What Do Listeners Prefer for Small Room Acoustics?

[amirm]

Right, I can can listen to "true MCH" also. Now how does that help you with 99% of recorded music?

My 99% music doesn't need that help to be enjoyable. As I said I have tried simulated surround in the form of Logic 7. I can see why you are attracted to it but I grew out of it. If you have not then fine. Bury yourself in it. Just don't stuff it down my throat or other members.

 

[Thomas savage]

This back and forth has be going on so long, I thought the members would benefit from a visual reference...,

That's amir on the left, I think AJ is refuting amir's ideas with a argument based some how on the humble colander though this assumption may just be further proving my own ignorance.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

That recording did not in any way or shape have sounds coming from the back of your head which you have simulated in that configuration. There were no rear speakers in the recording room. Or ones on the side.

Amir, once again you've backed yourself into a corner and flailing wildly, throwing out red herrings.
How did you contact every artist and confirm what their "intent" was and that you are hearing the same?
Please tell us what artists intended this mono listening?

Why does your score sheet show significant differences between the MLs and Infinity products?
Which did the "artist intend"?? It can't be both. Which is it?
Are you getting their "intent" with your stereo monopolar type Revels, or Fitz's dipolar type MLs, which you scored significantly differently listening to "the artists intent"?

That you added them can be pleasing as I heard with Lexicon Logic 7. It just got tiring for me as good as L7 is. If yours is better, good for you.

You have never heard stereo + L7 side/rears. Period. Ever.
Only full L7 with a surround system. dance and evade all you want, that's the facts. You have zero experience with or basis to judge.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I have heard logic 7. So I absolutely know what it creates for the extra channels. And hearing stuff all of a sudden come out the sides/ back is not for me.

Thanks again for confirming never hearing a stereo +L7 system. Nope, you can't pinpoint a thing coming from the rear/sides. It's only when you turn them off that you are aware, the soundfield collapses to the stereo front stage. You should give it a try sometime, rather than remain willfully ignorant. Probably just scared you'll like it, just like you prefer MCH over plain stereo...per your own words.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

My 99% music doesn't need that help to be enjoyable.

But you strongly prefer MCH over plain old stereo. Okeydokey.

 

[amirm]

But you strongly prefer MCH over plain old stereo. Okeydokey.

I prefer true multi-channel over frankenstein configurations like you are using. You can keep trying but I won't accept fake surround over the real one.

 

[amirm]

Amir, once again you've backed yourself into a corner and flailing wildly, throwing out red herrings.
How did you contact every artist and confirm what their "intent" was and that you are hearing the same?

I didn't need to contact them. I know with 100% certainty when for example they were adding ambiance to the recording, they were not using your frankenstein configuration with stuff coming out the side and backs. They were using two speakers just like I am.

Again, nothing wrong with liking the processed effects you are hearing. That is why every mass market AVR has simulated surround. My cars have also had Logic 7 for as long as I remember. It is a fun thing to try once in a while. That I don't like to keep using them shouldn't cause you so much pain AJ. But the fact that it does, it is a source of joy for me.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I prefer true multi-channel over frankenstein configurations like you are using. You can keep trying but I won't accept fake surround over the real one.

Ah, the old false dichotomy yet again. Like Fitz, blinded by rage, or willfully "misunderstanding", only your strawman is comparing vs "true MCH".
It's Stereo+L7 vs.. Stereo
Something neither of you were remotely aware of prior to halfway through this thread.
Keep flailing though...

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I didn't need to contact them.

Right, because they would likely have called 911, complaining some studiophile lunatic was asking about their "intent".
Well I'll let you listen to your monopolar boxes, in mono mid room if you wish, to imagine/fantasize that was the artists "intent".
Meanwhile, back in Kansas, I won't give a darn what their "intent" was...and enjoy the music I own, any which way I please. Stereo+

 

[amirm]

Ah, the old false dichotomy yet again. Like Fitz, blinded by rage, or willfully "misunderstanding", only your strawman is comparing vs "true MCH".
It's Stereo+L7 vs.. Stereo
Something neither of you were remotely aware of prior to halfway through this thread.
Keep flailing though...

If you mean you plagiarized Linkwitz's work as your own and presented and obtuse version of it, yes you did that. Here is the real article you should have referenced and provided at the start: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/surround_system.htm. Then we could have read a more proper description of what was done and comments like this:

"My interest is in high accuracy sound and music reproduction. I am not using a center channel, because the main Audio Artistry Beethoven-Elite speaker system provides excellent imaging and a center speaker does not fit with the decor."

I earlier asked you about the center channel and you gave me a flippant answer. Now we see him giving the reason. And at the same time, violating Dr. Toole's teachings that such a phantom center cannot live to a real center channel.

He goes on to say:

"The left and right rear speakers are about 23 feet away from the front speaker. All four surround speakers are visually quite unobtrusive. More so than the photos might indicate."

By putting those speakers so far away he is making sure whatever extra pops out of them by mistake, is not as audible.

He continues:

"The surround speakers face upward to generate a diffuse sound field in order to prevent sharp imaging of side and rear sounds. This is not a system for home theater, where sound effects are panned into side and rear channels. You can see from the size of the TV that video plays a minor role in this house."

That is not what you have done, is it? Again, he is doing that to reduce localization of anything coming out of the rear, read: kludge. And he clearly states this configuration is in conflict with use as a proper multi-channel system as I mentioned to you earlier.

He confirms the same again:

"'Music Logic' is my default mode for the Lexicon DC2. It can be enjoyable to listen to DVD-V surround sound on this system, if the sound effects in the side and rear channels are kept to a minimum. "

He then changes speakers and the whole scheme falls apart, showing high dependency in that department:

"After the ORION loudspeakers had replaced the Audio Artistry Beethoven-Elite speakers in the system above I discovered quickly that I preferred the normal 2-channel stereo playback over the ambience recovery surround sound that I had used previously for many recordings. The ORION gives such a natural presentation of the soundstage that the Music Logic mode of the DC-2 actually detracted from the listening experience. It affected imaging, sound color and bass response. Consequently, I did not use the rear speakers for many months."

I will let people read the rest of this old article and what he goes through trying to see if he should or should not use a center speaker.

Ultimately all of this highly hinges on speakers and rooms in use. This was an exploration of different ways of listening to music and we read two different iterations of it. That is all it is. It is not a prescription for what people must do as you advocate. It just isn't AJ.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But you strongly prefer MCH over plain old stereo. Okeydokey.

AJ are you just being argumentative for fun at this point or to you really not understand the difference between preferring a format and being unable to enjoy music on any other format? I can enjoy music through a tabletop mono radio, and if you cannot, you have my sympathy.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

If you mean you plagiarized Linkwitz's work as your own

plagiarized plagiarizing

1. transitive verb
2. : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

That is not what you have done, is it?

You have not a clue what I've done despite all the information provided.

Ultimately all of this highly hinges on speakers and rooms in use. This was an exploration of different ways of listening to music and we read two different iterations of it. That is all it is. It is not a prescription for what people must do as you advocate.

Your rage continues to confuse you about the difference between me and your strawman.
No one is advocating anyone must do anything.
You said you are satisfied with your monopolar plane wave stereo rendition of 99% of available music.
A few may have much higher demands for recreating a semblance of reality, for all the reasons provided in pages of this thread that you pretend to ignore, JJs papers and slides, etc.
That's ok, it's not us who has to suffer through plain old "front stage" stereo monopolar plane waves Revels.
Heck, even Fitz ditched that for dipoles.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ are you just being argumentative for fun at this point or to you really not understand the difference between preferring a format and being unable to enjoy music on any other format? I can enjoy music through a tabletop mono radio, and if you cannot, you have my sympathy.

Tim

What would that have to do with maximizing enjoyment of 99% of recorded media (stereo) as one sees fit? What are you misunderstanding? Who is unable to enjoy other formats or table radios? Quote?

 

[RayDunzl]

To maximize my enjoyment of 99% of recorded media I would pick the ones I like (currently at 0.0416%) and largely ignore and/or avoid (as necessary) the rest..

Basis of Calculation:

"They claim CDDB "contains the largest online database of music information in the world". As of today it has data for 3,598,785 CDs"

 

[AJ Soundfield]

To maximize my enjoyment of 99% of recorded media I would pick the ones I like (currently at 0.0416%) and largely ignore and/or avoid (as necessary) the rest..

