Post by sledge19 July 31, 2005 (41 of 48)
|
|
mdt said:
...the issue is WHAT goes to the.1 channel. If the ITU standard is for 5 full range speakers i dont see why anyone should mix anything else then very low frequencies to the sub. also if this were done it would make no sense for hardware manufacturers to come up with bass management, this is only needed if recordings are mixed for 5 full range speakers (plus possibly sub) and someone wants to play theme using smaller main speakers.
Correct, you are right, there should be no need for anybody to mix anything else then very low frequencies to the sub. And that's the problem, some labels already do their own "bass management" in the mix and take off low frequencies from the main speakers. Which is a shame, because 1) SACD players offer their own bass management for this purpose and 2) great main speakers cannot show their full potential.
|
|
|
Post by Sam August 3, 2005 (42 of 48)
|
|
mandel said:
There will be some bass removed from the main 5 channels whenever there is bass lowpassed to the LFE. If the low-end was simply duplicated then people with floorstanders + sub would have double the intended bass!
It's done both ways. Sometimes the main channels are filtered (which destroys the sound for people with "full range" speakers) and sometimes the bass is duplicated, which results in too much bass (but people are less likely to complain about too much bass than too little, so...)
Both methods are wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sledge19 August 7, 2005 (43 of 48)
|
|
Sam said:
... Both methods are wrong, wrong, wrong.
At least it should be labelled, so you know what you are getting into :-)
|
|
|
Post by csuzor August 8, 2005 (44 of 48)
|
|
As an sacd community, we should discourage the use of the 6th channel for LFE, and just allow each user to select their own bass management method and frequencies for crossover if necessary. All my "good" sacd are 5.0 or 4.0, and that is the better choice.
The 6th channel should only be used as an additional full range channel, such as front center high or surround back, and this should be clearly labelled. In addition, the anticipated speaker layout used for the recording or mix should be clearly labelled, especially the position of the "surrounds", either slightly forward or to the side or slightly back. We are going to see some new labels with "slightly forward" surround speaker layout for more realism and a wider soundstage.
Let's get out of the trap of compatibility with cinema surround formats, for the sake of music.
Christophe
|
|
|
Post by mandel August 8, 2005 (45 of 48)
|
|
csuzor said:
As an sacd community, we should discourage the use of the 6th channel for LFE, and just allow each user to select their own bass management method and frequencies for crossover if necessary. All my "good" sacd are 5.0 or 4.0, and that is the better choice.
The 6th channel should only be used as an additional full range channel, such as front center high or surround back, and this should be clearly labelled. In addition, the anticipated speaker layout used for the recording or mix should be clearly labelled, especially the position of the "surrounds", either slightly forward or to the side or slightly back. We are going to see some new labels with "slightly forward" surround speaker layout for more realism and a wider soundstage.
Let's get out of the trap of compatibility with cinema surround formats, for the sake of music.
Christophe
How do you propose to produce a 6.0 disc that still has 5.0 backwards compatibility?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp August 8, 2005 (46 of 48)
|
|
csuzor said:
Let's get out of the trap of compatibility with cinema surround formats, for the sake of music.
Cristophe,
I totally agree, bit it's a little late for that, don't you think? The time to divorce the two was when they were coming up with the DVD spec(s).
|
|
|
Post by mdt August 8, 2005 (47 of 48)
|
|
csuzor said:
As an sacd community, we should discourage the use of the 6th channel for LFE, and just allow each user to select their own bass management method and frequencies for crossover if necessary. All my "good" sacd are 5.0 or 4.0, and that is the better choice.
The 6th channel should only be used as an additional full range channel, such as front center high or surround back, and this should be clearly labelled. In addition, the anticipated speaker layout used for the recording or mix should be clearly labelled, especially the position of the "surrounds", either slightly forward or to the side or slightly back. We are going to see some new labels with "slightly forward" surround speaker layout for more realism and a wider soundstage.
Let's get out of the trap of compatibility with cinema surround formats, for the sake of music.
Christophe
I'm agreed that the 6th channel should be used for height info, this should be in a way that is compatible with 5.0
For the set up of the 5 speakers left there is allready a standard, i think it makes sense to stay with it, it allready allows some flexibility (a certain sector is determined, not a precise angle)for the rears, only the angles of the front channels are precisely determined.
For the use of the 6th channel i suggest 2+2+2, these recordings are compatible with stereo and on 5.0 sets they can be played in 4.0, meaning simply the center channel wouldn't be used.
If one were to record either 5.0 (ITU) or 2+2+2, people could choose between one of 2 set-ups, the recordings done in these 2 formats would be compatible.
|
|
|
Post by mdt August 8, 2005 (48 of 48)
|
|
mandel said:
How do you propose to produce a 6.0 disc that still has 5.0 backwards compatibility?
It allready exists: 2+2+2 Plays back on 5.0 in 4.0, dont think it's a problem that the center has no feed, just think of the RQR series or Opus3 recordings who are very successful with 4.0 .
|
|
