-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Dobson
Sent:	Sunday, November 29, 1998 6:28 AM
To:	Csound
Subject:	Re: Quad & Discrete 5.1

So often it can be the case that people can understand quite different
things
by the same term. I have not come across this explanation of the
'hole-in-the-middle' effect before - inter-speaker angle. I always
understood
that the primary problem with angles above 60 is poor localization.

You're right about the linear, or amplitude constant pan.  It does make the
sound less intense in the middle.  I wasn't thinking of a linear cross pan
when I wrote my response, but I should have been.  Either way, I have always
thought of the hole-in the middle problem as a reinforcement/recording
problem, and I have always thought of it as anything that causes a centered
sound to be poorly located or weak.  Amplitude constant panning will do
this, as well as poor recording technique and poor loud speaker placement.
It is important to not forget recording technique, because some people are
working with recorded audio as well as synthesized audio. Clarifying on Ross
Bencina's message:
A constant power pan is a constant radius pan.  Sound attenuates with
distance, hence keeping the power constant as one pans a sound simulates
keeping the sound at a constant distance to the listener.  However, if one
is trying to pan the sound in a straight line, the sound is actually closer
when centered.  Hence the sound should be louder in the center than it is in
a constant power, or radial pan.  This is why some prefer the 'linear' pan
given by Ross Bencina.  Note that linear strictly means moving in a straight
line in this case and is not the same has an amplitude constant pan.

For those of you who were interested, I am working on reformatting a paper
on panning in multiple channel systems.  I will let you know when it is
ready.

Christopher Neese