Surround - does it suck?

[jazzius]

Is it here to stay or is it just a fad?

Is it just a way to fleece the consumer out of their hard earned readies?

Does it open up new worlds of sonic orgasmacity (not real word) or does it actually distract the listener from the music?

Is anyone here mixing or producing in surround for artistic (rather than financial) reasons?

Whaddyalltink?.........just interested?

[3rdpath]

surround, imho, is not a passing fad. when done correctly it is an orgasmabolic listening experience.

and its a hell of a lot easier to mix in...i use probably 2/3's less eq in surround because theres more sonic space to work in.

just finished a 5.1 mix ( and yes i do it for $) and its just light-years beyond working in stereo.

having also worked in 7.1, i'll say that 7.1 isn't really justified.

but each to his own.

[BattleAngel]

Everyone seems pretty jazzed about Mike Wagener's work in surround- check out his "I'm Back!" post.

From the very little I've *heard* of surround, I think it can be very very cool. Just in my head, I know that I would like to try tracking my own songs in surround. My only qualm is that there's no one (consumer) around with a real surround system to listen back on =P

[jazzius]

Originally posted by BattleAngel
My only qualm is that there's no one (consumer) around with a real surround system to listen back on =P

This is my main problem with surround........the consumer's systems and how they're set-up......

if everyone had laser-callibrated B&W 801's i'd be first in line!

[BattleAngel]

It sucks. I'd really like to produce surround music- I think it's interesting and it really brings in a totally different palette to play with- but who is going to be able to listen to it? And I can't imagine any record company who isn't somehow in bed with a home theater company would ever want to push a surround DVD. SACD sure, but it's kinda nasty to deal with still. My dillema about surround and my own thing is do I do it and just forge ahead hoping maybe that surround will give me an edge somehow? Do I spend the oodles more to get a really great SACD done so that the casual listener AND the advanced one can hear my music? It's tricky. Artistically is WHY I would do it but financially is why it makes it hard. Then again I almost always approach things from an "I'm the talent" perspective, and rarely from an AE one.

[3rdpath]

i'm pretty unconcerned about the quality/speaker placement of the end user's home system. let's face it, most home systems are poorly situated with the primary concern being to hide/disguise the speakers...and we'd need to drive sitting in the center of the car to properly experience stereo(much less the 5.1 systems in many autos). heck, i would've quit mixing in stereo years ago if i was truly concerned about the playback systems...

i just strive to make my 5.1 mixes as sonically pleasing as possible with a some small degree of compensation to help in the translation from system to system. good, bad or ugly, a half-assed 5.1 system will give the listener a better experience than a stereo mix( apples to apples system wise).

5.1 may not be the lowest common denominator for many years to come but it will eventually happen...my guess is dvd's will replace cd's as the retail medium( cd's remaining as a destination for downloadable material) and the dvd's will have a mix choice like the audio of many current movies( and lots of other goodies to make them more value added). why have a seperate dvd and cd player anyway? or a seperate computer/home entertainment system for that matter...don't get me started...

so when to jump on the bandwagon? maybe when your customers request it...or the people you want as customers are doing it...

if i was a self-financed artist i probably wouldn't jump in quite yet. the numbers just don't work.

[KBOY]

I'm planning on a surround mixing system. I absolutely love surround....... I'm interested in a surround sound setup where there is a speaker mounted above in the middle. adds a little more dimension.

But then again I'm more of a listener than an actual engineer like you guys so maybe you know better. any thoughts?

KBOY

[Robotnik]

I wear headphones.

[jazzius]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
good, bad or ugly, a half-assed 5.1 system will give the listener a better experience than a stereo mix( apples to apples system wise).

5

I don't agree with this.........many listeners have the rear speakers very close to their listening position (perhaps either side of the couch)........so anyone sitting at the end of the couch is getting an earful of rear.......

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

So doe this mean that people will build 5.1 NS-10 setups?... lol Cos how will things translate to 'pro-sumer' and 'consumer' 5.1 systems?

PEACE
Wiggy

[Jules]

Professionally I have half an eye on it.

Personally, I am uninterested.

As an alternative / indie rock producer, with the state of record companies lack of artist development in this day & age I find discussing surround almost vulgar.

There is too much 'else' to do IMHO.

Very low down on the list of priorities..

That said, we have mixed in 5.1 suround on two seperate occaisions at my studio. I dont have any fear about it. If it were to take hold in my specialist area of work, I'm ready.

[Bob Olhsson]

I'm actually old enough to have witnessed the successful introduction of stereo and the dismal failure of surround in the early '70s.

The difference was that when stereo was first introduced you could walk into a store or, in my case, a friend's living room and hear music that was so much better sounding than anything you had ever heard that it put your jaw right on the floor in astonishment. This probably wasn't as much about having two channels as it was the fact that there had been a huge increase in overall quality combined with a lot of outstanding stereo recordings that are still held up as benchmarks of audiophile quality today.

Ten years later the consumer electronics industry tried to repeat their success with the move to stereo and it flopped miserably. The reason I think it flopped is because there were no demonstrations that had the "wow" factor that the early stereo demos had. The ONLY thing that can sell a new format is a lot of great recordings. By the time "Dark Side of the Moon" came out in quad, people were burned out on all the hype and those who had bought a system quickly discovered that in most cases stereo records sounded better in synthesized quad than the quad releases of the same titles did.

I don't hear a whole lot different happening today. The first time a trip to Circuit City or Tandy makes me want to invest in a surround system will be the first time I seriously consider investing in surround for work. Michael's project is spectacular but it's going to take lots of demonstrations of that caliber and probably several out and out hit albums to create a real market for surround music. Remixes of Eagles' Greatest Hits ain't going to cut it yet that's exactly the same mistake happening all over again.

[Shawn1272]

IMHO, surround is great for movies and live performance DVDs. But for the general music that comes out, I think it's unnecessary. To truly experience surround sound, the listener has to be in the optimum position. That's not how I listen to music. I put on music to relax, get in a mood, or rock out. I put on music when I'm doing the dishes. I don't sit in one place and actively listen to it all the time. And I'm a recording engineer. If I don't sit around doing this, I can bet that a lot of other people don't either.

I'm sure a great, finely tuned, positioned surround system sounds incredible. But I tend to agree with Jules, there are more important things to do. When the end consumer is totally happy to download MP3's and listen to them in headphones, it's unrealistic to expect that same person to jump on board with surround sound. A great song will translate on any medium, in any format. And that is what the end consumer cares about.

Bottom line: Stereo isn't going away anytime soon. Surround is not a fad but it's also not a priority or a necessity.

Shawn

[theom]

Well done surround can be great. However a well set up surround playback rig is a hard thing to find in the average household.

I love surround for movies.

I think surround may become the stadard eventually. Maybe there will be a new mp3 type format that can have stereo and surrond encoding on the same file and automaticly sense the correct format to playback, depending on the playback perameters.

wishful thinking, but one can dream.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Shawn1272
IMHO, surround is great for movies and live performance DVDs. But for the general music that comes out, I think it's unnecessary. To truly experience surround sound, the listener has to be in the optimum position. That's not how I listen to music. I put on music to relax, get in a mood, or rock out. I put on music when I'm doing the dishes. I don't sit in one place and actively listen to it all the time. And I'm a recording engineer. If I don't sit around doing this, I can bet that a lot of other people don't either.

I'm sure a great, finely tuned, positioned surround system sounds incredible. But I tend to agree with Jules, there are more important things to do. When the end consumer is totally happy to download MP3's and listen to them in headphones, it's unrealistic to expect that same person to jump on board with surround sound. A great song will translate on any medium, in any format. And that is what the end consumer cares about.

Bottom line: Stereo isn't going away anytime soon. Surround is not a fad but it's also not a priority or a necessity.

Shawn

I tend to agree with you Shawn on this. I have been working surround in a serious sense for the last two years, before that it was largely experiments for my own benefit. I have been recording live in concert shows the last couple of years for DVD performance releases and it genuinely is a revalation. I also tend to record a fair amount of Classical music for which it can give you a real sense of being in the space. As Jules said for rock music its probably a little too much of a gimmick, however I would think that the recent surround session that Michael Wagner has completed will be interesting to listen too should I get the opportunity. Perhaps things like Tubular bells would work well in this format?


Regards


Roland

[BevvyB]

Surround is orgasmaphonic and gives me audiosexual soundhorn in my listenamatic earphobes

it won't come of age though until people start writing music for the format, as opposed to simply making 'better' recordings

We're at the 'hmm, let's just do a quick surround mix' stage of things, bit like Sargeant Peppers stereo mix which was knocked out in a few days after months of mixing the mono version.

Perhaps..or something


floating off topic....ish

Hmmm, just got me thinking...which albums actually BENEFITTED from a revolution in format?????....


Tubular Bells (heralded as STEREO woo it's amazing on the back cover)

Brother In Arms (used almost on its own to bring on the CD)

erm..any more? did anything herald the wax disk, 8 track or personal cassette? i don't remember anything heralding the mp3...actually, what WAS the first commercially available mp3?

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by BevvyB

We're at the 'hmm, let's just do a quick surround mix' stage of things, bit like Sargeant Peppers stereo mix which was knocked out in a few days after months of mixing the mono version.

Humn... I recently did two projects in stereo wich both end up on DVD's soon. Both recordcompanies did not want to spend money on a 5.1 mix, so that's why I only did stereo-mixes. But as it turned out, the DVD says it's stereo + 5.1
What happend??
The DVD authoring-firm could make them a special offer: They just ran my mixes through a 5.1 fx box, and now the DVD has got stereo and 5.1tuttgrudgestike

[jazzius]

I refuse to get involved with that 2 < 5.1 bullshit

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by jazzius
I refuse to get involved with that 2 < 5.1 bullshit

Jazzius I'm glad... But some firm in H'sum ****ed it up. It's sounds so f@€kin'fake

[jazzius]

Originally posted by Gie-Sound
Jazzius I'm glad... But some firm in H'sum ****ed it up. It's sounds so f@€kin'fake

bastards......let's go round and "have a word"

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by jazzius
bastards......let's go round and "have a word"

I already know their answer: "We only did what the recordcompany wanted us to do..."
We should "have a word" indeed!!!
(If only a Distressor could be used to NUKE these guys)

[BevvyB]

borrow my wheels if you like

[viaspiaggia]

though the post has diverged a bit, i will throw in that i really love mixing in surround. i'm primarily working in sound-for-picture, in which case it can be even more fun. but even if its just a straight music mix that has no direct surround aspects that link to the picture, i really enjoy mixing music in surround. i try to avoid anything too gimicky (guitars flying around your head) but its really nice to have all that "space" to work with.

-a-

[Mr Funk]

I have some DVD-A software and a well set up 5.1-7.1 system.

Some stuff sounds fantastic in 5.1. Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons' is awesome, apart from the fact that it was not mixed with a .1 sub channel, so I'd have to **** around with my system to get more of a decent low end! Once a digital (firewire) connection becomes standard on players and decoders, then this will be a non issue (my system is wired analogue for DVD-A).

50% of Alanis's 'Under Rug swept' sounds amaising in 5.1. The bass end is there and it sounds much richer than the stereo mix! The other half doesn't sound any better than the stereo mixes. Compared to the CD, the DVD-A sounds better (in stereo).

REM's 'Reveal' sounds better in stereo than 5.1, I just don't like the 5.1 mixes. Have not compared it with the CD.

Of course, these are only my opinions, but I see inconsistency as a major issue with the way surround stuff is mixed. The 24 bit and possibly the higher sample rates are a real bonus. I find the dynamics of the tracks almost scary at times!

I think that surround can add a lot to a mix and should be perused, but not at the expense of a well thought out stereo mix.

I like a surround mix to wrap you in sound, rather than distract you by having stuff jumping out of each speaker. Having things swell in the rear and move to the front is cool, and having the general reverb tails fade away in the rears also works.

I am only just getting back into making music, but I can't wait to try a 5.1 mix!

[Roland]

Originally posted by Mr Funk
I have some DVD-A software and a well set up 5.1-7.1 system.

Some stuff sounds fantastic in 5.1. Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons' is awesome, apart from the fact that it was not mixed with a .1 sub channel, so I'd have to **** around with my system to get more of a decent low end! Once a digital (firewire) connection becomes standard on players and decoders, then this will be a non issue (my system is wired analogue for DVD-A).

Shouldn't be anything in the sub. The DVD spec calls for 5 full range speakers and an LFE (low frequency effects channel). If the system is a sub/sat type then it should be taken care of by the amps Bass management system. LFE channel has a 10db boost in level so mixing music in it can become a real lottery.

I always remember a quote I read from one of the film dubbing bods "The LFE channel is nothing to do with music and those mixing music in surround should stay out of it!"


Regards


Roland

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by Roland
I always remember a quote I read from one of the film dubbing bods "The LFE channel is nothing to do with music and those mixing music in surround should stay out of it!"

My opinion too!

[theom]

Let's not forget the best use for surround.......

Video Games.

No Game is complete without a great surround soundtrack and sfx.
Good integration of SFX cues in a game can make a huge diff in gameplay.

It's great when you can hear some beastie sneeking up behind you.
Or to know which way to turn and shoot when you hear the storm trooper climbing the stairs just out of your view, (but you clearly hear the stairs to your right).

It must be a fun and challenging mix job.

[Mr Funk]

I agree too.

It's just that my 'full range' speakers only go down to 45Hz (so more like 60Hz with any power) and like I was saying, my DVD-A player connects to my Amp in the analogue domain (6 cables). I have no bass management on the 5.1 analogue inputs! Thus I am not really hearing anything down low! I know that most music doesn't venture that low anyway, but I am definately missing out on some depth.

I can pay for an £600 upgrade for my amp, which will allow bass management of the two sets of 5.1 inputs, but this means more A/D D/A conversion, which is not ideal. I can add an analogue bass management system for a couple of hundred or less.

For those consumers who are just getting into this 5.1 music lark, they will be fine, as they will have a firewire connection between source and amp and thus bass management will be done before any D/A. Personally, I don't feel like dumping my £1200 DVD player or £2500 amp, so I'm a bit buggered! Oh well, that's the problem with being an' early adopter' or Gearslut as we call em! Mind you, if it wern't for idiots like myself, all formats would die a death before most knew they existed!

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by Mr Funk
For those consumers who are just getting into this 5.1 music lark, they will be fine, as they will have a firewire connection between source and amp and thus bass management will be done before any D/A.

Did I miss this development? I haven't noticed any firewire connections on any DVDs or Receivers...

[Mr Funk]

Well, the last I heard and read in magazines and AV forums, Firewire had been chosen as the 'official' standard for DVD-A. I'm not sure how many products are carrying it yet as I have not devoted much time recently to AV and my Home theatre, but I will do a bit of research and follow this up. I know many companies were planning on releaseing players and receivers with firewire, so they may already be out?