For all of you who want to build your stereo systems for "sound quality", stop and think why are you doing that?

The rules of "sound quality judging" state that you should only hear music coming from the front. "Staging" is the term used. For competition, sure that's ok. But for personal opinion, I have to agree with others that being surrounded in sound is actually better.

I don't plan to compete in SQ, so I don't care about "staging". I love to hear music coming from all around me.

Pink floyd, Air, Leftfield, Led Zeplin, all sound better at home, or in the car than they do in concert.

Another thing, I feel that when you actually feel the music, it makes the experience even better,(extacy or not).

Other opinions?



------------------
'82 Firebird, dead stock, 9 bolt disc rear, over 200,000 miles and still going strong, more to come...
http://www.spinfrenzy.com/stingerssx...easures.html#4

 

I agree I think surround sound is the best. And the way most SQ is judged it's just wrong I used to compete in SQ and the crowd loved my car but the judges didn't because I didn't use the expensive stuff. I work on a low budget and get great sound.

 

I think the music should be reproduced as it was intended to be....through 2 speakers. Unless you're buying a cd that was designed to be played on a surround-sound system, the original editors mixed the music while listening to it on a 2 channel system. When you add fill in the rear, the image totally falls apart, as does the staging. While you may enjoy it when sounds come flying from all over the place, I want them to be where they should. Vocals in front of me, sitting dead center. Back up vocals in front, spread a little bit across the center front. Bass guitar slightly to one side, lead guitar to the other, drums set behind the vocals.

With pop music, the quality sucks anyway, so the "surround" thing can be sort of neat, but with good music, I want it accurate. I see no point in striving for tonal accuracy just to have the soundstage and image fall apart and have music haphazardly flying at me from all directions.

And be it right or wrong, I have yet to hear inexpensive equipment that sounds anything near as good as the better equipment. Remember that judges are around that stuff all the time, and after a while your ear becomes very good. I'm at the point right now where I can easily hear the differences between different brands of home cd player. I can easily hear the differences between different receivers. 99% of the people that buy this stuff can't ever hear a difference. This is why Sony receivers outsell Denon receivers. You get more features for your money, and most people can't hear a difference. Anyway, back to my point. Most judges have as much experience or more than I do (usually more). They CAN hear a difference and I guarantee that most of them are not basing their judgement just on the quality of your equipment. They are basing it on the sound that your equipment produces.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

[This message has been edited by Jim85IROC (edited February 06, 2001).]

 

In all actuality Baller, I also have some inexpensive equipment. Kenford, and Power Acoustic amps, but the source is Sony,(although it's pretty old, it was the best in it's time) and speakers by Infinity and MTX. But it does sound good. Not good enough to compete, but for everyday driving, it's good enough.

Jim, no matter how it was recorded, how it IS reproduced is what I care about. I love it when I hear the lead vocals right in front of my face, and the back ups behind me. And when I hear the lead guitar coming from the left for certain solos, and then the right for others, and then when the solo transfers from left to right then the same in the rear, it's even beter. Not to mention rave mixes, and Pink Floyd type sounds.

As for staging falling apart, well, like I said before, most music,(other than trance, or classical) sounds better in the recording, not in concert. So staging is nothing more than an option. Just like having music come flying at me from all directions is an option. And an option that I choose. Imaging is nothing more than what it says, imaging. With music coming from all around me, it puts an image of sound all around me, other than just in front of me.


I have read, and heard all of the reasons for having "perfect staging", I just don't agree.

Anybody else have opinions?

 

It won't be long before we're all listening to five channel DVD Audio in our cars instead of two channel CD's.

 

I'm working on it

I've got the LCD screen already, and had planned on converting a home dvd player for automotive use, but now in-dash dvds with the DD and DTS decoders are only a year or 2 away. Panasonic already has it, so hopefully a good one will come along shortly.

Stinger, our disagreement here is a perfect example of why there's more than 1 choice available for car audio products. If everybody had the same tastes, we'd all have the same stereo. I just don't think it's fair to say that one way is "better" than the other. Striving for proper imaging and staging isn't wrong. My home stereo is a fantastic 2 channel system that faithfully reproduces classical, jazz, rock and country as it was intended to be played. I want the same experience in my car. Next time you get the chance to audition some quality home speakers or to audition a show winning car, take that opportunity. While it still may not be your preferred way of listening, giving it some quality time with a good recording will help you gain an appreciation for the capabilities of a properly set system.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

I didn't mean low-quality equipmment what I mean is SQ stands for sound quality not the way things are put together. I can't afford to have a professional installation and can't afford $5 clips every foot on my wires. My system looks good and there aren't any wires showing except inches where it connects. I just don't understand why they judge sound quailty judged alot on the expensive installation. That's where I lost points.

------------------
1987 Firebird 2.8 more show than go. Still turns over 10' tires though.

