For heavens sake your postings sound more and more like Stanley Unwin.
Let's take one of your postings about shifting the phase of a monoraul recording to achieve some sort of surround sound experience with zero crosstalk. It's complete gibberish. To achieve zero crosstalk with two identical waveforms by matrixing there is only one possible phase shift and that's a complete phase inversion so that at every point in the waveform when the two are vectorially added the resultant output is zero so there is no way to get any output at all.. This makes it impossible to create a zero crosstalk output from the same mono sample. It's entirely clear you have no idea what you are talking about..:rolleyes:
If you really wan't me to post some waveforms achieved by phase shifting two identical inputs and matrixing them I can.
That's pure garbage. Please say, specifically, what you're talking about. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the SQ system used on all dolby surround formats.
In 2.0, the +j and -J surround channels are "squished into" the information space not occupied by the front stereo signal. Position is by phase difference between J and -j, and magnitude is, er .....magnitude. In other words, it's polar coordinate coding (of which, j notation is the easiest representation).
In 5.1, +j and -J are given discrete channels, but, the position and magnitude are coded in exactly the same way as before, identically to SQ on 2.0.
Note that, this is the simplest possible way of coding the suround channel, requiring only 2 parameters! Anything else would be more complicated.
If you think some other system is used, then what is it ?
Here's how pro logic actually works, trying to emulate the haas effect (which won;t work in a living room!).
"By definition, dominance can only occur in one place at any instant in time; it cannot exist in two places simultaneously, since their equality of magnitude would mean that neither is dominant. (These two signals may together constitute a single dominant quantity, however.) Therefore, it is sufficient to be able to detect a single direction of soundfield dominance, no matter how rapidly the soundfield changes. With two independent, orthogonal signal pairs available in the encoded soundtrack (the left/right pair and the center/surround pair), it is possible to identify any point on an X-Y coordinate plane within a given boundary area."
Note that this works identically, regardless of a 2.0 or 5.1 input!
I imagine even Spiney2 would acknowledge that to provide a matrixed output, two waveforms are required to provide a phase diference output. Take a look at the timeline image from the 5.1 video editor. At any one point there is only a single mono audio source all 4 other channels are totally silent so there is nothing to create a phase differenced 3rd channel.
It's patently obvious only a discrete multi audio channel solution like DD5.1 or DTS could do this.
[QUOTE=spiney2;46853146
When 5.1 is fed to pro logic 1, it's "effectively discrete", since the two rear speakers were deliberately placed in the reference posiitons!
.[/QUOTE]
What the hell does this mean .
You have not explained a single thing just trotted out a series of technobabble and despite postings quoting Dolby Labs own website stating specifically that 5.1 is entirely discrete you choose to ignore this.
It's plain ridicolous at least two audio tracks with actual content is required to matrix any information. THere is no point in my disc that satisfies this basic requirement. You cannot generate a phase difference from a single monoraul track. Subtracting a waveform from zero merely inverts it nothing else.
This image shows two waveforms (Yellow and Red) and Blue the resulting matrixed output. (One has a peak value 50% greater than the other and is displaced by 40 degrees. Deleting either of the two source waveforms will produce a blue replica of the remaing one.
Before anyone asks the angle axis is in radians.
all versions of Doby Surround use the same matrixing system
What do you mean by "Dolby Surround"?
It's true, "Dolby Surround" (note the capitals) is a matrixed system. But "Dolby Digital" isn't "Dolby Surround". It's a completely different, non matrixed, fully discrete system, as we've tried to point out to you in a multitude of postings.
It's true, "Dolby Surround" (note the capitals) is a matrixed system. But "Dolby Digital" isn't "Dolby Surround". It's a completely different, non matrixed, fully discrete system, as we've tried to point out to you in a multitude of postings.
Utter Rubbish
The same system, a phase difference between +j and -j channels, is used to precisely indicate surround channel direction, on all dolby stereo variants. The original 2,0, the later 5.1 where they're on separate discrete channels, and newer versions with additional surrround channels, which are all phase difference coded in the same way.
That's why 2.0 on headphones is similar, with the surround being identical. The only difference is film optical soundtrack, which band limits surround to 7 khz, although not sound mixed directly for tv.
Any idiot can verify that the surround info is in the 2.0 version, simply by listening on headphones to star trek tng (or later treks), where it;s quite obvious.
SQ was the most commercially successful quadrophonic system, bucause it used unmodified equipment, and was entirely reverse compatible with stereo and mono. Dolby used it for exactly the same reason.
Ironicaly, phase coded surround sound works very well on headphones, it's the front normal stere that has problems, since the amplitude to phase re-conversion done by speakers doesn't happen .........
This was important, because, it's an answer to the OP, not "penis waving"!
Many people seem to believe that there's some sort of "basic difference" between the original 2 channel optical soundtrack system, the later film digital formats, and the pro logic versions. Not so! They all encode the front sound as normal stereo, and the surround as 2 channels, j and -j, which indicate direction by a phase difference between them.
The main difference is how the various decoders process the sound, using various "tricks" to enhance directionality, depending on whether cinema or home, and which generation of technology, newer stuff obviously having more custom integrated circuits and therefore being more complex.
In the case of pro logic 2, the speaker phase taps do not correspond to the reference position, and de-matrixing MUST be used to extract the surround field (on headphones, that "just happens"!).
On the 2.0 verison, +j and -j are "squished into" the 180 degrees of phase space not used by the front stereo. In ohter words, the surround channel is in antiphase, the stereo isn't.
Surround position is a phase difference between j and -j.
In the discrete channels versions, j and -j each get a separate channel - so they don't have to be "squished into" a limited 180 degree phase space - but sound position is encoded in exactly the same way, ie, a phase difference between them.
This is how SQ works, and is identical in all versions, including those with adidtional surround channels, whether further matrixed and/or discrete.
Nice try flooding a thread to divert from your lack of argument, no one was talking about pro logic, and never was, you conflate this into your argument because you have no ground to stand on, Your original claim was that 5.1 was matrixed and not discrete 5.1, and it clearly is not true.
Best advice is ignore the troll. Anyone with the slightest technical knowledge should realise the postings are just pure rubbish. There is just loads of technical garbage described as an explanation. The basics should be trying to explain in the least technical manner possible not trying to obvuscate the truth with lots of technical garbage that the poster clearly does not understand at all. It should be obvious by now that this poster does not .understand his postings or it's just pure ignorance or may be malicious. Simply ignore the forthcoming repost and let him stew in his own ignorance
If everybody ignores his postings which so far not a single poster has supported his bizarre arguments, he will eventually get the message :eek:
j+ and j- I ask you, I happen to be entirely familiar with complex numbers being a graduate electrical engineer. If he would try and explain in laymans terms which I have attempted to do, even to the extent of creating an actual DVD with diiscrete channel steering with no possiblity of matrixing being involved.
Even the real experts at Dolby Labs acknowledge that with current technology that creating channels above the discrete limits of DD5.1 or Dolby True Hd requires matrix techniques. The extra channels created are frequency restricted by the bit rate used for the discrete channels.
Use a higher bitrate then the matrixed info will have a higher fidelity. It's true that DD5.1 can incorporate additional reduced frequency channels within the limits imposed by the bitrate.
He probably thinks that the stereo effect between each discrete pairing (FL/RL - RL/RR - RR/FR and FL/FR and even across the diagonals) amounts to a matrix. Other than that I'm at a loss as to what he's thinking.
This was important, because, it's an answer to the OP, not "penis waving"!
Many people seem to believe that there's some sort of "basic difference" between the original 2 channel optical soundtrack system, the later film digital formats, and the pro logic versions. Not so! They all encode the front sound as normal stereo, and the surround as 2 channels, j and -j, which indicate direction by a phase difference between them.
