HiFi Technology Flatlined Last Century

[Robin L]

Regarding surround sound systems: there was a poll at ASR "How Do You Primarily Listen To Audio At Home?":

Poll: How do you primarily listen to audio at home?

POLL IS NOW CLOSED (thread remains open for analysis and comments)... This is an updated follow-up poll to my September 2022 one. Was asked to see whether much has changed since then. Also deleted the active or passive options to simplify the poll. As mentioned previously, the forum software...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Only 8.7% used some variety of surround system. The majority, 58.6%, used stereo speakers of some sort. There were also those that used soundbars, headphones and other means of listening to recorded music. Headphones are over 15% of the means of listening in the home. Point being that even though surround sound and AVRs have been with us for a long time, they really haven't caught on, or at least haven't taken over the market.

I remember reading about how surround sound was about to revolutionize the market way back in 1970. "High Fidelity" magazine had many advertisements and articles on the subject. The first time I heard a 4.0 system was at College of the Sequoias in 1973. It had a Shibata stylus and ultrasonic decoder to play RCA's Quadradisc LPs. My response to that system was much like my response to the system that I owned: if there was a lot of signal going to the back speakers, it sounded like a gimmick. Usually, with the classical recordings played there, there really wasn't enough difference to notice. It basically sent the hall reverb to the back channels. I'm sure surround systems can do great things with video, but I'm not convinced it does all that much for music. I know that Atmos is being pushed now as the next big thing, but I haven't been exposed to that yet.

 

[Quazar]

Regarding surround sound systems: there was a poll at ASR "How Do You Primarily Listen To Audio At Home?":

Poll: How do you primarily listen to audio at home?

POLL IS NOW CLOSED (thread remains open for analysis and comments)... This is an updated follow-up poll to my September 2022 one. Was asked to see whether much has changed since then. Also deleted the active or passive options to simplify the poll. As mentioned previously, the forum software...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Only 8.7% used some variety of surround system. The majority, 58.6%, used stereo speakers of some sort. There were also those that used soundbars, headphones and other means of listening to recorded music. Headphones are over 15% of the means of listening in the home. Point being that even though surround sound and AVRs have been with us for a long time, they really haven't caught on, or at least haven't taken over the market.

I remember reading about how surround sound was about to revolutionize the market way back in 1970. "High Fidelity" magazine had many advertisements and articles on the subject. The first time I heard a 4.0 system was at College of the Sequoias in 1973. It had a Shibata stylus and ultrasonic decoder to play RCA's Quadradisc LPs. My response to that system was much like my response to the system that I owned: if there was a lot of signal going to the back speakers, it sounded like a gimmick. Usually, with the classical recordings played there, there really wasn't enough difference to notice. It basically sent the hall reverb to the back channels. I'm sure surround systems can do great things with video, but I'm not convinced it does all that much for music. I know that Atmos is being pushed now as the next big thing, but I haven't been exposed to that yet.

These are of course individual preferences...
In my personal opinion, cinema, photography, painting are 2-dimensional art forms (no 3D).
For me, listening to music is only stereo (2.1).
Surround sound in a cinema impresses me, but surround music annoys me...
Realizing the listening room is crazy...

 

[DSJR]

I think now that it's common to see detailed off-axis measurements (I had never seen many / any until a couple years ago personally) it's starting to dawn on more listeners exactly how much a waveguide can do for the dispersion.

I also think the CAD tools for developing good WGs are getting better and more widespread. There's even a guy on DIYAudio.com that's published free 3D printing files for waveguides for maybe a dozen tweeters or so.

So basically the means to create a good WG and the knowledge of their actual, quantitative importance is only just now becoming mainstream, I think.

I admit this article is from 1979 and written by a then well known UK acoustician with proven track record in designing auditorium and studio rooms from memory -

https://keith-snook.info/wireless-world-articles/Wireless-World-1979/Speaker%20directivity%20and%20sound%20quality.pdf

Interesting thoughts in this article regarding how wide directivity speakers differ in room interaction compared to narrow directivity versions in similar rooms - 1979 remember and I don't think these issues have changed much - our rooms are generally smaller than US ones too...

