• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Trinaural Processor: Three speaker stereo

Yesfan70

I'm famous now bitches! vvvvv
Famous
I'll let SH and Flint correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were a few albums back in the day recorded in "3 channel stereo" and Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was one of them.

How well the device in your link can best reproduce the intended affect is unknown. There's been a few times I'll playback some music in Dolby 3 Stereo. I don't know if that's the same or close to what the Trinaural Processor can do, but I still prefered just "good ole" stereo over Dolby 3.
 

Vinyl

Active Member
This has been of interest for the last year for its continuous soundstage – the person who might share firsthand experience is Wardsweb – I believe he was among the first to audition the piece through his association with Bongiorno back in 2003 although I’m not aware of much discussion as of late – pretty interesting concept though - perhaps Wards will chime in and share his impressions.
 

PaulyT

Behind the Curtain
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Superstar
"This very same “necessity” is what makes stereo, for the most part, unsatisfactory and a complete failure as a format. "

:eek:
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
Good Lord! More of this shit?

Seriously! What the hell is this supposed to mean? A failure of the format???

Look, damn near 100% of all the claimed issues with simple two channel stereo listening can be completely remedied merely by addressing the thoroughly well know issues of acoustics and speaker quality. If the acoustics are correct - the speakers are placed properly in relation to the listner, the room reflections are appropriately controlled, etc. AND the speakers are of sufficient fidelity - low distortion, dynamically capable, perfectly matched, then the stereo image will be absolutely stunning. It has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over, tens of thousands of times over in studies, research, surveys, measurable scientific perception tests, etc.

Sorry, I just don't buy all this crap. The amount of work which would go into properly setting up something like that stupid new device is greater than the amount of work it would take to setup a pair of speakers properly.

ARG!

People are constantly trying to fix the wrong problems!

Buying fifteen subwoofers doesn't solve a realism issue with the midrange. Having a 5,000 watt tube amp will not make the wall of glass on one side of the room go away acoustically. Adding more gear and speakers will not solve for a crappy recording. I am sick of this.

Look at all of our good friends on the forum. All of us! We had guys with multiple crappy subs go to one good sub and sing the praises of that approach and encourage everyone else to do the same. We've had guys with multiple center channel speakers go to one good center channel and suddenly they can hear the dialog. We've had people toe-in their speakers and experiment with the angle of toe-in and then become the foremost experts of speaker toe-in, constantly evangelizing the practice, because of the difference it made. Why are idiots constantly solving the wrong problem when the truth is easier, cheaper, and results in greater happiness.

We all know that a good acoustic environment for any set of speakers will vastly improve the performance at a tenth the price of high end amplifiers and cable. Yet, people cannot make the move - it looks bad, it doesn't fit my idea of what a HT should look like, my wife put my balls in the safe when we got married and she only takes them out when I give her everything she asks for without question. If you are serious about good sound you already know how to get it. Fix the acoustics and get a good set of speakers. If you want to be different, if you need show-off/bragging rights at work, if you want to be a collector of shit, then go for it. Buy some POS new toy and experience crappy sound which will require constant tweaking and fixing, because I assure you it will suck just like every other stupid audio magic trick has always sucked.

The physics of how we hear is not some new science just recently discovered - it has been extremely well defined for nearly a century. Much like medical science the ongoing research into how we hear typically reinforces what we've known since modern scientific study has been common. The last great audio discovery was that a small tweeter is better than a big one. We need to get over all this other crap.
 

Yesfan70

I'm famous now bitches! vvvvv
Famous
I know I should have read those articles before posting, but to be honest I pretty much expected to read some rubbish. I did read the Stereophile link. Wow! $1500 for that processor? I'll stick with Dolby 3 on my Denon receiver if I want 3 channel stereo. Did anyone read the footnoote #1 at the bottom of the first page?

