Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

Expand Messages
  • Hiroyuki Hamada
    REG, My music system only have two speakers for now but I m interested in the surround quality in certain music. I have multiple speakers for my TV/movie
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      REG,

      My music system only have two speakers for now but I'm interested in the surround quality in certain music.  I have multiple speakers for my TV/movie setup (just a midfi system), and sometimes I enjoy the effect of having speakers behind me for music.  I think there is definitely positive about it that's not in the regular 2 channel mode...  So thank you and please keep up your effort!

      I just got the Water Lily Mahler 5th but it wasn't the SACD version.  Too bad!  I might exchange it for the SACD version.  Did it just come out?

      Best regards,

      Hiroyuki
      On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:20 AM, regtas43 wrote:

      Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
      recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
      really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

      Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
      average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
      is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
      movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
      perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
      technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
      have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

      REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
      wrote:
      > That's exactly how I feel.  I have no interest in surround sound -
      if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: regtas43
      >   To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      >   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:50 PM
      >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank you
      >   <snip>
      >
      >
      >   One thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
      >   distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
      seems
      >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently the
      big
      >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel sound rather than
      the
      >   surround at least as far as you all are concerned?
      >
      >   <snip>




      SPONSORED LINKS
      Electronics Hobby and craft supply Craft hobby
      Hobbies and crafts Electronics hobby Audio electronics


      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





    • Tom Mallin
      I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound. I m just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound.  I'm just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial reproduction really seem most important to me. 
         
        I will certainly concede that, at least as compared with my present surround theater system, the two-channel Harbeth system images more precisely in space.  Images are more clearly localized and sized just exactly "there."
         
        But in real life images aren't so precisely "there."  My theater's surround sound imaging isn't all that vague, and comes closer to real live imaging in its lack of precision.  It also does a much better job of enveloping me to the sides and rear in an effect which does a creditable job at mimicking hall ambiance.  And it seems to be that hall ambiance which signals "real" space to me.


        >>> regonaudio@...
        09/01/05 01:20AM >>>
        Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
        recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
        really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

        Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
        average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
        is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
        movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
        perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
        technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
        have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

        REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
        wrote:
        > That's exactly how I feel.  I have
        no interest in surround sound -
        if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----
        Original Message -----
        >   From: regtas43
        >  
        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        >   Sent: Tuesday, August
        30, 2005 7:50 PM
        >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank
        you
        >   <snip>
        >
        >
        >   One
        thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
        >  
        distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
        seems
        >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently
        the
        big
        >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel
        sound rather than
        the
        >   surround at least as far as you
        all are concerned?
        >
        >   <snip>


      • tonycdk
        When I have an option, I invariably listen in surround. Even the worst surround recording that I have can be made to sound better (to me) than the two
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          When I have an option, I invariably listen in surround. Even the
          worst surround recording that I have can be made to sound
          better (to me) than the two channel.

          The only problem is that I generally listen to the music, the
          recording quality is secondary, and there are not a lot of really
          first rate performances available in surround.


          Tony
        • Richard Tuck
          Hi Tom Interesting observations that are somewhat at variance with what I get. Remember, in my system, the LH and RH power amp and speakers are the same as for
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Tom
             
            Interesting observations that are somewhat at variance with what I get.
             
            Remember, in my system, the LH and RH power amp and speakers are the same as for stereo.  However, in AV mode they are driven by the line outputs of my Yamaha AV amp, the centre, LS and RS use the power amps in the Yamaha.  The sub gets fed from the 0.1 output from the AV amp.
             
            In stereo, imaging is good with lots of depth but the images are wispy transparent things, set in space but not possessing convincing 3D qualities.   A exception to this are the Blumlein recordings from Opus 3 which give images with much more form - this may be significant and say a lot about multi-microphone techniques.
             
            In surround with film tracks, especially in dts, background music, especially choirs, take on a really solid 3D form - because it's the music there are no visual cues to help out.
             
            Richard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
            Sent: 01 September 2005 14:27
            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

            I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound.  I'm just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial reproduction really seem most important to me. 
             
            I will certainly concede that, at least as compared with my present surround theater system, the two-channel Harbeth system images more precisely in space.  Images are more clearly localized and sized just exactly "there."
             
