Dolby surround and Atmos?

[Brian Gaff]

There does seem to be a sudden increase in older recordings in the purely
audio catalogue, like Genesis, Beatles, and many more now being put out in
such formats on blue ray, that I did wonder if it really is worth the money
for a surround system, even if you are blind.
The big disadvantage with today's gear is the lack of accessible front
panel controls, ie they tend to have touch screens, so that would mean
relying on a remote. Also do they even have analogue inputs any more?
Brian

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
There does seem to be a sudden increase in older recordings in the purely
audio catalogue, like Genesis, Beatles, and many more now being put out in
such formats on blue ray, that I did wonder if it really is worth the money
for a surround system, even if you are blind.
The big disadvantage with today's gear is the lack of accessible front
panel controls, ie they tend to have touch screens, so that would mean
relying on a remote. Also do they even have analogue inputs any more?
Brian
--
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

From around the time of Sergeant Pepper's in 1967, better music was recorded onto 8 track or more channels which allows a surround field to be created. Realistically of course any live performance would normally be from a stage and regular stereo will reproduce this very well. Nevertheless I normally play music in multi-stereo which replicates the fronts on the rear and gives a more immersive sound.

For film the effect is more noticeable [if done right]. I first encountered 31/2 channel Dolby Pro Logic in ~1997 - Three Musketeers or similar - the dialog [in a carriage] on centre, the main sound track in front stereo and horsemen galloping up behind (from the rears] were all quite distinct. Recent AV Amps are a full 5.1.

Most AV Amps still have some knobs, and comprehensive remotes (on my Sony the only thing the remote can't do is switch the A/B speakers), however once set up there is rarely need to change much apart from the volume or inputs. Many AV Amps still have line in, often on the front. https://www.richersounds.com/onkyo-txsr393-black.html would probably fit the bill at £299, you might need some extra speakers too.

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, well, I use vinyl cd, inputs from other legacy, as they are called now
it seems line in formats. Obviously people like Apple Music stream the multi
channel sound or as I say you can go optical with Blue Ray which one
supposes can do DVD and audio CDs as well asgetting analogue out of the
alexa and mobile phone.
I bet somebody is making some very expensive add on boxes for this. I also
not that TVs have optical only outputs like Samsung, but we don't all want
the amp within a few inches of a tv, indeed one does not need a tv at all if
one gets the right usb stick on the computer it seems.
I feel the biggest issue would be new matching speakers and where to put
them in today's small living rooms. I have a friend who even has some
devices called butt kickers under his seats for really low frequencies, but
to me they are not very realistic, and need to have a huge power amp
connected to them!
I rather fancy Atmos though, as some years ago I went to an early demo,
which had speakers on the ceiling and the extra ambiance was certainly
realistic on recordings made to exploit it but of course its like the case
with any new system often the demos were recorded expressly to make it sound
good.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Brian Gaff
There does seem to be a sudden increase in older recordings in the purely
audio catalogue, like Genesis, Beatles, and many more now being put out in
such formats on blue ray, that I did wonder if it really is worth the money
for a surround system, even if you are blind.
The big disadvantage with today's gear is the lack of accessible front
panel controls, ie they tend to have touch screens, so that would mean
relying on a remote. Also do they even have analogue inputs any more?
Brian
--
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

From around the time of Sergeant Pepper's in 1967, better music was recorded
onto 8 track or more channels which allows a surround field to be created.
Realistically of course any live performance would normally be from a stage
and regular stereo will reproduce this very well. Nevertheless I normally
play music in multi-stereo which replicates the fronts on the rear and gives
a more immersive sound.

For film the effect is more noticeable [if done right]. I first encountered
31/2 channel Dolby Pro Logic in ~1997 - Three Musketeers or similar - the
dialog [in a carriage] on centre, the main sound track in front stereo and
horsemen galloping up behind (from the rears] were all quite distinct.
Recent AV Amps are a full 5.1.

