Though I don't share Andy's enthusiasm for horn-loaded speakers, I definitely agree with him on the following point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_simpson  As I have said elsewhere, my problem with surround sound is that it is fundamentally flawed.
<snip>
The major flaw in this concept - which permeates further than it might at first seem - is that in 'panning' from front-to-back, there is no sensation of an interpolated phantom image. |
I agree. Consequently, I'm more than a little puzzled by a system like the Schoeps/Bruck KFM 360 in which, while the left/right cues are based on time and shadowing, the front/rear cues are generated by what's basically a pair of rotated M/S mics, i.e. the coincident microphone equivalent of a pan pot!
Similarly, though I've been quite an advocate of the Williams stereo array charts on this forum, to apply a time/intensity trading curve developed for the front listening quadrant to the sides and a widely spread rear seems completely unjustified. So I maybe it doesn't surprise me that my few experiments with Williams / Le Du five-microphone arrays have had pretty mixed results.
OTOH, do we even
need accurate panning behind the listener? I don't really think so. If one's mix layout is "band front / hall rear" as is true of nearly all classical productions, who the heck cares exactly where various lateral sound reflections come from? The only important thing is that they're
lateral.
Increasingly, I'm tending to think of location surround recording as two distinct problems: recording the musicians and recording the room. In recording the musicians, I care a lot about localization. In recording the room, I don't. What I do care about is keeping as much direct stage sound as possible out of the surround feeds, because it tends to mess up the front imaging.
Some pop mixers do the opposite. They'll put the lead vocal into Ls and Rs too. Comments?
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording