The master plan for my system calls for at least six channels of ambience. When I found this place I hoped to get some tips on this but searching for "ambience" did not produce anything related to synthetic ambience systems--reverb units, additional channel of amplification etc. Is this just toooo adolescent for the people in these forums or is our sort here but hiding under rocks 🙂
I have already built the speakers for the front ambience channels and when I remodeled the living room into a media room I built in outcroppings...um shelves for them. They are in the front upper corners. I will put two in the upper rear corners and I just ordered some Def.Tec. BP2Xs for that (need to get this done) and plan to build a small two channel speaker to be placed on a pole that will position the speakers above and between the two sweet-spot chairs. These will fire forward and aft.
At present I am evaluating the Beringer DSP 2024P--the cheapest candidate that seems like it might be appropriate. Remember I will need three of them so cost is a serious factor.
Any comments on this would be appreciated. Hearing from others so inclined would also be appreciated.
BTW I was directed to this forum by roddyama. If I should have been told to go "Off Topic" instead it's all his fault 🙂
eStatic
I have already built the speakers for the front ambience channels and when I remodeled the living room into a media room I built in outcroppings...um shelves for them. They are in the front upper corners. I will put two in the upper rear corners and I just ordered some Def.Tec. BP2Xs for that (need to get this done) and plan to build a small two channel speaker to be placed on a pole that will position the speakers above and between the two sweet-spot chairs. These will fire forward and aft.
At present I am evaluating the Beringer DSP 2024P--the cheapest candidate that seems like it might be appropriate. Remember I will need three of them so cost is a serious factor.
Any comments on this would be appreciated. Hearing from others so inclined would also be appreciated.
BTW I was directed to this forum by roddyama. If I should have been told to go "Off Topic" instead it's all his fault 🙂
eStatic
JMO but accurate reproduction of the ambient information that
is already in each channels signal will be far more effective than
adding artificial ambiance.
Artificial ambiance will likely only improve very poorly recorded and
mixed material.
You can make all your music sound like its 'live' in a hall with very
poor acoustics, but I presume this isn't the point. Theoretically
you can make your listening space acoustically bigger with some
ambiance processing but you have to start off with a highly damped,
low Rt environment.
The Cowboy Junkies first album was recorded in a church with a
stereo microphone and is awash with the real ambiance of the
church acoustics.
Many less subtle film soundtracks contain too much ambient
information / effects if anything, and there's nothing you can
do about this.
I'm not suggesting its "adolescent", but you may be mis-guided
as to the consequences of adding such processing.
(I'm not really familiar with the processing in some A/V equipment
that strives to emulate additional 'phantom' speakers in-room.)
🙂 sreten.
is already in each channels signal will be far more effective than
adding artificial ambiance.
Artificial ambiance will likely only improve very poorly recorded and
mixed material.
You can make all your music sound like its 'live' in a hall with very
poor acoustics, but I presume this isn't the point. Theoretically
you can make your listening space acoustically bigger with some
ambiance processing but you have to start off with a highly damped,
low Rt environment.
The Cowboy Junkies first album was recorded in a church with a
stereo microphone and is awash with the real ambiance of the
church acoustics.
Many less subtle film soundtracks contain too much ambient
information / effects if anything, and there's nothing you can
do about this.
I'm not suggesting its "adolescent", but you may be mis-guided
as to the consequences of adding such processing.
(I'm not really familiar with the processing in some A/V equipment
that strives to emulate additional 'phantom' speakers in-room.)
🙂 sreten.
Back in the 80s when digital reverbs first became affordable I built an 11-channel ambience system. All speakers hung from the ceiling and fired upward. The reverbs were noisy and distorted, but when kept at a sufficiently low level the effect was to create a better illusion of being in the room with the performance rather than the performance being in the room you were in. Their greatest problem was that they had no presets, so adjusting them to fit a recording was about a 10 minute process as each parameter had to be adjusted on each of the 11 reverbs. I had settings written down for various basic environments but still...
For this new system I have carpeted all the walls in the media room to subdue its own acoustics as far as was practical.
In any case I thank you for your input, but I don't think this is misguided--though I'll grant it may reflect bad taste or some anomalous condition.
eStatic
For this new system I have carpeted all the walls in the media room to subdue its own acoustics as far as was practical.
