I think the term "sweet spot" is as widely misused as the word "audiophile".
Sure. Likable is true but not enough for when you are paying attention.Regarding sweetspot in multisetup: When walking around in the Genelec 11.1 showroom I think the sound was likable even in the corners. Maybe I’m not a picky guy...
Yeah, I do hesitate when I use it but it is understood.I think the term "sweet spot" is as widely misused as the word "audiophile".
Too many variables.
Anything in particular you're thinking of, Kal? Mix quality in the original surround and stereo mixes is an obvious one, but given that he used about 10 different musical pieces I would think that it would even out...
I would think that the thesis has undergone criticism regarding both method and content?
Is it a garbage-in-garbage-out piece of work?
Those two plus optimization of the playback system for each format. I have not read the thesis so I cannot see any more possibilities. As for the mix quality, how was that assessed for an experiment where the purpose is assessing the relative satisfaction of the two formats. Kinda circular.Anything in particular you're thinking of, Kal? Mix quality in the original surround and stereo mixes is an obvious one, but given that he used about 10 different musical pieces I would think that it would even out...
Not necessarily. I have been a party to many doctoral theses, beginning with my own. Thesis development, analysis and criticism are seriously pursued in academia but by humans, all of whom have areas in which they are strong and areas in which they are weak. I do not know the institution here but institutional reputation is the best assurance of due diligence.I would think that the thesis has undergone criticism regarding both method and content?
Is it a garbage-in-garbage-out piece of work?
A little bird whispered an update in my ear (A J is always watching guys )IIRC AJ of Soundfield Audio liked to use a proprietary implementation that older Yamaha receivers included. I heard him using it at one of his speaker demos a while back and it did do a good job of simple ambience extraction. Can't remember what Yamaha called it, maybe hit him with a email if interested.
Occasionally we do have to step out of our objective, pure to the source, high fidelity reproducing shoes.It just seems a little crazy to me to invest so much in a system's fidelity to the source, then overlay that with an artificial algorithm to create something not there in the original source.
Logic 7 has been the gold standard for simulated surround although admittedly, I have not kept up with the latest development. It is a lot of "fun" but I grew tired of it after a some usage.The algorithm I was thinking of was actually from Harman (not Yamaho) called L7 or Logic 7 & and I believe an offshoot of work done by Lexicon.
What the title says.
I've been intrigued by multichannel audio for some time. I will probably not invest in a multichannel rig in the near future, but nevertheless I remain intrigued. My listening is about 30 percent classical, 30 percent jazz, 40 percent rock and pop, and 10 percent electronica (since this one goes to 11). For classical, there's a lot of multichannel releases. For all the other genres I listen to, not so much. I am therefore curious about whether any surround receivers have good upmixing capabilities. A recent PhD by a German chap involved listening experiments on upmixing algorithms, and the best ones seem to do fairly well. https://d-nb.info/1128906503/34
Looking briefly into the research, it seems to me that SOTA upmixing algorithms involve elaborate ways of separating "ambient" from direct sound, etc.
So: Which surround receivers do this well? I would assume Harman has some know-how on this, but what brands in the Harman family is it worth looking into? How about other companies, like NAD or Emotiva? Oppo? Emotiva offers very good value for money and has dirac live on their hardware, but I guess they don't have the resources inhouse to research upmixing and stuff like that?
And a further question to the resident multichannel gurus, @Fitzcaraldo215, @Kal Rubinson and @j_j (if I may): Do other considerations apply when buying loudspeakers for multichannel rigs, or do the same rules apply as with loudspeakers for two-channel systems? To phrase it in a slightly different way: Will loudspeakers which are ideal for a stereo setup in a given room also be ideal for a multichannel setup in the same room - or are there other things to think about?
I could say that about almost every up-mixing system I have tried. The others were no fun at all.It is a lot of "fun" but I grew tired of it after a some usage.
I could say that about almost every up-mixing system I have tried. The others were no fun at all.
Logic 7 has been the gold standard for simulated surround although admittedly, I have not kept up with the latest development. It is a lot of "fun" but I grew tired of it after a some usage.
Yes but Harman has announced that there will be some new Lexicon processors out soon. Surely, they will have Logic7 but no one knows whether it has been updated.Thanks Amir. The only thing that concerns me about logic 7 is that it seems to be old technology by now, not updated for a while, which probably hasn't incorporated the latest SOTA algortihms.
True. I misuse it, sometimes referring to the single point, central main listening position. But, here, I think we are referring to an area around that where an "acceptable" image can be heard. The main reason I think it is somewhat larger laterally for Mch than for stereo is because of the center channel and its ability to anchor the frontal image better than stereo when heard somewhat to the side. I am more OK in all 3 of my side-by-side listening seats in Mch than I am in stereo, FWIW.I think the term "sweet spot" is as widely misused as the word "audiophile".