[net.audio] Suround Sound decoding

slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) (05/22/85)

I recently upgraded my amplifier to a Bang and Olufson Beomaster 2000.

The problem is this:  I had seen in a recent article of Video a way to
decode some of the surround sound information on HiFi tapes.  It involves
a special speaker hookup.

The hookup is simple.  To each of the back speaker positive inputs, run
a line to the positive speaker output on the amp.  Then instead of the
normal hookup of the other inputs, run a line between the two negative
terminals of the speakers.

With my old JVC amp, this worked great..  The back speakers produced
sounds that should have been happening behind me and was very impressive.

However, with my new receiver, this doesn't happen.  It's almost like
having a second pair of speakers behind me,  connected normally.  There
is some difference, but not what I came to expect from my JVC.  Certainly
the surround sound information is not anywhere near as impressive as it was.

Is this a quality of better amps?  Or is it just a property of B&O, or is
it something else?

					Ad-Thanks-Vance,

						Sean.

-- 

-=<>=-

Sean L. Gilley  	Phone: (606) 273-6021 or (606) 257-3092

uucp:	{unmvax,research,boulder,decvax!ucbvax}!anlams!ukma!slg
	|| ...cbosgd!ukma!ukma23!slg

arpa:   "ukma!ukma23!slg"@ANL-MCS

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is the most fatal.

pearse@hound.UUCP (S.PEARSE) (05/23/85)

In article <1789@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
>I recently upgraded my amplifier to a Bang and Olufson Beomaster 2000.
>
>Is this a quality of better amps?  Or is it just a property of B&O, or is
>it something else?
>

The problem you cited may be a quality of better amps, but I underwent
an extensive research of amp and receiver specs two years ago. B&O
was definitely *not* what I would consider a "better amp". In fact,
in my opinion, it had poor specs across the board compared to most
others!

But it has been a while. Maybe B&O has cleaned up its act since I
last checked. Remember: Expensive does not necessarily mean quality!


-- 
Steve Pearse
ihnp4!hound!pearse

ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (05/23/85)

>In article <1789@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
>>I recently upgraded my amplifier to a Bang and Olufson Beomaster 2000.
>>
>>Is this a quality of better amps?  Or is it just a property of B&O, or is
>>it something else?
>>
>
>The problem you cited may be a quality of better amps, but I underwent
>an extensive research of amp and receiver specs two years ago. B&O
>was definitely *not* what I would consider a "better amp". In fact,
>in my opinion, it had poor specs across the board compared to most
>others!
>
>But it has been a while. Maybe B&O has cleaned up its act since I
>last checked. Remember: Expensive does not necessarily mean quality!

If you formed your opinions of the B&O only by reading its specs, I
would not consider your evaluation valid.  Specs are a very poor
indicator of quality  --  they tend to favor Japanese equipment since
most Japanese manufacturers try to optimize specs, often at the
expense of sonic excellence.

The spec that is most often cited as an indicator of quality is THD,
total harmonic distortion.  An amp with .005% must be much better than
one with .02%, right?  Wrong!!  Designers use a technique called
negative feedback to control the gain stages of their amps.  The more
negative feedback, the lower the distortion.  But, there is no free
lunch, negative feedback certainly takes its toll on the signal, often
in a very audible way.  However, even if all else were equal, the
difference between .02% and .005% THD is inaudible, even to the most
golden ears.  In fact, some very expensive audiophile amps (like the
Electron Kinetics Eagle 7a) have poor THD specs, since they rely primarily
on high quality transistors, not negative feedback, to reduce distortion.
Even figures as high as 1% should not cause undue concern.  My belief
is that a well designed simple circuit with high quality components
will always sound better, but not necessarily measure better than a
circuit with lower quality components using distortion reducing
techniques.

Similar arguements can be raised about other specs.  Even if they were
consistently applied (they aren't), specs just don't tell the whole
story.  Why do you think equipment reviewers have ears??

                              Ben Broder
                              ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben
                              ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben