Audio + Visual is Better than Just Audio

[nicoff]

Yes, it was at one point long ago, but ironically, as Stereophiles founder noted...
......

I am surprised that Stereophile actually published such a frank trashing of high-end audio by J. Gordon Holt (the founder of Stereophile):

"Atkinson: Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

J. Gordon Holt: Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio."

Wow!

 

[Randy Myers]

As several have mentioned, it really is to each their own. I ran the audio from my TV through my audio system from way back when... 1980's??? But I never liked the sound of surround sound, the effects, etc., were simply something I did not get in to.

Currently we have a music room upstairs in our house and a TV in the living room. I do have a Yamaha receiver and some Klipsch speakers specifically for the TV. I had surround hooked up and my wife did not like it. She specifically asked me if I could please get ride of the rear speakers. That was no big deal to me because I never liked the sound of surround anyway .

Audio quality is not that important to her. She can hear the difference but it is not very important . However she actually does really like the B&W speakers hooked up to her computer. Go figure ....

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Many folks who are into 2-channel high-end audio tend to discount the possibility that a well set up “Home Theater” can bring a better and more engaging experience than the two-channel set up. Yet, in my experience, if done properly, we can achieve that.

First, a little history. Home Theaters as we know them today started becoming popular in the 1990s with the arrival of DVD technology. The screen sizes of the TVs available at that time were too small. That meant that if you wanted a “Home Theater”, you had to get a projector and a screen. Since most audio rooms were not designed to accommodate large screens and projectors with low lumen output, many folks converted basements or empty rooms into Home Theaters. Those folks ended up with a very nice two-channel system in one room and a “Home Theater” in another windowless, audio-compromised room. Not surprisingly, folks found that their two-channel system (with better speakers and better room) sounded better than their multichannel system with multiple lesser speakers in a sub-par room.

Such compromises are easily avoidable today. One can now buy large screen TVs that can be installed in just about any audio room. That allows the user the chance to use the same room and speakers for their two-channel system and for their Home Theater.

In my experience, no audio-only system can recreate the emotional impact of a well-produced music video of the same performance. Video adds an extra quality that no audio-only (even if high-definition audio) can provide. I would think that any Opera lover would much rather watch Don Giovanni with CD-Quality audio than just listen to the same performance in 512DSD without video.

Maybe it is as simple as two senses (audio and visual) are better than one (audio alone).

here is the problem; proper 2 channel music reproduction requires a different acoustic approach than a proper object based (Dolby Atmos) multi-channel system. 2 channel succeeds with a 'live' room and mostly diffusion. the speakers are ideally brought out into the room, and the ideal listening position might be in the near field. multi-channel needs lots of surface absorption to reduce comb filtering and slap echo with all the surround speakers and the seating is relative to screen size. typically front speakers are closer to the front walls.

you can favor one approach acoustically, but it will compromise the other. no getting around that. if you tune it for multi-channel then it's over-damped for 2 channel. if tuned for 2 channel, it's relatively confused for multi-channel. not saying that you won't enjoy both in the same room, but you are never going to optimize both.

as far as emotional connection; sorry to disagree. when i pull out my best vinyl or tape in my 2 channel room, it smokes any surround/video experience in my dedicated home theater multi channel room. just way more musical connection with the best analog. and even my Wadax 2 channel digital is formidable and gives the best multi-channel/video a run for it's money. and i have a serious dedicated multi-channel 9.3.6/Trinnov/Funk Audio/4k front projector separate home theater.

are there digital multi-channel video performances that don't translate well to 2 channel? sure. i'd agree with that. but hard to judge the 2 channel unless the system is optimized for it. and does the system have the level of digital playback performance to optimize the 2 channel non video version?

there are many levels of both 2 channel and multichannel with video, so my comments only pertain to serious levels of both approaches. YMMV. just my opinions based on years of very serious efforts at both.

 

[nicoff]

here is the problem; proper 2 channel music reproduction requires a different acoustic approach than a proper object based (Dolby Atmos) multi-channel system. 2 channel succeeds with a 'live' room and mostly diffusion. the speakers are ideally brought out into the room, and the ideal listening position might be in the near field. multi-channel needs lots of surface absorption to reduce comb filtering and slap echo with all the surround speakers and the seating is relative to screen size. typically front speakers are closer to the front walls.

you can favor one approach acoustically, but it will compromise the other. no getting around that. if you tune it for multi-channel then it's over-damped for 2 channel. if tuned for 2 channel, it's relatively confused for multi-channel. not saying that you won't enjoy both in the same room, but you are never going to optimize both.

as far as emotional connection; sorry to disagree. when i pull out my best vinyl or tape in my 2 channel room, it smokes any surround/video experience in my dedicated home theater multi channel room. just way more musical connection with the best analog. and even my Wadax 2 channel digital is formidable and gives the best multi-channel/video a run for it's money. and i have a serious dedicated multi-channel 9.3.6/Trinnov/Funk Audio/4k front projector separate home theater.

are there digital multi-channel video performances that don't translate well to 2 channel? sure. i'd agree with that. but hard to judge the 2 channel unless the system is optimized for it. and does the system have the level of digital playback performance to optimize the 2 channel non video version?

there are many levels of both 2 channel and multichannel with video, so my comments only pertain to serious levels of both approaches. YMMV. just my opinions based on years of very serious efforts at both.

