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

[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.

[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]

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

[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