to the extent that surround is bullshit...

[happy hour]

Roel:
I just read an article today that says current DVD players will not play high-res DVD-A tracks.

 

[rocky outcrop]

missed my point

sorry but I wasn't saying that the sound was good and if you dont bring your personal taste to the forum no one will, its just some times what is put in front of the mic dosn't benifit from the best in sound processing(and you were right about the sex pistols atleast). well as far as the rest of it goes deeeeep man.

 

[Roel]

1. The resolution thing isn't really applicable to a 1 bit DAC, I guess. But the main point there is that it's the 1 bit equivalent of 24bit at 96 kHz...

2. The processing, since SACD doesn't need it, the quality there will be better, since it has about the same precision... But at this precision, does it really matter all that much? With the interpolation how many bits will you loose? I haven't got a clue here, didn't have any DSP courses in my education...

3. I don't know about this one. Most discrete components have way less precision than can be achieved on silicon...

5. Trust me on this one, this is all management stuff. You hardly want to know about why they decide these things. This really gets ridiculous at times...

 

[P Hallin]

- When was the last time you were at a concert where all the instruments weren't subject to the same reverberation characteristics?

The last time when the guitar player and/or the singer had reverb effects on them and the rest of the band didnt.

 

[A1A2]

sjoko & Barefoot

please correct me if I am misunderstanding

With surround sound systems, each of the speaker is like a projector used to create a 3D imagry that we see in movies, where the lights coming from each projector merge and form a 3D illusional image.

So, with surround sound systems, the enginners get to play with sound waves instead of lights, and get to place each instrument exactly where they want it. So, recording an acoustic guitar with 6 mics is logical since the enginners will be using 6 seperate speakers to define it's location.

If that's the idea, then WOW! I would totally love to experince that! Walking around the room and hearing the concert from behind the drummer(ok, maybe this is a lilttle too much)

sjoko

is the Floyd's show in 2005 confirmed??

Al

 

[KingstonRock]

your 3D analogy is actual really good in more ways than you probably thought of. Imagine a 3D projector with 6 lenses, to see a clear picture, that system would have to aligned pretty well, you couldnt just put one projector on your book shelf, another on the floor, another two on some tables behind you. Unfortunately thats what most home theater setups look like. And even more unfortunately, most people cant set up two speakers right.

 

[RhythmRmixd]

I still can't figure out why this thread popped up. Interesting, nevertheless.

 

[Rock Star 87]

my main problem with this thread is that I haven't heard a lot of things mixed in 5.1. I couldn't see why it would be a bad idea though.

Stereo is 2 simple speakers that project sound. Honestly, in most setups, it's not enough to gain the full experience of a song, let alone an album. Has anyone here ever been surrounded by a symphony, or by various instruments in a jazz band? If you have, you have to feel me on this. Nothing could be as cool as a totally soundproof room, with you in the middle, and instruments from all ends. That's just my opinion though.​

 

[HangDawg]

I still can't figure out why this thread popped up. Interesting, nevertheless.

Because it's a poll. When someone votes, it's bumped to the top.

 

[Zed10R]

I think it's amazing that 30 people consider surround sound horseshit. Nothing on this earth sounds cooler than a properly mixed 5.1 audio cd of your favorite band....boy band or not (baaaarrff), surround is a technology that will help advance the art of audio engineering.

I'll bet those same people prefer "vinage" gear.

 

[RhythmRmixd]

Because it's a poll. When someone votes, it's bumped to the top.

Gotcha, all makes sense now.

 

[sizzlemeister]

DVD audio with surround, which ever "standard" is settled upon, is indeed here for the long haul. At least until the next, best format comes along that combats piracy.

This is what I've been saying for years; the only way the record industry is going to fight MP3 downloading and general piracy will be by increasing the bit depth and sample rate of the files so that the music on a disc sounds so superior to compressed files (MP3s) that people will finally realize how crappy MP3s sound. Plus, with the new format there are increased sales of players and discs so consumers can experience the "better" sound (a justification to upgrade their "stereo") and keep up with the Jones'.


I do not think one needs to be stuck in any particular "mode" now. If you want to mix mono, mix mono, if you want to do it in stereo or surround, nothing is stopping you. These systems can handle all of that, right?

But, what will be cool, and I plan on going this direction myself, is to start the recording process with surround in mind (as others have already suggested). Post processing and effecting sounds like ass, yes, BUT if you RECORD with intent of mixing in surround, taking advantage of the technology, it will sound very cool. And it'll be fresh; it may actually be a the injection "pop" music needs.

Who cares if most of the current Pop music is in surround? Not that I listen to it, but the point is that once there are releases "done right" in surround, the current Pop paradigm may be doomed, finally.

Imagine Pop once again having the same substance as the freaky stuff from the late '60s and early '70s. Regretfully, I'm not talking about the message or the culture, but I do mean the interest by engineers to evoke some emotion, to create ambiance, to be ARTISTIC once again rather than just meat-grinders.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Let me throw my worthless US$.02 into this swiriling black hole of a thread that won't die, since I'm one of the thirty who voted surround sound to be a horseshit gimmick.

First, surround sound in and of itself has nothing to do with piracy. 2-channel DVD audio can be encoded with the same anti-piracy measures that 6-channel sound can. That is an argument that has nothing to do with "surround sound".

Second, there is a natural biological justification for stereo over mono; it takes advantage of the fact that we have two ears to create a natural sound field in which sounds can be localized and "put into a space". This creates not only an organic enjoyment that can't be had with mono, but also allows the instruments to mix in ways that "make sense" to our brains. Expanding the sound field to a surround sound at best only adds a limited amount to thees organic effects. The human ears *can* hear and localize sounds to our sides and behind us, but the main reason for 360 degree listening is for survival, not for entertainment. By nature, we want to face our source of entertainment, not put our backs to it.


Surround sound can be used in three ways:
1) to recreate a natural listening space through the addition of reverb and/or surounding audience sounds.

2) to create a natural 3D soundfield in which sounds can be originating from anywhere in the 360-degree range.

3) to provide an artificial 3D "canvas" on which the artist can "paint" aural images to new effect.

I'll get back to these three ideas shortly...

I am old enough to vividly remember the first time this debate raged, long before the days of DVD or even CD; the first time "surround sound" was marketed to the Great Unwashed, before many of you were even born. This was the '70s and the advent of Quadraphonic sound. Stripped to its essentials, quad surround was conceptually the same thing as today's 5.1, except without the separate center dialog and subwoofer channels.

Quadraphonic failed miserably. Many will say it was because of technical hurdles and competing formats. While those issues existed, they also exist with today's surround as well, so if that's what killed Quad, it could kill today's surround too.

But those aren't the real reasons Quad failed. To "quadraphiles", competing formats and technical hurdles were not an issue. My next door neighbor and I could playback QS, SQ and CD-4 quad formats all with no problem; it was just a matter of having the right equipment. Had quad had any staying power at all, the formats would have worked themselves out in the market place in much the same way VHS and Beta did a few years later. No, the problem was that quad sound itself had no staying power. Once the novely wore off, we discovered that quad sound not only didn't add to the experience, but as often as not, it detracted from it. And this is where we turn back to the thre points of surround listed above...

1) In the case of point one, surround sound does a great job of being able to recreate room ambience. The only problem is that almost nobody cares. While reverb from the rear and surrounding ambients might make a live concert recording more realistic and arguably pleasantly useful, it's use in studio recordings has at best a negligable positive effect on the listening experience.

2) A natural 3D soundfield can be nice when applied properly to a movie soundtrack. Hearing that bullet whiz by your ear from behind can scare the dickens out of you or hearing the cardinal singing in the tree to the left can add to the feel of a picnic in the park scene.
But how does it apply to a musical or even a theatrical performance? Contrary to what was posted earlier, one does not sit in the middle of an orchestra or a jazz combo, they sit in front of them. And as far as those of us who have sat in the middle of the music or been on stage with the band, I'm sure to a person that we can tell you that it sounds a whole lot better out in the audience than it does on stage. It's supposed to.
And even if we could make it sound good to be in the middle (which we technically could). mixing a band or orchestra to be somewhere other than the general direction the listener is facing winds up being more of a distraction than an enjoyable experience, because that is how our ears and brains are wired. We are wired to treat direct (as opposed to reflected) sounds that originalte behind our field of vision as something to grab our attention, something to be wary of, not something to be enjoyed. The exception could be made for point 3...

3) Yes, having a 3D canvas on which to paint the aural sounds can be quite the experinece and can open up new horizons of creativity. Anybody who has heard quad vinyl pressings of early Hawkwind or Tangerine Dream can tell you what a trip that can be. I could even imagine real possibilities in effective surround mixing in some of street poetry that is today called hip hop.

