In Reply to: "getting MCH dialed in is not a simple process. But once it's there you know it. The results are definately worth it." posted by oscar on November 28, 2005 at 20:28:40:
*****how in the h*** are the recording studios supposed to optimize for "typical" consumer playback ?*****That is a problem, and that is what a standard is for. There has to be something to aim at, even if many people are not going to be able to hit the target.
We have to have consistency for MCH to work. Cavalier attitudes essentially like Michael Bishop's "Oh, no one uses the ITU standard. Silly me! Did I forget to mention that?" mean that to get optimal results, one would have to reposition his speakers with every recording, which is an absurdity.
If one dials in a room using ITU as a guideline, and has it just right for Telarc recordings of a few years ago, now, according to Bishop, the buyer will have to reconfigure everything for newer Telarc recordings. It's an outrageous situation and Bishop should be ashamed of himself.
The goal is not to get something to sound good in Telarc's mixing room, it's to get something to sound good in home situations. And the most obvious requirement is to have a standard for speaker positioning.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- There has to be a standard - Skeptic 05:19:54 11/29/05 (0)