Most AV Amps still have some knobs, and comprehensive remotes (on my Sony
the only thing the remote can't do is switch the A/B speakers), however once
set up there is rarely need to change much apart from the volume or inputs.
Many AV Amps still have line in, often on the front.
https://www.richersounds.com/onkyo-txsr393-black.html would probably fit the
bill at £299, you might need some extra speakers too.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes, well, I use vinyl cd, inputs from other legacy, as they are called now
it seems line in formats. Obviously people like Apple Music stream the multi
channel sound or as I say you can go optical with Blue Ray which one
supposes can do DVD and audio CDs as well asgetting analogue out of the
alexa and mobile phone.
I bet somebody is making some very expensive add on boxes for this. I also
not that TVs have optical only outputs like Samsung, but we don't all want
the amp within a few inches of a tv, indeed one does not need a tv at all if
one gets the right usb stick on the computer it seems.
I feel the biggest issue would be new matching speakers and where to put
them in today's small living rooms. I have a friend who even has some
devices called butt kickers under his seats for really low frequencies, but
to me they are not very realistic, and need to have a huge power amp
connected to them!
I rather fancy Atmos though, as some years ago I went to an early demo,
which had speakers on the ceiling and the extra ambiance was certainly
realistic on recordings made to exploit it but of course its like the case
with any new system often the demos were recorded expressly to make it sound
good.
Brian
--

Apart from a handful of quadriphonic vinyl LPs decades ago you only get stereo from vinyl and most CD's.

My Blu-Ray player (2009) plays DVD's, CD's and USB drives.

Many TV's have optical out. As does my PC. I have a 10m fibre optic "cable" from it to my AV Amp in the lounge.
In extremis TV's usually have a headphone jack for analog output. Many AV Amps have Bluetooth input.

Many modern speakers are quite small, but give impressive results.

Post by Brian Gaff
SNIP

[Brian Gaff]

Well, according to the blurb on the Blue Rays the Beatles put out they are
in atmoss, but then they also include a lot of video and all sorts of tat to
justify their costs. Its really clever marketing of course. We all got the
vinyl, then a cassette for portable, then a remastered cd, now remixes with
surround and atmos. Basically selling the same product tweaked. Now I do
have to say that the new mixes of the Stereo beatles stuff ids in the
majority of cases better and clearer, but I'm not so sure about the ones
made from the 2 and four track albums like Rubber Soul and previous ones
except for Help.

The use of AI to try to unmix stuff to make more channels is nearly always
sounding like it might have been created by a robot, since its only able to
remove bleed over to some extent, making a smearing effect on the mixes.
Silk purses from sows ears etc.
We have Sir Peter Jacksone and Giles Martin to thank for this new
innovation.

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes, well, I use vinyl cd, inputs from other legacy, as they are called now
it seems line in formats. Obviously people like Apple Music stream the multi
channel sound or as I say you can go optical with Blue Ray which one
supposes can do DVD and audio CDs as well asgetting analogue out of the
alexa and mobile phone.
I bet somebody is making some very expensive add on boxes for this. I also
not that TVs have optical only outputs like Samsung, but we don't all want
the amp within a few inches of a tv, indeed one does not need a tv at all if
one gets the right usb stick on the computer it seems.
I feel the biggest issue would be new matching speakers and where to put
them in today's small living rooms. I have a friend who even has some
devices called butt kickers under his seats for really low frequencies, but
to me they are not very realistic, and need to have a huge power amp
connected to them!
I rather fancy Atmos though, as some years ago I went to an early demo,
which had speakers on the ceiling and the extra ambiance was certainly
realistic on recordings made to exploit it but of course its like the case
with any new system often the demos were recorded expressly to make it sound
good.
Brian
--

Apart from a handful of quadriphonic vinyl LPs decades ago you only get
stereo from vinyl and most CD's.
My Blu-Ray player (2009) plays DVD's, CD's and USB drives.
Many TV's have optical out. As does my PC. I have a 10m fibre optic
"cable" from it to my AV Amp in the lounge.
In extremis TV's usually have a headphone jack for analog output. Many AV
Amps have Bluetooth input.
Many modern speakers are quite small, but give impressive results.

Post by Brian Gaff
SNIP

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
Well, according to the blurb on the Blue Rays the Beatles put out they are
in atmoss, but then they also include a lot of video and all sorts of tat to
justify their costs. Its really clever marketing of course. We all got the
vinyl, then a cassette for portable, then a remastered cd, now remixes with
surround and atmos. Basically selling the same product tweaked. Now I do
have to say that the new mixes of the Stereo beatles stuff ids in the
majority of cases better and clearer, but I'm not so sure about the ones
made from the 2 and four track albums like Rubber Soul and previous ones
except for Help.

