Ask questions to Audio insider Sir Terrence

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by IamNhobdy

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I was wondering just how that worked.

So in lay terms what you're saying is, this compression simply removes the silence and the computer redraws that silence when decoded? And this is what saves room in the pipeline, no "air", like an inflatable mattress which you take out of the box and re-inflate, correct?

I just want to make sure I use simple enough(yet accurate) terms for my pals who can't follow binary.

Hey you did better than I did with the simplicity. Its probably much more complex than that, but that is the gist of things. True layman 101.

[Bullseye]

Sir T. what do you believe will become the reference audio track for HDM?

TrueHD
DTS HD MA
PCM
other

[IamNhobdy]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Hey you did better than I did with the simplicity. Its probably much more complex than that, but that is the gist of things. True layman 101.

You did fine for me(graduate of SAE) I just needed to be able to understand it as we had no explanation of lossless compression at the time we learned the "Legacy" codecs, and then I have to turn around and explain it to my co-workers(a select few) who don't even fully grasp dynamic compression, which we use all the time. I often have to redraw the waveform to show them what's going on there, so this helps more than you can imagine.

I'm just a tracking engineer, but I've only recently begun to dabble with surround codecs, so I'm sure I'll have a lot more questions for you as time goes by.

Again I appreciate not only the quality of response, but the speed in which you responded as well.
Thank you,
MAC

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Sir T. what do you believe will become the reference audio track for HDM?

TrueHD
DTS HD MA
PCM
other

It looks like TrueHD is it based on trends, but PCM allows ALL bluray player lossless. Some players still cannot decode DTHD

[Neo65]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Axiom and Paradigm have a known reputation for producing speakers that are good with music and movies, and represent a good value/performance ratio. I would go for them before any bipolar speaker, or highly reflective speaker. As a music lover, I would not choose any speaker that could not do both well, and almost every Paradigm speaker I have ever heard over the years could do both very well.

My best advice is to go out and listen to as many of Paradigm and Axiom speakers as you can. I would also listen to any floor standing def tech tower speakers from the Mythos line as well since they are not a bipolar speaker.

Listen, audition and decide. My order would be a tie between Paradigm and Axiom as both of these have benefited from the research of Dr Floyd Toole. Then the Mythos line of floor standing towers next.

Hope that helps, and happy searching.

Sir Terrence,

I'm glad you speak well of the paradigms. Back when I was a starving grad student with a bad habit of wasting hard earned T.A. money, I was big on CDs and LDs. I spent what was then a god awful amount of money on a pair of Paradigm monitor 7 series speakers. Years layer, gainfully employed I bought two more pairs of identical speaker and setup a 5 speaker config because I was hooked on dolby pro logic and wanted identical sound from all sources. Used to rotate the center channel with the spare every 3 months. Stopped that years ago.

My questions :

(1) Are the Paradigm monitor 7 speakers considered wide dispersion or controlled dispersion speakers?

(2) I am considering new speakers to upgrade to, what would be comparable to these and still be priced reasonably. (At various price levels)

(3) I am also trying to clean up a main floor 2nd HT in a 20'x20' room used as an occasional game room and sometime theatre. Current 5.1 speakers are entry level Jamo, but I'm considering in wall (behind drywall) hidden speakers. Is this a bad idea or is this worth considering? Note this room has hardwood floor and is open to the rest of the house, meaning the acoustic properties are not that great, are there any in wall speakers that will sound reasonable or is that just not possible?

[Theo Cupier]

Sir Terrence,

There seems to be much discussion on this forum, and others, regarding player-based decoding (or PCM decompression) and amp-based decoding of HD audio tracks. Generally, the consensus seems to be that HDMI is king, one way or another.

For those of us lacking HDMI amplifiers, but with analog connectors, do you think we are likely to miss out on any audio quality using PCM over analog when compared either to those who send PCM via HDMI, or bitstream via HDMI for amp-based decoding?

For the purpose of this, please assume that the analog connectors are of sufficient quality to not degrade the signal and that the player is equipped with the ability to decode the same set of HD audio formats as an amp.

