[bigshot]

You just got more honesty than anyone else will probably give you, and what is your response? more self pitying tears.

 

[jgazal]

@bigshot I didn't see your post until I'd already posted. I could go into recording/mixing a church organ in considerably more detail but that's off topic.
(...)
G

After reading @bigshot post about how he engages dsp decoding to discover if a given content was encoded with matrixed surround, I am inclined to believe that content variability can actually be somehow beneficial for the industry.

I remember seeing enthusiasts searching for quadraphonic decoders and compatible content.

I was surprised to hear from @bigshot that Progressive rock and New Wave music used Haffler Doss Sum and Difference Matrix System a lot.

Perhaps that kind of “mining” is itself a playful activity. Well, perhaps only for a tiny amount of enthusiasts...

So if playback hardware allows the consumers to optionally engage a set of different decoders, the enthusiasts will try to find the most compatible.

For intance one could try crosstalk cancellation, hafler decoding (as @Erik Garci mentioned), Dolby Pro Logic, DTS Neo etc.

Following that reasoning, I think the way you record and mix church organ is not that much off topic considering crossfeed, that is also a user setting for playback.

I know that your description may not allow to conclude which playback option setting is more suitable, but I think it is something very interesting to describe in the sound science forum.

If we, the consumers, adopt a wrong setting, I am sure you, the professionals, will be able to dissuade such path with sensible arguments.

Thus I would really like to read from you.

If you think is more appropriate to start another thread about recording and mixing please tell me and It will be an honor to kickstart the question.

Feel free to write in the immersive audio thread since the Realiser allows legacy and current Dolby and DTS decoding, @Erik Garci found a way of measuring a PRIR for Haffler playback, there are also two ways to simulate crosstalk cancellation and ambisonics decoding is also in the works.

P.s.: so as a proof of good faith I would say that, as standard, the setting for kiss is not altering the content with any kind of dsp.

 

[bigshot]

Brian Eno was a very influential producer in both progressive rock (Roxy Music and solo stuff) and New Wave (Talking Heads and Devo). I think the reason that the Haffler Doss Sum and Difference Matrix system got used so much in the 80s was because of his articles in the trade journals. All of the decoders work differently. The only way to know how to utilize them is to monitor the playback through the encoder/decoder while you're mixing. It really surprised me to find a 70s album that decoded perfectly. It makes me think that somewhere there's a discrete 5.1 mix of that album that they haven't released. All of these decoders don't necessarily work without deliberately encoding them that way. A few do work with anything, but most don't improve random 2 channel mixes.

In the past high fidelity was a struggle to achieve flat, clean and no distortion. Now we've achieved that with digital audio, so the focus can shift to sweetening. Not all mixes are created equal.

 

[71 dB]

You just got more honesty than anyone else will probably give you, and what is your response? more self pitying tears.

Do you think that my experience here improves self-esteem? It does not. Since my education, knowledge, understanding, attitude and working history have all been labeled as no good, self pity is pretty much what's left.

 

[71 dB]

Back in the days before discovering crossfeed I listened speakers most of time and listened sometimes stereo music using matrix decoding of my AV amp. In my opinion classical music worked usually well. I concluded that's because the spatial information is complex and "random", while "studio music" has problems, because the spatial effects are largely simpler such as amplitude panning, too aggressive to behave well with matrix decoding. It just occurred to me, that perhaps "studio" music could be prosessed so, that the spatial information in it wouls become more complex/randomized so that it would work with matrix decoding like classical music?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Why is it so important for you to prove that I know nothing? [2] 90° out of phase is what I mean by more information ...
[3] I stopped arguing.

1. Huh? Kettle, pot, black! You are the one who started and then kept repeating that you are smarter and well educated and that sound engineers are "ignorant", "idiots", etc. All I'm doing is refuting this claim/nonsense and also refuting the claims/nonsense you've made up about scientific proof/justification that your crossfeed is better, more spatially accurate, etc. This is the science forum and debunking fake or pseudo science is one of the reasons this forum exists!

2. But that's nonsense, 90° out of phase is not more information, it's exactly the same information just 90° out of phase. The story doesn't end there though, because with ProLogic that 90° out of phase information is highly band limited (100Hz-7kHz if I remember correctly), so we've actually got less information, which is the exact opposite of your claim! This is a FACT of how Dolby's ProLogic actually works and I know this for 4 reasons: 1. That's what the Dolby engineers told me when they installed and calibrated their professional ProLogic encoder and decoder units in my studio! 2. It was stated in the manual. 3. If anyone knows how Dolby ProLogic works, surely it would be Dolby themselves? and 4. It's since been publicly published and I know of no reliable data/information which disputes this fact. This is the science forum, not the "I'm just going to make up any old nonsense and call everyone else ignorant" forum!

3. That would be a wise move, "quit while you're behind" to avoid getting yourself even further behind. But then, you keep saying you're going to quit and then continue doing exactly the same thing again, why? And here we go again ...

[1] How was I supposed to know that you have to be a sound engineer to know this stuff? I got myself the degree to know this stuff, [2a] but I was clearly deceived.

1. Go and do some research and/or ask! Don't just keep making up nonsense and then insult those who do know "this stuff"!

2. No, you did not get yourself a degree to know this stuff! By your own admission you got a degree in electrical engineering and acoustics, which is NOT "this stuff". "This stuff" is created by artists/sound engineers, NOT by electrical engineers and acousticians and the defining feature of "this stuff" is art, NOT electrical engineering or acoustics. If you really wanted to know about "this stuff" then you took the wrong course!
2a. No, you've done that all by yourself! You took a degree in electrical engineering and acoustics and (presumably) you got exactly what was promised? The mistake you've made (and continue to make despite it being explained to you repeatedly!) is in believing that commercial music recordings are defined by the science of acoustics, when in fact they are not and have not been for many decades. But of course you don't know any of this, you only know electrical engineering, acoustics and what you perceive, you DON'T know the facts, development or history of music recording because that's NOT what you studied at university!! Worse still, much of what you're stating/claiming has nothing to do with either the course you studied or sound engineering, you've just made it up! This nonsense about 90° out of phase having more information is just one of many examples which you would NOT have been taught at university regardless of which course you took!

Since my education, knowledge, understanding, attitude and working history have all been labeled as no good ...

You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. No one, NO ONE (!) has stated or is stating your education and knowledge is "no good", we're stating that it's just inapplicable in this case (the case of commercial music, film & TV sound). Your "understanding" is therefore highly flawed because you are applying your education and knowledge incorrectly/inappropriately. And again, you go much further than this because what you call your "education" and "science" are quite often nothing of the sort, it's just stuff you made up which seems to correlate with your perception but is actually contrary to the facts and science!

Even though you seem absolutely fixated on your uni education, completely blind to the fact that it's not applicable and impervious to any analogy attempting to demonstrate this, I'm going to try one more: Let's say we have a leading scientist in the field of reflected light and how the human eye sees/processes reflected light and perspective. All that knowledge is not going to be of much use in understanding paintings from around 1800 to the present day because artists such as Turner, Monet and countless others specifically started experimenting with lighting and perspective and moving away from what actually happens in the real/natural world. Monet for example was not painting the real world, he was painting an impression of it, an exaggerated (over hyped) version of his perception and that's why he's part of the artistic movement called "impressionism". Our scientist cannot apply the science of how of reflected light and perspective works in the real world because Monet was specifically and deliberately changing or ignoring many of the aspects of light and perspective of the real world. And, subsequent artists (Picasso and Dali to name just two) progressively moved even further away from the natural/real world.

[1] In my opinion classical music worked usually well. [2] I concluded that's because the spatial information is complex and "random", while "studio music" has problems, [2a] because the spatial effects are largely simpler such as amplitude panning, [2b] too aggressive to behave well with matrix decoding.

Two points with this quote:

1. You clearly state "My opinion" and "I concluded". So it's YOUR opinion and YOUR conclusion but it's NOT science's opinion and conclusion or what you were taught at university! This point is blatantly obvious, so why can't you see it? Why do you repeatedly keep representing your opinion and your conclusion as facts, science and taught to you at uni?

2. Your conclusion contradicts the actual facts! You refuse to accept this though because you're basing your conclusion on what you know about acoustics, while completely ignoring or misunderstanding how classical and "studio music" recordings are actually created. For example:
2a. This is so incorrect, it's actually the exact opposite of the facts! The spatial effects are actually much more complex in "studio music" (non-acoustic genres). Acoustic genre recordings, such as traditional classical music, have the "complex and random" spatial information of a single acoustic venue, a concert hall for example. Studio music on the other hand has the "complex and random" spatial information of several different acoustic venues, plus amplitude panning, plus the "complex and random" spatial information added with each artificial reverb effect (of which there can be several different ones), plus numerous other time based effects which directly or indirectly cause spatial information.
2b. No, you clearly do not understand the practicalities of working with ProLogic and matrix encoding/decoding, of the vector "snapping" consequences of the technology but this isn't the thread to go into such details.

G

Edit:

Do you think that my experience here improves self-esteem? It does not.

This forum does not exist to improve your self-esteem, this is the science forum where we discuss science and the facts. If you are going to contradict the science and facts then you better have compelling reliable evidence or expect your self-esteem to be damaged. Furthermore, all the evidence in this and related threads indicates you actually already have too much self-esteem, not that you need more of it!

 

[gregorio]

If you think is more appropriate to start another thread about recording and mixing please tell me and It will be an honor to kickstart the question.

Yes, it would be more appropriate to start a new thread and I think it could be quite beneficial as there are frequently misconceptions about recording/mixing/mastering, which often results in conclusions that are way off base. However, if you are looking for absolute black and white answers/conclusions, be prepared to be disappointed. While there are many facts, many do's and dont's and many best practises and trends, it's ultimately an art!

[1] It really surprised me to find a 70s album that decoded perfectly. It makes me think that somewhere there's a discrete 5.1 mix of that album that they haven't released.

1. That's not possible. It might have decoded in a way that suites your personal preferences, there might even be a somewhat more objective explanation due to coincidental/lucky phase relationships on the recording, your personal speaker setup/room might be a factor or it could be any combination of all/any of these factors. However, it can't be that there's some original 5.1 mix out there because there was no 5.1 in the 1970's. There was 6 channel sound much earlier (see the Todd-AO process), in fact 2001-Space Odyssey was originally mixed in this format but it was not 5.1, it was 5 front speaker channels and a surround (no LFE or split surrounds). The first 5.1 mix as we would recognise it was Apocalypse Now in 1979 but it was only possible using the 6 discrete channels available on 70mm film, there was no stereo matrixing involved (or possible). It's not until 1992 that 5.1 became possible with only two audio tracks and even then, only by using digital technology and the optical tracks on 35mm film. Notice that this is all about film sound, music studios did not have this technology and as far as I'm aware were not even allowed to have it! If there is a 5.1 master out there, it almost certainly dates from 2000 or later.

G

 

[71 dB]

1. Huh? Kettle, pot, black! You are the one who started and then kept repeating that you are smarter and well educated and that sound engineers are "ignorant", "idiots", etc. All I'm doing is refuting this claim/nonsense and also refuting the claims/nonsense you've made up about scientific proof/justification that your crossfeed is better, more spatially accurate, etc. This is the science forum and debunking fake or pseudo science is one of the reasons this forum exists!

Haven't you noticed that I stopped doing that? I accepted that sound engineers know better. I currrently view crossfeed as something that I clearly like myself, but that's it. I don't promote it anymore. I don't call people stupid for not liking it. I use it myself and that's it. Other people can choose their way and I don't judge them. Isn't that what you want my to do?

2. But that's nonsense, 90° out of phase is not more information, it's exactly the same information just 90° out of phase. The story doesn't end there though, because with ProLogic that 90° out of phase information is highly band limited (100Hz-7kHz if I remember correctly), so we've actually got less information, which is the exact opposite of your claim! This is a FACT of how Dolby's ProLogic actually works and I know this for 4 reasons: 1. That's what the Dolby engineers told me when they installed and calibrated their professional ProLogic encoder and decoder units in my studio! 2. It was stated in the manual. 3. If anyone knows how Dolby ProLogic works, surely it would be Dolby themselves? and 4. It's since been publicly published and I know of no reliable data/information which disputes this fact. This is the science forum, not the "I'm just going to make up any old nonsense and call everyone else ignorant" forum!

