Thoughts on SDA's...

gudnoyez

If one don't have Facebook or Twitter, like we will the ones that do spill the beans on the new SDA project excluding soundbars.

pitdogg2

Didn't early stereo have 3 speakers ? Pretty sure it did.

Emlyn

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Didn't early stereo have 3 speakers ? Pretty sure it did.

Yes, especially for large scale orchestral music.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

F1nut

My Polk speakers do a fine job with stereo recordings and are as "authentic" a way of hearing recordings as any other brand of speakers. And that includes those with the initials "SDA."

If you ventured out from an AVR and RTiA speakers you'd realize how much more authentic it gets.

BlueFox

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

My Polk speakers do a fine job with stereo recordings and are as "authentic" a way of hearing recordings as any other brand of speakers. And that includes those with the initials "SDA." Just about all professional recordings are processed, artificial and plastic. A plastic banana may look real from a distance, but often it does not look real up close and it feels PLASTIC. What type of speaker does a better job with playback of plastic - artificial recordings is pure opinion. Opinions, arm pits, and belly buttons - we all have them.

This is a naive statement. Yes, all speakers will reproduce the source material. However, virtually all speaker manufacturers have different models that, generally, perform better as the price increase. They are more "authentic" as their performance, and price, increases.

While it is true recordings are mastered, the better the speakers, electronics, cables, and power then the better, or more authentic, it will sound. Since this is all measurable, it is more than opinion.

Not sure what plastic bananas have to do with music.

vmaxer

BlueFox wrote: »

Not sure what plastic bananas have to do with music.

Well, for one...or two:

ZLTFUL

And we won't even get into most engineers and producers making recordings sound "best" in the most commonly listened locations...automobiles and headphones.

But hey...those recording engineers and producers are the ones dictating how we listen...even if it is wrong, we aren't the ones doing the work...so how dare we question them!

pkquat

I was going to go with a separate semi tongue-in-cheek thread about SDA effect and affect earlier today so not to derail this one, but I see its already off the tracks. It also gave me more time to think about it, and I will be more serious about my statement. But first stereo recording.

There are many published techniques to get the best accurate representation of a live event using only two channels. Why too channels, well two main reasons, the initial thought was we only have two ears, and the other was in the early days of recording and recording technology, someone figured out how to fit two channels on recording and mainstream playback devices.

With speakers, certain mic types and arrays were found to bring out certain aspects of the live performance when played back through two loudspeakers. The recording engineer chose what he thought captured the performance the best. Sometimes there were more than two mics. The mics arrays, and possibly some mixing were designed to compensate for the space between each ear. There was some natural L and R cancelation of crosstalk based on the mic crosstalk (both mics picked up the same sound) that improved the imaging and gave the reproduction some depth. Depending on the techniques used there was even apparent height. When the sound reached your ears it gave you the impression of the live performance.

Then there are headphones. There is no crosstalk between channels during reproduction. Some feel that this can lack depth. Since everyones ears are different, this can effect the representation. IMO SDA tries to blend headphone separation with loud speaker representation. IMO, what it achieves is a wider sound stage, and clearer separation.

A sub set of headphones is binaural. Its been said that this can be the most accurate representation of live (if your head was stuck in a vice) and it was recorded with casts of your ears. They are working on mapping ones ears to predefined source, and adding steering information that is supposed to match your ears. This could be a whole new realm. I've heard they are even trying to follow your head position for a VR experience. Multichannel speakers are getting close to creating this illusion too without the need to track head movements, or map your ears.

I was going to say tongue-in-cheek that SDA dimensional speakers effect the crosstalk and affect the listener.

Is SDA an effect? I think it depends on terminology. Is it a "sound effect" due to electronic manipulation of the source material? No. These effects are often thought of a gimmics. But I think SDA can still be call an effect, because the dimensional speakers do effect the sound from the mains. They aim to cancel the crosstalk, and they aim to do this for a certain frequency range to change the users perception of the sound. This can be considered an effect. I would not call it a gimmic.

On a side note and a thead for another day. Some OCD has been kicking in about the SDA models, line arrays, and tweeter offsets. Thinking about it, since different models are said to have diffent sounds, one might say they effect the sound differently based on there design.

I'll finish with I don't the SDA is an effect assuming most people would classify effect as the fist definition, a type of "sound effect" or electronic manipulation.

nooshinjohn

crashb4

In the end, it is a matter of what the individual accepts as a natural musical reproduction. I have listened to countless speakers and for my money, SDA SRS is the clear winner. Effect or not is irrelevant. I have had electronics with sound field mapping to 5 channels that was a novelty initially, but was never used consistently. The effect was not consistent across a complete recording and served as more of a distraction than an enhansment.
Just my $0.02

Emlyn

Stadium Mode or Concert Hall Mode on a receiver is an effect generated by a processor to give the illusion of being in such an environment. They sound awful.

