How Much is Undoubtedly Too Much?

[JeffS7444]

The quest for a more luxurious audio experience gets us more into the realm of, well, luxury products. Some luxury-fi products are splendid performers, while others are iffier.

 

[MattHooper]

I think it is an interesting question. If Stereo converted to MC is truly "better" then that means "Hi-Fi" is not about trying to "reproducing the source" as accurately as possible rather it is about "reprocessing" the source to be as "pleasing" as possible. That certainly blurs the lines between objective and subjective definitions of "Hi-Fi".

The other question this raises, which is pertinent to the OP's original question is cost. Conservatively a MC system is going to be double the cost of a Stereo system. Is it "objectively rational" to spend twice as much in order to accurately play back 1% of the available source material? If MC playback of stereo is indeed better then maybe it is.

Finally how would the relative performance of a stereo system vs MC system stack up if both had the same budget? Are multiple lower performing speakers "better" than 2 better performing speakers?

I’m glad someone beat me to it

In the big picture, there’s a fair amount of wavering and ambiguity on this forum in terms of the tension there, on one hand paens to the virtues of accuracy and on others, the goal of subjectively pleasing sound. (it’s not that you can’t have both, but it is the case they are absolutely different goals - given variation in recording quality accuracy is not equivalent to pleasing sound quality; in a number of cases, one will have to pick between one or the other)

It always has been thus, or have you not noticed?

The goal of hi-fi hardware should be the ability to pass the signal cleanly. What I do with it after, is my choice.

Many people on this forum have put forth the view that audio equipment is supposed to accurately reproduce the musical signal, so that the listener can hear the recorded content as accurately as possible.

It would seem odd to care that much about accuracy right up until it’s actually coming out of your loudspeakers, and then you just change everything like putting a big filter over it (e.g. put a big smile eq setting, or up mix 2 channel to a different format).

If you are going to just abandon accuracy at the point of actually listening, it actually starts to undermine that the equipment chain up to that point “should be accurate.” If you introduce pleasing inaccuracy at any point in the chain, then you’d just be doing the same kind of thing - coloring the sound to taste.

Which is something generally contested on this forum.

 

[JeffS7444]

It would seem odd to care that much about accuracy right up until it’s actually coming out of your loudspeakers, and then you just change everything like putting a big filter over it (e.g. put a big smile eq setting, or up mix 2 channel to a different format).

Sonic neutrality is a good starting point, in the same way it may be wise to first taste your food before adding additional seasonings. This morning, I sprinkled some chili crunch onto my breakfast burrito, and it was heavenly, but I don't think I'll do the same to my tiramisu.

 

[NTK]

I think it is an interesting question. If Stereo converted to MC is truly "better" then that means "Hi-Fi" is not about trying to "reproducing the source" as accurately as possible rather it is about "reprocessing" the source to be as "pleasing" as possible. That certainly blurs the lines between objective and subjective definitions of "Hi-Fi".

2-channel stereo is such a "spatially deprived" format (using Dr Toole's words) there is not much point talking about spatial accuracy. 2-channel has no chance of reproducing the original spatial experience accurately (say, of a concert hall recording). So feel free to embellish it as you see fit.

Until we have "encoder-decoder" type systems, it is rather difficult to talk about "accurate" reproduction. (To give an example of an encode-decode system, for an AD/DA system, you can objective measure and compare the output to its input, and thus can evaluate its accuracy.)

...
I think I can end by quoting myself from the earlier post:" Ideally we want an encode-decode system, so that results are predictable from the creative artists through to the listeners." This necessarily includes neutral loudspeakers throughout, and that too is a huge problem. Binaurally post processing existing recordings mixed and mastered for loudspeaker reproduction is not that. Neither is upmixing stereo to a multichannel system. Both can enhance a basic stereo playback, which is why both of us have found our ways to do it. We need a different approach, but from where I sit, I cannot imagine the global audio industry changing from its pathetically obsolete two-channel habits. One can only hope.
...