Well, of those, 99% probably aren't the acoustic, "in an ambient space place", so perhaps no "enhancement" desirable. But the HK AVRs have this absolutely amazing feature. An ON/OFF button, on the remote to boot!

cheers,

AJ

p.s. strange, someone with 300w studio monitors asking-stating if I can't enjoy a table radio??

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What would that have to do with maximizing enjoyment of 99% of recorded media (stereo) as one sees fit? What are you misunderstanding? Who is unable to enjoy other formats or table radios? Quote?

The question was a response to this:

Amir - "My 99% music doesn't need that help to be enjoyable.

AJ - "But you strongly prefer MCH over plain old stereo. Okeydokey."

So you deflected. OK. You're just being argumentative for entertainment then, to phrase your behavior in polite terms.

Tim

 

[amirm]

So why do you own a pair of 300w studio monitors?

Enough AJ. This is not a place for you to go after everyone's pant legs left and right. What's next? You are going to attack how he dresses?

I will delete your posts from here on that are of this type.

 

[amirm]

It's your little kingdom Amir, that's what this "Science" forum is about.
Grown men posters can't stand up for their own positions themselves? Interesting.

There is nothing "grown" about looking for a fight above everything else. You show this immaturity all the time. Someone needs to whack you on the back of the head and tell you to grow up and learn to be constructive. And that is me .

Our forum is about fun and learning. You seem to not have even heard of the former word. That's not acceptable. Learn to be less obnoxious, more constructive or go find somewhere else where grabbing at people's pant leg is appreciated. It is not here. We don't want to be anti-social in that manner.

 

[Purité Audio]

Are we saying that as most recordings are entirely synthetic constructs and we will never have more than the reproduction of the event we should reproduce that reproduction in the manner that most pleases?

Keith.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Are we saying that as most recordings are entirely synthetic constructs and we will never have more than the reproduction of the event we should reproduce that reproduction in the manner that most pleases?

I'm saying I agree with Toole reflections in living spaces (thread topic) are not to be feared like studiophiles advocate.
Post #122:

by Dr. Floyd Toole — April 04, 2016
Some reflected sound is good. Sometimes a lot of the right kind is even better. Concert halls are deliberately reflective, highly reverberant, spaces. This is my “classical” listening room in our custom-built Canadian home. Conceived as a space for enjoying large, spatially involving, works of music, it was the largest “concert hall” I could afford at the time. The very neutral, essentially omnidirectional, Mirage M1s “became” the orchestra and the room became a seamless extension of the recorded space. It provided a very satisfying, involving, experience. Because of the designed-in irregular scattering surfaces, the heavy carpet and thick felt underlay brought the reverberation time down to under 0.5s so the room sounded much less “live” than one would think. It was a nice-sounding space, pleasant to be in. Late at night I have been known to sit in the dark with a glass of good Scotch and listen to non-classical involving pieces of music like Dire Straits “Brothers in Arms” played at high level. I miss this room.

I also think it's incredibly foolish to dismiss 99% of music, which are stereo recordings, yes, many are simply "constructs". Even if not, still only 2 channels. This is a problem:

Post #124:

JJ
In the usual stereo audio presentation, a partial sound stage consisting primarily of the front elements of the sound stage is created by two channels, either sampled from several microphones set in the original sound field or more often by a mixdown of many microphones placed both in proximity to the performers and out in the hall to capture the ambience. The information presented by the two channels, in either case, is a small fraction of the information in the original sound field. Additionally, this fraction is presented to the front of the listener. The presentation does not create an envelopment experience, where one is immersed in the original sound field, as the information is not present.

Ideally, MCH recording techniques, like PSR, would be used. 99% of recorded music is stereo, there is no "true/proper" MCH "option".
But one does have the option to add some envelopment, imperfect, yes, but still more enveloping that "frontal stereo".
So after all the ridiculous red herrings, strawmen, etc. par for the course audio forum nonsense, an option is put forth, that no one is forced to do.
Add envelopment if/when one wishes, scientifically, not lifting cables and rolling tubes and that sort of abject idiocy, but by...added channels. Real, tangible...and purely optional.

cheers,

AJ