] [Thread Prev
Re:Re: surround looping
> But to my knowledge, everyone uses brother
>sync for stereo looping, I'm guessing for this reason.
That's right, MIDI sync in Loop4 is pretty good though.
Not sample accurate like brother-sync, but phase accurate most of the time.
My take on 5.1 surround.
1) not saying it doesn't "sound good"
2) a stereo image works best with the speakers at 60 degrees apart, or
which is why serious surround sound systems have 8 speakers (6 at
5.1 is not enough speakers to do "surround stereo"
3) a stereo system of the same cost will sound better than 5.1
4) the term "sub woofer" has changed it's meaning in recent years, the
referred to a speaker to handle just the very low frequencies that a
wouldn't produce, hence the perception that it just added a bit of
depth, and that
it didn't matter where the sub was placed. The 0.1 in 5.1 is for one
tenth of the
frequency range ....20,000/10 = 2000Hz , which makes it a regular
6) in a gig situation there's no way to get the whole of an audience into
the sweet spot,
and many audience members will be close to just one speaker.
So when mixing a band on a stereo pa I put them in mono anyway :-(
7) stereo FX (like polyechoes) can sound pretty good, so more speakers
8) 5.1 is designed for "making the explosions behind you", while keeping
the main attention
on the screen. It's not designed for spatial music.
When Pink Floyd were using quadrophonics (1967), they had 2 sets of pa
a main pa, which was stereo(maybe mono, I don't know) and a second
pa (of smaller wattage) for effects. Mostly the sound came from the main
pa, but the quad was used just to highlight certain instruments at various
I'm all in favour of multi-channel sound, but I don't think there's
anything special in the 5.1 format.