 

They don't judge sound quality based on your installation. They judge your installation based on your installation. The installation has it's own separate judging section, and the overall score is determined by both the sound quality section and the installation quality section. Having a good sounding stereo without a good looking installation is like showing up to a car show with a mechanically brilliant car that's in primer. It may serve it's purpose well, but you can't expect it to win a show. Just like with car shows, a "nice" installation isn't going to get you any trophies either. It's the cream of the crop that wins. To win, in addition to a great sounding system, you need a very clean, very professional, and usually a unique design.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

most good systems I've seen,are non directional,even in the mids and highs. if the acoustics are just right and there lots of power through the whole range of sound,the music is just "there" ,the way it should be,home systems are better to use for imaging,but who really sits in one place with the system cranked? lots of power,lots of sound everywhere. surround is only neccessary for movies and I still don't even care for it too much because you know where the screen is and it seems kinda fake sometimes. stereo is all that is really needed to produce true sound,after all we only have two ears,one left,one right. any good "long throw" speakers with a decent high power amp(low SWR) can do the job in any acoustic environment. just my .02

 

I've heard high power systems that will make you run for cover with your hands over your ears because they sound so bad. Loud does NOT equal good sound quality. If the systems you were listening to were non-directional (i.e. they didn't image), then they weren't very good.

Why should you only get good sound quality and imaging at home? If I'm capable of getting good imaging and sound quality in my car, why shouldn't I?

The biggest difference between most people on opposite sides of this arguement is generally (as usual, there are always exceptions) the people that want it all over the place are what I consider "casual listeners". The hardcore audiophile strives for accuracy in his musical reproduction. Accuracy in ALL areas. Accurate sound quality. Accurate imaging. Accurate staging. We settle for no less.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

I have heard many different sound systems, and I can't see spending tens of thousands of dollars on equipment. I don't compete. I do love good sound, and I will spend money on it, but I have a limit.
My uncle called me an audiophile the other day and I was insulted. When I bought my home system, I went to a "high end stereo shop" and they showed me "true sound". They sat me in a "golden room" and went at it with $1000 and up, amps, cd players, and pre-amps, and eq's, and speakers that didn't even look like speakers. I really wasn't impressed, while others were. (I helped make a sale)

You can get the perfect sound quality effect with a simple pair of head phones.

I guess that I am more of a home theater,(or in this case, mobile theater) sound person. For my show car, I'll be installing a video system, but for my T/A, I just want to drop the tops, cruise the strip and beach, and feel my music.

My point is I just don't agree with the staging effect. That's why I would never compete in SQ.

 

YOU can. Not me. I demand far better sound than a pair of headphones can produce. I've got a great pair of headphones, and when I'm listening to my portable cd player they are great, but I hate the 'headphone' effect. Please don't assume that everybody is willing to settle for substandard sound. Some of us demand the best from music. Most of my customers are very similar to you in that they could never justify spending big bucks on stereo equipment, and most of them couldn't hear a difference anyway. They are justifiably satisfied with lower quality equipment, and in that case it's obviously a waste of money to buy better equipment. But some of us can hear the difference, and are not willing to settle on substandard sound. Plain and simple. It's not right, it's not wrong. Some people are happy with a nice sports car, while others need a high horsepower car with crisp handling and a killer paint job. Others think we're crazy for "needing" that much horsepower or spending that much money on a killer paint job. They ask "why do you need that?" If they have to ask in the first place, no matter what I tell them, they are not going to understand.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Hey all,
Just my two cents...

About staging and imaging... Cars are not the best places to hear how the music was intended to be. We don't sit in the center, we sit on the left side, so from the start, you are incorrect. Jim, you said that music was meant to be heard with two channels, isn't it four channels? Front left and right, and rear left and right? I just got my system up and running. I was shooting for quality more than pure loudness. You don't have to break the bank and buy top of the line stuff to have a great sounding system. I believe it's mostly in the setup and planning. I'm going to purchase better than "circuit city" type specials, but can you really tell the difference between a Macintosh reciever and a Marantz reciever(home stereo stuff)? I think most people don't have their systems setup right. Say if your deck has two sets of RCA outs, "most" guys would wire the front RCAs to a four channel amp and then to FL, FR, RR, RL. Then the rear RCAs to a amp then to the subs. That is incorrect. With that setup, the four front speakers would be getting the same signal, so when the producer of the music wanted the listener to hear lead guitar in the right rear speaker, it would come out of the subs, never to the front channels. I hope I'm making some sense here. If I'm not, my points are... setup your system correctly, try and buy the best equipment in your price range, and if the guy next to you has something that you think is junk, don't look down your nose at him. It's all a learning process, If you only have heard a stereo with one speaker, then you might think that that's the best stereo ever... until you hear one with two speaker.. then the stereo with one speaker becomes junk and so on...

john

 

Unfortunately, conventional music is 2 channel, not 4 channel. The front and rear speakers in your car are receiving the EXACT same information. Because of this, you are creating an un-natural surround effect that was never part of the original recording. In my IROC, I don't even have rear speakers. A pair of separates up front and the subs. That's it. My 86 has the stock 6x9s, but I keep them attenuated. They are just loud enough so that the rear passenger gets more than bass in his ear. I haven't begun on the system for the GTA, but if it has any sort of rear speakers, they'll be stock.
Likewise, in my home stereo, I have a single pair of Boston Acoustics towers. I've got a center channel and surrounds for movie watching, but that's because movies have 6 channel recordings, not 2 channel. A dolby digital movie has a separate recorded channel for front left, center, front right, left rear, right rear and LFE (Low Frequency Effects). Traditional stereo doesn't have these channels. They only have left and right.