Vinyl afficionados will swear that a vinyl record listened to on a valve amp will give better quality.
This is tosh. Vinyl signal to noise is poor plus wow flutter and scratches. Valve amps add pink noise and "soft" clipping.

Cassette was noticeably worse, but CD was a major improvement.

As previously stated around the time of Sergeant Pepper's major artists were record onto 8 track or better masters at very high quality and creating a sound field worthy of some sort of surround is probably worthwhile.

Post by Brian Gaff
The use of AI to try to unmix stuff to make more channels is nearly always
sounding like it might have been created by a robot, since its only able to
remove bleed over to some extent, making a smearing effect on the mixes.
Silk purses from sows ears etc.

If you sit in a real concert hall, let alone average rock venues you get plenty of this, they are called echoes...

Post by Brian Gaff
We have Sir Peter Jacksone and Giles Martin to thank for this new
innovation.
Brian
--
SNIP

[Bob Latham]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Vinyl afficionados will swear that a vinyl record listened to on a
valve amp will give better quality.

Back on the hobby horse, having a vent at vinyl.

Better than what? CD?

Some people prefer the sound of vinyl for all sorts of reasons. Some
also prefer valves even for CD playback. It may be argued by some
they they suit each other. I can't think why this cause you a problem.

I've not purchased a vinyl recording since the 80s and have largely
left it behind because it is much less practical than digital.

Most vinyl enthusiasts do not claim it sounds better than CD they
have more sense. They stopped saying that when it was no longer true
as CD had become enjoyable in the late 80s and early 90s provided you
could afford a Meridian or something equally good.

They do say "they *PREFER* the sound of vinyl" sometimes adding "when
done properly". Which is NOT at all the same thing and fair enough, I
understand why.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
This is tosh. Vinyl signal to
noise is poor plus wow flutter and scratches.

Yes, we've got the message, you have a warped and out of all
proportion hatred of vinyl.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Valve amps add pink noise and "soft" clipping.

They do indeed, it can be quite appealing in a nostalgic sort of way.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Cassette was noticeably worse,

A Nakamichi deck my friend owned gave fabulous recording results and
as I recall, the dolby on it wasn't the consumer grade version. I
would have loved one, didn't have the money at the time.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but CD was a major improvement.

Eventually yes. But initially early players were a bit grim IMHO and
you coudn't record on it in those days either.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
As previously stated around the time of Sergeant Pepper's major
artists were record onto 8 track or better masters at very high
quality and creating a sound field worthy of some sort of surround
is probably worthwhile.

And yet many of the finest recordings I have in my collection are
crossed pair recording, just two channels, no mixer.

Try listening to this fabulous recording..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/CANTATE-DOMINO-Various/dp/B0000E64YT

Recorded on an analogue stereo Revox recorder in 1976.
Most of the reviews are spot on. A stunning recording. If you're
interested in sound recording and reproduction this should be in your
collection.

The track "Julsang" was chosen by KEF to demonstrate their R105
speakers imaging ability. Spine tingling and awesome. I was so
impressed I bought a pair.


Bob.

[tony sayer]

In article <***@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <***@sick-
of-spam.invalid> scribeth thus

Post by Bob Latham

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Vinyl afficionados will swear that a vinyl record listened to on a
valve amp will give better quality.

Back on the hobby horse, having a vent at vinyl.
Better than what? CD?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl for all sorts of reasons. Some
also prefer valves even for CD playback. It may be argued by some
they they suit each other. I can't think why this cause you a problem.
I've not purchased a vinyl recording since the 80s and have largely
left it behind because it is much less practical than digital.
Most vinyl enthusiasts do not claim it sounds better than CD they
have more sense. They stopped saying that when it was no longer true
as CD had become enjoyable in the late 80s and early 90s provided you
could afford a Meridian or something equally good.
They do say "they *PREFER* the sound of vinyl" sometimes adding "when
done properly". Which is NOT at all the same thing and fair enough, I
understand why.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
This is tosh. Vinyl signal to
noise is poor plus wow flutter and scratches.

Yes, we've got the message, you have a warped and out of all
proportion hatred of vinyl.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Valve amps add pink noise and "soft" clipping.

They do indeed, it can be quite appealing in a nostalgic sort of way.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Cassette was noticeably worse,

A Nakamichi deck my friend owned gave fabulous recording results and
as I recall, the dolby on it wasn't the consumer grade version. I
would have loved one, didn't have the money at the time.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but CD was a major improvement.

