Ah, multi-channel as in HT. 😱
The Japanese did a lot of inter-aural stuff, some of it loudspeaker stereo. Aoki comes to mind.
However none were related to multi-channel/HT in a domestic environment (..but most of it was 60's to early 90's so it isn't so surprising). I'm sure they have "branched-out" beyond this by now, but in what manner I don't know.
My best guess for resources on HT/multi-channel in a domestic environment would be under the ambisonic work. Don't know, but you could try searching there. 😱
Also in your search consider "flipping" the perspective of IACC, in other words look to the desired result: Cross-Talk Cancellation (..for key words in the search).
reply to #1318 & #1319
Hi,
In a real big time studio, you have two requirements. First, when tracking you need to forensically evaluate what is being recorded. Second when mixing the majority of commercial recordings, you are assembling a fictional stereo/5.x/whatever. Again you need to get the truest version of that on playback. To get an idea of what it plays like on the average consumer system, most people will burn a CD and play it on a variety of consumer systems in an appropriate environment. Often the artists lounge. Everything from a boom box through a mini system, or even a car system. Radio mixes will be played through a Orban like processor etc. With the "loudness wars" everything seems to be compressed to death, even classical is falling to the enemay. Back on topic. If it's an artifice, how can you make a judgement on speaker quality by just listening to a CD.
Iain.
Hi,
In a real big time studio, you have two requirements. First, when tracking you need to forensically evaluate what is being recorded. Second when mixing the majority of commercial recordings, you are assembling a fictional stereo/5.x/whatever. Again you need to get the truest version of that on playback. To get an idea of what it plays like on the average consumer system, most people will burn a CD and play it on a variety of consumer systems in an appropriate environment. Often the artists lounge. Everything from a boom box through a mini system, or even a car system. Radio mixes will be played through a Orban like processor etc. With the "loudness wars" everything seems to be compressed to death, even classical is falling to the enemay. Back on topic. If it's an artifice, how can you make a judgement on speaker quality by just listening to a CD.
Iain.
Two channel stereo is multichannel. I don't distinguish between "home theater" and "music". It just doesn't make any sense. Distinguishing between the number of channels makes more sense.
More specific?
But that's exactly what we're interested in. As I said before, there are NO conclusive studies. If you find any, please let me know.
No mixing engineer mixes for any set room. That's kind'a the whole point. The end-user is NOT the engineer in this work-environment, it's for a *very* broad user base under all sorts of conditions, (both play-back and environmental).
You've also manged to make my point for me with your quotation. 😉
Notice the phrases (and their context):
"..often overlooked:"
"..should mimic."
Both are qualifiers on the control room. If it's overlooked, and it "should" be done a particular way, just what does that imply?
I use headphones. More effective and much cheaper than multimillion dollar acoustic construction.
You describe what results from the circle of confusion. That's why I advocate standards. "One size fits all" will produce the worst results, not the best.
That's something that will hopefully go away one day. Any discussion about sound quality becomes redundant when only overcompressed material is available.
I've given you enough information to do some searching. 😉
The fact is that I don't remember a 10th of what I've read, and unless the resource is right in front of me at the time.. well..
Now if I were to quote something, or make some sort of detailed definitive statement.. then yeah, I'd expect a proper cite. 😛
On a quick search I came up with this:
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Technology-Acoustic-Space/dp/0126925909
It might have some resources listed. (in the "look inside")
Last edited:
The mixing engineer mixes in a particular room for this very room. There's no magical skill that would allow him to do otherwise. So the logical consequence is that the consumer's playback environment needs to reproduce a sound field that is the same as the engineer's. The real question is: Is this achievable in a practical way? How?
The mixer mixes in a particular room, and with headphones, etc..
-but they don't mix for that room, rather they mix for that mix.
Got the difference? 😉
A special skill for foresight of another playback environment, is NOT required.
So your logic is based on a flawed premise, and your "real" question is moot.
As Earl already pointed out, this material deals with concert hall acoustics. We're interested in small room acoustics. Different topic. Acoustics doesn't "scale". One example is reverberation time: meaningful in concert hall acoustics (diffuse sound field), pretty meaningless in small room acoustics (highly directional sound field).
There's no difference because you can't separate the mix from the room as you can't see without light.
Is all of it concert hall acoustics? Might some of the work referenced be more in-line with what you are looking for?
Cookies Required
Just what the hell is this?:
"Go back to the very definition of IACC (pg. 102), and work through the logic."
..it's not only detailed and specific (with a cite in context no less)- it allows Zilch to work through the problem to solve the answer.
This is all nice stuff but doesn't answer the really important questions. Toole wrote the probably most comprehensive review of the available literature and did some important studies himself but when it comes to definitive answers he becomes very vague.
You obviously have not much insight into how a recording/mixing/mastering engineer works. Headphones are an indispensable tool for detecting errors.
Zilch's claims sounded pretty detailed to me. You said that these claims are "incorrect" so your claims are as detailed. Or maybe you just wanted to express something different?
What are the important questions?
I thought that he did in fact *attempt* to answer several important questions. (..I mean the book did ramble on a fair bit, but surely after 522 pages there is more than a little bit of important questions with some answers.)
Ex. Is the *question* of combing not important to loudspeaker reproduction in a domestic environment? 😕
Also, while I'm sure much of the vagueness is "by design", some of it may well be down to poor editing vs. reader comprehension.
Ex. IACC and reflections (..or the "Incorrect" I posed to Zilch).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.