5.1: gimmick, or closer to reality?

[kstrauss]

A general question for the group, what is the market for the surround recording you're doing? At IU we engage in a lot of experimentation with surround recording in a variety of musical genres, but I am not aware of much professional surround work outside of a few niche releases and film/television.

[dbssound1]

I feel that surround is only as good as it is recorded, end of story. If we are trying to "create" the immersive experience, rather than capture the immersive experience, I think that the issue is not with delivery but capture.

This is not to say that I do not enjoy listening to some confections in surround. I actually find a number of them interesting, creative, and fun.

I think to the original question as to wether or not this is a gimmick, I must say I think not. A one point in time stereo was considered a gimmick. We are still working and developing surround, but it is flat out better.

When we started our little studio it was always to produce discrete multichannel surround, even though the delivery system wasn't completely in place. We have had a 7.2 system since 1996.

The inspiration was the fact that so much music was written and intended to be heard antiphonally. There is no chance of reproducing this in stereo no matter how hard you try. Gabrieli, or something as recent as Tavener is the definition of immersive, and I want to give as much of that to the listener as I possibly can. I can't give it all to them yet, but I can give more of it to them with 5 speakers than 2.

The sad reality of our debate is not wether it is a gimmick, but wether we can convince the public to care. If we can't even get the public to understand what a surround system should deliver, how will we ever get them to buy it. How do you tell someone that hasn't listened to anything but earbuds (as much of the younger generation is coming up) that they need the experience of something better. If you have that answer, I'd LOVE to have it!!!

You guys rock!!


P.S. here is a pic of surround system that I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing on one trip to Europe about 1 1/2 years ago.

[mohthom]

If I may,

Until moderately recently, people didn't distribute audio in 5.1 for a number of reasons. Among those were;

• Portability - media
• Portability - working in different studios
• Lack of standardisation of both speaker position and relative level
• Delivery to the consumer (VHS? SACD?)
• Playback by the consumer (cost, space and reliable reproduction)

The biggest of these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, is the final one. Only recently did the consumer market (the one that pays for all this content to be made) really embrace surround sound as a part of the listening ethos - simply put, six speakers are more expensive than two (along with associated amplification and playback equipment etc.). With the rise in cheap home cinema systems, this problem was slightly alleviated, but given that the quality of these systems was generally poor (at the consumer level at least) 5.1 was generally used as a gimmick for placing individual sounds in the rear rather than attempting to achieve immersive soundscapes in film.

With the advent of better home cinema playback systems (and consumers willing to pay for them and give them greater priority in their homes - better positions), 5.1 has become not only a reality, but an easily acheivable one for the consumer. It's now possible to buy good quality centre speakers (EM shielded) for not too much money, and 4 channel amps are being sold to integrate with existing 2.0 hifi systems.

The problem I had with the 5.1 question until recently was that if sound designers and recordists and engineers and producers were producing FOR these crappy systems, I simply wasn't able to enjoy them on a well balanced system. I do own a consumer level 7.1 system, and it's truly terrifying how bad it sounds. Trying to mix a film score for one of those must require booking rehab time before the session starts!

As a sound designer, composer and recordist, I see my biggest challenge with 5.1 being the lack of standardisation in playback environments. When I produce a piece of work in 5.1, I'm able to set my quad ring and centre speaker as I'd like, and sit right in the centre of it to work. Home cinema is not so - if you've got a long thin living room with a sofa against the long wall, just imagine how sound will suffer?! Consumers don't read instructions and, after consulting with a studio design specialist, knock down the kitchen so they can get a more immersive sound experience - they put speakers wherever the hell they fit - and damn the sound.

While my little 7.1 consumer speakers may be 'THX certified' my room certainly isn't. In many cases I see 'certification' like this as a danger; a guarantee of quality where there is none.

