PLAN B analog blog

Here's the argument that keeps popping up with me:

I'm thinking that 5.1 would be most appealing  to those doing 
film work.  Understandable.  But....would these individuals rather 
use the plethora of 5.1 panners available in most digital audio 
systems?  If we went ahead and committed to this, would those 
who aren't working in the 5.1 field be interested, considering the 
additional costs which would be required to replicate it with 
analog?

I'm not trying to come across like a capitalist here, not at all.  It's 
just a matter of functionality vs the cost of same.  I worked for 
M&K Sound for 3 years and if anyone knows 5.1, it's Ken Kriesel, 
considering he assisted Lucasound in drafting the THX pm3 
spec. I gained a lot of information about surround panning, the 
special considerations for the cursed center channel,  effective 
dovetails, etc.   It would require the model 18 to grow in size and 
cost considerably.  Possibly the best solution would be to 
release a dedicated 5.1 panner onto itself.

-P


--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "david 
rothbaum" <david@...> wrote:
>
> Yes that makes sense. In thinking about it would be quite 
complicated.
> and the more common stereo would be best for most 
applications. but
> the 5.1 thing would be pretty great.
> 
> Perhaps on an 5.1 expansion model for the mixer it could be 
connected
> via a ribbon cable and have a switch that would route the 4 
inputs of
> the model 18 to the 5.1 module outputs thus making them 
discreet on
> the 5.1 module while also retaining the stereo information and 
outputs
> on the mixer. somewhat akin to how the doepfer sequencer 
and sequencer
> expansion modules work.
> 
> and also to make it even cooler, more expensive and 
complicated. it
> would be great on the 5.1 module to have joystick controllers to
> control the positioning of each channel! that way you would not 
be
> restricted to 360 panning and could mix 5.1 like you would in a 
DAW.
> would you be able to make that kind of spatial positioning 
voltage
> controllable?
> 
> and i guess the last feature would be the .1 input/output. for 
this it
> would be cool to have a switch where that output could either 
be a
> summed output of the 4 inputs or a separate input with its own 
vca.
> 
> sorry if this is not the proper space to bring all this up. but the
> idea of a 5.1 module seems very cool to me.
> 
> perhaps i should start a new thread for dream modules...
> 
> thanks,
> --david
> 
> 
> --- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you 
can figure
> that out)" <peter@> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding 5.1 outputs on the mixer:
> > 
> > I see this as a dedicated5.1 panner module. 5.1 processing 
is 
> > not a simple as it sounds and the costs involved I thik would 
> > make the model 18 out of reach for most that didn't 
nessisarily 
> > need tha functionality.
> > 
> > - P
> >
>