But apply fancy surround engineering to the more "organic" music genres from classical to rock (rock is organic, you ask? Ok just give me that one, OK? This is a loooong post and I have to leave *some* things as postualtes ),
and the user will spend more time following the trajectories of the mix than the performance of the music. The listener will get tired of that real easy and will perfer not to be distracted from the performance. They'd prefer the stereo "performance" over the surround "production" now just as they did 30 years ago.

And I haven't even brought up the idea that surround sound is useless to those with iPods and the like.

This all boils down to - yes, I'll say it again - "it's the content, stupid." While stereo actually did add a lot to the content (read: performance) and added to it in ways that made sense to us as human beings, the addition of surround adds at best only marginal quality to the (musical) content and is only really useful in a couple genres of music in which a sophisticated mix is actually part of the performance and not a detractor from it.

I see no reason why this is any different now than it was 30 years ago.

Fire away.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I agree with your reasons quad failed. When it came out, it was just a novelty that didn't last long, although I still have my quad amp and occasionally throw 'Money' by Pink Floyd on there just to hear those cash registers opening all around me. I think wiring a speaker out of phase and placing it between the stereo speakers to simulate a stage was popular back then too. If you put one in front and back that was the poorman's simulated quad. Gimmicks still can't make a poor performance good. They only distract you and imho surround sound is just another gimmick.

 

[Zed10R]

The human ears *can* hear and localize sounds to our sides and behind us, but the main reason for 360 degree listening is for survival, not for entertainment. By nature, we want to face our source of entertainment, not put our backs to it..

That doesn't make sense, Sir. Music has NOTHING to do with biolgical survival instincts. Surround sound does not mean putting your back to the source of sound. It means expanding the sound stage. I fail to see how that is Horseshit.

Surround sound can be used in three ways:
1) to recreate a natural listening space through the addition of reverb and/or surounding audience sounds.

2) to create a natural 3D soundfield in which sounds can be originating from anywhere in the 360-degree range.

3) to provide an artificial 3D "canvas" on which the artist can "paint" aural images to new effect.

Limited thinking like that will result in limited achivement. Surround can be used any way the musician/engineer wishes to use it. Again, I fail to see how that is horeseshit.

I am old enough to vividly remember the first time this debate raged, long before the days of DVD or even CD; the first time "surround sound" was marketed to the Great Unwashed, before many of you were even born. This was the '70s and the advent of Quadraphonic sound. Stripped to its essentials, quad surround was conceptually the same thing as today's 5.1, except without the separate center dialog and subwoofer channels..

You are joking, right? You might as well say a 1970 Corvette is the same as a 2005 model. That primitive crap called Quadraphonic sound is by far inferior to 5.1.

1) In the case of point one, surround sound does a great job of being able to recreate room ambience. The only problem is that almost nobody cares. While reverb from the rear and surrounding ambients might make a live concert recording more realistic and arguably pleasantly useful, it's use in studio recordings has at best a negligable positive effect on the listening experience.

Lots of people care. They are called Audiophiles. There is an enormous amount of high end home audio gear made for them. You cannot really believe almost nobody cares. The positive effect 5.1 could have on "the listening experience" is huge.

2) A natural 3D soundfield can be nice when applied properly to a movie soundtrack. Hearing that bullet whiz by your ear from behind can scare the dickens out of you or hearing the cardinal singing in the tree to the left can add to the feel of a picnic in the park scene.
But how does it apply to a musical or even a theatrical performance? Contrary to what was posted earlier, one does not sit in the middle of an orchestra or a jazz combo, they sit in front of them. And as far as those of us who have sat in the middle of the music or been on stage with the band, I'm sure to a person that we can tell you that it sounds a whole lot better out in the audience than it does on stage. It's supposed to.
And even if we could make it sound good to be in the middle (which we technically could). mixing a band or orchestra to be somewhere other than the general direction the listener is facing winds up being more of a distraction than an enjoyable experience, because that is how our ears and brains are wired. We are wired to treat direct (as opposed to reflected) sounds that originalte behind our field of vision as something to grab our attention, something to be wary of, not something to be enjoyed. The exception could be made for point 3....

