Presence speakers - What do you think?

[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.

[StevenSurprenant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what...

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what...

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

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

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

[StevenSurprenant]

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jjp735i]

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents.

[StevenSurprenant]

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents.

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

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

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

Thanks for the support.

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

[GMichael]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StevenSurprenant]

@ Sir Terrence the Terrible ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the issue...

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

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

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

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

Okay, that said...

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

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

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

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


Have a nice day!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

@ Sir Terrence the Terrible ...



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haas effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the issue...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, that said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Have a nice day!

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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