I guess my answer to whether it's a gimmick is that it can be when used badly. In the same way that M-S was pioneered to be versatile in stereo as well as mono compatible, I see B-format and G-format ambisonics in a similar light. I am always interested to see what others think to this; as a composer of acousmatic music I'm occasionally called upon to write pieces for vast numbers of loudspeakers, and find that rarely is it either necessary or even interesting (merely a product of a brief). Two ears = two sound sources (headphones, earphones, canalphones or loudspeakers) kind of makes sense to me, but if I were to have to choose a single way to work in surround forever and never change, today I'd choose ambisonics as that format.

MohThoM

[just.sounds]

Ambisonics is certanly a nice technique but i think it has also its problems. For instance (correct me if i'm wrong) but when you record for it you have to use a b-format mic (soundfield) Wich is a coincedent microfone technique. This will give you a correct placement of direct sound and early reflections but not a wide reverberation sound as it is always 50% coincedent. Or is there Ambisonics technique wich tackles this problem?

It is also not aimed at recreating the wavefront as it was but it recreates the sound at 1 point in space. And as we have two ears...
If you stick with ambisonics you would reduce stereo to XY. An AB is not possible anymore.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by just.sounds

Not as far as you think :-)
Wave field synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm researching on an 192 speaker system. The main problem of the system is the coloration between speakers because of the size of the speakers itself. But progress is made

Yes, I do find the WFS work interesting. However, I really meant the research into the human auditory system, which should eventually lead to a phantom source in the z-axis (distance) from one 'speaker'.

Last time I was in a research quality anechoic chamber I did some informal experiments with the lab assistants in between actual testing work.

The 'tests' involved me jangling my car keys at various distances in front of the blindfolded subject.
Interestingly, the subject was able to localise the source with enough certainty to reach out and grab the keys on the first attempt (within a few inches), which was repeated several times.

Essentially, this anechoic distance based perception is not explained, nor even researched as far as I know.

It can make for an interesting test for those with access to anechoic chambers.

I wish I had made monaural tests of the same thing but didn't think of it at the time.

Andy

[just.sounds]

I guess it is a combination of HRTF and ITD. No rocket sience. The catch is that a stereo or surround speaker system is not a recreator of reality. But maybe stereo did not reach its full potential yet.
I heard of an experiment of a dutch recording engineer who has a stereo reproduction system based on four omnidirectional speakers. A friend of my heard it and is puzzled because the imaging is so good. and the sweet spot is very large. I'm going to listen to it in the near future so i hope my expectations are not to high :-)

Some pictures:
terugblik 184

[just.sounds]

I wish I had made monaural tests of the same thing but didn't think of it at the time.

Andy

I will give it a try when i'm in "the chamber"

BTW it is possible to create a phantom image between front and back loudspeakers of an 5.1 system. It is a mindf*** If you make a mic spaced mic array wich has the second dip of the comb filter at the same place where the dip of the HRTF is placed for that directionality you can hear sound coming from between the speakers.

Problems: it works in speach area but not in high and low freq.
And you have severe coloration with moving sources

[Russ (Al) Prat]

"Consumers don't read instructions and, after consulting with a studio design specialist, knock down the kitchen so they can get a more immersive sound experience - they put speakers wherever the hell they fit - and damn the sound.

While my little 7.1 consumer speakers may be 'THX certified' my room certainly isn't. In many cases I see 'certification' like this as a danger; a guarantee of quality where there is none.

I guess my answer to whether it's a gimmick is that it can be when used badly. In the same way that M-S was pioneered to be versatile in stereo as well as mono compatible, I see B-format and G-format ambisonics in a similar light. I am always interested to see what others think to this; as a composer of acousmatic music I'm occasionally called upon to write pieces for vast numbers of loudspeakers, and find that rarely is it either necessary or even interesting (merely a product of a brief). Two ears = two sound sources (headphones, earphones, canalphones or loudspeakers) kind of makes sense to me, but if I were to have to choose a single way to work in surround forever and never change, today I'd choose ambisonics as that format."

Your post pretty much sums up the way I feel, thanks for putting it into words. I will study up on ambisonics and see what I can learn. If it's all right with you I would like to start a thread specifically regarding ambisonics, perhaps prefaced with a quick explanation. Thanks again. RAP

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by just.sounds

When i use omni microphones in a A-B-C (three in a row) i hear three phantom images.
one between L-R one between L-C and one between C-R To avoid this i should make better channel separation. but when i put the microphones wider the hole in the middle of A-B setups hits me THREE times. The way to make better channel separation would include directional microphones witch is for acoustic recording a compromise IMHO.
So that is why i stay with stereo for the front for now. does someone have other experiences??

I find that I'm quite bothered by these extra phantom images. Reducing them was one of the key goals when Gunther Theile developed the OCT technique. I've made what I consider some very nice LCR recordings using OCT arrays.

Augmenting OCT for surround is simple, and the rear-facing cardioids reject much of the direct sound. More details here.

Of course, OCT does not use omni's. To accomplish low-crosstalk 3/2 surround using omni's, the only way I know is to use the Trinnov SRP system. This is shown in my picture at left (at least until I get bored with it).

If one sticks with a stereo front array for recording, it may still be desirable to use the center channel on playback in order to improve image stability. But common LCR panning techniques don't work for this. The late Michael Gerzon studied this problem and patented a class of upmix (and downmix) matrices. They cover not only the common 2->3 and 3->2 cases but arbitrary n->m conversions. They are described in (excruciating) detail in U.S. patent number 5,594,800.

I've been wanting to try such an upmixing matrix for a while now, but I haven't been able to find any commercial implementations. You'd think that someone could build a VST plug in, and charge enough for it to pay the license fee, but so far it hasn't happened. Too bad.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[David Spearritt]

I'm afraid I am in the gimmick camp. Who cares if surround envelopes the listener more than stereo, those of us interested in listening to music with great enveloping sound go to live concerts with good friends. We don't sit at home tweaking our surround system.

In the home, what is wanted is convenience, good stereo is enough, it has a large sweet spot and allows us to do other things while listening. I doubt surround will never take off in the home, its too damn complicated for the common man. By all means research and develop it for scientific purposes, but it appears dead for home audio. Look at the current market acceptance factor.

[The Byre]

People - the one hour CD is dead. If the music industry hadn't nailed it to its' perch, it would be pushing up the daisies.

The CD? Bereft of life, it is no more! It's just that the news has yet to reach most labels and studio owners.

We have been trying to sell one hour of music in stereo for over 50 years, but now the party is over.

Today, the customer is buying 5.1 systems (not ambisonics, not 4-channel surround, not 7.1 and he or she is not, as far as I am aware, nailing speakers to the ceiling!) and putting them into the living room and manufacturers are beginning to put them in cars.

Now, you can 'rage against the storm' and hope that films, concert videos with their sound in 5.1 all just go away, or you can learn to live with reality.

[mohthom]

I'm not against change - I'd like that to be clear from the off . . .

But just because people *buy* things (especially in this day and age), doesn't mean they know what they do, how they work or what benefit they will bring. A poorly set up 5.1 system will bring the listener far fewer benefits that a poorly set up stereo system, for three main reasons;

• The sweet spot in a 5.1 is smaller
• 5 speakers = £x /5. 2 speakers = £x /2.
• The angle used for stereo playback is much more flexible, allowing much more room for error

I don't think the album is dead - it's a winning formula for those that get it right. Recent examples of this, to my mind, are Jan Garbarek (In Praise of Dreams), Radiohead (Kid A) and Royksopp (Melody AM). It's like anything like that - get it right and it's great, get it wrong and it's terrible. I've heard some terrible pop songs recently, but it doesn't mean pop is dead. I've never heard a good hip-hop song, but that seems to be doing OK! Conversely, just because it's a good formula doesn't mean it will sell, so I guess I might agree with you yet . . .