I'm sure there's at least one BBC paper from some years before that which dealt with their speaker designs' directivity/dispersion, hence the slot loaded bass-mid drivers in the late 60s at least, so this aspect WAS known about over these parts, but horn loading a tweeter *then* had too many issues I was told.

 

[Scytales]

Concerning multichannel, front-end recordings do indeed exist. These recordings improve the front sound-stage (as well as, astonishingly, the ambient sound !).

The most known examples are some of the early RCA, Mercury or Everest recordings in 3 channels of yesteryear.

But there are also modern recordings made according to this principle. For instance, in France, we got discs under the BNL, Passavant and Syrius labels which were made as such :

This kind of multichannel recordings have nothing to do with generating sound effects, but to reproduce better what's coming from the stage. Some of them are truly spectacular !

 

[Axo1989]

Are you insinuating that your posts mean nothing?

While the intention was presumably some characteristic gaslighting, looks like for once old mate is accidentally accurate.

 

[DSJR]

It’s not an either/or proposition between vinyl playback and multi Channel . Some of us really do enjoy vinyl playback just for the sound

I enjoy vinyl for the messing about with the components (to keep ever-stiffening idle hands busy), the ritual and being able to more easily read the sleeve notes. The sound, even on the higher end decks I used to own, nah, not since 1987 or so when I was re-shown the light after some years since the late 70s dark days of the UK industry

As for multi-channel, I can't afford to get my TWO channels sorted the way I'd like, let alone adding loads more

 

[MattHooper]

Regarding surround sound systems: there was a poll at ASR "How Do You Primarily Listen To Audio At Home?":

Poll: How do you primarily listen to audio at home?

POLL IS NOW CLOSED (thread remains open for analysis and comments)... This is an updated follow-up poll to my September 2022 one. Was asked to see whether much has changed since then. Also deleted the active or passive options to simplify the poll. As mentioned previously, the forum software...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Only 8.7% used some variety of surround system. The majority, 58.6%, used stereo speakers of some sort. There were also those that used soundbars, headphones and other means of listening to recorded music. Headphones are over 15% of the means of listening in the home. Point being that even though surround sound and AVRs have been with us for a long time, they really haven't caught on, or at least haven't taken over the market.

I remember reading about how surround sound was about to revolutionize the market way back in 1970. "High Fidelity" magazine had many advertisements and articles on the subject. The first time I heard a 4.0 system was at College of the Sequoias in 1973. It had a Shibata stylus and ultrasonic decoder to play RCA's Quadradisc LPs. My response to that system was much like my response to the system that I owned: if there was a lot of signal going to the back speakers, it sounded like a gimmick. Usually, with the classical recordings played there, there really wasn't enough difference to notice. It basically sent the hall reverb to the back channels. I'm sure surround systems can do great things with video, but I'm not convinced it does all that much for music. I know that Atmos is being pushed now as the next big thing, but I haven't been exposed to that yet.

I enjoy my 7.0 surround system for movies and music. Ideally I would like some height speakers for Dolby Atmos (unfortunately in my room they would be very difficult to implement). But that’s for movies. I don’t really care about Dolby Atmos for music. My 2 channel system satisfies me for music playback. I also listen to music upmixed to surround because I have a surround system and enjoy it. But frankly, if I didn’t have an existing surround system I wouldn’t be terribly motivated to set up one up just for music.

 

[Robin L]

Concerning multichannel, front-end recordings do indeed exist. These recordings improve the front sound-stage (as well as, astonishingly, the ambient sound !).

The most known examples are some of the early RCA, Mercury or Everest recordings in 3 channels of yesteryear.

But there are also modern recordings made according to this principle. For instance, in France, we got discs under the BNL, Passavant and Syrius labels which were made as such :

View attachment 372665

This kind of multichannel recordings have nothing to do with generating sound effects, but to reproduce better what's coming from the stage. Some of them are truly spectacular !

I did like the effect of the RCA Living Stereo SACDs that were recorded in a three-channel format. The center image was more plausible than the phantom center of my stereo records. Of course, this is the "future" of 1958. And more speakers in a room always means more of a visual mess to deal with.

 

[kemmler3D]

I admit this article is from 1979 and written by a then well known UK acoustician with proven track record in designing auditorium and studio rooms from memory -

https://keith-snook.info/wireless-world-articles/Wireless-World-1979/Speaker%20directivity%20and%20sound%20quality.pdf

Interesting thoughts in this article regarding how wide directivity speakers differ in room interaction compared to narrow directivity versions in similar rooms - 1979 remember and I don't think these issues have changed much - our rooms are generally smaller than US ones too...

I'm sure there's at least one BBC paper from some years before that which dealt with their speaker designs' directivity/dispersion, hence the slot loaded bass-mid drivers in the late 60s at least, so this aspect WAS known about over these parts, but horn loading a tweeter *then* had too many issues I was told.

This stuff has certainly been known by experts and professionals for a long time, (I think it might have even been part of the BBC designs from the 50s and 60s,) my point is just that awareness / knowledge of directivity and waveguides has been getting a lot more mainstream lately, probably in no small part due to Amir and Erin's efforts.

Now I think we see the market following, as you can't get away with just a nice on-axis curve anymore, for the discerning buyer.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

This stuff has certainly been known by experts and professionals for a long time, (I think it might have even been part of the BBC designs from the 50s and 60s,) my point is just that awareness / knowledge of directivity and waveguides has been getting a lot more mainstream lately, probably in no small part due to Amir and Erin's efforts.

Now I think we see the market following, as you can't get away with just a nice on-axis curve anymore, for the discerning buyer.

And how do we determine who are the “discerning buyers”?

 

[antcollinet]

And how do we determine who are the “discerning buyers”?

The ones who ask for a smooth off axis curve?

 

[Scytales]

I did like the effect of the RCA Living Stereo SACDs that were recorded in a three-channel format. The center image was more plausible than the phantom center of my stereo records.

To my mind, above all, there is less warping of virtual sound sources in the sound-stage with 3 channels compared with only 2 channels. And obviously, the speaker distorsion is less in multichannel than in 2 channels stereo (more speakers to produce the same sound pressure level means that each speaker has to work less hard). Moreoever, multiple full range speakers excite the room modes a bit like the multiple subwoofers method, making the bass response naturally a bit more even.

I am firmly convinced that properly done multichannel recording and reproduction are the true final frontier of hi-fi music.

My hat off to all the pioneers who have worked hard to experiment, develop and make multichannel records a reality !

 

[Blumlein 88]

I did like the effect of the RCA Living Stereo SACDs that were recorded in a three-channel format. The center image was more plausible than the phantom center of my stereo records. Of course, this is the "future" of 1958. And more speakers in a room always means more of a visual mess to deal with.

Curious if you have ever recorded any surround music? And what mic arrangements you used if you have?

There is actually a large number of papers and tests comparing various surround mic arrangements, and seems zero consensus in the results.

 

[pablolie]

I don't want to sound contentious against the proponents of surround sound, but personally I don't get it.

When I go to a concert, the stage projects sound from the front - which is good, since that's where the musicians actually are.

When I watch a move, the screen is in front of me, and no sound FX will ever convince my eyes I am in the middle of it all. Nor would I want to sit in the middle of it, looking all around me to see what I am missing behind me. Seems silly to me. (I should also note I have always loathed "3D" viewing, it's just an artificially textured screen in front of you, typically at diminished image quality overall).

Moreover, a well set up stereo (or 2:1) system will naturally interact with the room and produce more effects that surround aficionados credit it with. It is not flat 2D.

I have heard some pretty amazing home surround systems, I have been in IMAX theaters... the whole surround thing has never been convincing to me at all, even less so with a large screen in front of me.