The main difference is how the various decoders process the sound, using various "tricks" to enhance directionality, depending on whether cinema or home, and which generation of technology, newer stuff obviously having more custom integrated circuits and therefore being more complex.
In the case of pro logic 2, the speaker phase taps do not correspond to the reference position, and de-matrixing MUST be used to extract the surround field (on headphones, that "just happens"!).
Original question.....
Really need wireless rear speakers as got wooden floor so no wire hiding!
Is there anything <£500 worth getting?
Your answer is willy waving at the persons you are arguing with and gives OP nothing in the way of an answer....
I just tried to answer the OP correctly and helpfully. Unfortunately, what's been revealed is complete ignorance of very basic matters.
1. If there's no easy way of connecting the home theatre rear speakers, then, headphones are a possible alternative. This works because the 2.0 feed - out of most tv receiver A/B stereo analogue outputs - has "the complete soundfield", comprising front stereo and full surround.
Surround sound is encoded as a difference bwtween the +j and -j surround channels, which is exactly how the ear works (!), so in fact the surround effect works very well!
Where the surround info is derived from an film's optical soundtrack, instead of the 5.1 downmix, then the 7KHz surround bandwidth limit exists, but this isn;t a huge difference, and doesn;t apply anyway where surround sound is mixed specially for tv.
The problem with headphones is the front stereo! This is done by ampltude difference, whereas the surrround channel is phase difference . The Human Brian (picture a brain) gets a bit confused, and the sound perspective might suddenly shift, like those optical illusions that suddenly turn inside out. This is the main reason computers have a "headphone mode".
2. The surround system is the same across all Dolby variants. The front is normal stereo, the suround is phase encoded. No difference with 5.1 . The 1st main difference comes with Dolby 5.1 ex, where a 2nd surround channel is matrixed onto the existing phase coded j and -j channnels. Further system extensions add 2 more discrete phase channels, with further matrixing, eventually giving 4 separate surround channels (as correctly described in Wiki's Dolby Digital article).
3. The complete SQ info is in the 2.0 version, the differences are entirely in the decoders. In Home Theatre, the Haas Effect is not used (living rooms are too small!), but in pro logic decoders there's an attempt to half approach it (see my above link).
4. 5.1 makes little actual difference to decoding. The main real difference is a separate centre channel, but this won;t affect the surround sound image very much!
The pro logic 1 decode avoids phase re-matirxing by placing 2 rear speakers at the pahse reference positions. However, version 2 pts the speakers at different phase tap positions, so requires phase re-matrixing, regardless of the source being 2.0 or 5.1.
Whether the source is digital or analogue makes little difference in principle. AC3 is the band-split version of SR analogue, and delta modulation is also used, the most efficient way of doing things, but this is just the "container" !It's nothing whatsoever to do with the phase coded SQ matrix. on which the entire thing depends.
Best advice is ignore the troll. Anyone with the slightest technical knowledge should realise the postings are just pure rubbish. There is just loads of technical garbage described as an explanation. The basics should be trying to explain in the least technical manner possible not trying to obvuscate the truth with lots of technical garbage that the poster clearly does not understand at all. It should be obvious by now that this poster does not .understand his postings or it's just pure ignorance or may be malicious. Simply ignore the forthcoming repost and let him stew in his own ignorance
If everybody ignores his postings which so far not a single poster has supported his bizarre arguments, he will eventually get the message :eek:
j+ and j- I ask you, I happen to be entirely familiar with complex numbers being a graduate electrical engineer. If he would try and explain in laymans terms which I have attempted to do, even to the extent of creating an actual DVD with diiscrete channel steering with no possiblity of matrixing being involved.
Even the real experts at Dolby Labs acknowledge that with current technology that creating channels above the discrete limits of DD5.1 or Dolby True Hd requires matrix techniques. The extra channels created are frequency restricted by the bit rate used for the discrete channels.