BUT the examples you list are film and live concert videos. Both of these have a visual media attached, and simply aren't relevant to 'just' music - after all, you go to *see* a film, not to hear it. And, as a previous poster said, if I want to go and see a band in concert, why not go and see the band in concert rather than buying a DVD of the event? I've still got concert DVDs that were given to me two and three years ago still in the cellophane - I saw the bands for real and that's going to be a better experience than any polished and edited video capture. That and my neighbours if I crank the volume up loud enough to feel as though I'm there (only to wear earplugs ).

I thought SACD flopped anyway?

Ambisonics ISN'T just 3D sound (periphonics), it's also possible (and perfectly reasonable) to present ambisonic sound in 2D (pantaphonics) using 3 instead of 4 microphones in the array (lose the height microphone). It doesn't have to be a soundfield microphone to be ambisonic. When recorded in B-Format (the native fig-8 channels and the pressure omni as seperate channels - unplayable on a 'normal' system) you need to decode the sounds to your speaker setup in order to get the effect; you can easily record the decoded sound (say . . . in 5.1 or quad - two of the arrays listed) to DVD (when fixed in this manner, it's referred to as G-Format). Voila! Ambisonic recordings for DVD surround sound!

You can rage against the storm, or you can figure out exactly where to put a wind turbine to capture it!

MohThoM

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by just.sounds

I will give it a try when i'm in "the chamber"

Please do & let us know how you get on, both monaurally & otherwise.

If you have similar results to me, it might be rather interesting to consider what aspect of the HRTF can account for this.

BTW it is possible to create a phantom image between front and back loudspeakers of an 5.1 system. It is a mindf*** If you make a mic spaced mic array wich has the second dip of the comb filter at the same place where the dip of the HRTF is placed for that directionality you can hear sound coming from between the speakers.

Problems: it works in speach area but not in high and low freq.
And you have severe coloration with moving sources

Yes, a bit of a fudge I'd say, but fun!

Andy

[Timsplace]

I'd take surround if it were 3.1! Having a "Real" center as apposed to a Phantom center is a beautiful thing. My biggest issue with surround is the crappy downmix. You go to all this trouble to create an amazing space and (in my world anyway-live TV) most people still listen to the fold-down of the 5.1. Those spacious 5.1 reverbs get summed to mud. If you have to deal with the fold down to stereo (as apposed to a remixed stereo) it puts a bit of a limit to what you can do in your mix.

Tim

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by Timsplace

I'd take surround if it were 3.1! Having a "Real" center as apposed to a Phantom center is a beautiful thing.

How about 3.0? There's all that RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence stuff being reissued in the original (i.e. as recorded) 3-channel format on SACD. I've just been listening to the classic Fritz Reiner recording of Dvorak's New World Symphony. What a great performance!

My biggest issue with surround is the crappy downmix. You go to all this trouble to create an amazing space and (in my world anyway-live TV) most peoplestill listen to the fold-down of the 5.1. Those spacious 5.1 reverbs get summed to mud. If you have to deal with the fold down to stereo (as apposed to a remixed stereo) it puts a bit of a limit to what you can do in your mix.

OK, but that's only an issue with some surround. You can have control over the downmix parameters in DTS, for instance. DVD's can have a separate stereo stream. Virtually every SACD I see anymore is a dual-layer disc, with a regular stereo mix on the CD layer.

I just bought that interesting Zenph "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations on a Sony hybrid SACD (Amazon link here).
No downmix problems of any sort. I put it in my DVD player, and I hear surround. I put it in my friend's Prius, and I hear stereo. There's even a binaural version on there, which I suppose is intended to be put on your iPod. It all sounds stunning.

My impression is that a lot of us are trying to produce surround and stereo mixes as part of the same mix process. The details of making that happen depend on your particular DAW or console, but there's usually a way. (High profile projects can budget for a separate mix, of course. But most of us who are doing surround are trying to figure out how to do it cost-effectively, which means a lot of the stereo work is happening simultaneously.) So taking it as given that a good stereo mix exists, getting it to the consumer is basically a disc authoring issue.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[dbssound1]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

I'm afraid I am in the gimmick camp. Who cares if surround envelopes the listener more than stereo, those of us interested in listening to music with great enveloping sound go to live concerts with good friends. We don't sit at home tweaking our surround system.

I am a little baffled at this comment. Isn't our job, ney our creed to give the listener the most realistic and enjoyable listening experience that we possibly can?

Not everyone wants to spend x$ to sit at a live performance with the coughing, small children, and overweight gentleman that smells like the pastrami sandwich he ate an hour ago. I love going to live performances, but I am actually more relaxed and can enjoy the performances more on my couch or in my studio.

If we aim not to improve the experience of the home listener, than by all means, halt production of all new playback devices, and stop all research. I however am not content to accept the mentality that "stereo works, therefore it's good enough"

5.1 is flawed, as any home reproduction system for the foreseeable future, but it is a better, more enjoyable listening experience than stereo. If we don't try to improve the experience, than we are no better than the mp3, earbud set.

With millions of 5.1 systems in peoples homes with their home theaters, it seems stupid not to be delivering music that they can enjoy the same way.

If the internet had been around 60 years ago we would be having the same debate about stereo and mono.

Flaw yes, Gimmick NO

[joelpatterson]

Once I realized that I was miking concerts in a "surround" way... ORTF out front, and then various stereo sets--wide, wider and widest at the front, and sometimes behind the group-- I made a special point to archive them for the "inevitable"(?) day when everyone would want the surround version.

That day has yet to come, but y'know... whenever I'm in a theater and some specifically "appropriate" sound effect is panned off to one side, it's jarring, more than anything. It pulls me OUT of the movie and reminds me I'm in a theater, with a hokier-than-hell spatially-appropriate HEY LISTEN TO THIS surround mix.

Anyone else feel that way?

FAR better would just be a mono mix with sound levels that matched the action... this "door opens stage left, creaky sound stage left!" business is just plain ol' stupid.

[mohthom]

There are times when it is appropriate.

I really like the THX trailer with the train . . .

MohThoM

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by dbssound1

I am a little baffled at this comment. Isn't our job, ney our creed to give the listener the most realistic and enjoyable listening experience that we possibly can?

Up to a point. Consumers don't want more speakers and more amps and cables in their loungerooms. Witness the rise and rise of MP3. They also want to share the experience in a collective way. There is still much more enthusiasm for going to live music than their is to buy HiFi crapola which is what the "millions" have in their loungerooms.

I love going to live performances, but I am actually more relaxed and can enjoy the performances more on my couch or in my studio.

What percentage of normal people have dedicated home theatre rooms or "studios" at home I wonder.

5.1 is flawed, as any home reproduction system for the foreseeable future, but it is a better, more enjoyable listening experience than stereo. If we don't try to improve the experience, than we are no better than the mp3, earbud set.

Of course I agree that its better than stereo, but no-one wants it. Most women in particular, you know, half the population, are so bored by the tech crap that is home hifi.

Its even more crappy now that there are NAS devices and networks and IPAddresses and stupid OS updates, and backup devices and RAID config and cables, the bloody cables everywhere, and the wallwarts and power points and the speakers everywhere, little ones, big ones, centre ones, and the speakers not working and finding out why etc etc. Its a complete joke.

With millions of 5.1 systems in peoples homes with their home theaters, it seems stupid not to be delivering music that they can enjoy the same way.

But movie sound doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be coherent and the images do not have to resolve sensibly between the speakers. Just as well, because the normal person usually has it setup all wrong. But it doesn't matter. With music its a whole different story. People are buying 5.1 systems in the supermarket all wrapped up in one box they can add to their basket at checkout. They cost next to nothing, and you're saying that we should be mastering for playback on that? These are the devices that the millions have in their loungerooms.