How does it apply to musical performance?? I can think of hundreds of ways to apply it to musical performance. For starters, I would love to sit in the middle of an orchestra and listen. That opens up all kinds of new arrangement and mixing possibilities. No, we don't sit in the middle of the stage to listen. You are right about that. But just because we don't, doesn't mean that it would not sound better if we did. Why do you assume that if 5.1 is used, then it MUST be that the music will be mixed to be somewhere other than generally in front?

3) Yes, having a 3D canvas on which to paint the aural sounds can be quite the experinece and can open up new horizons of creativity. Anybody who has heard quad vinyl pressings of early Hawkwind or Tangerine Dream can tell you what a trip that can be. I could even imagine real possibilities in effective surround mixing in some of street poetry that is today called hip hop.

But apply fancy surround engineering to the more "organic" music genres from classical to rock (rock is organic, you ask? Ok just give me that one, OK? This is a loooong post and I have to leave *some* things as postualtes ),
and the user will spend more time following the trajectories of the mix than the performance of the music. The listener will get tired of that real easy and will perfer not to be distracted from the performance. They'd prefer the stereo "performance" over the surround "production" now just as they did 30 years ago.

I agree that more "organic" styles of music should not be done too much into 5.1. The best surround effect possible for old rock and roll, for example, would be a gentle expansion. IMO. But surround would be a tool to be used as the artist deems most useful. It seems like you do not see that.

And I haven't even brought up the idea that surround sound is useless to those with iPods and the like.

That is meaningless and obvious.

I see no reason why this is any different now than it was 30 years ago..

Imagine what the world would be like is we all thought that way. It's a good thing to be open to new posibilities, tools, and ideas. The same old shit gets old after a while, no matter how skillfully it is used. What happens when people understand that and decide to do something about it is called "progress".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That doesn't make sense, Sir. Music has NOTHING to do with biolgical survival instincts. I fail to see how that is Horseshit.

Since you task me, I will answer. For this first one, you actually answered your own question. You are absolutely right, music has NOTHING to do with survival instincts. That was my point exactly. If you go back and read my post again, I basically said that the ability to hear behind our field of vision was for survival, not for entertainment. therefore the idea of placing sounds - things like reverb and ambients being the exception, I said is counter to the way our brains are wired to deal with sound.

Surround can be used any way the musician/engineer wishes to use it. Again, I fail to see how that is horeseshit.

I'm anxious to hear your description a the hypothetical "reason 4)" that is not already covered by the three reasons I gave for using surround sound.

You are joking, right? You might as well say a 1970 Corvette is the same as a 2005 model. That primitive crap called Quadraphonic sound is by far inferior to 5.1.

Agian, if you re-read my post, my point was, ad remains, that if you take 5.1 and remove the center movie dialog channel and the subwoofer (both of which are special purpose channels only indirectly related to the concept of "surround sound", which is whatthis thread is about), you have four channel sound with the four channels being L/R pairs front-to-back. This is an IDENTICAL strategy to Quadraphonic sound. The technology used to deliver this sound is quite different, I'll grant you that. But the strategies and techniques for creating the sound in the studio (or on location, FTM) have not changed an inch. OK, maybe some techniques have been refined along with the technology due to the basic force of experience, but the laws of physics as applied to audio remain the same. The fundamental techniques and reasons for mixing and mastering for Quad are no different than they are for the four surround channels of 5.1.

Lots of people care. They are called Audiophiles. There is an enormous amount of high end home audio gear made for them. You cannot really believe almost nobody cares. The positive effect 5.1 could have on "the listening experience" is huge.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no difference between audiophiles of 30 years ago and audiophiles of today. The only thing that has changed is the technology. Well, let me take that back a little bit; the audiophiles of 30 years ago were perhaps even more dedicated in one way; as a percentage of their income, audiophiles paid one hell of a lot more for their stereo gear 30 years ago than they do today (50" plasma screens excluded.) This was especially true for Quadraphiles. Buying a quality quad-compatable shibata stylus and decoder for your turntable alone was a major investment that the average person thought was very extravagant, to say the least.

