Jump to content

Photo

Surround Sound


38 replies to this topic

#26 Broonale OFFLINE  

Broonale

    Moonsweeper

  • Topic Starter
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Chandler AZ

Posted Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:24 PM

This is all a simulated discussion!

#27 Gunstar OFFLINE  

Gunstar

    Gunstar

  • 9,237 posts
  • Location:Kellyville, Oklahoma

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:17 PM

The Jaguar did not have surround sound. There was a left output channel and a right output channel. This is stereo sound. This is not surround sound.


Uh, guess what? Surround sound ENCODING can be directed through 2 channels. You just need a surround sound system to DECODE it at the other end! Jaguar has surround sound! IS2 has it for one! IT's Dolby pro-logic surround, not the new digital 7.1, but it's true surround! Got an XBOX or PS2 or 360, etc., etc....on and on? They ALSO only have two channel ouputs (L&R) unless you hook them up through the digital audio line (like available with Xbox), but THEY have surround sound TOO! The encoded surround sound is sent out 2 channels to the surround sound system where it's decoded! Even the SNES has a few games with surround sound!!!
Suggestion; do some research on how surround sound works!


Its not TRUE surround sound...it's simulated. Jaguar CAN have TRUE surround but you would need
additional hardware of about 5 more I2S channels to properly implement Surround. I install custom
Home theaters....encodng is not the real thing. It can be done well but you really need the other
true channles and speakers to do it effectively. Even with simulated you still need external hardware
such as a surround decoder like you say. it is not built in to the Jaguar so to say...the DSP of the Jaguar
is only the first part.


Gorf, thank you. I didn't think the Jaguar could output surround sound directly to a tv. So what kind of sound could it produce without being simulated or encoded?

Guys, get Gunstar a chill pill...




Uh, first off, we weren't talking about what the jaguar can produce JUST out of a TV, that's obvious, it can produce whatever sound quality the TV is capable of, which is generally only mono or stereo sound. I made it VERY clear that a surround sound decoder is needed, as did ALL the factual reference links I provided. Secondly, while I don't know Gorf's educational background, just being a programmer does not necessarily make one an expert on audio/video and electronic hardware. I've got a degree in electronic hardware, so I know what I'm talking about, I don't know squat about programming, so I don't talk about it. For all intents and purposes, as I've described in this thread, and shown in factual links, the Jaguar can produce surround sound from it's two analog output audio channels, it's not the highest quality surround sound, but is considered surround sound by the older industry standards. Of course better surround sound that works without encodign has appeared since the Jaguar's time. But the Jaguar can produce surround sound as-is when connected to a surround sound decoder. Call it simulated if you want, but it surround you with sound, and it's not just the same sounds coming out of multiple speakers. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes, and it works. So how about you actually connect a Jaguar up to a surround sound decoder and listen to the proof before just assuming you and/or Gorf know it all. I firmly stand by what I've said and the proof I've shown.

addendum: There are always some other factors to consider too, besides just analog/encoded surround or newer digital surround with multiple channels, like the fact of quality, not only between analog/encoded/digital, but in the physical quality of the surround decoder used. Obviously if you have, for example a top of the line Sony surround sound decoder with true Dolby Pro-Logic 2, the quality of surround sound will be far superior to the suround sound produced by a cheap Walmart 'Durabrand' surround decoder that costs about $30 and uses a cheap copy of Dolby Pro-Logic. But, even that cheapo set will produce superior sound imaging than just a stereo system or TV audio.

Edited by Gunstar, Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:31 PM.


#28 Gorf OFFLINE  

Gorf

    River Patroller

  • 4,633 posts

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:18 PM

Whether encoded, or with direct channel lines to the speakers, the sound surrounds you, and it's not the same sound coming out of each speaker, so it's surround sound. The ONLY difference is in the QUALITY. Of course if we want to get REALLY technical, none of the sounds coming out of any sound system or coming from any tape or cd, etc. is real sound, is all "simulated" reproduction of the real sound, and in many cases, it was never true sound to begin with, it was programmed or SYNTHESISED! So is the so-called "true" surround sound even truly sound at all? Or is it merely simulated? One could right a thesis on this stuff! :roll:



Just so you know my qualifications.....I'll repeat.....I hook up home theater surround systems in multi million dollar homes
for the last 7 years in my own business and before that an musical/audio/studio engineer since my teen days. The Jaguar
does not have built in surround sound. The surround it generates is indeed programmed and not TRUE surround sound.

Yes you can record in surround. It's called multi tracking and my Cuebase software can take as many tracks from the
recording and put them all around you and output a surround encoded file. How they do this with the Jaguar and other
two channel systems is fake it with a DSP using millisecond delays and some math algs. The DSP can indeed reproduce
a true surround signal. But without extra hardware it would still be simulated via the two I2S channels. You would still
need surround decoder. You'd need the cart port of the Jaguar or some way to send the digital data to the decoder.
You could simply use the two I2S channels as the main l&r channels and do the rest some way to a decoder for all the
other channels.

Trust me....there is a difference.... a very large one. The Jaguar does have a processor capable but it does not have the other
outputs to have all signals reproduced as recorded. It does do a decent enough job of faking it for games however.

#29 Gunstar OFFLINE  

Gunstar

    Gunstar

  • 9,237 posts
  • Location:Kellyville, Oklahoma

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM

Whether encoded, or with direct channel lines to the speakers, the sound surrounds you, and it's not the same sound coming out of each speaker, so it's surround sound. The ONLY difference is in the QUALITY. Of course if we want to get REALLY technical, none of the sounds coming out of any sound system or coming from any tape or cd, etc. is real sound, is all "simulated" reproduction of the real sound, and in many cases, it was never true sound to begin with, it was programmed or SYNTHESISED! So is the so-called "true" surround sound even truly sound at all? Or is it merely simulated? One could right a thesis on this stuff! :roll:



Just so you know my qualifications.....I'll repeat.....I hook up home theater surround systems in multi million dollar homes
for the last 7 years in my own business and before that an musical/audio/studio engineer since my teen days. The Jaguar
does not have built in surround sound. The surround it generates is indeed programmed and not TRUE surround sound.

Yes you can record in surround. It's called multi tracking and my Cuebase software can take as many tracks from the
recording and put them all around you and output a surround encoded file. How they do this with the Jaguar and other
two channel systems is fake it with a DSP using millisecond delays and some math algs. The DSP can indeed reproduce
a true surround signal. But without extra hardware it would still be simulated via the two I2S channels. You would still
need surround decoder. You'd need the cart port of the Jaguar or some way to send the digital data to the decoder.
You could simply use the two I2S channels as the main l&r channels and do the rest some way to a decoder for all the
other channels.

Trust me....there is a difference.... a very large one. The Jaguar does have a processor capable but it does not have the other
outputs to have all signals reproduced as recorded. It does do a decent enough job of faking it for games however.


I'm not disagreeing that there is a difference and a large one, I know this too, I'm merely stating that the encoding method gets the job done in the sense that it does indeed create a surround sound environment, far beyond normal stereo or 3D stereo, and that you do here different sounds from all around you. Is it as good as modern surround techniques? No. Does it give you audio sounds from all around so for example you can tell if a helicopter or tank in IS2 is behind to one of the sides or in front of you? Yes. So, the bottom line is it's surround sound, even if it's not the best. Guitarmas is instisting that the Jaguar can only produce two channels of sound, from the left and right and that's it, becuase it has two analog output channels, but this is not true, you can get sound from more than the left and right with encoded surround sound, if you have a surround sound decoder. I totally agree there are large differences in types of surround sound, especially between encoded surround and other digital formats, but I disagree that encoded surround isn't a true form of surround sound, the proof is in hearing it, it does in fact surround you with different sounds so you can here unique sounds from all around you. I just think calling it "simulated" detracts from what it is actually doing. It's surround sound, just not as good as modern surround formats, and I hesistate to call one "true" and one "simulated" becuase all formats are accomplishing surrounding the listener with positional sounds, so they are all truely surrounding the listener, but some formats do it better than others. A comparison could be in recording formats where, for example cassette tape and CD can both can both get the job done in recording audio, but one is superior to the other. I don't disagree with anything else you said above regarding the Jaguar and how surround sound is produced through two channels. But saying it's "faking it" I don't agree with, it may be accomplishing it in a completely different way, but I don't consider it "fake." "Faking it" would be taking stereo sound and redirecting it through acoustics to sound like it's coming from in front and behind,like an echo, that's "faking" it.

Here's the thing with calling it "simulated;" While technically there's a definate argument there with how the surround sound is acheived, using that word only confuses the common laymen user and may lead them to believe that it all really is some gimmick, when it's not a gimmick, but a technique that really works to provide a surrounding audio experience that is far beyond stereo or quadraphonic stereo sound. So I refuse that term when there are laymen reading.
Now, below is a picture of one of two PC speakers I own, and there is a button on it labeled "surround" which channels the encoded surround sound channels back through two stereo speakers which adds more audio sounds to those stereo speakers and creates more depth in the stereo sound, That is what I would completely agree is a "simulated" surround sound experience and IS more or less a gimmick. There are a lot of TV's and other audio equipment out there that have options similiar to these speakers.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Dscf0010.jpg

Edited by Gunstar, Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:57 PM.


#30 Gorf OFFLINE  

Gorf

    River Patroller

  • 4,633 posts

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:26 PM

Surround is overated anyway. It would be more convincing in a VR setting.

#31 midnight8 OFFLINE  

midnight8

    Dragonstomper

  • 927 posts
  • Location:orange, texas

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:43 PM

It's really great to have a nice stereo system. :cool: I can appreciate nice FULL range sound, high, mid & deep low bass to reproduce any sound authentically. A stereo system is only as good as it's speakers. ;) I get so irritated listening to music on tinny sounding systems with no bass response. In my bedroom I have a three hundred watt amplifier & a 20-level EQ with an Imx expander & image enhancing. The amplifier only has 4 speaker outs so it's basically Quadrophonic sound system :), and I have four '70s style :P, large, 3 1/2 foot tall speaker cabinets hooked up to it - one in each corner of the room. They each have a 4" horn, 8" midrange, and 15" heavily ribbed :P, LARGE magnet, paper cone sub-woofers. Those suckers are heavy! The frequency response can go very low with these speakers - I love how cars sound on these speakers, very realistic, you can "feel" the sound. I don't have surround sound, but would like to get some kind of surround decoder to use with it - then I would have stereo quadrophonic surround! (This is what Pink Floyd & Roger Waters use for concerts) I play my Jaguar through this. There are several newer developments that are similar to surround sound but more advanced or at least different, can't remember the names right now.

Has anyone seen the new Bose™ home sound system infommercial that features only two small satellite speakers and one sub-woofer? It doesn't have the usual 7.1 surround speakers arrangement. It's being sold as a super-surround sound system with sound coming from all directions. Sounds kinda similar to Q-sound, huh? So, if true, this would be an instance of surround sound without the usual 8 speakers. ;) EDIT: It's the three point surround "cone" as described by Gunstar above.

I've noticed some subtle differences between paper-cone & poly or essentially some kind of plastic cone woofers & speakers. It sometimes sounds to me like some of the old paper subwoofers can achieve a lower frequency, in many instances, over the newer poly/plastic woofer cones. Does anyone have any information on the woofer sound differences between these two types of speaker materials.



there is definitely no replacement for large speakers. I use cerwin vega at-12 towers from the 80's and 2 15 inch powered subs. tiny speaker have never sounder right to me.

#32 Gorf OFFLINE  

Gorf

    River Patroller

  • 4,633 posts

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:39 PM

there is definitely no replacement for large speakers. I use cerwin vega at-12 towers from the 80's and 2 15 inch powered subs. tiny speaker have never sounder right to me.


