Only if you're using a "5 stereo" mode or the like. But to the point you're responding to, it doesn't really buy you that much extra headroom, in any decent mix, the surrounds are used quite a bit less than the mains. But the CC would certainly help. You might find an extra couple dB (not that that's something to scoff at) but not much more.
Hmm, those figures seem rather arbitrary. Do you have a reference? I agree that the use of a subwoofer will un-burden the main speakers some amount, but I think it's more about the frequency range covered rather than SPL. Low frequency content requires the movement of a lot of air (that takes a lot of power), compared to higher frequency stuff. Sub-sequently (pun intended!) having a subwoofer to take care of this range keeps the main speakers from having to endure that load.
JF
Last edited:
You missed the point. I was responding to the high dynamic content in movies played over 5.1 compared to stereo music on 2 of the same speakers. The extra dynamics in movies can be overcome by the extra speakers (of course it depends on the movie mix).
And until you hear music thats been recorded with a 5 channel mic dont tell about music reproduced on a 5.1 system.
I think we can all agree that 5.1 systems in their inception were about special effects more than accurate musical reproduction.
If you set it up properly you can get a virtual space from the 5.1 system that is more real than the real space of your listening room.
rcw.
rcw.
5.1 is about accurate cinema presentation, right?
If music is mixed and mastered in 5.1, couldn't it be accurate, too?
If music is mixed and mastered in 5.1, couldn't it be accurate, too?
I'm wondering, how many music recordings are accurately mixed and mastered in 5.1? Maybe barely exist🙁
A more proper question: how many movies are accurately mixed and mastered in 5.1? (not just a label on it)
And prior to these 2 questions, how accurate?
A more proper question: how many movies are accurately mixed and mastered in 5.1? (not just a label on it)
And prior to these 2 questions, how accurate?
Yes the whole point is accuracy so I see it as the same exact requirements as 2 channel. Obviously you want accuracy there as well. It seems that when you mention HT or a 5.1 set-up it is automatically considered louder and/or less accurate but that's not the case. Any speaker worth a damn can put out 105db. The only real challenge lies in the LFE with a 115db level from say 40hz and down. Seems we are straying a bit off topic.
Rob🙂
A logic above applies to stereo too. So I guess I will not tell you about "2.0 systems".
Very few studios use stereo mics. They are very uncommon. Maybe for a room overhead but music recording is with "regular" single channel mics. Stereo is something the engineer creates in the mix by panning the tracks to create a sense of "'space".
When you mix to a surround format you can tell the mixer software whereto place the sound, not which speaker. Same concept as a pan pot on a stereo console.
What is "accurate" anyways? Most music we hear was not even recored all at the same time. Except for most jazz and most classical music the tracks were never heard together until the engineer put them together. For example the drum and vocals might have been recored weeks apart. So what does "accurate even mean in that context.
Video is mixed that way. Many times in a movie a shot is "subjective", that is taken from the character's view point and other shots are narative to show you the "big picture" the sound is typically mixed to put the listener in the action. Some times from the character's location and sometimes from an overview location
But when MUSIC is mixed to 5.1 format almost always they do NOT try an place the listener in the center of the performance. They try instead to put the listening in the audiance, may near the front at the center. the surround speakers are used to fill in what a concert goer would hear reflecting off the back walls of the concert hall. The goals is to make your room sound like the larger space.
Last edited:
All theatrical movies these days (last 10? years) and most TV for the last 5 (for DVD release) are mixed in discrete 5.1. When I edit sound FX for theatrical release I have dedicated surround tracks and a dedicated LFE (sub) track where I put sounds with nothing above 60 hz.There are even SFX librarys coming out with 6 channel recordings (5.1) of explosions and ambiances etc recorded with 5 channel mics. Movie scoring sessions (with live orchestras ) are recorded and mixed in discrete 5 channels, usually with 3 mics (L,C,R) over the conductors head, a couple of mics in the back of the room (for surround L and R) and a bunch of spot or accent mikes among the musicians. Listen to the lush Starwars theme from the Phantom Menace (especialy if you have a bluray with a new decoder (uncompressed)).
Unfortunatley the only music thats mixed for 5.1 are some of the newer live concert DVDs and blurays. Hopefully music (without picture) especialy classical and jazz will follow. Why would anyone have a problem with a vocal staying in the middle when you have to move over a foot or two. And theres nothing like surrounds to make you feel like your in a great concert hall.
Totaly arbitrary; depends on the mixers. If they want they can blast a sound out of all 5 speakers and a lot of them do. Try an experiment. Listen to an action sequence from a "loud" movie like the first Transformers, then unplug all the speakers except Left and Right and listen again. (and remeber how much power the stuff below 80hz takes)
Sorry no more off topic.
Let's have more on this fascinating comparison!
I have been thinking about this over the past few days, usually when I should be focusing on other things, unfortunately.
It seems to me that hi-fi drivers and their pro-sound counterparts have different goals. However, the idea of using pro-sound drivers in a hi-fi situation does have its intriguing advantages.
Reading through the first bit of Mr. Olson's thread, Beyond the Ariel, I find his take on pro-sound dynamics to be especially interesting. The efficiency of pro-sound drivers is attractive. I suppose, a theoretical perfect driver would have 100% efficiency. In a real-world driver design, it is an admirable goal to maximize this parameter.
However, having said that, I wonder if that efficiency may come at a cost. For example, a light cone would likely yield greater efficiency when compared to a heavier one, all other things being equal. But, if both cones are made of the same material, a thinner, lighter cone would be subject to different sorts of break-up. And I would guess that one such difference would be an increase in break-up magnitude, would it not? The trade-off is then improved distortion performance at the cost of efficiency.
Another such example would be Faraday shorting-rings in the magnetic circuit. Copper on its own, as I understand it, does little to magnetic flux. However, a copper sleeve around the pole effectively widens the magnetic gap, and must lower efficiency some amount. Again the trade-off is improved distortion performance with a reduction in output. That being said, pro-sound driver certainly make use of shorting-rings, but I would guess their use to be more liberal in hi-fi units. To argue against myself, I have an old Aura 1808 pro-sound subwoofer which has a magnetic short-circuit path.
All that to say pro-sound and hi-fi drivers have different design goals. If I had to guess at the trade-offs in general, I would say high-end hi-fi drivers, when compared to their pro-sound brethren, may have an advantage in terms of distortion performance and smoothness of frequency response. Pro-sound drivers excel at dynamics, and maximum SPL per watt. Would you say these are fair assumptions?
Jim
I have been thinking about this over the past few days, usually when I should be focusing on other things, unfortunately.
It seems to me that hi-fi drivers and their pro-sound counterparts have different goals. However, the idea of using pro-sound drivers in a hi-fi situation does have its intriguing advantages. Reading through the first bit of Mr. Olson's thread, Beyond the Ariel, I find his take on pro-sound dynamics to be especially interesting. The efficiency of pro-sound drivers is attractive. I suppose, a theoretical perfect driver would have 100% efficiency. In a real-world driver design, it is an admirable goal to maximize this parameter.
However, having said that, I wonder if that efficiency may come at a cost. For example, a light cone would likely yield greater efficiency when compared to a heavier one, all other things being equal. But, if both cones are made of the same material, a thinner, lighter cone would be subject to different sorts of break-up. And I would guess that one such difference would be an increase in break-up magnitude, would it not? The trade-off is then improved distortion performance at the cost of efficiency.
Another such example would be Faraday shorting-rings in the magnetic circuit. Copper on its own, as I understand it, does little to magnetic flux. However, a copper sleeve around the pole effectively widens the magnetic gap, and must lower efficiency some amount. Again the trade-off is improved distortion performance with a reduction in output. That being said, pro-sound driver certainly make use of shorting-rings, but I would guess their use to be more liberal in hi-fi units. To argue against myself, I have an old Aura 1808 pro-sound subwoofer which has a magnetic short-circuit path.
All that to say pro-sound and hi-fi drivers have different design goals. If I had to guess at the trade-offs in general, I would say high-end hi-fi drivers, when compared to their pro-sound brethren, may have an advantage in terms of distortion performance and smoothness of frequency response. Pro-sound drivers excel at dynamics, and maximum SPL per watt. Would you say these are fair assumptions?
Jim
I think greater dynamics of pro speakers are due to better coupling to air (horns and large diameter woofers)
Hi-fi speakers can also be very dynamic, if drivers are used in narrow passband (3-5ways) Has anyone made a 6 way? 😀
Hi-fi speakers can also be very dynamic, if drivers are used in narrow passband (3-5ways) Has anyone made a 6 way? 😀
Do you have any measurement comparisons that backs up your statement? Im curious about the differences.
FWIW, AESpeakers has some incredible woofers that play very well up past 1200Hz, their sensitivities are in the 94-96dB range, they are considered pro audio drivers and they are freaking heaving compared to B&C, Faital Pro choices. Their measurements show them to be very good drivers.
I don't think that you are quite correct here, at least not on everything. Pro speakers do have better dynamics because they are more efficient - the two go hand in hand. And there is a cost to pay for this - in dollars, nothing more. It costs a lot to make efficient systems and that equates to lower profit or higher selling price - neither is very attractive to a retail consumer oriented loudspeaker company. Lower efficiency with higher marketing budgets is the way to high profits.
Shorting rings DO NOT lower efficiency and I would not use any driver that did not have one. They simply make sense. How much "copper mass" is required is a debatable point, but not the need for it. High efficiency pro units DO NOT use lighter cones in general, but heavier ones. The efficiency is achieved through bigger magnets and voice coils - the expensive parts. And if the drivers are not used in their breakup region then how they break-up is kind of irrelavent.
To me the difference between pro and "hi-fi" is simply perception. I simply find the pro drivers to be the better speaker in every case. You get more for your money and the pro units put the money where it matters. With hi-fi you get fancing looking, highly marketed, middle of the road drivers that don't really hold up under scrutiny.
I believe the design goals are very different. With such large variations between driver designs in both hi-fi and pro audio gear, I can't see how you can make such a statement.
Maybe if max SPL are the main design criteria but when realistic and detailed acoustical music reproduction are more important, I would like to hear the pro drivers that can compete with the better hi-fi drivers in a home environment.
Again I guess that will depend on what you expect from a set of speakers.
So if you go to a live show the music is not realistic and detailed? What if I haul my guitar and amp into your living room and play something through a proaudio speaker. How can you say it's not "detailed". On the contrary, it would be the very definition of "perfect".
To say that pro audio sound system can't make detailed sound is to say to live sound is not detailed
Comparing the two is silly.
The problem is the way the drivers are used. When you listen to live sound you might be hearing two dozen drivers. Each driver is only reproducing one instrument and each driver might have it's own amp. And the setup is custom built just for that one show
At home you need a speaker system that can play any kind of music you might happen to have.
Reproducing recorded sound is a hard job. So hard that no speakers do it really well. No stereo system has ever fooled me into thinking there is a real grand piano in the room. I get to hear real pianos frequently, they don't sound like any recording I've ever heard.
Is this a common knowledge thing or is there a more rigorous definition of 'dynamics' and someone who has quantified it?
Hi Chris
A good friend of mine is a concert pianist of some renown - Dickran Atamian, maybe you have heard of him. But we did this exact test and he was personally quite impressed at how well a properly recorded piano could sound played back in a good room on exceptional speakers. (He later bought a pair.) It was really quite convincing that the piano was there in the room with you. So I guess your experiences and mine ar somewhat different.
Common knowledge, no. But persoanlly I am convince that this is the case. I have done some test of "short term" thermal compression and the smaller less efficient drivers compress very badly while the higher power pro drivers don't. This is a linear phenomina (well linear in temperture, which is not linear in short term signal level, but is linear in the average longer term level) so the pro driver is going to be better at any listening level, its NOT a high power thing. If a driver is getting compressed because it can't take the heat then this is going to dramatically reduce the dynamic range. I haven't quantified this to any level of scientific certainty, but my expertise and experience tells me that it is correct.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.