On 18 Feb 2006 08:50:58 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Serge Auckland wrote:

An excellent history of early surround sound

Thank you ever so much, Serge. This is a superb reply. It proves I was
right in the 1970s to decide that surround sound was anoraki and ignore
it.

It may have been then, but it isn't now. Typical of you to ignore the
continuing search for higher fidelity, in favour of an obsolete
technology which was discarded before 1930.

You may have told me and I just didn't make the connection (for
instance, is the current cinema standard a Dolby Digital
implementation?) -- so I'll ask what may appear a really dumb question:
is home cinema sound nominally of the same quality as obtainable from
CD with good hi-fi gear?

Cinemas use mostly DD, with some DTS. These use lossy compression at
(variable) bitrates significantly lower than CD, and DD is not
generally accepted as equal to CD quality. OTOH, DTS at reasonably
high bitrates is well regarded, and DTS 24/96 also exists, which is
superior to CD in every respect.

We use our television set so little that only now are we getting around
to buying a flat screen TV, though all our computers have used LCD
screens for a decade or so now. Our movie DVD player has been used so
little -- we watch movies in my study on my computer's screen, usually
-- that I don't even know if any of its many outputs are lineouts to
which one can attach good amplifiers. It doesn't seem big enough to
have enough good quality amplifiers inside to drive so many channels...

Size is no indicator of quality in 2006, and neither is price, given
the massive amounts of audio processing now available on a single
chip. My 'Chinky cheapie' Pioneer DV-575A sounds as good as any
dedicated CD player I have yet heard, and will play any movie
soundtrack as well as the very best.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

Actually, a very interesting post. Well worth reading. :-)

[snip]

Some time in the sixties, David Hafler proposed a way of extracting
ambience information from two channel stereo, by connecting a third
loudspeaker between the L and R live connections of an amplifier, and
placing this third loudspeaker behind the listener.

[snip]

...but all accepted the commercial need to provide these four channels
from conventional vinyl LPs which could be compatible with non-surround
systems and be broadcastable on mono and stereo radio. At that time,
Reel-to-Reel was not considered acceptable for mass-market programme
distribution - EMI had tried to release stereo recordings on 3 ¾ ips
tape, but with little commercial success in spite of apparently
excellent technical quality. Cassettes were not at the stage of
development that could be called hi-fi,


The article which I happened to read just a few days ago:

"Quadraphonics: What went wrong?" by Adrian Hope Practical HIFi March
1977

Says that when 4 and 8 track recorders started being available in the 1960s
this led to them being used in some cases for 'surround' and that this lead
to both 4-channel reel tapes and 4-channel cartridge tapes being releasefd
for a while in the USA. I can't recall if these ever appeared in the UK.

I assume the industry wanted LP formats for 'compatability' reasons and so
the recordings could be pressed, and avoid the problems/costs of making
tapes.

[snip]


In November 1974's Wireless World, Carey and Sager published proposals
for broadcasting three channel surround, with a fourth being used for
height information, but I have not come across any evidence that their
proposals were acted upon. By then, the public's perception of surround
sound was four loudspeakers arranged in a square or rectangle round the
listener.

Capital Radio (London, UK) did experiment with a 'three channel' system
based on a modification of conventional FM stereo. Alas, it seems they made
a pigs breakfast of the arrangements, and it seemed to then vanish. Didn't
hear it myself, though, so am simply reporting what I've read.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

Actually, a very interesting post. Well worth reading. :-)

[snip]

Some time in the sixties, David Hafler proposed a way of extracting
ambience information from two channel stereo, by connecting a third
loudspeaker between the L and R live connections of an amplifier, and
placing this third loudspeaker behind the listener.

[snip]

...but all accepted the commercial need to provide these four channels
from conventional vinyl LPs which could be compatible with non-surround
systems and be broadcastable on mono and stereo radio. At that time,
Reel-to-Reel was not considered acceptable for mass-market programme
distribution - EMI had tried to release stereo recordings on 3 ¾ ips
tape, but with little commercial success in spite of apparently
excellent technical quality. Cassettes were not at the stage of
development that could be called hi-fi,


The article which I happened to read just a few days ago:

"Quadraphonics: What went wrong?" by Adrian Hope Practical HIFi March
1977

Says that when 4 and 8 track recorders started being available in the
1960s
this led to them being used in some cases for 'surround' and that this
lead
to both 4-channel reel tapes and 4-channel cartridge tapes being releasefd
for a while in the USA. I can't recall if these ever appeared in the UK.

No I don't think they ever did. As far I am aware, most if not all 8-track
cartridge machines had two-track heads which were mechanically moved down as
the tape went round the endless-loop pack. Nobody used fixed switched
eight-track heads which could have been used for four-channel audio.



I assume the industry wanted LP formats for 'compatability' reasons and so
the recordings could be pressed, and avoid the problems/costs of making
tapes.

[snip]


In November 1974's Wireless World, Carey and Sager published proposals
for broadcasting three channel surround, with a fourth being used for
height information, but I have not come across any evidence that their
proposals were acted upon. By then, the public's perception of surround
sound was four loudspeakers arranged in a square or rectangle round the
listener.

Capital Radio (London, UK) did experiment with a 'three channel' system
based on a modification of conventional FM stereo. Alas, it seems they
made
a pigs breakfast of the arrangements, and it seemed to then vanish. Didn't
hear it myself, though, so am simply reporting what I've read.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Yes, I vaguely remember Capital doing something on surround sound, but I
don't think it got anywhere.

At the time, I decided not to bother with quodrophonics, as neither matrix
nor "discrete" systems actually worked sufficiently well to be worth
bothering with. We played around with surround in the studio I was working
with in the early '70s, but generally, we weren't impressed.

S.

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
Says that when 4 and 8 track recorders started being available in the
1960s this led to them being used in some cases for 'surround' and
that this lead to both 4-channel reel tapes and 4-channel cartridge
tapes being releasefd for a while in the USA. I can't recall if these
ever appeared in the UK.

No I don't think they ever did. As far I am aware, most if not all
8-track cartridge machines had two-track heads which were mechanically
moved down as the tape went round the endless-loop pack. Nobody used
fixed switched eight-track heads which could have been used for
four-channel audio.

Right in general, but there were 4 discreet channel '8 track' players
around.

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

This brief history is not exhaustive, and covers mostly surround sound as
applied to records. There were separate developments for broadcasting, and
these have been mentioned in passing, but not covered in detail. I have
also not discussed Ambisonics in any detail.


I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like the
Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly marketed.

Roy.

"Roy" roy wrote in message ...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

This brief history is not exhaustive, and covers mostly surround sound as
applied to records. There were separate developments for broadcasting,
and these have been mentioned in passing, but not covered in detail. I
have also not discussed Ambisonics in any detail.


I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like the
Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly marketed.

Roy.
Yes, I agree in part, but what I was trying to do was to explain the origins
of surround sound as it applied originally to vynil. I don't think that
Ambisonics was poorly marketed as much as just too late. By the time
ambisonics came about, the public was fed up of "quadrophonic" systems that
didn't work. Anyway, I question the whole premise of surround sound through
four (or five) loudspeakers. It relies on pair-wise phantom images which
just don't work in practice. As we know, frontal phantom images work quite
well, rear phantom images work after a fashion, but don't provide accurate
localisation, and sideways phantom images hardly form at all. For classical
music (which is the only format Nimbus has tried ambisonics, as far as I
know) it will work OK for ambiance, but not for remote soloists. 5.1
surround works for films with the distraction of pictures, but not terribly
well for music. Unless some sound-field synthesis system can be evolved that
doesn't require 200 'speakers (see my earlier posts on the subject) we're
stuck with pair-wise phantom images, and consequently ambisonics or
otherwise, poor surround sound.

S.

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me
like the Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly
marketed.

Roy.
Yes, I agree in part, but what I was trying to do was to explain the
origins of surround sound as it applied originally to vynil. I don't
think that Ambisonics was poorly marketed as much as just too late. By
the time ambisonics came about, the public was fed up of "quadrophonic"
systems that didn't work. Anyway, I question the whole premise of
surround sound through four (or five) loudspeakers. It relies on
pair-wise phantom images which just don't work in practice. As we know,
frontal phantom images work quite well, rear phantom images work after
a fashion, but don't provide accurate localisation, and sideways
phantom images hardly form at all. For classical music (which is the
only format Nimbus has tried ambisonics, as far as I know) it will work
OK for ambiance, but not for remote soloists. 5.1 surround works for
films with the distraction of pictures, but not terribly well for
music. Unless some sound-field synthesis system can be evolved that
doesn't require 200 'speakers (see my earlier posts on the subject)
we're stuck with pair-wise phantom images, and consequently ambisonics
or otherwise, poor surround sound.

By far and away the most impressive stereo I've heard was yonks ago in a
near anechoic listening room at BBC Wood Norton. It was the old chapel in
Wood Norton hall - so large and an irregular shape - and heavily treated
to reduce unwanted reflections. With an pair of BBC LS 3/1 which had 15"
bass units with a pair of concentric HF1300 tweeters, the imaging was
stunning - with any out of phase material coming from well outside the
nominal sound stage, even from behind.

No commercial surround system - then or now - got even close on the
variety of material we listened to. Over the months I was there on a
course my colleagues brought in their own systems which we all listened to
- and the results were still impressive.

Which left an undying impression that spending money on acoustic treatment
of your listening room is far better spent than many thousands on the
finest amplifier, etc.

Oh - and the current fad for laminate floors and blinds rather than
carpets and curtains means you're on a hiding to nothing.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:03:16 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


"Roy" roy wrote in message ...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

This brief history is not exhaustive, and covers mostly surround sound as
applied to records. There were separate developments for broadcasting,
and these have been mentioned in passing, but not covered in detail. I
have also not discussed Ambisonics in any detail.


I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like the
Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly marketed.

Roy.
Yes, I agree in part, but what I was trying to do was to explain the origins
of surround sound as it applied originally to vynil. I don't think that
Ambisonics was poorly marketed as much as just too late. By the time
ambisonics came about, the public was fed up of "quadrophonic" systems that
didn't work. Anyway, I question the whole premise of surround sound through
four (or five) loudspeakers. It relies on pair-wise phantom images which
just don't work in practice. As we know, frontal phantom images work quite
well, rear phantom images work after a fashion, but don't provide accurate
localisation, and sideways phantom images hardly form at all. For classical
music (which is the only format Nimbus has tried ambisonics, as far as I
know) it will work OK for ambiance, but not for remote soloists. 5.1
surround works for films with the distraction of pictures, but not terribly
well for music. Unless some sound-field synthesis system can be evolved that
doesn't require 200 'speakers (see my earlier posts on the subject) we're
stuck with pair-wise phantom images, and consequently ambisonics or
otherwise, poor surround sound.

S.



One of the problems for Ambisonics was that the patents were assigned
to the NRDC, a famously incompetent bureaucracy that killed quite a
few good ideas in the 70s.

The point of the ambisonic system is that it is a storage/transmission
system that is independent of the reproduction environment. The theory
is that three channels are all that is needed for accurate recording
of directional information in a circle, and that four channels can
completely encode directional information in a sphere. The way it is
reproduced is entirely dependent on the decoder and as many speakers
as needed can be used. The Meridian decoders allow 7 speakers, with
varying layouts, and others have designed decoders using many more
speakers than this.

The problem with the Nimbus and Unicorn recordings is that they had to
use the UHJ system to matrix into 2 channels and hence degraded the
encoding.

It is something of a joke that a system is available that will enable
accurate encoding of directional information into three channels but
the commercially sucessfull but inaccurate Dolby system uses 5
channels and is now starting to use 7! More than twice as much data
for a worse result.

Incidentally the VHS/beta comparison is not apt. There was very little
actual difference between the wo systems. A moe suitable comparison
would be U-matic to Digibeta.

Bill

In article , "Roy" roy says...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
This is a long post, so those not interested can ignore it.

This brief history is not exhaustive, and covers mostly surround sound as
applied to records. There were separate developments for broadcasting, and
these have been mentioned in passing, but not covered in detail. I have
also not discussed Ambisonics in any detail.


I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like the
Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly marketed.

That reminds me of a lecture given by Peter Fellgett at Reading uni in
74 or 75.. Very interesting demo from what I remember along with total
intolerance of anyone calling it 'four channel' sound !

T.

In article ,
Roy roy wrote:
I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like
the Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly
marketed.

It was never marketed. Superb though it is, the costs were horrendous.
Four full bandwidth speakers and amps - one for each corner - and a
further four good quality speakers and amps (but not necessarily with as
good a bottom end) for the sides.

With a 'classical' recording made on something like a single Calrec
Soundfield mic the results were *extremely* convincing. But not so for a
multi-mic recording. Indeed on most 'pop' stuff it was poor.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.