It aint moving the air anywhere near as much...that's why. You wil not get the same rock
from a small speaker. They may sound nice but ...hehe....size matters.... :P

#33 Kripto OFFLINE  

Kripto

    Stargunner

  • 1,339 posts
  • -Visible Invaders-
  • Location:NYC

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:05 PM

You guys are actually arguing over the difference between "Discrete Surround" and "Matrix Surround", not "real" and "fake" surround" or some-such.

Discrete Surround keeps all of the channels independent of one another when stored on the delivery media and the playback unit would normally feature separate outputs for each surround channel (Example- Dolby Digital 5.1). The Jaguar does not feature this and couldn't unless someone built some kind of audio convertor/break out box and coded special software for it.

Matrix Surround has all of the various surround channels encoded into a two-channel pair of tracks. These can be broken out into the multiple channels needed to feed a multi-speaker system during playback/decoding (Example-Dolby Pro Logic). THIS is what is coming out of the Jag during IS2.

Discrete Surround is the superior system sound quality-wise as that the encoding/decoding process used by Matrix Surround significantly degrades overall signal quality, especially that of the additional "Folded-in" surround channels.

#34 Broonale OFFLINE  

Broonale

    Moonsweeper

  • Topic Starter
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Chandler AZ

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:26 PM

Gatorade is better than water!

#35 BuddyBuddies OFFLINE  

BuddyBuddies

    River Patroller

  • 2,214 posts
  • Location:A Secret Place

Posted Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:44 PM

Gatorade is better than water!

Pepsi is better than Gatorade!

#36 Gorf OFFLINE  

Gorf

    River Patroller

  • 4,633 posts

Posted Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:51 AM

You guys are actually arguing over the difference between "Discrete Surround" and "Matrix Surround", not "real" and "fake" surround" or some-such.

Discrete Surround keeps all of the channels independent of one another when stored on the delivery media and the playback unit would normally feature separate outputs for each surround channel (Example- Dolby Digital 5.1). The Jaguar does not feature this and couldn't unless someone built some kind of audio convertor/break out box and coded special software for it.

Matrix Surround has all of the various surround channels encoded into a two-channel pair of tracks. These can be broken out into the multiple channels needed to feed a multi-speaker system during playback/decoding (Example-Dolby Pro Logic). THIS is what is coming out of the Jag during IS2.

Discrete Surround is the superior system sound quality-wise as that the encoding/decoding process used by Matrix Surround significantly degrades overall signal quality, especially that of the additional "Folded-in" surround channels.



Yes, whatever terminoligy you want to use, you just said the same thing I did.

#37 Kripto OFFLINE  

Kripto

    Stargunner

  • 1,339 posts
  • -Visible Invaders-
  • Location:NYC

Posted Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:28 AM

The problem stems from your use of the phrase "True Surround" which has no agreed on technical definition. It also implies that the Jag has "False Surround" whatever that is.

The truth of the matter is that independent signals for more than two channels are output from both methods so they are both "surround" by definition.

Does the Jag output support Surround? Yes.

Is Discrete Surround preferable from an audio quality perspective? Yes.

#38 Gorf OFFLINE  

Gorf

    River Patroller

  • 4,633 posts

Posted Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:08 AM

Does the Jag output support Surround? Yes.


Yes, if the code is written. It does not do this out of the box.

Is Discrete Surround preferable from an audio quality perspective? Yes.


My point exactly.

#39 Gunstar OFFLINE  

Gunstar

    Gunstar

  • 9,237 posts
  • Location:Kellyville, Oklahoma

Posted Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:50 PM

Surround is overated anyway. It would be more convincing in a VR setting.


It would definately be more convincing in a VR setting. But I still prefer playing games in surround over mono or stereo, overated, maybe, but I still prefer it. It does help to locate enemies in games quicker than mono or stereo, and just plain sounds cool.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users