Presence speakers - What do you think?

[StevenSurprenant]

I have a Yamaha RX-V1800 and one of its features is that it allows you to run 2 additional speakers mounted above and outside the mains. What they do is add ambiance information derived from Yamaha's DSP functions to simulate the spacial effects of different rooms that Yamaha has recorded. I understand that other receivers offer this same feature.

I tried the DSP both through the main speakers and through the extra presence speakers. The difference is huge and there is no comparison between sending the DSP to the mains as compared to using extra presence speakers. I also compared each to straight feed through the Dolby decoder. Running the 2 extra presence speakers gave me the most bang for the buck, so that will be where I concentrate this post. By running the extra 2 speakers for presence, I loose the ability to run 7.1, which is okay in my case because I don't have the room for those speakers in the back of my room.

The main thing when running in this configuration compared to straight Dolby is that the front wall seems to disappear and the soundstage gets very deep. It's like the screen is sitting in the middle of the soundstage. It also gives more separation to the recorded sounds in a big way. It doesn't seem to change anything coming from the center channel so the voices are still anchored to the screen. When I switch back to Dolby, the room seems to close in and everything sounds dull in comparison.

The more technically minded might point out that sound aberrations might occur from using this feature, but I cannot detect anything worth mentioning. The added spacial imagery is worth the price of admission. Of course, it might be different if your room is huge to begin with, I don't know.

I did show this to several people and all preferred using the extra channels.

So, have you tried it? If so, what is your take on this?

[GMichael]

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

[StevenSurprenant]

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

[GMichael]

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

My room is a bit longer than it is wide. (14x26)
That may be why I prefer the one over the other.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

[StevenSurprenant]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

I only have a 5.1 system at home, and I much prefer how it sounds compared to a movie theater. I'm not saying that a movie theater doesn't have its strengths, but given a choice of duplicating a movie theater in my home or to use more conventional speakers of high quality, I would hands down go the home route. First off, horns just don't do a good job. They're great for loudness and dynamics, but fall short on the level of details. No offense intended to horn lovers, it's just a personal preference and I'm sure there are some great horns out there.

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality. For their purpose, they are perfect, but in the home, there is better.

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all.

Strangely enough, I would never use DSP for my 2 channel system, but for surround, it seems to be useful.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I only have a 5.1 system at home, and I much prefer how it sounds compared to a movie theater. I'm not saying that a movie theater doesn't have its strengths, but given a choice of duplicating a movie theater in my home or to use more conventional speakers of high quality, I would hands down go the home route. First off, horns just don't do a good job. They're great for loudness and dynamics, but fall short on the level of details. No offense intended to horn lovers, it's just a personal preference and I'm sure there are some great horns out there.

Have you heard all horn loaded speakers including custom ones? I don't think so, so to make a statement that horns are only good for dynamic and loudness, and not good on details is a rather ignorant statement.


Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality. For their purpose, they are perfect, but in the home, there is better.

Steve, they use JBL or Klipsch THEATER speakers in the theater, and horn made for the home, in the home. The two are quite different not only sonically, but how it is implemented in each environment. These facts do not allow for generalization that are unsupported by lack of knowledge.


As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

Improves the sound, or colors and render the sound spatially inaccurate. You say you are for accuracy, but yet choose this option. There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage. Your words, and your choices do not jive very well.


The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all.

This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic. There is a reason that the ITU-775 speaker setup standard works for both the studio, and the home environment. They both will rendered the soundtrack spatially accurate and translatable from one environment to another. When you start doing stupid things like using three center speakers, DSP that steer sound upward, and esoteric speakers for soundtrack playback, then you need band-aids like this to make it work. If you follow the ITU-B775 standard, you don't need DSP to fill in the sonic holes that alternate placement create.


Strangely enough, I would never use DSP for my 2 channel system, but for surround, it seems to be useful.

I guess it is useful if you like colored and spatially inaccurate gimmicks.

[E-Stat]

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality.
They provided the necessary solution for when amplifier power was measured in single digits. As for quality, there is one brand which takes a very different approach from the rest of the crowd. While they are multi-way, all drivers radiate from a common mouth which provides consistent and controlled directivity across the frequency spectrum. Such is not found in traditional designs where each driver does its own thing and coherence is compromised. Like the professional Sound Lab speakers, they are designed to be used in arrays to widen the horizontal and vertical coverage. That company is Danley Sound Labs where the founder and chief designer is also a fan of full range electrostats since they also exhibit controlled frequency independent directivity.

Some stuff found here (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf) or visit the website.

rw

[E-Stat]

There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account[ed] for on the dubbing stage.
Amen!

rw

[jjp735i]

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

[GMichael]

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

[StevenSurprenant]

Have you heard all horn loaded speakers including custom ones? I don't think so, so to make a statement that horns are only good for dynamic and loudness, and not good on details is a rather ignorant statement.

This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic. There is a reason that the ITU-775 speaker setup standard works for both the studio, and the home environment. They both will rendered the soundtrack spatially accurate and translatable from one environment to another. When you start doing stupid things like using three center speakers, DSP that steer sound upward, and esoteric speakers for soundtrack playback, then you need band-aids like this to make it work. If you follow the ITU-B775 standard, you don't need DSP to fill in the sonic holes that alternate placement create.



I guess it is useful if you like colored and spatially inaccurate gimmicks.

No I haven't heard "All" horns, no-one has, but the many I have heard sound pretty decent, except they have, for lack of a better word, a hard sound to them. I have read about some horns that were supposed to be very good in relation to more conventional speakers. They sure were pretty! IMO I have never heard a horn sound as smooth and natural as other types of speakers. I'm also pretty sure there are some horns that will change my mind about them. I just haven't had the opportunity to hear those. As I said, it's a matter of taste. Some people don't like metal dome tweeters. There is no right or wrong. My opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans except for those that feel as I do. Besides, everybody has their preferences. I had one guy tell me that my Quad ESL speakers sounded "almost" as good as his Bose. I didn't blast him for his opinion. If that's what he believed, then for him, it was true. We both went on our merry way. Besides, this isn't about horns. The only reason I mentioned it was because IMO other types of speakers sound more realistic and natural and if accuracy is what your main objective is, then you could do better.

I have no doubt that in a comparison between my system and yours, your system will blow mine out of the water for the wow factor, but play it at a more reasonable level like 85db peak, and my "budget" system would be more pleasing to listen to. Well, that's what I think. There is nothing wrong with horns, it only a matter of preference. The same applies to dipole planers versus box speakers. People who own box speakers rarely hear the boxes, but dipole speaker owners sure do.

Once I was listening to some Avalon speakers and I was thinking they sounded pretty good until my friend stood between them and began singing. That's when I realized how artificial they sounded. I think Avalon speakers are pretty good, but there was no way to confuse them with the real thing. The same applies to almost every stereo system I've heard. As good as speakers can get, they all pretty much sound like stereo's. That, in no way, diminishes our enjoyment of them, but this epiphany I had brought me back to my senses. As I told you before, at today's level of technology, we are dealing with a flawed technology and we delude ourselves into thinking that it's better than what it is. So, when you talk about accuracy, you are talking about technology that still has a long way to go before we can use the term "accurate".

"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"

The thing you seem to ignore is that each room changes the sound, sometimes dramatically, and what you hear in the studio is not what people hear in their home. The only way it could is if the home owner had an exact duplicate of the recording studio "in their home", room and all. That fact alone destroys any chance of duplicating what you hear in the studio. The room is every bit as important as the audio system. You say that people shouldn't use DSP, but would you be just as critical about the "room" which can have an even more profound effect on the sound. Then there is the fact that no-one uses the same speakers at home as you use in the recording studio. What you hear on your studio monitors will sound different than what I hear at home. I have yet to hear two speakers of different brands sound alike, at any price point. So, even before you get into DSP, you have to deal with room effects and different voiced speakers. If the goal is to duplicate what you hear during a recording session, the battle is lost before it begins.

As for the "ITU-775 speaker setup standard ", that is exactly how my system is set up within the constraints of my room.

"The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all."

[This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic]

Really? Need I say more?

BTW, I picked up a sound pressure meter, as you suggested, and spec'd my speakers which I had adjusted by ear. They were all right on the money and needed no adjustments. It was money wasted, but I do like the conformation that it is right.

[StevenSurprenant]

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

LMAO!

I couldn't stop laughing at what you said! I could actually visualize you sitting there with your popcorn and beer.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

[StevenSurprenant]

" I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

I wish my receiver would allow this. I like what the front presence speakers do and can only image what a rear pair would sound like.

[StevenSurprenant]

They provided the necessary solution for when amplifier power was measured in single digits. As for quality, there is one brand which takes a very different approach from the rest of the crowd. While they are multi-way, all drivers radiate from a common mouth which provides consistent and controlled directivity across the frequency spectrum. Such is not found in traditional designs where each driver does its own thing and coherence is compromised. Like the professional Sound Lab speakers, they are designed to be used in arrays to widen the horizontal and vertical coverage. That company is Danley Sound Labs where the founder and chief designer is also a fan of full range electrostats since they also exhibit controlled frequency independent directivity.

Some stuff found here (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf) or visit the website.

rw

Interesting speakers. From some of the reviews, it looks like it could be a major contender for a very good home theater system. On person compared them with some very high end speakers and liked them better. I'm almost afraid to hear them because they may make me hate my system. It's happened before...

[E-Stat]

Interesting speakers. From some of the reviews, it looks like it could be a major contender for a very good home theater system. On person compared them with some very high end speakers and liked them better. I'm almost afraid to hear them because they may make me hate my system. It's happened before...
Here's (http://www.pbase.com/pcasper/image/109260354) a pic of a guy using three SH-50s up front in his HT. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS.

It may be BS to YOU, but I heard a full Yamaha setup using soundtracks I mixed as demonstration materiel. These DSP put stuff all over the place, except for the correct place.




I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

Well goody for you! This is another example of one mans floor versus another ceiling. You are correct, it does add something...it is call spatial errors, and fuzzy wuzzy sound. Since what is going to those speakers is bandwidth limited, there is no reason in the world to include good speakers to reproduce the sound these DSP produce.


I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

This is not about what I like, but what is accurate and true to the soundtrack. If the soundtrack was not mixed on a system with height channels, then they should not be used with height channels. DSP's rerouting already mixed signals is not going to lead to accuracy, and will not work on all program material. I know, I have heard it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No I haven't heard "All" horns, no-one has, but the many I have heard sound pretty decent, except they have, for lack of a better word, a hard sound to them. I have read about some horns that were supposed to be very good in relation to more conventional speakers. They sure were pretty! IMO I have never heard a horn sound as smooth and natural as other types of speakers. I'm also pretty sure there are some horns that will change my mind about them. I just haven't had the opportunity to hear those. As I said, it's a matter of taste. Some people don't like metal dome tweeters. There is no right or wrong. My opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans except for those that feel as I do. Besides, everybody has their preferences. I had one guy tell me that my Quad ESL speakers sounded "almost" as good as his Bose. I didn't blast him for his opinion. If that's what he believed, then for him, it was true. We both went on our merry way. Besides, this isn't about horns. The only reason I mentioned it was because IMO other types of speakers sound more realistic and natural and if accuracy is what your main objective is, then you could do better.

The beginning of this comment should be prefaced with the words "in my very limited exposure to horn speakers". They make horn loaded speakers that don't even sound like horns, like my system in my signature. There is a whole world out there in regards to horn loaded speakers that you have no exposure to, and what makes your comments so laughable.


I have no doubt that in a comparison between my system and yours, your system will blow mine out of the water for the wow factor, but play it at a more reasonable level like 85db peak, and my "budget" system would be more pleasing to listen to. Well, that's what I think. There is nothing wrong with horns, it only a matter of preference. The same applies to dipole planers versus box speakers. People who own box speakers rarely hear the boxes, but dipole speaker owners sure do.

Here is the problem with this statement. You have zero basis to make it. You have never heard my system play, whether loud of soft, so you have no idea of its performance against your "budget" system. This is a prime example of someone pulling crap out of the air, and throwing it against the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't, so perhaps one should stop throwing it against the wall.


Once I was listening to some Avalon speakers and I was thinking they sounded pretty good until my friend stood between them and began singing. That's when I realized how artificial they sounded. I think Avalon speakers are pretty good, but there was no way to confuse them with the real thing. The same applies to almost every stereo system I've heard. As good as speakers can get, they all pretty much sound like stereo's. That, in no way, diminishes our enjoyment of them, but this epiphany I had brought me back to my senses. As I told you before, at today's level of technology, we are dealing with a flawed technology and we delude ourselves into thinking that it's better than what it is. So, when you talk about accuracy, you are talking about technology that still has a long way to go before we can use the term "accurate".

This statement has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water on a sidewalk. We are not trying to reproduce the real thing, we are trying to reproduce what a microphone captures. There is a difference. If a speaker can reproduce all that the microphone captures, it is an accurate speakers. Not all speakers can do this, but that is the goal.

Anyone who uses a an unbalanced voice next to a speaker reproducing music as a reference, needs his head checked.

"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"


The thing you seem to ignore is that each room changes the sound, sometimes dramatically, and what you hear in the studio is not what people hear in their home.

Which is why I always check my studio mixes on my home systems. I have not ignored anything, you are assuming much.


The only way it could is if the home owner had an exact duplicate of the recording studio "in their home", room and all. That fact alone destroys any chance of duplicating what you hear in the studio. The room is every bit as important as the audio system. You say that people shouldn't use DSP, but would you be just as critical about the "room" which can have an even more profound effect on the sound. Then there is the fact that no-one uses the same speakers at home as you use in the recording studio. What you hear on your studio monitors will sound different than what I hear at home. I have yet to hear two speakers of different brands sound alike, at any price point. So, even before you get into DSP, you have to deal with room effects and different voiced speakers. If the goal is to duplicate what you hear during a recording session, the battle is lost before it begins.

Again you are making a ton of assumptions, and propagating BS red herring arguments. I am not interested in matching a home "sound: with a studio sound. I am interested in whether a home system can capture everything we have mixed in the studio, room aside. I am not interested in the room signature of the home, but the resolution of the speaker system itself. Room signature is one thing, speaker resolution is another completely different thing. I don't have the two mixed up, but you do.


As for the "ITU-775 speaker setup standard ", that is exactly how my system is set up within the constraints of my room.

Steven, either you follow the standard, or you don't. If the constraints of your room do not allow for it, then you are not following the standard PERIOD!


"The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all."

I don't live in a either or world, I live in both worlds. I have a studio system AND several mutlichannel systems in my homes. This idea that I only live in one world is born out of more assumptions on your part. Don't assume, ask questions and get the facts, then make an opinion. This is how you keep the horse before the cart, and not the other way around.


[This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic]

Really? Need I say more?

Please don't, you have said quite enough.


BTW, I picked up a sound pressure meter, as you suggested, and spec'd my speakers which I had adjusted by ear. They were all right on the money and needed no adjustments. It was money wasted, but I do like the conformation that it is right.

Now you are blowing smoke in my face. Our ears do not make good measuring or balancing devices, and science has proven this over and over again. Unless your hearing is can tell 72db from 75db(and nobody's can) then you are BS'ing me.

Steven, I am convinced that you think I am stupid as hell. There is no way in the world you can think otherwise, and present this kind of BS to me. Go tell this kind of BS to somebody completely ignorant of how the ear works, but please do not present this kind of crap to me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.


Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

There is something you can say to participate(this is not about winning, but presenting accurate information) in this discussion. How about some truth, facts, and science, and a little less of the anecdotal and BS.


BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.


Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

This is nothing like what happened in the wire forums many years ago.


I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.


If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

[StevenSurprenant]

The beginning of this comment should be prefaced with the words "in my very limited exposure to horn speakers". They make horn loaded speakers that don't even sound like horns, like my system in my signature. There is a whole world out there in regards to horn loaded speakers that you have no exposure to, and what makes your comments so laughable. .

I thought I made it clear that there were horns that didn't sound like horns.



Here is the problem with this statement. You have zero basis to make it. You have never heard my system play, whether loud of soft, so you have no idea of its performance against your "budget" system. This is a prime example of someone pulling crap out of the air, and throwing it against the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't, so perhaps one should stop throwing it against the wall.


You're right, but aren't you the one that keeps knocking my systems configuration and yet have never heard it either? You tell me that more than one center channel is wrong on all accounts and you tell me that DSP is wrong on all accounts. I'm just feeding back what you gave me.



This statement has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water on a sidewalk. We are not trying to reproduce the real thing, we are trying to reproduce what a microphone captures. There is a difference. If a speaker can reproduce all that the microphone captures, it is an accurate speakers. Not all speakers can do this, but that is the goal.

People don't care what the microphone captures, they want a reproduction of the real event. Isn't that what this whole audio thing is about? I'm surprised to hear anyone say what you just did. I don't think any speaker manufacturer would say their speakers are so good they sound just like the microphone.



Anyone who uses a an unbalanced voice next to a speaker reproducing music as a reference, needs his head checked.

Huh?



"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"

Perhaps so, but like I said, if people feel it improves that sound, then perhaps the recording engineer could have done a better job. BTW, last night I performed the ultimate test, the girl friend test. I switched the DSP off and on without telling her what I was doing and asked her which she preferred. She choose the DSP. I asked her why and she replied, "it made everything sound clearer." So there you go...




Again you are making a ton of assumptions, and propagating BS red herring arguments. I am not interested in matching a home "sound: with a studio sound. I am interested in whether a home system can capture everything we have mixed in the studio, room aside. I am not interested in the room signature of the home, but the resolution of the speaker system itself. Room signature is one thing, speaker resolution is another completely different thing. I don't have the two mixed up, but you do.

There you go, insulting me. Are you telling me that if you moved your home system into my comparably small room that it will sound the same as it does at your house?



Steven, either you follow the standard, or you don't. If the constraints of your room do not allow for it, then you are not following the standard PERIOD!

As I have told you, I have my system set up to the standard that you mentioned, front speakers 30 degrees from center, back speakers within 20 degrees behind the seating position.



I don't live in a either or world, I live in both worlds. I have a studio system AND several mutlichannel systems in my homes. This idea that I only live in one world is born out of more assumptions on your part. Don't assume, ask questions and get the facts, then make an opinion. This is how you keep the horse before the cart, and not the other way around.

I envy you for that, but as an end user, I have to live with what someone else "feels" is correct. Being that I pay money for their services, I feel that I have a right to dictate my expectations to them. You would never let a home decorator have free reign on what they do to your home, you'd want some control over the outcome, wouldn't you? How is this any different?


Now you are blowing smoke in my face. Our ears do not make good measuring or balancing devices, and science has proven this over and over again. Unless your hearing is can tell 72db from 75db(and nobody's can) then you are BS'ing me.

Steven, I am convinced that you think I am stupid as hell. There is no way in the world you can think otherwise, and present this kind of BS to me. Go tell this kind of BS to somebody completely ignorant of how the ear works, but please do not present this kind of crap to me.

I BS you not, but after 40+ years of careful listening, I should have gotten something out of it. Don't you think? Anybody can do anything reasonably well if they put the time and effort in it.

I do not think you're stupid. I think you are a very smart man and whether I agree with you or not, I respect your opinion. I also think you know a great deal more than I do. The difference between you and I is that in your world, everything is already mapped out, defined to the nth degree and there is no room for any variance.

I have lived my entire life listening to experts declare one thing or another as fact, yet years latter, I heard many of these same people use the phrase, "we used to believe".

It sounds to me that you put your heart and soul into your work and have pride in what you do. I commend you on that and feel that you fully deserve that praise.

From my perspective, I've listened to speakers designed in so many ways that it's mind boggling, monopole, dipole, bipole, planers, point sources, horns, electrostats, plasma, line arrays, and mixtures of these technologies. The list is much larger than this, but the point is that they all sound different in one way or another. Some people claim that the ideal speaker is a point source and their logic is valid. Some people love horns because they are very dynamic and that is strong reason to want horns. Without going on infinitum, each has it's strengths "and" weaknesses. There is no right or wrong, The only "real" metric that we can measure a system by is reality, what we hear from life around us. Even so, people buy what they think sounds good to them regardless of that metric.

The same applies to what you do. You have a certain criteria that you go by when making a product, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks it as good as it gets. Apparently, we want more than you can offer and so we resort to DSP or some other artificial magic. Right or wrong, if we think it sounds better, than it does, at least to us. You need to accept that and not be so critical.

Respects...

[StevenSurprenant]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

I wasn't talking to you at the time.

As for the last part, you're just being mean. It would have been better to use the term ignorant, not stupid.

Let me tell you about "experts"...

The word is at best, ambiguous. It doesn't meant that that person knows everything about a subject, only that they know a great deal about it. The world is full of experts that diametrically disagree with each other. Given this "fact", whom you choose to believe is a matter of a persons personal sensibilities. It also implies that there is more than one way to interpret the same thing. You, being an "expert", should be able to question your positions when presented with contrary opinions. If someone says it sounds better this way or that way, even if it goes against what you think, it is a valid statement. I have no doubt that DSP would screw up the steering that you have mentioned so often, but is steering the most important aspect of what we hear at home? Apparently not if we feel that DSP improves the sound. DSP is not perfect, stereo is not perfect, and surround is not perfect.

Audio hasn't been around for that long to declare it perfect. When audio began, mono was considered the cats meow, but that wasn't good enough. Stereo made its debut and it was declared state of the art, then surround popped up and now it's the standard by which we judge audio. In 10 years or a hundred years, perhaps our entire wall will be a speaker comprised of thousands of point sources like a TV screen. The point is that it keeps getting better and when we look back at what used to be the standard, we would shake our heads in disbelief that we thought what came before was good sound. We can argue all we want about present day technologies, but compared to what is to come, it is grossly inferior. We will develop new theories and new technologies that haven't been imagined yet. Many of the theories that we base our present day understanding on will be wholly inadequate. So I ask you, what is the point of arguing about this? We should just enjoy what we have and not worry about perfection, which doesn't exist.

[Mr Peabody]

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

[Hyfi]

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?



Best set of questions in the thread. I'm awaiting the answers.

Interesting how almost every other statement Steve made was picked apart, but these very important questions were not addressed.

The fact is, we all have to take whatever the RE jams down our throats whether we agree with it or not. If we don't agree, we all have the options to change it to what we as individuals like. Everybody's hearing is different as well as what they like. There is no one way for all in audio or we wouldn't have all the options we have. I don't give a rats ass as to what something measures. Does it sound good to ME? That is the only thing that matters.

[StevenSurprenant]

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.


What facts?

There are so many speaker configurations, so many amplifier topologies, so many room affects, so many ways to record an event, so many... Well you get the point. When you mix this all together, where is the science? You can make two speakers that spec out almost identically, but they sound totally different. You can use amplifiers that spec out almost identically, yet, they too may sound different. You can use an amp that specs out worse than another, but sounds better. When you mix something on your console, you mix according to what you hear on your speakers so by the time I get it, it sounds different because my speakers are different. I will agree that "science" will get you in the ball park, but it's our ears that make the final determination.

There is no way for "science" to accurately predict what our ears will hear, at least not yet. If someone states that what they hear is good, it's not anecdotal, it's a fact, to "them". You cannot quantify that in scientific terms. Isn't that what this is all about? How does it sound? The emotional response of an individual to the quality of a recording or an audio system cannot be put into numbers, yet that is the final goal. Mr. Bose amassed a fortune, not by pursuing science, but addressing the human factor.

When I watch a movie, I sometimes wonder why the front soundstage is so compressed toward the speakers. It doesn't have depth like it would in real life. In a real scenario I can tell if someone is closer or further away, even if only by a couple of feet, but I don't hear this in movies except on rare occasions. I know this is a result of how they mic the movie, but that's hardly accurate. Sometimes I may be watching people talking during a rain storm and all the rain is heard in the front. Some recordings use the surround speakers to bring the rain into the room to make it more realistic. We are at the mercy of the recording engineer. This isn't science, it's a decision of the engineer to try and make the movie sound as realistic as possible. Sometimes, when a door opens off screen, the engineer steers the sound hard right or left, which sounds unrealistic. I could go on and on about how the sound of many movies could be produced better, but the point is that it's not science.

I love science, but science is not everything when your throw in the human factor.

When you admire that shiny new car, is that science? You get the point.

If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

One more thing...


My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers)

You should be able to do this better than I. My hearing is not perfect, but I can tell when something is louder than another. Quite frankly, if I can do it, then I would suspect that most people could do the same. As for you thinking I wasn't truthful, what gives you the right to judge me? What purpose would it serve to not be honest? Quite frankly, I was amazed when I found the system to be spot on. Why do you think I bought the db meter? It wasn't to prove I was perfect, it was to, on your advice, to correct the system accurately because I didn't believe I could do it by ear. To be honest "again", I trust the meter more than I trust my hearing. Frankly, if you find it difficult to balance speaker levels by ear, what does that imply about your eq or mixing abilities? A musician doesn't have to use a meter to adjust their guitar strings. Are you saying that they actually can't do it without a meter? I'm being mean here, but you deserve it for what you said.

Let's not jack around anymore. Name some of your work and I will buy it and critique it and let you know how you are doing from an end users view point. I would love to do this for you and I will be fair and unbiased. Seriously! It will be fun. If you think I will criticize you just to be mean, I won't. I imagine that others will listen to your stuff too and if I am off track, they will let me know and besides, I don't want people to think I'm just being a jerk and that "would" make me look stupid.

[Hyfi]

What facts?



If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

[StevenSurprenant]

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

I'm going to make a point to listen to these and perhaps others. You've peaked my interest. I would love to change my opinion because horns have two qualities that I admire, dynamics and efficiency.

Thanks.

[StevenSurprenant]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

I agree. I've always believed just that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

[StevenSurprenant]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

[Feanor]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.
What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

[Luvin Da Blues]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

LOL, Did you see this on CBC the other night?

Doc Zone - Episode - The Trouble with Experts (http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html#)

[E-Stat]

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.
I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion (http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/distortion_feedback.pdf)

rw

[bfalls]

When I worked in CBS's tape facility we used a 500Hz tone to set levels every morning on our tape duplicators. As a newby I had to run each tape through a computer dedicated for reading levels and EQ. Daily for over a year I listened, tested and set levels on 150 cassette and 20 8-Track duplicators.

I also performed EQ on our QA and A/B test rooms weekly. I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz (standard test frequencies on TEAC test tapes).

Our A/B test engineer had a better ear than I. I was the tech responsible for her hardware. Once she said her 500Hz level test tape was distorted. I couldn't hear it, but when tested it had 2% distortion. Normal spec was +/- .5%.

Most of us listen for pleasure. From my experience those who listen more critically, don't enjoy the music as much. With tape it was very difficult, there's so much that can go wrong bias distortion, scrape flutter, sibilance, wow. Knowing what to listen for at times spoiled the music for me. My condolences to reviewers who's job it is to find fault in different designs. They're always comparing to a reference and finding differences. In the case of tapes, ignorance is bliss.

[Hyfi]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion (http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/distortion_feedback.pdf)

rw

I don't totally dismiss science or tools that help with system setup.

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.

My argument is that MY EARS and BRAIN may like the way something sounds regardless of any scientific measurements. Your ears and brain may not like the same thing.

So who is right? Nobody, we all listen to what WE like and not what someone tells us we should like.

[Hyfi]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I listen to what my ears and brain tell me I like, not what someone tells me I should like, no mater what boner fides they have.

Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.

Sounds like sheep dip to me.

[StevenSurprenant]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

I understand the reason for your post and I commend you on trying to do the right thing, but apparently we are seeing this issue differently. That's okay and understandable.

The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.

[Feanor]

...
He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. ....
....
True about rude & belligerent when we get him fired up. Also, Sir T has occasionally called a person a "liar" when "mistaken" would be the more appropriate term. But we be charitable not to confuse his interpersonal style with his message.

[Feanor]

...
Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.
...
Nope, I didn't say that, nor try to say it.

What I said was we should listen to experts and question our own, more limited knowledge.

[StevenSurprenant]

True about rude & belligerent when we get him fired up. Also, Sir T has occasionally called a person a "liar" when "mistaken" would be the more appropriate term. But we be charitable not to confuse his interpersonal style with his message.

Sure, there is a difference. I really don't hold it against him. He's not really a bad sort. I kind of like him and he does try to help.

[E-Stat]

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.
I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too. :)

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought I made it clear that there were horns that didn't sound like horns.

No, you didn't.



You're right, but aren't you the one that keeps knocking my systems configuration and yet have never heard it either? You tell me that more than one center channel is wrong on all accounts and you tell me that DSP is wrong on all accounts. I'm just feeding back what you gave me.

I have heard more than one center speaker, and I've heard Yamaha's DSP at work in a system. When I make my opinions on both of these, at least it is an experienced one. The same cannot be said about you and my system. I am making a judgement on these two technologies, you are making a judgement on something you have never heard.



People don't care what the microphone captures, they want a reproduction of the real event. Isn't that what this whole audio thing is about? I'm surprised to hear anyone say what you just did. I don't think any speaker manufacturer would say their speakers are so good they sound just like the microphone.

What kind of BS statement is this. If they want the real event, they go to it. It would take hundreds of microphones to capture enough detail to make something sound real. It would take hundreds of speakers to play this all back. That is not financially feasible on the recording side, or the playback side. When we are listening to recordings, we are listening to what the microphones have captured. If you are looking for a real event, sell you system, and go to events.


Huh?

I figured this would be your response.




Perhaps so, but like I said, if people feel it improves that sound, then perhaps the recording engineer could have done a better job. BTW, last night I performed the ultimate test, the girl friend test. I switched the DSP off and on without telling her what I was doing and asked her which she preferred. She choose the DSP. I asked her why and she replied, "it made everything sound clearer." So there you go...

Oh brother, the epitome of testing accuracy. The girlfriend test. Science ought to love this breakthrough.

As far as your statement of "improves that sound", and "perhaps the recording engineer could have done better", these are subjective. arrogant, arm chair statements. How does one go about improving the reference? Band-aids? Fuzzy wuzzy DSP enhancements? Esoteric speaker designs more appropriate for 2 channel music than movie soundtracks? I don't think so.

Since when does a matrix generated processed sound better than the accurate original sound? When you goal is to degrade and distort the original intentions of the soundtrack creator. When you are trying to compensate for the inadequacy of the reproducing system.


There you go, insulting me. Are you telling me that if you moved your home system into my comparably small room that it will sound the same as it does at your house?

You are insulting yourself with your comments. I am not saying this at all, the house or room is not the center of this debate. It is the ability of whatever SYSTEM to accurately playback what is on the media PERIOD. You are mixing room characteristics with SYSTEM resolution.




As I have told you, I have my system set up to the standard that you mentioned, front speakers 30 degrees from center, back speakers within 20 degrees behind the seating position.

Curiously no mention of the center channel, especially important with a system that has limited vertical and horizontal dispersion.




I envy you for that, but as an end user, I have to live with what someone else "feels" is correct.

That is because the original creator is correct. The original creator created the reference, the end user can only judge the creation based on the capabilities of their system, and how it lines up to the reference.


Being that I pay money for their services, I feel that I have a right to dictate my expectations to them. You would never let a home decorator have free reign on what they do to your home, you'd want some control over the outcome, wouldn't you? How is this any different?

When dealing with any audio or visual technology, since when have you paid for access to the creator, or dictate to the creator how it is supposed to sound or look? What expert like perspective do you have to challenge those professionals, you amateur perspective? Hell no! I am not going to let anyone that has zero studio experience, zero soundtrack mixing or mastering experience, zero soundtrack pre and post production experience, zero score mixing experience, zero audio experience on the pre and post production side tell me how to do my job. I don't get paid enough to allow that.

Your analogy of a home decorator is faulty. You have direct interaction with them, you have none with a sound designers, mixer, or masterers. You have zero input at any level of pre and post production whether we are talking about sound or picture.



I BS you not, but after 40+ years of careful listening, I should have gotten something out of it. Don't you think? Anybody can do anything reasonably well if they put the time and effort in it.

So you think your arm chair experience is greater than my 25 years of experience in creating what you listen to? The blatant arrogance of this statement is staggering.


I do not think you're stupid. I think you are a very smart man and whether I agree with you or not, I respect your opinion. I also think you know a great deal more than I do. The difference between you and I is that in your world, everything is already mapped out, defined to the nth degree and there is no room for any variance.

Once again, I live in both worlds. I create both mutlichannel and 2 channel tracks, and I am a listener to them on the other side. If accuracy was you true goal(instead of distorting and overly enhancing), then variance is a curse rather than a blessing. In multichannel music and movies(as opposed to 2 channel audio) there are standards that are transferable from one environment to the next. Follow those standards, and there is a constancy from one place to the next.

I have lived my entire life listening to experts declare one thing or another as fact, yet years latter, I heard many of these same people use the phrase, "we used to believe".

It sounds to me that you put your heart and soul into your work and have pride in what you do. I commend you on that and feel that you fully deserve that praise.


From my perspective, I've listened to speakers designed in so many ways that it's mind boggling, monopole, dipole, bipole, planers, point sources, horns, electrostats, plasma, line arrays, and mixtures of these technologies. The list is much larger than this, but the point is that they all sound different in one way or another. Some people claim that the ideal speaker is a point source and their logic is valid. Some people love horns because they are very dynamic and that is strong reason to want horns. Without going on infinitum, each has it's strengths "and" weaknesses. There is no right or wrong, The only "real" metric that we can measure a system by is reality, what we hear from life around us. Even so, people buy what they think sounds good to them regardless of that metric.

I cannot disagree with any of this statement.


The same applies to what you do. You have a certain criteria that you go by when making a product, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks it as good as it gets. Apparently, we want more than you can offer and so we resort to DSP or some other artificial magic. Right or wrong, if we think it sounds better, than it does, at least to us. You need to accept that and not be so critical.

Respects...

Steven, you are wrong about this on so many levels. I have but one criteria when I make the product. It must sound the best it can within the standards set by SMPTE, or the client. The only time somebody wants to alter the reference, is when they are compensating for a poor playback system that does not come close to the reference system it was created on. There is no way any sound designer, or re-recording engineer can design a soundtrack that is optimized for every different speaker design, or room characteristic out in the field. Your entire perspective on this issue is completely twisted. It is up to the end user to put together a system that accurately portrays the intent of the creator, not the other way around.

If you are no expert in sound deisgn, sound mixing, performing surgical operations, doing corporate accounting, or DOG TRAINING, how can your amatuer experience possible trump the professionals? It can't, and it is the height of arrogance that you think you can.

With absolutely no experience or education, it is not wise to challenge those who have both. My Dad gave me this wise advice when I was a kid. It might not hurt you any to take that advice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

This is a purely subjective perspective. This does not address anything scientific, objective or any sort of reference.


And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

There is a logical step that starts the chain of what is good sounding. A speaker to speaker balance(achieved by instruments), a wide band flat frequency response(through design and corrected room response based on instruments), and a ideal dispersion pattern(which is achieved through measurements).

Once you have these things, you can enhance to your taste. Any thing less begins with a distortion, and distortions just pile up after that.


You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

I cannot force anyone to do anything, and that is not my goal in the first place.


Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

This comment is based on the playback system, and cannot be applied to the source itself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

Based on how the field sample measures up to the reference. This is why I take my mixes home and listen to them on three comparable two way systems as the reference mixing system.


By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion (http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/distortion_feedback.pdf)

rw

I agree you need both. But you have to start with science first before marching on to the subjective. This is the very foundation of good speaker/room synergy. We may have a love for a specific speaker design, but you need the science of room acoustics to make them sound good in rooms.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

Your limb just broke, and now you have hit the pavement.

I made no mention about what sound good or bad. I made mention that we cannot use our ears as measuring devices. They are not linear enough for that task(see ISO:226), they cannot balance speakers(we have ear to ear deviances personally and from person to person), and each person's ears different from the next in the areas of frequency extension, inter-ear balance, head shape(HRF transfer effects), different pinna sizes(which will result in a different frequency response from one person ear to the next).

Measuring instruments are better at these things, and our own ears and tastes are what establishes personal preferences.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

Oh really Steven. Science tells me that there is no synthetic that is a perfect copy of an original. It is a synthesized version of the original, and nothing more.


As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

Steven, how in the hell can you decide if something ruins intelligibility when you have no access to the original? Turning off the ambiance speakers does not address the fact that you are listening to a system so wildly different from the reference, that you have no way of knowing what is accurate or intended, and what is not.

My best friend who is a master chief once told be that a high quality steak well prepared does not need steak sauce or additives. It taste very good all by itself. When a person starts to add all kinds of stuff to the steak, you are compensating for a poor quality meat, or you are accommodating a personal preference based on the strength and weaknesses of your ears. There is no groundswell of complaints about the quality of soundtracks, but there are huge variances in the way they are played back.


On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

The only thing this comment tells me is that you don't have enough experience with EQ to use it wisely. A smiley face setup is to address weakness in the speakers or playback chain, and does nothing to address the real problem which is the room itself.. EQ is only beneficial at lower frequencies, and should never be used for mid to high frequencies. Passive devices are better at those frequencies than active ones.


I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

Which leads me to believe that you are compensating for a drastically different characteristics than the reference system. If the reference system didn't require height channels for accurate playback, the end users playback system should not demand it either.


I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

So what you are saying here is that sometimes it requires a distortion of the source to correct a distortion in a speaker system. That is quite a unique perspective


I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

Even after I have explained to you that I not only come from the recording side, but I do have 10 multichannel systems that I test my mixes on, you still make the same claim over and over again. My perspective is 2 dimensional (both studio and at home), and yours is singular. I am a content user and well as a content creator.


He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

When somebody tells me they balanced their speaker totally by ear, and made no reference to test tones whatsoever, then either they are insulting my intelligence, or they are lying through their teeth. When somebody makes the statement that I EQ the hell out of mono sources when played back through stereo speaker and it is not science, either they cannot comprehend what is written, or they don't know science at all.

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY can balance two speakers with dynamic sources. The constant inter-channel intensity and time differences would prevent this. Your room and your speakers would have to be perfect playback sources and environments to do so. Your ears would have to have perfect frequency and balance, and the differences in the shapes of our pinna's and ear canal would have to be exactly alike from person to person. Our ears cannot distinguish 60hz from 50hz, and cannot tell if one channel averages 75db and the other 78db -or if both are 75db. That is science.

Anyone who understands the concept of HRT effects understands completely why you have to EQ the hell out of a mono source being played back through 2 speakers. The inter-channel crosstalk based on the difference between the distance of our 2 ears creates a notch between 1-4khz(it averages 7"). When transferring a mono track to a stereo sources, that notch creates a instability, and hollowness to vocals positioned between these two speakers. We use EQ to stabilize that mono signals, and restore the fullness it had as a mono source coming from a mono channel. This is science Steven, do you get it?


The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

Steven, I am under the impression that you don't have a clue on the difference between science and supposition based on this statement. When I speak about our hearing mechanism, that is science and NOT supposition. When i am speaking about the effect of three center speakers versus one, that is purely science. When i speak about 5.1 playback versus artificial DSP derived 9.1, that is an argument of accuracy versus flavor. My argument leans heavily on the objective side versus yours on the purely objective side. What you are stating is that subjectivity trumps objectivity, and enhancements trump the accuracy of the original intent. Sorry, I cannot buy what you are selling here.



The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.

Funny Steven, I don't have "experts" in my field disagreeing with me. Since we all have a standard that we abide by, the only difference we have is in the personal choice of recording and mixing equipment to get there. That is totally okay as long as the objective is to stay within the standard.

If find it rather ironic that you would accuse me of supposition, and then without any knowledge whatsoever make the statement that experts in my field disagree with me, and there is a great deal of opinion floating around. How do you know this, do you work in my field. Obviously not, and I need not say anymore.

[Hyfi]

I made no mention about what sound good or bad.

Please refer back to post #10
http://forums.audioreview.com/369910-post10.html

Where it went like this


"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."




This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

So you didn't use the words good or bad, you just told us that it's wrong and that it should not be used.

But, there are people who happen to like it whether it measures up or not as quoted above.

Why do you say they should not use it, need it, or like it just because you have the opposite opinion?

[Hyfi]

I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too. :)

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

I have read many places where putting the center atop the tv is the best spot. I'm looking for a new center and that is why the Usher caught my eye. It is angled up so the sound will go from below the tv up to your ear or close enough in that direction.

[StevenSurprenant]

Oh really Steven. Science tells me that there is no synthetic that is a perfect copy of an original. It is a synthesized version of the original, and nothing more. ...


I only started your quote or this would be a book...

I'll get right to the point...

Let me ask you a question...

If all engineers follow the same standard, then why do a great many of my CD's sound like crap and a few others sound fantastic?

I've gotten to the point that I rarely buy CD's any more because more often than not, I end up throwing them in a drawer. I love the music, but I hate the recording of it.

Why is that?

I've asked you this before and you ignored me.

Don't blame it on my equipment. I've had a number of systems ranging in the tens of thousands of dollars and a crappy CD is a crappy CD no matter what. I've heard many people complain about the quality of many recordings so I am not alone in this quagmire.

If you recording engineers adhere to the same science, the same principles and the same standards, why are my draws full of coasters?

This goes for movies too.

If you want to hear complaints about the quality of your work (not personally, but in general) listen to the end users.

You and your like can go through life patting yourselves on the back for a job well done, but that means nothing when the person buying your product thinks its garbage. Fortunately, most people don't have good audio systems or the complaints would overwhelm the industry.

Although limited, it's the good recordings that keep me hanging on.


While I'm asking questions...

As you well know, if the monitors that you mix on are sonically colored, anything you do will sound colored on speakers that are more accurate in the home. I would assume that you would want the most accurate speakers possible in the studio. Why don't home audio systems use the same speakers as you do in the studio? Or... Why don't studios use high quality home speakers as their reference. I do know that some do, but why don't all studios use them.


Addendum:

BTW, I looked up what it takes to be an audio engineer and found that you can do it in as little as 4 weeks, longer if you stretch the courses out. The only requirement is a high school education.

It took me 2 years of college just to get into the meat of real engineering courses at a university. It seems to me that audio engineering is more like real estate or truck driving school.

Well anyway, I have to rethink your credentials... I thought I was talking to someone else.

[E-Stat]

Based on how the field sample measures up to the reference.
Ok. So what are the metrics and the acceptable value ranges for each of the three scenarios I mentioned? Tell me of the standard ISU procedure(s) for such measurements. What metrics quantify the coherency of single driver speakers vs. multi-ways in meaningful ways? Or the audibility of complex feedback amplifiers vs those with none or minimal amounts? How do you quantify image height and width? Most HTs fail miserably at the natural reproduction of height. What number(s) is/are wrong? Your answer merely spoke of subjective listening.


I agree you need both. But you have to start with science first before marching on to the subjective. This is the very foundation of good speaker/room synergy.
I think there's an echo in here.

rw

[E-Stat]

It is angled up so the sound will go from below the tv up to your ear or close enough in that direction.
So is mine. Works only to an extent.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok. So what are the metrics and the acceptable value ranges for each of the three scenarios I mentioned? Tell me of the standard ISU procedure(s) for such measurements. What metrics quantify the coherency of single driver speakers vs. multi-ways in meaningful ways? Or the audibility of complex feedback amplifiers vs those with none or minimal amounts?

These are user playback issues, and as such, out of the realm of what we cover when we field check our mixes.




How do you quantify image height and width?

Based on what we mix in the studio.


Most HTs fail miserably at the natural reproduction of height.

Yours may, but not mine.


Your answer merely spoke of subjective listening.

Maybe because that is all it is.



I think there's an echo in here.

Auralex, Primeacoustics, and Real traps have tools for that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Please refer back to post #10
http://forums.audioreview.com/369910-post10.html

Where it went like this






So you didn't use the words good or bad, you just told us that it's wrong and that it should not be used.

But, there are people who happen to like it whether it measures up or not as quoted above.

Why do you say they should not use it, need it, or like it just because you have the opposite opinion?

You don't need it because a properly set up and calibrated setup does not need anything else to be true to the intent of the Director or Sound Designer PERIOD. The only reason to use DSP based matrix processing on the Z- axis it to compensate for shortcomings of ones set up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I only started your quote or this would be a book...

I'll get right to the point...

Let me ask you a question...

If all engineers follow the same standard, then why do a great many of my CD's sound like crap and a few others sound fantastic?

CD's are a 2 channel medium, and there are no standards for mixing 2 channel sources. There are standards for mixing multichannel music and soundtracks.


I've gotten to the point that I rarely buy CD's any more because more often than not, I end up throwing them in a drawer. I love the music, but I hate the recording of it.

Why is that?

Ever heard of something called the loudness wars? If not, read up

Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war)


I've asked you this before and you ignored me.

Maybe it is because you are mixing two things together that are quite different.


Don't blame it on my equipment. I've had a number of systems ranging in the tens of thousands of dollars and a crappy CD is a crappy CD no matter what. I've heard many people complain about the quality of many recordings so I am not alone in this quagmire.

If you recording engineers adhere to the same science, the same principles and the same standards, why are my draws full of coasters?

See above


This goes for movies too.

If you want to hear complaints about the quality of your work (not personally, but in general) listen to the end users.

Why do you think I participate on sites like this, Bluray.com, and Hidefdigest? To listen to the end users.


You and your like can go through life patting yourselves on the back for a job well done, but that means nothing when the person buying your product thinks its garbage. Fortunately, most people don't have good audio systems or the complaints would overwhelm the industry.

More BS. Steven, your bowels should be empty by now. I am an active participant on the largest HT site on the web(Bluray.com). Almost everyone knows I am a sound designer and mixer for a major Hollywood studio, and I don't hear that our mixes are garbage. Perhaps you should go get those bat ears of yours checked.

You do not know the quality of most people systems, you have not heard them. There is a weakness in your arguments, and this is why you rely heavily on hyperbole, assumptions, and misinformation as a basis of your comments.


Although limited, it's the good recordings that keep me hanging on.

I have a lot of very good jazz and classical recordings in my collection. I don't really buy anything else, at least not in the last several years.



While I'm asking questions...

As you well know, if the monitors that you mix on are sonically colored, anything you do will sound colored on speakers that are more accurate in the home.

How do you know the monitors I mix on are colored? More assumptions? Do you know what monitors I use for mixing?


I would assume that you would want the most accurate speakers possible in the studio. Why don't home audio systems use the same speakers as you do in the studio? Or... Why don't studios use high quality home speakers as their reference. I do know that some do, but why don't all studios use them.

You don't even know what kind of speakers we use in the studio, and you have never heard the ones we use, so you cannot make this ignorant statement without that information.



Addendum:

BTW, I looked up what it takes to be an audio engineer and found that you can do it in as little as 4 weeks, longer if you stretch the courses out. The only requirement is a high school education.

It took me 2 years of college just to get into the meat of real engineering courses at a university. It seems to me that audio engineering is more like real estate or truck driving school.

Well anyway, I have to rethink your credentials... I thought I was talking to someone else.

Steven, you are a complete idiot plain and simple. I went to the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts (the same film school that Spielberg,Walter Murch, Ron Howard,Jon Landau,George Lucas,Joe Johnston went to). You are totally stupid if you think you can learn what I learned in college in 4 weeks.

Your level of ignorance seems to have no bounds. I almost prefer to mix it up with RGA and Pixel. Even with their limited education on sound, they are far far ahead of you.

Just exactly what do you engineer, BS bins?

[E-Stat]

These are user playback issues, and as such, out of the realm of what we cover when we field check our mixes.
Gotcha - no *science* involved here. Entirely subjective.


Based on what we mix in the studio.
Two observations: science uses metrics to quantify characteristics. And any mix can sound profoundly different depending upon the equipment used for playback.


Yours may, but not mine.
This returns to your original assertion that *science* is involved in the process. Clearly, it is not. Instead, It is largely a subjective perspective afterwards.


Maybe because that is all it is.
This conversation has made that emphatically clear - There is precious little *science* used at all beyond simplistic measurements of sine wave frequencies and level.


Auralex, Primeacoustics, and Real traps have tools for that.
Reading my previous comments works, too. You just repeated them. A simpler response would have been "I agree". :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

This post is so full of BS I just don't know where to start.......The whole world must have perfect pitch. Well, if ANYONE can whistle at perfect frequencies, then let's just get rid of tone generators...who needs them.

This is not a mistake, this is a bald face lie.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gotcha - no *science* involved here. Entirely subjective.

Of course it is subjective. We cannot go into peoples houses and measure their systems. Don't be rediculous Ralph. We measure our systems on our end, and that is the best we can do.



Two observations: science uses metrics to quantify characteristics. And any mix can sound profoundly different depending upon the equipment used for playback.

Duh, how enlightening......



This returns to your original assertion that *science* is involved in the process. Clearly, it is not. Instead, It is largely a subjective perspective afterwards.

Ralph, I think you missed the boat here. Steven said that he calibrated his system by ear, and when he measured it with a RS meter, it was perfect. That is scientifically impossible. I explained to him why it was impossible, and I used science to do it. The ITU-B 775 standard is based on science. 7.1 speaker standards were created by using science. The ISO:2969 standard is based on science, and SPMTE guidlines are based on science. Designing and mixing a soundtrack is a combination of art and science. The science of that is to understand how much stimuli a person can take both visually and sonically, before they are overloaded and fatigued. Checking our soundtracks on a variety of systems we have at the studio(and at home) is the subjective part.





This conversation has made that emphatically clear - There is precious little *science* used at all beyond simplistic measurements of sine wave frequencies and level.

If this is what you want to believe, go knock yourself completely out. I guess SMPTE standards are not based on science. I guess the ISO:2969 standards are not based on science either. Wow, soundtrack mixing is really just a crap shot huh(turns sarcasm button off).



Reading my previous comments works, too. You just repeated them. A simpler response would have been "I agree". :)

rw

You respond the way you like, I will do it the way I like. I am not going to let you tell me how I am going to respond. Clear?

[E-Stat]

Of course it is subjective.
Just trying to clarify your position - since in earlier exchanges with others you pointed out how inaccurate the ear is - thus equiring science, facts and measurements. Clearly, those provide limited usefulness.


We measure our systems on our end, and that is the best we can do.
Except of course for numerous aspects of the experience such as the examples I cited.


Steven said that he calibrated his system by ear, and when he measured it with a RS meter, it was perfect. That is scientifically impossible.
"Scientifically impossible" to train your ears to hear certain frequencies and levels? If you say so!


I explained to him why it was impossible, and I used science to do it. The ITU-B 775 standard is based on science. 7.1 speaker standards were created by using science.
Limited by countless variables and compromises in the real world. Remember that bazillion speaker environment you talked about some time ago that was capable of steering an image virtually anywhere within the lateral bounds of the room?


The ISO:2969 standard is based on science, and SPMTE guidlines are based on science.
Translation: here's a few standards that a bunch of engineers agreed upon.


Designing and mixing a soundtrack is a combination of art and science.
Lots of art.


If this is what you want to believe, go knock yourself completely out. I guess SMPTE standards are not based on science. I guess the ISO:2969 standards are not based on science either.
Ok, so now you've changed your response. Sure, you EQ to a certain level and situate the speakers appropriately. I particularly like the emphatic:

"To obtain a good "stereo image", the installation of a peforated screen is imperative. The left channel and right channel loudspeakers should be mounted slightly inside the left and right edges of the widest screen image. These speakers should be located behind the screen but not behind the masking or curtains. The center channel loudspeaker should be located behind the center of the screen. (Imagine that!) Acoustically transparent masking should be used any time the masking covers the left and right speakers"

Which leaves two possibilities:

1. Your home environments follow the ISO standard by using perforated screens where the center is mounted in the same high plane as the mains. In this case, perhaps you should consider ways that others with conventional systems try to best simulate this (what I find to be critical) component for the best imaging.

2. Your home environments are like 99% of HTs and DO NOT follow the ISO standard because of obvious tradeoffs in the home environment. You accept the fact that image height between mains and centers creates incoherence or restricted height. Take your choice!

I was unable to find reference of image specifications in the ISO document.



Wow, soundtrack mixing is really just a crap shot huh(turns sarcasm button off).
As for me, the engineers I've met demonstrate very keen hearing and an understanding of the recording venues. More art than science - since the science is grossly incomplete. Maybe any idiot with a meter could do your job as well so long as they blindly follow the appropriate *science". :)



You respond the way you like, I will do it the way I like. I am not going to let you tell me how I am going to respond. Clear?
You're taking this waaaay too seriously! The underlying notion is that we agreed completely on those points. :0

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Steven, you are a complete idiot plain and simple. I went to the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts (the same film school that Spielberg,Walter Murch, Ron Howard,Jon Landau,George Lucas,Joe Johnston went to). You are totally stupid if you think you can learn what I learned in college in 4 weeks.

Your level of ignorance seems to have no bounds. I almost prefer to mix it up with RGA and Pixel. Even with their limited education on sound, they are far far ahead of you.


RGA makes way more sense than you and being like Pixelthis should be your goal in comparison to what you are now.

I've never spoken to anyone that doesn't listen and completely doesn't understand what the conversation is about, like you do. Every time you answer a post, it's like you were asleep in the back of the class. It gets tiresome trying to get you to focus on the conversation.

So you went to school for Theater and Arts. How many classes of that were in the mixing studio? What are we talking about, 4 credit hours?

I'll ask you one more time. Give me the name of some of your work. and let me be the judge of your qualifications. I don't think you have anything to show.

I've worked with professionals all my life, chemists, biologists, engineers, and never had I known any that that would go on amateur boards like this and act like a fool as you have done here. Not only do you not listen, you are the most unprofessional "expert" I have ever known.

I'm not too worried about you because I know that someone with your attitude will get bitten in the arse someday.