Use a higher bitrate then the matrixed info will have a higher fidelity. It's true that DD5.1 can incorporate additional reduced frequency channels within the limits imposed by the bitrate.
Last word - Don't Feed The Troll :cool:
I'm afraid that's just your ignorance. I;ve explained several times why pro logic 1 "seems to be" discrete, but really isn't.
I've asked you several times what happens when pro logic 2 is fed from 5.1 (or 2.0, come to that). You haven;t replied.
I too am a graduate. I've a degree in electronics, a 2nd degree in physics, and a postgrad degree in computing/management. But so what?
The main "penis waving" is form Dolby Labs, who are confusing things with their marketing/sales jargon masquerading as "explanations" !
As for headphones ..... Senheiser are certainly a "top brand", but a bit expensive. In the past, I've found Philips medium priced headphones pretty good - maybe more suited to European Ears - although current stuff labelled "Philips" is presumably all from Asia ........
I'm afraid that's just your ignorance. I;ve explained several times why pro logic 1 "seems to be" discrete, but really isn't.
I've asked you several times what happens when pro logic 2 is fed from 5.1 (or 2.0, come to that). You haven't replied. So where is this question you speak of?
Absolutely correct, Dolby Pro Logic is not discrete, it is a matrixed system. No one is arguing that point, at least I'm not.
But Dolby Pro Logic isn't Dolby Digital 5.1, which is a completely different system and has little, if anything in common with DPL or DPLII.
DD5.1 uses 6 completely independant, completely discrete, channels of audio. It is possible to place 5 monophonic recordings on each speaker, if the engineer so wished. Plus a sixth monophonic channel consisting of a low frequency recording.
All the dolby surround systems use the same basic sq matrix.
As they have to, to be back compatible with:
1. Dolby TM ( = theatre matrix, original system).
2. Stereo
3, Mono (let's not forget).
Any other way of doing things would not be back compatible. For example, if 5.1 used "surround stereo", then that wouldn't be back compatible with the SQ used in TM.
If you think the system used in 5.1 isn;t SQ, then, what do you think it is ? Let's have an answer, please, instead of name-calling ..........
Comments
That's pure garbage. Please say, specifically, what you're talking about. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the SQ system used on all dolby surround formats.
In 2.0, the +j and -J surround channels are "squished into" the information space not occupied by the front stereo signal. Position is by phase difference between J and -j, and magnitude is, er .....magnitude. In other words, it's polar coordinate coding (of which, j notation is the easiest representation).
In 5.1, +j and -J are given discrete channels, but, the position and magnitude are coded in exactly the same way as before, identically to SQ on 2.0.
Note that, this is the simplest possible way of coding the suround channel, requiring only 2 parameters! Anything else would be more complicated.
If you think some other system is used, then what is it ?
"By definition, dominance can only occur in one place at any instant in time; it cannot exist in two places simultaneously, since their equality of magnitude would mean that neither is dominant. (These two signals may together constitute a single dominant quantity, however.) Therefore, it is sufficient to be able to detect a single direction of soundfield dominance, no matter how rapidly the soundfield changes. With two independent, orthogonal signal pairs available in the encoded soundtrack (the left/right pair and the center/surround pair), it is possible to identify any point on an X-Y coordinate plane within a given boundary area."
Note that this works identically, regardless of a 2.0 or 5.1 input!
http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.edu/tech/dolby1_tech.htm
It does, indeed result in a matrix derived 5.1 output. No argument, on that point you're correct.
But you're continually missing the point that there is also a discrete 5.1 delivery system - notably Dolby Digital 5.1.
You're obviously confused on this matter and think that all Dolby's 5.1 systems are identical.
Beyond that, other multi-channel delivery systems use a mix of discrete and matricised channel delivery systems. But DD5.1 isn't one of them.
It's patently obvious only a discrete multi audio channel solution like DD5.1 or DTS could do this.
There's no such thing as "pro logic encoding".