I remain with the utter conviction a well set up stereo system remains a reference. And it is hard enough to set up, so why I'd complicate things even more is beyond me.

But again, that's just my current takeaway and opinion. In no way am I attacking anyone that enjoys their surround system.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't want to sound contentious against the proponents of surround sound, but personally I don't get it.

When I go to a concert, the stage projects sound from the front - which is good, since that's where the musicians actually are.

When I watch a move, the screen is in front of me, and no sound FX will ever convince my eyes I am in the middle of it all. Nor would I want to sit in the middle of it, looking all around me to see what I am missing behind me. Seems silly to me. (I should also note I have always loathed "3D" viewing, it's just an artificially textured screen in front of you, typically at diminished image quality overall).

Moreover, a well set up stereo (or 2:1) system will naturally interact with the room and produce more effects that surround aficionados credit it with. It is not flat 2D.

I have heard some pretty amazing home surround systems, I have been in IMAX theaters... the whole surround thing has never been convincing to me at all, even less so with a large screen in front of me.

I remain with the utter conviction a well set up stereo system remains a reference. And it is hard enough to set up, so why I'd complicate things even more is beyond me.

But again, that's just my current takeaway and opinion. In no way am I attacking anyone that enjoys their surround system.

At a bare minimum there are large benefits to a center channel. Other than the old 3 channel Mercury Living Presence re-issues there are effectively no 3 channel offerings. Surround recordings of which there are quite a few offer those benefits and some benefit of the hall sound. Just subjective spit balling rankings, I'd say stereo is 4 time better than mono. 3 channel is maybe 20% better, and surround added is another 10% improvement. So surround is maybe 30% better vs stereo.

Now there is definitely more real depth with 3 channel (I'm not speaking about stereo with a mono mixdown for the center). That was confirmed in the 1950's with listening tests of various stereo, stereo with a center mixdown to mono and true three channel recordings. Depth was more accurately discerned and more depth was heard.

 

[levimax]

Seems to me that the past, mono, is the present and the future of sound played back on speakers. 50 years ago a fairly high percentage of homes had stereo systems, many of them big councils with TV, Radio, and a TT built in and a fair number of stand alone stereo systems with speakers. Fast forward 50 years and outside of a few 5.1 systems and the very rare stereo system (most stereo is now listened to with headphones / earphones) everything has gone back to mono (cars are the exception). Today soundbars, phones, and smart speakers are all you find in most homes and they work pretty well, are unobtrusive, and meet most peoples needs.

 

[Robin L]

Curious if you have ever recorded any surround music? And what mic arrangements you used if you have?

There is actually a large number of papers and tests comparing various surround mic arrangements, and seems zero consensus in the results.

Never made the attempt, never had the means. At one point, had enough microphones but not enough mixer or recorder. Often had projects that asked for a lot of microphones, like orchestra and chorus.

 

[pablolie]

At a bare minimum there are large benefits to a center channel. Other than the old 3 channel Mercury Living Presence re-issues there are effectively no 3 channel offerings. Surround recordings of which there are quite a few offer those benefits and some benefit of the hall sound. Just subjective spit balling rankings, I'd say stereo is 4 time better than mono. 3 channel is maybe 20% better, and surround added is another 10% improvement. So surround is maybe 30% better vs stereo.

Now there is definitely more real depth with 3 channel (I'm not speaking about stereo with a mono mixdown for the center). That was confirmed in the 1950's with listening tests of various stereo, stereo with a center mixdown to mono and true three channel recordings. Depth was more accurately discerned and more depth was heard.

But do they record music with a center channel in mind? That's my utmost personal priority.

I know center channel is good for movie dialogue (mostly because they mix down dialogue and over amp FX), but honestly, my stereo setup has perfect stereo balance for music and movies have to deal with it. Works for me. In my experience, center channel distorts well recorded music. Keith Jarrett's piano becomes even more gigantic etc and poor Charlie Haden recedes into insignificance and such.