K_M

Yet, no one is mentioning that almost all recordings are Studio created with multiple tracks, and there is no "Real event or imaging" to begin with.

The intended Imaging is simply created in a room electronically by a guy that uses 2 normal non SDA speakers, by panning, level and phase.

If the recording engineer mixes and masters on NORMAL non SDA speakers, that is the Standard of what he determines or manipulates the sound stage to be.

K_M

delkal wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

2 channel stereo is an illusion since it's been mixed and manipulated down from multi channel recordings.

heiney9 wrote: »

Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.

This is something I never understood. I don't see how you can get imaging unless the song was recorded in one take with everyone playing AND it was recorded with just 2 microphones. I have some recordings like that and they do image.

But how can you get "imaging" from laying over different tracks recorded at different times. Or from a guitar plugged straight into the recording soundboard!

But the biggest question is how can SDA's make sense of the mixed recording that might not have any true imaging to start with.

That is what got me wondering about the SDA effect also.

I totally get the "real world" concert setting and how it could work better, but it loses me totally with studio created music, which never had any true imaging to begin with.

[Deleted User]

F1nut wrote: »

It is used today in Polk's surround bars and their new upcoming SDA speakers.

Interesting. I think if they came in at around 3K with modern drivers and updated tech, they might be quite successful.

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.

Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.

Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.

The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.

Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.

It's laughable that you think 2 channel stereo is the correct way to reproduce life like sound. It's not, It's incredibly flawed. SDA's provide a way to correct a few of the blatant flaws in the 2 channel mix down of a multi faceted real life event. Our ears and brains are much more sophisticated than to settle for a 2 channel mix down.

Also SDA IS a much more realistic and accurate presentation of the real life event, not stereo. Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.

Are SDA's perfectly recreating the real event, no, but they are much closer than the same played in 2 channel stereo.

Stereo is an illusion.

H9

In your enthusiasm for SDA you omit one extremely important thing.

There is no actual "Real life event" in the vast majority of recordings.
They are mostly studio created from bits and parts and each part has is own placement and ambiance added electronically.

Are you trying to say that something with an artificial sound stage can be improved, when there was no actual imaging and sound stage to begin with?

msg

And they're off!

delkal

I would love to hear what the Nitty Gritty Dirt bands "Will the Circle be Unbroken" sounds like with an SDA. This is an early country / bluegrass classic where the sessions were recorded in one take and everyone was playing acoustic instruments (mostly Banjo an guitar). These were rather raw recordings and it is clear there was no mixing or overdubs. Just get some people in the studio, get them talking and record everything one take.

When I want to demonstrate imaging to someone this is the album I get out. I tell them to close their eyes and point to where everyone was standing in relation to each other. Even newbies get it right.

There is one track that is interesting. Its not in Mono and you can still clearly hear the imaging but everyone is playing left of center! I guess they had the wrong mike on when they were recording. The fact that they didn't fix it shows they were not messing around with mixing.

tonyb

K_M wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.

Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.

Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.

The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.

Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.

It's laughable that you think 2 channel stereo is the correct way to reproduce life like sound. It's not, It's incredibly flawed. SDA's provide a way to correct a few of the blatant flaws in the 2 channel mix down of a multi faceted real life event. Our ears and brains are much more sophisticated than to settle for a 2 channel mix down.

Also SDA IS a much more realistic and accurate presentation of the real life event, not stereo. Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.

Are SDA's perfectly recreating the real event, no, but they are much closer than the same played in 2 channel stereo.

Stereo is an illusion.

H9

In your enthusiasm for SDA you omit one extremely important thing.

There is no actual "Real life event" in the vast majority of recordings.
They are mostly studio created from bits and parts and each part has is own placement and ambiance added electronically.

Are you trying to say that something with an artificial sound stage can be improved, when there was no actual imaging and sound stage to begin with?

Your splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. A "real life event" can be numerous things. Ever been to a jazz club ? No speakers, just instruments playing.

Since the reproduction of music means different things to different people, it's pretty silly to argue which way of recording musical events is better than another. What matters to most, I would think anyway, is the final product.....the final sound one achieves that's agreeable to that individual. What moves one may not move another.

It's been my observation over the years that too many times we like to categorize things audio related. It's always been about enjoying music, however and whatever that means to you. You like listening on a Hello Kitty boombox, knock your socks off. Some like giant super expensive systems to raise the hair on their necks, all cool too. Most fall somewhere in between. Matters not if you use SDA's, or some other brand. Matters not the format, how it was recorded, as long as it blows your skirt up, roll with it.

lightman1

^^^^^^It sounds heavenly.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

nooshinjohn

DSkip wrote: »

Everything falls short. I hate this statement so much regardless of who says it. That's like baking a frozen pizza and saying it isn't as good as what you had in Chicago.

