bennychico11
...
why in the world is this thread still alive???
S
sizzlemeister
New member
bennychico11 said:why in the world is this thread still alive???
SSSHhhhhhhh. We're talking here.
Z
Zed10R
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I may not have been clear.
IMO, mixing music in a way that makes some of it seem to be behind you (or anywhere else besides front left and front right) is a usefull technique if used tastefully. It is not some weird distraction that my brain has a hard time interpreting. We are not a wild animals. Your point is akin to saying that people aren't meant to fly, so airplanes are horsehit. I cannot understad your view, so I'll leave it alone.
My main point is that surround CAN be of great benefit. No, it is not a NEW idea. But it HAS evolved a great deal in 30 years. It is no longer a cheesy gimmic, rather a useful tool with the ability enhance the listening experience.
Just because we CAN make guitars swirl around doesn't mean we have to or even will. It seems like maybe you are "terriblizing" (my wife's favorite term) the idea, focussing on the negative, and not seeing the positive possibilities. To me, surround is another usefull tool just like chorus, reverb, delay, and all that shit. When those things were new ideas (like the quad surround was new in it's time) they were a novelty and a bit of a gimmic. They were over used, abused, and ended up sounding cheesy. Now, those tools have been perfected and have evolved into something we all appreciate and like to use. Why would 5.1 be any different?
And about pirating - I think the music industry SHOULD explore every possibility to eliminate piracy. The problem is, most people who pirate music don't care one little bit about sound quality. They only care that it was free.
I know people who SPEND MONEY to get a good internet connection and huge amounts of storage in order to down load FREE pirated music. WTF is THAT?? They could have BOUGHT the music for less than they spent on the shit to pirate it, but then it wouldn't be "free". It's a mind set that I cannot understand.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I hate to sound like a tape loop but...
It is wonderful and highly abstract to say something can be of benefit without explaining how it can be of benefit. It's a wonderful vague concept, I agree, but I have yet to hear *anybody* come up with an idea of just how to use surround sound for music in a way that hasn't already been tried and failed due to lack of listener interest. All I'm asking for is that new idea. Until then, the nebulous idea that "surround sound has potential" is not only postulating a solution without defining the problem, it goes against all the existing evidence to the contrary.
It doesn't matter if you have screaming monkeys inside those speakers or alien technology from Area51, the concept of "surround sound" and how it works remains identical.
I laid down the challenge in my last post to Sizzle and gladly he took it. I lay down the challenge to all you surround sound proponents: Please prove me wrong. I WANT to be proven wrong. Come up with a new use and/or technique for surround music that will grab the listeners's interest by the balls and hold it there for longer than a Cracker Jack prize, and I'll bake the crow pie myself.
Until then, it's all just a smoke and mirrors argument not supported by the existing evidence.
G.
Describe what you have in mind. Give me some kind of mixing strategy that hasn't already been tried. And...if it couldn't hold people's interest last time, what do you plan on doing different this time to change the result?Zed10R said:
See above.Zed10R said:
It is wonderful and highly abstract to say something can be of benefit without explaining how it can be of benefit. It's a wonderful vague concept, I agree, but I have yet to hear *anybody* come up with an idea of just how to use surround sound for music in a way that hasn't already been tried and failed due to lack of listener interest. All I'm asking for is that new idea. Until then, the nebulous idea that "surround sound has potential" is not only postulating a solution without defining the problem, it goes against all the existing evidence to the contrary.
Technology has evolved, but the concept of using four speakers set in a four-sided pattern in order to create a 360 degree soundfield has not changed one inch. Neither have the psychoacoustic principles behind it.Zed10R said:
It doesn't matter if you have screaming monkeys inside those speakers or alien technology from Area51, the concept of "surround sound" and how it works remains identical.
