-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
OF course it has nothing to do with pro logic. Such very smart people on this board
to have such poor reading comprehension skills.
WHAT I said was that its ridiculous to smear a multichannel soundfield so that it
resembles a prologic system from the eighties. IF THATS what you want ,fine,
but why not save money by setting up a pro logic system? BE A LOT CHEAPER.
It has nothing to do with "smearing" the multichannel soundfield. It has to do with acknowledging that a lot of sound sources are not going to sound very good if you position the surrounds strictly as point sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
When DVD came out with DD and DTS it was the answered promise that pro-logic
never quite delivered on. DISCRETE sounds coming from all around, making for some
cool experiences.
Is it what the movie was mixed for? Who cares? Its a huge improvement, except for the times I have gotten up to answer a nonexistent doorbell or phone.
THE first time I heard someone walking and talking from rear left to right WAS REALLY NICE. Was the movie mixed for such a discrete soundfield? WHO CARES?
Discrete tracks are still mixed with ambient cues, and if the soundtrack is not remixed for home theaters, then it's not optimized for a point source alignment. That's why both Dolby and THX recommend the surround placement above the ear level. Are you suggesting that they don't know what they're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
AND A NICE DIFFUSED , muddy non-directional soundfield, lets set our system up like that because thats the way it always has been, who cares about lossless full freq
five to seven channels of sound? WE CAN FIX THAT we can diffuse and "blend"
all of that together for something called a "unified" soundfield.
Think I see a pattern here.:1:
Raising the surround speakers and pointing them at one another does not create a "muddy non-directional soundfield". If it did, I wouldn't have my surrounds positioned like that. What it does is fill in the soundfield just enough so that all sources don't have gaps, while still retaining the directional imaging cues from remixed 5.1/7.1 soundtracks.
My adjustable stands give me the option of lowering and raising the surrounds however high or low I want. I've actually tried multiple alignments and heights with the surrounds, so I know how different surround setups sound with different sources. No substitute for first hand experience, right?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Raising the surround speakers and pointing them at one another does not create a "muddy non-directional soundfield". If it did, I wouldn't have my surrounds positioned like that. What it does is fill in the soundfield just enough so that all sources don't have gaps, while still retaining the directional imaging cues from remixed 5.1/7.1 soundtracks.
Quote:
My adjustable stands give me the option of lowering and raising the surrounds however high or low I want. I've actually tried multiple alignments and heights with the surrounds, so I know how different surround setups sound with different sources. No substitute for first hand experience, right?
[/QUOTE]
not if you don't learn from it.
I HAD a complete set of KLIPSCH, you would have loved it. LARGE bookshelves in front,
slightly smaller in back, and higher.
Having floorstanders in the back came from getting my B&W speakers back. THE DM305"S actually had more "air", but the 602s2 was more competent all around.
LOOKS WEIRD, but until I hit the lottery thats it. The smaller but more sophisticated
bookshelves in front. HOW ARE THE SET UP? With a shack meter at first, then I let Auddessy take over. Did a much better job than I EVER COULD. Doesn't matter (much)
where you set those suckers, the auto setup has it figured out. The machines are
taking over.
BTW larger speakers in back means more even bass. AS FOR "FIRST HAND" experience, which in my case means hundreds of hours doin the "speaker shuffle"
it has all been negated by a brain on a chip.
Aint progress grand?:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
not if you don't learn from it.
I HAD a complete set of KLIPSCH, you would have loved it. LARGE bookshelves in front,
slightly smaller in back, and higher.
Having floorstanders in the back came from getting my B&W speakers back. THE DM305"S actually had more "air", but the 602s2 was more competent all around.
LOOKS WEIRD, but until I hit the lottery thats it. The smaller but more sophisticated
bookshelves in front. HOW ARE THE SET UP? With a shack meter at first, then I let Auddessy take over. Did a much better job than I EVER COULD. Doesn't matter (much)
where you set those suckers, the auto setup has it figured out. The machines are
taking over.
BTW larger speakers in back means more even bass. AS FOR "FIRST HAND" experience, which in my case means hundreds of hours doin the "speaker shuffle"
it has all been negated by a brain on a chip.
Aint progress grand?:1:
Yet, the delay, phase, and EQ adjustments that the Audyssey performs still cannot correct for sound dispersion patterns. You can only account for that with the height and alignment positioning. This is what Dolby and THX recommend, and that applies whether or not you use auto-calibration.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Yet, the delay, phase, and EQ adjustments that the Audyssey performs still cannot correct for sound dispersion patterns. You can only account for that with the height and alignment positioning. This is what Dolby and THX recommend, and that applies whether or not you use auto-calibration.
something to play with, anyway.
But after calibration my system sounded so good I was scared to touch anything.:1:
|