In Reply to: Re: The elephant in the room... posted by Skeptic on November 30, 2005 at 14:01:07:
We are talking about the exact position of the surrounds here, the fronts are identical in all recommendations... And if any of you have experimented, as curious humans do, you would have found what Michael is saying he and his peers have already found too: placing surrounds too far to the side, makes stereo imaging between those channel fall apart.I used to have surrounds at 90, then 100, then 110, and now closer to 135 ("half-way back"), and this helps with those mixes that create a stereo image in the rear. Now I know why this was necessary, the engineers were doing it too! I also know engineers mixing surrounds at 90 (they call it "Home Cinema") with nothing in the rears: they won't try to create stereo images between surround channels, so even a home system with surrounds at 135 still works with this, but surrounds more to the sides is best.
This is an evolving area, in 10 years we'll be somewhere else... If you don't like it, stick to stereo (like Jim T?). If you don't like the mch mix, don't listen to it. If you want good mch, be prepared to get off your but to experiment with different setups.
Well done to guys like Michael, who are not stuck in the historical mud. Let's look to the future, and adapt.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Guys, gals, it's not that bad... it even sounds better (as Michael says) - csuzor 15:06:22 11/30/05 (4)
- You don't get it - Skeptic 16:27:31 11/30/05 (3)
- If you're a believer in ambience-only retrieval for surrounds then it ain't so bad... - oscar 17:31:23 11/30/05 (2)
- It's not as simple as that ... - Christine Tham 23:10:11 11/30/05 (1)
- What do you mean "mathematically based on the ITU config."? - Goldsmith88 14:15:52 12/07/05 (0)