And just because I'm not sitting in the middle of my car doesn't mean I can't have good imaging. It's harder to make a stereo image when you sit off axis, but it's still definately possible. When I close my eyes, the vocals are not right in front of me as they would be if I sat in the middle, but they are still directly in the center of my dashboard. When you go to a concert and get seats off to one side, the vocals still come from the stage don't they?

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Jim,
I put in CCR's suzy Q and I definitely heard completely separate parts of the music from the right rear and then front left. When Fogerty start with that monitone voice I had to turn around because it sounded like he was in my back seat. Are you saying that the reciever is doing that? I'm not sure, so I can't say that you are wrong, but I would think that MONO recordings are two channel, where all speakers get the same signal. Stereo recordings separate the different components to different speaker channels. If what you said about front and rear speakers get the same signal is true, why did they invent stereo? I not trying to start a big argument, just trying to get some knowledge.

John

 

Hey all,
I did some research. Quadraphonic sound is recorded in four channels. When I mentioned CCR's Suzy Q in my last post, I must have been listening to remastered copy. So, is music still recorded in stereo (two channel)? If they can make 6:1 surround for movies, two channel stereo for music seems a bit bland and ordinary. Also, if it's all two channel, why bother with staging and imaging, sounds like you can only get "so" good?

john

 

Speaking of quadrophonic sound, didn't Pink Floyd record one of their albums in quadrophonic sound but never release it? I think it was "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall", but I'm not sure. I heard that they had rereleased it in quadrophonic or were going to in the near future.

 

There hasn't been a quadraphonic radio in a car since the 70s. I am telling you from fact, not opinion, that the cds you are playing in your car are 2 channel, and 2 channel only. There is no automotive cd player on the planet that is capable of playing more than 2 channels. If you're hearing something pan from front to back, it's because the two speakers have a different frequency responses, so there is emphasis on different frequencies front and rear. If a sound sweeps in frequency, it will shift from one speaker to another based on what frequencies each emphasises. This is a perfect exampls of music NOT doing what it was intended to do, and why I hate rear fill.

Anyway, this is my last post here. I'm sick of arguing my point to people that have no understanding of what I'm saying. Whether you like music one way or another, there is only ONE way that it reproduces sound as it was originally intended. Whether or not that type of sound appeals to you is not the point I'm trying to make, but that seems to be getting lost. If anybody has any additional questions about this, feel free to email me and I will be happy to discuss it, but I'm not going to continue a pissing match that nobody can learn from.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Slow down jim, we understand what you are saying. But why do they remaster CDs? To make them sound better. When I set my home stereo to surround while listening to regular cds, I cry because I would love to have this sound effect in my car.

What is music? Entertainment. To get the most entertainment from my music, I want to add certain effects. Like my sound card in my computer. It has a 3D stereo enhancement. I choose this option for some songs, because it makes the music really come alive. Just like adding surround to music.

My point is unless you want to compete in sound quality, it is pointless to only have two channels. Using your example, if you're going to have 300 horsepower, and you can get 350, why not get 350? If you can get 360 degrees out of your stereo, why only use 180?

 

Right so a poor man dosen't have a chance.

 

I promised not to respond again, but here goes:
And my point is, it is NOT pointless if that's how you like your music. It's pointless to YOU, not me. This is where I keep losing you. Just because you don't think it's necessary, dosen't mean that others feel the same. We want something different from our music than you. I want my music a certain way, so to set it up that way is not pointless. Go to a website full of audiophiles (such as www.audioreview.com) and talk to some of it's members. Audiophiles want 2 channel and only 2 channel. Most shun multichannel recordings and will not use them. This time I am going to give an example to help you realize that not all of us are satisfied with music coming from all over the place. I listen to classical music in addition to more popular stuff. Hopefully some of you guys have been to a live classical concert. If you have, you would know that the orchestra is set up in a very deliberate fashion. Everybody in that orchestra is positioned in a very specific location. The result, is that when you listen to the music, you are presented with a soundstage of very precise origin. It is part of the music, and the music is often written around these locations. If you close your eyes, you can still recreate the entire soundstage in your head. You can accurately position the different instruments on stage, and usually you can even tell that certain instruments are behind or in front of other instruments. When I listen to my favorite classical recordings, I don't want that reproduction mutilated by my equipment. I want a faithful reproduction that recreates the sound AS THE COMPOSER INTENDED. My stereo is not of high enough quality to allow me to attain the proper depth that I just mentioned above, but I certainly want to have accurate left to right positioning. I want it accurate. My standards are no less strict with other types of music. Jazz recordings are structured around the same sort of precision that classical recordings are. A quality jazz recording will re-create the live performance for you, positioning all of the band members in their proper locations. If that is not important to you, so be it, but don't think for a minute that it is only important to others for the sake of competing. Many of us are not satisfied with music that does not give us this very important aspect of the music. Rock music and country music is also recorded in 2 channel with the specific intent of recreating a realistic soundstage. If you don't want to listen to it, fine. All music is recorded in 2 channel. When the mixers produce it, it is in a studio with 2 speakers. There is starting to be some multichannel stuff out there, mainly on DVD with 5.1 surround. I have some live performances in this format, and the additional channels were used properly to make the performance more realistic. They didn't start throwing guitar sounds in one channel, drums in the other, etc. They used the surround information to recreate the accurate reverberations of the original recording. The result is a magnificent realism of the original performance, with the instruments and imaging still in the proper places. This is much different than playing 2 channel audio through 4 speakers.

Why do you think competitions judge areas such as imaging and staging? It's not just some arbitrary standard that a bunch of geeks in a meeting came up with. They are rules and guidelines that reflect the philosophies and beliefs of the audiophiles that created them.

Again, I'm going to state my point. It is NOT just competitors that are interrested in imaging and staging. I don't compete. People that are interrested in proper imaging and staging are people that want to hear their music in the most realistic way. Plain and simple. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by your music, but please do not fool yourself into thinking that such an environment is an accurate portrayal of the music. It is not.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Jim,
Okay, I understand where you are coming from. I agree that trying to get the correct soundstage and image is important to recreate what the composer wanted you to hear. Where I trouble understanding is... The car is such a screwed of place to try to create a correct soundstage to begin with. I hear that putting a center channel in the middle will create the staging of the singer in front of you. But... how do you get around the fact that EVERYBODY puts the subs in the BACK of the car. By your reasoning and the reasoning of having a correct soundstage, the bass drum should be BEHIND the vocals, not behind the audience. I've been to a lot of concerts, and not one had the drum kit behind the audience. If you want the correct soundstage, the subwoofers should be mounted to the hood. I'm really not trying to have a pissing contest with you or anybody. Just trying to expand my knowledge by asking questions. Thanks for your time.

John

 

Bass is non-directional. Although it is VERY difficult to achieve, it is quite possible to make your bass sound like it's coming from up front. Bass by itself is non directional, but when you hear somebody kick a bass drum, you can still tell where it's coming from. Why? Because along with bass, that bass drum has a whole spectrum of upper frequency harmonics. These upper frequency harmonics are what allow you to localize the sound. So this brings us back to the car. In a car, you've got your mids and highs, along with the subs. When the stereo reproduces a bass drum sound, the sub handles the bass, but your mids and highs will reproduce the upper harmonics that you need for localization. Because of this, your front speakers will determine how your bass drum images. But, there's a problem. In most cars, you can still tell that the bass is coming from behind, especially when you turn it up. The reason for this is that other stuff in your car is vibrating and rattling with the bass. Even if it's not audable, it's there, and your ears pick up on it, just like the upper harmonics from a bass drum, and you're able to tell that the sound is coming from behind. In order to make bass image in the front, you need good front speakers, and you need an extremely well damped car. This is NOT easy to achieve, and right now, this is the biggest hurdle in bass technology for the car.

Center channel speaker. A center channel can help your front soundstage when set up properly. The center channel is not just a combination of Left and Right signals though. What is needed at the center channel is only the information that's present in both front channels. When this is implemented and and set up properly, it can help your imaging. When you just throw a mono center channel in, it kills your imaging. It pulls everything toward the center. Center channels were pretty popular in the mid and early 90s. Now that people are getting 2 channels to image better, center channels seem to be less popular in audio-only systems.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Jim, I'm wondering if you read the e-mail that I sent you. Not to mention anything that I have posted here. What I get from your posts, are nothing but contradictions. Please understand that you are not the only person here who can hear the difference in sound quality between two different stereos. If you don't want to start a "pissing match" then try to see things from other points of veiw. Staging may be what you want, but if your trying to please other people, why worry about what you want?

I would like to re-post my original post with more clarity:

When installing a stereo system, think about what direction that you want to go in, and for what reason. If you want sound quality, you don't have to follow "the rules of sound quality". You can have more than two speakers and have your stereo sound tonally accurate.

Once again, I am hoping for only open minded opinions.

Thank you.

 

Stinger, I didn't reply to your email because I put another post up here. The point is, we're both seeing this from totally different viewpoints and we're getting nowhere.

My disagreement with your philosophy lies in that you think that the only reason to have good staging and imaging is to win competitions, and you're losing sight of the fact that a VERY large amount of people set up their stereo because they like it that way, not to win competitions. Every guy I work with has a car stereo that images very well, and none of us compete.

Yes, you can have more than 2 speakers and have your stereo sound tonally accurate, but you can't have more than 2 speakers and make it image. (in general).

Just to re-itterate, I can see things from other points of view, but apparently you can't. I've said over and over that I can totally understand that some people are not concerned about proper imaging and prefer the 'surround' setup, but I'm trying to remind you that not just competitors are interrested in imaging, and this is getting lost on you. There are thousands of audiophiles with nice 2 channel home stereos that would never consider anything beyond 2 channel, and they sure aren't bringing their home stereos to competitions. I've tried to explain a bunch of times why people like 2 channel, and you just insist that it's not necessary for anybody. You're lucky that you don't consider it important or necessary because you won't have to spend countless hours modifiying your car to achieve good imaging, but just because it's not necessary to you doesn't mean that thousands of us are going to concur.