I'm still waiting for a desciption of what you have in mind that hasn't already been tried several times over for a period of several years by engineers far more experienced than you or I. I'm still waiting for an application for surround sound music beyond the three already explored in full.Zed10R said:
I'm just reporting the facts for those too young to remember for themselves. It's a been there, done that situation, and it didn't work. Not because of cheesiness, not because of lack of technology or initial consumer interest, not because of cost. It didn;t work because people didn't like it for very long. It's that simple. Am I being negative to say that if the stove is hot enough to burn your hand the first time, that an equally hot stove will burn you again? Is that being negative? Am I "terriblizing" the stove?Zed10R said:
Again, for one last time, NAME THOSE POSSIBILITIES. You name some new possibilities and explain why you think they'll succeed in the marketplace, and I'll listen.Zed10R said:
I laid down the challenge in my last post to Sizzle and gladly he took it. I lay down the challenge to all you surround sound proponents: Please prove me wrong. I WANT to be proven wrong. Come up with a new use and/or technique for surround music that will grab the listeners's interest by the balls and hold it there for longer than a Cracker Jack prize, and I'll bake the crow pie myself.
Until then, it's all just a smoke and mirrors argument not supported by the existing evidence.
Well, Zed, maybe it will make you feel a bit better that I agree with you 100% on this one.Zed10R said:And about pirating - I think the music industry SHOULD explore every possibility to eliminate piracy. The problem is, most people who pirate music don't care one little bit about sound quality. They only care that it was free.
G.
Last edited:
Z
Zed10R
New member
I'm too much of a lazyass to do the whole quote thing again, so the is for SouthSIDEglen.
Here, Sir, are two examples of modern recordings that are at least encoded with some 5.1 compatability. And, IMO, they are far superior to standard stereo. The sound stage is bigger. The sound seems to envelop you. There are many more, but these two are in my cd player right now....
Meshuggah: Nothing
Type O Negative: Life is Killing Me
The benefits of surround are very specific. A BIGGER FREAKING SOUND STAGE!!! Just for one example, you can set an ambient mood with it. If you are a fan of "realism" in music, then maybe you would like to hear a realistic forest setting with birds, wind, and leaves all making that wonderful woodsy noise from evey direction, then two beautifull acoustic guitar start playing....generally in the direction of your far left and far right. Then an upright bass starts playing from in front to the left, and drums from front right. Then the singer comes in, but he's everywhere...you can't single out his position, and the sounds of the woods are still everywhere as well, but in the background. That's just one example that came to mind. Has it been done before? Maybe. But people have played guitar before...and sung before.....and we still like it.
You are a creative person - do I need to explain the possibilities of a piano? It's been played before, but you can still imagine new things coming out of it. Right?
I agree that the general public will probably not care one way or the other. But people like me care, and there are a lot of people like me. I think....
Surround will only ever ever be a big selling point if the industry backs it and promotes it. A good recording will sound better in surround that in stereo. Most people will pick up on that. But will the average consumer care? Not unless surround is backed by the music indusrty as "the next big thing". It doesn't matter to most. So your challenge of coming up with a way to use surround to grab the consumers balls and hold their attention is untimately pointless. Geat surround recordings already exist, but they do not get any special promotion. That's not to say that it cannot be improved. It can. I am doing the best I can, but it will take me years to get to the level of competency needed to prove my point. I admit that. So while I do feel motivated to prove you wrong, right now I, personally, just can't.
But I will.....someday....
Here, Sir, are two examples of modern recordings that are at least encoded with some 5.1 compatability. And, IMO, they are far superior to standard stereo. The sound stage is bigger. The sound seems to envelop you. There are many more, but these two are in my cd player right now....
Meshuggah: Nothing
Type O Negative: Life is Killing Me
The benefits of surround are very specific. A BIGGER FREAKING SOUND STAGE!!! Just for one example, you can set an ambient mood with it. If you are a fan of "realism" in music, then maybe you would like to hear a realistic forest setting with birds, wind, and leaves all making that wonderful woodsy noise from evey direction, then two beautifull acoustic guitar start playing....generally in the direction of your far left and far right. Then an upright bass starts playing from in front to the left, and drums from front right. Then the singer comes in, but he's everywhere...you can't single out his position, and the sounds of the woods are still everywhere as well, but in the background. That's just one example that came to mind. Has it been done before? Maybe. But people have played guitar before...and sung before.....and we still like it.
You are a creative person - do I need to explain the possibilities of a piano? It's been played before, but you can still imagine new things coming out of it. Right?
I agree that the general public will probably not care one way or the other. But people like me care, and there are a lot of people like me. I think....