Eventually yes. But initially early players were a bit grim IMHO and
you coudn't record on it in those days either.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
As previously stated around the time of Sergeant Pepper's major
artists were record onto 8 track or better masters at very high
quality and creating a sound field worthy of some sort of surround
is probably worthwhile.

And yet many of the finest recordings I have in my collection are
crossed pair recording, just two channels, no mixer.
Try listening to this fabulous recording..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/CANTATE-DOMINO-Various/dp/B0000E64YT
Recorded on an analogue stereo Revox recorder in 1976.
Most of the reviews are spot on. A stunning recording. If you're
interested in sound recording and reproduction this should be in your
collection.
The track "Julsang" was chosen by KEF to demonstrate their R105
speakers imaging ability. Spine tingling and awesome. I was so
impressed I bought a pair.
Bob.

Still got a load of tapes recorded on very simple mic set-ups and even
done many year's ago still have that "being there" effect to them!

Not that you might what to a lot where of a local choral society usually
it was Pub -> practice with not the best results;!...

Usually AKG 451 capacitors and a small NEVE desk!

And a STUDER B62 at 15 IPS..

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tony sayer
of-spam.invalid> scribeth thus

Post by Bob Latham

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Vinyl afficionados will swear that a vinyl record listened to on a
valve amp will give better quality.

Back on the hobby horse, having a vent at vinyl.

See below.

Post by tony sayer

Post by Bob Latham
Better than what? CD?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl for all sorts of reasons. Some
also prefer valves even for CD playback. It may be argued by some
they they suit each other. I can't think why this cause you a problem.
I've not purchased a vinyl recording since the 80s and have largely
left it behind because it is much less practical than digital.
Most vinyl enthusiasts do not claim it sounds better than CD they
have more sense. They stopped saying that when it was no longer true
as CD had become enjoyable in the late 80s and early 90s provided you
could afford a Meridian or something equally good.
They do say "they *PREFER* the sound of vinyl" sometimes adding "when
done properly". Which is NOT at all the same thing and fair enough, I
understand why.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
This is tosh. Vinyl signal to
noise is poor plus wow flutter and scratches.

Yes, we've got the message, you have a warped and out of all
proportion hatred of vinyl.

No I don't have a "hatred of vinyl", most of my music is on vinyl. What I do have is contempt for people who say vinyl [on valve amps] is objectively better than CD. There seem to be two groups, the self-deluded and those seeking to profit from selling vastly over-priced products. E.g. https://www.vickershifi.com/products/urab845/unison-research-absolute-845-reference-dual-mono-integrated-valve-amplifier

There are those who swear that early British sports cars are superior to modern cars - you know under-powered, under-geared, too few bearings on the crank shaft [which breaks], rod / cable operated drum brakes, cart springs etc.

Post by tony sayer

Post by Bob Latham

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Valve amps add pink noise and "soft" clipping.

They do indeed, it can be quite appealing in a nostalgic sort of way.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Cassette was noticeably worse,

A Nakamichi deck my friend owned gave fabulous recording results and
as I recall, the dolby on it wasn't the consumer grade version. I
would have loved one, didn't have the money at the time.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but CD was a major improvement.

Eventually yes. But initially early players were a bit grim IMHO and
you coudn't record on it in those days either.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
As previously stated around the time of Sergeant Pepper's major
artists were record onto 8 track or better masters at very high
quality and creating a sound field worthy of some sort of surround
is probably worthwhile.

And yet many of the finest recordings I have in my collection are
crossed pair recording, just two channels, no mixer.
Try listening to this fabulous recording..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/CANTATE-DOMINO-Various/dp/B0000E64YT
Recorded on an analogue stereo Revox recorder in 1976.
Most of the reviews are spot on. A stunning recording. If you're
interested in sound recording and reproduction this should be in your
collection.
The track "Julsang" was chosen by KEF to demonstrate their R105
speakers imaging ability. Spine tingling and awesome. I was so
impressed I bought a pair.
Bob.