Besides, it makes no sense that you'ld be here unless there was something missing in you life. perhaps you don't get the recognition at work that you think you deserve? Or perhaps you "Do" get the recognition you deserve and it's not working our for you. Perhaps you're lonely and can't make any friends and so you try and take it out on us. I don't know, but I do know that an audio engineer is not an engineer in the true sense of the word, such as chemical, electrical, biological, etc.... You said yourself that you got your education in Theater, not engineering.

Listening to you claiming to be an audio engineer is like someone from the GeekSquad claiming to be an IT professional.

You have strayed this thread completely off course from it's original subject matter and have added almost nothing positive. Is this your idea of social interaction in a group setting? What a waste!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Just trying to clarify your position - since in earlier exchanges with others you pointed out how inaccurate the ear is - thus equiring science, facts and measurements. Clearly, those provide limited usefulness.

Not when calibrating a sound system. Try it by ear and see how well you do.



Except of course for numerous aspects of the experience such as the examples I cited.

Cherry pick often?



"Scientifically impossible" to train your ears to hear certain frequencies and levels? If you say so!

Do you have any examples that dispute this?



Limited by countless variables and compromises in the real world. Remember that bazillion speaker environment you talked about some time ago that was capable of steering an image virtually anywhere within the lateral bounds of the room?

We don't mix for the real world, we mix for a specific world.



Translation: here's a few standards that a bunch of engineers agreed upon.

So you are saying there was absolutely no science evolved? Have you actually read ANY of SMPTE's standards? You couldn't have, or you would not make this statement.


Lots of art.



Ok, so now you've changed your response. Sure, you EQ to a certain level and situate the speakers appropriately. I particularly like the emphatic:

"To obtain a good "stereo image", the installation of a peforated screen is imperative. The left channel and right channel loudspeakers should be mounted slightly inside the left and right edges of the widest screen image. These speakers should be located behind the screen but not behind the masking or curtains. The center channel loudspeaker should be located behind the center of the screen. (Imagine that!) Acoustically transparent masking should be used any time the masking covers the left and right speakers"

This does not apply to homes, as they don't use perforated screens.


Which leaves two possibilities:

1. Your home environments follow the ISO standard by using perforated screens where the center is mounted in the same high plane as the mains. In this case, perhaps you should consider ways that others with conventional systems try to best simulate this (what I find to be critical) component for the best imaging.

2. Your home environments are like 99% of HTs and DO NOT follow the ISO standard because of obvious tradeoffs in the home environment. You accept the fact that image height between mains and centers creates incoherence or restricted height. Take your choice!

I was unable to find reference of image specifications in the ISO document.

Ralph, do you often you the recipe for chicken soup to make meatloaf? The ISO:2969 standards applies to large screens in very large place....like a movie theater. This does not apply to homes, THX supplies that standard.




As for me, the engineers I've met demonstrate very keen hearing and an understanding of the recording venues. More art than science - since the science is grossly incomplete. Maybe any idiot with a meter could do your job as well so long as they blindly follow the appropriate *science". :)

From what I understand from your postings, the engineers you met didn't mix soundtracks. Its a profoundly different animal than mixing 2 channel audio.




You're taking this waaaay too seriously! The underlying notion is that we agreed completely on those points. :0

rw

Okay......

[E-Stat]

Not when calibrating a sound system. Try it by ear and see how well you do...Do you have any examples that dispute this?
Bfalls has already done that.


Cherry pick often?
I merely point out the obvious exceptions to your rules.


We don't mix for the real world, we mix for a specific world.
Mixing can't fix everything!



So you are saying there was absolutely no science evolved? Have you actually read ANY of SMPTE's standards?
They are as simple as your only example of using *science* with test tones and an SPL meter!


This does not apply to homes, as they don't use perforated screens.
Which is exactly my point! Repeat that again for clarity. You will never get the same results with low hanging centers typically found in the home environment. You can't "mix" added height to the center channel!


The ISO:2969 standards applies to large screens in very large place....like a movie theater. This does not apply to homes, THX supplies that standard.
At your suggestion, I will completely disregard the remarks from the person who somehow thought that throwing around this standard had any relevance to the original discussion of how to best configure a center in the home environment.


From what I understand from your postings, the engineers you met didn't mix soundtracks. Its a profoundly different animal than mixing 2 channel audio.
First of all, two did multi-channel music recordings. From my perspective, there is no difference. You are trying to recreate (as best you can) the illusion of being in a particular space. For music, it is the concert hall. For movies, it is everywhere else. Walking down the street. Flying through space. Driving to work. Jumping in a pool. It doesn't matter. "Standards" mean nothing if they do not support the ability for the mix to sound realistic.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

RGA makes way more sense than you and being like Pixelthis should be your goal in comparison to what you are now.

Oh really, you must like convuluted crap....oh wait, you are guilty of this as well. Birds of a feather.....


I've never spoken to anyone that doesn't listen and completely doesn't understand what the conversation is about, like you do. Every time you answer a post, it's like you were asleep in the back of the class. It gets tiresome trying to get you to focus on the conversation.

You never spoken to me as well, and why should I listen to the sh!t you post?. You have ZERO audio education, apply ZERO science in your post, and lie like a bear rug in a hunters showroom.


So you went to school for Theater and Arts. How many classes of that were in the mixing studio? What are we talking about, 4 credit hours?

Well, my 4 credits are twice as many as you took for engineering toilets.


I'll ask you one more time. Give me the name of some of your work. and let me be the judge of your qualifications. I don't think you have anything to show.

Whats the point, you cannot play those movies back accurately anyway without a center channel.


I've worked with professionals all my life, chemists, biologists, engineers, and never had I known any that that would go on amateur boards like this and act like a fool as you have done here. Not only do you not listen, you are the most unprofessional "expert" I have ever known.

You and I have much in common then. You are the most simple, idiotic, lying amateur I have ever met. Okay, who gets the cookie?


I'm not too worried about you because I know that someone with your attitude will get bitten in the arse someday.

It seems to me that you should fear teeth as well.


Besides, it makes no sense that you'ld be here unless there was something missing in you life. perhaps you don't get the recognition at work that you think you deserve? Or perhaps you "Do" get the recognition you deserve and it's not working our for you. Perhaps you're lonely and can't make any friends and so you try and take it out on us. I don't know, but I do know that an audio engineer is not an engineer in the true sense of the word, such as chemical, electrical, biological, etc.... You said yourself that you got your education in Theater, not engineering.

Your really are dense aren't you. My degrees are in Film and Television Post Production, and Acoustical Science with a specialty in small rooms.

Why are you here? What's missing in your life, aside from brains? No electrical charges moving around in that air head?

I hope you can see what a buffoon you have ended up looking like. Online psychology is not your forte, and I am not sure what is.


Listening to you claiming to be an audio engineer is like someone from the GeekSquad claiming to be an IT professional.

Ooooooooo...that hurts. I just may end my life now because a air head does not like my approach.


You have strayed this thread completely off course from it's original subject matter and have added almost nothing positive. Is this your idea of social interaction in a group setting? What a waste!

The waste here would be your uneducated comments, stupid baiting, and clueless responses.

Go back to the hole you climbed out of. And while you are there, read up on the ear/brain mechanism, and then climb back out with a clue.

[StevenSurprenant]

Oh really, you must like convuluted crap....oh wait, you are guilty of this as well. Birds of a feather.....



You never spoken to me as well, and why should I listen to the sh!t you post?. You have ZERO audio education, apply ZERO science in your post, and lie like a bear rug in a hunters showroom.



Well, my 4 credits are twice as many as you took for engineering toilets.



Whats the point, you cannot play those movies back accurately anyway without a center channel.



You and I have much in common then. You are the most simple, idiotic, lying amateur I have ever met. Okay, who gets the cookie?



It seems to me that you should fear teeth as well.



Your really are dense aren't you. My degrees are in Film and Television Post Production, and Acoustical Science with a specialty in small rooms.

Why are you here? What's missing in your life, aside from brains? No electrical charges moving around in that air head?

I hope you can see what a buffoon you have ended up looking like. Online psychology is not your forte, and I am not sure what is.



Ooooooooo...that hurts. I just may end my life now because a air head does not like my approach.



The waste here would be your uneducated comments, stupid baiting, and clueless responses.

Go back to the hole you climbed out of. And while you are there, read up on the ear/brain mechanism, and then climb back out with a clue.

Sorry I didn't read your post yet, Ill get back to that later. In the meantime, I just want you to know that you are a "poser", someone who tries to be what they're not. You have no credibility and very little of what you say is valid. You give real audio engineers a bad name.

Okay, I'm back. After reading your post the only thing worth mentioning is your comment...

[Whats the point, you cannot play those movies back accurately anyway without a center channel. ]

How many times do I have to tell you that I have "TWO" systems, one 2 channel and one surround? Isn't this what this entire thread has been about? My surround system? Wake up dude!

[Hyfi]

You don't need it because a properly set up and calibrated setup does not need anything else to be true to the intent of the Director or Sound Designer PERIOD. The only reason to use DSP based matrix processing on the Z- axis it to compensate for shortcomings of ones set up.

It's a matter of preference. If someone likes what it does for their setup, then that is all that matters.

True to the intent of the director and Sound Designer does not mean it sounds good to everyone.

[StevenSurprenant]

It's a matter of preference. If someone likes what it does for their setup, then that is all that matters.

True to the intent of the director and Sound Designer does not mean it sounds good to everyone.

I just did a search on whether people liked or disliked DSP and I didn't find even one person who said they didn't like it. Almost all of them said they wouldn't watch a movie without it.

[Feanor]

I just did a search on whether people liked or disliked DSP and I didn't find even one person who said they didn't like it. Almost all of them said they wouldn't watch a movie without it.
Well, I use it with stereo soundtracks but not discrete m/c soundtracks.

[Hyfi]

Well, I use it with stereo soundtracks but not discrete m/c soundtracks.


I guess you're just compensating for your lack of....oh never mind, you're just wrong:cornut:

[E-Stat]

I just did a search on whether people liked or disliked DSP and I didn't find even one person who said they didn't like it. Almost all of them said they wouldn't watch a movie without it.
Call me the first. I've never preferred the results using DSP "programs" with a NAD T763 or my current Emotiva processor. I don't have any conceptual issue with using DSP programs. PLIIx on some old stereo movies to get signal around the room? Sure. "Stadium", "hall", "theatre", "rock", no. I just find the layered effects artificial.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Call me the first. I've never preferred the results using DSP "programs" with a NAD T763 or my current Emotiva processor. I don't have any conceptual issue with using DSP programs. PLIIx on some old stereo movies to get signal around the room? Sure. "Stadium", "hall", "theatre", "rock", no. I just find the layered effects artificial.

rw

I understand completely because most of the DSP effects I find artificial and distracting, but there are a couple that I use that are useful, but I don't turn them up all the way either. It's more subtle the way I have them adjusted. I would never use the ones you mentioned. The one I use the most on my Yamaha is called SCIFI, but I don't know what that implies.

Back in the 70's I had a reverb, you remember them! My system sounded a little flat (dull) and I used one of them to liven it up a bit. I had it turned so low that you couldn't detect that it was even on, but it made the music a little more vibrant. I suppose that a better cartridge or amp would have been a better way of accomplishing the same thing, but it's what I had on hand. Right or wrong, it sounded better. The speakers I was using then were the Phase linear Andromeda's. They were strange speakers in the fact that they were part dipole, part bipole. and the bass module was a vented box. Still, they sounded very transparent.

I have always loved dipole speakers. I've had the Phase Linear's, Quad ESL, and Magnepan. I've had a few lower priced box speakers, but dipole planers have always blown my socks off. My present stereo speakers are technically box speakers, except they use a 4 foot tweeter that goes down to 1,000 hz and sit in the open air. They sound more like planer speakers without the large panel. Anyway, I'm just rambling.

Have a great day!

[E-Stat]

I understand completely because most of the DSP effects I find artificial and distracting, but there are a couple that I use that are useful, but I don't turn them up all the way either.
It's one of those things I've wanted to like, but never really enjoyed the experience. Like riding a Harley-Davidson bike. I first tried Dynaquad on Advents when I was a teenager. The results were cool for a while then I tired of the effect. I later doubled them up front and got a better stereo image.


I have always loved dipole speakers. I've had the Phase Linear's, Quad ESL, and Magnepan. I've had a few lower priced box speakers, but dipole planers have always blown my socks off.
Here (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/17/179288.html) is some more info on the Maggie tri-center approach.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bfalls has already done that.

Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.



I merely point out the obvious exceptions to your rules.

The exceptions do not negate the point in its entirety.



Mixing can't fix everything!

You are right, but try listening to 500 channels of effects, music, and dialog without doing it. Mixing certainly cannot fix the stupid things that one uses to artificially enhance an already completed mix




They are as simple as your only example of using *science* with test tones and an SPL meter!

So you have NOT read SMPTE standards, and obviously not read THX's applying those rules to hometheaters.



Which is exactly my point! Repeat that again for clarity. You will never get the same results with low hanging centers typically found in the home environment. You can't "mix" added height to the center channel!

Then your point is wrong again. THX sets the standards for HT by building off the SMPTE standards, and applying it to a smaller spaces using equipment designed for the home. Once again, I have no problem whatsoever with my center speakers that sit UNDER the television..ZERO problem. But then I don't use horizontal mounted center speakers. You don't need to mix height into the center channel, you have other channels that do that job well.



At your suggestion, I will completely disregard the remarks from the person who somehow thought that throwing around this standard had any relevance to the original discussion of how to best configure a center in the home environment.

Don't put words in my mouth Ralph. When I speak of SMPTE standards, I am talking about the dubbing stage sound wise. SMPTE standards for video are the same as in the home, and that is what THX used to establish the standards for the home.



First of all, two did multi-channel music recordings. From my perspective, there is no difference. You are trying to recreate (as best you can) the illusion of being in a particular space. For music, it is the concert hall. For movies, it is everywhere else. Walking down the street. Flying through space. Driving to work. Jumping in a pool. It doesn't matter. "Standards" mean nothing if they do not support the ability for the mix to sound realistic.

rw

Multichannel music recordings are not nearly as complex as soundtracks. I have done both, so excuse me if I am not impressed. Our mixing to sound realistic is not the issue. It is what you do with that mix in you home that is.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry I didn't read your post yet, Ill get back to that later. In the meantime, I just want you to know that you are a "poser", someone who tries to be what they're not. You have no credibility and very little of what you say is valid. You give real audio engineers a bad name.

Okay, I'm back. After reading your post the only thing worth mentioning is your comment...

[Whats the point, you cannot play those movies back accurately anyway without a center channel. ]

How many times do I have to tell you that I have "TWO" systems, one 2 channel and one surround? Isn't this what this entire thread has been about? My surround system? Wake up dude!

Stupid Steven....you cannot determine if I am a poser or not. Using your assumption to fill in the blanks does not cut it. Based on what I have read from you comments, your not a poser, you really are stupid.

Anyone who have been on this site knows I have the education and insight to what I do, and some bitter online punk who does not like what I have to say is not going to change that. Wine and cry to somebody else who will pay attention, I am not.

Weren't you complaining that your center speaker localizes below the screen? Yep you were, which means you speaker is not properly placed, or too directional to get the dialog on screen. What the point of telling you anything if you cannot properly playback what I mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just did a search on whether people liked or disliked DSP and I didn't find even one person who said they didn't like it. Almost all of them said they wouldn't watch a movie without it.

Is this a mistake, or another lie. I vote for the latter. Oh yeah, the world just loves DSP's.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's a matter of preference. If someone likes what it does for their setup, then that is all that matters.

It is a preference, but this is coming from a person who says they really believe in accuracy, which precludes the use of DSP's - they are not accurate in the least bit.


True to the intent of the director and Sound Designer does not mean it sounds good to everyone.

But it is the reference right?

[E-Stat]

Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.
Read further:

"I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz"


Mixing certainly cannot fix the stupid things that one uses to artificially enhance an already completed mix
I refer to the use of dissimilar speakers, i.e. low hung centers.



So you have NOT read SMPTE standards, and obviously not read THX's applying those rules to hometheaters.
Then show us your brilliance with an example that illustrates your point. The other one certainly did not.


Once again, I have no problem whatsoever with my center speakers that sit UNDER the television..ZERO problem.
We really couldn't care less as to whether or not you perceive the difference.


Don't put words in my mouth...
I'll continue to ignore the reference as you advised.


Our mixing to sound realistic is not the issue.
Sorry to hear that - as most consumers expect realism to be part of the product!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read further:

"I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz"

He never said that he knew them before he started working at the place did he? Once I know a tone, and its frequency, then it becomes easier to recognize what I am hearing. He had to have a reference, he didn't just guess it was that frequency.



I refer to the use of dissimilar speakers, i.e. low hung centers.

We have discussed this before. THX recommends no more than 12" of vertical displacement between the mains and center. That can apply to above the set, and below the set. What they don't recommend is horizontally placed center speakers because of strong interaction with the floor and ceiling.




Then show us your brilliance with an example that isn't so simple.

Not doing your homework for you.



I don't recall anyone asking if you had any problems.

So what. Just pointing out that there is no problem with putting a center speaker under a television screen. You must be doing something wrong Ralph.



I'll continue to ignore the reference as you advised.

You can sit on a stick, I don't care.....



Sorry to hear that as most consumers expect that of the product.

rw

And they get that product when it leaves our studio. What you do with it afterwards is another story altogether.

[bfalls]

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
Bfalls has already done that.
Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.

I should clarify. Having performed so many EQs using TEAC test tapes, I can tell a difference. If asked to tell the difference between two tones, knowing the ranges, I can tell if one's say 6.3KHz instead of 10KHz. Given a 10KHz tone and an 11KHz tone, I doubt I could. Possibly 50% of the time if I flipped a coin. I really doubt I could tell subtle differences in level. I wouldn't try setting up a system by ear.

For the record, I do have a Yamaha RX-V2095. I used to run the front "presence" speakers. They filled in the front some, but the difference wasn't fulfilling or clarifying. I no longer use them and haven't for many years.

