Presence speakers - What do you think?

[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.

[GMichael]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

[E-Stat]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

I'm thinking more like



rw

[StevenSurprenant]

You guys fight like an old married couple.

I'm thinking more like

Very funny guys!

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

[StevenSurprenant]

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

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

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

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

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

[bfalls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StevenSurprenant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully the rest will be shorter...

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

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

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

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

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

Finishing up...

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

I'm done! See you... “Out There --->”

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

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

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

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

[GMichael]

Who kicked up all this dust?

[Hyfi]

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

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

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

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

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

Ditto what Hyfi says.

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

[Luvin Da Blues]

Steven,

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

[StevenSurprenant]

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

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

I'll just say this...

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

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

However I want to respond to Woochifer first.

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Steven,

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

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

[Hyfi]

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

Glad you decided to stick around.

[Hyfi]

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

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

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

[turbomustang84]

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

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

[jjp735i]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

Good luck with exporting this kind of free flying advice.

[JoeE SP9]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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