Re: OT: surround

[<biz-looper@groovetronica.com>]

If you can even get partial mixdowns of tracks, you'll get a better effect
than just running everything through a surroundizer.

Another alternative I would suggest would be to use the surround as 
'filler'
rather than trying to pseudo-'surroundize' the sound. That is, put a
quieter, reverbed mix into the side channel speakers. Don't overdo it 
though
:>

bIz


----- Original Message -----
From: <sine@zerocrossing.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: OT: surround


> If you run any stereo audio program though an analog Dolby Surround sound
> processor, you'll end up with an approximation of surround sound.
> Depending on phase relationships between the left and right channels,
> frequencies will get put to the rear channels.  It works pretty good for
> some music, but I kind of feel it ruins some tracks.  Check it out, your
> mileage will vary.  Most surround sound recievers will also have a kind 
>of
> fake surroundsoundizer which is often called "theatre" or "hall".  More 
>or
> less the same effect.
>
> Mark Sottilaro
>
> David Myers wrote:
>
> > A composer friend of mine has created a very long piece of electronic
> > music (4 hours) and I suggested that he might try to get it released as
> > a DVD-audio only disc.  He asked me about surround sound in this
> > regard, and I must admit I'm in the dark.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a way to expand stereo tracks into surround without
> > reworking them track by track (and I don't think his work really has
> > multitrack to draw on), maybe something which could introduce varying
> > ambiences, etc., without requiring months of work?  It would just be
> > nice to give his stereo stuff some more dimension if in fact he looks
> > to produce a DVD disc.  TIA...
> >
> > David Lee Myers
> > Feedback Music at http://www.pulsewidth.com
>
>
>