It also occurred to me that Trinaural processing might be just dandy for deriving side-channel signals from the front and rear signals of multichannel recordings. While the ear-brain may be able to synthesize a coherent phantom center channel from two channels, it is markedly more difficult to perceive the phantom sides required by most multichannel recordings. Imagine a pair of Trinaurals, each deriving an "algebraically revectorized" side channel, helping to create a seamless 360-degree sound space!—Kalman Rubinson


Holy shit! Looks like Kalman may have made one too many trips to Bournemouth, Eng. Put down the (not) Kool-Aid brother!
 

Lone Stranger

Well-Known Member
I have not read any of the articles except for the quotes that have made it into this thread. They need to realize we hear 3 dimensional sound with 2 ears. My experience with a good stereo setup gives that 3 dimensional sound. I have an older 5.1 system in my basement and for the last year I have set it to 2 channel stereo since the surround speakers were not nearly as good as the mains - never mind I broke a major rule with mixing brands of speakers in the first place. The 2 channel works every bit as well as the 5 channel setup for ambient sound effects.
 

mzpro5

Well-Known Member
Famous
Yesfan70 said:
and Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was one of them.

.

Someday I'll sit down and try and figure out how many versions of that album were put out. I have 4 - vinyl, regular CD, super extra special reissue CD and SACD.
 

Orbison

Well-Known Member
Comments on this quote from the Stereophile article?

"the common and obvious placement of a subwoofer on the floor puts it in a high-pressure zone—a room boundary where it more effectively loads and is affected by the modal resonance."

I can't remember where, but I've read a similar recommendation before. For any standard (non I.B.) sub is the idea of raising the sub up a few feet off the floor beneficial? Probably not from a WAF standpoint, but does it make sense technically? It would seem that a sub on carpet with a carpet pad underneath would reduce mechanical coupling, but not the boundary effect. Has anyone tried this? If so, any noticeable improvement?
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Extracting a center channel from stereo sources is something I have done quite a bit of. The majority of stereo music songs in feature films, music which is not original score composed specifically for the film, is matrixed to three channels so that all three front stage speakers are reproducing the song. I've done it a zillion times on films I've worked on, and know quite a bit about doing it.

And the result is always the same; the imaging suffers. This is not because I don't know what I'm doing, or are stupid, but merely because of the limitations of matrixing which cannot be avoided. Not even by the kid genius who makes this Trinaural gizmo.

Extracting a center channel from a two channel source works very much like the "Dolby 3" matrix on some home theater processors. The success of all these processes is very much dependent on the program material; popular music with a very strong phantom center channel devoted to a vocal has more success, but the left-center and right-center imaging is still far inferior after the matrixing process than straight stereo.

Music recorded with more natural microphone techniques such as classical has its imaging totally destroyed by matrixing processes.

The core problem is that all of these processes must decide what is going to be routed to the center speaker, and it has a lateral "window" in which it must either re-route the signal to the center, or leave it as-is. Take a classical piece where a flute soloist is perhaps 5 degrees right-of-center. Matrix systems will capture this signal (and all the other instruments around it) and route it through the new center channel. Obviously, that flute is no longer in its proper imaging spot, and the imaging outside of the center channel changes dynamically depending on who is playing what notes at the time. The "window" can be either wider or narrower, but it must exist, and by virtue of the fact that there is a window at all, some signals are not going to be where they were when the recording was made.

Matrixing destroys the subtle imaging in the two areas from left to center and right to center. Worst of all, some signals which are on the "edges" of this window, and have subtle harmonic structure (such as violins) will dance back and forth between the center speaker and their original position depending on the notes being played. The result is very ugly sounding.

Of course, the inventor of this Trinaural processor will strongly disagree and spit out nonsensical verbage in defense of his toy, but the bottom line is that he is making money from this thing, and would be the last person on the planet to admit that his baby is ugly.


As a bit of history, three channel stereo is not new, and the name "Trinaural" also dates from the early 1950s. As early as the 1930s, Bell Laboratories studied the problem of multi channel audio and concluded that for proper presentation, 3 channels were required. When Leopold Stokowski made his historic stereo demonstration with the Philadelphia Orchestra, it was done with three channels, left,center, and right.

After World War II, there were essentially two variations of "stereo". The name "stereo" was reserved for 3 channel systems, and "binaural" was reserved for 2 channel listening using headphones (and sometimes speakers). In the early 1950s, Ampex introduced their 300-3 mastering magnetic tape recorder, which recorded 3 channels on 1/2" tape (also during this period Les Paul was on the fringe with his 8 track 1" tape machine, also made by Ampex, but its use was confined to his use only). Almost all commercial recording in America was done with these 3 channel Ampex machines. In the classical music area, recordings were made using 3 microphones for basic pickup and these were routed to left, center and right channels. You can buy these recordings in their native 3 channel presentation on SACDs from original recordings made by RCA, Mercury Living Presence and a few others, and hear them as they were originally intended. And yes, "Kind of Blue" was originally recorded on 3 channel 1/2" tape.

In the popular music area, two of the tracks on the Ampex were devoted to 2 channel stereo instrumental material, and the third channel was used for the vocals; this was a primitive form of what would become multi-tracking on 4, 8, 16, 24, and up to 40 channel recording (Stephens Electronics made the 40 channel recorders using 2" wide tape - they also made a 32 track machine). The 3 channel master was then mixed down to traditional 2 channel stereo. This procedure lasted up into the early 1960s, when 4 channel tape was introduced.

In the early 1950s, Hi-Fi hobbyists could buy 2 channel stereo tapes, most of which were mixdowns from original 3 channel master recordings. Native 3 channel tapes were never introduced because it would have been prohibitively expensive to do so.

In the latter part of 1957, Audio Fidelity introduced the first 2 channel stereo record using the new Westrex 45/45 cutting process. This made it possible for the masses to hear "stereo" in their homes.

The 3 channel masters of all the recordings made during the 1950s and 1960s were never heard in their native format by the public until SACD made it possible to hear them as they were originally recorded.

With modern speakers and electronics, it has become unnecessary to use 3 channels to hear "stereo"; the phantom center channel present in recordings offers imaging as good as that from discrete 3 channel presentations, at least for those in the "sweet spot" between the speakers. And lets face it, anybody who is concerned enough about the presentation and imaging of their music will always be seated in that "sweet spot".
 

nats

Well-Known Member
Orbison said:
Comments on this quote from the Stereophile article?

"the common and obvious placement of a subwoofer on the floor puts it in a high-pressure zone—a room boundary where it more effectively loads and is affected by the modal resonance."

I can't remember where, but I've read a similar recommendation before. For any standard (non I.B.) sub is the idea of raising the sub up a few feet off the floor beneficial? Probably not from a WAF standpoint, but does it make sense technically? It would seem that a sub on carpet with a carpet pad underneath would reduce mechanical coupling, but not the boundary effect. Has anyone tried this? If so, any noticeable improvement?
yes,I copied the subtrap by ? that was very expensive. with scrap materials i had laying around i built a table with 2x4 legs and 1/2 ply for top and bottom 24 inches high, And put a bale of recyceled insulation in the table .My problem was the base sounded a lot better when i stood up then when i sat down,And it was uneven around the room. After the hieght and/or insulation fix, The base was better at sitting position and even around the room except for the left front seat which i will try to address with corner base trapping later. The biggest benifit is it gave me real proof that acoustic treatments will help(which you all have been saying all along) And will get me working on treatments .
 

Randy

Well-Known Member
Famous
Ok now Flint and SH both of you take a breath and relax. :angry-banghead: You know you are right and you guys have explained this stereo thing on many occasions, and done a pretty fair job of it IMO.

But, as you guys have both mentioned on several occasions, the basics of this stuff hasnt changed in decades. How else does the Klipschorn still work so well? Without Snake Oil Salesmen, where would we be? It would just be a boring old hobby with nothing to talk about. :teasing-tease:

For me personally when I hear stereo done right, with great imaging, soundstage, etc. there is almost nothing that gives me more pleasure. Hell, the best thing about buying my SVS sub was how much better it blended with my mains to make stereo recordings even better.
 

Dentman

Well-Known Member
Makes me want to hook up my old Quad Decoder and spin some quad records, I have many, Jerry Reid being about my favorite.
 

