Of course, all aspects and details of surround are very interesting - like the forum shows. But I think, sometimes it is important to have a discussion and clarify about general points of surround. After my speech for a "simple" or easy working 4-channel surround-base now I am
writing something from my sight about another fact, which will hinder further on a more quick spreading of audio-surround. This is the stubborn purism - unfortunately often found also actual in commercial and high-end circles and reports in hifi papers. I have many of such comments collected - here the newest in the actual "The Absolute Sound" issue 8-9/03. There is noticed by a report about the re-issue of "Power-Biggs - Bach Orgel-Concert " with 4 organs in the german church "Cathedral of Freiburg" , which was produced in the 70's as quadraphonic program for SQ-LP and Q8, the following:
Sony SACD producer Louise de la Fuente told me, she found, that the original Columbia quadraphonic masters were "gimmicky" and didn't present the music in the best possible way". But what is the best way for this ? Is there important only the one voice and taste of a commercial people - and not those of the many consumers? They shall only pay! I think, some of you knows another puritan comments of "unnatural gimmicks by music over the shoulder". This drivel has been already one important reason, that quadraphony was not a big success in the 70's. Unfortunately the average consumer often will believe, which is written in the journals by self-styled sound-gurus. And the same rubbish is often told also today and and will again slow-down the wanted spreading of music-surround, because consumers and also sound-engineers are often unsure. Therefore some actual surround-productions will not sound so clear and inspired as many "old" quadraphonic productions 30 years (!) before. The rebirth of Quadraphony today would need more courageous and creative artists and engineers as in quadraphonic times. So the tellers of gimmick-fairytales must habe always an echo - from us - as I often do with readers letters (many are printed) discussion with commercial people at exhibitions - like CES or IFA and all around at the personally sphere.
Which is called since nearly 40 years "stereo" (the prefered sound by puritans also with a few more channels) should better named "widescreen-sound", because the real sense of this word means spatial-sound, but "sterero" sounds only flat. On the other hand, in quadraphonic times there was beneth others also the right term "4-channel stereo". Of course, it is absolutely allowed, to make poor-surround recordings (usual done further on by classic) in a documentary style - like the paper reports or documentary-films. But that is not really the essence of art. The times is not a novel like "Harry Potter", the TV-News are not the same as "Star-Wars in a film. By art we have always fantasia and creativity, which some poor purist can't understand by looking only with their blinders. But Donald Duck or "Mary Poppins" will give the people by their animated phantasia many pleasure. And that is important. And astonishing, by video/cinema surround the purists are even generous (only in a short time was spoken from a frontal - picture-according - "surround"-sound). But they think, music is a holy grail, which must sound always and only in century-old music temples. But also music is art - look above - it is absolute allowed to mix this also in fully surround-sound. The puristic "skimmed-milk surround" can not fill full our ears, because they are built not for mono or stereo, but for real surround listening. The sound-world is not flat, so the surround-sound is the real sound of nature -and by music is more allowed then "reverberation-clouds over the shoulder. So my appeal, when you are reading or listening about some rubbis of "gimmicks" by surround-sound, give the flat-people a sharp answer. Some arguments you find here. Now I will again look forward to an interesting discussion in the forum.
writing something from my sight about another fact, which will hinder further on a more quick spreading of audio-surround. This is the stubborn purism - unfortunately often found also actual in commercial and high-end circles and reports in hifi papers. I have many of such comments collected - here the newest in the actual "The Absolute Sound" issue 8-9/03. There is noticed by a report about the re-issue of "Power-Biggs - Bach Orgel-Concert " with 4 organs in the german church "Cathedral of Freiburg" , which was produced in the 70's as quadraphonic program for SQ-LP and Q8, the following:
Sony SACD producer Louise de la Fuente told me, she found, that the original Columbia quadraphonic masters were "gimmicky" and didn't present the music in the best possible way". But what is the best way for this ? Is there important only the one voice and taste of a commercial people - and not those of the many consumers? They shall only pay! I think, some of you knows another puritan comments of "unnatural gimmicks by music over the shoulder". This drivel has been already one important reason, that quadraphony was not a big success in the 70's. Unfortunately the average consumer often will believe, which is written in the journals by self-styled sound-gurus. And the same rubbish is often told also today and and will again slow-down the wanted spreading of music-surround, because consumers and also sound-engineers are often unsure. Therefore some actual surround-productions will not sound so clear and inspired as many "old" quadraphonic productions 30 years (!) before. The rebirth of Quadraphony today would need more courageous and creative artists and engineers as in quadraphonic times. So the tellers of gimmick-fairytales must habe always an echo - from us - as I often do with readers letters (many are printed) discussion with commercial people at exhibitions - like CES or IFA and all around at the personally sphere.
Which is called since nearly 40 years "stereo" (the prefered sound by puritans also with a few more channels) should better named "widescreen-sound", because the real sense of this word means spatial-sound, but "sterero" sounds only flat. On the other hand, in quadraphonic times there was beneth others also the right term "4-channel stereo". Of course, it is absolutely allowed, to make poor-surround recordings (usual done further on by classic) in a documentary style - like the paper reports or documentary-films. But that is not really the essence of art. The times is not a novel like "Harry Potter", the TV-News are not the same as "Star-Wars in a film. By art we have always fantasia and creativity, which some poor purist can't understand by looking only with their blinders. But Donald Duck or "Mary Poppins" will give the people by their animated phantasia many pleasure. And that is important. And astonishing, by video/cinema surround the purists are even generous (only in a short time was spoken from a frontal - picture-according - "surround"-sound). But they think, music is a holy grail, which must sound always and only in century-old music temples. But also music is art - look above - it is absolute allowed to mix this also in fully surround-sound. The puristic "skimmed-milk surround" can not fill full our ears, because they are built not for mono or stereo, but for real surround listening. The sound-world is not flat, so the surround-sound is the real sound of nature -and by music is more allowed then "reverberation-clouds over the shoulder. So my appeal, when you are reading or listening about some rubbis of "gimmicks" by surround-sound, give the flat-people a sharp answer. Some arguments you find here. Now I will again look forward to an interesting discussion in the forum.
.