If you want to continue this discussion, I think you're going to have to ask me specific questions so I can elaborate, because I just keep saying the same thing over and over and it's obviously not helping.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Ok jim, hopefully this will help you.


"When you add fill in the rear, the image totally falls apart, as does the staging".

Yes the staging falls apart, but the imaging is enhanced.

"I see no point in striving for tonal accuracy just to have the soundstage and image fall apart and have music haphazardly flying at me from all directions".

Tonal accuracy is good sound. And once again, image does not fall apart, or degrade with rear speakers.


"I just don't think it's fair to say that one way is "better" than the other."

That's all that your saying is that "your way" ,(staging) is better.

"Please don't assume that everybody is willing to settle for substandard sound. Some of us demand the best from music. "

Need I say more?

" Whether you like music one way or another, there is only ONE way that it reproduces sound as it was originally intended. Whether or not that type of sound appeals to you is not the point I'm trying to make, but that seems to be getting lost."

The point that I am trying to make is that just because music is recorded in two channels, that doesn't mean that it HAS to be reproduced in only two channels. And that's where you're getting lost.


"Why do you think competitions judge areas such as imaging and staging? It's not just some arbitrary standard that a bunch of geeks in a meeting came up with."

Are you sure? About the meeting?


"There is nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by your music, but please do not fool yourself into thinking that such an environment is an accurate portrayal of the music. It is not."

Who is to say what the "accurate portrayal" is? Artists want to reach you musically. If the song has a story played out by the lyrics, then the IMAGE you should be recieving is what your imagination can create. Have you ever seen a music video? They aren't all just concert footage.


"you think that the only reason to have good staging and imaging is to win competitions"

When I said "it's pointless to have only two channels unless you want to compete", that's only me agreeing with opinions from many others that I have had this same discussion with.


"Yes, you can have more than 2 speakers and have your stereo sound tonally accurate, but you can't have more than 2 speakers and make it image. (in general)."

Didn't we already cover this?


"I've tried to explain a bunch of times why people like 2 channel, and you just insist that it's not necessary for anybody."

Actually, I never said that. What I have stated is that it is my opinion that having more than two channels does nothing to destroy sound, when you have stated the exact oposite.

"If you want to continue this discussion, I think you're going to have to ask me specific questions so I can elaborate, because I just keep saying the same thing over and over and it's obviously not helping."

First of all, is this better for you?

Second, all you keep repeating is that you can't have proper imaging with more than two speakers. And what I've been trying to help you to understand is that having more than two channels only ruins staging, but does not kill imaging.


Pay attention jim. I wont say this another time.

How you want to set up your system, is up to you. If you like the way it sounds, then that's good for you.
If you can't understand that imaging can be created by any number of speakers, then I'm sorry. The point that you keep missing is just that. If you want "staging", you need only two speakers. But you don't have to have only two speakers to have good sound, and proper imaging.

You and many other people disagree with this, but I agree with many different other people that staging isn't necesary to have good sound. Many novices get lost in that theory. And that is who I've been trying to reach. People that can still learn. I would rather people decide for themselves, then to just repeat what they've read from one book, on one subject. For your aplication, staging is important. For many other people, it isn't. And staging is the one and only thing that I don't agree with. Yes, there are many people that do like staging, and sound coming from only two speakers, but there are also people that like sound coming from only one speaker, and definately no more. Another can of worms, and I think that the only thing that we will be able to agree on is that we don't want to open this one.

Last, read my posts, and think before you reply.

Thank you.

 

Yeah dude, you're right. I'm gonna go put 50 speakers in my car. Hell, maybe I'll even play different music through each one.

Imaging and staging go hand-in-hand. From a standpoint of IASCA rules, they are different entities, but in reality they are very closely related. Yes, with 4 speakers you can still have a stable image, but it's substantially more difficult to achieve, and even if you DO achieve it, the location of the image is absolutely NOT going to be in the correct location (hence the staging).

I disagree with you that too many novices get caught up in staging. Most novices know nothing about staging. Of course, maybe I should add a clear and precise definition of my opinion of a novice so that we can avoid further confusion and save you the trouble of picking apart every single comment I've made. My opinion of a novice is a guy that is just getting started with building a stereo. Unless he's hardcore into it, he probably doesn't know what imaging is other than noticing the over-exaggerated effects in some pop music, etc.

"The point that I am trying to make is that just because music is recorded in two channels, that doesn't mean that it HAS to be reproduced in only two channels. And that's where you're getting lost."

Dude. I'm not disagreeing with this ****. Plenty of people like it to surround them, and there isn't a god damned thing wrong with that. I'm just trying to re-iterate that the reverse is also true.

"Tonal accuracy is good sound."