Botch

I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S!
Superstar
Yesfan70 said:
I'll let SH and Flint correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were a few albums back in the day recorded in "3 channel stereo" and Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was one of them.
Just recently I acquired a few classical disks in this format, they play thru the three front speakers of my 5.1 system.
 

Botch

I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S!
Superstar
soundhound said:
As a bit of history, three channel stereo is not new, and the name "Trinaural" also dates from the early 1950s. As early as the 1930s, Bell Laboratories studied the problem of multi channel audio and concluded that for proper presentation, 3 channels were required. When Leopold Stokowski made his historic stereo demonstration with the Philadelphia Orchestra, it was done with three channels, left,center, and right.

After World War II, there were essentially two variations of "stereo". The name "stereo" was reserved for 3 channel systems, and "binaural" was reserved for 2 channel listening using headphones (and sometimes speakers). In the early 1950s, Ampex introduced their 300-3 mastering magnetic tape recorder, which recorded 3 channels on 1/2" tape (also during this period Les Paul was on the fringe with his 8 track 1" tape machine, also made by Ampex, but its use was confined to his use only). Almost all commercial recording in America was done with these 3 channel Ampex machines. In the classical music area, recordings were made using 3 microphones for basic pickup and these were routed to left, center and right channels. You can buy these recordings in their native 3 channel presentation on SACDs from original recordings made by RCA, Mercury Living Presence and a few others, and hear them as they were originally intended. And yes, "Kind of Blue" was originally recorded on 3 channel 1/2" tape.

The 3 channel masters of all the recordings made during the 1950s and 1960s were never heard in their native format by the public until SACD made it possible to hear them as they were originally recorded.
Sorry SH, I posted before reading your post above, and I think you touched on this on an earlier thread when I'd mentioned these recordings when I first got them...
 

MatthewB

Grandmaster Pimp Daddy
Famous
Flint said:
Good Lord! More of this shit?


People are constantly trying to fix the wrong problems!


Buying fifteen subwoofers doesn't solve a realism issue with the midrange. Having a 5,000 watt tube amp will not make the wall of glass on one side of the room go away acoustically. Adding more gear and speakers will not solve for a crappy recording. I am sick of this.

Look at all of our good friends on the forum. All of us! We had guys with multiple crappy subs go to one good sub and sing the praises of that approach and encourage everyone else to do the same. We've had guys with multiple center channel speakers go to one good center channel and suddenly they can hear the dialog. We've had people toe-in their speakers and experiment with the angle of toe-in and then become the foremost experts of speaker toe-in, constantly evangelizing the practice, because of the difference it made. Why are idiots constantly solving the wrong problem when the truth is easier, cheaper, and results in greater happiness.

I for the life of me am trying to think of whom Flint talks about, buy can't quite put my finger on it. :eek:bscene-birdiedoublered:
 

Botch

I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S!
Superstar
MatthewB said:
Flint said:
Good Lord! More of this shit?


People are constantly trying to fix the wrong problems!


Buying fifteen subwoofers doesn't solve a realism issue with the midrange. Having a 5,000 watt tube amp will not make the wall of glass on one side of the room go away acoustically. Adding more gear and speakers will not solve for a crappy recording. I am sick of this.

Look at all of our good friends on the forum. All of us! We had guys with multiple crappy subs go to one good sub and sing the praises of that approach and encourage everyone else to do the same. We've had guys with multiple center channel speakers go to one good center channel and suddenly they can hear the dialog. We've had people toe-in their speakers and experiment with the angle of toe-in and then become the foremost experts of speaker toe-in, constantly evangelizing the practice, because of the difference it made. Why are idiots constantly solving the wrong problem when the truth is easier, cheaper, and results in greater happiness.

I for the life of me am trying to think of whom Flint talks about, buy can't quite put my finger on it. :eek:bscene-birdiedoublered:
I'm trying to pick up the subtext, too... ;)
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
Just because one of us did all those things doesn't mean he was the only one to do any of them. Note that I didn't say anything about the years of screaming at the top of my lungs (as much as you can on an online forum) about the importance of an SPL Meter followed by the recipient never shutting up about SPL Meters.
 
Top