Surround will only ever ever be a big selling point if the industry backs it and promotes it. A good recording will sound better in surround that in stereo. Most people will pick up on that. But will the average consumer care? Not unless surround is backed by the music indusrty as "the next big thing". It doesn't matter to most. So your challenge of coming up with a way to use surround to grab the consumers balls and hold their attention is untimately pointless. Geat surround recordings already exist, but they do not get any special promotion. That's not to say that it cannot be improved. It can. I am doing the best I can, but it will take me years to get to the level of competency needed to prove my point. I admit that. So while I do feel motivated to prove you wrong, right now I, personally, just can't.
But I will.....someday....
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
*sigh* Zed, we're just talking past each other, apparently. 90% of what you propose in the last post regarding listener preferences and marketing is diametricaly opposed to what has already been shown to be the case in reality. I could probably state that until I'm blue in the face and the idealists would still will choose to ignore that reality. I'm not going to say any more about that. My position is on the record a few times over already; I'm breaking that tape loop.
I did think this over instead of counting sheep late night, however, and I will grant you this...
I'll admit there is a chance that surround sound music could become mainstream. This chance is contingent upon two conditions coming true:
1.) That a large enough percentage of homes equip themselves with 5.1 capable home theater systems.
2.) That the average listener does most of their music listening in the same room in which the home theater system is located.
While both of these conditions are within the realm of reasonable possibility, they are both also very far from certain, and I am particularly doubtful for a number of prgmatic reasons and factors that have nothing directly to do with movies or music (e.g. things like economy, housing markets, the portability fad, etc.)
But, lets say for the sake of argument that the housing bubble refuses to burst and everybody moves out of their condos and apartments and into their own homes, that the economy solidifies and grows to the point where Joe Punchclock and Sally Housecoat can afford 5.1 systems that are easy to operate in their new homes, and that the current portability and personal customization fad goes the way of all other fads and Joe and Sally actually listen to most of their music in their theater room.
In tht case then yes, I can see that surround music might become commonplace by default. Since everybody already has the surround gear, and since that is where they are doing most of their music listening, then surround sound will become fertile ground for competition amongst the artists and (even more importantly in this context) amongst the record labels. *Then* you'll see the kind of blitzkreig marketing that you are looking for. In that case, surround music would become commonplace. But in that case, it's not necessarily because it's any good, but because it has come in the back door left wide open by the acceptance of movie surround.
Of course there is another factor that might dampen even that eventuality...
As technologies like streamcasts, satellite radio, music on demand cable systems and TiVO-style recorders become more part of the mainstrem, as long as they remain stereo only they will be a damper on the growth of surround sound. Because 5.1 requires 2-3 times the theoretical bandwidth as stereo, I don't see these services investing in conversion to surround at any time before it has already been demonstrated that they can make their investment back.
G.
I did think this over instead of counting sheep late night, however, and I will grant you this...
I'll admit there is a chance that surround sound music could become mainstream. This chance is contingent upon two conditions coming true:
1.) That a large enough percentage of homes equip themselves with 5.1 capable home theater systems.
2.) That the average listener does most of their music listening in the same room in which the home theater system is located.
While both of these conditions are within the realm of reasonable possibility, they are both also very far from certain, and I am particularly doubtful for a number of prgmatic reasons and factors that have nothing directly to do with movies or music (e.g. things like economy, housing markets, the portability fad, etc.)
But, lets say for the sake of argument that the housing bubble refuses to burst and everybody moves out of their condos and apartments and into their own homes, that the economy solidifies and grows to the point where Joe Punchclock and Sally Housecoat can afford 5.1 systems that are easy to operate in their new homes, and that the current portability and personal customization fad goes the way of all other fads and Joe and Sally actually listen to most of their music in their theater room.
In tht case then yes, I can see that surround music might become commonplace by default. Since everybody already has the surround gear, and since that is where they are doing most of their music listening, then surround sound will become fertile ground for competition amongst the artists and (even more importantly in this context) amongst the record labels. *Then* you'll see the kind of blitzkreig marketing that you are looking for. In that case, surround music would become commonplace. But in that case, it's not necessarily because it's any good, but because it has come in the back door left wide open by the acceptance of movie surround.
Of course there is another factor that might dampen even that eventuality...