Again, this is just opinion. It all depends on each person's opinion of what 'good sound' is. To me it's crap if it doesn't image and stage properly. Maybe I shouldn't say properly, because you'll cut me apart for it. To me it's crap if it doesn't image and stage in a manner that I feel is consistent with how it was originally recorded in the studio with the mixer listening to it over 2 speakers.


Dude, why are we continuing this discussion? All we're doing is pissing on each other. My car is better because it's red. No it isn't, blue cars are better because people I talked to like blue better, and red is only better for car shows. Blah blah blah. It's all bull**** dude. Put your favorite cd in (unless people you talk to think tapes are better, in which case feel free to enjoy your favorite tape), crank it and love it.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

My reason for this post is summed up in my original statement, that when you're going to do something, think of what reason you're doing it. You can't just read a book and say that this is what I want. Or read posts from people and say the same. I have had maybe 100 setups between my Elcamino, and my T/A, and the sound that I have come to achive is that of surround. In my Elcamino I had a left, right, and a couple of subs. I wasn't satisfied with that so I added some more mids and highs in the rear. I finally was happy. When I got my T/A, I was happy to have a car with rear speakers. I AM HAPPY with my sound. That is the whole point.

Just because I have rear speakers, and a surround set up, doesn't mean that I have SUBSTANDARD sound. To you it may not be substantial, but this is what I like. And that is not wrong. I get upset when people presume that music should be played one way, and one way only.


Like I said, Artist create enjoyment. And how it is enjoyed is up to you.


But, once again, to prove my point:

"Imaging and staging go hand-in-hand. From a standpoint of IASCA rules, they are different entities, but in reality they are very closely related. Yes, with 4 speakers you can still have a stable image, but it's substantially more difficult to achieve, and even if you DO achieve it, the location of the image is absolutely NOT going to be in the correct location (hence the staging)."

You can not say what is correct. I don't agree with staging, and in my car I have a great image of sound. The location is all around me, in my head, infront of my face, behind me, ect. This does kill the staging effect, but that's not what I'm looking for. And no one can tell anyone else that this is wrong. It is preference.

Many novices know alot about set up, and haven't even set a system up. Alot of people that are inept to do so, so they study up on the subject, then do it. So, if you haven't heard both ways, then you don't know what your missing. If you just listen to what people tell you, and not do anything on your own, then how can you even have an opinion?

Once again, I believe that people should come to the conclusions of what is correct for themselves, with open minds. Like I said, I have tried both ways, and being surrounded in sound is the way to go for me. Yes, I do agree that there are many people who see the opisite, and that's great. I just hate to see a good ear get lost because "everybody else does it this way".

If I'm driving, I pic the station, and same if someone else is driving. Same goes for the sound.

 

You're turning into a pain in my *** . I totally agree with everything you said in the first part of that post, but I'm sick of you knit-picking every goddamned comment I make. You get my point but you insist on calling me on every single ****ing phrase that may have the potential to be taken more than one way. Why don't you spell check and grammar check me too? Dude, get over it. I've said a dozen ****ing times that I'm not saying your way is wrong, but you still seem hell-bent on showing me why it's so right.

Now I'm going to return the favor:

"You can not say what is correct."

The hell I can't. The song is mixed at the studio in a way that places all instruments/vocals/sounds in a very specific position in relation to the rest. While whether you choose to set up a system for staging or not, the fact remains that if you're listening to something and the music is staged in a manner inconsistant with how it is recorded, then the staging is not correct. I don't give a rat's *** whether you like it that way or not, because that's a totally different issue and is purely a matter of individual taste.

"Many novices know alot about set up, and haven't even set a system up. Alot of people that are inept to do so, so they study up on the subject, then do it. So, if you haven't heard both ways, then you don't know what your missing. If you just listen to what people tell you, and not do anything on your own, then how can you even have an opinion?"

I agree completely. You continue to hammer a point that I do not dispute.

"Once again, I believe that people should come to the conclusions of what is correct for themselves, with open minds. Like I said, I have tried both ways, and being surrounded in sound is the way to go for me. Yes, I do agree that there are many people who see the opisite, and that's great. I just hate to see a good ear get lost because "everybody else does it this way"."

I agree completely. You continue to hammer a point that I do not dispute.

Let me try to explain this 1 more time, not that it's going to help. I don't give a **** how people listen to their music. If they want it all around them, so be it. I sell more speakers that way. Each person's preference does not automatically change the fact that music was recorded in a certain way. Recording people make their money no matter how you listen to their music, and I'm sure that they are happy that you enjoy it no matter how you choose to listen to it, but if they wouldn't spend countless hours in a studio mixing it just for the sake of it maybe someday making it onto an IASCA disk. They mix it that way because in their eyes it is the "right" way. They are making that music sound exactly the way they feel it should sound. There are those of us that want our music to sound exactly the way they feel it should sound as well. Some of us simply want to hear the music exactly as the artist had intended it to be heard. If they intended it to just be all over the place, that's how it would have been recorded and mixed.

When you watch a movie with surround sound, and something whizzes by the screen from left to right, you expect to hear it whiz by from left to right. You don't expect it to whiz from front left to rear left, or front right to rear left, etc. Nobody seems to dispute staging and imaging in this case, but all of a sudden when you're dealing with 2 channel it's a totally different set of rules/tastes/interests/(insert non-arguable term here)? Why the double standard?