In the end, I guess every setup *and* every recording is a bit of a compromise. Consequently, each of us optimizes system choice and setup to their overall priorities. I doubt any of us reconfigures their setup constantly to whatever momentary media we play and the preferences or bad choices recording and mixing engineers did.

 

[Sal1950]

I remain with the utter conviction a well set up stereo system remains a reference.

Ah, but a reference to what?
It is completely useless to appreciate the art that the recording team tried to present in a Quad, 5.1, or Atmos soundfield.
If you don't appreciate the musical art they present, that's your loss

When I go to a concert, the stage projects sound from the front - which is good, since that's where the musicians actually are.

That's one way to present home music production, far and away not the only one.

When I watch a move, the screen is in front of me, and no sound FX will ever convince my eyes I am in the middle of it all.

No, why not? Everyone talks about closing their eyes when listening to stereo, trying to enhance the illusion of "being there"?

And it is hard enough to set up, so why I'd complicate things even more is beyond me.

Ah, the magic, where's the magic ???
It's a simple stereo system, not rocket science.
Or just do what the headphones group does, take the room out of the equation since it only presents a distortion of the source and will sound different in every single one ever assembled.

Sometimes I feel like it's the 1960s again, who needs stereo, bah humbug, a good mono system is all you need.
Why go to the expense and trouble of stereo? ROTFLMAO

 

[MattHooper]

I don't want to sound contentious against the proponents of surround sound, but personally I don't get it.

When I go to a concert, the stage projects sound from the front - which is good, since that's where the musicians actually are.

When I watch a move, the screen is in front of me, and no sound FX will ever convince my eyes I am in the middle of it all. Nor would I want to sit in the middle of it, looking all around me to see what I am missing behind me. Seems silly to me. (I should also note I have always loathed "3D" viewing, it's just an artificially textured screen in front of you, typically at diminished image quality overall).

Moreover, a well set up stereo (or 2:1) system will naturally interact with the room and produce more effects that surround aficionados credit it with. It is not flat 2D.

I have heard some pretty amazing home surround systems, I have been in IMAX theaters... the whole surround thing has never been convincing to me at all, even less so with a large screen in front of me.

I remain with the utter conviction a well set up stereo system remains a reference. And it is hard enough to set up, so why I'd complicate things even more is beyond me.

But again, that's just my current takeaway and opinion. In no way am I attacking anyone that enjoys their surround system.

All fair points for explaining your own aversion to surround. I get it and can empathize, even as someone whose work is mixed in surround.

I can sometimes have similar feelings about surround even for movies - sometimes it is neato and aids immersion, other times it can seem to detach the sound from what's happening on screen.

I do sound design and usually leave it up to the mixers as to what they want to put in the surrounds. Though of course I have a good idea in laying out my tracks where some things may go. But when I'm working creating sound effects, normally working in stereo, I am totally focused on creating the illusion that the sound is coming FROM the screen. Everything has to feel to me "stuck to the images" and when that isn't the case I know I haven't nailed the sound yet. That goes for the mixing balance, everything. So that's my main focus: a seamless sense of the sound as if it were actually captured by the camera, coming FROM that image in front of you.

So it can sometimes feel a bit odd attending the mix playback in the mixing studio; occasionally the mixers have thrown things in the surrounds in a way that sort of detaches it from the image, somewhat undoing the work I did to make it "stick to the screen." Often the surround mix is great and fun to hear, but...yeah...it's not unreasonable for someone to feel the surround stuff might be sometimes working against or distracting from the screen image. (One surround mix though of my stuff for a haunted house movie was superb, lots of rain on roof, windows, wind, atmospherics, really immersive and spooky).

And how much better..or not...one finds surround music vs a good stereo set up is a personal judgment call. Just because someone else feels gagga over it doesn't mean you have to. Even at the big PMC speakers/Steve Wilson dolby atmos demo in Munich, there were variations in what people thought of it, some thought it was incredible, others "kinda cool, but eh..."

It's good of course to have multiple music formats available, including dolby, to serve those who want that.