3.1 Hi-Fi Sound; How do I achieve it?

[spiny norman]

Tut tut. Surely irrelevant here but nevertheless, these are mixed for that particular format. Discussion here is using a standard stereo source processed into 3.0 or 3.1

Suggest you read back to OP.

Tut tut. steve_1979 specifically asked whether anyone knew of any recordings actually made or mixed in three-channel, so I answered his question. The discussion had moved on from the OP's question, for right or weong – or are we only allowed to answer the original post now?

And by the way, they're not 'mixed for that particular format', but were recorded with three discrete channels, using just three microphones.

Suggest you read.

 

[steve_1979]

Tut tut. Surely irrelevant here but nevertheless, these are mixed for that particular format. Discussion here is using a standard stereo source processed into 3.0 or 3.1

Suggest you read back to OP.

Tut tut. steve_1979 specifically asked whether anyone knew of any recordings actually made or mixed in three-channel, so I answered his question. The discussion had moved on from the OP's question, for right or weong – or are we only allowed to answer the original post now?

And by the way, they're not 'mixed for that particular format', but were recorded with three discrete channels, using just three microphones.

Suggest you read.

Ahh yes so it is. I stand corrected. Music recorded in 3.0! Well I never.

It is a massive abnormalitie though and 3.0 is very very rare and unusual. As virtually all music is recorded in 2.0 (I expect over 99% of music is 2.0) so my point still stands.

Has anyone managed to find a HiFi system which uses 3 separate speakers yet?

 

[steve_1979]

Hello, I already have Dali Zensor 1 speakers, which only just about fit on my shelf (depth-wise), so I can't really get anything bigger; which rules out most other more expensive audiophile speakers. Underneath my rather modest desk also sits an SVS SB-1000 subwoofer. I do not use a receiver at the moment, because I couldn't afford one at the time, so I'm running on an Amptastic Mini-T TA2020 (the original version) because I heard good things about it, it's cheap and isn't affected by all the electronics you would get in a cheap A/V reciever.

The only way I can think to enhance my experience further is to purchase a middle speaker for 3.1 sound, because I don't have the space or inclination to go full 5 or 7.1 channel at the moment . Now my only concerns are:

1) If I hook it up with my current setup, I'd have to buy another amp, split the sound coming from the source RCA input so that they go to both amps. On the middle speaker amp RCA input, I'd have to have a stereo-to-mono adapter because there's likely only 1 channel's worth of speaker wire connectors on that middle speaker. Then the middle speaker would be outputting mono sound with a separate amp to the main speakers, which would still be normal stereo. However, then I will have messed up the sound-stage, wouldn't I?

2) If I purchase a proper A/V receiver to do the job for me, my current amp would then go unused, but then I'm guessing the sound quality would be affected because, to output in 3.1 sound, I'd wouldn't be able to use PURE DIRECT mode. I'd have to enable a dreaded Dolby Surround mode to create a proper sound field spread between the speakers. Isn't Dolby Surround lossy?

Please advise if you can think of a better way of wiring this all up, or whether I should even bother trying in the first place.

If you are having g a problem with your stereo image it is likely to be your setup. Near field systems often have their stereo image messed up be sound reflections bouncing off the desk. Possibly some basic acoustic treatment on the desk at the 'mirror points' would help. If you can take a photo of your setup that may be helpful and enable us to be able to give you better advice.

 

[spiny norman]

It is a massive abnormalitie though and 3.0 is very very rare and unusual. As virtually all music is recorded in 2.0 (I expect over 99% of music is 2.0) so my point still stands.

Oh, this is just cobblers now: you asked

Can anyone think of any music which is recorded/mixed into 3 channels of audio rather than 2?

and I showed you some, yet you choose to say 'so my point still stands'.

Now, where would you like to put the goalposts next?

 

[spiny norman]

If you are having g a problem with your stereo image it is likely to be your setup. Near field systems often have their stereo image messed up be sound reflections bouncing off the desk. Possibly some basic acoustic treatment on the desk at the 'mirror points' would help. If you can take a photo of your setup that may be helpful and enable us to be able to give you better advice.

Except the OP says his speakers are on a shelf, not on the desk. Could be they are too high up, so the listener is off-axis with the tweeters or (and here let's take supposition even further) could be the stereo image is being impeded by the presence of a computer monitor between the speakers, which is another good reason for not listening to music sitting at a desk unless you have to. He or she would probably be better off with headphones, to be honest!

