Is it worth it anymore??

[Marcsten]

OK, maybe this is the wrong place for a general bitch, but here it is anyway. I have been dedicated to surround since 1973, and it hasn't always been easy! But ins some ways it seems worse now, based on the confusing expensive and often lousy material getting put out.
Part of it is my own fault, as I still run 4.0 and no center front channel. This means I have to do the fold down. I also do not have video in my listening room. This is because I have children. Need I say more?
So now I have the Donnas and the Doors (LA Woman) DVD-As and guess what? No center channel fold down. So they are 2 channel for me, as you can't play the Doors without vocals!
Then there is Dual Disc. This is the most confusing pointless thing I have ever seen. Recently bought Good Charlotte Chronicles of... . Nice disc, but defaults to 2 channel, and requires a surf through two layers of menus to get it to go 5.1, which in itself isn't that impressive. Also recently bought Robert Cray, as I love him. This is what I get for not reading the label. Its Silverline. URGH! Why won't they go away!
I have a few on vinyl that subsequently came out in surround (Goldfrap, Bowie, Nine Inch Nails...) I am not about to replace this vinyl with dual discs. Why does it have to be this way. If dual discs are all there is to be, then why can't they all be the same?
This sucks.
Sorry for the rant. Really, I am.
Marc

 

[BananaSlug]

I think we all understand and feel the same way at times. I certainly have days when I think that I must be crazy for spending all of my discretionary money on this hobby. Probably (hopefully) some great new disc will be released that will make you forget all of the problems... for awhile.

 

[Frantic]

YES IT IS WORTH IT!!!!!!!

I am very satisfied with some of the latest releases in surround and I am very hopeful that this trend will continue.
Remember, television broadcasts will all soon be in Hi Def. With that, there will be Hi Def sound. This will make its way into everyones home. More and more people will want the sound to match their picture. (Who wants a beautiful picture only to listen to the program through a tin can?) Once they are used to this new sound on an everyday basis watching their news programs and fancy commercials with enhanced sound to get their attention, they will put on regular CD or DVD and say "What the heck is wrong with this sound?" At that point they should realize what they have been missing and the market will explode.
I always thought that our small group was helping to point toward a standard in the recording industry. Lately though, I question that
I will never give up and I am committed to whatever it takes to enjoy what I have loved all my life. THE BEST SOUND POSSIBLE

 

[Eggplant]

Honestly, I'm not at all sure it is.

The problems with being in love with surround music are, in order:

1) Poor sound quality (mostly quad mixes)
2) Poor mixes
3) Very limited availability
4) No one else seems to care

In a way, the biggest "problem" may actually be the solution:

Very few true MC mixes sound better than stereo decoded through Tate or Dolby IIx. Many sound far worse.

I'm going to compile a list of stereo CDs that sound much better in derived MC than their true MC counterparts.

 

[JonUrban]

Worth it? Good question. The labels sure make it hard to stay "into it". It's far to difficult for the average Joe.

 

[ct]

I don't think once you have experienced 5.1, especially in hi rez, you can ever accept stereo CD quality music. If you care about sound quality . . . Maybe that is the issue.

 

[neil wilkes]

I don't think once you have experienced 5.1, especially in hi rez, you can ever accept stereo CD quality music. If you care about sound quality . . . Maybe that is the issue.

Hear Hear.

Worth it?
Assuredly yes, yes and then yes again.
It's in the nature of a grand experiment almost. To quote an article from the now defunct Studio Sound magazine "We are putting studio quality audio out into the hands of the consumer and asking if anyone really cares".

It would seem that most don't care - but note I only said "Seems". I still believe that given the chance to make the choice in an informed manner, most consumers will go for the High Rez product - it's just that they either don't know about it, or don't know what it really is.
So many of the general public think digital is best, and therefore if their DVD with videos and music has multichannel digital audio it is already as good as it gets - most don't seem to know that there are many different levels of quality in digital.

 

[Cai Campbell]

This thread was starting to get way off topic. Wayward posts have been split to a new thread here:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5939

 

[doccbst]

Since The original question was is it worth it anymore--YES -- IMHO--Surround MC takes a lot of work yes,and expensive,frustrating,time consuming-but, thats the point I think,not many people can enjoy MC.Yet!
It's still better then stereo.even if a CD sounds better through a Dolby processor than pure DVD-A @ 24/96 5.1---so what--Listen to the CD (some of my CD's sound better than the official multi-channel versions also)bass management rears it's ugly head,-but then know you're listening to audio as good as it gets-the "10% rule".
I prefer to be in the 10% of people that are enjoying the absolute best audio available-today-and I hope things do get better, DvD-A,SACD (?),Even Dolby 5.1,are the pioneers of an absolutely amazing way to keep us busy and off the streets-(except the Acura-man,wish I had one),and alive-and having fun. by the way, thanks to John Urban and all associated with this forum-by far the best source for MC info-my 2 cents worth anyway-doccbst

 

[EMB]

Yes, still worth it. Not easy, but who said it was gonna be? Niche stuff is always a tough thing to collect and maintain, but always rewarding.