Still got a load of tapes recorded on very simple mic set-ups and even
done many year's ago still have that "being there" effect to them!
Not that you might what to a lot where of a local choral society usually
it was Pub -> practice with not the best results;!...
Usually AKG 451 capacitors and a small NEVE desk!
And a STUDER B62 at 15 IPS..
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[jon]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
There does seem to be a sudden increase in older recordings in the
purely audio catalogue, like Genesis, Beatles, and many more now being
put out in such formats on blue ray, that I did wonder if it really is
worth the money for a surround system, even if you are blind.
The big disadvantage with today's gear is the lack of accessible front
panel controls, ie they tend to have touch screens, so that would mean
relying on a remote. Also do they even have analogue inputs any more?
Brian
--
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

From around the time of Sergeant Pepper's in 1967, better music was
recorded onto 8 track or more channels which allows a surround field to
be created. Realistically of course any live performance would normally
be from a stage and regular stereo will reproduce this very well.
Nevertheless I normally play music in multi-stereo which replicates the
fronts on the rear and gives a more immersive sound.
For film the effect is more noticeable [if done right]. I first
encountered 31/2 channel Dolby Pro Logic in ~1997 - Three Musketeers or
similar - the dialog [in a carriage] on centre, the main sound track in
front stereo and horsemen galloping up behind (from the rears] were all
quite distinct. Recent AV Amps are a full 5.1.
Most AV Amps still have some knobs, and comprehensive remotes (on my
Sony the only thing the remote can't do is switch the A/B speakers),
however once set up there is rarely need to change much apart from the
volume or inputs. Many AV Amps still have line in, often on the front.
https://www.richersounds.com/onkyo-txsr393-black.html would probably fit
the bill at £299, you might need some extra speakers too.

I can't find any reference to this, but Quo Vardis had surround sound at
the Granada cinema in Hounslow. I saw this exceptional film in 1951. Only
ref I could find is: https://cinematreasures.org/theaters/30254

[Brian Gaff]

Yes I need a lot of analogue inputs. I have to also ask what all this
spatial audio is all about. If as I suspect its mainly bringing out anti
phase artefacts from normal stereo, we have been able to do that at home for
years, first with the image width controls and later by custom plug ins for
computer sound cards.
It is not rocket science. Some live stuff I have like from Wings or the
Carpenters in London which I was at do sound much more like they should with
some subtle special bits added in.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by jon

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
There does seem to be a sudden increase in older recordings in the
purely audio catalogue, like Genesis, Beatles, and many more now being
put out in such formats on blue ray, that I did wonder if it really is
worth the money for a surround system, even if you are blind.
The big disadvantage with today's gear is the lack of accessible front
panel controls, ie they tend to have touch screens, so that would mean
relying on a remote. Also do they even have analogue inputs any more?
Brian
--
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

From around the time of Sergeant Pepper's in 1967, better music was
recorded onto 8 track or more channels which allows a surround field to
be created. Realistically of course any live performance would normally
be from a stage and regular stereo will reproduce this very well.
Nevertheless I normally play music in multi-stereo which replicates the
fronts on the rear and gives a more immersive sound.
For film the effect is more noticeable [if done right]. I first
encountered 31/2 channel Dolby Pro Logic in ~1997 - Three Musketeers or
similar - the dialog [in a carriage] on centre, the main sound track in
front stereo and horsemen galloping up behind (from the rears] were all
quite distinct. Recent AV Amps are a full 5.1.
Most AV Amps still have some knobs, and comprehensive remotes (on my
Sony the only thing the remote can't do is switch the A/B speakers),
however once set up there is rarely need to change much apart from the
volume or inputs. Many AV Amps still have line in, often on the front.
https://www.richersounds.com/onkyo-txsr393-black.html would probably fit
the bill at £299, you might need some extra speakers too.

I can't find any reference to this, but Quo Vardis had surround sound at
the Granada cinema in Hounslow. I saw this exceptional film in 1951. Only
ref I could find is: https://cinematreasures.org/theaters/30254

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes I need a lot of analogue inputs.

https://www.richersounds.com/denon-avr-x2800h-black.html

A mate bought one, OMA - very good. I have a Sony STR-DH 800, but its current version only has two analog inputs.

Post by Brian Gaff
I have to also ask what all this > spatial audio is all about.

Dunno - Google up.

Post by Brian Gaff
If as I suspect its mainly bringing out anti
phase artefacts from normal stereo, we have been able to do that at home for
years, first with the image width controls and later by custom plug ins for
computer sound cards.
It is not rocket science. Some live stuff I have like from Wings or the
Carpenters in London which I was at do sound much more like they should with
some subtle special bits added in.
Brian
--