Presence speakers - What do you think?

[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
Presence speakers - What do you think?

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

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

[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 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?