Guest niterida Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) Stereo is an ancient greek word meaning "solid, 3 dimensional" so surely my 7.x.4 Atmos 3D surround sound configuration is the only true stereo ?? Edited February 12, 2021 by niterida
:) Go Away (: Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 No, it depends. If you are after, an artist singing with some instruments in the background than 7.x.4 Atmos 3D makes it sound fake. Because that is not how they are on the stage. They are in front of you with singer possibly being in front and in middle and drummer bit in background in one side and guy with piano on the other side, and backup singer even further to sides, sure some of their sound does reflect from walls and ceiling and bounce it around behind you. If you are after, our hero doing a fast car chase with chopper chasing him hovering over and some people shooting from back with shopping trolly crashing into shop in side, then stereo setup makes it sound fake. No way stereo can reproduce that multi-direction soundstage, same way 7.x.4 Atmos 3D cannot reproduce the same soundstage as two channel music, it just does not sound real. Surely, you can use the same setup to listen to two channel music and surround sound feature film by turning off and on surrounds speakers. I don't think technology in audio processor has progressed enough to emulate the said two channel music reproduction from extra speakers (Surrounds and overhead) real enough. You are better off having that done naturally for you by the way of diffuser panels and sound absorbing panels.
Satanica Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) The problem is putting all of your resources into 11 speakers and x number of sub-woofers rather than 2 speakers and perhaps x number of sub-woofers means there is likely to be a quality drop per speaker and sub-woofers. The more speakers the better but they have to be setup correctly so with an unlimited budget then sure a surround system is the best at playing surround sound content rather than them being down-mixed to stereo. Edited February 12, 2021 by Satanica
Guest niterida Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 You have both missed the point of my post - the definition of stereo is solid,3 dimensional. Therefore traditional stereo with just 2 speakers is not real stereo when compared to a system with surrounds and heights giving a real solid, 3 dimensional sound. Nothing to do with which sounds the best - just simply by definition.
Satanica Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 1 hour ago, niterida said: You have both missed the point of my post - the definition of stereo is solid,3 dimensional. Therefore traditional stereo with just 2 speakers is not real stereo when compared to a system with surrounds and heights giving a real solid, 3 dimensional sound. Nothing to do with which sounds the best - just simply by definition. No, I think you're wrong. Traditional 2 speakers is real stereo and can produce 3 dimensional sound.
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted February 12, 2021 Volunteer Posted February 12, 2021 1 hour ago, niterida said: the definition of stereo is solid If you insist on pedantically defining the word by its ancient Greek root, then it should not be applied to audio at all. Audio consists of sound waves which are not solid 1 1
Guest DrSK Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, niterida said: You have both missed the point of my post - the definition of stereo is solid,3 dimensional. Therefore traditional stereo with just 2 speakers is not real stereo when compared to a system with surrounds and heights giving a real solid, 3 dimensional sound. Nothing to do with which sounds the best - just simply by definition. We can hear in 3-D with: -Two ears. -Headphones feeding those ears with two speakers. -Two stereo speakers. The latter is affected most by system quality and also room effects. But is certainly achievable. I certainly get 3-d with my stereo. As others have pointed out another way is with multispeaker systems to achieve 3-d sound instead of just using two speakers. Multi speaker systems are just a more reliable way of achieving this at low cost and for larger audience sizes. This is why they are used in both home and commercial theatres. There are certainly some well appointed home theatres running stereo with budgets vastly bigger than mine. In terms of 3-D, sound coming from behind you is one of the hardest to achieve with two speakers, in fact this also causes regular confusion with real sources. Direct in front and behind differentiation often uses visual cues. Personally I find the best 3-D sound in my real room from movies comes from 4.0 downmixed with an Oppo 205 sending analogue to the two surrounds and digital to the two fronts. Each pair is driven by stereo equipment of far superior spec to general AV equipment. And I haven't spent a cent more than I needed to as there is no HT/Stereo compromise or single purpose use. I even change the surround speaker orientation sometimes and use them for 2.0 music and flip the seating, their reduced base suits some blown pop a bit better and tames it. Edit: Also noting that movie audio is usually compressed which limits sound stage or simulation of. Multi speakers, particularly surrounds it seems helps address this. A simple way to compare losses vs not on stereo sound stage is A/B tests of lossless and high quality Spotify and marking the source locations/directions on the floor. I've struggled to get Spotify sources anywhere close to 180 degrees with stereo. Edited February 12, 2021 by DrSK
Steffen Posted February 12, 2021 Posted February 12, 2021 I think this is a point of etymology. The meaning of a word is hardly ever identical to its earliest known use. Words travel a lot through the ages. When words are loaned or imported from one language to another, or from one jargon to another, the meaning in the new language or jargon can only be traced back to the point in time when the word was imported. In the case of stereo, I believe (not 100% sure though), that the field of sound engineering imported the word from the field of optics. In optics, even though its meaning there goes directly back to seeing three-dimensionally, it referred to binocular vision (two cameras, or two projection lenses) at the time when sound engineering decided to borrow it. Hence, in sound reproduction it means the use of two sound sources to form a single sound experience.
davewantsmoore Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 On 12/02/2021 at 12:02 PM, :) Go Away (: said: I don't think technology in audio processor has progressed enough to emulate the said two channel music reproduction from extra speakers (Surrounds and overhead) real enough. You hav tried it? I think on a well configured surround setup ... that dolby (atmos) surround processing of stereo sources does a very good job. It must be a well stetup system .... otherwise misplaced speakrs draw attention to thmslvs
Guest Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 Go and listen to a good 2 channel system, let your ears explain your question better.
Guest Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 Why are we debating this? Some people prefer 2 channel while others prefer multi channel. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant. As long as people enjoy their music, their way, that is all that matters...
Guest Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 Just now, Snoopy8 said: Why are we debating this? Some people prefer 2 channel while others prefer multi channel. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant. As long as people enjoy their music, their way, that is all that matters... why do we debate anything?
:) Go Away (: Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, Sime said: why do we debate anything? Because, I am stuck at home and just want to get away from wife and kids for a bit. 1 2
Guest Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 44 minutes ago, :) Go Away (: said: Because, I am stuck at home and just want to get away from wife and kids for a bit. You quoted me out of context.
Guest Posted February 14, 2021 Posted February 14, 2021 I have to do another post as I can’t edit the one above, for some reason. My comment was directed at Snoopy’s comment, not the thread topic.
Satanica Posted February 15, 2021 Posted February 15, 2021 3 hours ago, Snoopy8 said: Why are we debating this? Some people prefer 2 channel while others prefer multi channel. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant. As long as people enjoy their music, their way, that is all that matters... In an attempt to get to the truth and whether someone prefers 2 channel or more channels is actually the irrelevant part (to this thread). Go back and read the question posted by the OP; there was no question about preference.
davewantsmoore Posted February 15, 2021 Posted February 15, 2021 23 hours ago, Snoopy8 said: Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant. Is it? ... or is a fun topic to discuss about yes/no/why? 20 hours ago, Satanica said: In an attempt to get to the truth and whether someone prefers 2 channel or more channels is actually the irrelevant part (to this thread). Go back and read the question posted by the OP; there was no question about preference. Which one is "the most solid and 3d" has a lot to do with preference...... but also a lot to do with how well the system is configured (most surround setups are setup like garbage) 1
emesbee Posted February 15, 2021 Posted February 15, 2021 12 hours ago, Mickstuh said: did the ancient greeks have stereos? They had two ears.
Steffen Posted February 15, 2021 Posted February 15, 2021 12 hours ago, Mickstuh said: did the ancient greeks have stereos? Diogenes was known to be wearing nothing but a pair of earphones
allthumbs Posted February 28, 2021 Posted February 28, 2021 (edited) Fundamentally Stereo imaging is a brain perception talent. "You must have (and will always have) the memory of such spaciousness, and the power to evoke it in imagination - and 'imagination's imagery is neurologically almost equivalent to perception. " https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/feb/19/healthandwellbeing.classicalmusicandopera Edited February 28, 2021 by allthumbs additional info.
MattyW Posted October 20, 2021 Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) Not that long ago I preferred my 5.1 channel system for TV and movies.... On the other hand my main music system has advanced so far that it now sounds significantly better and often more 3 dimensional than my 5.1 system even for consumption of TV and movies. To be fair though if I went to the same lengths with 5.1 that I have with my 2.0 channel then it would probably be mind blowing..... As to people "getting" your initial post, certainly get it however I'd argue that no reproduced sound is truly 3D. Both approaches can do a great job tricking us that it's 3D however nothing beats real, unamplified sound in this respect. Pinpoint imaging, does not exist in real life. Real sound is a bit more diffuse. Edited October 20, 2021 by MattyW 1
Recommended Posts