William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...


The movie folks do a really half-assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself,
or a hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

Absolutely.


Then, of course, when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects -- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Point well-taken. Movies often miss the opportunity to create a truly
immersive experience.


Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux electronics
and Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I don't
like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

I had a variety of sources and processors. At the top was discrete open-reel
tape, which produced the most-spectacular consumer sound, until multi-ch SACD
came along. (I still have the tapes and an Otari quad deck.) It is unfortunate
that Sony has refused to reissue its huge library of Columbia surround
recordings on SACD.

Was "surround" at the time a true 4 channel recording?

For quad phonograph records, there was the Audionics Space & Image Composer,
an advanced SQ decoder that could wrap stereo recordings around you, often to
great effect. I also had an Ambisonic decoder for Ambisonic recordings. It
could do things similar to the Audionics, without requiring logic circuitry,
and did a superb job of ambience extraction.

For stereo recordings, I had an audio/pulse Model One, the first consumer
digital ambience device. It didn't generate high echo density, but used
tastefully, it could greatly enhance the sense of space. (I later replaced it
with the improved audio/pulse 1000.)

Out of these devices, which did true decoding of extra channels out of a a
two channel recording?

How did the encoded recordings sound if you skipped the decoders? With old
tape decks and Dolby noise reduction, it didn't matter on playback.

My current system includes the JVC XP-A1000 and Yamaha DSP-3000 hall
synthesizers. These are modeled on real halls (such as the Concertgebouw). You
can pick an appropriate hall (concert, recital, cathedral, opera, stadium),
then tweak the settings (if you wish) to fine-tune the sound to match the
recording's ambience. These devices are so natural-sounding, you cannot hear
them working until you shut them off.

I have a 6.1 system (no center speaker) with Apogee speakers and Curl
amplification.

There is no excuse to listen in two channels. Stereo is technically and
aesthetically obsolete.

unless all your recordings are only available in plain stereo.

I actually had a really hard time locating a surround sound audio test
file to use with a WD Live video/audio playing device. My surround decoder
has the generate noise on each channel test for setting up speakers, but
that doesn't tell you if it really understands the signals coming out of
the modern media player.