Not to change the topic, but the cardboard box of a frozen pizza tastes better than anything I had in Chicago.

Stew

tonyb wrote: »

Your splitting hairs for the sake of arguing.

+1. Hijacking threads and looking for any possible excuse to argue gets really old.

SDA eliminates an artifact of stereo speakers. That's it. Please stop trying to spin this.

nooshinjohn

heiney9

K_M wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

I see someone didn't read the explanation of what SDA is. Once again, it is not an effect. Non-SDA stereo speakers would be more accurately described as having an effect.

Non-SDA speakers are used in virtually every recording mastering and mixing studio, therefore soundstage and stereo effects are optimized in house for normal non-SDA speakers.

Your comments are based on sales literature and the "White paper" from Polk and are in conflict with real world experiences with recording, mixing and mastering personnel.

The Polk white paper ignores certain facts about how actual recordings are made over the last 4-5 decades and instead concentrates on a theoretical recording style that has the listener sitting in the middle of a concert hall, and hearing the sound and scope of the hall itself.

Since almost all recordings are completely created in studio, and the resultant sound stage and stereo effect are done with normal speakers, similar to what is used in home, the SDA effect may be quite enjoyable, fun and even sound better, but it will never be a more accurate representation of what the recording engineer intended.

It's laughable that you think 2 channel stereo is the correct way to reproduce life like sound. It's not, It's incredibly flawed. SDA's provide a way to correct a few of the blatant flaws in the 2 channel mix down of a multi faceted real life event. Our ears and brains are much more sophisticated than to settle for a 2 channel mix down.

Also SDA IS a much more realistic and accurate presentation of the real life event, not stereo. Engineers can be incredibily heavy handed in mixing and mastering for a single particular attribute. Think of them as the same as a photographer using photo-shop to manipulate their photo's for the intended final result. Not realistic at all, but altered, manipulated to produce an intended outcome other than the real thing.

Are SDA's perfectly recreating the real event, no, but they are much closer than the same played in 2 channel stereo.

Stereo is an illusion.

H9

In your enthusiasm for SDA you omit one extremely important thing.

There is no actual "Real life event" in the vast majority of recordings.
They are mostly studio created from bits and parts and each part has is own placement and ambiance added electronically.

Are you trying to say that something with an artificial sound stage can be improved, when there was no actual imaging and sound stage to begin with?

So your saying Abby Road, Stargroves, Olympic Studio, Sun Records, Headley Grange, Polar Studios and a plethora of other recording studio spaces that all have their own sound are exactly the same, cookie cutter recording places that have zero influence on the "real" musicians, playing "real" instruments. It's all in the mixing and mastering illusion that creates the sound? So they could record in the bathroom and it would all sound the same?

As an exercise look up Led Zeppelin - Headley Grange - When the Levee Breaks and tell me the real life event doesn't have a sound of its own that no engineer could recreate. They tried and tried and failed to "create" this sound in the studio. That recording sounds much more realistic on SDA's then it does on any other speaker I've heard to date.

Your thoughts on this subject are your own illusion since they have no basis in reality.

H9

ZLTFUL

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

That is what got me wondering about the SDA effect also.

I totally get the "real world" concert setting and how it could work better, but it loses me totally with studio created music, which never had any true imaging to begin with.

This is a great point about the in studio music creation process. The recording engineer(s) are as important to the end product as are the artists. They assemble various aspects of a music track, including levels and placement in the final mix "sound stage." Claiming that any brand of speakers does better at giving a "live" performance effect when the performance is an artificial in studio creation is a bit ridiculous.

Good for Polk that they have built speakers and powered subs that work great in and are designed for different size listening rooms. But even with the largest of SDA speakers placed in 400 plus sq ft rooms playing a studio mastered "live" performance, this still falls far short of going to a live concert. The Cal Jam concert at the Ontario speedway comes to mind. That event covered many acres of property with close to a half million people in attendance. The best these live recordings do is give a flavor of the event.

polrbehr

K_M wrote: »

That is what got me wondering about the SDA effect also.

I totally get the "real world" concert setting and how it could work better, but it loses me totally with studio created music, which never had any true imaging to begin with.

Why are you lost? SDA has the effect ability of rendering ordinary, studio-created recordings into extraordinary sound images.
You said earlier that you loved your 3.1s, yet still continue to wonder about the "SDA effect", so which is it?

heiney9

She's trying to be a contrarian, just like always. She changes her "tune" all the time just to state the opposite of what's being discussed. I see the pattern too, it's not difficult to understand why she posts.

H9

Stew

F1nut wrote: »

It is used today in Polk's surround bars and their new upcoming SDA speakers.

Jesse,
Do you have any insight that you can share on when this might happen?

nooshinjohn

New SDA's have been mentioned in several cryptic posts and such over the last year or do. Whatever has been discussed privately has to remain so.