[tigre]

Quote:

Originally posted by Music Fanatic 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.

What are you trying to say?

- 'Binaural recordings are hard to find/don't exist form most artists.'?
> True. My point is that for me (and probably many other ppl listening mainly through headphones) an additional 5.1 mix on e.g. SACD is quite pointless as the same 'surround experience' or even a much better one can be achived with a 2 channel binaural recording/mix. So having 5.1 is no reason for me to buy SACD/DVD-A, but an additional binaural mix/recording would be.

- 'Binaural recording isn't good for music.'?
> Nope.

- ...?

 

[JeffL]

Amen brothers, you've seen the light.

God gave us 2 ears, hence we should only need 2 speakers, not 6, or as the case may soon be, 8! (7.1 surround sound?? What)

Seriously, it is just another issue where more is supposed to be better..more in the case of speakers. So...if stereo is good, why not 8 speakers! How awesome would that be?

But frankly, they miss the point...in a 5.1 setup, the rear speakers only pump out reverb. There may be some actual "behind your head recording" but in reality, that is very difficult to do. Just get a pair of headphones and use Dolby Headphone, if you *really* want the DSP.

Today's music is HEAVILY over processed (compression/reverb, etc). Leave it the F alone!

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

God gave us 2 ears, hence we should only need 2 speakers, not 6, or as the case may soon be, 8! (7.1 surround sound?? What)

I don't think that's a good argument. Surround-sound, be it 5.1 or whatever, is merely conceived to simulate the surround sound we hear everyday with our own 2 ears. Two channel stereo is also a format.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by JeffL God gave us 2 ears, hence we should only need 2 speakers, not 6, or as the case may soon be, 8! (7.1 surround sound?? What)

Yeah. As long as you never ever ever move your head.

 

[markl]

Quote:

God gave us 2 ears, hence we should only need 2 speakers, not 6, or as the case may soon be, 8! (7.1 surround sound?? What)

In the reality I'm familiar with (which may vary from one's own personal experience

) sound emmanates from all around me, all angles, even above and below. It doesn't come from two point sources exactly eight feet in front of me. The more speakers we have, placed properly in space around us, the more realistic and natural the sound can be. If we set up microphones in the recording space/concert hall in the exact same positions that each speaker will be in a surround sound set-up in someone's living room, and use those extra channels to record exactly what takes place at those points in the room/hall, it *should* yield a much more convincing, realistic experience/recreation of the original event than two channel stereo could ever hope to do. Seems to me this would have benefits for people who listen to classical and jazz.

But for rock/pop listeners like me, I think the benefits are even more concrete. One of the coolest things about headphones for me is their ability to portray the phasing and stereo panning effects so prevalent in modern music in such a way that one can actually sit back and *watch* the sound effects zoom around the soundstage.

A lot of modern recordings are heavily processed/phased with lots of sounds moving to and fro, they are part and parcel of the listening experience, and I certainly enjoy it. Yet this is achieved with only two channels. What can be accomplished in 5.1 is on a whole different level. Sounds can emmanate from behind you, zoom over your head to the right side of the soundstage, then double back to the left and go to left rear and back again and so on.

Yes, it is a whole different experience, but it doesn't have to be something to be feared, IMO. Two channels is an arbitrary standard that was set way back when the technology was first developed to support it. I don't think we should take it as something handed down by Moses as the ONE TRUE WAY, or the way it's "supposed to be".

Also, each additional channel inceases resolution. 5.1 has more than double the possible resolution of two channel, in that the exact same musical information/sounds can be separated into 5.1 channels of equal data storage capabilities instead of being crammed into two. Yes, the surrounds and center typically will just have ambience or isolated vocals and not individual tracks in each, but conceptually, I think this holds true. The more channels we have, the higher the possible resolution.

This does raise an interesting dilemma for headphones, if the world does go multi-channel. I wonder what the impact of multi-channel music will be on 2-channel headphone listening. In fact, I think I'll start a thread about it.

Mark

 

[theaudiohobby]

Each time I seat in the driving seat of my car and listen to live recordings, I am reminded of the benefits of MCH. When I listen to recordings in the car, the music is all around me. For live recordings, I appreciate the fact that I hear the claps and shouts behind me instead of the strickly front perspective of 2CH. I love the simplicity of 2CH, from the users perspective that is, however I am not blind to the benefits and new opportunities afforded by MCH. However getting the MCH is a mute point for me at this point because I do not have the space to do it properly. The whole idea of going for smaller speakers, placing speakers on the wall or close to a wall is big no no for me.

A MCH recording does not have to represent the realism of a live event. It can be a work of art in it's own right with the artists and engineers using the extra channels to create a work that cannot be realised in a live performance. A recording is a work of art in itself apart from a live performance and artists should treat in as such.

 

[Jasper994]

For a truely fun and amazing 5.1 experience, even if just heard in Dolby Digital, pickup a copy of Linkin Park's Reanimation album in DVD-A. Some things just lend themselves to 5.1... Other things don't or haven't been done well enough in 5.1 to really do them justice.

-EDIT-

All new forms of art take time to grow in an of themselves. They must also be received by the general public. Can you imagine what was thought of the first impressionist paintings? Give it time, I think 5.1 will come around... at least for the speaker crowd... unless of course there was a K1000_5.1!

 

[MonkeyMan]

Long live two-channel!

 

[Jasper994]

Hey, I didn't say I wanted 2 channel to go away, I hope it doesn't, 5.1 is just fun sometimes.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Over time, 5.1 will come to sound perfectly natural to us, and we'll wonder how we ever found 2-channel acceptable. Mark

...because we only have two ears?

 

[Reticuli]

It's highly dependent on the source equipment. A Night At the Opera also has a 96khz stereo DVD-Video track on it that will play on most non-DVD-A players. And there's a DTS track, too, which I think is 24/96 for the newest recievers that support that. It's probably the most versatile DVD-A release yet. My main problem with the format is that it's difficult to get it to sound good. My imported Pioneer Dv-655A sounds a bit too open and light in the mids...needs probably more lower mid-range and less highs. SACD seems to get the mids right on every unit I've heard, though control in the treble seems very equipment dependent.

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

 

[Born2bwire]

Quote:

Originally posted by wali ...because we only have two ears?

I absolutely hate this statement

. Just because we have two ears doesn't change the fact that we are able to discern three-dimensional placement of sounds. With two channels you can only reproduce the sound on a more or less two dimensional plane in front of you. I've only been able to experience really good depth in the soundstage on top of the line systems. With a multichannel system, you can much more easily position the instruments depthwise in the soundstage. In addition, you can change the perceived environment. With classical or concert music, the rear channels can project the reflections and echoes of the concert hall. But like it's been said before, the more recent implementations of 5.1 have been gimmicky at best (the worst I've heard are the Police SACD's). But a lot of the multichannel classical SACD's were recorded using multichannel microphones and they naturally pick up what the speakers should be reproducing and I think that the effect is worthwhile and adds a whole new dimension to listening to the music. Hopefully, future recordings will use this approach over the poplike "let's pan the guitar from front to rear" crap that's just as annoying as the early left, right, or center stereo recordings.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Born2bwire Hopefully, future recordings will use this approach over the poplike "let's pan the guitar from front to rear" crap that's just as annoying as the early left, right, or center stereo recordings.

An excellent point! Those who decry surround recordings as inherently flawed have likely not listened to the early stereo recordings with the famous "ping-pong" effect.