I also don't necessarily like DSP and used it only rarely to enhance stereo TV programs. Then it's a trick to find a suitable one. Most have too much echo. I find the "club" DSP modes acceptable at times. Anything related to "concert" or stadiums sound WAC. It's the same with all my processors/receivers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
Bfalls has already done that.
Sorry, but he knew it was a 500hz test tone in the first place. He did not just guess the frequency.

I should clarify. Having performed so many EQs using TEAC test tapes, I can tell a difference. If asked to tell the difference between two tones, knowing the ranges, I can tell if one's say 6.3KHz instead of 10KHz. Given a 10KHz tone and an 11KHz tone, I doubt I could. Possibly 50% of the time if I flipped a coin. I really doubt I could tell subtle differences in level. I wouldn't try setting up a system by ear.

For the record, I do have a Yamaha RX-V2095. I used to run the front "presence" speakers. They filled in the front some, but the difference wasn't fulfilling or clarifying. I no longer use them and haven't for many years.

I also don't necessarily like DSP and used it only rarely to enhance stereo TV programs. Then it's a trick to find a suitable one. Most have too much echo. I find the "club" DSP modes acceptable at times. Anything related to "concert" or stadiums sound WAC. It's the same with all my processors/receivers.

Bfalls, thanks for this clarification, and for making my point.

[E-Stat]

He never said that he knew them before he started working at the place did he?
You're going around in circles.



We have discussed this before.
And I have no idea why you continue to state the simplistic guideline. There isn't a cinema anywhere that compromises its sound quality in that way. THX offers their opinion of a reasonable compromise that the general public will accept. Does there continue to be any part of that you don't understand?




Not doing your homework for you.
We'll reserve judgement on your claim to when it is substantiated.



So what. Just pointing out that there is no problem with putting a center speaker under a television screen.
You do not hear image (in)coherence the way I do.


And they get that product when it leaves our studio. What you do with it afterwards is another story altogether.
We can improve it!

rw

[bfalls]

Just being honest. It's just the way the chips fell. Being in the industry, I understand much of what you're stating. I work with authoring labs all the time, we used to have our own authoring studio in-house before they moved it to LA and New York. I work with them moreso asking when my images will be ready for protecting. I wish I knew more about the authoring side.

I was certified by ISF in Video and Audio setup several years ago, so understand a lot of the standards. It was pre-HDMI so not much experience with 7.1. The knowledge has enhanced my home system setup. I also have Electronics and Computer Hardware degrees, so can usually tell the difference between snake oil and solid performers. I don't have cryogenicaly-treated fuses in my systems or magic stones sitting on my speakers. These have to be proven by something other than a few listening experiences. You'll have to show me the science.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You're going around in circles.

So are you, so what's the point.



And I have no idea why you continue to state the simplistic guideline. There isn't a cinema anywhere that compromises its sound quality in that way. THX offers their opinion of a reasonable compromise that the general public will accept. Does there continue to be any part of that you don't understand?

Since you have not read SMPTE standards, nor THX guidlines for hometheaters, then this statement is a needless air sandwich. Next....





We'll reserve judgement on your claim to when it is substantiated.

Who gives a damn about YOUR judgement, I don't.




You do not hear image (in)coherence the way I do.

Thank goodness.



We can improve it!

rw

You haven't so far.

[E-Stat]

So are you, so what's the point.
Once again, we'll reserve judgement on your assertions when you are able to substantiate them.


Since you have not read SMPTE standards, nor THX guidlines for hometheaters
Sorry, bad assumption. Not that you recognized it, but I quoted the former in #59. I've previously linked to pictures from the latter showing proper location of front speakers.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Once again, we'll reserve judgement on your assertions when you are able to substantiate them.

Ralph, you must know by now I don't give a damn about your judgement. It means absolutely nothing to me.



Sorry, bad assumption. Not that you recognized it, but I quoted the former in #59. I've previously linked to pictures from the latter showing proper location of front speakers.

rw

Yet none of it apples to hometheaters. So, when are you going to read THX recommendations which actually apply to hometheaters? Ah, never mind. I don't think it is even important at this juncture.

[StevenSurprenant]

Stupid Steven....you cannot determine if I am a poser or not. Using your assumption to fill in the blanks does not cut it. Based on what I have read from you comments, your not a poser, you really are stupid.

Anyone who have been on this site knows I have the education and insight to what I do, and some bitter online punk who does not like what I have to say is not going to change that. Wine and cry to somebody else who will pay attention, I am not.

Weren't you complaining that your center speaker localizes below the screen? Yep you were, which means you speaker is not properly placed, or too directional to get the dialog on screen. What the point of telling you anything if you cannot properly playback what I mix.

You may or may not have the education, I have no proof of that. What I can tell from your posts is that you don't listen to what people are saying, you constantly assume things that are inaccurate, and you assume that what you claim you do is correct regardless of the opinion of the general public, the people who spend their money so that you can have a job. If TV manufacturers, or car manufacturers didn't give the people what they wanted , they would be out of business. You feel that you have the right to dictate to us what is best for us. That is wrong on all accounts.

Listen to how you address people here who disagree with you or question your positions. It's like you're a 3 year old child throwing a temper tantrum. No one can respect a spoiled child. To show you how disrespectful you are to others, when ForeverAutumn asked you and I to stop polluting his/her thread with our bickering or they were going to delete the post, your reply was, "I vote for close it then". How selfish and self centered can a person be than that. You're so egotistical that you see nothing wrong with that.

More than once, I've asked for examples of your work and you've ignored or avoided that request. That makes me assume that you do not have anything to show or that you are ashamed of the work you've done. I'l ask one more time, but this time I also want the name of your employer.

Tell you what...

If it will make you happy, I'll claim that you are all knowing and all powerful. Would that make you happy? YOU can be the god of all things audio. That way you can sit back a relax knowing that heathens like myself and others who question your authority will go to audio hell when we die. You don't have to worry about it any longer. How's that?

[E-Stat]

Yet none of it apples to hometheaters. So, when are you going to read THX recommendations which actually apply to hometheaters?
I find it strange that you don't seem to understand that ideal speaker radiation and coherence is independent of locale. Cinemas are set up for the best approach and most home theaters are not. Period.

I guess I'm surprised you don't seek ways to bridge the gap. You continually quote a compromised standard and not worry about the results. Apparently, it isn't important enough to you. Ok!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You may or may not have the education, I have no proof of that. What I can tell from your posts is that you don't listen to what people are saying, you constantly assume things that are inaccurate, and you assume that what you claim you do is correct regardless of the opinion of the general public, the people who spend their money so that you can have a job. If TV manufacturers, or car manufacturers didn't give the people what they wanted , they would be out of business. You feel that you have the right to dictate to us what is best for us. That is wrong on all accounts.

Oh I guess I should bow down to you just because you buy a bluray. Ahhh no....well I mean HELL NO!


Listen to how you address people here who disagree with you or question your positions. It's like you're a 3 year old child throwing a temper tantrum. No one can respect a spoiled child. To show you how disrespectful you are to others, when ForeverAutumn asked you and I to stop polluting his/her thread with our bickering or they were going to delete the post, your reply was, "I vote for close it then". How selfish and self centered can a person be than that. You're so egotistical that you see nothing wrong with that.

Oh these are terrible things to say. Geeze, my life is going to come to an end. My rep has been tarnished, and I just may never recover. Well, I wanted that thread closed because you spewed so much misinformation about dog behavior(like you do on audio as well), that it is better to close it, than to let you continue spreading the WRONG INFORMATION.


More than once, I've asked for examples of your work and you've ignored or avoided that request. That makes me assume that you do not have anything to show or that you are ashamed of the work you've done. I'l ask one more time, but this time I also want the name of your employer.

And once more I will turn you down flat. I don't owe you a blade of grass, and I do not have to give you any personal information about myself. Its none of your damn business.


Tell you what...

If it will make you happy, I'll claim that you are all knowing and all powerful. Would that make you happy? YOU can be the god of all things audio. That way you can sit back a relax knowing that heathens like myself and others who question your authority will go to audio hell when we die. You don't have to worry about it any longer. How's that?

This is more for you than it is for me, I assure you. Like I have told you before, you are just words on a forum. I don't think you are a heathen, just uniformed, out of date, and just plain uneducated on the issues you are trying to argue over.

Imagine the arrogance of coming to a forum and declaring the audio mixers in Hollywood have it wrong, and you have it right. And doing this without stepping into a studio, without mixing a single soundtrack, or touching a single fader on a mixing board. What gall, and this is why you are getting the verbal smackdown.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I find it strange that you don't seem to understand that ideal speaker radiation and coherence is independent of locale. Cinemas are set up for the best approach and most home theaters are not. Period.

Wrong Ralph. Cinemas are set up for the best approach to movie theaters, not to the home. THX has set the standards for best approach for hometheaters. The studio I work for does seperate mixes for both environments, and playing back the HT mix in a cinema will not work, and there are documented issues on why cinema mixes have trouble in smaller rooms.


I guess I'm surprised you don't seek ways to bridge the gap. You continually quote a compromised standard and not worry about the results. Apparently, it isn't important enough to you. Ok!

rw

Ralph, you are becoming the father of assumptions. Keep up old man.....

http://forums.audioreview.com/favorite-films/why-soundtracks-should-remixed-hometheater-37210.html

[E-Stat]

THX has set the standards for best approach for hometheaters.
Yes, they have. Let's review the recommendations, shall we? Read this (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/).

"Center Channel Speaker (C): Place the Center channel speaker either above or below the display. Then, aim the speaker either up or down to point directly at the listener. If you have a perforated projection screen, center this speaker both horizontally and vertically behind the screen."

Is there any part of the last sentence you don't understand - especially since you were completely unaware of it?



The studio I work for does seperate mixes for both environments, and playing back the HT mix in a cinema will not work, and there are documented issues on why cinema mixes have trouble in smaller rooms.
And none of those issues relate to symmetric positioning of the center relative to the fronts.



Ralph, you are becoming the father of assumptions. Keep up old man.....
I stand corrected. Clearly, audio quality is of secondary interest to you.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Oh I guess I should bow down to you just because you buy a bluray. Ahhh no....well I mean HELL NO!



Oh these are terrible things to say. Geeze, my life is going to come to an end. My rep has been tarnished, and I just may never recover. Well, I wanted that thread closed because you spewed so much misinformation about dog behavior(like you do on audio as well), that it is better to close it, than to let you continue spreading the WRONG INFORMATION.



And once more I will turn you down flat. I don't owe you a blade of grass, and I do not have to give you any personal information about myself. Its none of your damn business.



This is more for you than it is for me, I assure you. Like I have told you before, you are just words on a forum. I don't think you are a heathen, just uniformed, out of date, and just plain uneducated on the issues you are trying to argue over.

Imagine the arrogance of coming to a forum and declaring the audio mixers in Hollywood have it wrong, and you have it right. And doing this without stepping into a studio, without mixing a single soundtrack, or touching a single fader on a mixing board. What gall, and this is why you are getting the verbal smackdown.


You're the one who started all this. You couldn't stand to respect anyone else's opinion. It had to be your way or you would begin the name calling. A decent human being, if they felt the other person was wrong, would politely inform them of what they believed to be correct and then let it drop. Not you, you go on harping, over and over and over. As I said, you don't listen to what the other person has said and so you end up in left field arguing about assumptions that are not true. You're an "A: type personality, and as such you self proclaimed yourself the resident expert on this forum. I heard no such claim from anyone else, only you.

As for not wanting to show your work, I take that to mean that you have nothing to show. However, you're right that you owe me nothing, but when you put your foot in your mouth, you should have the decency to back up your claims. It's a weakness on your part.

The audio field is vast in that it has many aspects. You have your little niche in it that you feel makes you knowledgeable, but that's all you know and I have doubts about your level of expertise. I freely admit that my knowledge is limited, as is everyone else's, and the more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know. You, on the other hand, claim to know all things audio and that makes you the smartest guy on the planet. Good for you!

As for my arrogance, there isn't any profession that cannot be improved. There isn't any profession that isn't in a state of constant learning. To claim perfection is your forte and the arrogance is yours.

I grew up at a time when TV's were just becoming commercially available, when stereo didn't exist in any home, when transistors had just been invented, when space vehicles didn't exist, before the first commercial computer was invented, and when much of what we take for granted today was more in the realm of science fiction. I was there to witness all of this and that is worth more than a few semesters at some college. Many people on the forum can say the same thing.

I watched different record formats come and go, 78 - 45 - 33 rpm records, reel to reel tape, cassettes, 8-tracks, CD's, DVD's, HDCD, DVD-a, SACD, MP3, and others. I've watched home audio go from mono to stereo to quad to surround to biaural, and it hasn't stopped changing during all those years and won't stop changing for a great deal longer.

Even after all these years and all these advancements, almost all stereos and "all" surround systems still sound artificial compared to the real thing. We still have a long way to go before home audio, in any format approaches reality or approaches the limits of our hearing capabilities. For you to sit there and imply that what you do approaches anything close to real, is beyond belief. The best technology is years away from even getting close to perfection. To be fair, you're limited by the level of technology available and the limits of what we know about audio. Audio is still a heavily researched discipline and there is still a great deal to learn. THX, like all other agreed upon standards is going to be a foot note in the history of audio.

As far as I am concerned, you might just as well be arguing about the superiority of the gramophone. I see what you do as working with an inferior technology that is destined to change. All the standards and all the techniques used in the audio field are going to change because they are flawed. For now, we have to live with it, but to declare it a science neglects the fact that science doesn't stand still. Comparing what you consider science is like comparing Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's theory of space curvature.

Now go back to your mixing board and mix to your hearts content knowing that everything you do and know is relegated to obsolescence. Have fun in what you do, but realize that, in the future, your expertise is going to be considered the horse and buggy of the audio industry.

If you want respect, you have to give respect. These "old" guys here probably have been listening and judging audio, longer than you've been alive. We may all have different opinions, but that's because, we have different tastes and because the standard of "Live" has not been achieved.

My suggestion to you is to find someone like minded (like yourself) and tell them about this creaton that is on the audio board and spill your guts about how stupid and uninformed he is. It will make you feel better about yourself. Maybe that will put you in a better mood. I really don't mind.

[jjp735i]

To me this whole subject is just moot. Audio companies have made us some great equipment so that the everyday person can bring the theater into his home. I barely ever go to the theater anymore now that I can enjoy movies at home. I have a 120 inch screen I put up infront of the tv. Plug the projector into the hdmi and I'm set.

And if the studios were that concerned about movie sound tracks why don't they monitor the theaters that play them. When I do go to the theater it's usually to loud and I don't notice that much difference in effects then I do on my home system. They have been opening some nice theaters here in the Pittsburgh area, but like I said from one movie to the next the sound can change depending who as there fingers on the volume control.

I started showing movies outside this year on a 144" screen and everyone that shows up always enjoys it and I still get the wow factor when I watch a movie outside and I'm only running 2 channel simulated surround. So studios can mix and mix away all they want, it's not meaning that much to the average Joe.

My point is if you like your presence speakers then use them, I do and I love them. Doesn't matter if someone states they change the sound. If it sounds better to you then that is all that matters.

Just my 2 cents.

[StevenSurprenant]

To me this whole subject is just moot. Audio companies have made us some great equipment so that the everyday person can bring the theater into his home. I barely ever go to the theater anymore now that I can enjoy movies at home. I have a 120 inch screen I put up infront of the tv. Plug the projector into the hdmi and I'm set.

And if the studios were that concerned about movie sound tracks why don't they monitor the theaters that play them. When I do go to the theater it's usually to loud and I don't notice that much difference in effects then I do on my home system. They have been opening some nice theaters here in the Pittsburgh area, but like I said from one movie to the next the sound can change depending who as there fingers on the volume control.

I started showing movies outside this year on a 144" screen and everyone that shows up always enjoys it and I still get the wow factor when I watch a movie outside and I'm only running 2 channel simulated surround. So studios can mix and mix away all they want, it's not meaning that much to the average Joe.

My point is if you like your presence speakers then use them, I do and I love them. Doesn't matter if someone states they change the sound. If it sounds better to you then that is all that matters.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with you totally. Movie Theaters are way too loud and I quit going myself. I know many people who quit going for the same reason.

As for home theaters, I like them better than commercial theaters for a number of reasons. In some ways, home theaters sound better to me.

Your outside theater reminds me of when I was in the army overseas. We had an outside theater. The seats were just canvas draped on a frame. It was great! You're a lucky guy to have this. When the weather is right, it must be like a slice of heaven. You just might become the most popular guy in town once the word gets out.

Thanks for the support.

I did find that running the added DSP info through separate speakers sounded better than through the mains.

[GMichael]

Dang! I ran out of popcorn and beer. Where is LJ when you need him?

[Hyfi]

Dang! I ran out of popcorn and beer. Where is LJ when you need him?

Hey, disagree or move along.

[GMichael]

Hey, disagree or move along.

You are wrong!

And you have the brains of a flee in heat.

[Hyfi]

You are wrong!

And you have the brains of a flee in heat.

At least I can still be in heat:ciappa:

By the way, is a flea not in heat smarter or dumber than one in heat? Just looking for that reference point.

[GMichael]

At least I can still be in heat:ciappa:

By the way, is a flea not in heat smarter or dumber than one in heat? Just looking for that reference point.

All I know is that my body only has enough blood to run one head at a time.
But I still like HT either way.
Now, did'ja bring any popcorn?

[L.J.]

Dang! I ran out of popcorn and beer. Where is LJ when you need him?

Man I wish presence speakers was one of my biggest concerns in life right now....but ummm, yeah popcorn does sound good :)

[StevenSurprenant]

Here's your popcorn...

Mad TV John Madden Popcorn Popper - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1v52f1TrWg)

[GMichael]

Man I wish presence speakers was one of my biggest concerns in life right now....but ummm, yeah popcorn does sound good :)

I don't think I like the tone of your post sir. Are there problems on the home front?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You're the one who started all this. You couldn't stand to respect anyone else's opinion. It had to be your way or you would begin the name calling. A decent human being, if they felt the other person was wrong, would politely inform them of what they believed to be correct and then let it drop. Not you, you go on harping, over and over and over. As I said, you don't listen to what the other person has said and so you end up in left field arguing about assumptions that are not true. You're an "A: type personality, and as such you self proclaimed yourself the resident expert on this forum. I heard no such claim from anyone else, only you.

More online psychology, and a generous dose of hot air. You are right, I don't listen to nonsense PERIOD. I am certainly not going to listen to you, you don't know a damn thing about audio except how to sit in your chair and listening to it. Anyone can do that, it does not require any special skills.


As for not wanting to show your work, I take that to mean that you have nothing to show. However, you're right that you owe me nothing, but when you put your foot in your mouth, you should have the decency to back up your claims. It's a weakness on your part.

What have you shown to back up your assertions? A three speaker center channel produced by PLII decoding? Not much of an example is it...Now about foot in mouth, how about your assertions that we Hollywood sound engineers have it wrong. Based on that comment alone, you are fully diagnosed with foot in mouth disease, you don't have any background to make that determination. You know so little about home theater, and you don't have a system that could properly playback my mixes, there is no point in telling you what they are. How would you know whether it was accurate to the original mix? You wouldn't, so I would be left with your subjective opinion which is useless without any understanding of film sound.


The audio field is vast in that it has many aspects. You have your little niche in it that you feel makes you knowledgeable, but that's all you know and I have doubts about your level of expertise. I freely admit that my knowledge is limited, as is everyone else's, and the more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know. You, on the other hand, claim to know all things audio and that makes you the smartest guy on the planet. Good for you!

I don't think I made that claim, but you did make that assumption. The underlined part should make you talk less, and learn more. You however got this completely backwards. Soundtrack mixing is no niche, but you don't know any better, and I forgive your for that.


As for my arrogance, there isn't any profession that cannot be improved. There isn't any profession that isn't in a state of constant learning. To claim perfection is your forte and the arrogance is yours.

I don't believe I said anything about perfection. Assuming again? Definitely. So you think you know how to improve audio? With no mixing experience, no recording experience, no formal audio education, no nothing? Your listening experience? No thank you, everyone is a arm chair quarterback.

My profession has improved tremendously. However your knowledge of that improvement is severely lacking. Once again, how does a person who has never mixed anything, never mastered anything, and never recorded anything tell a person who has done all of this that it needs improving? Just what educational background and experience(aside from your admitted limited experience) do you have to make these assertions. Wait...I can answer that.....NONE...ZERO...NIL..not jack shyte.


I grew up at a time when TV's were just becoming commercially available, when stereo didn't exist in any home, when transistors had just been invented, when space vehicles didn't exist, before the first commercial computer was invented, and when much of what we take for granted today was more in the realm of science fiction. I was there to witness all of this and that is worth more than a few semesters at some college. Many people on the forum can say the same thing.

I watched different record formats come and go, 78 - 45 - 33 rpm records, reel to reel tape, cassettes, 8-tracks, CD's, DVD's, HDCD, DVD-a, SACD, MP3, and others. I've watched home audio go from mono to stereo to quad to surround to biaural, and it hasn't stopped changing during all those years and won't stop changing for a great deal longer.

So the hell what!! The only thing this tells me is that you are an old dog who has seen some new tricks. Nothing more


Even after all these years and all these advancements, almost all stereos and "all" surround systems still sound artificial compared to the real thing. We still have a long way to go before home audio, in any format approaches reality or approaches the limits of our hearing capabilities. For you to sit there and imply that what you do approaches anything close to real, is beyond belief. The best technology is years away from even getting close to perfection. To be fair, you're limited by the level of technology available and the limits of what we know about audio. Audio is still a heavily researched discipline and there is still a great deal to learn. THX, like all other agreed upon standards is going to be a foot note in the history of audio.

Blah blah blah more air sandwiches. You sure do love to see your words on a computer.




As far as I am concerned, you might just as well be arguing about the superiority of the gramophone. I see what you do as working with an inferior technology that is destined to change. All the standards and all the techniques used in the audio field are going to change because they are flawed. For now, we have to live with it, but to declare it a science neglects the fact that science doesn't stand still. Comparing what you consider science is like comparing Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's theory of space curvature.

Everything improves over time, but to say it is flawed......there is nothing in your background that makes that truth. You really are full of yourself, and that's really a problem for you since you are education and experience bankrupt in the audio field.

Now go back to your mixing board and mix to your hearts content knowing that everything you do and know is relegated to obsolescence. Have fun in what you do, but realize that, in the future, your expertise is going to be considered the horse and buggy of the audio industry.


If you want respect, you have to give respect. These "old" guys here probably have been listening and judging audio, longer than you've been alive. We may all have different opinions, but that's because, we have different tastes and because the standard of "Live" has not been achieved.

You have the whole concept of audio recording and mixing totally wrong. We don't strive for things that are impossible, we strive for things that are. We are not trying to make things sound exactly like real life, we are looking for accuracy during recording and playback. Trying to chase after that "live" you state is like chasing your own tail....you never really get it. Accuracy faithful to what the microphones capture is our goal. There is no way to achieve a realistic "live" presences without hundreds of discrete microphones for capture, and hundreds of discrete speakers for playback. We would have to record every discrete reflection in the hall, all of the reverberation in the hall, and you would have to have speakers that could playback these hundreds of discrete reflections on your end. You would need media capable of transmitting and storing hundreds of channels of information Not financially feasible for anyone.

Your goal is not feasible or realistic. 9.1 is having a difficult time getting traction in the consumer market. 100.2 is not going to happen at all, and there goes your concept of "live" sound.


My suggestion to you is to find someone like minded (like yourself) and tell them about this creaton that is on the audio board and spill your guts about how stupid and uninformed he is. It will make you feel better about yourself. Maybe that will put you in a better mood. I really don't mind.

You see, that person would be far smarter than you, far more realistic than you are, and a lot less ignorant than you are. Let's see, There is Randy Thom, Ralph Murch, Dennis Sands, everyone apart of the MPSE group, and just about everyone mixing soundtracks in Hollywood. That's great company, and I already know many of them.

[StevenSurprenant]

@ Sir Terrence the Terrible ...

More online psychology, and a generous dose of hot air. You are right, I don't listen to nonsense PERIOD. I am certainly not going to listen to you, you don't know a damn thing about audio except how to sit in your chair and listening to it. Anyone can do that, it does not require any special skills.

You don't listen to anyone, that's the problem. Online psychology? Give me a break! You're the one who's trying to brow beat me and then when I don't lie down, you accuse me of “online psychology”. There's a lot more to audio than sitting in a chair and listening. You don't get great sound by slapping a pair of speakers on the floor and plopping down in a chair. When putting together a great sounding system, listening is a very important skill. Similarly speaking, it's like my art teacher told me years ago, “anyone can look, but to create an image of what you're looking at, you need to “SEE” all aspects of the image”. What he meant by this is that each scene is a mixture of colors, shades, and dimensional aspects. The same applies to audio. Anyone can hear, but people who love audio “listen” to all the subtle aspects of the sound. As a matter of fact, listening is the most important skill that you should have to do your job. Anyone with a few bucks can do what you do in their home, and they are. It certainly isn't rocket science. The real skill is being able to create a sonic image of the real event or create an artistic image that the creator wants to convey. This takes talent that transcends the classroom. Turning knobs and setting gates and limiters are the tools and not the art.

What have you shown to back up your assertions? A three speaker center channel produced by PLII decoding? Not much of an example is it...Now about foot in mouth, how about your assertions that we Hollywood sound engineers have it wrong. Based on that comment alone, you are fully diagnosed with foot in mouth disease, you don't have any background to make that determination. You know so little about home theater, and you don't have a system that could properly playback my mixes, there is no point in telling you what they are. How would you know whether it was accurate to the original mix? You wouldn't, so I would be left with your subjective opinion which is useless without any understanding of film sound.

I never said that you have it wrong, what I said is that you could do much better, though in fairness, the technology is limited. I also said that there are many ways of accomplishing the same thing or that we all have our preferences. For instance, to me, clarity and sound staging is the most important aspect of my home system. I don't care if it can play so loud that my windows break, or that it can go from 20hz to 20khz. What I care about is that it is tonally balanced and that I can hear the micro details that brings the sound closer to reality and spacial details that allow me a glimpse of the actual soundstage or the soundstage that the artist has created. Some people don't care about these things, it's a choice. They're happy if it has the dimension of wallpaper as long as it sounds good to them.

Wallpaper is what I hear in theaters. Theaters may have a fair handle on bringing the sound into the room, but they completely fail at giving the image depth behind the screen. It's like they've erased half of the sound field. That is one of the reason why I like home surround better. At least at home, I get a better sense of soundstage. Another thing about theaters is that, and I suppose each theater is different, the use of side and rear channels (speakers) are very distracting from time to time. You should never, and I mean never, send a discrete sound to these surround speakers. When you do, it's like it isn't part of the sound field. Our hearing is too directional when these speakers are used improperly. Also, the speakers are placed way too high. In a home theater, the speakers are closer to the listener and because of that, the listener is more enveloped in the sound field compared to a theater where the surround channels are 20 feet over a persons head. I could go on what I think needs improving, but as you assert, you know what you're doing and nothing the general public has to say about it will make any impact on what you do.

You're right about one thing, I only have a 5.1 system and I probably cannot play back some of your mixes, but if I can't than most people with home surround can't, so what's the point? I also agree that my opinion is subjective, but so is your's.

I don't think I made that claim, but you did make that assumption. The underlined part should make you talk less, and learn more. You however got this completely backwards. Soundtrack mixing is no niche, but you don't know any better, and I forgive your for that.

Look at the credits of any movie and you will see that it takes a great many people with many areas of expertise to create a movie. Mixing is only part of the whole process and while important, it is a small part of the entire process. In fact, it's probably the one area that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can be trained to do.

So you think you know how to improve audio? With no mixing experience, no recording experience, no formal audio education, no nothing? Your listening experience? No thank you, everyone is a arm chair quarterback.

No one needs any of those skills to know when somethings sounds good or for that matter, sounds right. I don't need to be a computer programmer to know if a piece of software is good or bad. Why is this any different?

My profession has improved tremendously. However your knowledge of that improvement is severely lacking. Once again, how does a person who has never mixed anything, never mastered anything, and never recorded anything tell a person who has done all of this that it needs improving? Just what educational background and experience(aside from your admitted limited experience) do you have to make these assertions. Wait...I can answer that.....NONE...ZERO...NIL..not jack shyte.

The audio field has improved and will continue to improve. If fact, it wouldn't surprise me that someday, much of it will be automated through computer technology. The fact that I've never mixed anything has nothing to do with my ability to know when something sounds right. As I said before, mixing is only a small part of the equation. As an example of why I don't need to know what you know... I have a coffee pot that I have have no idea on how to build or design, but I can tell you what needs to be improved. For instance, the buttons that turn it on and off are too small, actually, the smallest ones. They need to be bigger since they are the ones I use most often. I'm sure the engineer that made this coffee pot thought he was doing a good job, but the next time I buy a coffee pot this will influence which one I buy. The same applies to what you do. You create a product in the image that you think it should be, but as an end user, I have the final word on whether it lacks or excels in any way.

So the hell what!! The only thing this tells me is that you are an old dog who has seen some new tricks. Nothing more

True, but soon enough, you'll be that old dog. Hopefully, you'll gain a better perspective of the bigger picture by then.

Everything improves over time, but to say it is flawed......there is nothing in your background that makes that truth. You really are full of yourself, and that's really a problem for you since you are education and experience bankrupt in the audio field.

It's important to know that everything has it's flaws and can be improved. If you were to say that you understand that these flaws exist, but that you're doing the best with the available technology, I would not fault you one bit. However, you carry on like what you do and know is perfect in every way. That's just a reflection on you and not the state of audio.

You have the whole concept of audio recording and mixing totally wrong. We don't strive for things that are impossible, we strive for things that are. We are not trying to make things sound exactly like real life, we are looking for accuracy during recording and playback. Trying to chase after that "live" you state is like chasing your own tail....you never really get it. Accuracy faithful to what the microphones capture is our goal. There is no way to achieve a realistic "live" presences without hundreds of discrete microphones for capture, and hundreds of discrete speakers for playback. We would have to record every discrete reflection in the hall, all of the reverberation in the hall, and you would have to have speakers that could playback these hundreds of discrete reflections on your end. You would need media capable of transmitting and storing hundreds of channels of information Not financially feasible for anyone.

I like this very much. It's an honest assessment of the inherent problems with recording audio. I'm impressed! It's a valid concern in relation to the recording techniques that you use. More on that in a moment...

Live sound can be reproduced. I've heard it myself, but only once. I could locate where everyone was on the stage, how close they were to each other, and the room they were in. It was truly holographic in the literal sense. In fact, I was even fooled into thinking that there was someone else actually in the room with me, when they weren't. This was with two speakers. I have no idea what recording techniques they used. This was over 15 years ago and there was no special processing involved.

Another example is a nature/music recording I have. There is one track where you are listening to birds chirping in the trees. The spacial clues remained intact during the recording and the birds could be heard coming from above the speakers and the ceiling of the room as if the tree they were in was taller than my room. This effect was present regardless of which system I played it on or the room. My guess is that they used stereo microphones to record the birds. There is also a guitar mixed in the recording, but from what I can tell, conventional recording techniques, like you would use, were used and so the guitar lacked the same spacial clues as the birds. It was still a decent recording of the guitar. Of course, this was with 2 channel.

I honestly have no idea how spacial clues work since I can't seem to really hear them. I can only detect where objects are. I would imagine that it has something to do with timing, phase. Loudness, and perhaps reflections.

Back to the issue...

If I'm correct, the recording methods you use are to closely mike each instrument and performer separately and then mix them together adding effects that place them in the soundstage where you want them. This is simplified, and I know there is more to the process, but in general, this is what you do. While this “process” has the benefit of, let's say, picking up sounds like a guitar pick scraping across the strings, which by the way, does add a sense of reality, it reduces the quality of the image that I would hear if I was actually sitting in front of the guitar player. In real life, sound would be radiating from the entire surface of the guitar, front, back, sides, and so on. Sound would also be reflecting off of the walls of the room. Localization clues from the guitar would be intact. Close miking of the guitar reduces these clues.

I realize that in real life, expecting a group of performers playing together to create a “perfect” recording the first time is hardly realistic. Hence, the recording techniques that you use were created out of practicality. Something was gained, but at the expense of other things. There are plus and minuses to each technique. I've listened to recordings using stereo microphone techniques and more conventional techniques and the difference is that in the first instance, localization cues are intact creating a more realistic soundstage, but in the second instance, more micro details of the instrument or performer is recorded which also adds to the enjoyment of the recording.

For a very long time I was puzzled why, when listening to recorded music, why some things were easily located on the soundstage while others weren't as defined. It wasn't until I went to an Engelbert Humperdink concert that I realized that the closer you mike something, the less defined image you have on the stage. During the concert, he sang close to the mike, but on one song, he stepped back and there it was... I could hear the reflections of the venue and it sounded more real. I liked his music either way, but finally, I understood.

I realize that movies are not recorded with the performers standing still and the microphone techniques used are out of practicality. Everything is a compromise.

Okay, that said...

Like I've said before, you're a smart guy. I know you don't like anyone criticizing what you do, no one does, but I guess the point I am trying to make to you is that audio is nowhere near perfection and that sometimes, doing the wrong thing is better than what is technically correct. If I think dual or triple center speakers sound better, even if it's technically incorrect, and even if creates problems of it's own, and I feel the final result out weighs the negatives, then it's the right thing to do. Not everyone has the money to have the right room and the right equipment to maximize what your ideal of what it should sound like and so we do the best we can with what we have.

As an “old” guy, the most important lesson I have learned is that everything has it's flaws and everybody has their preferences and because of that, nothing is cut in stone.

We've been butting heads here because we're both obstinate and opinionated. We've both said things that were uncalled for and regrettable, but I do respect your opinion, well, most of it.

I'll tell you one thing about movie audio that really needs improving. You can take it with a grain of salt. The one thing about music or movie audio that I really enjoy is when there is a sense of creativity and uniqueness, uniqueness is the key word. It seems that many movies use the same template for creating the background sounds that stimulate and enhance the action taking place on the screen. It has gotten to the point of being almost generic. It's like I can take parts of the background soundtrack from one movie and insert it into another with little modification. On top of that, it's waaay over used and sometimes, way too intense for what is occurring on the screen. Sure, it sounds cool, but too much of a good thing is not a good thing.


Have a nice day!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Are you sure you are not a older version of RGA?



@ Sir Terrence the Terrible ...



You don't listen to anyone, that's the problem.

Actually I do, but not to people who don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about. That would be you.....


Online psychology? Give me a break! You're the one who's trying to brow beat me and then when I don't lie down, you accuse me of “online psychology”. There's a lot more to audio than sitting in a chair and listening. You don't get great sound by slapping a pair of speakers on the floor and plopping down in a chair. When putting together a great sounding system, listening is a very important skill. Similarly speaking, it's like my art teacher told me years ago, “anyone can look, but to create an image of what you're looking at, you need to “SEE” all aspects of the image”. What he meant by this is that each scene is a mixture of colors, shades, and dimensional aspects. The same applies to audio. Anyone can hear, but people who love audio “listen” to all the subtle aspects of the sound. As a matter of fact, listening is the most important skill that you should have to do your job. Anyone with a few bucks can do what you do in their home, and they are. It certainly isn't rocket science. The real skill is being able to create a sonic image of the real event or create an artistic image that the creator wants to convey. This takes talent that transcends the classroom. Turning knobs and setting gates and limiters are the tools and not the art.

Brow beat you? No, just telling you that what you bring to the table is wack! Is there any way possible you can bring NEW information to the discussion? What you are presenting is NOTHING NEW.


I never said that you have it wrong, what I said is that you could do much better, though in fairness, the technology is limited. I also said that there are many ways of accomplishing the same thing or that we all have our preferences. For instance, to me, clarity and sound staging is the most important aspect of my home system. I don't care if it can play so loud that my windows break, or that it can go from 20hz to 20khz. What I care about is that it is tonally balanced and that I can hear the micro details that brings the sound closer to reality and spacial details that allow me a glimpse of the actual soundstage or the soundstage that the artist has created. Some people don't care about these things, it's a choice. They're happy if it has the dimension of wallpaper as long as it sounds good to them.