I know about band limiting, 100 - 7000 Hz is correct to my memory. Somehow Lt/Rt just sounds better than Lo/Ro to me. Maybe because of bandlimiting, I don't know. That's MY ears and MY opinion. Ok? I don't call anyone ignorant anymore.

 

[pinnahertz]

After reading @bigshot post about how he engages dsp decoding to discover if a given content was encoded with matrixed surround, I am inclined to believe that content variability can actually be somehow beneficial for the industry.

I remember seeing enthusiasts searching for quadraphonic decoders and compatible content.

I was surprised to hear from @bigshot that Progressive rock and New Wave music used Haffler Doss Sum and Difference Matrix System a lot.

Hmmm...well, "a lot" might be a bit of an exaggeration. I might have a blind spot here, but the Hafler method of extracting 4 channels from 2 was a form of matrix "decoding" only. There was no encoder. Since there were two primary 4 channel matrix encoding systems, QS (Sansui) and SQ (Columbia/Sony), and were actually not fully compatible with each other. SQ used steering logic with enhanced adjacent channel separation, QS did not. The Hafler circuit matched neither, but managed to (cheaply!) extract some Lr and Rr information.

To say it was "used a lot" would first apply only to playback, and second, still require one of the two big aspects that hurt Quad the most: extra speakers and the resulting tiny "sweet spot". The other key detrimental aspect was format confusion.

Perhaps that kind of “mining” is itself a playful activity. Well, perhaps only for a tiny amount of enthusiasts...

So if hardware allow the consumers to optionally engage a set of different decoders, the enthusiasts will try to find the most compatible.

They'd have little idea of what is "compatible" other than by product labeling, but they may choose a preference for any number of reasons. Compatibility would require a known reference, which they won't have.

For intance one could try crosstalk cancellation, hafler decoding (as @Erik Garci mentioned), Dolby Pro Logic, DTS Neo etc.

Following that reasoning, I think the way you record and mix church organ is not that much off topic considering crossfeed, that is also a user setting for playback.

Sure, but where do draw the line in the combinations of recording and playback settings? The permutations boggle the mind! The main difference here is that ProLogic (music setting), DTS Neo, and the Hafler circuit are examples of sound enhancers. ProLogic (Cinema) is not an enhancer, it's a very precisely defined decoder of an encoded format. Cross-feed is none of that. It's an attempt at correction of a perceived problem that can neither be uniformly quantified, nor find universal desirability. It's not decoding anything, an it's not enhancing anything. It's specific without actually being designed to be specific. Still nothing wrong with experimenting with all of it, including all the others not mentioned. But there's clearly only a "right" setting if it's an actual decoder feeding the correct speaker plan.

I know that your description may not allow to conclude which playback option setting is more suitable, but I think it is something very interesting to describe in the sound science forum.

If we, the consumers, adopt a wrong setting, I am sure you, the professionals, will be able to dissuade such path with sensible arguments.

Thus I would really like to read from you.

The only real "wrong" is the one that is stated to be absolutely right for everyone on all music, and is not a specific decoder. Otherwise, there's a wide range of preference.

1. That's not possible. It might have decoded in a way that suites your personal preferences, there might even be a somewhat more objective explanation due to coincidental/lucky phase relationships on the recording, your personal speaker setup/room might be a factor or it could be any combination of all/any of these factors. However, it can't be that there's some original 5.1 mix out there because there was no 5.1 in the 1970's. There was 6 channel sound much earlier (see the Todd-AO process), in fact 2001-Space Odyssey was originally mixed in this format but it was not 5.1, it was 5 front speaker channels and a surround (no LFE or split surrounds). The first 5.1 mix as we would recognise it was Apocalypse Now in 1979 but it was only possible using the 6 discrete channels available on 70mm film, there was no stereo matrixing involved (or possible). It's not until 1992 that 5.1 became possible with only two audio tracks and even then, only by using digital technology and the optical tracks on 35mm film. Notice that this is all about film sound, music studios did not have this technology and as far as I'm aware were not even allowed to have it! If there is a 5.1 master out there, it almost certainly dates from 2000 or later.

G

Just a few date corrections. Technically, the first 5.1 mix was Star Wars, 1977, the 70mm 6 track mag theatrical release in Dolby's "Baby Boom" format, where screen channels 2 and 4 became essentially LFE, leaving LCRS for full bandwidth. That format stuck, and many films were mixed that way, though release was only possible on 70mm 6-track magnetic. Digital sound on film began in 1991 with Batman Returns in 5.1, 35mm. The tracks are optical, and Dolby was joined shortly by Sony SDDS and DTS, the latter used only an optical time code to synch an external CDR with the actual track on it.

The term "5.1" was first suggested at a SMPTE conference regarding multichannel audio. The ".1" is technically incorrect, but was suggested in the context of "creative rounding for marketing".

5.1 music was actually available to the consumer in 1997 in DTS audio format, followed by SACD in 1999, and DVD-A in 2000.

 

[jgazal]

@pinnahertz, thank you for differentiating "4 channel matrix encoding systems [QS (Sansui) and SQ (Columbia/Sony)] that were actually not fully compatible with each other" from the "Hafler circuit". I was not aware of such technologies.

I don't think Smyth Research would be willing to incorporate QS (Sansui) and SQ (Columbia/Sony) into the Realiser nor that I could currently find external decoders or PC based plug-ins in the market.

Nevertheless, as an enthusiast, I find amazing the possibility of using only one real speaker to measure several PRIR's with several speakers' arrangements and having all available for experimentation by simply clicking a given user setting.

I know it is a lottery and probably cannot be automated, but I would be curious to try stereo content with the tecnique mentioned by @Erik Garci to find compatible content:

Great explanation. It gets even more interesting when you consider the Hafler PRIR. Basically you hear the sum from the center-front speaker (L+R to both ears), and you hear the differences from the center-back speaker (L-R to left ear, and R-L to right ear).

I made a Hafler PRIR where the center-back speaker was actually measured in front, but I turned my head in the opposite direction. I looked right instead of left and looked left instead of right. This way, the center-back speaker has the same spectral balance as the center-front speaker, and head-tracking helps me distinguish which sounds are from the front versus the back. Maybe Smyth can add a Hafler mode that works for any PRIR that has a center speaker or a closely-spaced pair.

Some live recordings sound great with crowd noise and hall reverb that come from the back. Recordings that were matrix-encoded sound great as well, and you might not realize which ones until you listen to them this way.

In addition, for 4.0 or 5.1 recordings, the effect can be flipped for the two discrete surround channels, Ls and Rs. Basically you hear the sum from the center-back speaker (Ls+Rs), and you hear the differences from the center-front speaker (Ls-Rs to left ear, and Rs-Ls to right ear).

Definitely the permutations of recording and playback settings boggle the mind!

But it seems fun to try and catalog.

 

[71 dB]

2. No, you did not get yourself a degree to know this stuff! By your own admission you got a degree in electrical engineering and acoustics, which is NOT "this stuff". "This stuff" is created by artists/sound engineers, NOT by electrical engineers and acousticians and the defining feature of "this stuff" is art, NOT electrical engineering or acoustics. If you really wanted to know about "this stuff" then you took the wrong course!
2a. No, you've done that all by yourself! You took a degree in electrical engineering and acoustics and (presumably) you got exactly what was promised? The mistake you've made (and continue to make despite it being explained to you repeatedly!) is in believing that commercial music recordings are defined by the science of acoustics, when in fact they are not and have not been for many decades. But of course you don't know any of this, you only know electrical engineering, acoustics and what you perceive, you DON'T know the facts, development or history of music recording because that's NOT what you studied at university!! Worse still, much of what you're stating/claiming has nothing to do with either the course you studied or sound engineering, you've just made it up! This nonsense about 90° out of phase having more information is just one of many examples which you would NOT have been taught at university regardless of which course you took!

2. My university didn't offer courses focusing on sound engineering. Had such courses existed, I would have most probably taken them. That's why I assumed everything sound engineers need to know is incorporated into existing courses.

2a. So, music recording HAS been defined by the science of acoustics in the distant past? What happened?

You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. No one, NO ONE (!) has stated or is stating your education and knowledge is "no good", we're stating that it's just inapplicable in this case (the case of commercial music, film & TV sound). Your "understanding" is therefore highly flawed because you are applying your education and knowledge incorrectly/inappropriately. And again, you go much further than this because what you call your "education" and "science" are quite often nothing of the sort, it's just stuff you made up which seems to correlate with your perception but is actually contrary to the facts and science!

This information comes to me as a shock, but it also explains a lot what I have been experiencing here.

Two points with this quote:

1. You clearly state "My opinion" and "I concluded". So it's YOUR opinion and YOUR conclusion but it's NOT science's opinion and conclusion or what you were taught at university! This point is blatantly obvious, so why can't you see it? Why do you repeatedly keep representing your opinion and your conclusion as facts, science and taught to you at uni?

2. Your conclusion contradicts the actual facts! You refuse to accept this though because you're basing your conclusion on what you know about acoustics, while completely ignoring or misunderstanding how classical and "studio music" recordings are actually created. For example:
2a. This is so incorrect, it's actually the exact opposite of the facts! The spatial effects are actually much more complex in "studio music" (non-acoustic genres). Acoustic genre recordings, such as traditional classical music, have the "complex and random" spatial information of a single acoustic venue, a concert hall for example. Studio music on the other hand has the "complex and random" spatial information of several different acoustic venues, plus amplitude panning, plus the "complex and random" spatial information added with each artificial reverb effect (of which there can be several different ones), plus numerous other time based effects which directly or indirectly cause spatial information.
2b. No, you clearly do not understand the practicalities of working with ProLogic and matrix encoding/decoding, of the vector "snapping" consequences of the technology but this isn't the thread to go into such details.

G

1. Yes, my opinion and my conclusion. I don't say it's scientific.

2. Isnt' it funny how all my conclusions contradict facts? According to you anyway. How do I do it? A person who knows nothing contradicts facts statistically 50 % of the time.
2a. By complexity I mean the nature of the effects. Natural acoustics can't created sharp patterns the way a studio effect plugin can. Amplitude panoration is "simplicity" which is there despite of complexity elsewhere, but I suppose all this is wrong, because I didn't take the right courses.
2b. Yeah, maybe not. I just use them to listen to music.

Edit:

This forum does not exist to improve your self-esteem,

 

[71 dB]

The term "5.1" was first suggested at a SMPTE conference regarding multichannel audio. The ".1" is technically incorrect, but was suggested in the context of "creative rounding for marketing".

Yeah, 5.1 is more marketable than 5.006.

 

[bigshot]

That's not possible. It might have decoded in a way that suites your personal preferences, there might even be a somewhat more objective explanation due to coincidental/lucky phase relationships on the recording, your personal speaker setup/room might be a factor or it could be any combination of all/any of these factors. However, it can't be that there's some original 5.1 mix out there because there was no 5.1 in the 1970's.

I understand that. This is a brand new restored rerelease of a 70s album. I think "restored" means that they did a new mix. I suspect they might have intended to do a 5.1 mix and decided that SACD was too small of a market and retreated back to CD. They probably figured that they might as well put the stuff they had already mixed in multichannel on in matrixed surround. I'm not sure. There are a few songs that sound like every other CD- no real surround info, but there are quite a few where stuff goes all to the rears and center perfectly. They might have just accidentally had a preset on their board that corresponded exactly to matrixed surround. It might be unintentional. It sure is odd. I'm going to try other decoders and see what happens when I get some time.

By the way, the first movie to use matrixed multichannel was Ken Russell's Lisztomania in 1976 (4.0), and Dolby Pro Logic II is capable of decoding five separate channels. That was introduced in 2000. I've become interested in the arcane science of matrixed surround lately. There isn't much need for it any more, but it appears that a lot of home videos have 2 channel matrixed surround but the covers don't indicate it. I've been bouncing through each decoder whenever I watch something that might be in multichannel, but it's a pain. I wish they would just document it on the cover.

Pinnahertz, Brian Eno was very vocal about Haffler Doss in the mid 80s (I think). I remember reading an article in a trade magazine that he wrote explaining how it worked and how to mix for it in a production environment. I took the article home from the studio and grabbed a second pair of speakers and set up my system with it. When I played Peter Gabriel albums in chronological order, there was a certain point where they started really taking advantage of the rear channel. It wasn't entirely random, some artists were actually mixing to suit it. It wasn't a proprietary process and it didn't require a license, so there wasn't an official encoder box. But engineers were encoding rear info into their mix using the process anyway.

71dB, please try and talk about the subject without trying to focus the conversation back to you. Be part of a group.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Just a few date corrections. Technically, the first 5.1 mix was Star Wars, 1977, the 70mm 6 track mag theatrical release in Dolby's "Baby Boom" format, where screen channels 2 and 4 became essentially LFE, leaving LCRS for full bandwidth. [2] That format stuck, and many films were mixed that way, though release was only possible on 70mm 6-track magnetic. [3] Digital sound on film began in 1991 with Batman Returns in 5.1, 35mm. The tracks are optical, and Dolby was joined shortly by [4] Sony SDDS and DTS, the latter used only an optical time code to synch an external CDR with the actual track on it.
[5] 5.1 music was actually available to the consumer in 1997 in DTS audio format ...

1. Isn't that essentially 4.1, LCRS + LFE?
2. I thought that actual 5.1 started with Apocalypse Now, L,C,R,Ls, Rs + LFE?
3. Yep, I was referring to the film release date but obviously the technology must have existed before the film was actually released.
4. SDDS was a 7.1 format; 5 fronts, two surrounds and an LFE.
5. I didn't know that DTS 5.1 had a consumer version in 1997 used for music!

1&2; I'm just going on what I've read of the history, that was long before my time as a sound engineer (beginning of the 1990's).

2. My university didn't offer courses focusing on sound engineering. Had such courses existed, I would have most probably taken them. That's why I assumed everything sound engineers need to know is incorporated into existing courses.
2a. So, music recording HAS been defined by the science of acoustics in the distant past? What happened?
[3] This information comes to me as a shock ...

2. There were few sound engineering courses before the 1990's. Most sound engineers had degrees in electronics, some other field or no degree at all and learned through the apprentice model of education. Stereotypically starting as the "tea boy" and working their way up to becoming a recording or mix engineer over the course of several years, mastering engineers typically longer.
2a. What happened? Stereo, EQ and compression in the 1940s, tape (tape effects and splicing, multi-track tape), synths, overdubbing and multi-tracking, echo chambers, plate and spring reverbs, digital effects in the late 1970's, multi-effects units, samplers and then software plugins in the 1990's, to name just a few of the top of my head.

3. Why? I've stated it a number of times!

1. Yes, my opinion and my conclusion. I don't say it's scientific.
2. Isnt' it funny how all my conclusions contradict facts? According to you anyway. How do I do it? A person who knows nothing contradicts facts statistically 50 % of the time.
2a. By complexity I mean the nature of the effects. Natural acoustics can't created sharp patterns the way a studio effect plugin can. [2aa] Amplitude panoration is "simplicity" which is there despite of complexity elsewhere, but I suppose all this is wrong, because I didn't take the right courses.
2b. Yeah, maybe not. I just use them to listen to music.

1. Yes, we finally arrived at you not saying "it's scientific" after numerous pages of you arguing that it was scientific!
2. I didn't say all your conclusions contradict the facts, just some/many of the key ones. I don't know for sure how you do it, I assume it's because you just make them up and therefore there's a high probability they'll be wrong and be exactly opposite to the actual facts about 50% of the time.
2a. Natural acoustics can and frequently do create sharp patterns, standing waves causing very obvious sharp boosts or cancellations for example. And, what a plugin produces is highly customisable/alterable.
2aa. It is wrong because although panning is relatively simple, it's never used in isolation! There are very few exceptions to this statement and virtually all of them are before (or well before) the 1970s. Did you not read my post listing some of them?
2b. Then why make the incorrect statement of fact in the first place and then why argue that "I know Lt/Rt matrix thank you." when your "fact" was refuted?

G

 

[bigshot]

Star Wars was Dolby Stereo 4.0, like Lisztomania (which was limited release in that format). I think the first wide release use of that was Streisand's A Star Is Born. I think you're right that Apocalypse Now was the first true 5.1, although they did a limited release test of it with Superman. There were earlier releases in various multichannel configurations going all the way back to Fantasia, but those weren't quite the same layout as standard 5.1