- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,435
- Likes
- 12,506
And, yes, the industry itself has been in a rut since the (cough) astoundingly brilliant (cough) <that's sarcasm markers> of using the rather much worse 4 channel setup of L/R/RL/RR for "quad" (as opposed to L/C/R/Back> despite the evidence from Steinburg and Snow's 1933 work. Yes, really. The move from mono to stereo ignored complaints about distance perception that are well understood in the present day. The move to 4 channel maintaining the "phantom center" ignored that, and the understanding of spatial perception (which was rather primitive at that time due to adherence to the thoughts of the day) was both completely missing AND the mixes, which removed a very, very important cue from the end result, created the misbegotten idea that "there is only one listening position" which is demonstrably false given a proper mixing algorithm. (even for quad, but we need to dump that idea forever, please!).
JJ, would you mind elaborating on that paragraph?
I'm not totally sure I understood everything, but if I have it right you are decrying the use of phantom center vs an actual center channel. Is that correct?
I'm particularly interested in the sentence I bolded: what are the "distance perception" elements that were ignored in moving from mono to stereo?