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Tut tut. Surely irrelevant here but nevertheless, these are mixed for that particular format. Discussion here is using a standard stereo source processed into 3.0 or 3.1

Suggest you read back to OP.

Tut tut. steve_1979 specifically asked whether anyone knew of any recordings actually made or mixed in three-channel, so I answered his question. The discussion had moved on from the OP's question, for right or weong – or are we only allowed to answer the original post now?

And by the way, they're not 'mixed for that particular format', but were recorded with three discrete channels, using just three microphones.

Suggest you read.

Suggest you read too!

You are suggesting a stereo recording uses 2 mic's and 3.0 uses 3. I suppose a 5.1 uses 5. Or 6??

They use separate mic's for each instrument and each vocal etc. Then they MIX it to the appropriate format. DSOTM - available in stereo and 5.1 on SACD. Did they record it originally with 2 mic's and then later with 5??? Read about audio mixing. I did because I knew nothing about it.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

At least we all agree that 3.0 or 3.1 is not the solution to the OP. Agreed a photo would help. Agreed its setup or placement or 'wrong' speakers. Near-field monitors or dare I mention actives (about which I know nuffin).

Good learning curve for me this one.

 

[steve_1979]

It is a massive abnormalitie though and 3.0 is very very rare and unusual. As virtually all music is recorded in 2.0 (I expect over 99% of music is 2.0) so my point still stands.

Oh, this is just cobblers now: you asked

Can anyone think of any music which is recorded/mixed into 3 channels of audio rather than 2?

and I showed you some, yet you choose to say 'so my point still stands'.

Now, where would you like to put the goalposts next?

3.0 music is extremely rare so yes my point still stands.

Or do you disagree that virtually all music is recorded in 2.0 ?

 

[spiny norman]

Suggest you read too!

You are suggesting a stereo recording uses 2 mic's and 3.0 uses 3. I suppose a 5.1 uses 5. Or 6??

They use separate mic's for each instrument and each vocal etc. Then they MIX it to the appropriate format. DSOTM - available in stereo and 5.1 on SACD. Did they record it originally with 2 mic's and then later with 5??? Read about audio mixing. I did because I knew nothing about it.

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort: I am just saying (yet again) that those particular recordings to which I directed steve_1979 in response to his question were made with three discrete microphones, placed at L C and R. They were then downmixed to two-channel, as I also explained, but the SACD releases allow the listener to hear them as originally recorded.

But thanks for your patronising explanation of how music is MIXED.

Oh, and by the way, Dark Side... was originally mixed by Alan Parsons as 4.0 (and 2.0 for compatibility), not 5.1: the 5.1 version on SACD is a later re-imagining by a different producer, and not at all as originally conceived. The 'original' 4.0 version, available here and there unofficially, sounds very different to the really rather poor 5.1-channel SACD release.

 

[steve_1979]

If you are having g a problem with your stereo image it is likely to be your setup. Near field systems often have their stereo image messed up be sound reflections bouncing off the desk. Possibly some basic acoustic treatment on the desk at the 'mirror points' would help. If you can take a photo of your setup that may be helpful and enable us to be able to give you better advice.

Except the OP says his speakers are on a shelf, not on the desk. Could be they are too high up, so the listener is off-axis with the tweeters or (and here let's take supposition even further) could be the stereo image is being impeded by the presence of a computer monitor between the speakers, which is another good reason for not listening to music sitting at a desk unless you have to. He or she would probably be better off with headphones, to be honest!

Which is why a photo could be useful to see exactly what setup he has.

 

[spiny norman]

3.0 music is extremely rare so yes my point still stands.

No: you asked for any music recorded in three-channel, which I gave you, not a statisical analysis of the format in which music is released.

Or do you disagree that virtually all music is recorded in 2.0 ?

No – why on earth should you think I did?

(By the way, CDs can contain two channels of music, but that doesn't make mono music released on CD stereo)

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Suggest you read too!

You are suggesting a stereo recording uses 2 mic's and 3.0 uses 3. I suppose a 5.1 uses 5. Or 6??

They use separate mic's for each instrument and each vocal etc. Then they MIX it to the appropriate format. DSOTM - available in stereo and 5.1 on SACD. Did they record it originally with 2 mic's and then later with 5??? Read about audio mixing. I did because I knew nothing about it.