Flaw yes, Gimmick NO

SACD is dead. DVDA is dead. Stereo's are returning to HiFi shops again, people want simplicity and elegance at home, they don't want their home to look like the basement of Ghostbusters. Live music is the most ancient and most satisfying of all human musical expression and will always be so.

[Plush]

Commercial surround recordings?? What's that??

Audiophile surround recordings?? Some of them do sell. Of course the subtended angle of the open fly dangle will affect the fidelity of THAT sound system. In fact an article is about to be published with the heresay evidence!

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Plush

Of course the subtended angle of the open fly dangle will affect the fidelity of THAT sound system.

ROFLOL! Ain't that the truth.

[dbssound1]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Up to a point. Consumers don't want more speakers and more amps and cables in their loungerooms. Witness the rise and rise of MP3. They also want to share the experience in a collective way. There is still much more enthusiasm for going to live music than their is to buy HiFi crapola which is what the "millions" have in their loungerooms.

David, I must say that in my opinion you are touting the party line of the defeated. If we are to record and master for the masses, why go through the effort of recording at anything better than the quality of what apple and the major corporations have told the consumers they need. Maybe if we only care about working to the expectations of the consumers, we should all start recording directly to MP3.

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

What percentage of normal people have dedicated home theatre rooms or "studios" at home I wonder.

Very few.

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Of course I agree that its better than stereo, but no-one wants it. Most women in particular, you know, half the population, are so bored by the tech crap that is home hifi.

I really find this comment to be a little speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and sexist. My wife enjoys good sound as most do. Most women I know just hate there husbands constantly changing and upgrading.

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Its even more crappy now that there are NAS devices and networks and IPAddresses and stupid OS updates, and backup devices and RAID config and cables, the bloody cables everywhere, and the wallwarts and power points and the speakers everywhere, little ones, big ones, centre ones, and the speakers not working and finding out why etc etc. Its a complete joke.

It is not our fault that companies don't do a better job educating there consumers. I still walk into homes where they have a stereo system and 1 speaker on one side of the room, and the other on the other side facing the opposite direction. consumers need help, or they will be left to their devices.

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

But movie sound doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be coherent and the images do not have to resolve sensibly between the speakers. Just as well, because the normal person usually has it setup all wrong. But it doesn't matter. With music its a whole different story. People are buying 5.1 systems in the supermarket all wrapped up in one box they can add to their basket at checkout. They cost next to nothing, and you're saying that we should be mastering for playback on that? These are the devices that the millions have in their loungerooms.

Remind me where I said I think we should master for those systems. Also, do you honestly think the stereo systems that 90% of the population of the world have are ultra hi-fi systems. last time I checked I don't think that was the case. Do you prefer we master for the boombox, or car 6x9 speakers? I have a 53 buick. perhaps we should master for the 1 speaker in it??

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

SACD is dead. DVDA is dead. Stereo's are returning to HiFi shops again, people want simplicity and elegance at home, they don't want their home to look like the basement of Ghostbusters. Live music is the most ancient and most satisfying of all human musical expression and will always be so.

No one has ever questioned live music. I love live music. I spend so much of my life working at concerts, I rarely get to enjoy them any more. However, to say that there is no need for advancement, no need to further the march of surround, make something better than earbud / mp3 quality music is ludicrous. If we are merely making the product for the consumer, I doubt that most could tell the difference between things that were recorded with a SM58 on a 4 track cassette recorder, and a Ultra high end digital recording system. So I don't know, what are we to do.

Plush,

"Commercial surround recordings?? What's that??"