In any case I thank you for your input, but I don't think this is misguided--though I'll grant it may reflect bad taste or some anomalous condition.
eStatic
I've done alot of research on "ampbisonics" and "quad sound" and other types of "ambient" sytems. I also have an interest in adding natual ambience to all recordings, but right now I'm using a circle surround processor (cs3xjr.) and 4 channels, sounds great to me. I would strongly advise you to avoid either a system that incorporates tons of speakers or artificial delays, either just arent necessary and will degrade the overall sound. My system uses no delays and it produces a very natural ambience which is already present in the recordings. If I wanted to I could easily add more speakers, but anything more than 6 or 7 is in my mind too many. Good stereo equipment will produce a wide and deep soundstage, and even 4 speakers can completely envelope you in sound. If you are looking for a more diffuse sound, I would suggest you look into bipolar or omnipolar speakers, there are many good examples of these.
Kevyjo wrote:
"I would strongly advise you to avoid either a system that incorporates tons of speakers or artificial delays, either just arent necessary and will degrade the overall sound." ...
I have heard that from more than a few audiophile types. But, that has not been my experience. What can I say, perhaps my taste in audio is analogous to Elvis on black velvet--or just ate too many grits while growing-up. Being an empiricist however, I would like to ask those who think this is a really bad idea if they have spent any significant time listening to such systems. BTW if you can hear the effects channels as such I think they are too loud.
Kevyjo wrote also :
"I would suggest you look into bipolar or omnipolar speakers, there are many good examples of these."
I have on order 4 Def Tec BP30s (bipolars) to use for the surround and rear channels and am looking forward to hearing what my Rotel rsp 1066 does with those in its ambience mode. My six ambience channels will be in addition to those four.
My mains are Martin Logan Prodigies and I ain't about to change them 🙂 And who knows, in this setup even I may ultimately decide synthetic ambience does more harm than good. I'm not grinding axes here only indulging enthusiasms.
In any case much thanks for the input.
eStatic
"I would strongly advise you to avoid either a system that incorporates tons of speakers or artificial delays, either just arent necessary and will degrade the overall sound." ...
I have heard that from more than a few audiophile types. But, that has not been my experience. What can I say, perhaps my taste in audio is analogous to Elvis on black velvet--or just ate too many grits while growing-up. Being an empiricist however, I would like to ask those who think this is a really bad idea if they have spent any significant time listening to such systems. BTW if you can hear the effects channels as such I think they are too loud.
Kevyjo wrote also :
"I would suggest you look into bipolar or omnipolar speakers, there are many good examples of these."
I have on order 4 Def Tec BP30s (bipolars) to use for the surround and rear channels and am looking forward to hearing what my Rotel rsp 1066 does with those in its ambience mode. My six ambience channels will be in addition to those four.
My mains are Martin Logan Prodigies and I ain't about to change them 🙂 And who knows, in this setup even I may ultimately decide synthetic ambience does more harm than good. I'm not grinding axes here only indulging enthusiasms.
In any case much thanks for the input.
eStatic
you might investigate http://www.ambiophonics.org/
i attended a demo at a BAS meeting last week that showed that they do have something, but at < 5 min in the sweet spot I can't say a lot about about the desirability of the effect
they do seem to be hacker freindly with a "open system" approach to processing algorythms and code
i attended a demo at a BAS meeting last week that showed that they do have something, but at < 5 min in the sweet spot I can't say a lot about about the desirability of the effect
they do seem to be hacker freindly with a "open system" approach to processing algorythms and code
Youre taste might just be very different, that is true. I personally can't stand an excessively reverberant system, which is why I prefer just 4 speakers to the 7 channel systems I've heard. Unlike many audiophiles, I believe "surround sound" is perfectly valid. I think in the ideal system, which, at least as far as my surround setup, gets pretty close, a single singer and a guitar sounds like a single singer and a guitar in a small venue, and a chorus in a cathedral sounds like that also. I don't want tori amos to sound like she was recorded in a cathedral with the mic at the opposite end, which is what you get when you have a zillion speakers and time delays, ect. Recordings that I have that are naturally very reverberant have lots of ambience, and I feel are in no need for artifically exaggerating the generous amounts of ambience that are already there.
eStatic, it's all an illusion anyway; why the spaciousness of a pair of dipoles (popular with the purist crowd) is somehow "purer" than a good ambience synthesis system is beyond me. Other than the fact that the latter is controlled and the former isn't.
jcx wrote:
"you might investigate http://www.ambiophonics.org/"
Thanks for the URL, so far have only skimmed it. It looks interesting and on the surface seems to have some relation to Carver's Sonic Holography device. I've had a C-9 ever since they were released. After all these years I'm still not sure if the effect is musical or just interesting. But I don't use it a lot.
kevyjo wrote:
"I personally can't stand an excessively reverberant system,"
Me neither, I hope. 🙂 More channels and more speakers does not mean more ambience signal to me--just more diffuse, more complex, spatially more like a real environment.
BTW the system I had previous to the old one described above was "quadraphonic" with the rear channels powered by the old A-B trick. I still liked the 9 channel (see correction under loud speakers) system better.
and SY wrote:
"...it's all an illusion anyway;"
Ah Yes, and what a glorious illusion it can be.
Not to hijack my own thread but I like your skeptical attitude toward dipoles. I'm about to decide I want to build a pair of dipole subs but have never heard any. I'd be very glad to hear your view on those.
Very interesting place this.
eStatic
"you might investigate http://www.ambiophonics.org/"
Thanks for the URL, so far have only skimmed it. It looks interesting and on the surface seems to have some relation to Carver's Sonic Holography device. I've had a C-9 ever since they were released. After all these years I'm still not sure if the effect is musical or just interesting. But I don't use it a lot.
kevyjo wrote:
"I personally can't stand an excessively reverberant system,"
Me neither, I hope. 🙂 More channels and more speakers does not mean more ambience signal to me--just more diffuse, more complex, spatially more like a real environment.
BTW the system I had previous to the old one described above was "quadraphonic" with the rear channels powered by the old A-B trick. I still liked the 9 channel (see correction under loud speakers) system better.
and SY wrote:
"...it's all an illusion anyway;"
Ah Yes, and what a glorious illusion it can be.
Not to hijack my own thread but I like your skeptical attitude toward dipoles. I'm about to decide I want to build a pair of dipole subs but have never heard any. I'd be very glad to hear your view on those.
Very interesting place this.
eStatic
I don't think he is sceptical about dipoles, I think he is saying that other ways of acheiving a similar effect aren't necessarily tools of the devil.
Skepticism
Well, I own dipoles, but I have no illusion, so to speak, that the increased spaciousness compared to my last set of speakers (point source) is anything but an artifact. It happens to be an artifact I like.
I've heard some really excellent dipole subs, but they all had certain things in common- HUGE drivers, or lots of them, HUGE panels, and relatively limited dynamic range.
Well, I own dipoles, but I have no illusion, so to speak, that the increased spaciousness compared to my last set of speakers (point source) is anything but an artifact. It happens to be an artifact I like.
I've heard some really excellent dipole subs, but they all had certain things in common- HUGE drivers, or lots of them, HUGE panels, and relatively limited dynamic range.
Well, I personally don't care for dipoles, but I realize that is just a personal preference. The BIG difference between quad sound, circle surround, dipole ambience ect, and SYNTHETIC surround to me is a huge one. Surround systems based on ambience already in the recording is going to get close to representing the venue it was recorded in, or at least recorded to emulate. Synthetic ambience is going to add artificial ambience to everything, whether its supposed to have ambience or not, so that you end up with a system that will only play back music as if it was recorded in a cathedral, which in my mind is a country mile from your goal of having a sound system that "puts" you in a similar environment of the one that the music was in (which is my goal also).
SY:
Obviously I _like_ electrostatics, but having never heard a cone dipole I have no idea if their being dipole is part or all of the reason for my love of ESs. Hopefully one day I will find out.
kevyjo wrote:
" Synthetic ambience is going to add artificial ambience to everything, whether its supposed to have ambience or not, so that you end up with a system that will only play back music as if it was recorded in a cathedral"
I believe that is a misconception regarding what I mean by synthetic ambience. There is no need at all for the synthetic ambience to sound like a cathedral. The delay/reverb units I am trying out have many "program memory locations" each one can specify a number of parameters thus allowing one to define a wide pallet of virtual venues to select from. Reverb need not even be used. Simply applying different delays to the ambience inherent in the recording, and playing those delays from speakers in locations appropriate to their delay (with the total level of ambience signal kept at the level you would get from the two standard channels surround ) should be an improvement. Or at least thats' one the hypotheses that my new system will "test," if such a subjective bunch of claptrap can be tested.