(I appreciate I am ahead of myself here, since DTSMA decoding and transmission via analog PCM is not yet on the market)

In short, does player decoding/decompression with PCM transmission via analog place one at a disadvantage over HDMI routes? And, if so, at what stage does it fall short?

[jorg]

.

[MrXpress]

Sir Terrence,

I have a question that will probably be absurd to someone who knows what they are talking about but I'll go ahead and ask anyway. My system only supports audio through optical, which means I have no ability to enjoy multi-channel lossless audio. Unfortunately, this means most of the time that I'm stuck with a vanilla 640kbps Dolby Digital track, except for the occasional DTS-MA HD track where I can get the 1.5mbps DTS core. My question is, is a player able to do anything to an uncompressed PCM track aside from just sending it through? In other words, is it possible for a player like the PS3 to take the uncompressed PCM track and 'convert' it (so to speak) to an optical-friendly track (i.e., 1.5mbps DTS)? I'm assuming the answer is no, but I didn't know for sure.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by MrXpress

is it possible for a player like the PS3 to take the uncompressed PCM track and 'convert' it (so to speak) to an optical-friendly track (i.e., 1.5mbps DTS)? I'm assuming the answer is no, but I didn't know for sure.

Yes, the PS3 (as well as other BD players) will downmix multichannel Uncompressed PCM to 2.0 (stereo) through an optical cable.

It will still play at a high bitrate, but only two channel...some people say the quality is excellent although hard to make out dialog without having a center channel present.


(second read through I caught what you are asking...and no, an Uncompressed PCM track will not convert into dts or dolby, it merely downmixes channel output for optical)

[shamus]

Originally Posted by jorg

GOD lmfao

?????????????
Your not really suppose to reply if your not an insider, but if you are going to ignore the rules, can you at least answer the question?

To repeat...
Sir Terrence: I've never seen your posts before. Can you list your qualifications?????

To MODS:
It might be a good idea if you listed everyones qualifications in the first post.
Great idea with the seperate threads by the way!

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Neo65

Sir Terrence,

I'm glad you speak well of the paradigms. Back when I was a starving grad student with a bad habit of wasting hard earned T.A. money, I was big on CDs and LDs. I spent what was then a god awful amount of money on a pair of Paradigm monitor 7 series speakers. Years layer, gainfully employed I bought two more pairs of identical speaker and setup a 5 speaker config because I was hooked on dolby pro logic and wanted identical sound from all sources. Used to rotate the center channel with the spare every 3 months. Stopped that years ago.

My questions :

(1) Are the Paradigm monitor 7 speakers considered wide dispersion or controlled dispersion speakers?

I believe the Monitor 7's have a waveguide surrounding the tweeter. That would make it a controlled dispersion speaker.

(2) I am considering new speakers to upgrade to, what would be comparable to these and still be priced reasonably. (At various price levels)

I would look into the Klipsch Reference Line. Excellent speakers, and a far cry from the tinny blatty sound of horns of old.

M&K speakers sound excellent for both music and movies. You will found this brand in quite a few post production facilities all over Hollywood, and at Lucasfilm as well.

At the upper end, I love Thiel new CS-3.7 and his entire line of speakers.

The bargain versus perfomance champ is easily Vandersteen line of speakers. They have two feature that are a must for me, and what is found on my own personal reference speakers. They are phase and frequency correct. IMO that is a pretty important thing for speakers.

(3) I am also trying to clean up a main floor 2nd HT in a 20'x20' room used as an occasional game room and sometime theatre. Current 5.1 speakers are entry level Jamo, but I'm considering in wall (behind drywall) hidden speakers. Is this a bad idea or is this worth considering? Note this room has hardwood floor and is open to the rest of the house, meaning the acoustic properties are not that great, are there any in wall speakers that will sound reasonable or is that just not possible?

I have never been a lover of in wall speakers until I came across the Niles stagefront series. The subwoofer in that series will churn you guts to liquid.

