David Pickett wrote:
At 17:26 05-12-15, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
See:
http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/TMT2012_3DNaturalRecording_Theile_Wittek_2012_11.pdf,
An interesting paper, which I shall read fully. But it says already
on page 1:
"5.1 .... increased the listening area and improved the stability and
quality of stereo sound by subdividing the L/R basis, which is 60° in
width, into two stereo sub-ranges with 30° each (L/C and C/R)."
True in an < increased listening area >, say a cinema? Not necessarily
at home...
This, as we discussed recently, is demonstrably not true, inasmuch as
makers of 5.1 recordings do not use the three front channels in this
way. At least, I do not have a 5.1 recording of acoustic music that
does so effectively.
I have experimented with playing back three channel Mercury recording
of Stravinsky's Firebird (LSO/Dorati) from SACD using three front
loudpeakers and also played stereo using three loudspeakers, matrixing
level and phase of the original channels as indicated in two of the
Gerzon papers (I forget which for the moment).
This is a classical spaced omni recording, I would imagine. So, not some
5.1 recording you would recommend for the (later) 5.1 ITU config. (And
probably they covered more than a "60º stage" anyway, which could
explain your observation from below.)
I was very impressed with the results, and it works better if the L/R
speakers are at +/- 45 degrees, although that demands a large room.
The speakers need to be matched, which is another problem with the
usual 5.1 playback systems: they use an inferior speaker in the middle.
David
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
