Yamaha Presence Speakers Explained

[BFRedrocks]

Excellent summary, but it leads me to a question...

I have the V3800 and I don't use Presence Speakers, so should I leave the setting for Presence Speakers "on" (through the GUI), or turn them "off" (set to "none")? The reason I ask is because there are sound field settings (specifically Cinema DSP 3D) that are not available with Presence Speakers set to "none".

Thanks!

[CptGreedle]

I have been wondering about those... set them up and noticed they don't do anything. I've been meaning to looking up what they do. Thanks for the info!!

Now i need to figure out the details and make sure I find a good setting.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

I have been wondering about those... set them up and noticed they don't do anything. I've been meaning to looking up what they do. Thanks for the info!!

Now i need to figure out the details and make sure I find a good setting.

You need to enable Dialog Lift, which reroutes some of the center channel signal to the Presence Speakers. Works a charm.

[Sir Terrence]

DSP environments, steering signal from the center to the presence speakers.......uggggg

Can you guys think of anything else to destroy the signal with?

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

...Can you guys think of anything else to destroy the signal with?

With the utmost respect for your professional experience and your stature as an Audio Insider, I beg to differ.

You are obviously not a fan of Yamaha’s sound field technology, and by “destroy the signal” I assume you mean that the addition of ambience in the home environment (as opposed to in the recording environment) corrupts the intentions of the original sound designer. While I would have to agree that an artist’s vision should never be unnecessarily compromised by an end user, there are nonetheless technological opportunities available to the end user whose intent is to restore or recreate an artists’ original vision for appreciation in the home environment. Equalization is a prime example. EQ clearly alters the signal, but isn’t the intent to eliminate sonic anomalies introduced by the listening environment and return the perceived state of the signal to something closer to the original? Doesn’t one’s very choice of amplification equipment and speakers alter the signal?

While it is certainly true that Yamaha’s sound field technology alters the final sound as perceived by the end listener (by adding digitally-derived ambience), I would argue that if properly applied with moderation and with consideration for the style of music being enhanced, the alteration can in fact provide an end result closer to the artist’s original vision. Symphony orchestras are not intended to be heard in a living room environment. 2-channel recordings of symphonies are an approximation of the artist’s original vision. Yamaha’s classical hall sound fields can produce a very believable recreation of listening to a symphony in a real concert hall.

As I have stated before, I personally believe that Yamaha’s sound field technology works best with 2-channel music sources that were intended to be heard in a live environment to begin with (classical, jazz, organ, choir, etc.) IMHO, the technology enhances these types of recordings by reproducing an approximation of the environment in which they were intended to be heard. I would agree that the technology is much less effective with multi-channel recordings that already make use of the additional channels for ambient and other effects.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by JamesN

...
While I would have to agree that an artist’s vision should never be unnecessarily compromised by an end user, there are nonetheless technological opportunities available to the end user whose intent is to restore or recreate an artists’ original vision for appreciation in the home environment. Equalization is a prime example. EQ clearly alters the signal, but isn’t the intent to eliminate sonic anomalies introduced by the listening environment and return the perceived state of the signal to something closer to the original? Doesn’t one’s very choice of amplification equipment and speakers alter the signal?

While it is certainly true that Yamaha’s sound field technology alters the final sound as perceived by the end listener (by adding digitally-derived ambience), I would argue that if properly applied with moderation and with consideration for the style of music being enhanced, the alteration can in fact provide an end result closer to the artist’s original vision. Symphony orchestras are not intended to be heard in a living room environment. 2-channel recordings of symphonies are an approximation of the artist’s original vision. Yamaha’s classical hall sound fields can produce a very believable recreation of listening to a symphony in a real concert hall.
...

All this is a nice infomercial for Yamaha. However:

1. EQ is not in fact used in the way suggested. It can't be, since the 'original' is normally wholly absent. It's not as though the end user first hears (or has heard in the past) a sample of the original and then tries to reconstruct it in his/her living room. Most of the time the user has no notion of the original; s/he only has the recording in hand to go by. Nor, typically, do users try to guess at whatever the original may have sounded like. (Good thing too: with nothing but a few EQ band faders to work with, this would be futile.) Instead the end user tweaks the knobs to taste or to compensate for some acoustical defect in the room or in his hearing. If the user likes a bit more bottom or if his shag rug is a bass trap, he slides up the low faders. If he's lost perception of some highs due to too much heavy metal in his youth, he adds in some extra treble. This is like adding salt and pepper to taste, not like trying conjecturally to reconstruct how the head chef imagines his recipe _ought_ to be enjoyed. Anyone who sits down to a meal with that mindset is in for an unsatisfying experience. The salt and pepper shakers have no practical role to play in the diner's estimation of the chef's intent, and EQ has no corresponding role with respect to the listener and the musician's putative intent.

2. I like the 70-plus piece symphony orchestra as the proferred example of the source of "the artist's original vision". Which artist -- the conductor? Conductor plus first violinist and an oboe? -- More deeply, what if it turns out that there simply is nothing answering to the description "the artist's (or artists') original vision"? (Ask the orchestra what the vision is: what can they be expected to say?) And yet isn't there still, in those cases, some justification for trying to make one's living room sound more like a boomy concert hall and less like somebody's shag-carpted living room? Of course: only the justification is to be found elsewhere -- in the vicissitudes of personal listening preference.

Yahama DSP processing is unlikely to have any rationale in some imagined idea of artistic intent. If people like how it sounds, they'll use it. This is all the reason music lovers have or need.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Teazle

All this is a nice infomercial for Yamaha…

My only intention in composing the original post was to provide some insight to fellow posters who had questions about the technology. I have no intent or interest in becoming a champion for Yamaha. I was merely trying to contribute something to the forum.

…EQ is not in fact used in the way suggested...

I beg to differ. EQ can be, and is, used to compensate for acoustic deficiencies in rooms. Regardless, my intent in the analogy was merely to illustrate that I believe applying DSP sound fields to a source is no more heretical than applying EQ.

…I like the 70-plus piece symphony orchestra as the proferred example of the source of "the artist's original vision"...

My only intention was to illustrate that an orchestral recording, for example, sounds more realistic, to my ears, with the technology applied than without.


Again, I was merely trying to give something back to the forum from which I have learned so much. Give me a break.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by JamesN

With the utmost respect for your professional experience and your stature as an Audio Insider, I beg to differ.

And you have the right to do so!

You are obviously not a fan of Yamaha’s sound field technology, and by “destroy the signal” I assume you mean that the addition of ambience in the home environment (as opposed to in the recording environment) corrupts the intentions of the original sound designer. While I would have to agree that an artist’s vision should never be unnecessarily compromised by an end user, there are nonetheless technological opportunities available to the end user whose intent is to restore or recreate an artists’ original vision for appreciation in the home environment. Equalization is a prime example. EQ clearly alters the signal, but isn’t the intent to eliminate sonic anomalies introduced by the listening environment and return the perceived state of the signal to something closer to the original? Doesn’t one’s very choice of amplification equipment and speakers alter the signal?

With all due respect to your opinion, you cannot restore or recreate something when you do not know what is lost. Yamaha DSP cannot analyze what got lost between the recording process, and the playback process, and then restore it. It does not work that way. These DSP modes are more akin to seasoning the audio, because lets face it, even the DSP's cannot restore thousands of discrete reflections that occur in a live room.

EQ is not the same thing as made up information from a DSP chip. If you need EQ, then the frequency response was already altered by the speakers, or the room. EQ in this case does restore information that was altered by the room or speakers, this is not what DSP's in the Yamaha do.

While it is certainly true that Yamaha’s sound field technology alters the final sound as perceived by the end listener (by adding digitally-derived ambience), I would argue that if properly applied with moderation and with consideration for the style of music being enhanced, the alteration can in fact provide an end result closer to the artist’s original vision.

This is just not true. Digitally derived does not mean actual recorded information. The DSP's are making the information up, not recovering what was naturally lost. The DSP chips do not include the reflection patterns of every recital or concert hall in the world, so adding a reflection pattern of symphony hall to a recording done in Avery Fisher hall will not get you closer to the actual event at all. You are adding spurios reflections that were never apart of the original recording in the first place.

If accuracy(and that is what I believe in most) in first and foremost, then I cannot think of a single situation where DSP derived reflection patterns are superimposed over another set of reflection patterns are necessary or even desireable.

Symphony orchestras are not intended to be heard in a living room environment. 2-channel recordings of symphonies are an approximation of the artist’s original vision. Yamaha’s classical hall sound fields can produce a very believable recreation of listening to a symphony in a real concert hall.

Your logic is flawed. If Symphony Orchestra were not designed to be heard in living rooms, then how does Yamaha DSP's make it more listenable? Last time I checked, many folks(including myself) have been listening to Symphony Orchestra's in our living rooms for years via two channel and multichannel recording, and without the interference of DSP generated environments.