If properly done, in wall speakers can sound good, and the fact they are in walls does not hurt asthetics. The hardwood floors are going to be a problem for any speaker installed in that room, but if that is not your critical listening space, it probably doesn't matter much.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Theo Cupier

Sir Terrence,

There seems to be much discussion on this forum, and others, regarding player-based decoding (or PCM decompression) and amp-based decoding of HD audio tracks. Generally, the consensus seems to be that HDMI is king, one way or another.

I have to agree with this.

For those of us lacking HDMI amplifiers, but with analog connectors, do you think we are likely to miss out on any audio quality using PCM over analog when compared either to those who send PCM via HDMI, or bitstream via HDMI for amp-based decoding?



For the purpose of this, please assume that the analog connectors are of sufficient quality to not degrade the signal and that the player is equipped with the ability to decode the same set of HD audio formats as an amp.

(I appreciate I am ahead of myself here, since DTSMA decoding and transmission via analog PCM is not yet on the market)

In short, does player decoding/decompression with PCM transmission via analog place one at a disadvantage over HDMI routes? And, if so, at what stage does it fall short?

Let me put this into perspective a bit, because sometimes we can get locked into majoring in minors. You are going to have far more quality issues with room acoustic than you have worrying about this. I room full of audible modes and non audible nodes is going to erase any differences between how the audio is passed from one component to the next. In this context I do not think there is much difference in how the audio is handled. However, everything depends on the quality of the players DAC and the receiver DAC. If the DAC is better in the player, then no, there is no benefit to sending it to the receiver via HDMI. If the receivers DAC are better, then there is an advantage to sending via HDMI to the receiver. In digital audio, everything depends on the quality of the DAC.

On my rig, I am going to have to give the nod to HDMI transmission. It just sounded smoother overall, especially at high volumes. Imaging is not better than analog, the bass is not better, and quite frankly neither is the treble. It just sounds smoother and less fatiging for long listening sessions.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by shamus

?????????????
Your not really suppose to reply if your not an insider, but if you are going to ignore the rules, can you at least answer the question?

To repeat...
Sir Terrence: I've never seen your posts before. Can you list your qualifications?????

To MODS:
It might be a good idea if you listed everyones qualifications in the first post.
Great idea with the seperate threads by the way!

Shamus, I have been sneaking my head around here for a while. LOL

I have been a re-recording engineer for a major studio for the last 10 years. I am a graduate of USC film school with a BS degree in Film and Television post production, and have a minor degree in Applied acoustics with a emphasis on auditoriums and small rooms. I have mixed both music and movie soundtracks, and done repurposing of mixes from stereo to multichannel.

I have also worked for several years as a hometheaters designer and installer for Brentwood audio and video in Los Angeles many moons ago. I have studied under Professor Tomlinson Holmann( the creator of THX), and Dr. Floyd Toole(Vice President of Engineering at Harmon Kardon Int), and have attented many of their lectures all over this country.

[shamus]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Shamus, I have been sneaking my head around here for a while. LOL

I have been a re-recording engineer for a major studio for the last 10 years. I am a graduate of USC film school with a BS degree in Film and Television post production, and have a minor degree in Applied acoustics with a emphasis on auditoriums and small rooms. I have mixed both music and movie soundtracks, and done repurposing of mixes from stereo to multichannel.

I have also worked for several years as a hometheaters designer and installer for Brentwood audio and video in Los Angeles many moons ago. I have studied under Professor Tomlinson Holmann( the creator of THX), and Dr. Floyd Toole(Vice President of Engineering at Harmon Kardon Int), and have attented many of their lectures all over this country.

In that case, here I go....

I see your not a big fan of dipole speakers. I dont care for them myself, but at the same time I hate hearing a sound come directly from my speaker. I have a long narrow room ( 12X24 ) in a 7.1 setup. I sit almost in the middle of it, but unfortunately only sit about 6 ft away from my side surrounds which doesn't help the speakers disappear like the rest of them do. I've been thinking about running an extra pair of side surrounds and was wondering what your thoughts on that might be. I would think it would give me the direct, yet dispersed sound I'm looking for... movie theaters do it, why can't I???
Another thing adding to the problem before I try this is there doesn't seem to be any standerizations in the industry regarding speaker placement/types. With just recently hearing my first 7.1 discrete track (3:10 to Yuma... give it a listen), I am convinced that the future will or at least should be 7.1 discrete. With Dolby saying one thing(I think they recommend dipoles), Dts another... Yamaha saying your side speakers should be at 100 degrees, Denon says 90... will they ever come to some common ground? It must be a pain for these filmmixers?

Any thoughts on RBH speakers???

Thanks!

[Brandon B]

Nevermind, Shamus asked a largely similar question as I typed.

BB

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by shamus

In that case, here I go....

I see your not a big fan of dipole speakers. I dont care for them myself, but at the same time I hate hearing a sound come directly from my speaker. I have a long narrow room ( 12X24 ) in a 7.1 setup. I sit almost in the middle of it, but unfortunately only sit about 6 ft away from my side surrounds which doesn't help the speakers disappear like the rest of them do. I've been thinking about running an extra pair of side surrounds and was wondering what your thoughts on that might be. I would think it would give me the direct, yet dispersed sound I'm looking for... movie theaters do it, why can't I???

I am actually a bipolar fan as opposed to dipoles for the surrounds. However dipoles have their place. In your case because of your distance to the side speakers, dipoles would actually be appropriate. I am a HUGE fan of multiple surround speakers per wall. I actually did an installation not too long ago where we used three surround on each side and rear wall. However in order to make them blend well, you have to distance the speakers so the dispersion pattern of the speakers do not overlap too much, but some. Too much and there is too much acoustical interference. Just right and you cannot tell their location until a pan is directed discretely into those speakers. Instead of a speaker direction, you get a wall direction. In your case, I think dipolars would do the trick. Place them to the sides of the listening position at 90 degrees. They ought to disappear enough not to call discrete attention to themselves, yet give you some directionality when called for.

Another thing adding to the problem before I try this is there doesn't seem to be any standerizations in the industry regarding speaker placement/types. With just recently hearing my first 7.1 discrete track (3:10 to Yuma... give it a listen), I am convinced that the future will or at least should be 7.1 discrete. With Dolby saying one thing(I think they recommend dipoles), Dts another... Yamaha saying your side speakers should be at 100 degrees, Denon says 90... will they ever come to some common ground? It must be a pain for these filmmixers?

Any thoughts on RBH speakers???

Thanks!

Actually there is a standardization for 7.1, but it is kinda loose at the moment. My rule has been this so far is to have dipolar or bipolar surrounds at 90 degrees, and the rear surrounds at about 135 to 145 degrees. This ought to provide enough seperation in the center rear hemisphere to hear the stereo effect of each of the rear surrounds.

I have heard of RBH but never had a listen to them. However Gene Della Sala over at Audioholics.com uses them as his reference speakers and speaks VERY highly of them. I respect his opinion alot, so they must be good.

If you have anymore questions on your theater, I will be glad to help out.

[shamus]

Thanks!
If I did go the multiple side speaker route, what would be a good distance to keep them apart?

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

M&K speakers sound excellent for both music and movies. You will found this brand in quite a few post production facilities all over Hollywood, and at Lucasfilm as well.

I believe M&K has now closed down or at least now any current speaker being sold is not from the original company but being manufactured by a Chinese company that bought over the name. About a year ago their website had a warning about purchasing their speakers due to them not be originals and now the site has been down for over 6 months just saying it is under construction.

I still enjoy a set I have from about 13 years ago

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by jdc115

I believe M&K has now closed down or at least now any current speaker being sold is not from the original company but being manufactured by a Chinese company that bought over the name. About a year ago their website had a warning about purchasing their speakers due to them not be originals and now the site has been down for over 6 months just saying it is under construction.

I still enjoy a set I have from about 13 years ago

Thanks alot for this information. I guess now I would have to add the caveate, "Original M&K Design Only". It only been a year? Maybe that is why I didn't know this. Wow, I would not have expected that

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by shamus

Thanks!
If I did go the multiple side speaker route, what would be a good distance to keep them apart?

This would depend on a few things. The radiation pattern of the speakers, and where you sit in the room.