When 5.1 is fed to pro logic 1, it's "effectively discrete", since the two rear speakers were deliberately placed in the reference posiitons!
Obviously, this would not work with the 4 rear speakers of pro logic 2, which have different phase tap postions to version 1.
5.1 is basically the same as 2.0 - except higher fi - and the later digital versions add extra surround channels.
I've explained all this at great length, and am now fed up of doing so.
When 5.1 is fed to pro logic 1, it's "effectively discrete", since the two rear speakers were deliberately placed in the reference posiitons!
.[/QUOTE]
What the hell does this mean
You have not explained a single thing just trotted out a series of technobabble and despite postings quoting Dolby Labs own website stating specifically that 5.1 is entirely discrete you choose to ignore this.
It's plain ridicolous at least two audio tracks with actual content is required to matrix any information. THere is no point in my disc that satisfies this basic requirement. You cannot generate a phase difference from a single monoraul track. Subtracting a waveform from zero merely inverts it nothing else.
Before anyone asks the angle axis is in radians.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
It's true, "Dolby Surround" (note the capitals) is a matrixed system. But "Dolby Digital" isn't "Dolby Surround". It's a completely different, non matrixed, fully discrete system, as we've tried to point out to you in a multitude of postings.
Utter Rubbish
The same system, a phase difference between +j and -j channels, is used to precisely indicate surround channel direction, on all dolby stereo variants. The original 2,0, the later 5.1 where they're on separate discrete channels, and newer versions with additional surrround channels, which are all phase difference coded in the same way.
That's why 2.0 on headphones is similar, with the surround being identical. The only difference is film optical soundtrack, which band limits surround to 7 khz, although not sound mixed directly for tv.
Any idiot can verify that the surround info is in the 2.0 version, simply by listening on headphones to star trek tng (or later treks), where it;s quite obvious.
SQ was the most commercially successful quadrophonic system, bucause it used unmodified equipment, and was entirely reverse compatible with stereo and mono. Dolby used it for exactly the same reason.
Ironicaly, phase coded surround sound works very well on headphones, it's the front normal stere that has problems, since the amplitude to phase re-conversion done by speakers doesn't happen .........
"Dolby Pro Logic is the marketing name for the consumer implementation of this audio format; the term is not applicable to cinema."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Stereo#Dolby_Pro_Logic
Many people seem to believe that there's some sort of "basic difference" between the original 2 channel optical soundtrack system, the later film digital formats, and the pro logic versions. Not so! They all encode the front sound as normal stereo, and the surround as 2 channels, j and -j, which indicate direction by a phase difference between them.
The main difference is how the various decoders process the sound, using various "tricks" to enhance directionality, depending on whether cinema or home, and which generation of technology, newer stuff obviously having more custom integrated circuits and therefore being more complex.
In the case of pro logic 2, the speaker phase taps do not correspond to the reference position, and de-matrixing MUST be used to extract the surround field (on headphones, that "just happens"!).
On the 2.0 verison, +j and -j are "squished into" the 180 degrees of phase space not used by the front stereo. In ohter words, the surround channel is in antiphase, the stereo isn't.
Surround position is a phase difference between j and -j.
In the discrete channels versions, j and -j each get a separate channel - so they don't have to be "squished into" a limited 180 degree phase space - but sound position is encoded in exactly the same way, ie, a phase difference between them.
This is how SQ works, and is identical in all versions, including those with adidtional surround channels, whether further matrixed and/or discrete.
So much post, for no substance at all.
If everybody ignores his postings which so far not a single poster has supported his bizarre arguments, he will eventually get the message :eek:
j+ and j- I ask you, I happen to be entirely familiar with complex numbers being a graduate electrical engineer. If he would try and explain in laymans terms which I have attempted to do, even to the extent of creating an actual DVD with diiscrete channel steering with no possiblity of matrixing being involved.