I can't speak for you because I just don't know, but not only was I a major audiophile back then (including having gear that took all three quad formats), but I also had many friends and neighbors who were as well. I read all the magazines at the time, hung out at the local retailer (which I eventually wound up working for), etc. I was not only a music nut, but I was a gear slut big time. I am telling you from experience that surrpund sound in and of itself just did not have legs in that it just did not offer enough to the typical Audiophile to make much of a difference. OK, so a live album sounded like you were sitting in the 10th row (not that there were many live quad albums). OK, so rotating an acid guitar lick around the room sounded real trippy after a couple of bong hits. The fact is, once the novelty of that wore off, the audiohiles not only just didn't care anymore, but many found that the "special effects" of surround wound up being a distraction from their listening experience. If I had a buck for every time I or one of my audiophile acquaintences put the quad version of an album on to impress newbie guests, but put it away and and took the stereo version of the album out to actually play for ourselves, I could have bought a new custom tonearm for my turntable.

This isn't theory, nor is it my opinion. This is what happened. Audiophiles got tired of surround sound about as fast as they tired of their lava lamps. Not because of a lack of technology. Not because of a lack of money. Not even because of a lack of imagination on the part of the artists and engineers making the quad sounds. They got tired of it because it didn't enhance either the performance or the listening experience enough to bother with once the novelty wore off.

How does it apply to musical performance?? I can think of hundreds of ways to apply it to musical performance. For starters, I would love to sit in the middle of an orchestra and listen. That opens up all kinds of new arrangement and mixing possibilities. No, we don't sit in the middle of the stage to listen. You are right about that. But just because we don't, doesn't mean that it would not sound better if we did. Why do you assume that if 5.1 is used, then it MUST be that the music will be mixed to be somewhere other than generally in front?

If you ever sat in the middle of an orchestra or band as I have, you'd know the answer to that is that it simply does not sound better when you in the middle. Again, it's not just my opinion. It's physics. It's called (among other things) getting outside the near field of the instruemnts.

Ask any musician. Ask the second chair violin in an orchestra how the woodwinds sound to them. Ask the keyboard player in a 5-piece rock combo if he can even hear the rhythm guitar only 20 feet away from him. To a person they will tell you that the only way to hear the performance is from the audience.

I agree that more "organic" styles of music should not be done too much into 5.1. The best surround effect possible for old rock and roll, for example, would be a gentle expansion. IMO. But surround would be a tool to be used as the artist deems most useful. It seems like you do not see that.

Again I'll ask you just what is it that I don't see? Which use of surround sound is not covered under my three uses. Heck, if anything, reason #3 - giving the artists a new 3D canvas on which to paint -actually covers just about anything. I asked above, and I'll ask again; what use of surround sound (not counting movie soundtracks, for which I think we we both agree 5.1 has its uses) is there that isn't covered by those three ideas and hasn't already been done as long as 30 years ago?

Imagine what the world would be like is we all thought that way. It's a good thing to be open to new posibilities, tools, and ideas. The same old shit gets old after a while, no matter how skillfully it is used. What happens when people understand that and decide to do something about it is called "progress".

On that I couldn't agree with you more. Absolutely.

But "surround sound" is nothing new. Some of us have been there, done that 30 years ago. The technology has changed, yes. And yes, I'll grant you that tastes have changed - they change *every* generation at the minimum, and several generations have come and gone since the days of Watergate.

Underneath all this there are two things that just do not change, physics and human nature. Physics dictates that the principles of surround sound are no different now than they were 30 years ago or 3000 years ago. Human nature dictates that no matter how creative we get (and we can get VERY creative, I'll admit ), the applications and market for surround sound music from the standpoint of the listener/consumer are at best limited, and at worst a marginal increase in quality of experience hyped to horseshit by the folks trying to make a buck out of what they loosely call "progress".

These are the same folks who are trying to sell me a car, not because it's a fine mode of transportation but because it has a DVD player in it. That's not progress. That's horseshit.

G.

 

[sizzlemeister]

The fundamental principle of your arguement is based on your experiences from "30 years ago". Admittedly, I have never experienced an audiophile grade quad system from back in the day (although at one point I DID have a quad receiver/amp that I was never able to use properly due to a lack of media - sounded great though), but based on your statements it sounds to me like your expecting "tricks" and " gimmicks" all over again.

Like the swirly acid guitar or the fly-by plane. Whatever it is.

I submit you are not willing to accept an expanded perspective. Who the fuck needs swirling guitars all of the time? Who WOULD accept gimmicks and tricks? The ideas espoused here seem to be from those who want to EXPAND the sound stage. Sound occurs from ALL points. As I sit here I'm listening to the ambient sound of the office and a lot of it is coming from about 4'oclock. I'm not distracted, nor is my survival instinct raised. It's normal ambient background.

