[Jigglybootch]

When I first heard about these formats 2 or 3 years ago, I was so excited that I almost crapped myself. I couldn't imagine the kind of fidelity that coudld be achieved with these new formats. But something really spoiled it for me...surround sound. Now, I may be the minority here, but I think remixing music for 5.1 channels is really stupid. I could care less about hearing songs in surround sound, I just want the highest quality 2-channel recordings that can be produced. Does anyone agree with me on this?

 

[Elec]

I agree but fortunately, most discs (DVD-A at least) come with 2 channel mixes as well. Since I do 90%+ of my music listening with headphones, I generally only listen to the 2 channel track sets on the DVD Audio discs I own, and they do sound quite good. The surround thing is kind of a novelty. It's nice to have in case you have a good home theater setup and just want to kick back on the couch, but it's not really the selling point for me. For serious listening, I just want the 2 channel version.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elec I agree but fortunately, most discs (DVD-A at least) come with 2 channel mixes as well. Since I do 90%+ of my music listening with headphones, I generally only listen to the 2 channel track sets on the DVD Audio discs I own, and they do sound quite good. The surround thing is kind of a novelty. It's nice to have in case you have a good home theater setup and just want to kick back on the couch, but it's not really the selling point for me. For serious listening, I just want the 2 channel version.

I'll 2nd that! and add that the surround mix can be fun to show off since it creates the WOW factor for non-audiophiles.

 

[soundboy]

SACDs must have a stereo mix on each disc.....5.1 surround is purely optional.

 

[Jigglybootch]

The inspiration for making this thread was simple...

Queen is my absolute, all-time favorite band (which makes little sense seeing as how they were effectively done thanks to Freddie Mercury's death in 1991, when I was only 8 years old). But when I heard that "A Night At The Opera" was going to be released on DVD-A, I was ecstatic. Of course, I was also very poor, and really didn't have the money to go out and buy a DVD player and such, but I was still very excited. But I'd read some reviews of some DVD-A titles saying that the sound quality in some cases wasn't as good as the CD releases, which I found hard to believe. So naturally, I waited until there were some reviews before I would even consider investing in DVD-A. I was disappointed to hear that, in most people's opinion, the stereo version of the album sounded inferior to a Japanese remastering that came out 6 years ago! I was like, "What? How does that happen?" But of course, everyone raved about the surround mix.

It led me to question why in the world people would want to play back a recording in 5.1 channels when it was originally recorded in 2 and never intended to be played back in more than 2. It aggrevates the crap out of me because while producers and such are spending so much time trying to remix these albums for surround sound, they're neglecting the stereo mixes.

 

[hottyson]

I am not a big fan of Nora Jones' "Come Away with Me" CD. I do however like and purchased her "Live from New Orleans" DVD. It is recorded in 5.1 Dolby Digital. It is one case where I do like a 5.1 musical recording.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jigglybootch because while producers and such are spending so much time trying to remix these albums for surround sound, they're neglecting the stereo mixes.

Unfortunately, this true all too often.

 

[lindrone]

5.1 audio has its place... puts you into the middle of a movie with explosions happening all around you, for example. However, in a pure audio type of application, it just seems so ridiculous.

I mean, while it's interesting to hear guitars going in a circle around you while the singer is moving side to side or something... but the next time you find a concert where a guitarist runs around the stadium dragging a big amp with him, let me know.

It's about reproducing realism, and there's nothing real about these fake special effects on music tracks.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by lindrone 5.1 audio has its place... puts you into the middle of a movie with explosions happening all around you, for example. However, in a pure audio type of application, it just seems so ridiculous. I mean, while it's interesting to hear guitars going in a circle around you while the singer is moving side to side or something... but the next time you find a concert where a guitarist runs around the stadium dragging a big amp with him, let me know. It's about reproducing realism, and there's nothing real about these fake special effects on music tracks.

Most 5.1 recordings aren't mastered that badly. They use the front three speakers to define the stage (which is a big advantage over just two speakers at times) and put ambient sounds in the back (for example, audience sound during live concerts.)

 

[lindrone]

That's pretty much only for the live recordings, where it actually does make some sense to give you a sense of immersion. However, some of the more acclaimed SACD (such as Dark Side of the Moon) uses 5.1 as a gimmick more than it's really needed to be.