I can't wait to see how many spelling errors you find.


------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

Jim, listen up, NO, I don't care how people listen to music, how many speakers they have, or what type of music they listen too either. What I do care about is when someone tries to tell someone else that there stereo sounds like crap, because that person doesn't like to hear rear fill. That is not correct. Too many times have I seen this happen. So people want to set there system up the way other people tell them too. That is not right.

The point that I've been trying to make, that you can't get is that if you want perfect, concert quality sound, then you'll need to have a speaker for every instrument, every frequency, every note. Then you'll be where you want. So, why not do this? You don't have to. And why don't you have to? Ever hear of a mixer? Do you know what this does? The reason that music is MIXED down to two channels, is simple. Like I said before, first there was one speaker, then there were two. Now there are up to seven. What's next? Will you be there? Or will you still be using two channels when they come out with ten? If so, then good for you. You like what you have and nobody can tell you that you're wrong.

Once again, no one way is right. Since your finally agreeing with me, this should be the end of my being a "pain in your *** ". But, if there weren't so many contradictions in the first place, then we wouldn't be here, at post # twenty something, now would we. But you learned that in grammar school, right? But obviously you have deeper problems than just that. Well, I guess that doesn't matter anyway. I'm sorry for all of the "knit picking" but how else would you understand? You simply didn't seem to until now.

The only thing agreeable is that we both like are music in different ways, right? If you would also agree that no one way is correct, in that maner I mean that correct being right for ones self and NOT "staging", then atleast I will have reached one person.

LAST TIME: I personally don't care about staging as much as another person would, so in my stereo, I will do without it. Wether no one else likes it, or if two people do, if I like the way my stereo sounds, and there is no distortion, and there is good seperation, and tonal accuracy, and clear imaging, then I am in the right. Same goes for anyone else.

The End

 

My point hasn't changed. I understood the same things at my first post than I do now. I never said that surround is "wrong". I said it's not what the artists and the producers intended in most cases, and that more than just competitors liked it that way. Plain and simple. It's you that kept insisting that only competitors wanted it that way, which is absolutely not true. When I have customers come in, I sell most of them a deck & 4, not a deck & 2. I understand that most people like it that way, but virtually all of the high end systems we do (most of which are not ever entered into a competition) are set up to image and stage well because the majority of our high end audiophile customers want it that way.

But thank you especially for telling me that I've got deep problems. I'll be sure to find a shrink and tell them, "Yeah, but stinger thinks I'm nuts, so it must be true". Just because I have strong convictions and no tolerance for people trying to put words in my mouth or to discredit me for making comments that can be knit picked and twisted out of context, does not mean that I've got issues.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

 

"loud systems that make you run for cover"? "louder isn't always better"? I guess I'm not good enough for these discussions......since when did high power mean loud?? I am an electronic tecnition,no,I don't work at radio shack, I work with thousands of watts of radar and RF comm equip. I know whats up,I'm pretty sure my systems don't crap out. two channel stereo was a break through in the late sixties and has always done the job for me. it's your perogative,do what makes you happy.

 

Jim, Do you know what a contradiction is? I guess not, because you still seem to be stating conflicting things. What you need to ask your shrink is "Why is stinger right?" That way maybe someone else can teach you.

I am in no way saying that one way is better than the other. It was you who said that unless you play a recording as it was originally recorded, then it is being reproduced wrong. I'm simply saying that even if you play the right channel through the left speaker and the other way around for the right speaker, then you are just as right as anyone else. It's that simple.

What I have said was that if you don't intend on entering competitions, then why not set your stereo up as you want it, wether it be stereo, suround or which ever way you want.

And last, but not least, I have never put any words into anyones mouth, nor have I ever twisted anything out of context. If you would have listen to me a long time ago, when I reminded you to read my post then think before you answer, then you wouldn't have to worry about being knit-picked. I'm sorry that I've hurt you so much. I'll try not to discourage you in the future.


Junkyard, thank you. That's the type of people that I was looking for in the first place. Like I have been saying this whole time, as long as you like it, it's not wrong.

 

You're an idiot. Open your eyes, read what I'm saying and try REAL hard to get your small mind to understand it. Listening to music on a ****ing clock radio isn't wrong either, but that sure as bloody hell doesn't mean that it's being reproduced as the artist originally intended it. Like it, love it or hate it is of no concern to the original artist nor to me, but no matter how much you insult me, that doesn't mean that the music blasting from a clock radio sounds like the artist intended for it to. Why do you keep trying to discredit me and prove how right you are? I've said time and time again, and I'm saying it YET AGAIN in hopes that it'll settle in somewhere inside of your thick skull that I don't give a rats *** how anybody else likes their music, and I'll totally encourage them to listen to it as they please. But that in no way means that I'm going to conform to YOUR way of listening to it just because you and the people you talk to think that way is better.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

[This message has been edited by Jim85IROC (edited February 17, 2001).]

