Immersive Audio and How to Achieve It

This seems like a discussion between a surround sound system vs 2 channel.

Why, in 2023, would anyone voluntarily use only two speakers to recreate this illusion of a live performance in a large room?

It simply sounds better. Usually, the sonic quality of 2 channel speakers are significantly better than the surround transducers. Also, the cost to buy additional speakers, controllers, amplifiers try to reach the comparable sonic level is usually price prohibitive. Many value superior sonics more than surround sound immersion.

it’s not one size fits all. Some 2 channel’s systems do not translate easily to a surround system: low powered tube amps, nearfield listening like with monitors,
Also, room set-up is different. A space for 2 channel is not the same as surround, not everyone has the space available.

I consider video surround sound system (immersion from multiple speakers) a different goal separate from my 2 channel system (fidelity).  Trying to accomplish both in a single system is usually cost prohibitive.  I looked at several surround sound systems that can be in the ballpark of the fidelity of my speakers (which have Herculean dampening which isn’t inexpensive). The Perlisten surround will be ~$40k, then matching quality electronics and amps, makes this extremely cost prohibitive. Same with the YG surrounds.

For video surround, I’m going to try the Nakamishi Dragon 11.4.6 . Fantastic reviews, and at $3.9k much more affordable route and it’s wireless - I don’t have to run wires. Pre-sales is sold out.
https://dragon.nakamichi-usa.com

On a side note most of us has spent considerable time, effort, deliberation, and resources to get to where we are today. Radical change to surround requires additional cost, time and effort for sonics that may be immersive surround but likely won’t match our subjective sonic level of high end audio is a risk few will take.

Very importantly, relative to 2 channel music, there is a very limited amount of audiophile level multichannel content available- perhaps I should have started with this.

@kennyc

This seems like a discussion between a surround sound system vs 2 channel.

Well it sounds that way, but not. Surround sound never stuck, DVD-A, SACD, never caught on and while better than redbook, SACD or DVD-A were more expensive than CD’s and most of the content was simply stereo recordings that were converted. It was also channel based.Atmos is object based, it sounds different than surround sound. Here is a video by engineer Steve Genewick from Capitol Studios that breaks it down. Steve has mixed tons of 2 channel stuff too:

https://youtu.be/5x0sK-8dofA

Usually, the sonic quality of 2 channel speakers are significantly better than the surround transducers.

If you are talking dipoles yes, I agree. You have a good point too, if your speaker/amp budget is $25K do you divide it among two speakers and one two channel amp? You can get a killer stereo with that budget. Or, do you get a killer atmos setup like the one I link to below that can do reference level channel based audio AND MCH object based audio:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ImmersiveSysF--focal-7.14-immersive-audio-studio-monitor-system

For video surround, I’m going to try the Nakamishi Dragon 11.4.6

I think that’s fantastic, congrats! Atmos music will work with that setup.

I consider video surround sound system (immersion from multiple speakers) a different goal separate from my 2 channel system (fidelity).

I get that, I wasn’t convinced my surround processor could deliver great stereo until I did a side by side comparison with a reference level two channel preamp. Marantz rocks for my taste and budget on both atmos and stereo with my processor.

On a side note most of us has spent considerable time, effort, deliberation, and resources to get to where we are today.

You left out MONEY! Big money, into five figures, some members into six figures. This is where I see the fork in the road. Spending BIG money on a system that is only capable of channel based audio in 2023 is fine if you are NEVER going to be capable of trying new tech. I get that and I see the temples of audio in the virtual system area and when you got a six figure stereo, you are "good enough".

I am not in that camp. I am in the camp that a good system can play music or movies, channel or object based audio, has LOT’s of available content on streaming services (atmos music is exploding in this regard thanks to Apple spatial audio), and is simple enough to use a kid can do it (Alexa, play Miles Davis in Dolby Atmos on Tidal, done).