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort: I am just saying (yet again) that those particular recordings to which I directed steve_1979 in response to his question were made with three discrete microphones, placed at L C and R. They were then downmixed to two-channel, as I also explained, but the SACD releases allow the listener to hear them as originally recorded.

But thanks for your patronising explanation of how music is MIXED.

Oh, and by the way, Dark Side... was originally mixed by Alan Parsons as 4.0 (and 2.0 for compatibility), not 5.1: the 5.1 version on SACD is a later re-imagining by a different producer, and not at all as originally conceived. The 'original' 4.0 version, available here and there unofficially, sounds very different to the really rather poor 5.1-channel SACD release.

1) I don't see my comments are any more patronizing than yours

2) I see nothing in your link that says 3 mic's are used in a 3.0 SACD. Have I missed it? I agree it can be mixed to 3.0 ofcourse.

3) The substance of your comments seem to agree with my previous statements.

4) Often recordings of vocals and instruments are even recorded at different times. Bass is often mixed to mono to save space etc. The number of mic's is not related to the final output format. I (also) need to repeat - its all done in the mixing.

5) Your DSOTM comment backs up my statements solidly.

 

[spiny norman]

1) I don't see my comments are any more patronizing than yours

Really? Even when you suggest I have no idea of how recordings are made, based on your (erroneous) supposition of what I am saying?

2) I see nothing in your link that says 3 mic's are used in a 3.0 SACD. Have I missed it? I agree it can be mixed to 3.0 ofcourse

What, not even in the bit saying "Living Stereo recordings were made with only two or three microphones, which represented the best recording techniques of that era. Today, with the advent of SACD and multi-channel sound, the listener can hear the left, center, and right channels exactly as the recording engineers heard them at the original recording sessions."?

Where the original recording was made in three-microphone, three-channel form, then the multichannel SACD offers three channels, each containing the output from one of the microphones, as recorded on the original three-channel tape.

3) The substance of your comments seem to agree with my previous statements.

Erm no – but what the hey? You're off in Your Wonderful World of Selective Interpretation now.

4) Often recordings of vocals and instruments are even recorded at different times. Bass is often mixed to mono to save space etc. The number of mic's is not related to the final output format. I (also) need to repeat - its all done in the mixing.

Really? You don't say! Clearly I have much to learn. Must get on to Wikipedia at once. But I only said (and this must be the fourth time I've explained this now) that in the case of the specific recordings to which I referred steve_1979, the three channels on the multichannel SACD release of the Living Stereo sets each carry the output of one of the three microphones originally used in the recording sessions. No more, no less.

Oh, and a bass is mono, as are most instruments. In the case of an electric bass, it's either DI'd into the desk or recorded using a single microphone in front of the cab(s), and the same goes with most instruments. It's really only drums which are recorded with multiple microhones for a single 'instrument'.

5) Your DSOTM comment backs up my statements solidly.

Did I suggest it challenged them? It was merely an aside about the original planned format of the album, and the way it was messed around for the SACD release.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Thanks Spiney - agreed for those particular recordings & intended 3.0 playback. Although played thru a stereo amp as OP it would be pointless. Conceded with gratitude.

I would still dispute many of your other claims and I believe all modern / digital recordings are recorded and mixed as I have suggested.

I am however happy to leave this in the hope that the op has at least some of his answers. And others will make up their own minds.

Cheers

 

[spiny norman]

I would still dispute many of your other claims and I believe all modern / digital recordings are recorded and mixed as I have suggested.

I haven't disagreed with any of what you have read about how modern recordings are made, so I am not at all sure which many other claims you are disputing. But anyway...

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Why would you want to use three speakers when music is recorded in stereo?

You do realise that 'stereo' doesn't actually mean 'two-channel', don't you?

Please don't think I am trying to be provocative but I would like to understand this comment. I presume u are referring to its 'definition' which includes multi channel sound rather than its commonly understood usage of 2ch rather than surround?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

You guys I swear....

Steve1979, Robin seriously what are you two on about?

The use of a centre speaker to the OP's set up is not a compromise and if implanted well will give him what he wants.

Spiny Normans suggestions are bang on.

A 3.1 set up can be achieved simply by switching of the rears on an AVamp - the level of the centre can be adjusted so it enhances the 'centre' image without destroying the stereo image - left/ right detail will be intact.

As for how it's mixed?

