R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 5.1 speaker question  (Read 6190 times)

springman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
5.1 speaker question
« on: August 26, 2004, 10:18:06 PM »

I'm thinking of upgrading my mix room to do 5.1 projects.  I've got  ADAM S3-A's in the front -- do I have to swallow hard and pony up the nearly $5K for the two back speakers?  Can I use a less expensive monitor pair as long as the overall volume balance between the front and back  is right?  I suspect there's a purist and a pragmatist answer to this question, but I'd be interested in what others have done/seen.
Thanks!  Eric Kilburn, Wellspring Sound
Logged

Ethan Winer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 571
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2004, 02:25:31 PM »

Eric,

> Can I use a less expensive monitor pair as long as the overall volume balance between the front and back is right? <

I admit up front I don't have much experience mixing in 5.1, but I do a lot of listening to 5.1 material.

Just as instruments can be panned between the left and right front speakers, in surround mixes it's common to pan between the front right and rear right to place an instrument partway back on that side. Or the left side, of course.

I'm sure you'd never consider different speakers for the front left and right, so by extension you should probably use the same speakers in the rear as the front. That said, my front and rear speaker pairs are not the same, though they're in the ball park sound balance wise. If you don't want to pony up another $5k, at least get something that has a similar frequency balance.

I'll be interested to hear any comments from others here.

--Ethan

JamSync

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2004, 04:35:09 PM »

springman wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 03:18

I'm thinking of upgrading my mix room to do 5.1 projects.  I've got  ADAM S3-A's in the front -- do I have to swallow hard and pony up the nearly $5K for the two back speakers?  Can I use a less expensive monitor pair as long as the overall volume balance between the front and back  is right?  I suspect there's a purist and a pragmatist answer to this question, but I'd be interested in what others have done/seen.
Thanks!  Eric Kilburn, Wellspring Sound


Although I'm not sure the dispersion of the ADAMs would be my first choice for 5.1, you'll need not only the pair for the rear surrounds, but also one for the center channel as well as preferably a pair of good, solid subs (I like 18s so I can feel the bass in my feet).

If you assume that your work will be heard in the finest home theaters, then you should assume that people will be listening to matched speakers with bass management. Setting up for surround is not inexpensive. We now have two surround rooms and two more that are slowly being converted for surround playback. Also be aware that if you venture into the movie realm, you'll need various monitoring setups for encode/decode loops for Dolby and DTS, which means a few banks of 8-channel converters with bank switching to check discrete channels against the encode/decode loops (that is, if you want to maintain control of your audio product--something that becomes more and more important as your client list grows to DVD authoring and streaming technologies).

When we send discrete 5.1 channels to clients these days, we include a sheet that lists the various settings we've used for encoding/decoding and how it will compare to similar product on the market. We learned a long time ago that assuming the next studio in line knows what it's doing is the WRONG way to go.

So, getting into surround will cost a bit more than $5K if you're serious about it.

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2004, 05:39:12 PM »

Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2004, 06:06:45 PM »

[quote title=Ethan Winer wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 14:25]

Just as instruments can be panned between the left and right front speakers, in surround mixes it's common to pan between the front right and rear right to place an instrument partway back on that side. Or the left side, of course.

Quote

First point of information is that the ITU 5.1 setup, any 5 speaker setup, is a compromise. It's really impossible to get stable imaging from anywhere but dead in the sweet spot, when power panning from front to rear, and very difficult to get stable or predictable imaging with any sort of panning or technique.

That said, the algorithms in the TC Electronic System 6000 and in the Studer console provide early reflections and virtual positioning that is far superior even to simple Hass-effect panning. There is an article on the topic,  called "Enhanced Localization in 5.1 Production", by Thomas Lund, at this URL:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/Default.asp?Id=1158

Anyway, given the above caveats, I do agree with Ethan that matched speakers are very important. When I upgrade this mastering room to surround, I'm planning on using the Lipinski 707's in the front and the 505's in the rear. In my room it's just not practical to put full range speakers in the surrounds due to the proximity of the walls and furniture in that side of the room. The 505's are very carefully-matched "smaller" versions of the larger 707's, basically family-friendly, you might consider them a 707 with a higher cutoff freq. Sure there are going to be compromises, but I hope reasonable ones, especially since it's really imposssible to get great imaging between front and rear as the Thomas Lund paper well points out.
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

JamSync

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2004, 07:46:23 PM »

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 23:06

First point of information is that the ITU 5.1 setup, any 5 speaker setup, is a compromise. It's really impossible to get stable imaging from anywhere but dead in the sweet spot, when power panning from front to rear, and very difficult to get stable or predictable imaging with any sort of panning or technique.



True, but it's the devil with whom we live. I don't see Ambisonic B+ format catching on anytime soon, unfortunately. Certainly we don't hear as well behind our heads as we do in the front. That said, I still like the same volume of air moved in the same way from each channnel (except the LFE!). Calibration only goes so far...

These days, about 85% of my projects involve surround, so I'm glad to see that what we envisioned a decade ago when we built JamSync is *finally* starting to pay off. Far harder than putting equipment in place and developing cost-effective techniques was the day-by-day education of our clients and clients-to-be about what was possible and why they even needed surround. These days, nearly all of them want DVDs with surround mixes, but it's been a very long journey indeed to get to this point. I won't even get into the little problems like clients who bring you their stereo mix and they want you to "match it" and also the volume when you switch among their stereo mix, your 5.1 mix AND your DOWNMIX has to appear to be the "same". It's keeping clients like that happy that turns out to be a *major* part of surround technique.

Ethan Winer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 571
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2004, 09:48:01 AM »

Peter,

> This is purely because I actually prefer a stereo format. <

That's the way I felt too until I set up my home theater and bought a bunch of music concert DVDs!

When quad came out about a hundred years ago I was not impressed. But 5.1 is a whole 'nother animal. Especially when you hear it in a good room treated to avoid first reflections.

> a pair of almost identical, but ‘smaller’ speakers from the same manufacturer. <

Yes, I agree completely. And Bob makes the same point.

--Ethan

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2004, 12:38:46 PM »

Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2004, 06:21:16 PM »

Peter  Oxford wrote on Sat, 28 August 2004 12:38



Actually, Bob raises a very good point about the sweet spot. One of the problems I see with surround sound is this central sweet spot dilemma, it?s too critical altogether at the moment.




Well, actually, one of the virtues of a well-engineered surround mix is that the sweet spot is FAR LESS CRITICAL than it is with stereo. You gain a wider sweet spot due to the 3 front speakers, and if you use proper Hass-related early reflections in the surrounds, you gain a deeper sweet spot because the front speakers become defined by their "earliness". There's a lot more...

The point of Thomas Lund's article is that the ALREADY-WIDE sweet spot that surround enjoys over stereo can be even more improved with the use of such techniques that avoid power panning, etc.
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

mark fassett

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2004, 06:32:15 PM »

Why not buy a completely new 5.1 setup instead?  Use the Adams for your stereo mix.

The other advantage is you can purchase something that better matches a home surround system... smaller satellites maybe?  

Just a thought.

I can do surround mixing in my VERY low end room, but I'm only now getting a 5.1 system for my living room.  I'm looking forward to my first mix!
Logged

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2004, 05:49:22 AM »

Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2004, 11:32:32 AM »

Peter  Oxford wrote on Sun, 29 August 2004 05:49

Dear Bob,

How are you all at home now?  Has everything settled back to normal yet? I expect within the community there are plenty of problems that need to be dealt with. I just couldn?t begin to imagine.




We're doing fine, thanks!

You're arguing a fine point. I concede that you have found that Thomas Lund notes that 5.1's sweet spot can be even worse than stereo's if one resorts to power panning. Well, that's because now we're panning on more than one axis!

I think yours is an academic argument that can be answered with "avoid power panning". Furthermore, let's take a front pair mix which is "totally power panned". This stereo mix has a terribly small sweet spot. Move off center and everything seems to move to that side. This can be alleviated somewhat by speaker toe-in, etc. But the laws of psychoacoustics prevent too much improvement in this way.

Now, if you convert the 2 channel "terrible power panned" mix to trifield, the sweet spot opens up! The point being that surround, even 3 channel reproduction, is better than 2 channel and does have the effect of a wider sweet spot.

Thomas Lund's point ONLY NARROWLY APPLIES to if you dare to power pan material between front and surrounds. This should be avoided at all costs. You're arguing a small point here. Thomas and my point still prevails, that "well-mixed" 5.1 has a far bigger sweet spot than any 2 channel recording.

Consider this: Start with a stupidly power-panned multi-mono stereo mix that has a terribly-small sweet spot.

Add some decently natural surround to your simple power-panned stereo mix. Use proper delays, early reflections, natural reverberation, etc. as Thomas Lund suggests. PRESTO! As I said---the result is a wider sweet spot. Wider sweet spot in surround than ever in stereo. You can stand somewhat further from the front speakers but due to Hass, your ears will locate the source as coming from the front.

By means of the Hass effect, and because you have NOT power panned from front to surround, the listener will find the localization of the source improved. The source is ANCHORED better in the front. The ambiguity of the original front power-panned stereo mix is still there, though it can be greatly improved through Trifield conversion to 3 channel, even if the source was still purely power panned, the left-to-right (horizontal) sweet spot and the ear's localization ability of center-located material will instantly widen when using the 3 speakers.

Quote:



And a Baritone (one of the world?s best) sang out a note from the stage ?throwing his voice? which caused me to spin round completely, as it sounded to me as if the singing was coming from behind me and to the right. I looked back at the singer. He looked directly at me and gave me a warm smile, we smiled at each other. He had played a trick on me with the acoustics of the Hall, quite deliberately.




Yeah, been there, done that! Bad acoustics, buildup of inphase material in the back of a bad hall. A bit of gazebo effect and you're in trouble. I once had to record in a hall in New York City that has curved back wall/corners. Sound in the front left is "amplified" in the rear right. I put a pair of spaced omni ambience mikes in the back and found that by reversing them left versus right I got a much better recording.

Quote:



I would make one further point. Just as in a real concert hall I would expect to be able to sit in any, of quite a number of seats, and still hear an excellent balance of sound wherever I was. Whether I am listening in stereo, surround sound, or whatever format was used to present material. I would expect to be able to sit in a completely un-optimal position, and still hear a fairly good balance of sound. This is what real life experience in concert halls is like.




And this is EXACTLY the intention of 5.1 and the intent of Thomas Lund's article and my point about the sweet spot being larger in 5.1 than in stereo...  only by twisting or narrowly interpreting Thomas' words can you make a  counter argument.
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2004, 12:57:51 PM »

I think it's more than purist pragmatism.  It's somewhere between a goal and a specification.  This answer can only be supplied by your ears.  Set up an important mix, and pan a full-range instrument around the room.  Now imagine getting the EQ wrong because you cheaped out on the rear speakers.  It's not about "well, out there you don't know what people have in the rears", it's about doing the best job possible.  And that REQUIRES eqquivilant monitors all around.  Or as close to it as your ears will allow.

Most assuredly I do not agree that placing instruments to "surround" the listener in and of itself creates a "sweet spot".  And we're trying like hell to make it all work outside of a "sweet spot.  Because the sweet spot in the average home (or wherever) is uncallable.

George
Logged

JamSync

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2004, 03:47:15 AM »

springman wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 03:18

I'm thinking of upgrading my mix room to do 5.1 projects.  I've got  ADAM S3-A's in the front -- do I have to swallow hard and pony up the nearly $5K for the two back speakers?  Can I use a less expensive monitor pair as long as the overall volume balance between the front and back  is right?  I suspect there's a purist and a pragmatist answer to this question, but I'd be interested in what others have done/seen.
Thanks!  Eric Kilburn, Wellspring Sound


Hmm, my mistake. I mistook those Quested soffit-mounted things for Adams (they are kind of dark on my laptop screen). Since you have two pairs of the S3-A's, perhaps you can get a center (but a pair would give you a spare).  And their sub, preferably 2 subs. Once again, yes I'd spend the money for the same speakers. My apologies to Adams Audio for thinking you were going to soffit mount their S3-As Wink

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: 5.1 speaker question
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2004, 06:20:25 PM »

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.106 seconds with 19 queries.