|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why not 4.0 or 4.1? posted by mcp on January 31, 2003 at 13:14:14:
early tests on stereo indicate that three speakers were the minimum to reproduce a stereo soundstage accurately, so 2 channels is a compromised we have lived with all these years.what you can do is five identical floorstanding speakers in an ITU configuration supported by 1 or 2 subwoofers.
to watch an image, use a projector and mount your screen above the speakers. a few of my friends have this configuration.
the compromise you are making is that the visual location of images is then above the aural soundstage.
i adopt two compromises. four identical floorstanding speakers, but a low timbre matched centre channel with the screen mounted above the centre speaker. therefore i get the all important congruence between visual and aural location. if a car for example moves from left to right, my ears correlate the exact position of the sound with the exact position of the car on screen. this greatly enhances the impact of watching films and is well worth it.
the compromise is non-identical speakers, and also on surround mixes where the vocals are in the centre channel only, the "height" of the centre channel is lower than the other speakers which create an "anomaly"
however, most surround mixes places vocals on front left and right and the centre channel is used as a "filler" and that works out really well.
Follow Ups:
Peter McGrath and Jerry Bruck have been making 4-channel recordings for more than 10 years, and each time I read about them being demo'd in this situation or that situation (like at shows, or for reviewers, or at conferences, etc.) the usual response is that they are the "Best and most life-like recordings [they] have ever heard, period." This is not an exaggeration, I have seen these kinds of descriptors used quite often for Bruck/McGrath's 4-channel recordings. (John Marks uses the same system, much of the time).Anyway, I'm sure that equally great results can be obtained with 5.0 or the 'standard' 5.1 config. For performances with vocal (most pop material), I can see how the center might be advantageous. Most of Peter's recordings have been of symphony orchestra in a large hall, and with solo piano (in what space I'm not sure). Perhaps this is why the lack of a center channel doesn't seem to matter.
Of course the only way to tell which one is 'best' is to carefully try recording and mixing for one and then recording and mixing for the other, using experienced engineers, and then evaluate the results.
Christine,Ideally, the CC speaker should be located according to the ITU: on the same level as the fronts, but behind the screen . This is the only ITU recommendation I find really useful. Most of the time, the front stage becomes more 'three dimensional' in movies and music alike.
The best investment for HT use is in a good screen allowing the use of center speaker(s) behind the screen. I don't have one, but I've seen them at demos, they work well.
In fact, I see them all the time in the movie theaters...Best
yes - ideally for movies the centre channel should be located behind the screen, but in my experience "acoustically transparent" screens aren't so transparent, and some of us are not prepared to make that sacrifice.
I know about the two recommendations, but both have CC behind the line going from front L to R. I'm not very good in geometry, so I can't give the exact angle, but it's the same in both ITU recos (the ones I have seen anyway, including those leaflets in SACDs)Setting the CC behind that line will almost always improve the "depth" of the sound stage, IME. However, I don't believe in orienting the front L and R along the 22° angle.
Best
Which is why Stewart provides an EQ (included in the cost) to compensate for the response changes created by their Microperf screen.
Where are you willing to make a compromise? Are you really willing to accept the alteration from flat in frequency response when a perforated screen is in use?Stewart correctly sends an EQ which you can use or not use at your discretion.
if it's hardware based, won't it actually create more problems than it solves?
See above.
what is this "EQ" thing? a piece of paper with the frequency response curve? a parametric equaliser? a set of specially made ear buds that counteract the effect of the screen? :-)
I can't help your lack of understanding that it's an equalizer tuned to the response issues of the microperf screen.It works very well by the way, I heard a smashing demo last night with VMPS RM40s left/right and the corresponding Large Ribbon Center.
Very effective presentation.
what is the nature of this equaliser? does it require power, does it connect between the amp and the speakers, or in the pre amp stage, what are the characteristics of the equaliser, does it digitise the inputs, ...? from your first post i was not even sure you were talking about a piece of hardware.if you cannot answer or are unwilling to answer, just say so. posting a sarcastic reply does not help.
Well ma'am, it can be hooked up in a tape loop, or it can be hooked up between the preamp and amp and defeated.S BTW, you should change over to an "R" status to correctly indicate your affiliation with MichaelDVD.
i don't put an (R) next to my name because i don't get paid by michaeld so the situation is no different from anyone posting an opinion on an internet forum (such as this one!)i don't represent michaeldvd when i post on this forum, and i'm sure brian moura doesn't represent highfidelityreview when he posts on this forum either
The response curve isn't that terrible through Microperf, and if your processor or receiver has Cinema ReEQ you could try that out and see how it does.If you have the right projector, it's a great way to go.
It shouldn't matter that you're paid or not, I wasn't paid when I was at Secrets, but I still marked with an "R".
Professional isn't about being paid, it's about doing a good job on reviews.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: