| Author |
Message |
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18240
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 224
G2 patch files: 60
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject:
|
  |
|
Hey, Diatonis, what a nice batch of gear... 
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
diatonis
Joined: May 01, 2005
Posts: 56
Location: los angeles, ca
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | Hey, Diatonis, what a nice batch of gear... |
I've heard the TC 6000 (I don't own one) and was very impressed to say the least 
There's also a version of the GigaPulse included in the Tascam GigaStudio 3 and it sound very good. You can place things anywhere in the sound arena - it doesn't pan as its an impulse type of reverb. maybe dynamically morphing between positions may work. NOTE: This version of GigaPulse only works from within GigaStudio. It's not a vst plugin etc... You'll need to get the VST plugin to use it for anysounds outside of gigastudio.
I've also used 3 stereo reverbs along with 3 stereo delays to create a simplified yet somewhat connected 5 channel reverb. Insert a stereo delay followed by a stereo reverb into 3 different tracks (Front, Surrounds, Center/MuteLFE. The reverbs would be set to the same parameters with no delay or early reflections. You are using the 3 delays to simulate early reflections. You can then send the same signal to all 3 stereo effect tracks. Vary the delays to position the sound, simple haas effect. Its not perfect but does work.
_________________
diatonis |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
neilwilkes
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject:
Re: What is wrong with X.1 systems |
|
|
| Kassen wrote: |
Ok, theb tell me what you use to generate 5.1 sound, how you mix it and what reverb you use.
Then we'll talk. |
No Problem.
I will start a new post though, as it's not right in this one.
And I assume we are talking a true, diuscrete 5.1 mix from a multitrack and not a stereo upmix?
_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
No. in the case of 5.1 I mean generating, processing and mixing sounds in true 5.1. Doing "fake" stereo or "upmixing" mono or stereo channels is trivial.
What would you use for example to make the sound of rain falling on small resonant bodies covering a area of three by three meters to the left and front of the listener, then move the area where "rain" falls to the right-front while shrinking it to two by two and while keeping the resonant bodies in their place? How would you go about it if the resonant bodies were to be placed on a imaginary conveyor belt and so move towards the listener while keeping the rain's location static?
I imagine you couldn't get exactly this effect like wave-field synthesis could but how close could you get? What tools would you use?
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
neilwilkes
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kassen wrote: | No. in the case of 5.1 I mean generating, processing and mixing sounds in true 5.1. Doing "fake" stereo or "upmixing" mono or stereo channels is trivial.
What would you use for example to make the sound of rain falling on small resonant bodies covering a area of three by three meters to the left and front of the listener, then move the area where "rain" falls to the right-front while shrinking it to two by two and while keeping the resonant bodies in their place? How would you go about it if the resonant bodies were to be placed on a imaginary conveyor belt and so move towards the listener while keeping the rain's location static?
I imagine you couldn't get exactly this effect like wave-field synthesis could but how close could you get? What tools would you use? |
I've never even tried to achieve something like that effect - I don't work in FX and SFX. However, I will have a think about it, and think that with a little effort I could come very close to this.
What I was trying to discuss is obviously different - and you keep moving the goalposts too, which doesn't help matters too much.
In one breath you state outright that you don't like x.1 systems as they cannot localise, then start trying to tell me stereo does a better job???
_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
3phase
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 1189
Location: Berlin
Audio files: 13
G2 patch files: 141
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I stopped reading after the "vacuum tube lie " because the author imideatly prooved to be an idiot there...
So i ask myself now if there is something about the monster cables  |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
3phase
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 1189
Location: Berlin
Audio files: 13
G2 patch files: 141
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
And regarding the topic..
I agree with Mosc here...Its a publishable creativ possibility electronic musicans was waiting for a long time for...
I installed numerous big 5.1 and 7.1 studio facilitys a couple of years ago...
And had to the testdrive of the regie rooms...
I allways was currious what sense a center speaker can have in musical terms... I mainly was interested myself in the quatro...
But... this has changed... i would give up the rear channels
3 way... LCR...this is just great... 3 dimensional... a real middle...
all mushiness gone, precission...the impact of the roomacoustics minimized... |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » How-tos » Surround and Sound Reinforcement
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
