Presence speakers - What do you think?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-06-2011, 12:31 PM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

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.
10-06-2011, 01:13 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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
10-06-2011, 02:00 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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

No, you didn't.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Huh?

I figured this would be your response.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-06-2011, 02:20 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

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

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.
10-06-2011, 02:30 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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.
10-06-2011, 03:37 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Hyfi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjp735i

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?
10-06-2011, 04:29 PM
Hyfi

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.
10-06-2011, 05:18 PM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.
10-06-2011, 05:34 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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
10-06-2011, 05:36 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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
10-07-2011, 12:08 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

How do you quantify image height and width?

Based on what we mix in the studio.

Quote:

Most HTs fail miserably at the natural reproduction of height.

Yours may, but not mine.

Quote:

Your answer merely spoke of subjective listening.

Maybe because that is all it is.

Quote:

I think there's an echo in here.

Auralex, Primeacoustics, and Real traps have tools for that.
10-07-2011, 12:17 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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.
10-07-2011, 01:09 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?
10-07-2011, 01:13 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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
10-07-2011, 01:33 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.
10-07-2011, 01:58 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

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......

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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?
10-07-2011, 03:15 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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

Lots of art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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". :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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
10-07-2011, 03:22 PM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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!
10-07-2011, 05:14 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

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

Cherry pick often?

Quote:

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

Do you have any examples that dispute this?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

rw

Okay......
10-07-2011, 05:54 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Cherry pick often?

I merely point out the obvious exceptions to your rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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

Mixing can't fix everything!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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
10-07-2011, 06:10 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.....

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-08-2011, 01:34 AM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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!
10-08-2011, 03:46 AM
Hyfi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.
10-08-2011, 06:41 AM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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.
10-08-2011, 07:00 AM
Feanor

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.
10-08-2011, 01:07 PM
Hyfi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

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:
10-08-2011, 02:03 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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
10-09-2011, 02:08 AM
StevenSurprenant

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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!
10-09-2011, 12:01 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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 is some more info on the Maggie tri-center approach.

rw
10-10-2011, 10:55 AM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

I merely point out the obvious exceptions to your rules.

The exceptions do not negate the point in its entirety.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
10-10-2011, 11:04 AM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.
10-10-2011, 11:13 AM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

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.
10-10-2011, 11:15 AM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyfi

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.

Quote:

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

But it is the reference right?
10-10-2011, 11:20 AM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Don't put words in my mouth...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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
10-10-2011, 11:56 AM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Not doing your homework for you.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.
10-10-2011, 11:58 AM
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.
10-10-2011, 12:00 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Bfalls, thanks for this clarification, and for making my point.
10-10-2011, 12:15 PM
E-Stat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

He never said that he knew them before he started working at the place did he?

You're going around in circles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Not doing your homework for you.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:45 PM.