As I have stated before, I personally believe that Yamaha’s sound field technology works best with 2-channel music sources that were intended to be heard in a live environment to begin with (classical, jazz, organ, choir, etc.) IMHO, the technology enhances these types of recordings by reproducing an approximation of the environment in which they were intended to be heard. I would agree that the technology is much less effective with multi-channel recordings that already make use of the additional channels for ambient and other effects.

Two channel recording should not be altered by any DSP based reflection generator. It was mixed and EQ for proper playback through two speakers. Adding a reflection generator along with your rooms natural reflection pattern just muddies the audio. All of these natural and derived reflections alter the tonal textures of the original source, but when you stack them on top of each other, in the hands of most, you get a mess. I do not really mind what people do with their equipment, but it might not be wise to actually try and legitimitize something that can make the audio worse in most cases, instead of better. Not all recordings are done in the halls the DSP's are modeled after. Whatever hall ambience is naturally recorded can get swamped by the stuff generated by the DSP's. IMO anything that is not apart of the original recording, or does not go towards restoring the frequency response of the original recording(getting rid of room borne nodes), it should not be there. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy is what we should be shooting for, but I realize that some care less about accuracy, and more about putting salt, pepper on already well seasoned food.

[ozzman]

A little bit of extra pepper never hurt anybody

I get it, you don't like to add anything to a original recording because if thats the way its recorded then thats the way you want to hear it.Got it.

Iam Hungarian and love my pepper. if you set it up right dsp modes can work and add a little flare.I don't use them all the time (usually just Standard) but sometimes its a nice change

When i use lets say hall in Vienna.I know iam not getting the hall in Vienna ,It's(Fake) 7.1 .
But it sounded good when watching David Gilmore on blu.Like i said its a nice change But some people don't like change and thats O.K too

I like to have fun with my equipment,I mean i spend enough money on it .I say have fun.It doesn't have to be so complacating and serious.

I say why spend 10-20 grande on equipment if you can't have fun with it once in a while.I think some people know so much about sound that iam surprized they don't own there own line of recievers or own line of speakers.
But what do i know iam just a owner of a RX-v3800 that likes to enjoy it and take Advantage of the features.

Your friend
OZZMAN

[rjgilliard]

This is to address some of Sir Terrance's issues with the Yamaha Sound Field Control System (it is implemented through DSP technology) About the recordings being produced to be played back on loudspeakers without any processing during playback. What loudspeakers, and in what rooms are any recordings produced to be played back in? Every situation is going to provide a unique sound field, loudspeakers to listener's ears. After the room and loudspeakers have been acoustically optimized, there still exist a dissimilarity between the sound field integral to the recording (i.e. a live recording of the Westminster Cathedral Choir performing a work by Victoria in Westminster Cathedral) and the sound field produced by the loudspeakers in the playback space. The local playback sound field will mask the the sound field of the source. This can easily be confirmed by selecting a set of headphones that are compatable with the type recorded program material, and make a comparison. Yamaha, itself, uses a similar system (Active Field Control-AFC) to 'neutralize' their Piano Salon room (N.Y.C.)that in its native condition, is an acoustical diaster. The sound fields provided with the DSP-1 come with adjustable parameters for each sound field. The system will achieve the task of 'neutralizing' the room by adjusting the different parameters of, for example, the 'Munster' (cathedral)sound field until the perceived response of listening through the headphones and listening through the loudspeakers are as close a match as possible. Nothing is perfect, however, I have set this system up and used this process to be able to perceive the acoustical signature of the Westminster Cathedral on these recordings without masking from the native local sound field.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by BFRedrocks

Excellent summary, but it leads me to a question...

I have the V3800 and I don't use Presence Speakers, so should I leave the setting for Presence Speakers "on" (through the GUI), or turn them "off" (set to "none")? The reason I ask is because there are sound field settings (specifically Cinema DSP 3D) that are not available with Presence Speakers set to "none".

Thanks!

To address your specific question: if you do not have front presence speakers hooked up, you should set the GUI menu setting to "None". That way, for any DSP sound fields, the front ambiance will then be mixed in with the R & L main speakers. Otherwise, if you set the menu setting to "On" but don't have any presence speakers connected, the ambient sounds will be dropped. Yamaha's current manuals don't make this clear. Their literature used to be much more informative in earlier models.

That being said, employing DSP sound fields without front presence speakers will yield sub-optimal results. The realism of the effect relies on the ambient sounds originating from physically separate speakers. Without separate presence speakers, the resulting sound is muddy and less believable.

Furthermore, I would encourage anyone who has auditioned Yamaha's DSP sound fields without the benefit of the full configuration (front presence speakers), and who has rejected the technology, not to be too quick to judgment. If you haven't auditioned the full-blown configuration, you haven't experienced the full potential.