PDA

View Full Version : False surround?



Reid Malenfant
24-04-2012, 22:30
A post by Mike just piqued my interest & got me wondering about surround sound :)

The question is quite simple, do you only listen to surround sound when the disc that you're spinning is surround encoded, or do you use some kind of processing of a two channel disc/source & listen to an illusion that the stereo track wasn't ever supposed to be?

Ok, so stereo is an illusion but a stereo CD or record is designed to be listened to the way most of use here arrange our systems. But processing a two channel CD or whatever into some kind of surround is something I have never done, I have heard it & I didn't like it :rolleyes:

On the other hand, if I have an original surround encoded disc I'll listen in multichannel every time rather than selecting a stereo track if it's also available :)


What do you do? :eyebrows:

chris@panteg
25-04-2012, 07:56
Pretty much the same , Mark , my Yammy has loads of surround settings and I've had some fun playing around with the pre set settings with sometimes interesting results but mostly its hideous , the church surround is really funny .

I always prefer to listen to whatever its been encoded in , DD or DTS or just plain stereo , and of course the HD formats .

Macca
25-04-2012, 12:50
I always use 2 channel if I'm playing music, although that is pretty rare as I have 2 dedicated set ups. Surround sound music I just find irritating even if it has been specially mixed for surrround.

morris_minor
25-04-2012, 14:41
I must have about 20 SACD/DVD-A discs. It's very rare I play them at all. The SACDs have their CD layer ripped to the server, and the DVD-As have had the PCM stereo tracks ripped.

However, since the living room system is now really an AV/game type setup, playing FLACs on the Transporter is often via 4-channel stereo. Any serious listening is done on the pukka stereo in my study or on headphones.

I too played with the surround modes for stereo music, but really these don't do anything at all "attractive" to the sound that I can see, and never get used now.

Jac Hawk
25-04-2012, 15:10
You were talking about the thing I wrote about SRS Circle surround then Mark.
All I can really say about it is that it's not as heavy handed with music as the other systems, it cleverly opens up the sound stage, giving a better feel for where each instrument is coming from, it doesn't make the sound any more detailed, but it does make the music sound more real, as if the band is in front of you, now it may not be to everyone's taste, but I like it

The Vinyl Adventure
25-04-2012, 17:57
I used to have a nad amp with a pseudo surround mode called "ears" (I think)
I used to really like it for some music ... It wasn't proper hifi, but it was quite impressive the way the sound filled the room ...
Of course a proper stereo has a similar effect but better ... But at the time I couldn't afford what I have now!

Reid Malenfant
25-04-2012, 18:12
You were talking about the thing I wrote about SRS Circle surround then Mark.
Yes, that was what you mentioned on someones introductory thread :)

I just thought I'd bring it up as it's an interesting topic & could provoke some debate.

I must admit that ages ago I used to have a Realistic (Tandy) graphic equaliser that had some odd kind of "expander" on board. This made a hell of a difference to the soundstage & imaging, depending on how much the control was advanced. Shows how long ago it was as I simply can't for the life of me remember what became of it? :scratch:

Anyway, back to it... Like I say, if there is a surround mix such as on DTS encoded CDs from the likes of Pete Namlook (Fax records), a DVD-A surround or SACD surround track I'll pick those before the stereo version. These are pretty much done to a set standard so once you have all the surround channels balanced at the same volume levels & all time aligned in phase you'll get to hear what was intended.

Well, assuming you have a half decent system at any rate :D

morris_minor
25-04-2012, 19:27
Is the SRS thing the system that some TVs have to make the sound "larger" than the set? I keep it switched on on our Philips set because without it the sound is really crap, as opposed to slightly crap. :lol:

Jac Hawk
25-04-2012, 20:32
Yes SRS do a thing for TV's to improve the sound, so the same company

MartinT
25-04-2012, 21:10
I don't have that problem - I listen to everything in stereo :)

Beobloke
26-04-2012, 13:25
my Yammy has loads of surround settings and I've had some fun playing around with the pre set settings with sometimes interesting results but mostly its hideous , the church surround is really funny .

Gentlemen-oriented DVDs of an adult nature are hilarious when watched in 'Church' mode.

Or so I'm told....:o

chris@panteg
26-04-2012, 14:16
Gentlemen-oriented DVDs of an adult nature are hilarious when watched in 'Church' mode.

Or so I'm told....:o

Never thought of that , I do err have a couple of movies in my collection that I think may fit that discription :whistle: must try them sometime :eyebrows:

jon1
30-05-2012, 15:24
I have a choice of using hafler matrix from two channel and getting surround sound;)



jon

Reid Malenfant
30-05-2012, 15:56
I have a choice of using hafler matrix from two channel and getting surround sound;)



jon
I have heard of this but haven't looked into it, isn't it synthesising a third channel from the left & right?

Fill us in John :)

The Grand Wazoo
30-05-2012, 21:56
Basically, take the difference between left & right & feed it into the rear speakers:

http://sound.westhost.com/p18_fig1.gif

Some folks liked to put a little delay into the rear channels - easily bodged by feeding it through a tape loop!

Mr Kipling
30-05-2012, 22:43
You can add a fifth speaker to the Hafler set-up. It goes from the junction of the two rears to earth and giver the sum signal. When I tried the Hafler set-up it could sound a bit gimmicky depending on the recording. I found best results with adding a bit of sum signal to the rears with a pot to earth. In the end gave up when I discovered a slightly unusual speaker placement that freaked me out with a rock-solid 3-D central image from normal 2 speakers.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Beechwoods
30-05-2012, 23:22
Basically, take the difference between left & right & feed it into the rear speakers:

http://sound.westhost.com/p18_fig1.gif

Some folks liked to put a little delay into the rear channels - easily bodged by feeding it through a tape loop!

Didn't Eno release an album that relied upon this '3rd Speaker' as a rear channel.

I remember rigging up something like this way back to see what it sounded like!

The Grand Wazoo
30-05-2012, 23:30
'Ambient 4: On Land'

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61DLu8MzL5L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Description here (http://www.thewhippinpost.co.uk/audio/ambient-sound-stereo.htm), though I don't think he mentions the above album.

Mr Kipling
30-05-2012, 23:35
Looking again the fifth speaker went from the junction of the fronts to earth. When there was no rear speakers used this was the three channel set-up.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

eds
31-05-2012, 08:08
Hi I'm fairly new at this but here are my few cents worth.
Some DVD's have fantastic sound in stereo and avarege in DD or DTS as some where never intended to be 5.1 etc. Also some of the BluRay discs have very high quality 2 channel tracks that sound fantastic. But if you have a great HT setup and are able to set it up properly most modern ones for HT sound awesome and some old ones not so good. BluRay is so far the best I've heard or seen. So I'm slowly building up the collection.
In the Dolby prologic day's some concerts sounded fantastic and now on newer gear with bass management etc they sound flat. Which is then all part of the fun to make it sound good again.
In the end surround or not surround all comes down to personal taste.
I think my humble system sounds great yet others may disagree :)

electric beach
31-05-2012, 08:50
I used to have a 3 channel amp that was a patented Finnish product similar to the Hafler principle. The guy installed movie systems for a living. It had 80% coming from one main central speaker (a large Tannoy) as mono, two small bookshelf speakers with conventional stereo just to increase the soundstage and 2,4, or 6 surround speakers at the side or rear (placement was irrelevent) only for ambient acoustic detail. It was designed exclusively for live classical music and did it like nothing you've ever heard, the faithful reproduction of the venue was silly good.
I gave up because it did weird things with studio recordings. When Jools Holland's piano was located on the ceiling it freaked me out!

C'mon Mr Kipling, what's your speaker placement secret then?