Hey Sasha
Hey Sasha,
maybe you should go back and check as to where
the first volley started. Just look for the "ugly" comment (though I still don't quite get it.........).
Maybe I just didn't understand his intent, but I don't quite
get how the word "ugly" can come up when we're talking
about Altec Lansing speaker systems.............. Though I did miss that Altec horn in one picture, there didn't seem to be a lot of photos or information (in the link that was put up) with regard to the title of the initial post.
Just my .02
Can't we get back to talking about Voice of the Theatre speakers?
Hey Sasha,
maybe you should go back and check as to where
the first volley started. Just look for the "ugly" comment (though I still don't quite get it.........).
Maybe I just didn't understand his intent, but I don't quite
get how the word "ugly" can come up when we're talking
about Altec Lansing speaker systems.............. Though I did miss that Altec horn in one picture, there didn't seem to be a lot of photos or information (in the link that was put up) with regard to the title of the initial post.
Just my .02
Can't we get back to talking about Voice of the Theatre speakers?
Scottmoose said:
I also think quadrophonia is it. But in the sense of a stereo microphone to the front and one to the rear, and an absorbing baffle between. An alternative done by the SWF Baden-Baden was a stereo microphone in front of the musicians and one in the rear of the hall with a delay line to synchronize both. If i got that ...hole that invented the center channel. How were the Quad recordings done?
Some news for the VOT fans: the sectoral horn is back:
http://www.turbosound.com
Greetz,
Oliver
Depends on the music, the engineer and a host of other factors.
Well, I believe the best engineered ones of live recordings used a sort of diamond pattern of mikes -one on each side, and two, one behind the other, in the centre. But there were plenty of other ways -usual stereo recording rigs, then extras at the rear of the hall to capture ambiance for live recording. Or just heavy mixing for multi-tracks. Alan Parson's magnificent 4.0 mix of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon needed every tape machine in Abby Road, and reels of tape were dangling off down the corridors. No kidding. He recorded the clocks specifically for Quad, and you get some very effective round and round ixing, though the limitations of the SQ system means that the last couple of circles are very quiet indeed. No rose-tinted glasses here guys: it flattens the 5.1 SACD mix. More movement, and closer to the emotion of the music. Very, very good indeed. The Quad mix of Tubular bells, which you can hear on the SACD, is wonderful... more detail, and instuments not on the stereo version; it shows some brilliant mixing flourishes that allows you to hear right into the recording techniques and gives a much better sense of the musical direction and flow.
However, Quad had plenty of terrible recordings too -just pan-pots all over the shop. Pity. Worse, there were other problems, not least of which being the daft fallacy of putting 4 speakers 90 degrees apart, leaving you with big holes in the soundstage: it works much better if you move the rear speakers to the side of your listening position. It was effectively trying to do something which the technology of the era just couldn't do effectively, more's the pity.
OK: fact time you might never have heard of before. Hands up how many of you knew that redbook CD is actually a multi-channel medium? No, I don't mean DTS CDs. I mean that CD was being developed when Quad was around, and that part of the redbook specifications is that it could handle either 70 minutes of 16/44.1KHz stereo information, or 35 minutes of 4 channel information at the same bit depth and sample rate. Bet that's raised a few eyebrows. It's 100% true though. That's not second hand rumor; it's fact. Check the original specifications and patents. And yes -every CD ever made has the potential to hold 4 channel information. Still do. And always will. To the best of my knowledge, it was never implemented at all in hardware or software which is a real shame. It would have obviated the worthless DVD-A / SACD fight which neither won: now both are efectively dead as far as the mass-market is concerned. DTS would have been unnecessary. And it would have had total Quad / stereo compatability. No channel separation issues, no panics over wearing out grooves.
Kept it quiet didn't they? I, and a few other self-appointed Quad experts (we have to appoint ourselves: no-one else would, so we keep the flame alive as best we can) think it was because they didn't want their shiny new medium to become tarred with the brush of Quad, which, despite the potential was a fiasco from start to finish. Its fundamental problem always came back to not having a really effective carrier medium, and trying to come up with very clever, but ultimately flawed ways of working around these limitations. CD was the effective medium it needed. With that in place, and no worries about the matrix encoders etc chucking out chunks of the recording if you weren't hyper-careful, or haing to limit the bass to prevent the needle jumping out of the grooves (tape was never ideal in a mass-market sense, let's be honest), then the mixing ability, which was the other problem would have been very quickly solved as engineers got used to recording and mixing in 4.0 channel, not 2.0. But by then, it was too late.
What might have been.
Best
Scott
Well, I believe the best engineered ones of live recordings used a sort of diamond pattern of mikes -one on each side, and two, one behind the other, in the centre. But there were plenty of other ways -usual stereo recording rigs, then extras at the rear of the hall to capture ambiance for live recording. Or just heavy mixing for multi-tracks. Alan Parson's magnificent 4.0 mix of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon needed every tape machine in Abby Road, and reels of tape were dangling off down the corridors. No kidding. He recorded the clocks specifically for Quad, and you get some very effective round and round ixing, though the limitations of the SQ system means that the last couple of circles are very quiet indeed. No rose-tinted glasses here guys: it flattens the 5.1 SACD mix. More movement, and closer to the emotion of the music. Very, very good indeed. The Quad mix of Tubular bells, which you can hear on the SACD, is wonderful... more detail, and instuments not on the stereo version; it shows some brilliant mixing flourishes that allows you to hear right into the recording techniques and gives a much better sense of the musical direction and flow.
However, Quad had plenty of terrible recordings too -just pan-pots all over the shop. Pity. Worse, there were other problems, not least of which being the daft fallacy of putting 4 speakers 90 degrees apart, leaving you with big holes in the soundstage: it works much better if you move the rear speakers to the side of your listening position. It was effectively trying to do something which the technology of the era just couldn't do effectively, more's the pity.
OK: fact time you might never have heard of before. Hands up how many of you knew that redbook CD is actually a multi-channel medium? No, I don't mean DTS CDs. I mean that CD was being developed when Quad was around, and that part of the redbook specifications is that it could handle either 70 minutes of 16/44.1KHz stereo information, or 35 minutes of 4 channel information at the same bit depth and sample rate. Bet that's raised a few eyebrows. It's 100% true though. That's not second hand rumor; it's fact. Check the original specifications and patents. And yes -every CD ever made has the potential to hold 4 channel information. Still do. And always will. To the best of my knowledge, it was never implemented at all in hardware or software which is a real shame. It would have obviated the worthless DVD-A / SACD fight which neither won: now both are efectively dead as far as the mass-market is concerned. DTS would have been unnecessary. And it would have had total Quad / stereo compatability. No channel separation issues, no panics over wearing out grooves.
Kept it quiet didn't they? I, and a few other self-appointed Quad experts (we have to appoint ourselves: no-one else would, so we keep the flame alive as best we can) think it was because they didn't want their shiny new medium to become tarred with the brush of Quad, which, despite the potential was a fiasco from start to finish. Its fundamental problem always came back to not having a really effective carrier medium, and trying to come up with very clever, but ultimately flawed ways of working around these limitations. CD was the effective medium it needed. With that in place, and no worries about the matrix encoders etc chucking out chunks of the recording if you weren't hyper-careful, or haing to limit the bass to prevent the needle jumping out of the grooves (tape was never ideal in a mass-market sense, let's be honest), then the mixing ability, which was the other problem would have been very quickly solved as engineers got used to recording and mixing in 4.0 channel, not 2.0. But by then, it was too late.
What might have been.
Best
Scott
Scottmoose said:
Maybe you mean the B-format. Seems that some are using it to create 5.1 recordings nowadays. But I don`t believe that audio is some kind of vector algebra.
http://www.soundfield.com
Greets, Oliver
Interesting site. Try Wendy Carlos' too: plenty on recording techniques, which is a subject I'm not as up on as I'd like to be.
http://www.wendycarlos.com/gosurround.html
http://www.wendycarlos.com/gosurround.html
Hello Scott!
Thanks a lot for the link!
Maybe you are intersted in the MDG recordings. They use the DVD 2.2.2 to get 3D sound.
http://www.mdg.de
Thanks a lot for the link!
Maybe you are intersted in the MDG recordings. They use the DVD 2.2.2 to get 3D sound.
http://www.mdg.de
kind of unrelated, so if it is, just disregard.
I got five pairs of vott compression drivers and horns, 288c, out of the dumpster at school. : )
I think I am gonna turn some tractrix horns for them and sell the orignal multicell horns. Space issues...
Flooring dynamics. Rock sounds the way I like it!
I got five pairs of vott compression drivers and horns, 288c, out of the dumpster at school. : )
I think I am gonna turn some tractrix horns for them and sell the orignal multicell horns. Space issues...
Flooring dynamics. Rock sounds the way I like it!
Off toppic :
Sorry if this is not legal of me
I just wonder if anyone of you have any knowlage about Altec Lancing car speakers...
and if anyone wants to sell me some?! I have one pair of 6x9 , but wants more
interested in all from tweeters , to 5" to 6,5" to 6x9 , or even subwoofers and ampelifiers if there is posibillity to get some...
regards from Norway.
Tommy...
Sorry if this is not legal of me
I just wonder if anyone of you have any knowlage about Altec Lancing car speakers...
and if anyone wants to sell me some?! I have one pair of 6x9 , but wants more
interested in all from tweeters , to 5" to 6,5" to 6x9 , or even subwoofers and ampelifiers if there is posibillity to get some...
regards from Norway.
Tommy...
I do have chance now to get two of this iskra KZ-11 box with Altec on top, probably for month or so.
But before two years I was in town here for setup open air cinema, we did take speakers from one cinema auditorium which don't running during summer days, the speaker was some with RCF drivers...don't know which now......I did found this two boxes laying down behind screen, I drag them out and connect to amplifier, put music....mine friend did just listen, sound was so good, man after 30 years what they stand behind there........during that whole summer that pair was in opean ir cinema, no complains on sound received
P.S. Choky, I did lose you're mail (or you did chaing it) so if you can contact me, so we can stay in contact.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.