LP-6s in the future or another pair of KH120s.
Maybe... But as of now, overall, I'm pretty happy with this setup.
My surrounds are located 120 degrees off-centre and are ~1.7m away from the LP (JBL LSR305 xo 120Hz @ 24dB/oct). The fronts are Neumann KH120s 45º (xo 80Hz @ 24dB/oct [jriver]
I think I vastly prefer this setup over plain stereo 9 out of 10 times for both music and movies (works with streaming too using the JRiver's WDM driver e.g. amazon music, spotify, netflix -- but with some minor (but fixable) hiccups).
It's not ideal to have a centre channel in my setup as I have a large monitor in front of my desk and I don't want to have the centre speaker pointing/angled down and hanging directly above the monitor.
I am not particularly fond of the LSR305's treble as well, and may replace them with the Kali LP-6s in the future or another pair of KH120s.
Maybe... But as of now, overall, I'm pretty happy with this setup.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm curious as to how JRiver or Foobar is creating the signal for the surround channels. Do they use one of the standard applications such as Dolby or DTS, or some other proprietary codec?
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
I've looked at their wiki manual and couldn't find anything specific about their upmixing process. It's totally possible it's their own flavour of processing akin to their Loudness DSP. I'm too lazy to comb through the forums or ask right now. But if you look through the analyzer snapshot below, you can see that it definitely does something to the original signal -- from my hearing comparison with Foobar2000s upmixing plugins, I prefer JRiver.
Attachments
No problem, like I said I was only curious. It's all subjective in any case, no rights or wrongs, so anyone's preference is as good as any others. I like having the wide variety of options that a modern AVP gives since different recordings seem to work best with the different approaches.
Does "Move Center to L/R" mean no center channel?
Similar threads