You are comparing a dedicated 2-Channel audio room versus a dedicated Home Theater room (with different sets of speakers in each room). In my OP I noted that when comparing the sound in a dedicated 2-Channel room against that in a dedicated multichannel home theater, most folks found that they prefer their dedicated 2-Channel system (with better speakers and room acoustics) than their multichannel system (with lesser quality speakers and room acoustics). Your post confirms what I said.

However, my argument is that in a dedicated 2-Channel room, if the user adds a video source (properly placed I might add), and then watches and compare similar performances in the same room, the video enhances the experience and enjoyment of the music.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I agree, you do not NEED the surrounds to make the 2-channel experience better.

Studiophiles, no, concert hall attendees, yes, physical fact:
The Optimum Loudspeaker Arrangements for Multichannel Sound System - NASA/ADS
(yes they did test down to 2ch frontal "stereo" and are aware of QSound gimmicks, etc).
It once again boils down to types of music and needs for "fidelity", known or unknown.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Bart001]

However, my argument is that in a dedicated 2-Channel room, if the user adds a video source (properly placed I might add), and then watches and compare similar performances in the same room, the video enhances the experience and enjoyment of the music.

My wife and I disagree; we very much enjoy the lack of "video" (a.k.a. "a TV") in our living room where the 2-channel system resides. This is largely room aesthetics.

And conversely, when we do watch 'music videos' (be they of the concert video type or the documentary type), we are mostly in it for the video elements (seeing the performers in action). The sound via our Sonus soundbar is perfectly acceptable to us.

Frankly, if doing "critical listening," which we do sometimes, I myself would find video distracting and detracting from the immersive listening experience.

 

[nicoff]

My wife and I disagree; we very much enjoy the lack of "video" (a.k.a. "a TV") in our living room where the 2-channel system resides. This is largely room aesthetics.

And conversely, when we do watch 'music videos' (be they of the concert video type or the documentary type), we are mostly in it for the video elements (seeing the performers in action). The sound via our Sonus soundbar is perfectly acceptable to us.

Frankly, if doing "critical listening," which we do sometimes, I myself would find video distracting and detracting from the immersive listening experience.

I think you meant to say that you and your wife agree, but I understand what you are saying.

But keep in mind that I am not referring to listening and watching using a soundbar set-up. I am talking about adding video to your best 2-Channel system. And not just any video, because in this case the size and video quality of the "TV" matters. IME, you need a high definition TV (4k-HDR would be ideal, but 1040p would work too) with a minimum screen size of 85" (diagonal).

You are smart in having your wife involved. I do too! In my case, my wife tells me that she really enjoys when the cameras zero-in on the performer and she can watch the body expressions of the musician. Those body expressions would be lost in an audio-only set up.

 

[Bart001]

You are smart in having your wife involved.

Fortunately we share tastes in both home decor (which governs what goes where) and music. She fully supports my "hi fi hobby" although would prefer overall a more svelte setup than my two racks of Naim. But she knows I retain a passion for the brand and she loves what she hears so it's all ok for now.

 

[Mordante]

I really don't like watch music. It distracts from the experience. Sometime I go I used to go the the Royal Concert Building in Amsterdam for classical music. Often I would listen with my eyes closed. I have a few music DvDs maybe 3. But never got past the first 5 minutes before I got bored.

I am thinking about buying a new TV but nothing larger than a 52 or maybe 55. My current TV is a 42 plasma TV.

 

[CPP]

Its all just a hobby.,

 

[Bart001]

I really don't like watch music. It distracts from the experience. Sometime I go I used to go the the Royal Concert Building in Amsterdam for classical music. Often I would listen with my eyes closed. I have a few music DvDs maybe 3. But never got past the first 5 minutes before I got bored.

I am thinking about buying a new TV but nothing larger than a 52 or maybe 55. My current TV is a 42 plasma TV.

I really like watching the musicians live when it's a small ensemble; rock band, blues band, jazz band, etc. "Watching" a symphony orchestra is not interesting to me either. I'm happy to listen with my eyes closed. But seeing a great guitarist up close is very interesting to me, for example.