I've had so many people who got that album telling me, "Dude, and it was so awesome when you had the guitar go around the room!"...

For studio albums, most of the time they just can't figure out what to do with the 5.1 soundtrack. It just isn't needed, for the most part, so people are still trying to extend things into it that doesn't belong there.

Kind of Blue's 5.1 track is mostly just a double-stereo... where the stereo track is being played back at a lower volume on the side speakers...

Peter Gabriel actually recorded his album intending it to be 5.1... but still, what doesn't simulate a real life situation really should not be done in the first place. It's just all becoming too gimicking, not enough real music.

 

[tigre]

As those of you who've listened to binaural recordings know, sound through headpones can come from (or be perceived as coming from) any direction.

So for 'head-fi people' 2 channel binaural recordings (or binaural mixes) additionally should be all they need.

BTW: ASDFer's has coded a HRTF plugin for foobar2000 (stereo -> binaural conversion using head related transfer function (HRTF) measurements). He said that he's thinking about adding 5.1 -> binaural support.

Strictly on-topic: Properly done CD audio in combination with decent playback equipment gives already amazing fidelity (see e.g. CDs by Chesky, recorded/processed at 24/96 and converted to CD audio in last step of production).

 

[markl]

I'm sure they thought 2-channel stereo sounded "weird" when it was first released, after all, what was wrong with good ol' mono? Listen to early stereo recordings, with extreme left/right stereo separation, it took many years for them to figure out how to do it right. 5.1 music is in its infancy, we're just learning how to do it. We're also only just learning how to *listen* to it, our brains have en conditioned to listen in stereo. Over time, 5.1 will come to sound perfectly natural to us, and we'll wonder how we ever found 2-channel acceptable. People raised on 5.1 channel music will likely react to "antique" stereo music as a quaint old-fashioned artefact with its collapsed soundstage and sound emmanating only from the front two channels.

I think multi-channel music is the future. Remember that most multi-channel albums are works originally conceived in 2 channels and taken apart and re-assembled by people other than the original artists into a multi-channel experience. I look forward to the multi-channel equivalent of Pink Floyd's DSOTM, conceived and executed in 5.1 by people who think in terms of 5.1 not stereo.

Mark

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by tigre As those of you who've listened to binaural recordings know, sound through headpones can come from (or be perceived as coming from) any direction. So for 'head-fi people' 2 channel binaural recordings (or binaural mixes) additionally should be all they need.

I agree. And as long as I am willing to limit my listening to matches being lit and the like, I should be all set. Only if I want to listen to music am I likely to be stymied.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by lindrone That's pretty much only for the live recordings, where it actually does make some sense to give you a sense of immersion. However, some of the more acclaimed SACD (such as Dark Side of the Moon) uses 5.1 as a gimmick more than it's really needed to be. I've had so many people who got that album telling me, "Dude, and it was so awesome when you had the guitar go around the room!"... For studio albums, most of the time they just can't figure out what to do with the 5.1 soundtrack. It just isn't needed, for the most part, so people are still trying to extend things into it that doesn't belong there. Kind of Blue's 5.1 track is mostly just a double-stereo... where the stereo track is being played back at a lower volume on the side speakers... Peter Gabriel actually recorded his album intending it to be 5.1... but still, what doesn't simulate a real life situation really should not be done in the first place. It's just all becoming too gimicking, not enough real music.

I've listened to a lot of classical album in 5.1, and I have yet to hear one where it is so awesome because you had the cello go around the room.

 

[soundboy]

I agree with markl that multi-channel music reproduction is the future. And I think we are only at the beginning, the infancy if you will, of this revolution. Two channel stereo, after all, is only a format limited by technology from way back.

However, 2 channel stereo, when recorded well, and played back on a competent system, can sound amazingly good. Several years back, I purchased the remastered "Brothers In Arms" CD on the Vertigo label (this was before the same remastered recording show up on the domestic Warner Bros. label) and I was shocked at how natural and smooth it sounded. On some tracks, it was almost surround sound-like. I don't have any mega-buck components....an old non-ES series Sony stereo integrated amp, an old non-ES series Sony CD player, and a pair of NHT 1.1 bookshelf speakers that definitely need a subwoofer (which I don't have). Amazing sonic experience from a stereo playback system.

Geez, I am now itching to get that XRCD of "Brothers In Arms".