What is commercial air travel, other than a dream that took awhile to become a part of our daily life? Do you also suggest that we give up? Throw our hands to the wind? Don't you feel it is our duty to give the listener the best experience we possibly can? I agree that the commercial success of Surround recordings has not been there, but how much of that has more to do with lack of promotion by the labels, and education but the product manufacturers. Also how much has to do with the overly loaded cost passed on to the consumer that is merely vapror to line the pockets of the record execs?


My fellow engineers and colleagues, I implore you that even though the commercial consumer manufacturers royally screwed s to this point, DON'T GIVE UP!!!!. SACD, and DVD-A are obviously not the answers, but don't give up.

One of the biggest tragedies of the audio market was the SACD. Great sound quality that was backwards compatible with 90% of the players on the markets. However any store you went into, the people working there had no idea what it even was. They were not educated, thus the consumers were not. Also, they wanted to sell players, so they never upsold the recordings that could be played on a regular CD player. The industry could have stopped production of all CDs, however they were to busy being a pissing battle with kids on the internet to realize they were missing an opportunity. The physical production cost of the media was pennies more, however everyone wanted there pound of flesh. Many engineers were more than happy to spend a few more days doing the surround mixes, however the label execs needed a new car. Also, if they were recording with the surround Idea from the start, the mix time would be even shorter.

Don't even get me started on DVD-A!!

You guys rock!

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by dbssound1

I really find this comment to be a little speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and sexist. My wife enjoys good sound as most do.

My comment was NOT that women do not enjoy good sound, they do, but that they don't like the paraphernalia that seems to be a requirement for it in the loungeroom. A lot of men don't like the HiFi boxes in the loungeroom either. This is why Bang and Olufson do so well.

Regarding educating the consumer, good luck. A lot of enthusiasts on this board are confused about sampling rates D/A converters and they are interested parties. You also have to educate the salespeople. It can't be done. People want good sound but they don't want to know how or why it happens, this is not the reason it failed.

This now converges back to the old arguments that are discussed at huge length on this and other forums on this chestnut, so I will leave it there.

But I have not given up. My job is documenting mainly live concert experiences in the best quality possible for listening to in stereo or from the radio for the folk who couldn't make the concert. As such I have a very high technical demand placed on me. Radio will never go surround, and I suspect neither will domestic HiFi, for the simple reason it is just not necessary.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

But I have not given up. My job is documenting mainly live concert experiences in the best quality possible for listening to in stereo or from the radio for the folk who couldn't make the concert. As such I have a very high technical demand placed on me. Radio will never go surround, and I suspect neither will domestic HiFi, for the simple reason it is just not necessary.

But there you are mistaken. Radio will go away, and get replaced by live streaming.

Live streaming of 5 channels requires only a bit more bandwidth (2.5x being an increase that is technically possible over a few years).

A LOT of people are having 5.1 PC systems, 7.1 is even becoming a standard on a lot of motherboards.

I agree, SACD (and its prohibitive costs, mastering/authoring/pressing) is a niche market. But we shoult not conclude that surround sound is dead too.

Anyway, we will always master to the highest possible standard. If you or I decide we want to record/archive/master in 5.1-ambisonics-6.1-7.1 or whatever, that is a choice.

As long as our stereo mixes are still up there ! I've heard too many surround releases where the 5.1 mix was OK (sometimes great) BUT the stereo version CRAP !

Please stop doing that.

[mohthom]

Live streaming of 5 channels requires only a bit more bandwidth (2.5x being an increase that is technically possible over a few years).

Shouldn't you allow a channel for the LFE as well? 3x the bandwidth - if working at the same (CD) quality (i.e. not taking advantage of higher samplerates or bitdepths).

MohThoM

[dbssound1]

Well I guess we should all throw out our surround gear. According to so many of the engineering community here it is dead, and what we have is "Good Enough".

Also while we are at it, Let's stop looking for environmentally friendly, renewable fuel sources for autos. What we have works, and there is no way you'll convince all of the consumers that they need it.

