• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sub 25K active speaker/system choice

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,078
Likes
1,968
Location
Sweden
I'm not sure which version of this you're talking about, but it must be a very old one. The DSU does a variety of things, but one of them is that it extracts phantom center and puts it into the center channel. It actually does this so aggressively that some people prefer "center spread" on, which tones down that functionality somewhat.

None of the modern upmixing algorithms(Auro, DSU, DTS Neural X) do anything as simple as just translating L/R signals to surrounds.

A rather strange way to make an argument. The "readings/beliefs" that you so dismiss as emotional investment are the ones that are the basis of all the work done here from day 1. What objective evidence have YOU got that Toole's summary of audio research is wrong? You trash me for being emotionally invested, but you've posted no support at all for any of your positions?

The reality is that I listened ONLY to stereo for decades. Then, on a whim after reading some posts on here, I decided to try multi-channel classical by buying an extra couple of speakers. And I learned that, even with a mediocre system, good multi-channel recordings sound DAY AND NIGHT BETTER than stereo. AFTER having that experience, I read Toole's book, and understood the research and why stereo can never reproduce a sound field effectively. "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

No one really contests this that I've ever seen. There isn't any research showing, actually, all of that is wrong and stereo is just as good. What they say is, well, yes, multichannel is better, but it requires too many speakers, or there's not enough content, etc. That's perfectly valid, and it's also the definition of a compromise. Everyone has to make some compromises, but you should realize that they're compromises. Stereo is a compromise relative to multichannel. My small 8351Bs are a compromise relative to a full W371A system. And that system is a compromise compared to a 50-speaker spatial audio array. And so on.
True .
Its also true that you can get 2 better loudspeakers for the same price as 5 inferior sounding speakers. So with a limited budget its understandable that many, including me, puts the money on only two channels . But at the same time the stereo system is seriously flawed , there are many good recordings with artists done only for 2 channel playback .
 
Last edited:

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
I'm not sure which version of this you're talking about, but it must be a very old one. The DSU does a variety of things, but one of them is that it extracts phantom center and puts it into the center channel. It actually does this so aggressively that some people prefer "center spread" on, which tones down that functionality somewhat.

None of the modern upmixing algorithms(Auro, DSU, DTS Neural X) do anything as simple as just translating L/R signals to surrounds.

A rather strange way to make an argument. The "readings/beliefs" that you so dismiss as emotional investment are the ones that are the basis of all the work done here from day 1. What objective evidence have YOU got that Toole's summary of audio research is wrong? You trash me for being emotionally invested, but you've posted no support at all for any of your positions?

The reality is that I listened ONLY to stereo for decades. Then, on a whim after reading some posts on here, I decided to try multi-channel classical by buying an extra couple of speakers. And I learned that, even with a mediocre system, good multi-channel recordings sound DAY AND NIGHT BETTER than stereo. AFTER having that experience, I read Toole's book, and understood the research and why stereo can never reproduce a sound field effectively. "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

No one really contests this that I've ever seen. There isn't any research showing, actually, all of that is wrong and stereo is just as good. What they say is, well, yes, multichannel is better, but it requires too many speakers, or there's not enough content, etc. That's perfectly valid, and it's also the definition of a compromise. Everyone has to make some compromises, but you should realize that they're compromises. Stereo is a compromise relative to multichannel. My small 8351Bs are a compromise relative to a full W371A system. And that system is a compromise compared to a 50-speaker spatial audio array. And so on.
The first Dolby surround was just a simple matrixing system. Maybe they add some other tricks over the years. As far as I know pro logic 2 has its basis in matrixing.

It’s just how you say that treating a stereo room is wrong when every studio treats its room that way.

I recall seeing a picture of your room once on here. You have no space to put up traps and you have glass everywhere. So I feel like you attack my decision to place traps as recommended by an acoustician based on your reading of O’ Toole. Who should I trust?

No doubt stereo is a huge compromise. I understand that. But that was the compromise made almost 70 years ago. Sadly. All that spatial information is gone. Maybe they can use AI to get it back from the original tracking tapes. They did it for the Beatles new new new new remaster. At least they separated the 4 tracks out.

Honestly it doesn’t matter when I sit and listen. I get my spatial information but it does not envelop me. I don’t expect it to. I wish it did but at what cost and can I go back and ask the mixing engineers make for me a custom mix and do they even know how to?

It’s all new right now and maybe Atmos music will catch on with $3T apple pushing it now. Maybe it won’t. Like SACD and DVD-A. Many have tried. Just because it failed doesn’t mean I don’t want it or it is not the wave of the future. But it needs to hit critical mass more for the production of it to get up to a baseline quality. Stereo production quality suffers from nonsense like loudness wars etc. I hope Dolby’s involvement this time pushes some consistency and standards.

I dream of 50 speaker arrays in my sleep. I read some about ambisonics. I wonder what it take to both produce and consume this stuff. Maybe better to just binaural it honestly. Would I build a 50 speaker cage? I might. I’m crazy enough about it that I might. How much material will be out for this? How much value does it add? Will it be like those dumb audiophile demo tapes? Will I want to rip my hair out listening to some contrived crap that is pushed on me for format’s sake? Should I throw away 70 years of music history because it was recording in flawed stereo?

Lastly where’s my invite to hear what you’re talking about?

EDIT: Btw extracting a center is simply sending L+R to the center channel. Maybe they massage that a bit.
 
Last edited:

Puddingbuks

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
357
Likes
527
What are good examples of classical (or jazz/blues/soul/pop) music on atmos or 5.1 / 7.1?
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
1,943
Likes
1,987
On this very forum you have a manufacturer of actives that have been positively reviewed in Audioholics. Sigberg Audio manufactures active monitors and subwoofers that perhaps may be to your liking. The concept is peculiar, as his speakers completely bypass the lowest end frequencies in favor of letting subwoofers do the heavy lifting. Thorbjørn (the designer) can be contacted on this very forum, so if they pick your interest, it is possible to ask him questions.
 

WillBrink

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
70
Likes
41
On this very forum you have a manufacturer of actives that have been positively reviewed in Audioholics. Sigberg Audio manufactures active monitors and subwoofers that perhaps may be to your liking. The concept is peculiar, as his speakers completely bypass the lowest end frequencies in favor of letting subwoofers do the heavy lifting. Thorbjørn (the designer) can be contacted on this very forum, so if they pick your interest, it is possible to ask him questions.

What I referred to as a "smart but dangerous" concept in the interview we just did. It makes perfects sense to me (the smart part) but some will not like the idea a speaker for that $ does even attempt to go below 90HZ. I "get it" as to the why of his approach, but I can understand how some will want a more full range speaker. I plan to review those speakers and sub in the near future. Will be strictly a subjective review vs any measurements.
 
Top Bottom