 

Jim,

Instead of becoming so defensive, maybe you should read some of my posts. Then go ahead and read some of your own. Then you will realize who the idiot is. You keep saying that no matter how music is listened to doesn't matter. Then in another statement you insist that music is supposed to be reproduced one way only. What I had hoped that you would understand, which everyone else has, is that there is no one way that music or any noise for that matter is supposed to be reproduced. No matter how the artists, or producers, or the guy next to you at a light, want it to be played, the way that it is being reproduced, is the right way. Wether it be in mono, stereo, or surround, in a home, or in a car, with or with out staging.

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings, that was not what I had originally intented to do. I'm also sorry that you think that everything is about you. The world does not revolve around you, although your mommy will tell you differently. What I see is what involves you, is the fact that you're so stuborn, and **** retentive. Everything that I have "knit-picked" about you was to show you what you're saying is incorrect. You don't belive so, but it's true. You don't agree with it, but it's true. Being of an opinion, doesn't make you right. That's what I'm trying to get across to you, and all off the people like you. And unfortunately, there are many.


FOR THE LAST TIME, WETHER YOU GET IT OR NOT:

Music doesn't care how it's played. You like it one way, and I like it another. Both are niether wrong or right. Any other statement is completely opinionated, and that is where you are stuffing words into other people's mouth's.

NEXT TIME, THINK BEFORE YOU REPLY.

Do not reply to this. I have had enough of you.

 

You're still not getting it dude.
That is not and never was what I said or what I meant, but just how YOU ARE TAKING IT. That is what I'm bitching about. Over and over you mis-understand what I'm saying. I feel that there is a correct and an incorrect approach to reproducing sound. This has been well established in previous posts. However, whether people decide that my idea of what's correct suits them or not is of no concern to me. Surround or not, enjoy the music.

No ****. Once again, you are trying to argue a point that I do not contest!!!!! Everything you're bitching about is stuff that I don't contest!! The music certainly does not care how it is played, and I'm sure the artists aren't losing any sleep over it either. That doesn't change the fact that the original recording was done in a specific way.

**** off.

In the last 15 posts, nothing new at all has developed. You continue to argue points that I do not dispute, and you continue to be hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong. Recording methods are FACT. Indesputable. I'm sure you would not argue that. Anything beyond that point is personal taste and opinion, and argueing over opinion is ridiculous.

Think before I reply? I do. I'll tell you what I think, I think that it's unfortunate that you won't sit back for a minute and try to see how many times you've quoted me, and how every time it's been over an issue that I don't dispute. You're beating a dead horse and getting nowhere.

Once again. I don't dispute most of the crap that you keep trying to argue about.

 

Hey guys,
Why hasn't the music industry started recording/mixing in more than two channels? Is it because they figure that most people will only be listening to the music through two speaker setups? Kinda gearing towards the majority? Is it too expensive? There are going to be "super audio" dvds coming out soon. Are these mixed into more than two channels? I'm not taking sides here and I see both points being made. I would agree with stinger that if you want to get perfect staging and imaging, you would have a separate speaker for each instrument, vocals, etc... In the real world, that's a bit much. Jim, I hope I'm getting this right... Your view is that the music was recording a certain way and for you, you should listen and setup you system to reproduce it the way they recorded it. I understand that. Do you think the recording industry believes that the way they continue to produce music is the correct way to listen to music, or current recording technology doesn't allow them to get it perfect, so they only output to two channels? Two channels have been around for a long time, if given the choice, would the producers of the music change to multi channel output? Is that why the imergence of the new super audio format? I do believe that a good majority of people do not have a clue when it comes to sound quality and couldn't care less if it's out of one speaker or 24 speakers. As for the pissing fight, I think both of views have been lost and now it's just trying to get the last word.

 

Right now, multi-channel (i.e. more than 2 channel) audio is still extremely rare. There are some surround-sound titles but not many, and they tend not to be very high quality.

There isn't a "Super Audio DVD". You're mixing two technologies. There is SACD (Super Audio CD) and DVD Audio. SACD is here, but to my knowledge it is strictly a 2 channel format right now. DVD audio is basically still under development but I expect that the format will support multi-channels. Whether there are many titles available in surround sound will be a different issue altogether. Those high-end formats tend to be purchased strictly by audiophiles, most of whom shun multichannel audio. I wouldn't expect to see multi channel DVD audio until it becomes affordable enough for the 'average joe' to have it.
That's a good question. I suppose that there are groups that would fall into both categories. I think that most artists will do whatever is possible for them to reproduce the music that most accurately portrays what they are trying to achieve. In almost any case, multiple channels can help re-create a more accurate reproduction if they are used properly. Keep in mind, this is 100% different than just forcing a 2 channel recording out through 4 speakers.
Other artists may fool around with multiple channel recording, just like the Doors fooled around with Stereo when it first came out. They did not use stereo technology to create a realistic environment. They had vocals come from 1 speaker, guitar come from another, etc. Right now, multichannel technology is here. It's been here for years. In general, the public has not accepted it, so it's popularity has stayed very low.
I think you're absolutely right. It's obvious that neither has gotten through to the other in just the way we wanted, but we're both stubborn and persist.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah