Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
Scott Dorsey wrote: "That's nice but has nothing to do with the subject. Please do not attempt to
change the subject" Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dorsey. And I see you are still entertaining the same rubbish I wrote to you in private not to converse with. That alone puts you down at it's level. I already read this white paper: http://web.uvic.ca/~loneil/elec484/p...ic_Decoder.pdf and right in the top half of the first page it states what the purpose of Pro Logic was. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
dumbn****ozicki @ shortbusmoronsRus.org gibberied incoherently:
Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dorsey. And I see you are still entertaining the same rubbish I wrote to you in private not to converse with. That alone puts you down at it's level. Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dumb**** Kozicki. You still seem to think you're a moderator or something? You still think that people will do as you tell them, rather than laughing at you for being such a retard? After all, your many responses to me prove that you can't even follow your own advice. Should I explain AGAIN where I know you from? Hehe. I'm sure it would go right over your head, since even your autistic cat is smarter than you are. It's so predictable. You post some dumb**** post on Usenet, and nobody responds. So you get enraged, and come here to RAP for some attention. You get called out for being a retarded moron, with a bad case of hobby horse ****. You post something that proves that you're a moron, and then you, the dumb**** retard, pretend that you can school the professionals. I already read this white paper: Does that mean you wiped with it after pinching off your latest Usenet defecation? Put that hockey helmet on, the short bus will be there soon to take you home for your regular beatings. Thanks for the laugh, I'il buddy. You're always good for a laugh ... one of the duties of a village idiot. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-5, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I fail to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad recordings. Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them to 5.1 with your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When you get those right, nobody notices that it is anything but really really really good stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels off. I have made discrete surround recordings, using a DTS encoder that I found online. I haven't had any luck with the Dolby Digital 5.1 mixer that is in Audition. I have a 5.1 computer speaker kit as well, and I am supposed to be able to make the sound come out of all of these speakers, but so far haven't had much luck. Probably something simple. But as for the DTS discrete recordings, the surround channels seem more "disconnected" from the front ones, or should I say the sound scene that I am trying to convey. Anyway, in my amateur recording venues, it would be a lot more difficult to set up 4 mikes on stands without bothering the audience and the powers that be. Biggest question: Should I place the rear mikes right with the front set, or should I move them back further into the audience? Might be able to get away with it if I use some tiny lapel type mikes and skinny posts stretched up as high as I can get them, then run some thin wires up to the recorder and tape them down. Agh.... Gary I personally never heard any discrete 4 channel recordings, but even without hearing any, I'd probably enjoy it more than stereo!! Less masking of sounds is ideal. Never thought much a Ray Dolby's stuff. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
wrote:
I already read this white paper: http://web.uvic.ca/~loneil/elec484/p...ic_Decoder.pdf and right in the top half of the first page it states what the purpose of Pro Logic was. No, that is talking about Dolby Stereo. It does not talk about the Pro Logic system until the fourth paragraph. The Pro Logic decoder is a conventional matrix Dolby Stereo decoder, with additional logic in order to find the dominant source in the mix and keep it centered in the soundfield. This is actually a very very good description of the system and how it works, and if you will read paragraph 2.6, it describes precisely the problem that we encounter when running random musical mixes through the decoder: the logic that is intended to determine the dominant feature and center it with the adaptive matrix does exactly what it's supposed to do, and that is bad if the dominant source is not directly centered in the mix. If it isn't, the steering logic will move it there and in the process everything else will move. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
On 22-12-2015 14:25, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/21/2015 10:57 PM, Peter Larsen wrote: No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder. Discrete surround. For gosh sakes, folks, let him play with his toys. If he's getting something that he likes, fine. With some experience in recording - rather than plugging things together to get his perception of "surround" - he'll learn to recognize when something isn't right with the setup and will get more consistent results. My suggestion is in the general direction of simplifiying the setup, and in a specific direction that I have heard work very well. Unless, of course, the results that he's getting are random and more work for him than don't. This thread is caused that situation Mike - note, I have a dolby surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB stereo with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the "being surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback than in "emulated surround playback". Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things to know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... This thread is caused that situation Mike - note, I have a dolby surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB stereo with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the "being surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback than in "emulated surround playback". Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things to know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback. Kind regards Peter Larsen OK, so you are saying that discrete surrround is better than my MS played back in DPL II. True, but the reason to mix it down to something else is to put it on a disc that can be shared or sold for others to play back too. That plus the convenience of being able to use just two mikes and get great results is amazing. Simple, stereo compatible, produced on CD, and works. Gary |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MS Proximity Problem
Hi Gary,
On 28-12-2015 01:10, Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... This thread is caused that situation Mike - note, I have a dolby surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB stereo with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the "being surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback than in "emulated surround playback". Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things to know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback. Peter Larsen OK, so you are saying that discrete surrround is better than my MS played back in DPL II. True, but the reason to mix it down to something else is to put it on a disc that can be shared or sold for others to play back too. That plus the convenience of being able to use just two mikes and get great results is amazing. My point is more in the general direction of record in the format you want, a distributeability concern is new to the discussion. Simple, stereo compatible, produced on CD, and works. I disagree in using the term stereo compatible if it is about making a stereo recording and tend to favour playing back in the format recorded, a stereo compatible playback of SQ or QS (matrix) generally is not very pleasing as one finds out when playing those formats properly. Having one record in each format I lament the recent ailments of my Sony quad rear-channel adding amplifier. Anybody know whether decoding software is available? Gary Kind regards Peter Larsen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TV - Speaker proximity | High End Audio | |||
Adding proximity effect | Pro Audio | |||
Reducing proximity effects | Pro Audio | |||
non-proximity mics | Pro Audio | |||
infrared proximity mic gate | Pro Audio |