Very importantly, relative to 2 channel music, there is a very limited amount of audiophile level multichannel content available- perhaps I should have started with this.

I have amazing news, all you need is atmos capable headphones to start, the content is quick, easy, and available on apple music or tidal.

See:

https://www.dolby.com/experience/headphones/

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I have read through the above posts it call goes back and forth somewhat comically to me. All immersive is stereo. Everything is stereo. There is nothing else besides stereo. Atmos cannot supercede stereo. Nothing else exists besides stereo. And because there was some debate above about whether anyone dare say 100%, I dare say everyone, i.e., 100% in this thread can only hear stereo, unless there is someone here that insists they have more than two ears, perhaps an extra ear on their back, their elbow or someplace. Stereo means two, as in two ears, two auditory senses. Our ears sense spatially and make other assessments based on milliseconds of timing, and so do are ears/mind assess accuracy, clarity, transparency, etc. that have little to do with the spatial issues Atmos makes a fortune over, or THX, or etc. I agree with the post above about the Oregon symphony: the tech-masters are messing up the natural, acoustic sounds rendered by musicians and their instruments, adding, in my opinion, purposeful distortion and dilution to the real performance. That’s a pity, and even though those on a tech-kick may get some juice out of the aural sensation, it won’t last because it isn’t the creative composition. Next, are the techies going to start calling themselves musicians? I read the article about the techie in Vegas & Santana. When the techie starts getting billed on the Vegas skyline billboards above the musicians-singers, then I may change my opinion. But as long as its the musician-singer I want to hear, then it’s not some techie who’s the maker-creator of music I want messing with my ears. I just want to hear the musician, accurately, reproduced faithfully, in high fidelity. Anything else, to me, is comical.

I said it but way less directly and clearly than you in my post above... Thanks to be right on the target and so concrete to be then understood by all......

There is as i said a precise rigorously defined concept of "immersiveness" in acoustic...

I will cite my own post to complement your post :

Immersive audio is NOT the same as immersive acoustic...

Immersive audio use DSP generally without psycho-acoustic measures of the inner ears and HRTF. ... ( save for example the Smyth realizer)

Immersiveness in PHYSICAL acoustic is created by passive material treatment and active mechanical control of the room...

Immersiveness in psycho-acoustic use measures of the inner ears and also Head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) describe the filtering of the acoustic field produced by a sound source arriving at the listener’s ear. It is used in smyth realizer but at a more sophisticated level by BACCH filters...

 

 

s I have read through the above posts it call goes back and forth somewhat comically to me. All immersive is stereo. Everything is stereo. There is nothing else besides stereo. Atmos cannot supercede stereo. Nothing else exists besides stereo. And because there was some debate above about whether anyone dare say 100%, I dare say everyone, i.e., 100% in this thread can only hear stereo, unless there is someone here that insists they have more than two ears, perhaps an extra ear on their back, their elbow or someplace. Stereo means two, as in two ears, two auditory senses. Our ears sense spatially and make other assessments based on milliseconds of timing, and so do are ears/mind assess accuracy, clarity, transparency, etc. that have little to do with the spatial issues

I will only add that even spatialization as Timbre is constrained and created by our TWO ears/brain, and we can create it in an acoustically controlled room partially without DSP and without measures on our inner ear and pinnae and without HRTF measures, mechanically by modifying the zone pressures distribution in a small room and the balance and timing with incoming reflections.., It cannot be perfect doing so mechanicaklly but this give us an idea about the power of acoustic controls in a room...

 

 

 

«I don’t know what happens when we die, but maybe we go somewhere between 10^18 Hz and 10^43 Hz» Stuart Hameroff

 

https://twitter.com/StuartHameroff/status/1692253150093422799

hsbrock

... Stereo means two, as in two ears, two auditory senses ...

No, it doesn't. Stereo means "solid," or three-dimensional. It's Greek. Hence, we have two-channel stereo, surround sound stereo, "immersive" stereo, and the like.