DIYer Straits Posted November 16, 2002 Posted November 16, 2002 Or as long as you can hear dialogue, all surround spiks are working and the sub rattles the neighbours' windows, boleh jalan already. How about pace, rhythm and timing? Does it play a part or totally irrelevant? 3-D-ism? Or does 2-ch still rule the soundstage waves? Just curious guys. ??? ???
Jag Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 Yes imaging is very important. The average Joe will be quite content with booms and bangs as you described. They are the most likely to turn the contrast and sharpness way up on the TV too! Surround connoisseurs understands the importance of imaging. Good imaging in 5.1/6.1 would give the HTS less of that jumpy feel for pans between speakers, eg half-way point btw Ctr and FL. These are the ones that set their Pjs close to ISF standards or via Avia. Rhythm and pace is less important for a system dedicated to HT, but music lovers would want to have their HT perform as close to audiophile as possible. Transparency, mid-range purity, detail..... the whole works.
TOOL1624705741 Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 I think comparatively it is less important as we have visuals to 'compensate' for the lack of 'solidity' of the images. In fact, the 'imaging' in audio was derived the other way around - it was 'created' by the mastering engineer to 'compensate' the listener from the lack of visual cues as it is present in a live performance. As for all those pace, rhythm (rolling eyeballs), timing stuff.. smoothen the bass response first. Just my opinions
DIYer Straits Posted November 17, 2002 Author Posted November 17, 2002 So what you guys are saying that 2-ch will never be excelled by multi-ch? Since you need visual cues to "image" a sound source for HT as compared to 2-ch which is only limited to your imagination. If the interaction between 2 speakers is very important to get a good presentation, as well as a black art, then how would multi-ch be? Easier?
Jag Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 I like your questions. :) Multi-ch is not a replacement for 2-ch stereo. Rather, multi-ch will complement 2-stereo. With the introduction of SACD/DVD-A, the more adventurous will venture onto multi-channel audio. M-ch and 2-ch are IMHO not competing against each other. A good understanding of M-ch audio and its actual implementation would be required, rather than the no-brainer 2-stereo systems.
TOOL1624705741 Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 I like your questions. :) Multi-ch is not a replacement for 2-ch stereo. Rather, multi-ch will complement 2-stereo. With the introduction of SACD/DVD-A, the more adventurous will venture onto multi-channel audio. M-ch and 2-ch are IMHO not competing against each other. A good understanding of M-ch audio and its actual implementation would be required, rather than the no-brainer 2-stereo systems. Well, I disagree that 2-channel systems are no-brainers cus till now not many people in the world have ever heard what stereo's supposed to sound like - really! (no room problems, perfect spkr placement, standardisation in recording/mastering techniques and conditions etc. etc). I haven't. My feeling is that if you have visuals it is important that the multi-channel sound 'tally' with the visuals. If that minimum could be attained, it is already a very good start. Muti-channel has its own host of problems as well, and one of them that i've experienced is the matter of listener/viewer perspective - this could get pretty subjective at times. Also, for example in music DVDs, lots of pressure on the sound guys because with visuals you can start to 'catch' recording/balance 'mistakes' and the whole experience is spoiled. Just my opinions.
DIYer Straits Posted November 17, 2002 Author Posted November 17, 2002 So how should the approach to multi-ch (audio and video) be? That it is an effort by the industry to bolster flagging eqmt sales and to brace against the onslaught of MP3? As long as we don't get 3-D holographic imaging movies, multi-ch is a no brainer.
Jag Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 Actually, I mean 2-stereo speaker positioning is no brainer in contrast to the exponential complexity of multi-channel audio. Imaging is just as important to 2-stereo or M-CH audio. I don't see how MP3 can compete with SACD or DVD-A since MP3 is horridly lossly and is 2-stereo. MP3 can't compete with DTS or DD for its current lack of M-ch support. M-ch does not appeal as much as 2-stereo to mass consumer due to the extra hardware which is unsightly and tedious to integrate into a beautifully renovated room.
DIYer Straits Posted November 17, 2002 Author Posted November 17, 2002 MP3 is a threat to the industry because users don't need quality audio components. Thus no sales. Any PC and PC speakers will do. So they had to reinvigorate the market by getting AV to the masses cheaply. An entire DTS capable 5.1 HT mini-compo system for $1399. All you need is a TV. The sudden acceptance of HT is phenomenal especially with DVD. But the sonic aspects has yet to be fully investigated. It's all a rush job.
Jag Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 I'll agree that MP3 is the industry's biggest thing since M-ch audio. HT is getting mass acceptance due to DVD, but still very much in its infancy. In the long run, I still see MP3 cater to the budget end/low expectation users (students, mid-fi, background music) Audiophiles may tend towards 2-stereo(PCM/LPs) and SACD/DVD-A, accordingly to different species of audiophiles. HT will still use DD/DTS for a long time more. Different technology at different price point. Rush job yes, chaos yes..... :D The future trend will be digital convergence. The computer will be the most flexible AV equipment, although not the most friendly.
DIYer Straits Posted November 17, 2002 Author Posted November 17, 2002 Ahhhh.....wih all this technological innovation, surprising isn't that sound quality now takes a back seat? I'll agree that MP3 is the industry's biggest thing since M-ch audio. HT is getting mass acceptance due to DVD, but still very much in its infancy. In the long run, I still see MP3 cater to the budget end/low expectation users (students, mid-fi, background music) Audiophiles may tend towards 2-stereo(PCM/LPs) and SACD/DVD-A, accordingly to different species of audiophiles. HT will still use DD/DTS for a long time more. Different technology at different price point. Rush job yes, chaos yes..... :D The future trend will be digital convergence. The computer will be the most flexible AV equipment, although not the most friendly.
Jag Posted November 17, 2002 Posted November 17, 2002 Well, only time will tell. ;) Who knows, 50 yrs from now, audiophiles will be more comfortable with PCM CDs just as they are with LPs today.
Recommended Posts