• 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!

Floyd Toole's Multichannel Audio Chapter in His Book.

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"
I'm reading Floyd Toole's chapter on multichannel and trying to understand what surround sound layouts for music listening is preferred. For those who haven't engaged in conversations on this forum with me I will reiterate that my music recordings are not multichannel in any way, I am purely experimenting with different surround sound layouts to increase envelopment.(Perhaps my well treated room is taking the life out of my music)

Anyway, point is that with my available resources at this time I can try 4 speakers in the front or the standard 5.1 layout which both in his book are highly praised and not much different with the 4 speakers at the front with a centre added just as good as the 5.1 with the rear speakers at +120 degrees.

My question is, did the 4 speakers at the front(with or without a centre) use any upmixing or decoding during the experiment?

And if I do go down this track there is no option in Jriver to have 4 speakers at the front so I am limited, and I am hazarding a guess that the Jriver JRSS doesn't account for this...?

And lets say I do use a home theatre receiver route, I suppose I can use the height channels for the extra 2 at the front but would the decoding take this into account? And do I need this decoding?
 
Last edited:

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,555
Likes
1,534
Location
Vancouver
Haven't read the book but since all consumer releases are in 5.1 not sure how you would steer the tracks to the 4 front speakers. Or why. If the music has been mixed in 5.1 it should be listened to in 5.1. And I can't see why any one would mix for 4 channels in front when every home multichannel system has 3. The only system Ive seen with more than 3 was Sony's SDDS for theatres with 5 front speakers but this makes sense for a 30 foot soundstage.
 

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,555
Likes
1,534
Location
Vancouver
Just realized your using stereo sources. The book dosnt say how he did this? If he didn't use a matrix (mixes tracks together) did he just send Left to the 2 lefts etc.? Don't see the point of that.
 

M00ndancer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
719
Likes
728
Location
Sweden
2 Channel audio = Stereo reproduction
5.1 Channel audio = Multi channel or up mixes.

There are some benefits to doing a up mix to multichannel if it's done well. But doing 4? I can understand 3 (left, right, center) to benefit things placed in the center of the sound image. But 4? Maybe that you use two of them close to the center as dual centers?
 

vavan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
341
Likes
212
Location
Kazan, Russia
Not sure what he’s using nowadays
"I choose to add moderate up-mixing to most of my stereo music, finding the adjustable Auro-3D implementation in the SDP-75 to be quite pleasant"
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,303
Likes
9,867
Location
NYC
"I choose to add moderate up-mixing to most of my stereo music, finding the adjustable Auro-3D implementation in the SDP-75 to be quite pleasant"
Yes and his demos were quite impressive despite the program material.
 
OP
Trdat

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"
Just realized your using stereo sources. The book dosnt say how he did this? If he didn't use a matrix (mixes tracks together) did he just send Left to the 2 lefts etc.? Don't see the point of that.

Yeh I'm only using stereo sources.

Unless I missed it, he doesn't specify what matrix he used. The examples are a range of surround styles and the two best are 4 at the front and the 5.1.

I am aware he mentions logic 7 but its not clear if he used it for these experiments.
 
OP
Trdat

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"
2 Channel audio = Stereo reproduction
5.1 Channel audio = Multi channel or up mixes.

There are some benefits to doing a up mix to multichannel if it's done well. But doing 4? I can understand 3 (left, right, center) to benefit things placed in the center of the sound image. But 4? Maybe that you use two of them close to the center as dual centers?

4 upfront with a centre is one of the best options according to his experiments. So no its not a dual centre.
 
OP
Trdat

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"
Well, I ve been looking into DSX recently, of course to understand better how front sides(front heights) work because I thought that the use of DSX is the only option as a matrix for front speakers.

But I am still confused how it works? Apparently it only works with a front speaker.
 

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,555
Likes
1,534
Location
Vancouver
Does
Yeh I'm only using stereo sources.

Unless I missed it, he doesn't specify what matrix he used. The examples are a range of surround styles and the two best are 4 at the front and the 5.1.

I am aware he mentions logic 7 but its not clear if he used it for these experiments.

Read the above paper, mostly, but didn't see where he mentioned 4 front speakers are one of the best. Is that a different read?
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,926
Likes
7,643
Location
Canada
Do you have a citation? It sounds like you are referring to the research parts of the chapter. The two left, two right layout is mentioned as performing well a few times. But no such scheme was ever adopted for consumer use, so it doesn't really matter.

The closest thing that exists to this in actual use are Front Wides, but I can't say how useful they are, not having listened to a system with them. It does seem Toole uses them in his home layout(the forward-of-listening-position Gem2s), in addition to L/C/R and height L/C/R, so they must provide some value :)
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,808
Likes
3,749
Need a bigger room


1606107819425.png
 
OP
Trdat

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"
Its seems that it is a research part of his book, so either he was using logic 7 like stated above or perhaps no matrix at all and the experiment was just to understand more about a diffused sound field. And after reading some more I think I have understood his concepts better.

He does state a few things which make me understand more about the different types of surround layouts. One is that, "four loudspeakers behind the listener do not perform as well as in the front"

"There is no requirement for loudspeakers behind the listener"

He also goes on to say that the surround rear speakers are best on the sides and 30 degrees to the rear not behind.