            But in real life images aren't so precisely "there."  My theater's surround sound imaging isn't all that vague, and comes closer to real live imaging in its lack of precision.  It also does a much better job of enveloping me to the sides and rear in an effect which does a creditable job at mimicking hall ambiance.  And it seems to be that hall ambiance which signals "real" space to me.


            >>> regonaudio@... 09/01/05 01:20AM >>>
            Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
            recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
            really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

            Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
            average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
            is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
            movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
            perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
            technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
            have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

            REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
            wrote:
            > That's exactly how I feel.  I have no interest in surround sound -
            if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            >   From: regtas43
            >   To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            >   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:50 PM
            >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank you
            >   <snip>
            >
            >
            >   One thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
            >   distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
            seems
            >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently the
            big
            >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel sound rather than
            the
            >   surround at least as far as you all are concerned?
            >
            >   <snip>


          • Tom Mallin
            What you say is encouraging to me, really, because it may suggest that with better surround equipment, or just maybe better set up of the surround speakers, I
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              What you say is encouraging to me, really, because it may suggest that with better surround equipment, or just maybe better set up of the surround speakers, I could have both more specific imaging (if I wanted it) and greater spaciousness/ambiance.  My theater system is primarily aimed at just that, video and movies. With those, envelopment is much more important than imaging because the video often tends to fills in the gaps for the ear/brain as to exactly where in space things should be. 
               
              My surround speakers are up high and aimed toward the listening position at a point a couple of feet above my sitting head.  Also, since it's a two-seater, neither seat is really in the sweet spot.  Even when I move my chair to the center sweetest spot, however, I still don't get the imaging precision or solidity I get in the Harbeth system.
               
              You have to remember that my M40 system, while also reasonably flat due to the Rives PARC, is really tricked out for two-channel imaging and soundstaging.  Individual and group images are quite 3-D solid and substantial, not at all wispy or ethereal.  "Reach out and touch it" describes imaging in my M40 system.  This may not be possible with two channel without various steps I've taken in my dedicated room that are most likely incompatible with a multi-purpose living room.


              >>> rtuck@... 09/01/05 10:57AM >>>
              Hi Tom
               
              Interesting observations that are somewhat at variance with what I get.
               
              Remember, in my system, the LH and RH power amp and speakers are the same as for stereo.  However, in AV mode they are driven by the line outputs of my Yamaha AV amp, the centre, LS and RS use the power amps in the Yamaha.  The sub gets fed from the 0.1 output from the AV amp.
               
              In stereo, imaging is good with lots of depth but the images are wispy transparent things, set in space but not possessing convincing 3D qualities.   A exception to this are the Blumlein recordings from Opus 3 which give images with much more form - this may be significant and say a lot about multi-microphone techniques.
               
              In surround with film tracks, especially in dts, background music, especially choirs, take on a really solid 3D form - because it's the music there are no visual cues to help out.
               
              Richard

              -----Original Message-----
              From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
              Sent: 01 September 2005 14:27
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

              I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound.  I'm just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial reproduction really seem most important to me. 
               
              I will certainly concede that, at least as compared with my present surround theater system, the two-channel Harbeth system images more precisely in space.  Images are more clearly localized and sized just exactly "there."
               
              But in real life images aren't so precisely "there."  My theater's surround sound imaging isn't all that vague, and comes closer to real live imaging in its lack of precision.  It also does a much better job of enveloping me to the sides and rear in an effect which does a creditable job at mimicking hall ambiance.  And it seems to be that hall ambiance which signals "real" space to me.


              >>> regonaudio@... 09/01/05 01:20AM >>>
              Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
              recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
              really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

              Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
              average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
              is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
              movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
              perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
              technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
              have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

              REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
              wrote:
              > That's exactly how I feel.  I have no interest in surround sound -
              if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              >   From: regtas43
              >   To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              >   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:50 PM
              >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank you
              >   <snip>
              >
              >
              >   One thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
              >   distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
              seems
              >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently the
              big
              >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel sound rather than
              the
              >   surround at least as far as you all are concerned?
              >
              >   <snip>


            • Richard Tuck
              Tom My surrounds are 63 inches off the deck and wall mounted either side of a bay window just to the rear of the chair backs. Like the rest of my speakers they
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Tom
                 
                My surrounds are 63 inches off the deck and wall mounted either side of a bay window just to the rear of the chair backs. Like the rest of my speakers they are where they have to be to fit into the room.  They are made by Mirage and have a central mid-bass unit and two tweeters set on the sidewalls of the cabinet which are sloped at 45 degrees.  A strange design but it seems to work well.  Voices walking around the room are pretty seamless but the whole plane is tilted up towards the rear.
                 
                Richard
                 
                PS  Raised surround speakers make for great helicopter fly overs etc. in movies.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                Sent: 01 September 2005 16:39
                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

                What you say is encouraging to me, really, because it may suggest that with better surround equipment, or just maybe better set up of the surround speakers, I could have both more specific imaging (if I wanted it) and greater spaciousness/ambiance.  My theater system is primarily aimed at just that, video and movies. With those, envelopment is much more important than imaging because the video often tends to fills in the gaps for the ear/brain as to exactly where in space things should be. 
                 
                My surround speakers are up high and aimed toward the listening position at a point a couple of feet above my sitting head.  Also, since it's a two-seater, neither seat is really in the sweet spot.  Even when I move my chair to the center sweetest spot, however, I still don't get the imaging precision or solidity I get in the Harbeth system.
                 
                You have to remember that my M40 system, while also reasonably flat due to the Rives PARC, is really tricked out for two-channel imaging and soundstaging.  Individual and group images are quite 3-D solid and substantial, not at all wispy or ethereal.  "Reach out and touch it" describes imaging in my M40 system.  This may not be possible with two channel without various steps I've taken in my dedicated room that are most likely incompatible with a multi-purpose living room.


                >>> rtuck@... 09/01/05 10:57AM >>>
                Hi Tom
                 
                Interesting observations that are somewhat at variance with what I get.
                 
                Remember, in my system, the LH and RH power amp and speakers are the same as for stereo.  However, in AV mode they are driven by the line outputs of my Yamaha AV amp, the centre, LS and RS use the power amps in the Yamaha.  The sub gets fed from the 0.1 output from the AV amp.
                 
                In stereo, imaging is good with lots of depth but the images are wispy transparent things, set in space but not possessing convincing 3D qualities.   A exception to this are the Blumlein recordings from Opus 3 which give images with much more form - this may be significant and say a lot about multi-microphone techniques.
                 
                In surround with film tracks, especially in dts, background music, especially choirs, take on a really solid 3D form - because it's the music there are no visual cues to help out.
                 
                Richard

                -----Original Message-----
                From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                Sent: 01 September 2005 14:27
                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

                I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound.  I'm just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial reproduction really seem most important to me. 
                 
                I will certainly concede that, at least as compared with my present surround theater system, the two-channel Harbeth system images more precisely in space.  Images are more clearly localized and sized just exactly "there."
                 
                But in real life images aren't so precisely "there."  My theater's surround sound imaging isn't all that vague, and comes closer to real live imaging in its lack of precision.  It also does a much better job of enveloping me to the sides and rear in an effect which does a creditable job at mimicking hall ambiance.  And it seems to be that hall ambiance which signals "real" space to me.


                >>> regonaudio@... 09/01/05 01:20AM >>>
                Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
                recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
                really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

                Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
                average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
                is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
                movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
                perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
                technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
                have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

                REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
                wrote:
                > That's exactly how I feel.  I have no interest in surround sound -
                if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                >   From: regtas43
                >   To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                >   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:50 PM
                >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank you
                >   <snip>
                >
                >
                >   One thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
                >   distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
                seems
                >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently the
                big
                >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel sound rather than
                the
                >   surround at least as far as you all are concerned?
                >
                >   <snip>


              • Tom Mallin
                As to your P.S., yes, I ve discovered that as well. ... Tom My surrounds are 63 inches off the deck and wall mounted either side of a bay window just to the
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  As to your P.S., yes, I've discovered that as well.

                  >>> rtuck@... 09/01/05 11:48AM >>>
                  Tom
                   
                  My surrounds are 63 inches off the deck and wall mounted either side of a bay window just to the rear of the chair backs. Like the rest of my speakers they are where they have to be to fit into the room.  They are made by Mirage and have a central mid-bass unit and two tweeters set on the sidewalls of the cabinet which are sloped at 45 degrees.  A strange design but it seems to work well.  Voices walking around the room are pretty seamless but the whole plane is tilted up towards the rear.
                   
                  Richard
                   
                  PS  Raised surround speakers make for great helicopter fly overs etc. in movies.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                  Sent: 01 September 2005 16:39
                  To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

                  What you say is encouraging to me, really, because it may suggest that with better surround equipment, or just maybe better set up of the surround speakers, I could have both more specific imaging (if I wanted it) and greater spaciousness/ambiance.  My theater system is primarily aimed at just that, video and movies. With those, envelopment is much more important than imaging because the video often tends to fills in the gaps for the ear/brain as to exactly where in space things should be. 
                   
                  My surround speakers are up high and aimed toward the listening position at a point a couple of feet above my sitting head.  Also, since it's a two-seater, neither seat is really in the sweet spot.  Even when I move my chair to the center sweetest spot, however, I still don't get the imaging precision or solidity I get in the Harbeth system.
                   
                  You have to remember that my M40 system, while also reasonably flat due to the Rives PARC, is really tricked out for two-channel imaging and soundstaging.  Individual and group images are quite 3-D solid and substantial, not at all wispy or ethereal.  "Reach out and touch it" describes imaging in my M40 system.  This may not be possible with two channel without various steps I've taken in my dedicated room that are most likely incompatible with a multi-purpose living room.


                  >>> rtuck@... 09/01/05 10:57AM >>>
                  Hi Tom
                   
                  Interesting observations that are somewhat at variance with what I get.
                   
                  Remember, in my system, the LH and RH power amp and speakers are the same as for stereo.  However, in AV mode they are driven by the line outputs of my Yamaha AV amp, the centre, LS and RS use the power amps in the Yamaha.  The sub gets fed from the 0.1 output from the AV amp.
                   
                  In stereo, imaging is good with lots of depth but the images are wispy transparent things, set in space but not possessing convincing 3D qualities.   A exception to this are the Blumlein recordings from Opus 3 which give images with much more form - this may be significant and say a lot about multi-microphone techniques.
                   
                  In surround with film tracks, especially in dts, background music, especially choirs, take on a really solid 3D form - because it's the music there are no visual cues to help out.
                   
                  Richard

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Mallin
                  Sent: 01 September 2005 14:27
                  To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Thank you

                  I freely admit to being overly fascinated by the spatial aspects of reproduced sound.  I'm just now discovering what particular aspects of that spatial reproduction really seem most important to me. 
                   
                  I will certainly concede that, at least as compared with my present surround theater system, the two-channel Harbeth system images more precisely in space.  Images are more clearly localized and sized just exactly "there."
                   
                  But in real life images aren't so precisely "there."  My theater's surround sound imaging isn't all that vague, and comes closer to real live imaging in its lack of precision.  It also does a much better job of enveloping me to the sides and rear in an effect which does a creditable job at mimicking hall ambiance.  And it seems to be that hall ambiance which signals "real" space to me.


                  >>> regonaudio@... 09/01/05 01:20AM >>>
                  Fair enough, It is also(the Mahler 5 on Waterlily) the best stereo
                  recording of an orchestra ever in my view. But on the other hand I
                  really do believe it sounds even better in "my" surround sound.

                  Life is strange. You have to decide if you are going for a good
                  average or for an all time high. To my all time high orientation, it
                  is really worth it to set up a surround system to hear the Adagietto
                  movement of the Mahler 5. It is only ten minutes. but it is ten
                  perfect minutes.(I say this without immodesty--I am just a
                  technician here. Without the wonderful stereo, my surround would not
                  have turned into this. But I promise you it is magic.)

                  REG(his real unvarnished and slightly sloshed opinion)

                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will Hum" <will_hum@s...>
                  wrote:
                  > That's exactly how I feel.  I have no interest in surround sound -
                  if I ever set one up in the future, it will be for movies, not music.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  >   From: regtas43
                  >   To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  >   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:50 PM
                  >   Subject: [regsaudioforum] Thank you
                  >   <snip>
                  >
                  >
                  >   One thing that surprises me a bit is that ,while the audiophils
                  >   distributing houses primarily wanted and still want the SACDs it
                  seems
                  >   that most of you are listening to the 2 channel.Apparently the
                  big
                  >   attraction of SACD is the better two channel sound rather than
                  the
                  >   surround at least as far as you all are concerned?
                  >
                  >   <snip>


                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.