|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. posted by csuzor on November 30, 2005 at 06:59:51:
I'm not Michael Bishop, and I am not answering for him.Section 3.6:
The closer you sit to the loudspeakers, the less of an impact the room has. Remember that you're talking about the production of surround recordings, not the reproduction of those recordings. A slightly different situation :-)
Section 4.4:
This depends on who you ask. Some (Frank Filippeti) comes to mind prefer the sound of an (almost) naked CC. Look at JTs "Hourglass", which is mixed at about 80% CC and 10% each in L/R. This really makes the lead vocal jump out into the room.
I think that it takes some getting used to, and it's a bit too "intimate" for some people to like.
Section 4.6:
Psychoacoustically speaking a rear center can easily get confused for front/center. This is why you find Dolby and DTS recommending a pair of loudspeakers with a slight offset for the monophonic rear channel in Dolby Surround EX and DTS-ES. It isn't a problem in a movie theater as the rear channel is handled by an array of speakers across the back wall instead of just one loudspeaker.
The problem with doing this from a technical perspective is that you start screwing up your channel mappings which isn't good by varying from the SMPTE pairings on which the channel mappings are based. So it would get ugly very fast.
With due respect to Michael, this is why I don't like the way they handled height (by including as high pass on the subwoofer channel). There's no elegant way of handling it.
Regards,
John Kotches
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - John Kotches 07:37:13 11/30/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