As technologies like streamcasts, satellite radio, music on demand cable systems and TiVO-style recorders become more part of the mainstrem, as long as they remain stereo only they will be a damper on the growth of surround sound. Because 5.1 requires 2-3 times the theoretical bandwidth as stereo, I don't see these services investing in conversion to surround at any time before it has already been demonstrated that they can make their investment back.
G.
Z
Zed10R
New member
OK - I'm satisfied, Glen.
All it took was to point out that you do NOT think the SOUND QUALITY of surround is inferior to stereo. I'm good now. I do thank you for all your well thought out points about the consumer market and the challenges the industry would have to overcome should surround become more mainstream.
I too will rest from this one.
All it took was to point out that you do NOT think the SOUND QUALITY of surround is inferior to stereo. I'm good now. I do thank you for all your well thought out points about the consumer market and the challenges the industry would have to overcome should surround become more mainstream.
I too will rest from this one.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Zed, my man,
Just for the record, I never said - or at least I never intended to say - that surround was inferior in sound quality to stereo. I only said it was not *superior*. Or to use other words that I and others on your side have used, it was not "progress" and/or had little worthwhile to offer over stereo. At least not enough to give it "legs". And certainly not enough to make the hype around the idea anything more than equine excretions. I will stand by that assessment until the Next Big Thing in surround comes along (if it does) to change my mind.
But I will also say that I enjoyed the conversation, you and Sizzle were both worthy debate opponents that scored some good points, and that you did cause me to think honestly about my opinion and at least open up to the possibility that the situation is not etched in stone and could change in the future.
G.
Just for the record, I never said - or at least I never intended to say - that surround was inferior in sound quality to stereo. I only said it was not *superior*. Or to use other words that I and others on your side have used, it was not "progress" and/or had little worthwhile to offer over stereo. At least not enough to give it "legs". And certainly not enough to make the hype around the idea anything more than equine excretions
. I will stand by that assessment until the Next Big Thing in surround comes along (if it does) to change my mind.But I will also say that I enjoyed the conversation, you and Sizzle were both worthy debate opponents that scored some good points, and that you did cause me to think honestly about my opinion and at least open up to the possibility that the situation is not etched in stone and could change in the future.
G.
L
LRosario
New member
well the fact is this,
surround mixing is in it's infancy, but it's a technology that is growing slowly but surely. This is especially true for DVD audio.
Some predict DVD audio to be the standard within the next 5 years. This brings a lot of potential for the growth of surround technology, and while most consumer systems aren't really capable of true surround, it's become a sort of standard practice to prep mixes for surround just in case it takes off.
surround mixing is in it's infancy, but it's a technology that is growing slowly but surely. This is especially true for DVD audio.
Some predict DVD audio to be the standard within the next 5 years. This brings a lot of potential for the growth of surround technology, and while most consumer systems aren't really capable of true surround, it's become a sort of standard practice to prep mixes for surround just in case it takes off.
S
sizzlemeister
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I don't doubt in the least this may be partially true. As I was arguing earlier, the technology is such that costs for a system are lower.
5.1 is not stuck in the home theatre now. It's a growing trend in the PC gaming community as well. So, a lot of gamers have these systems or aspire to one. All it takes is a capable sound card, which MOST if not ALL are capable of now-a-days (and for cheap, too) and a $75 5.1 PC speaker system. Since the gaming market is dominated by people aged 15-25, a 5.1 system will be the norm, especially if the folks have a 5.1 theatre system.
The computer being the home entertainment-away-from-the-home-entertainment-system that it is, gamers and others who watch movies on their computer are already using a 5.1 system for music away from the home theatre.
It's starting. The trend will be (or may already be, I don't know, my oldest is 3) "you have JUST a stereo? what are you poor or something?" -- you know how evil teens can be.
The market will REQUIRE 5.1 compatability unless this recent trend is stopped. And the only thing that will stop it will be a large meteor smacking the planet. And since this is happening, those who can mix 5.1, and those who can mix it WELL, will be those who are in demand for mixing and production jobs.
F
frankieballsss
New member
Like it or not, surround is here to stay and evolved. Suprisingly though, mixing for surround can actually be easier then mixing for stereo.
P
Projbalance
New member
It depends on how you look at the whole game of mixing I guess. You can either mix to convey a sense of realism or you can mix to create a unique new performance. In the latter case, where the mixing becomes part of the performace of the piece, mixing for surround can be very helpful. You create a new experiance by surrounding the listener with sound that is presented to them in an unexpected manner. You have less probems with some things because you have more space for instruments to exist in and you can create a more realistic sense of environment by having ambiance that wraps around the listener and places them squarely in the space that you want to present the sound to them in.
R
Robert D
New member
LRosario said:
I would say it's surround listening that's in it's infancy, not the technology. Those of us that remember the advent of Quad know the story. Creating the technology is only half the battle. Selling it is another thing. Quad went nowhere even though it was implimented pretty well. Surround faces the same problem. At least this time around a lot of people have surround equipment already for home theater. But it's still not something people are all that excited about for music. Maybe you have to smoke something first to appreciate it.
-RD
legionserial
New member
Zed10R said:
Sooooo true. A guy I know is shelling out for a 17mb internet connection. Why? So he can download more cracked stuff faster! Needless to say, I don't really approve.
I will remember this quote for years
C
CarcPazu
New member
Surround Sound albums suggestions
Where did you found Meshuggah's Nothing in surround sound? I googled this and cannot find it anywhere, please enlighten me on this. A link where to purchase would be sweet. Thanks.
And for the surround fans I suggest those titles :
Alternative : NiN "The Downward Spiral" (available in two version SACD and DVD-A)
Alternative : NiN "With Teeth" (DVD-A)
Ambiant Drum & Bass : Amon Tobin "Chaos Theory" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Modern Jazz : Medeski Martin & Wood "Uninvisible" (DVD-A and DTS)
Symphonic Black Metal : Dimmu Borgir "Death Cult Armageddon" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Death MetalCore : Lamb of God "Ashes of the wakes" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" (SACD)
Trent Reznor (NiN) is really a genius with his surround mixes, he really make this work, it renders the stereo version unlistenable now.
Same thing with Pink Floyd's Dark side, I can't listen to the stereo version anymore, there's a HUGE difference and you really realize it was meant to be that way (since they intended this album for quad at the time)
Anyway trying to convince old school sound engineer to jump in this band wagon is useless, they are far too conservative.
Zed10R said:
Where did you found Meshuggah's Nothing in surround sound? I googled this and cannot find it anywhere, please enlighten me on this. A link where to purchase would be sweet. Thanks.
And for the surround fans I suggest those titles :
Alternative : NiN "The Downward Spiral" (available in two version SACD and DVD-A)
Alternative : NiN "With Teeth" (DVD-A)
Ambiant Drum & Bass : Amon Tobin "Chaos Theory" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Modern Jazz : Medeski Martin & Wood "Uninvisible" (DVD-A and DTS)
Symphonic Black Metal : Dimmu Borgir "Death Cult Armageddon" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Death MetalCore : Lamb of God "Ashes of the wakes" (DVD-A and Dolby Digital)
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" (SACD)
Trent Reznor (NiN) is really a genius with his surround mixes, he really make this work, it renders the stereo version unlistenable now.
Same thing with Pink Floyd's Dark side, I can't listen to the stereo version anymore, there's a HUGE difference and you really realize it was meant to be that way (since they intended this album for quad at the time)
Anyway trying to convince old school sound engineer to jump in this band wagon is useless, they are far too conservative.
C
CarcPazu
New member
sizzlemeister said:
Damn dude, you really nailed it there! I totally agree with you.
I heard some crappy mix in 5.1 but the ones that really shines are amazing.
R
Robert D
New member
Senor Cactus said:
That's the crux of the bisket. Surround sound, properly done, recreates the whole environment.
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
dobro said:
From my point of view, it's mostly something new to sell more stuff. Same as the CD: "everyone had turntables already". Relatively few people have true mastery over the many distinctions in the stereophonic sound illusion, much less the added complexity of surround.
Personally, I love that we had the audio quality of full-track mono tape sixty years ago, but the reality is that we have two ears, and two tracks encode a lot more information than one. I'm still learning to do better stereo. Plus, it's hard enough to have a quality monitoring setup for stereo, and surround is even more complex. I don't need the distraction of surround. But that's just me, and I'm weird.
Cheers,
Otto
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Wow! all the way from 2001. This has to be some kind of record.