I apologize for the snippiness of the above reply, but I do feel very passionately about this. The bottom line is that even though the loudest voices against surround here have often admitted that it is a better listening experience there has been a lack of consumer demand.

What to do. Do we give up. Do we merely say that recording has gone as far as it can and ever will go.

Perhaps if the record industry had provided a better listening experience, they wouldn't be in the shape they are in now. Also, downloadable 5.1 is around the corner, but I guess we need not be concerned. stereo is good enough right. It's just like being there, all of the music and room sound blaring at me from the front of the room.

Even better the flattened stereo experience recorded of antiphonal music, just like it was written to be heard, from in front of you from 2 sound sources.

I guess I have forgotten my place. So David, I guess I'll crank up my Bang and Olufson and have to be content with the listening experience from the 50's. Oh wait... I don't have one of those so I'll have to go to a friends house.....but none of them do either (they are a little behind the consumer wave the market penetration that Bang and Olufson has made)....I guess I'll have to listen to the stereo mix through their consumer surround system. Hey just because those extra speakers are there doesn't mean we should use them.

Besides, those people will wise up soon enough and realize that they don't need those speakers any ways. The movie studios will realize it to and start a renaissance of stereo blu ray discs. This will be a direct result of all of the wife's in households around the world ridding their homes of all that messy technology.

But now we have created an environmental issue...what to do with all of those speakers put out for the rubbish collector??

All joking aside, I do see your very valid points and I do respect your opinions on this. There are days that I feel the same way. I'm willing to concede the fact that the consumer market has been behind our expectations. I however will still keep recording for surround, and stereo, even if it is only for the enjoyment of a few, and the stereo is for the masses.

All the best!!

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by dbssound1

Perhaps if the record industry had provided a better listening experience, they wouldn't be in the shape they are in now.

This has never been the problem. Its always been the lack of quality content. Its the message that's important, not the messenger.

[mohthom]

I'm always conscious that for every problem there's a solution. When using surround sound I find that my solution options are;

• Supported stereo (stereo, with ambience in the rears)
• Multiple stereo (more than one stereo track played back through multiple stereo devices - fronts / sides / rears)
• Panpotted mono
• Binaural
• Ambisonic
• Persuade the client to use stereo if it's appropriate

Rather than looking for the holes, surely we should be looking for ways to fill them? Can't we play nicely? Sure, the labels don't always put out top notch content, but in order to rebalance that ethos something has to give. Isn't that something us?

I'd like to point out the seminal work being done by the Canadian acousmatic label, Empreintes DIGITALes, who often release multimedia audio DVDs in the same pack as standard stereo audio CDs. I'd also like to particularly recommend the work of Natasha Barrett - if anyone has a desire to listen, Three Fictions (Northern Mix) is pretty incredible (and created using ambisonics before being mixed to 5.1 and stereo), and available on the disc Isostasie from 2002. There's MP3 samples! Natasha Barrett: Isostasie: description - electrocd.com — electroacoustic & beyond

MohThoM

[matyas]

I realize that audio professionals with classical training make up only a tiny portion of the market (and most of us are probably on this board), but well-recorded SACD is probably my favorite way to listen to classical music at home. We all know that DVD-A and SACD didn't take off the way they were supposed to a few years back. And yes, lots of kids run around listening to their iPods with only one earbud in place. But I do think that surround (and higher-resolution) audio will have a place in the computer or embedded-device (think AppleTV) playback systems of the future. I, for one, do not want to see it go away, because while I may probably the only person in the world that actually goes out and buys surround SACD's, I really do think it would be a tragedy to miss out on the experience that surround can provide.

[dbssound1]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

This has never been the problem. Its always been the lack of quality content. Its the message that's important, not the messenger.

David,

Having looked at the post you quoted, I have to humbly take a step back from my original statement. I agree with you 190%. For years the music put out has been less than impressive (to say it nicely).

Don't sell the messenger to short, but the Message is the important thing!!!

all the best