It does not matter - the option to use a single speaker or 11 speakers in the pursuit of musical joy are just that, options.

You guys try too hard to over complicate what can be considered such a simple thing.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I am so pleased you (Thompsonuxb) have rejoined the debate with good sense, scientific explaination and logic which have for so long eluded us simple folk.

I'm sure if I had no understanding of the basic principles of recording and mixing and was unwilling to read posts carefully and to ignore all reference materials then I too could contribute a valuable comment to this post.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I've contacted Sony telling them not to bother mixing to 2.0 or 2.1 or 3.0 or 5.1 or 11.2 or whatever. It doesn't matter.

I'll switch off my rears too - need to get a bit more focus.

"You guys I swear ...."

 

[spiny norman]

Please don't think I am trying to be provocative but I would like to understand this comment. I presume u are referring to its 'definition' which includes multi channel sound rather than its commonly understood usage of 2ch rather than surround?

Stereo merely refers to creating the impression of a solid sonic image in which sound appears to come from different directions, as it does in real life – no matter how many speakers are used to achieve the effect.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

The use of a centre speaker to the OP's set up is not a compromise and if implanted well will give him what he wants.

A 3.1 set up can be achieved simply by switching of the rears on an AVamp - the level of the centre can be adjusted so it enhances the 'centre' image without destroying the stereo image - left/ right detail will be intact.

As for how it's mixed?

It does not matter - the option to use a single speaker or 11 speakers in the pursuit of musical joy are just that, options.

More seriously u are suggesting the OP buys a centre speaker and an AV amp. This is not a simple problem as you suggest and I doubt very much he would be satisfied with this expensive option.

Despite Spiney being "spot on" - he too has agreed that the issue is not a simple one and probably caused by the layout of his speakers/room.

If these matters were simple, black & white - where on earth would this forum be?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The use of a centre speaker to the OP's set up is not a compromise and if implanted well will give him what he wants.

A 3.1 set up can be achieved simply by switching of the rears on an AVamp - the level of the centre can be adjusted so it enhances the 'centre' image without destroying the stereo image - left/ right detail will be intact.

As for how it's mixed?

It does not matter - the option to use a single speaker or 11 speakers in the pursuit of musical joy are just that, options.

More seriously u are suggesting the OP buys a centre speaker and an AV amp. This is not a simple problem as you suggest and I doubt very much he would be satisfied with this expensive option.?

Despite Spiney being "spot on" - he too has agreed that the issue is not a simple one and probably caused by the layout of his speakers/room.

If these matters were simple, black & white - where on earth would this forum be?

Again with the argue for argument sake....

The suggestion to use y-links has already been made with the use of attenuaters to 'control' the volume of the centre speaker volume.

An AV amp is a just a suggestion if the OP wants to go in that direction.

No worse than him purchasing near field monitors.

The AVamp will make this easier as it allows easier control regards levels.

And will have no issue with driving his sub and centre speaker. Keeping the illusion of a stereo image intact.

So go on, point out what's complicated about that?

 

[RobinKidderminster]

What's wrong? Nothing apart from sounding rubbish for all the reasons given.

The issue is about understanding a problem and offering a solution which works.

Why IS 3.0 not a common and suggested/recommended setup for 2ch music? Because it does not work.

Argue for arguments sake? So you are convinced you are right and can't argue your case? I've tried it and it does not work.

I give up! Let the OP decide.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

What's wrong? Nothing apart from sounding rubbish for all the reasons given.

The issue is about understanding a problem and offering a solution which works.

Why IS 3.0 not a common and suggested/recommended setup for 2ch music? Because it does not work.

Argue for arguments sake? So you are convinced you are right and can't argue your case? I've tried it and it does not work.

I give up! Let the OP decide.

Oh man....

People use various methods to enhance their listening....

From having your stereo speakers on whilst listening through earphones or using 2.1 systems plugged into their t.v.'s and using the tv speakers as a 'centre' speaker.

Popular with portable tv bedroom set ups using a DVD player to play 'stereo' disks.

You have such modes as virtual surround a popular technic when using sound bars or only have a pair of speakers- the list goes on

Many are happy with the results of these bodgies.....it's music they're listening to.

You're right to give up, you have no point to make and you know it..... :ROFL:

 

[richardw42]

or using 2.1 systems plugged into their t.v.'s and using the tv speakers as a 'centre' speaker.

really ?