We can do much better based on what...your opinion? LOLOLOLOL...please tell me you are joking, and if you are not then you are the joke. Based on this comment, you are obviously under-exposed when it comes to listening to really good soundtracks. Pick up Avatar, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Up, Wall-e, The Pirates of the Carribean series, Das Boot, Final Fantasty The Spirits Within(I could name about a hundred more), and give them a listen. Each of these movies has the exact sonic characteristics you are looking for, and they are not just loud movies.

Seems to me that you are trying to tie your lack of exposure to high quality soundtracks to some assertion that we don't try to put our best product on disc or film.


Wallpaper is what I hear in theaters. Theaters may have a fair handle on bringing the sound into the room, but they completely fail at giving the image depth behind the screen. It's like they've erased half of the sound field. That is one of the reason why I like home surround better. At least at home, I get a better sense of soundstage. Another thing about theaters is that, and I suppose each theater is different, the use of side and rear channels (speakers) are very distracting from time to time. You should never, and I mean never, send a discrete sound to these surround speakers. When you do, it's like it isn't part of the sound field. Our hearing is too directional when these speakers are used improperly. Also, the speakers are placed way too high. In a home theater, the speakers are closer to the listener and because of that, the listener is more enveloped in the sound field compared to a theater where the surround channels are 20 feet over a persons head. I could go on what I think needs improving, but as you assert, you know what you're doing and nothing the general public has to say about it will make any impact on what you do.

Let me get this straight. You have readily admitted that you have very little audio knowledge(and seemingly none when it comes to soundtracks), yet you have come to the conclusion that theaters are set up wrong, assume all theaters are properly calibrated, and they don't have enough reflections occurring behind the screen to create artificial depth we get in our rooms. Do you realize how profoundly silly you sound? So let me punch a hole in some of your nonsense. First, this depth you hear is a result of in room reflections, not what you would hear on the recording itself. It is a distortion of the recording, albeit a complimentary distortion. Movie theaters are not built to support random room reflections. The front of the theater is built to support sonic clarity, which precludes allowing random uncontrolled reflections in the frontal soundstage. If you allowed those reflections in a theater, dialog intelligibility would go down as the path of those reflections are much longer than they are in our rooms. What works well in your house, does not work well in a theater.

Secondly, If they were to drop the surround array to ear level in theaters, they would localize towards the seats they sat near, which is exactly opposite of what a surround array should do. You would hear the surround array before you would hear the front speakers.
Those speakers sit up high(and if properly calibrated) so as not to localize to the nearest seats close to them. You ever heard the precedent effect? That would occur as those lowered surrounds you propose signals arrive before those of the front speaker. It would pull the sound backwards in the theater, muddy the dialog, and screw up the array frequency response in relationship to the front speakers. That is why they are high up over your heard. You have come to the false conclusion that having the surround speakers closer to you makes them more immersive. WRONG, it makes them less immersive because you can actually localize it. What creates immersion is being surrounded by speakers(or reflections) that you CANNOT pin point their location. Funny, in over 25 years of mixing film soundtracks and listening to them, I have never heard this so called(and made up since I might add) sound field disassociation you claim.

Haas effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect)






You're right about one thing, I only have a 5.1 system and I probably cannot play back some of your mixes, but if I can't than most people with home surround can't, so what's the point? I also agree that my opinion is subjective, but so is your's.

The fact that you only have a 5.1 system is irrelevant. Its the fact that you have a center speaker that localizes its output, instead of blending in with the L/R mains. Most people do not use the kind of speakers you use for home theater right? If I did the mix, then my opinion is not all the subjective. I have a reference point, you don't.


Look at the credits of any movie and you will see that it takes a great many people with many areas of expertise to create a movie. Mixing is only part of the whole process and while important, it is a small part of the entire process. In fact, it's probably the one area that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can be trained to do.

This is where your ignorance is most profound. George Lucas made a great point that you should remember. Movie sound is half of the movie experience. Mixing 500 channels of music, dialog and effects is no small part of a movie, it is a huge part. During the entire production of a movie, the soundtrack is being prepared much like the visual effects are. Your lack of soundtrack mixing experience is really betraying you.

This is hilarious. I have a idiot on audioreview who has never recorded a single effect, never mixed a single bar of music, never worked a mixing board, never recorded foley, never did ADR, never mixed and edited effects stems, and never sewed all of the elements together NOT ONE TIME, and this idiot thinks it is just a small part of the movie production process. Wow, I am blown away.



No one needs any of those skills to know when somethings sounds good or for that matter, sounds right. I don't need to be a computer programmer to know if a piece of software is good or bad. Why is this any different?

So here is something you can do to make your point. Go to 5555 Melrose Avenue, knock on the door of the post production department, and tell them you have all the skills they need to record, mix, and master their soundtracks. The Youtube moment will be when you tell them you have absolutely no audio education or experience, and they shut the door so hard in your ignorant face that you roll 5 miles down Melrose Avenue. Let me know when you do this, I want to be there with camera in hand to catch this priceless moment.



The audio field has improved and will continue to improve. If fact, it wouldn't surprise me that someday, much of it will be automated through computer technology.

Your too late, much of the process is already automated. See how behind the times and out of the loop you are?



The fact that I've never mixed anything has nothing to do with my ability to know when something sounds right.

So how do you get it right if you don't know which of the 96 faders to push, or which auxilary send it came off of, or how to use pro tools? Recording, mixing and mastering is more than just listening, you gotta know how to use the tools....and you don't. See how silly you sound?



As I said before, mixing is only a small part of the equation. As an example of why I don't need to know what you know... I have a coffee pot that I have have no idea on how to build or design, but I can tell you what needs to be improved. For instance, the buttons that turn it on and off are too small, actually, the smallest ones. They need to be bigger since they are the ones I use most often. I'm sure the engineer that made this coffee pot thought he was doing a good job, but the next time I buy a coffee pot this will influence which one I buy. The same applies to what you do. You create a product in the image that you think it should be, but as an end user, I have the final word on whether it lacks or excels in any way.

You are going to compare a coffee pot(with very few buttons), to a 96 fader mixing board, and pro tools? To the understanding of PCM audio? Without the knowledge on how to read a bridge meter, how to record outdoors, how to record foley or ADR, or the understanding of how ISO standards are going to affect your entire mix during post production? Seriously, please tell me you are kidding.


True, but soon enough, you'll be that old dog. Hopefully, you'll gain a better perspective of the bigger picture by then.

Hopefully, I won't be nearly as ignorant as you are when I get there. You certainly haven't a clue about the big picture, that is for sure.



It's important to know that everything has it's flaws and can be improved. If you were to say that you understand that these flaws exist, but that you're doing the best with the available technology, I would not fault you one bit. However, you carry on like what you do and know is perfect in every way. That's just a reflection on you and not the state of audio.

Umm Steven, perhaps along with your brains you need your eyes checked. Not one of my posts mentions the word perfect. NOT ONE! So wherever you got this assumption, you need to take it back.



I like this very much. It's an honest assessment of the inherent problems with recording audio. I'm impressed! It's a valid concern in relation to the recording techniques that you use. More on that in a moment...

No please stop. Your comments are getting more ignorant each sentence you post here.


Live sound can be reproduced. I've heard it myself, but only once. I could locate where everyone was on the stage, how close they were to each other, and the room they were in. It was truly holographic in the literal sense. In fact, I was even fooled into thinking that there was someone else actually in the room with me, when they weren't. This was with two speakers. I have no idea what recording techniques they used. This was over 15 years ago and there was no special processing involved.

This sounds like a minimalist recording, and if well done they can sound very real. We do not do this kind of recording because film sound(as opposed to audio only) has far too many elements that have to be mixed together to create the soundtrack. They have to be processed in order to be heard. We also have to downsample our tracks to fit the media. We usually record everything at 24/96khz, and it has to be downsampled to 48khz for DVD and Bluray. This has nothing to do with studio technology, but everything to do with the playback media.


Another example is a nature/music recording I have. There is one track where you are listening to birds chirping in the trees. The spacial clues remained intact during the recording and the birds could be heard coming from above the speakers and the ceiling of the room as if the tree they were in was taller than my room. This effect was present regardless of which system I played it on or the room. My guess is that they used stereo microphones to record the birds. There is also a guitar mixed in the recording, but from what I can tell, conventional recording techniques, like you would use, were used and so the guitar lacked the same spacial clues as the birds. It was still a decent recording of the guitar. Of course, this was with 2 channel.

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and have absolutely no facts behind this. First, they could have used mono recorded birds, and panned them into place. Secondly, you don't know what recording techniques we use, there is no one size fits all. Thirdly, the guitar was recorded monophonically. So what, that was their artistic decision, not yours.


I honestly have no idea how spacial clues work since I can't seem to really hear them. I can only detect where objects are. I would imagine that it has something to do with timing, phase. Loudness, and perhaps reflections.

Wow, you know where objects are, but cannot detect spatial clues. You just contradicted yourself.

Back to the issue...


If I'm correct, the recording methods you use are to closely mike each instrument and performer separately and then mix them together adding effects that place them in the soundstage where you want them. This is simplified, and I know there is more to the process, but in general, this is what you do. While this “process” has the benefit of, let's say, picking up sounds like a guitar pick scraping across the strings, which by the way, does add a sense of reality, it reduces the quality of the image that I would hear if I was actually sitting in front of the guitar player. In real life, sound would be radiating from the entire surface of the guitar, front, back, sides, and so on. Sound would also be reflecting off of the walls of the room. Localization clues from the guitar would be intact. Close miking of the guitar reduces these clues.

You are not correct. There are a wide variety of recording methods for capturing film scores, there is no one size fits all. Secondly if you actually record a guitar, it does NOT radiate equally in all directions from all surfaces at all frequencies. It radiates from its different surfaces based on frequency, and the reflections it generates interact with the walls of the room moreso at the lower frequencies it reproduces, and less at higher frequencies.


I realize that in real life, expecting a group of performers playing together to create a “perfect” recording the first time is hardly realistic. Hence, the recording techniques that you use were created out of practicality. Something was gained, but at the expense of other things. There are plus and minuses to each technique. I've listened to recordings using stereo microphone techniques and more conventional techniques and the difference is that in the first instance, localization cues are intact creating a more realistic soundstage, but in the second instance, more micro details of the instrument or performer is recorded which also adds to the enjoyment of the recording.

If I didn't know better, I would think you knew what you are talking about. I know better, and you don't know what you are talking about. What is a stereo microphone technique? What is a conventional technique?


For a very long time I was puzzled why, when listening to recorded music, why some things were easily located on the soundstage while others weren't as defined. It wasn't until I went to an Engelbert Humperdink concert that I realized that the closer you mike something, the less defined image you have on the stage. During the concert, he sang close to the mike, but on one song, he stepped back and there it was... I could hear the reflections of the venue and it sounded more real. I liked his music either way, but finally, I understood.

If you think you understood something, then you are still quite ignorant. The closer you mike something, the MORE DEFINED it becomes, not the other way around. When he stepped back from the microphone, the volume of his vocals dropped coming through the PA system, which allowed you to hear the room.

I realize that movies are not recorded with the performers standing still and the microphone techniques used are out of practicality. Everything is a compromise.

I don't think you realize a damn thing. When we record ADR, there are no compromises. Compromise is not necessary, the process is very straight forward. There is no need to compromise when recording a film score, I have done many of them. The problem with you is you are looking at the studio, but not paying much attention to the media you buy, the equipment and the room you listening in. We in the studio have FAR less compromises than you do in your home, and that is where you should be looking, not at the studio.


Okay, that said...

Like I've said before, you're a smart guy. I know you don't like anyone criticizing what you do, no one does, but I guess the point I am trying to make to you is that audio is nowhere near perfection and that sometimes, doing the wrong thing is better than what is technically correct. If I think dual or triple center speakers sound better, even if it's technically incorrect, and even if creates problems of it's own, and I feel the final result out weighs the negatives, then it's the right thing to do. Not everyone has the money to have the right room and the right equipment to maximize what your ideal of what it should sound like and so we do the best we can with what we have.

I don't care if someone criticizes what I do, as long as they know what they are talking about. You don't, and it is profoundly obvious. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if you use a quad center, or two speaker per channel all the way around. That is up to you. But saying you are for accuracy, and then turn around and distort the sound acoustically, and electronically is a contradiction. We didn't make any compromises in the studio, but you are making them in the home, and blaming us. That is why I have a problem with you.




As an “old” guy, the most important lesson I have learned is that everything has it's flaws and everybody has their preferences and because of that, nothing is cut in stone.

Well you missed one more important one. Know what you are talking about before you speak. I learned that in elementary school, and I am surprised as an "old" guy you have not learned this yet.


We've been butting heads here because we're both obstinate and opinionated. We've both said things that were uncalled for and regrettable, but I do respect your opinion, well, most of it.

I don't know why you are butting heads with me, but I am butting heads with you because you are ignorant of the production of audio, and you are posturing as if you are expert.


I'll tell you one thing about movie audio that really needs improving. You can take it with a grain of salt. The one thing about music or movie audio that I really enjoy is when there is a sense of creativity and uniqueness, uniqueness is the key word. It seems that many movies use the same template for creating the background sounds that stimulate and enhance the action taking place on the screen. It has gotten to the point of being almost generic. It's like I can take parts of the background soundtrack from one movie and insert it into another with little modification. On top of that, it's waaay over used and sometimes, way too intense for what is occurring on the screen. Sure, it sounds cool, but too much of a good thing is not a good thing.


Have a nice day!

Steven here is another thing you have not learned yet. Dog catchers don't chase after giraffes. Plumbers don't do surgery on us, Doctors don't come to your house to do the plumbing, and accountants don't build buildings. Film score recordists and mixers don't create the film score, they record and mix them. I don't create film scores, I record them.

[GMichael]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

[E-Stat]

You guys fight like an old married couple.
I'm thinking more like

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k80nW6AOhTs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k80nW6AOhTs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

You guys fight like an old married couple.


I'm thinking more like

Very funny guys!

I'm thinking about divorcing him, but I'm afraid he'll get the house and I'll have to support his children. Audiophiles, you can't live with them and you can't shoot them. What's a guy going to do?

[StevenSurprenant]

So here is something you can do to make your point. Go to 5555 Melrose Avenue, knock on the door of the post production department, and tell them you have all the skills they need to record, mix, and master their soundtracks. The Youtube moment will be when you tell them you have absolutely no audio education or experience, and they shut the door so hard in your ignorant face that you roll 5 miles down Melrose Avenue. Let me know when you do this, I want to be there with camera in hand to catch this priceless moment.



Tell you what, give me your name and I'll contact the corporate Viacom offices and let them know how you're acting on this site. I think they may be interested. Let's see if they back up your unprofessional demeanor or whether they have a different viewpoint. How about it dude? Do you feel secure enough to stand up to the plate like a real man?

I never asked you for your input on my posts and would appreciate your silence. Dealing with a child is not my idea of enjoyment. We all came here to enjoy ourselves and quite frankly, any intelligent adult would voice their opinion and move on. Not you, you carry on like a fundamentalist religious cult groupie. In the process, you resort to slander and name calling as a method to get your point across. Your actions not only affect the people on this board and yourself, but also the people you work for.

So how about it? Wanna see what corporate has to say on this issue?

I'll get back to you later on the rest.

[bfalls]

Tell you what, give me your name and I'll contact the corporate Viacom offices and let them know how you're acting on this site. I think they may be interested. Let's see if they back up your unprofessional demeanor or whether they have a different viewpoint. How about it dude? Do you feel secure enough to stand up to the plate like a real man?

I never asked you for your input on my posts and would appreciate your silence. Dealing with a child is not my idea of enjoyment. We all came here to enjoy ourselves and quite frankly, any intelligent adult would voice their opinion and move on. Not you, you carry on like a fundamentalist religious cult groupie. In the process, you resort to slander and name calling as a method to get your point across. Your actions not only affect the people on this board and yourself, but also the people you work for.

So how about it? Wanna see what corporate has to say on this issue?

I'll get back to you later on the rest.

Someone disagrees with you so you threaten their job?? What a sore loser---and you most definitely were the loser. Just because you don't understand and T won't let you get away with misinformation, you want to run and tell mommy to make him stop. You say he's a child?

You had your question answered here some time ago. You're just as guilty of keeping the argument going as he. I think you've both done enough arguing each other into bloody pulps. Time to move on. Take your football, extra center speakers, whatever and go home. Nothing more to see here.

Last time we had a discussion like this with Pix there was a general "Accidental Ban". Just sayin....

[StevenSurprenant]

Someone disagrees with you so you threaten their job?? What a sore loser---and you most definitely were the loser. Just because you don't understand and T won't let you get away with misinformation, you want to run and tell mommy to make him stop. You say he's a child?

You had your question answered here some time ago. You're just as guilty of keeping the argument going as he. I think you've both done enough arguing each other into bloody pulps. Time to move on. Take your football, extra center speakers, whatever and go home. Nothing more to see here.

Last time we had a discussion like this with Pix there was a general "Accidental Ban". Just sayin....

You're right, this has gone to far. I'm tired of listening to this fool. However, I'm rather surprised that you're putting the blame for this on me. That's okay, it's your opinion and there's nothing I can do about it. Besides, it's not that important. As for being banned, I think I'll just avoid coming here again. The last time I was here, Mtry was the village idiot and he drove people away. Now we have Terrence to take his place. Surprisingly, Mtry made more sense. I'll have my last word and then I'll be on my way. Before I do that I just want to thank the other posters here for their conversation and their ideas. It was greatly appreciated.

I won't cover all the details and I will try to keep it short. Bfalls, since you're the one blaming me, this will be more directed at you than anyone else. I'm not going to go back and repost exactly what was said, it's a waste of time.