thanks for y'all's thoughts as always,
eStatic
Obviously I _like_ electrostatics, but having never heard a cone dipole I have no idea if their being dipole is part or all of the reason for my love of ESs. Hopefully one day I will find out.
kevyjo wrote:
" Synthetic ambience is going to add artificial ambience to everything, whether its supposed to have ambience or not, so that you end up with a system that will only play back music as if it was recorded in a cathedral"
I believe that is a misconception regarding what I mean by synthetic ambience. There is no need at all for the synthetic ambience to sound like a cathedral. The delay/reverb units I am trying out have many "program memory locations" each one can specify a number of parameters thus allowing one to define a wide pallet of virtual venues to select from. Reverb need not even be used. Simply applying different delays to the ambience inherent in the recording, and playing those delays from speakers in locations appropriate to their delay (with the total level of ambience signal kept at the level you would get from the two standard channels surround ) should be an improvement. Or at least thats' one the hypotheses that my new system will "test," if such a subjective bunch of claptrap can be tested.
thanks for y'all's thoughts as always,
eStatic
When I made the above statement regarding "everything sounding like it was recorded in a cathedral", I was not taking youre tweaking into account. The very fact that you have to adjust youre system to every recording I think speaks to the very shortcomming that I mentioned above. I think you might not get much help here (in this forum). This forum is populated by all types, but by and large they are interested in "hifi". The very concept of high fidelity means that you try to get a system that reproduces a recording as true to the original as possible, hence a general distaste audiophiles have to artificial effects.
But as soon as you put in place the paradigm of reducing a sound field to two channels, then reproducing it from two spots in a small room, you're already doing something highly artificial.
I distinguish all these from true multichannel sound, which indeed can be better and less artificial. Yes, I'd much rather listen to my music with a properly set up system like Ambisonics, but the reality is that my music wasn't recorded in Ambisonics. It's the system of the future and always will be 😉 So I suffer with my dipoles and their artificial spaciousness, and the day I can afford a proper ambience synthesis system, I'll pop for one.
It's all an illusion.
I distinguish all these from true multichannel sound, which indeed can be better and less artificial. Yes, I'd much rather listen to my music with a properly set up system like Ambisonics, but the reality is that my music wasn't recorded in Ambisonics. It's the system of the future and always will be 😉 So I suffer with my dipoles and their artificial spaciousness, and the day I can afford a proper ambience synthesis system, I'll pop for one.
It's all an illusion.
By the way, you asked above I'f those of us who were apposed to synthetic ambience have really listened to such systems. I have listened to many, some really high end. What I would ask, have you listened to a really high end system that incorportates surround without synthetic delays.
durived surround, be it abisonics, quad sound, or circle surround signals are in all two channel recorded music. Really, all stereo music is "surround sound"
kevyjo wrote :
'This forum is populated by all types, but by and large they are interested in "hifi".'
Well, I have to confess up front that I have no interest in that conception of hifi. I am only interested in using technology to maximize my pleasure/immersion in the experience of music. I am blissfully unconcerned with being true to the original. I grant that may be necessary for others, perhaps they only think it's necessary, I cannot say.
But you do say "by and large" so perhaps there are some not yet safely ensconced within the sanctuary of pure hifi that I might persuade to join the "Dark Side" of pure musical pleasure seeking! Buwahahahahaha!
Best wishes to all, however you get it on with music!
eStatic
'This forum is populated by all types, but by and large they are interested in "hifi".'
Well, I have to confess up front that I have no interest in that conception of hifi. I am only interested in using technology to maximize my pleasure/immersion in the experience of music. I am blissfully unconcerned with being true to the original. I grant that may be necessary for others, perhaps they only think it's necessary, I cannot say.
But you do say "by and large" so perhaps there are some not yet safely ensconced within the sanctuary of pure hifi that I might persuade to join the "Dark Side" of pure musical pleasure seeking! Buwahahahahaha!
Best wishes to all, however you get it on with music!
eStatic
You know, you really really should try out the CS3xjr. It is a rediculous deal at $130, and you can use it as a platform on which to add channels. NO is doesnt have artificial time delays, but it WILL recreate the natual ambience of a venue.
www.smartdev.com
www.smartdev.com