[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

William, for the record I don't believe in adding some phony "hall effect"
from a processor. I like to hear only what is contained in the recording,
for better or for worse.

Then demonstrate that your system actually does what is claimed for it.

I should add that both the JVC and Yamaha synthesizers use models based on
actual halls. Furthermore, they work with any kind of recording, including.

The argument is that you can't actually do a real hall simulation unless
you have directional information about the complete wavefront coming from
the sound source. You have some of that, but not necessarily enough to do
a transparent job, and you're starting out with a recording that isn't
designed to be played back that way.

So my inclination to say that hall simulators are as misguided as the
Bose 901, for the same reason, that assumptions have to be made about the
sound source, and that the added ambience is not necessarily accurate.
However, the hall simulators are much more adjustable.

If you _must_ have rear ambience, there is always 5.1 these days. It's
not perfect surround but it's better than the alternatives presented in
this thread, because you're able to emulate the sound heard in the control
booth pretty well if nothing else.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."