The first issue is the dog training, a big issue since I loved my dog. As I said in the post, I am not a dog trainer, but I recanted a story about how I raised my dog and how well he turned out. He grew into a 100+ pound German Shepard and one of the most well behaved dogs I've known. Basically there were two things I did. I would interact with him constantly, treating him like a child, talking to him, showing him what I expected, giving him love and attention, and never punishing him. Also, on the advice of my veterinarian, I used a hold down technique on him as he grew and only when necessary. The purpose of this was to assert myself as the Alpha dog and let him know that I was the one in control. This dog and I got very close, so much so that everyone I knew commented on this. Mostly, they said they've never seen such a well behaved dog and one that was so in tune with their owner. Even the people at the kennel I kept him at for a while commented on this, saying that this strong of a bond was rare. Anyway, Terrence got on my case saying that I wasn't a dog trainer and that I should keep my opinion to myself. To be clear about this, I told him that I never claimed to be a trainer, I was recanting the story of how I raised my dog, nothing more. Then he also said the vet was wrong and that the hold down technique I used was dangerous and that I should never had used it. He's out of his cotton picking mind. Perhaps if it was used by him on an aggressive dog that doesn't know him, then it might have some truth to it, but there is no truth to this when used on your own pet as they grew from a pup into adulthood. This technique was not violent, nor was it cruel. To be very frank, if this is dangerous for Terrence, then Terrence is doing something wrong and hurting the dog. I wouldn't let Terrence get within ten feet of my dog. First off, I trust my vet who interacts with animals on a daily basis and who has had extensive education in the field of animals. I don't trust Terrence, a wanna be dog trainer, a person who has little or no background . Compared to a vet, this guy is completely ignorant. And his exposure to animals is minimal. There is nothing he said that instills confidence that he knows what he's doing. Terrence is a name dropper and mentioned some training technique by someone whom he feels is the “expert”, not everyone agrees.

Hopefully the rest will be shorter...

When I mentioned that I had adjusted the speaker volumes on my surround system by ear and when I checked them with a meter they were spot on. He called me a liar and that it was impossible for anyone to do this. People have been doing this for years until some of the receivers came with microphones to do it automatically. There is nothing special about what I did and to claim that it was impossible is ludicrous. I'm not deaf, I can hear when something is louder in comparison. Again, he showed his ignorance.

Then when I mentioned that while I was in the Army, we use to whistle a 1,000 hz tone to get the phones to ring, he again said it was impossible. This is how we were trained and everyone could do it. The radios we used were left overs from WWll and, at the time, people have been doing this for over 25 years. He called me a liar again, and again he showed his ignorance.

Then there is the issue of the ambiance channels that is available on my receiver. Basically, he said that it ruins the effect that the recording engineer was trying to convey. Oh, and he also mentioned that he heard it once and didn't like it. Then he mentioned something about height channels which I've never heard of before and which isn't part of any Yamaha receiver I've looked at. First off, as shown on some of these posts, not everyone likes using the DSP functions on their equipment. I mostly agree, I don't like most of them myself. Overuse of DSP is awful. Even the ones I did like, I didn't like them through the main speakers. When put through separate speakers and toned down, they improved the soundstage and increased the enjoyment of the event. I showed this to a total of 5 different people and in every case, they preferred the sound using DSP. Whether someone likes something or not is purely subjective, but if everyone agrees that the audio can be improved by example, as I had done, then that also implies that the sound engineers could improve the audio so that people wouldn't feel that DSP was necessary. It wasn't enough that the end users, in my case, felt that the sound could be improved. Terrence went on and on about how wrong it was and that it wasn't what the recording engineer intended. Terrence isn't too bright when it comes to real world systems and the rather smallish rooms they are in. One of the advantages of a commercial theater is that it is huge and because of that, they sound spacious. Scaling the system down to fit into most people living rooms reduces this spaciousness and hence, they sound smaller and we lose what commercial theaters are better at. To regain some of this using DSP is completely wrong in the eyes of our resident “expert” Terrence. He believes that we should live with what we are given with no compromise. Given the fact that audio systems sound different in different rooms, how is “what the engineer intended” preserved? Simply put, it's not, because in every room that is different, it sounds different. Again, he is way off base and shows his ignorance about room effects on audio.

Concerning using multiple center speakers or the lift function that is supplied with Yamaha receivers, Terrence emphatically said that it creates certain wave problems, combing and such, and that it degrades the intelligibility of the sound. On the first part, he is absolutely correct. On the second part, as real world experience has shown, he is way off base. I again tested this at home and hands down, everyone said that intelligibility went up. I told him then and I'm telling you now, that it's not a matter of what is technically correct, but rather a matter of the good out weighing the bad. Wall reflections create the same negative effects on the sound and in a very sonically reflective room, that is far worse than the negative effects that multiple center channel speakers might cause. For example, think of what your system would sound like in a church. Need I say that he is off base again?

The last thing I will mention is that he went on the defensive big time when I said that the results of what he does could be improved. His stance on this was that the audio engineers know what they're doing and that the end users aren't qualified to make that determination. That has got to be the stupidest thing he's said. That's what drives our economic system. We, the consumer, spend our money on what “we” deem to be the best. Manufacturers and suppliers can go out of business by not listening to what people want. We constantly judge every item we use or purchase, We don't have to know how to build a car or even how it works to commend it or condemn it. His idea of, we know what we're doing, completely ignores what drives our economy. Instead of listening to reason, he carries on about the only way anyone can judge what he creates is to do what he does. Really!, how ignorant of a statement is that?

Finishing up...

I have developed a number of personal issues with this man, but I'm not going into that except to say that, he does not have my respect, nor do I have any confidence in what he says. He may or may not be good at his job, but he has no concept of the real world outside the studio, which he has demonstrated numerous times . I'm sure the only reason he's even here on this site is because with his background, he believes himself to be a god amongst mortals, that we don't know anything and that his presence is to be revered. Basically, he's on an ego trip. I don't give a rats arse about his ego. Look, putting it simply, he is not here to learn, therefore he is only here to tell us what he thinks. His thought process is so flawed that it's beyond belief. You folks can listen to him if you want or take what he says with a grain of salt. From my perspective and for what it's worth, his area of expertise, or should I say job description, is in the recording studio, not home audio, where he is totally out in left field.

I'm done! See you... “Out There --->”

P.S. Terrence no need to reply to this because I won't be here to read it, unless of course you want to talk to yourself or stroke your ego by attempting to degrade me again so that you can prove to others that you are right about all things. While you're doing that, I've got things to do that are more important than listening to you bray and snort. I will leave you with two thoughts...

Mostly everyone believes that they do the best work, that they work the hardest, that their job is more important than any of the other jobs, and that they can perform their bosses job better. Are you any different?

Lucas is right about how important sound is to video, stop screwing it up! Good god man, the whole idea behind movies is the movie, not having drums, and such, beating in the background every minute of the movie. As I said before, these effects should compliment not overpower. You can tell George what I've told you.

Bfalls - If I owned a business and someone was acting detrimentally in a way that could affect my business, I would want to know, wouldn't you? Take care.

[GMichael]

Who kicked up all this dust?

[Hyfi]

Great, so now a few of you have driven another good poster away. Just what this forum needs, less people posting.

Steve, don't go. Don't let a few people who disagree with you get under your skin. Just iggy them and continue to post. I have enjoyed your threads, agree-disagree-or neutral to them. They sure beat no threads at all.

Now, I was here getting the smackdown from Mtry back in the day also along with his Band of Merry DBTers, a few of which still chime in with the same old drivel and to say that we can't hear what a machine or White Paper says we can't. If I would have let those guys bother me 15 years ago, I would not still be here.

I hope you do read this and stay around. Yeah, I get annoyed too when someone posts about a personal preference and someone else chimes in to tell them they are wrong, should not like what they like or whatever. I just ignore it and move on. Going toe to toe with virtual bullies gets one nowhere and degrades from all the good info and conversations that we do have here from time to time.

[Feanor]

Great, so now a few of you have driven another good poster away. Just what this forum needs, less people posting.

Steve, don't go. Don't let a few people who disagree with you get under your skin. Just iggy them and continue to post. I have enjoyed your threads, agree-disagree-or neutral to them. They sure beat no threads at all.

Now, I was here getting the smackdown from Mtry back in the day also along with his Band of Merry DBTers, a few of which still chime in with the same old drivel and to say that we can't hear what a machine or White Paper says we can't. If I would have let those guys bother me 15 years ago, I would not still be here.

I hope you do read this and stay around. Yeah, I get annoyed too when someone posts about a personal preference and someone else chimes in to tell them they are wrong, should not like what they like or whatever. I just ignore it and move on. Going toe to toe with virtual bullies gets one nowhere and degrades from all the good info and conversations that we do have here from time to time.
Ditto what Hyfi says.

Once you develop a thick skin agains people who always have to be right and demand you agree with them, you'll enjoy the fun.

[Woochifer]

OMG, I can't believe that this topic is still getting kicked around. Getting back to the actual topic, my recollection from reading one of the technical schematics that Yamaha published on its DSP chips more than 10 years ago was that the "presence" speakers take the direct feed from the DSP signal. The DSP modes are processed separately and sent out as a two-channel feed. They are the primary channel for delivering the room acoustical information synthesized by Yamaha's DSP chip.

For those Yamaha receiver models that do not have the presence channels available (or when the presence speakers are switched off), the acoustical cues for the DSP modes are downmixed into the L/R mains. My understanding is that when the presence channels are active, the DSP modes do not alter the signal passing into the L/R mains, and rely on those high mounted front speakers to convey the room echo and other acoustical cues created by the DSP chip.

When I first got my receiver, I used the DSP modes a lot more. It was fun because I used to go to two of the venues that Yamaha used for soundmapping their DSP modes. They did a decent job of mimicking the acoustics of those spaces, and if I wanted to recreate the experience of seeing an action pic in a huge single screen movie theater, the 70mm Spectacle mode was the way to go.

But, as T points out it's not what the original soundtrack is optimized for. And with DSP modes, the results are wildly inconsistent. Once I began optimizing my alignment and tweaking with my room's acoustics, I gradually stopped using the DSP modes.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Steven,

I agree, hang around. Just consider the source of these egomanic immature rantings from a fool who thinks he the greatest who ever lived. I have absolutely no respect for the man either and that's just by the way he behaves here. I'm sure he gets no respect at his work either so he tries so hard to demand it here. No one is biting. LOL

[StevenSurprenant]

Hyfi, Feanor, and Luvin Da Blues - I received emails notifying me that there were additional posts. I was reluctant to read them, but I did. I'm glad I did. Your support was a welcomed surprise.

I know better than engage in conversation with egoists, but I hadn't figured out yet that Sir T was of that nature before I was already drawn into such a worthless confrontation. The type of discussion I had with him is damaging to a sites reputation and enjoyment. Bfalls surprised me. He was wrong about Sir T winning, there was no contest going on. However, everyone else was loosing. You folks had to sit there and listen to all this nonsense. I really...really apologize for that.

I'll just say this...

Disagreement is expected and even desired, sometimes it's part of the learning process. Sir T backs up "some" of his claims with science, but that's not the problem. He just doesn't seem to understand the scope or conditions that other posters are referring to. The only other thing I'll say about him is that he doesn't seem to give people credit for their intelligence or knowledge. I believe that most people on this site could have his job, or better, had they wanted to pursue that course in their life. What I'm trying to say is that he is no better and no smarter than anyone here.

I'm going to spend a little time cooling off and reconsider the choice I made, thanks to you guys.

However I want to respond to Woochifer first.

Yes, DSP modes are wildly inconsistent depending on the source. This can easily be heard when a movie goes to commercial on regular TV. Some commercials sound very bad, but when the movie starts up again, it goes back to normal. At least that's my experience. I'll add one more thing. When I run DSP, the ones I choose and the settings I use are more subtle. When I turn it on and off, it's more of a perceptual thing and much less of a major change. No one can even tell I'm using DSP unless I shut it off. Then what they notice the most is that everything sounds flat and dull. In addition, I notice that the soundstage behind the speakers collapses a certain amount.

Again, thanks guys for your words of encouragement. You have no idea of how much that means to me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Tell you what, give me your name and I'll contact the corporate Viacom offices and let them know how you're acting on this site. I think they may be interested. Let's see if they back up your unprofessional demeanor or whether they have a different viewpoint. How about it dude? Do you feel secure enough to stand up to the plate like a real man?

Steven, go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass go, and do not collect $200


I never asked you for your input on my posts and would appreciate your silence. Dealing with a child is not my idea of enjoyment. We all came here to enjoy ourselves and quite frankly, any intelligent adult would voice their opinion and move on. Not you, you carry on like a fundamentalist religious cult groupie. In the process, you resort to slander and name calling as a method to get your point across. Your actions not only affect the people on this board and yourself, but also the people you work for.

So how about it? Wanna see what corporate has to say on this issue?

I'll get back to you later on the rest.

Sorry, but this is a public forum. You post misinformation, it will get a response. I post as a member here, not as a representative of the studio I work for. When I see A-holes like you posting nonsense, I am going to refute it. Get ready for it!!!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Steven,

I agree, hang around. Just consider the source of these egomanic immature rantings from a fool who thinks he the greatest who ever lived. I have absolutely no respect for the man either and that's just by the way he behaves here. I'm sure he gets no respect at his work either so he tries so hard to demand it here. No one is biting. LOL

My, my, the love....Yes I get so little respect, that they voted me in MPSE. Apparently they think quite differently about me, and they actually know me.

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, Feanor, and Luvin Da Blues - I received emails notifying me that there were additional posts. I was reluctant to read them, but I did. I'm glad I did. Your support was a welcomed surprise.



Glad you decided to stick around.

[Hyfi]

When asked about how Dynaudio speakers are developed and tested, Wilfred Ehrenholz said this
"Be aware that besides all technology, all measurements, all computers, and all theories; The human ear is so much more sensitive than ANY measurement instrument in the world"

He went on to say how they spend 200-300 hours of HUMAN listening to the speakers they develop to tweak them after they meet the specs.

Anyone want to argue with the Pres of one of the top speaker MFGs in the world?

[turbomustang84]

I used to poke fun at people who made claims about what I believed to be ridiculous claims about hyper expensive cables ,Racks etc .
but then I decided being right was not worth hurting others.
so if someone likes the effect that is added by equalization DSP effects or whatever who cares ?
all the originator of this thread did was post a preference and then someone who is sure his opinion is the only one that matters took it way too far .

enjoy your music etc your way and pay no attention to anyone, if it pleases you then that is all that matters .

[jjp735i]

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

It's all in what you like and what your ears enjoy. I love my presence speakers and always use them. An it's not for the lack of my speakers. You can never compare a theater set up to home theater set up. There are to many varibles in the home to change the sound.

I say if you like it keep it. Just because the "studio " didn't record it that way doesn't mean it doesn't sound good. I also use Yamaha and I love some of there DSP programs. Thsi subject has been gone over before and you will also have people jumping in to saying it's not needed. Use what you like and enjoy, that is what home theater is all about.

I have to agree with you on that the presence speakers add a nice depth around the screen, AND it doesn't make anything sound Artificial.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's all in what you like and what your ears enjoy. I love my presence speakers and always use them. An it's not for the lack of my speakers. You can never compare a theater set up to home theater set up. There are to many varibles in the home to change the sound.


I made no comparison between a theater set up, and a home theater set up.

I am not interested in subjective salt and pepper that you personally want to add that distorts the signals, and creates something that was not there. That is your business, but it is not accurate, and it is not needed.

Disney, MGM, Lionsgate, and Warner(on some titles) all use special made for home theater mixes that are created using a high quality 5.1 sub sat system just like most folks have in their home. At least on Disney titles we try and reduce any variables between the kinds of equipment(Not the quality) used in the home, and what we use in the mixing suite. When I create the Disney mixes, I use 5 or 7 very high quality mini monitors, and a high quality sub(or two) in a acoustically neutral room. There is a sufficient amount of depth already in the track before it leaves the studio, your home system just has to reproduce it correctly.


I say if you like it keep it. Just because the "studio " didn't record it that way doesn't mean it doesn't sound good. I also use Yamaha and I love some of there DSP programs. Thsi subject has been gone over before and you will also have people jumping in to saying it's not needed. Use what you like and enjoy, that is what home theater is all about.

I know a lot of folks love degraded and distorted sound, which is why Yamaha creates this stuff. A good quality well set up basic hometheater does not need any of this crap to sound good, it can stand on its own. The only system that needs this kind of help, is a system that is not well set up, or is in a room without sufficient diffusion. Hence the salt and pepper to juice it up.


I have to agree with you on that the presence speakers add a nice depth around the screen, AND it doesn't make anything sound Artificial.

A nice artificial depth, I know because I owned a Yamaha pre-amp that had all of those artificial DSP environments. A properly designed and calibrated 5.1 system has all of the depth cues you need without adding more that are artificially created by a DSP.

I fully recognize people like different things. Some folks love accuracy(I am one of those), and others like artificiality reproduced by DSP's. I say more power to you if this is your kick.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I used to poke fun at people who made claims about what I believed to be ridiculous claims about hyper expensive cables ,Racks etc .
but then I decided being right was not worth hurting others.
so if someone likes the effect that is added by equalization DSP effects or whatever who cares ?
all the originator of this thread did was post a preference and then someone who is sure his opinion is the only one that matters took it way too far .

enjoy your music etc your way and pay no attention to anyone, if it pleases you then that is all that matters .

Well, with this advice, I am going to put my right surround speaker where my left main front speaker is. I am going to put my rear left surround where my center is, and move my center to the rear. Then I am going to put one main speaker on the ceiling, and another beside my listening position all in the name of preference.

All of this may sound like crap, but that is MY preference. This sound like great advice in creating a great home theater. Forget the standards, it is all about my preference.

Good luck with exporting this kind of free flying advice.

[JoeE SP9]

On this one I agree with ST^3. Yamaha must agree also as they haven't supported the idea for quite some time. IMO it was a cure for a problem that never existed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

On this one I agree with ST^3. Yamaha must agree also as they haven't supported the idea for quite some time. IMO it was a cure for a problem that never existed.


It was a marketing differentiation move that fooled some folks, but not others.