On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
That's the problem with this analogy. We have two eyes and ears, but
most people have better trained eyes, so most people 'see' differences,
but less people 'hear' differences.
As I mentioned before, it's hard to do a good stereo mix, even when the
speakers are perfectly set up. When you play music on radio, you need to
check the phases of the recordings, because there are a lot of bad
recordings. I guess it becomes harder the more channels you need to
> now if
Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very
limited, but with some training it's good to handle.
If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it.
It's funny, regarding to the German Wiki ambisonics is as old as I'm.
> the main ingredient that makes any sound reproduction system sound good
Btw. I 'try' to do stereo mixes that do sound mono as near as possible
to the stereo mix and mono could be two channels as one or just one of
the two channels. So I limit stereo to a special functionality, but
don't use all capabilities. This could be called 'broadcasting
behaviour'. I know that I need to break this habit for surround sound,
but when listening and unfortunately working with 5.1, I didn't like it.
Btw. even some consumers don't like 5.1, but perhaps because they set up
the speakers completely bad. IIUC they hardly could set up the speakers
completely bad, if they would use ambisonics. IIUC for large rooms there
are many speakers needed, perhaps this is the reason that shit like 5.1,
Dolby surround, Dolby stereo is common. OT: For film on cord Dolby
stereo anyway is nice for stereo, without Dolby there's hardcore wow and
flutter ... hm, regarding to wiki it's called dolby digital, doesn't
matter German filmmakers usually can't pay for Dolby.
Thanx for the information :)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list