Yeah, but that's a simple fix and since they should be calibrated anyways isn't even something extra.
I dont think its that simple.
I'm fully aware of all of this, and in fact my point about aiming to push a higher quality level in the speakers is along the same lines. Many surround sound systems just do not have very good quality speakers. My whole point is you end up with better quality with less hassle (matching centers with fronts, etc).
You end up with what you end up with. I mean if I had nautilus 901's vs 2 of them it would be better for material that used 5 speakers.
Most end users don't know what they're doing. Most people would be able to buy just two speakers so that's a moot point and is actually why less speakers would be better as it's simpler for people to manage. So in say theaters where you'd have to do that regardless of it being the way I was suggesting and a real surround encode, there's not really any difference in setting it up, whereas it would simplify things for most people, and with just two speakers you'd end up with better coherency (as they'd offer the same tonality, freq response, etc). The speed I was referring to is that of the sound as its passed from which speaker is handling it, and thus a sound panning across one speaker versus 2 or 3 should offer slightly better coherency as there's no break at all (although I'll freely concede this isn't a major issue).
Setting up 5.1 isn't rocket science. And in regards to the "speed of panning" The sound passing from one speaker to the other is handled exactly how the engineer wanted it to. You create motion through panning but all its really doing is altering the amplitude of the sound between the 2 speakers. There are no holes.
You cant pan a sound across 1 speaker. It is impossible to do this.
Sorry, I seem to have confused you. That would be in say a large room like an actual theater where they basically already do this (use more speakers to push enough air). For most users (at home for example) they won't need to be stacking speakers, they can just buy speakers with higher output. With the extra simplicity, it allows people to improve quality (of the speakers, the amp, the EQ, the processing, whatever).
In places where they do have multiple speakers set up the speakers are engineered to be apart of an array - its a system. It's not that you can just take 4 bipole speakers and duct tape them together. This would be bad.
That's the thing, you wouldn't need to tailoring things. You wouldn't need to tailor a surround sound system that's different from a music listening system (most home theaters that are setup for surround are not that great for music, in large part because the speakers are generally not as proficient technically). The best part is that if you're watching a movie using headphones, you would get the same quality of surround immersion from the recording as you would otherwise, so that the only thing's really dictating quality would be your equipment (and the bitrate/depth of the recording). You can just focus on quality.
dunno what any of this is. You are talking about stuff that isn't in the pipe.
Again, that's my point. If instead they just gave things a general placement (for instance saying where the sound is in a 360 degree field, and then let the processor figure out which speaker to put that sound on, versus making sure you encoded it how you wanted it). Then you would end up with the same placement regardless of how many speakers you played it back on, and you'd only need more speakers for very large rooms (like theaters). Then you don't have to worry about encoding formats and crap like DD 5.1 versus 7.1. The only difference between recordings would be the quality (bitrate/depth, etc), and you wouldn't get no voices because something is decoding 5.1 and playing it back on stereo speakers (or have to rely on downmixing which generally doesn't sound as good, with it sounding squished together and not natural as it would sound if it had been properly recorded).
"they" place things exactly where they want them to be. There is no thrown together or some magic process that mixes a movie. Its not reality. Now if you want to create a system that a final mix "in the vision of the director" can be
encoded to then be my guest. You will make millions if you can figure this out.
Roughly this is what gaming audio does, the sound card figures out how many speakers and then automatically figures out where to place the sounds.
The sound card doesn't do shit. Its the audio engine of the game that figures this stuff out and you bring up a good point. What has a better audio immersion a videogame or a movie? You see the game is kinda mixing on the fly while the movie has been painstakingly worked on for months.
That's the whole point though, it would scale. You would get the same recording be it on a headphone or say $100,000 speakers, so if you wanted better output you'd just buy better speakers. Only now, instead of spending $1,000 on 5 speakers you can spend it on 2, which should net you speakers with better technical capability. As long as your recording isn't holding you back (again, I'll point out that binaural recordings can give you every bit as good of a surround experience as a surround format), you'll end up with better overall quality (which will also benefit you when you're listening to say stereo recordings from the past 40-50 years).
Work on your idea buddy. You could make millions if you do it. ^_^
This photo is from the Cary Grant theater on the Sony lot. Everything you see there is for the purpose of fine tuning exactly where the audio is in this film (knight and day). What you see on the screen is a animatic of a 747 flying over head. That sound along with the different engine sounds and winds and small creaks will all fly over your head. All the sound was put in post because they didnt take binaural recordings of a real 747 crashing as they dont do that and even back when they did the last thing on thier mind was audio.
Facebook
Twitter