I suggest you discuss what life is like to people with hearing loss who use implants to hear. Ask them what the difference is between 2 audio sources (being the implants, if they use two) and the full sound field that is the atmosphere around us.

Anyway, a creative and skilled recordist with some vision could certainly take advantage of the technology to make vivid and impressive recordings. This is the crux; you either agree with this point or you think it's horse-shit.

Oh, BTW, you completely missed the point on my statement regarding piracy. I make a pretty clear argument: File size + enhanced sound quality (whether in surround or in stereo but with increase bit depth a sample rate) = encourage people to buy source DVDs/CDs as opposed to listening to CRAPPY MP3s.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sizzle,

My response is that I have to ask the same question yet again. Just what use do you envision that hasn't already been tried?

I understand the basis of the pro-surround position: Surround sound has the potential to open up whole new possibilities, perhaps even whole new art forms. Old fogies like me are just too stodgy and close-minded to understand that.

Let me assure you that I understand that 100%. I enjoy thinking "out of the box" and am as open to new ideas and challanges now as I was Way Back When.

All I'm asking for is The New Idea. Surround sound in and of itself is not a new idea, it has been around a long time. It has been tried before. It has been tried in three different applications: ambience, changed perspective and special effects. It failed.

It failed because none of those applications were able to hold customer interest. If something doesn't change, if those applications remain the same and some new potential for surround isn't realized, it will fail again. If two plus two equaled four thirty years ago, it will still equal four today. If you want it to add up differently, you need to provide a new value.

All I'm asking for is that new value, that new realization for the idealistic potential that is "surround sound" in music. Show me. Prove me wrong. I'd really like to be wrong, to be honest. If someone can describe to me a new way of using surround sound in music that hasn't already been tried and failed, I'm willing to give it a shot.

But until someone can answer that challenge, the ideals and potentials that you support are only a nice theory that is not supported by the experiments already performed thirth years ago.

Don't hate me because I'm old, hate me because I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, show me how. Show me (or at least describe to me ) this new, Next Big Thing killer application that will make surround music successful the second time around.

G.

P.S. I know, or at least hope that there is no hate or animosity in this thread. I respect and enjoy a good conversation that includes an opinion that differs from mine

 

[sizzlemeister]

Glen,

I, too, enjoy a spirited discussion, no animosity here...

I think that one difference between then and now is the market paradigm. You say there were at least three formats back in the day. Presently there's only one leading format: 5.1, with 6.1 and 7.1 available but not as "widely" supported. But now with technology you can support the varying "formats" (I think in this instance "format" may not be as accurate a word but it will suffice) backwards and forwards, much like a DVD/CD player can handle varying formats (and codecs).

So, if back then technology and costs got in the way, which you seem to indicate, then now the market has adjusted enough to not make technology and cost a factor in surround's failure. Indeed, since varying formats are supported and costs are low, companies have made sure technology would contribute to the format's (or formats') success.

However, I realize this isn't the crux of your arguement, only a facet.

Are you saying it will take "a new idea" for success or are you merely saying the old ideas weren't enough to support the costs and complexities of the technology at the time? I mean, I hear you when you ask for "the new idea" but I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

I've tried to imply (in all my posts on the matter) that it's a combination of technology and execution on several levels. I just explained one level of that combo where I think there's a significant difference between "then" and "now".

But the meat of the matter, as you indicate, is that: "It has been tried in three different applications: ambience, changed perspective and special effects."

I think the artistic execution is key here. I agree that gimmicks won't make it last. And, yes, you're right, no one wants to hear an orchestra from the first violins' listening position for more than, oh, 5 seconds.

But surround is ushering in an increase in fidelity over a standard CD. That in itself makes it relevant. Beyond that, though, a mix in surround can be wider, have more air, be larger, and several other adjectives that point in the same direction of being more vivid and "alive". I don't think it's necessary to put the bass behind you, the guitar over there and the keys on the other side, I agree that could be distracting after a few moments. But a tasteful, BIG mix is long overdue.

Essentially, you COULD say it's an audiophile-grade experience on a consumer-class budget.

