In Reply to: RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? posted by pictureguy on July 18, 2012 at 17:57:35:
Heh, I tried Dynaquad too. Combined my system with my mother's. Of course, it only lasted a day, since I wanted my system back, and she no doubt wanted her living room.
You can do matrix-style ambiance recovery with a surround receiver, but for studio releases, I think you'd want to use something more sophisticated and accurate. Since the typical recording is either a snapshot of the front (cardioids) or of the instruments or groups of instruments (multimiking), you have essentially the front of the picture and one need only digitally recreate the rest of the concert hall. This can be approximated with conventional reverb or with convolving reverb, which uses the impulse response of actual halls.
There are still some limitations having to do with the limited number of channels and the room acoustics. Reverb should have very low interaural cross correlation. This is difficult to achieve in a standard setup. I think it will one day be accomplished with the aid of electronics, essentially, you'll do the calculations for the hall and then use a complementary HRTF scheme to spread the localization. Meanwhile, there's a trend towards an ever-increasing number of surround channels which would of necessity involve small speakers.
HP and Jim winey have multichannel Maggie setups using floorstanders. And a lot of people who also do home theater use the on-walls for the surround channels.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - josh358 18:15:52 07/18/12 (2)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - pictureguy 21:26:33 07/18/12 (1)
- RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? - josh358 06:52:29 07/19/12 (0)