 

[MattHooper]

2-channel stereo is such a "spatially deprived" format (using Dr Toole's words) there is not much point talking about spatial accuracy.

I don’t think that follows, necessarily. There are certainly deficiencies in two channel, but I don’t think that entails there’s no point in talking about spatial accuracy. You can still, in various instances, be moving further or closer towards spatial accuracy, even with stereo. I’ve been doing stereo recordings both for my work and for my only leisure time, for around 40 years or more. And that has included seeing how realistically some of my two channel systems re-created the scenes that I recorded. Sometimes the recreation can be eerily accurate in terms of recreating the acoustic envelope, placement of the Sonic images, etc.

2-channel has no chance of reproducing the original spatial experience accurately (say, of a concert hall recording).

I even disagree with this. At least with the type of absolutism you are invoking. I love orchestral music and listen to quite a lot of it on my two channel system. Can my system re-create the sound of a real Orchestra with me sitting right in front of it? No. But recordings with a certain perspective can work quite well. I find my two channel system can reproduce the impression of listening through quite a distance, so that for instance the tympani can sound like it’s coming from way deep back to the left of the Orchestra, the double basses well off to the right and deep in the hall, etc.

A recording can do quite a job of preserving the general positions of instrument sections in an orchestra, and I find that if I adopt the proper “ perspective” in my mind, that I’m listening to the Orchestra from the proper distance, then the illusion of hearing a real orchestra can be remarkably compelling.

My particular two channel set up also does spatial precision in terms of sound staging and imaging better than my surround system.
And for me, what is happening in front of me is most important for realism than what might be happening around me.

Apples to apples, a surround system may reproduce greater realism. But my main point is that stereo has liabilities, but isn’t as hopeless as I think you were suggesting.

 

[Petrushka]

I don’t think that follows, necessarily. There are certainly deficiencies in two channel, but I don’t think that entails there’s no point in talking about spatial accuracy. You can still, in various instances, be moving further or closer towards spatial accuracy, even with stereo. I’ve been doing stereo recordings both for my work and for my only leisure time, for around 40 years or more. And that has included seeing how realistically some of my two channel systems re-created the scenes that I recorded. Sometimes the recreation can be eerily accurate in terms of recreating the acoustic envelope, placement of the Sonic images, etc.



I even disagree with this. At least with the type of absolutism you are invoking. I love orchestral music and listen to quite a lot of it on my two channel system. Can my system re-create the sound of a real Orchestra with me sitting right in front of it? No. But recordings with a certain perspective can work quite well. I find my two channel system can reproduce the impression of listening through quite a distance, so that for instance the tympani can sound like it’s coming from way deep back to the left of the Orchestra, the double basses well off to the right and deep in the hall, etc.

A recording can do quite a job of preserving the general positions of instrument sections in an orchestra, and I find that if I adopt the proper “ perspective” in my mind, that I’m listening to the Orchestra from the proper distance, then the illusion of hearing a real orchestra can be remarkably compelling.

My particular two channel set up also does spatial precision in terms of sound staging and imaging better than my surround system.
And for me, what is happening in front of me is most important for realism than what might be happening around me.

Apples to apples, a surround system may reproduce greater realism. But my main point is that stereo has liabilities, but isn’t as hopeless as I think you were suggesting.

Depends on whether you are listening to the music or to the equipment.

When you watch a movie, you (usually) see a two dimensional image, sometimes in black and white. It’s nothing lie being there, but it can be enormously engaging.

Musicians often find really substandard equipment to be quite satisfactory. They are engaged in different aspects of the recording than the audiophile.

 

[NTK]

I don’t think that follows, necessarily. There are certainly deficiencies in two channel, but I don’t think that entails there’s no point in talking about spatial accuracy. You can still, in various instances, be moving further or closer towards spatial accuracy, even with stereo. I’ve been doing stereo recordings both for my work and for my only leisure time, for around 40 years or more. And that has included seeing how realistically some of my two channel systems re-created the scenes that I recorded. Sometimes the recreation can be eerily accurate in terms of recreating the acoustic envelope, placement of the Sonic images, etc.

Since I am sort of a science guy, when I look at the sound waves radiated by an instrument or a singer right at the center in front of me, versus the phantom center image radiated by a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right, the sound pressure fields are totally different. (Obviously one has one radiating source, and the other uses two radiating sources.) How do you reconcile that?

Multi-channel also has this problem, but with more speakers (sound sources), the approximation/interpolation is much closer.

 

[MattHooper]

Depends on whether you are listening to the music or to the equipment.

I was talking about paying attention to the level of sonic realism in particular. Not whether the music was engaging per se.

When you watch a movie, you (usually) see a two dimensional image, sometimes in black and white. It’s nothing lie being there, but it can be enormously engaging.

True. I would also say it would be going too far if someone said 2dimensional movie images cannot give any sensation of depth or spatial cues.

 

[Petrushka]

Since I am sort of a science guy, when I look at the sound waves radiated by an instrument or a singer right at the center in front of me, versus the phantom center image radiated by a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right, the sound pressure fields are totally different. (Obviously one has one radiating source, and the other uses two radiating sources.) How do you reconcile that?

Multi-channel also has this problem, but with more speakers (sound sources), the approximation/interpolation is much closer.

When I had cataracts, things were a bit fuzzy ,but colors looked normal. After surgery, with the yellowed lenses removed, everything looked blue and ugly. Since they fix one eye at a time, there’s a week or two when you can directly compare the two worldviews.

After a month or two, the new view of the world looks perfectly normal.

We hear and see what we pay attention to, and to a large extent, attention is voluntary.

Fidelity is a bit like corrective lenses. To the extent we can reproduce an environment, there’s no reason not to. But to the extent this is impossible or unaffordable, we can adapt.

 

[MattHooper]

Since I am sort of a science guy, when I look at the sound waves radiated by an instrument or a singer right at the center in front of me, versus the phantom center image radiated by a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right, the sound pressure fields are totally different.

And yet, spatially, a two channel system can place a focussed image of a person speaking right in between the loudspeakers as if somebody were standing there. That’s why guests listening to my system (or any other well set up system, I would think) remark on the uncanny sensation of certain performers being “ right there in front of them.”


I’m sure we both agree that stereo is imperfect, but certainly contains plenty of cues in terms of spatial quality, ambience, and image placement.

In the past, I’ve done things like stereo record a friend playing acoustic guitar in my two channel room just behind and slightly left of centre behind my loudspeakers. When played back there was a strong perception of that same guitar being played from essentially that same spot in the room. Same with recordings I did of peoples voices in the room.

And again, the whole point in terms of how some orchestral recordings and mixing is done, is that the spatial and depth relationships can be preserved or re-created to a significant degree. Which as I say can pay dividends in greater sonic realism.
There wouldn’t be any point in the way, many recordings have been made if that weren’t the case.

 

[Robin L]

Multichannel has been around how long? Twenty years or more? It hasn't happened yet.

It goes as far back as the movie "Fantasia" back in 1940, more than 80 years ago. There were plenty of advertisements for surround sound systems in the 1970's, here's reviews of quad phono cartridges from High Fidelity magazine back in 1974, 50 years ago:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/70s/High-Fidelity-1974-12.pdf

SACDs and DVD-A appeared 25 years ago, DVD-A soon followed. And as soon as Blu-Ray appeared, Blu-Ray audio followed. But for most people the expense and difficulty of properly setting up a proper surround or Atmos system exceeds the potential rewards. Most of the action in surround sound has been in Home Theater. Face it, there's plenty of people happy with Sonos or soundbars. Atmos or its offspring might well be SOTA, but doesn't mean it will actually catch on any more than Dynaco's Surround Sound adaptor did in the 1970s:

 

[Sal1950]

It would seem odd to care that much about accuracy right up until it’s actually coming out of your loudspeakers, and then you just change everything like putting a big filter over it (e.g. put a big smile eq setting, or up mix 2 channel to a different format).