So what I am gathering is that if the side(rear) speakers are just reflections then the standard dolby or any other matrix can be used as the front sides are essentially the same as rears but to the front.

The DSX must be an add on to the dolby or other matrixes' not a separate matrix for four speakers at the front but please correct me if I am wrong.

I have done some experimenting with rear surrounds, I personally hate them I will experiment with them at the front or at least to the sides and see how I go.
 
OP
Trdat

Trdat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
968
Likes
397
Location
Yerevan "Sydney Born"

Soundmixer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Likes
296
Its seems that it is a research part of his book, so either he was using logic 7 like stated above or perhaps no matrix at all and the experiment was just to understand more about a diffused sound field. And after reading some more I think I have understood his concepts better.

He does state a few things which make me understand more about the different types of surround layouts. One is that, "four loudspeakers behind the listener do not perform as well as in the front"

"There is no requirement for loudspeakers behind the listener"

He also goes on to say that the surround rear speakers are best on the sides and 30 degrees to the rear not behind.

So what I am gathering is that if the side(rear) speakers are just reflections then the standard dolby or any other matrix can be used as the front sides are essentially the same as rears but to the front.

The DSX must be an add on to the dolby or other matrixes' not a separate matrix for four speakers at the front but please correct me if I am wrong.

I have done some experimenting with rear surrounds, I personally hate them I will experiment with them at the front or at least to the sides and see how I go.

He did say that speakers behind the listener add more directional points for effects and deepens the sound field rearward, and two speakers spaced behind you are better than one behind you(which performed poorly).

DSX was developed by Audyssey, is loosely based on Tomlinson Holman's research with his 10.1 system. It is not based on anything Dolby as far as I know.

He also said there is no such thing as a diffused sound field in the home.

I don't use wides(they are not really necessary in either of my rooms), but I do use this set up with either four ceiling mounted speakers in one room, and two in the other.

1618357833913.png
 

Gutbucket

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
5
Likes
12
FWIW, Following is a description along with a few conclusions on speaker placement based on my own investigation over the past 14 years or so into multichannel recording of live-performance music and optimal means for the reproduction of those recordings on the scale of a medium sized room or small multichannel outdoor playback arrangement. To be clear, my investigation is not directly connected with home cinema nor standard layouts for Dolby, DTS, DXS, Auro, and what have you, but does use the same basic playback arrangement as starting point. My goal is the most convincing "you are there" experience I am capable of creating for listeners within the sweet zone, regardless seating/standing position or head orientation. Listeners are free to turn sideways, turn around, or what have you and the illusion should remain robust without audible gaps, as would be the case at the live event. All this infers and relies upon a direct link between recording and reproduction methodologies. How this applies to you all is open to general interpretation. Take from it what you will and feel free to ignore!

The material being reproduced are live music performances recorded using multichannel microphone arrays numbering from 4 to 8 or more microphone channels. I use the standard L/C/R speaker arrangement across the front. Beyond that, I've found I want surround channel speakers evenly arrayed around the listening area to seamlessly recreate an enveloping reproduction of diffuse hall ambiance, discrete reflections, and both diffuse and discrete audience reaction. Unlike cinema surround or studio-produced music for surround playback, there is far less direct sound object image placement required from the surround channels, it is more about seamless immersion, however there is still some direct imaging required - its not just about reproducing a seamless reverberant and audience applause ambience, listeners are able to point toward the locations of specific audience members coughing, reflections off the rear wall of the hall, things like a bar off to one side when applicable, and locate specific environmental sounds heard at outdoor concerts with relative accuracy, etc.

I generally use 7 to 9 reproduction channels, distributed horizontally as LCR + 4, 5 or 6 surround speakers. Beyond 7 channels (arranged typically with Ls/Rs located at ~+/-90 degrees and Lb, Rb at +/-150 degrees) I shift the forward most surround pair to around +/-80 degrees, place the next pair at ~+/-130, and an adjacently-placed pair angled so as to point to either side of the primary listening position at 180 degrees. Depending on the source recording, that center-back pair is feed either either a monophonic rear-facing microphone channel with the signal phase-rotated +/-90 degrees to each speaker (effectively creating a dipole with null facing the central listening position), or a rear-facing stereo microphone pair with a Mid/Side ratio adjustment increasing its stereo-width and reducing its center Mid content which otherwise can cause front/back confusion in the center listening position. This odd arrangement for the center-rear surround location works well because it links ambient surround distribution across the back "filling the hole" for non-centered and non-forward facing listeners, while simultaneously "getting out of the way" for centered, forward-facing listeners.

This arrangement achieves an even distribution of 50 degrees between adjacent speaker positions outside of the front L/C/R sector all the way around the playback area. Shifting the front-most surround pair toward the front serves somewhat as "front wides" filling the gap between the L/R speakers and the surround speakers. Given my stated goals, I'm quite pleased with this arrangement in several incarnations indoors. I'm currently working up a portable outdoor version of the system using small satellite speakers all around, bass managed to a pair of stereo subs placed at the +/-90 degree locations. That is an interesting problem in that it both avoids problematic room issues while at the same time receives no beneficial room interactions.

Hope you all find this interesting, and perhaps applicable generally, even though it's a unique solution tailored to a specific goal that differs from what typical home cinema setups are aiming for.
 
Top Bottom