Anyway, I'd love to take up the challenge to prove it. And I intend to do some experimenting in 5.1 when my new studio is finished. If I remember then to post my results I most certainly will. Maybe I'll say "you were right" or perhaps the opposite will occur.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think that one difference between then and now is the market paradigm. You say there were at least three formats back in the day. Presently there's only one leading format: 5.1, with 6.1 and 7.1 available but not as "widely" supported. But now with technology you can support the varying "formats" (I think in this instance "format" may not be as accurate a word but it will suffice) backwards and forwards, much like a DVD/CD player can handle varying formats (and codecs).

So, if back then technology and costs got in the way, which you seem to indicate, then now the market has adjusted enough to not make technology and cost a factor in surround's failure.

Actually I was trying to say just the opposite, that the demise of quad surround was NOT due to cost or technology.

There is truth to the fact that the three competing (and incompatable) formats helped keep quad out of the mainstream and certianly didn't help it's popular adaptation. But I cited two ideas that would illustrate (to me, anyway) why that was not a deciding factor. The first was that even those of us who were quadraphiles and overcame all technical hurdles and had no problem playing the cost for the best gear (whether we could really afford it or not ) simply stopped caring all that much about quad because it simply didn't enhance the listening experience in any way that had any staying power.

The second idea was the witness of what happened with consumer videotape a couple of years later with the Betamax/VHS wars. Here was an example of two entirely incompatable formats co-existing until one won out in the marketing wars. The multiple formats didn't kill consumer videotape because there was a public desire, i.e. a market for it. There not only was a winner with staying power, but in fact the winner was the one of lesser technical quality. Had there been an actual desire/marketplace for surround sound, quad could have easily survived it's own format wars the way video did, and technical quality was no more an issue than it was with video's technically inferior VHS.

No, quad did not survive not because of technicalities, but rather because there was a lack of interest.

Are you saying it will take "a new idea" for success or are you merely saying the old ideas weren't enough to support the costs and complexities of the technology at the time? I mean, I hear you when you ask for "the new idea" but I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

I agree that it may not be as "simple" as that (as if coming up with The Next Big Thing is a simple task ), that there may be more factors involved than "just" a new idea. But I do contend that without the new idea, the available evidence indicates that audio-only surround is doomed to repeat it's previous failure. And again, not because of cost or complexities, but rather because of lack of need and interest.

Another analogy just came to my mind: 3D movies. There it's not a matter of technology or cost, and in fact the technology used in "Shark Boy and Lava Girl in 3D" has gotten a lot better than the old sci-fi thrillers of the 50s when 3D was first attempted. But nobody...well, very few, anyway...give a rat's ass about whether a movie is in 3D or not. Would "The Godfather" have been any better in 3D? Probably not only would it have not been any better, but it would have distracted one's attention from the performances. I believe that's directly analogous to surround sound for music.

I've tried to imply (in all my posts on the matter) that it's a combination of technology and execution on several levels. I just explained one level of that combo where I think there's a significant difference between "then" and "now".

Yes, the technologies are quite different. I still believe, however, for the reasons given above, that the technologies involved are only a minor player in the overall story.

But surround is ushering in an increase in fidelity over a standard CD. That in itself makes it relevant.

That's a point that I still just don't understand (maybe it's me ). Surround in and of itself has no relation to fidelity. The fact that they just happen to come hand-in-hand on the same little disc is just a coincidence of technology and marketing. a two-channel DVD audio disc sill have just as much "fidelity" as a 5.1 will. *Of course* DVD audio sounds better than vinyl or even CD. That not the issue here though. The issue is the concept of surround sound itself; i.e. the use of extra speaker channels behind the listener to create a 360 degree sound field. That's all I'm referring to. And I see no qualitative difference in that aspect of it between today and yesteryear.

Beyond that, though, a mix in surround can be wider, have more air, be larger, and several other adjectives that point in the same direction of being more vivid and "alive". I don't think it's necessary to put the bass behind you, the guitar over there and the keys on the other side, I agree that could be distracting after a few moments. But a tasteful, BIG mix is long overdue.

That sounds really good, Sizz, I'm behind you 100%. I'm still waiting for someone to some along and figure out just HOW to do that. So far the artists and engineers have been batting zero in that regard.

Anyway, I'd love to take up the challenge to prove it. And I intend to do some experimenting in 5.1 when my new studio is finished. If I remember then to post my results I most certainly will.

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! I hope you can prove me wrong. And if you do, I'll be the first to admit it.

G.