Re: Monitor requirements in a surround studio

[Dale]

Yo, Bob

Actually, Bobby Owsinski's material at surroundassociates.com was one of the
most useful sources I had read - including the Q&A (you've probably read it by
now). And (ditto) the surroundpro site has more good info.

Bobby: I don't remember reading about *dual subs* - or I never read that far
in any material to date. With the particularly non-directional nature of
frequencies below 80Hz, would dual subs really be very useful in a 10 x 23
studio if a single sub is truly centered in an "acoustically symmetric",
treated mix room? How do they make calibration easier?

I gather that my current pair of HR824s would benefit from the company of 3
more 824s in a 5.1 scenario (yowzie, on behalf of my credit line, I hope the
economy improves). Any thoughts on a sub for this setup?? I have NOT
researched them yet.

Cheers,
Dale
Oddio Guy


>You're best off with 5 identical speakers and a matching sub (actually 2
>subs are best). What you'll find is that you can generally get by with
>much smaller speakers than with stereo since a higher SPL with lower
>distortion is possible thanks to having more speakers and a sub (if you
>use bass management). Also, the system is usually set up in the near to
>mid-field, so this means that you usually don't have to worry about
>enough level to fill the room either.
>
>I really would suggest that you use both a proper bass manager and dual
>subs. The bass manager will give you low frequency extension and the
>dual subs will give you more headroom, make calibration easier, and keep
>the LFs from leaning to one side because of placement (you hardly ever
>get to put it in the center).
>
>Of course, the whole key to the system is proper calibration (see our
>website for some helpful articles - www.surroundassociates.com). You
>might want to check out some other resources other than Dolby and DTS
>since they can be very dogmatic in their approach and you might have a
>hard time decerning the valuable info from the party line if you're new
>to the field.
>
>Check out Surround Professional magazine (www.surroundpro.com) for some
>good info in all aspects of the genre. They also have a nice forum at
>http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi.
>
>On the film scores that I've worked on (granted they are medium to large
>budget Hollywood films), all of them were delivered in stems to the dub
>stage. The stems usually consisted of a 5.0 music bed, separate bass or
>LF instruments, 5.0 lead instrument, and 5.0 anything else of interest
>or secondary music element. In general, the dub mixer always wanted
>anything with very high or very low frequencies as a separate element.
>All of the stems are mixed so that when the dub mixer brings all the
>faders up to zero, it accurately represents your mix.
>
>It's always a great idea to talk with the dubbing mixer before you begin
>to mix just to make sure that you can deliver what they want.
>
>If you're asked to mix in stems, it eliminates the need for super
>precise system calibration and worry about how the project will
>translate to a theater, since it's all on the dubbing mixer to put it
>together.
>
>Now mixing for the home theater (which is 95% of our work) is a
>different kettle of fish altogether.
>
>--
>Bobby Owsinski
>Surround Associates
>www.surroundassociates.com

[ScotFraser]

<< With the particularly non-directional nature of
frequencies below 80Hz,>>

Just because low frequencies emanate somewhat omnidirectionally from a speaker
box doesn't mean our ears can't localize the source. This is one of the
enduring myths of the consumer audio world.

<< would dual subs really be very useful in a 10 x 23
studio if a single sub is truly centered in an "acoustically symmetric",
treated mix room? >>

Dual subs serving as stands for your left & right main pair would be useful if
you have any intention of having low frequency fundamentals arrive even
remotely coincident with the upper harmonics. This is what time alignment is
all about.


Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

ScotFraser > wrote:
><< On the other hand, if you're making recordings that will be played on a 5.1
>system where the .1 is really a "bass effects channel" it's a good idea to
>know what is going to go wrong on playback too. The whole notion of splitting
>the .1 effects channel off is a really bad one from the standpoint of accurate
>bass imaging, but if that's the way stuff is going to be presented to the
>end listener, you need to know how it will sound to him. >>
>
>I guess if the sub is there strictly to hype up the car crashes & **** blowing
>up, it doesn't matter how many there are or where they are. For music, having
>bass frequencies arrive along with the upper partials is kind of a big deal.

Unless you have bass or kick mixed directly and only to the LFE channel
and not into the mains. If you do it right, then when the stuff is played
on a consumer system without an LFE speaker, the bass management will take
care of it being routed to the mains.

Of course, this means that no two playback systems will sound the same, but
that's sort of the problem with the LFE. And forget about minimalist miking...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScotFraser]

<< Unless you have bass or kick mixed directly and only to the LFE channel
and not into the mains. If you do it right, then when the stuff is played
on a consumer system without an LFE speaker, the bass management will take
care of it being routed to the mains.>>

But aren't most consumer subs crossed over around 80Hz? That leaves an awful
lot of bass & kick out of the sub.

<<Of course, this means that no two playback systems will sound the same, but
that's sort of the problem with the LFE. And forget about minimalist miking...
--scott>>

And both these points are just a portion of the issue I have with surround.
Still working on getting stereo right...

Scott Fraser