ED

 

[Scottmoose]

Yes, still worth it. Not easy, but who said it was gonna be? Niche stuff is always a tough thing to collect and maintain, but always rewarding.

ED

Worth doing? Heck yes! A complete pain in the posterior at times? That as well. It shouldn't be, and the record companies haven't the slightest idea about what's good for them (if I see one more worthless, pointless, expensive, new format!!!) and try for some consistency for once, but there are still rewards worth having.

Best
Scott

 

[ss9001]

Yes!

With some caveats. Personally, with the exception of a few clean sounding CD4 LP's in my collection, I've about given up on that format, my own collection included. The black silence and clear, hi-rez sound quality afforded by SACD, DVD-A, and even DualDiscs make it difficult for me to enjoy the inherent record noise in CD4's. I tried played an oldie that I hadn't played in yrs, Gordon Lightfoot's Sundown, last week. The crap I heard from my speakers compared to modern recordings made me add that title to my "wish list" of CD's to buy. I'll play it with QS synth or DPLIIx B4 listening to that LP again. Buying CD4 or any used LP on *bay is a crapshoot. Some have been sleepers, even the CD4 ones, but some CD4 LP's I've received have clearly been abused or played with a non-shibata stylus cartridge, even the ones advertised as mint or near-mint. Unless there's a rare find to be had, I've given up on *bay for CD4's.

I still gain a lot of pleasure enjoying my SQ's, the few QS LPs I have and of course derived surround.

I have heard no SACD or DVD-A in which the MC mix didn't either blow me away or at least sound enjoyable played in surround. I just got a DualDisc last week that sounded good if not spectacular in surround even in DolbyDigital only and 48kHz. We just have to keep supporting these formats or they will go away like quad.

The only bitch I have with the formats is the studios that don't release them! Top of the list is Sony: it still boggles me why they sat on so many vintage Columbia recordings and quad mixes and didn't try to remaster them for 5.1 & just release them. Were their sales projections that bad?

Marcsten - I feel your pain sometimes, since I too have been a slave to surround since '72, after a Sansui demo. It's been a challenge sometimes dealing with real world room limitations, but over the past 30 yrs, good surround music and cinema can still give me the goose-bumps. Hope u can spring for a center channel someday. It does help especially with dense layered tracks like the Elton Johns.

ss9001

 

[Scottmoose]

Sales projections? Maybe, but probably not if they were released as hybrid SACD (for example). Most people would just buy them without realising they were SACDs, like they do with so many of the unadvertised hybrids. That's the major reason those discs are sold -unwitting purchase. The Special Edition of the latest Goldfrapp album for example. Narry a mention of SACD, let alone multi-channel on the box. So it's just incompetance as usual. They can't even say they'd be worried about the 'Q' word, because as they don't even mention multi channel at all in the first place a lot of the time, why should they state its origins. Nope, they've just got their heads in the sand again. Pathetic.

Best
Scott

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I only recently purchased my first SACD and DVD-Audio discs. It obviously isn't worth it for the majority but I am finding it worthwhile for me. Despite all of the complaints about DualDiscs, I like those really well with the biggest complaint the difficulty to figure out what is on the DVD side. I won't go so far to state all must have the same thing but certainly think DualDiscs should be clearly labeled as DVD-Audio or Dolby Digital and surround or stereo only.

I have recently ordered about 20 more of the darn things and hope most of them turn out as well as the first half dozen I purchased. If the majority are a disappointment, I mind find the whole thing more trouble than it is worth. I am often happy with DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 music mixes but have to be really careful with those purchases and rely on reviews if I can find any.

Chris

 

[Chris Gerhard]

The only bitch I have with the formats is the studios that don't release them! Top of the list is Sony: it still boggles me why they sat on so many vintage Columbia recordings and quad mixes and didn't try to remaster them for 5.1 & just release them. Were their sales projections that bad?

I don't know but I suspect the SACD discs released sold so poorly that future releases were scrapped. I hadn't listened to Bob Dylan in decades but decided to buy Blood on the Tracks and just love that SACD. I ordered a couple more Dylan SACD discs in Surround and hope they are as good. I don't know if Blood on the Tracks was originally a surround recording or not but whoever mixed the SACD sure made me happy.

Reading about the new formats on AVSForum is what interested me so I finally gave them a try although I am very late, almost too late to find some of the music that many there rave about. I did try open reel and 8-Track Quad in the 70s and bought those formats early with of course not worthwhile results.

Chris

 

[daved64]

I don't know if Blood on the Tracks was originally a surround recording or not but whoever mixed the SACD sure made me happy.



Chris

The master, Elliott Scheiner, and Phil Ramone