Even the real experts at Dolby Labs acknowledge that with current technology that creating channels above the discrete limits of DD5.1 or Dolby True Hd requires matrix techniques. The extra channels created are frequency restricted by the bit rate used for the discrete channels.
Use a higher bitrate then the matrixed info will have a higher fidelity. It's true that DD5.1 can incorporate additional reduced frequency channels within the limits imposed by the bitrate.
Last word - Don't Feed The Troll :cool:
Your answer is willy waving at the persons you are arguing with and gives OP nothing in the way of an answer....
1. If there's no easy way of connecting the home theatre rear speakers, then, headphones are a possible alternative. This works because the 2.0 feed - out of most tv receiver A/B stereo analogue outputs - has "the complete soundfield", comprising front stereo and full surround.
Surround sound is encoded as a difference bwtween the +j and -j surround channels, which is exactly how the ear works (!), so in fact the surround effect works very well!
Where the surround info is derived from an film's optical soundtrack, instead of the 5.1 downmix, then the 7KHz surround bandwidth limit exists, but this isn;t a huge difference, and doesn;t apply anyway where surround sound is mixed specially for tv.
The problem with headphones is the front stereo! This is done by ampltude difference, whereas the surrround channel is phase difference . The Human Brian (picture a brain) gets a bit confused, and the sound perspective might suddenly shift, like those optical illusions that suddenly turn inside out. This is the main reason computers have a "headphone mode".
2. The surround system is the same across all Dolby variants. The front is normal stereo, the suround is phase encoded. No difference with 5.1 . The 1st main difference comes with Dolby 5.1 ex, where a 2nd surround channel is matrixed onto the existing phase coded j and -j channnels. Further system extensions add 2 more discrete phase channels, with further matrixing, eventually giving 4 separate surround channels (as correctly described in Wiki's Dolby Digital article).
3. The complete SQ info is in the 2.0 version, the differences are entirely in the decoders. In Home Theatre, the Haas Effect is not used (living rooms are too small!), but in pro logic decoders there's an attempt to half approach it (see my above link).
4. 5.1 makes little actual difference to decoding. The main real difference is a separate centre channel, but this won;t affect the surround sound image very much!
The pro logic 1 decode avoids phase re-matirxing by placing 2 rear speakers at the pahse reference positions. However, version 2 pts the speakers at different phase tap positions, so requires phase re-matrixing, regardless of the source being 2.0 or 5.1.
Whether the source is digital or analogue makes little difference in principle. AC3 is the band-split version of SR analogue, and delta modulation is also used, the most efficient way of doing things, but this is just the "container" !It's nothing whatsoever to do with the phase coded SQ matrix. on which the entire thing depends.
I'm afraid that's just your ignorance. I;ve explained several times why pro logic 1 "seems to be" discrete, but really isn't.
I've asked you several times what happens when pro logic 2 is fed from 5.1 (or 2.0, come to that). You haven;t replied.
I too am a graduate. I've a degree in electronics, a 2nd degree in physics, and a postgrad degree in computing/management. But so what?
The main "penis waving" is form Dolby Labs, who are confusing things with their marketing/sales jargon masquerading as "explanations" !
Hmmm... all I can say is poor old Brian
But Dolby Pro Logic isn't Dolby Digital 5.1, which is a completely different system and has little, if anything in common with DPL or DPLII.
DD5.1 uses 6 completely independant, completely discrete, channels of audio. It is possible to place 5 monophonic recordings on each speaker, if the engineer so wished. Plus a sixth monophonic channel consisting of a low frequency recording.
All the dolby surround systems use the same basic sq matrix.
As they have to, to be back compatible with:
1. Dolby TM ( = theatre matrix, original system).
2. Stereo
3, Mono (let's not forget).
Any other way of doing things would not be back compatible. For example, if 5.1 used "surround stereo", then that wouldn't be back compatible with the SQ used in TM.
If you think the system used in 5.1 isn;t SQ, then, what do you think it is ? Let's have an answer, please, instead of name-calling ..........