Why when it can be shut it off, or changed to something else with one a single click?
Transparently accurate to the 2ch source, (a straight wire with gain) is always a simple switch throw away.
While at the same time offering the options 5/7.x.x and Atmos/Auro reproduction of lossless high-res discrete sound sources in as many channels.

OTOH if you use a badly compromised vinyl source and then filter that thru tubes, you will never hear an accurate reproduction of the mic feed or master tape. You'll have to go buy a new system to do that.

Why are you so confused or find it "odd"? A very simple and pure listening philosophy.

 

[krabapple]

Clue me in on multi channel over headphones, please.

The best known currently is Dolby Atmos 'spatial audio' for headphones. But that's not what I was thinking of. There's better tech than that, but that's all I can say.

But in my defense, I have heard it said that multichannel is the future since the advent of 5.1.

And what do you imagine has happened since then (which would be circa the year 2000)?
Do you imagine it multichannel market -- which of course includes anything dubbed 'home theater' -- has stayed the same size as it was then, or even shrunk?

 

[krabapple]

It goes as far back as the movie "Fantasia" back in 1940, more than 80 years ago.

Sheesh, if you're gonna be like that, it goes back to Bell Labs recommending three channels (L C R) for home audio.

Two channel was a compromise.

 

[VMAT4]

The best known currently is Dolby Atmos 'spatial audio' for headphones. But that's not what I was thinking of. There's better tech than that, but that's all I can say.



And what do you imagine has happened since then (which would be circa the year 2000)?
Do you imagine it multichannel market -- which of course includes anything dubbed 'home theater' -- has stayed the same size as it was then, or even shrunk?

Where is the Dolby Atmos encoded music? That's what I sincerely want to know.

 

[krabapple]

It would seem odd to care that much about accuracy right up until it’s actually coming out of your loudspeakers, and then you just change everything like putting a big filter over it (e.g. put a big smile eq setting, or up mix 2 channel to a different format).

Tiresome.

Ever use tone controls?

If you are going to just abandon an accuracy at the point of actually listening, it actually starts to undermine that the equipment and the chain up to that point “should be accurate.” If you introduce a pleasing in accuracy at any point in the chain, then you just be doing the same kind of thing - coloring the sound to taste.

Laughable.

Why don't you go jawbone at Floyd Toole about it?

 

[krabapple]

Where is the Dolby Atmos encoded music? That's what I sincerely want to know.

Do you sincerely lack facility with Google?

 

[Sal1950]

Atmos or its offspring might well be SOTA, but doesn't mean it will actually catch on any more than Dynaco's Surround Sound adaptor did in the 1970s:

Ah but Robin it already has, it has been the standard, along with DTS-X for TOTL movie sound production for close to what 20 years now,
that's not going anywhere. The only real difference between a HomeTheater and a Immersive Music System is the source being played at the moment.

Where is the Dolby Atmos encoded music? That's what I sincerely want to know.

Seriously? There are thousands of titles being streamed on Apple, Tidal, Amazon, more.
And near as many available on lossless 24/48 high resolution BluRay discs and downloads. Where have you been?

 

[VMAT4]

I stream. Spotify, nugs, and a little Idagio. Those are my sources. I'm interested in multichannel over headphones. I live in a row house. My neighbors most likely don't want to overhear my jamgrass in multichannel audio. And, I'm stretched to afford two good speakers let alone say 7 channels of surround and 4 height and one or two subwoofers. Really, I see the future of music reproduction as necessarily inexpensive. I can't imagine it if one needs 13 or so transducers. Those are the barriers I see to it. I'm not gonna say those are insurmountable. I'll check out Idagio. I doubt Spotify or nugs does Dolby Atmos.

 

[Brian Hall]

Although not common, there are a few modern day vinyl-only releases, such as Jack DeJohnette's Return.

That's not very smart.