"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:


Hi Def *video* is a completely different story - basically reverse
everything above and you can see why HDTV and Blu-ray is here to stay.
Bigger and better is easy enough for anyone to see and the the bigger
you do
get, the more resolution you need. Doesn't hurt also that and HD video
is
*constantly* being advertised in the media you are watching, on the
equipment you are (or would be) watching it on!

Yes, I agree the introduction was botched.

Properly done, surround is a step up.


Not for me it's not - I don't much care for it with movies* other than the
'HD' soundtracks are so far ahead of the basic 'DD 5.1' they simply can't
be ignored and *never* for music! For me, half the point of a good
'stereo' (solid) soundstage is that at times, some of the instruments are
way back *over there* like they were in the superb Shostakovich Symph No.
8 I played the other evening - which I am certain was a two mic 'Russian'
recording, despite being described as 'A First American Recording' on the
sleeve....


*Total immersion scenes like the landing scene and various anti-tank
battles in Saving Private Ryan are an exception; I have terrified visitors
with them, with the volume turned right up and a 120 inch projected
picture - they stand there with *slapped faces*!! @:-)


I can't even cope with stereo on TV. A 3m wide audio stage with a 1.5m wide
video stage is all wrong. As to a surround audio stage when the picture is
all in front is even more wrong. I watch TV with 'speakers directly either
side of the picture. Actually prefer mono on TV, then the sound comes out of
the screen.

On the other hand, surround sound for classical music is fine if the
surround is used for hall ambiance, or for effects as composed, like
Palestrina's vespers which had various small choirs arranged round the hall.
What doesn't work is phantom images created by pan-potting, as phantom
images don't form to the sides, and less well at the back.

S.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:


Hi Def *video* is a completely different story - basically reverse
everything above and you can see why HDTV and Blu-ray is here to stay.
Bigger and better is easy enough for anyone to see and the the bigger
you do
get, the more resolution you need. Doesn't hurt also that and HD video
is
*constantly* being advertised in the media you are watching, on the
equipment you are (or would be) watching it on!

Yes, I agree the introduction was botched.

Properly done, surround is a step up.


Not for me it's not - I don't much care for it with movies* other than
the 'HD' soundtracks are so far ahead of the basic 'DD 5.1' they simply
can't be ignored and *never* for music! For me, half the point of a good
'stereo' (solid) soundstage is that at times, some of the instruments are
way back *over there* like they were in the superb Shostakovich Symph No.
8 I played the other evening - which I am certain was a two mic 'Russian'
recording, despite being described as 'A First American Recording' on the
sleeve....


*Total immersion scenes like the landing scene and various anti-tank
battles in Saving Private Ryan are an exception; I have terrified
visitors with them, with the volume turned right up and a 120 inch
projected picture - they stand there with *slapped faces*!! @:-)


I can't even cope with stereo on TV. A 3m wide audio stage with a 1.5m
wide video stage is all wrong. As to a surround audio stage when the
picture is all in front is even more wrong. I watch TV with 'speakers
directly either side of the picture. Actually prefer mono on TV, then the
sound comes out of the screen.


I agree and a good two-channel stereo (with a sub, as of about 20 minutes
ago) will do me but the *total immersion mayhem* scenes are very impressive!
You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance - is
why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide image!!

And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!



On the other hand, surround sound for classical music is fine if the
surround is used for hall ambiance, or for effects as composed, like
Palestrina's vespers which had various small choirs arranged round the
hall. What doesn't work is phantom images created by pan-potting, as
phantom images don't form to the sides, and less well at the back.


I'd sooner listen to a mono Roberts portable (and frequently do) than to all
that BS done badly!

Keith G said...

You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance - is
why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide image!!

Not sure if I agree about it being silly, for about a month I've been
trying precisely that: 28" screen and 10 feet wide sound.
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyk.../nettocam.html
I did have the speakers as close as possible to the TV before.
The new arrangement work quite well for both TV and music.

And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.

I've also been investigating the "Auto Volume" feature on the TV,
basically it is a compander, lifting low level and suppressing loud
sounds. It's very heavy handed and the effect on music is laughable but
it works well on some programs for late night listening.On speech radio
everybodytalks in a subdued monotone, rather like effect of the very
low bit depth digital radio which I did a lot of listening to in the
70's.
http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

You are also not wrong about the silly big sound/small image imbalance -
is
why my preferred (normal) viewing is a big sound with a 6 foot wide
image!!

Not sure if I agree about it being silly, for about a month I've been
trying precisely that: 28" screen and 10 feet wide sound.
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyk.../nettocam.html
I did have the speakers as close as possible to the TV before.
The new arrangement work quite well for both TV and music.

And the voices *always* come straight out of their mouths!!

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.


Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide speaker
arrangements!



I've also been investigating the "Auto Volume" feature on the TV,
basically it is a compander, lifting low level and suppressing loud
sounds. It's very heavy handed and the effect on music is laughable but
it works well on some programs for late night listening.On speech radio
everybodytalks in a subdued monotone, rather like effect of the very
low bit depth digital radio which I did a lot of listening to in the
70's.
http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html



Nice Show N Tell and interesting pix of encrypted comms kit - digital
descendants of SIGSALY I guess?

Keith G said...

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.


Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide speaker
arrangements!

I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.

I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
accommodation.

They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
bracket. Me very chuffed.


[quoted text muted]
http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html



Nice Show N Tell and interesting pix of encrypted comms kit - digital
descendants of SIGSALY I guess?

I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.

I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
was still perfectly intelligible.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.


Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide
speaker
arrangements!

I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.


Been there and done that no end of times!



I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
accommodation.


The easiest 'room treatment' in my book is to fill the room with soft
furniture. It's hard, reflective surfaces combined with wide, open spaces
that give you problems.



They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
bracket. Me very chuffed.


That's excellent, but I suspect a good 'audiologist' is one who knows how to
conduct his tests properly but also sends his customers away feeling good
about themselves and things generally...

;-)


I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.


There is a ton of very interesting 'audio' stuff once you get away from
'domestic hifi' it seems - mainly defence and Post Office and almost all of
it going back to the good old days of valves, from what I can see of it.
There is a continual dribble of very interesting programmes on these sort of
topics on BBC 4 and BBC 2 at various, odd times which I have recorded for
me!



I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
was still perfectly intelligible.



Not my bag, but all very interesting....