Based on your opinion.....okayI am sure both SMPTE and THX would profoundly disagree with you.
I'd expect them to disagree. What I'm demanding is beyond current psychoacoustic knowledge.
Some unanswered questions:
"How can timbre be predicted from direct and indirect sound?"
"How can loudness be predicted from direct and indirect sound?"
Very fundamental questions - no satisfying answers yet.
Here is the rub for commercial theaters versus HT. Commercial theaters are for profit entities. Their decision making process is purely based on perceived value to the customers, and their ability to profit from each customer. These can lead to some corner cutting on the theatrical system calibration in many areas. A theater that is not doing so well may use a projector bulb WAY past its prime. It may forgo a yearly calibration, a replacement of a blown driver, or have limited sound quality(not choosing quality components) based on the budget of the theater. So while the standards are there, some theater based on their revenue may not follow them at all.
Sorry, but Dolby has long lost that lock on the industry. There are so many players in the sound side of the theatrical B chain, Dolby really has become just another voice - albeit a respected one.
Best sound(and who would define that?), no. Consistency? Yes. Not answering for Earl, but what I would like to see from HT to audio is a playback, setup, and calibration standard. For multichannel music, there is already a set standard. For two channel, there is ZERO. It would be nice to have some sort of reference point much like there is for film and multichannel music.
Not satisfying to you, and based on a subjective value of importance that you have defined.
I say Boooooooooooooooooo.
Accurarcy is accurate to the mix/master dewardh. And it was related to specular energy in this case. If one is trying to reproduce what one feel was lost, I don't really know if there are any answers.
There's no truth that later high gain reflections has no negative effects. Some may want it to be like that, people seem to desire what fit their priorities, but it's contrary to what we know from researches. They are simply less detrimental then earlier ones.
There's no truth that later high gain reflections has no negative effects. Some may want it to be like that, people seem to desire what fit their priorities, but it's contrary to what we know from researches. They are simply less detrimental then earlier ones.
What standards are the for acoustics? What acoustic principals must be met for HT?
I wasn't aware that there were any.
Though I agree that movies often have better sound quality the two channels, surround is more a gimmic then a true 3D experience. We could have had something else, but people who had financial intererst pushed and won.
Don Davis and SydAudCon had specific requirements for a LEDE room for two channel by the way. I wish this would have become the standard for the whole industry.
I don't think you understood. I was talking about what became the standard formats for surround and movies.They won ?No way, not in my living room
Arguably true for studio recorded and mixed rock and pop, I suppose (although it still leave open the question of what room the "mix/master" was intended to be played in), but emphatically not for "classical", where there is an "original" sound before the recording engineer gets his hands on it.
What is a "high gain reflection"? Is that anything like amplified rear channels (I agree that's generally bad . . . usually sounds fake to me)?
While "dead" may be the prefered acoustics for a "control room" most people find spaces with diffuse reflections "feel" larger than they actually are, and to be far more (love the word) "pleasant" both to be in and for experiencing recorded music. Trying to force music into strange and unnatural (reflection free) environments in order to satisfy some deluded quest for "accuracy" is a "negative" in and of itself . . .
That we can agree on . . . "dead" for the wall behind me (no unrealistic reflections from the rear) and "live" (but diffusive) for the wall in front of me (behind the dipoles) to help recreate the "spacious" original source that two channels by themselves cannot.
@dewardh
It's another topic and it's probably best to leave it.
Just a short answer.
An accurate listening room does not by any means need to be dead and dry. Quite the contrary, it can be very lively with little use of absorption. Redirecting energy with splayed walls/panels and diffuse energy after a certain time from the rear are the tools.
It not only yields a super precise image, but also gives a large enveloping soundfield without "intruding" on accuracy. I doubt many here have experienced it.
It's another topic and it's probably best to leave it.
Just a short answer.
An accurate listening room does not by any means need to be dead and dry. Quite the contrary, it can be very lively with little use of absorption. Redirecting energy with splayed walls/panels and diffuse energy after a certain time from the rear are the tools.
It not only yields a super precise image, but also gives a large enveloping soundfield without "intruding" on accuracy. I doubt many here have experienced it.
Soundtracker,
I quote, "but what I would like to see from HT to audio is a playback, setup, and calibration standard. For multichannel music, there is already a set standard. For two channel, there is ZERO. It would be nice to have some sort of reference point much like there is for film and multichannel music".
Now how would you propose this so called standard and the implementation of this setup and calibration? You would have to have a fixed audio test track, and the test equipment to check it would have to be standardized. Who's calibration mic would you have to use, what test equipment would be the gold standard. How do you go about this in every perturbation of room size and RT difference in every single room. It is an ideal goal that just doesn't have a solution, that is the problem that we keep running into. No two movie theaters are alike, no two rooms in different homes are alike and different test equipment gives different results and the interpretation of those results is suspect to begin with.
I quote, "but what I would like to see from HT to audio is a playback, setup, and calibration standard. For multichannel music, there is already a set standard. For two channel, there is ZERO. It would be nice to have some sort of reference point much like there is for film and multichannel music".
Now how would you propose this so called standard and the implementation of this setup and calibration? You would have to have a fixed audio test track, and the test equipment to check it would have to be standardized. Who's calibration mic would you have to use, what test equipment would be the gold standard. How do you go about this in every perturbation of room size and RT difference in every single room. It is an ideal goal that just doesn't have a solution, that is the problem that we keep running into. No two movie theaters are alike, no two rooms in different homes are alike and different test equipment gives different results and the interpretation of those results is suspect to begin with.
You don't understand what LEDE is. And you can't google it either. It's misunderstood by many. One reason being that it developed and changed.
Having a dead back wall as you describe is considered bad psycoacoustically. Even early LEDE experiments never had that.
Quite true. My listening is extremely live, thats why it sounds so big and spacious - lots of lateral reflections.
Wrong. You . . . misunderstand what I understand. You also apparently misunderstood my "correction" to the errors of the LEDE concept as it was originally proposed (which put the "L" and "D" at the wrong ends of the room).
In my system, the capacity is easily there, but that is not my preference.
Do you apply any response correction for the (presumably) lower listening level?
It's nobodies preference because loudness calibration with noise signals - which are part of SMPTE standards - don't translate between small and large rooms. It does sound louder in small rooms. That's exactly what I was talking about. No "subjective value of importance". Existing standards aren't good enough. Room curves aren't good enough. It's just a crude approximation. It's better than music production though:
Last edited: