[[email protected]]

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.

[None]

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.

[JackA]

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.

[Trevor]

On 22/12/2015 1:37 AM, wrote:
Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite
tight-lipped about the intellectual property details, they did
tell me more than once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to
produce a "pleasing surround effect" when fed a stereo signal
containing no encoded surround signal. This was apparently a
fairly important design consideration.

The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was
added with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts
in perspective on the front speakers made the effect much less than
pleasing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
precis."

I think the true genius of Dolby is that he took that simple idea of
connecting rear speakers across L and R and made a muti million
busine$$ from it.

His multi million dollar empire was actually built on taking an already
common companding technique and simply making it more frequency
dependent to reduce artifacts slightly. Dolby A,B,C etc. all preceded
the surround sound processing.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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