Steven Wilson Center Channel lead vocals question

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Its funny isn't it, that they're producing systems with more and more speakers to tighten up the placement of special effects and background music in films, & mixing the soundtracks accordingly, and people buy them. But when it comes to music the same companies shy away from producing 5.1 mixes, saying nobody wants to be surrounded by music :confused:
 
I do Google everything, literally. I also appreciate input from experienced people I trust, the ones responding on this forum site, to help guide me and fill in the blanks that Google doesn't always do. I agree that they are certainly pushing more surround--they have front high and front wide speakers set ups now, 7.1 is the new 5.1, etc. I think the problem is that most people will never buy the quality equipment, meaning matched speakers (and not the surround system in a box) or the receiver/amp to play surround music the way it was meant to be heard, not through some <$500 total speaker package surround system. That being said, even through those speakers, on a good Steven Wilson mix, I think they would surely appreciate it. The problem is marketing to these people to try surround music , and then having them hear it on a "good" system. The work that has been done recently by Mr. Wilson would bring in quite a few converts, I would bet. Maybe throw some demo blu ray audio stuff along with the the previews on a new release blu ray movie...
 
the bottom line (we're told by industry folk.. remember jimby?) is that not enough people are interested in these surround music discs.. they simply do not sell in the numbers the labels require to justify their production. (therefore we must be grateful for the crumbs we receive...) :mad:
 
I previously had my three front speakers aligned across the front. Then sometime last year, I changed the location of the left and right fronts to match those in the diagram shown in the earlier post in this thread. I did it just as an experiment and have not gone back to the earlier configuration. The improvement in overall sound was very significant; (and my wife hasn't tripped over the left front speaker cable which would surely put an end to it! LOL)
Yeah, but is that all that changed; the relative alignment of the fronts of the 3 speakers? How far were your fronts from the front wall of the room before you made the change? How far are they now? If your speakers were a few inches from the wall before and are more now, I would suspect that much of the change you hear is from that, not from a change in alignment. Most speakers and walls don't get along so well. Rear-ported speakers are especially sensitive to this.
 
Its funny isn't it, that they're producing systems with more and more speakers to tighten up the placement of special effects and background music in films, & mixing the soundtracks accordingly, and people buy them. But when it comes to music the same companies shy away from producing 5.1 mixes, saying nobody wants to be surrounded by music :confused:

I think it is more the case that (statistically) nobody listens to music. For the vast majority of the music-buying public, music is just the backing track for some other activity. Ask 100 people whether they ever sit down to listen to music, where listening to music is the activity in the same way that watching a movie is the activity, and you will see some pretty pitiful results. When asked, some people will even look at you like you are from Mars, as though the prospect of listening to music in that way is completely absurd. We "nobody's" who do listen to music, unfortunately, have to live in their world.

Music is not a high priority in our culture, and what is presented for sale and pumped out on the radio reflects exactly this.
 
I think it is more the case that (statistically) nobody listens to music. For the vast majority of the music-buying public, music is just the backing track for some other activity. Ask 100 people whether they ever sit down to listen to music, where listening to music is the activity in the same way that watching a movie is the activity, and you will see some pretty pitiful results. When asked, some people will even look at you like you are from Mars, as though the prospect of listening to music in that way is completely absurd. We "nobody's" who do listen to music, unfortunately, have to live in their world.

Music is not a high priority in our culture, and what is presented for sale and pumped out on the radio reflects exactly this.

Great post, couldn't agree more!
 
I think it is more the case that (statistically) nobody listens to music. For the vast majority of the music-buying public, music is just the backing track for some other activity. Ask 100 people whether they ever sit down to listen to music, where listening to music is the activity in the same way that watching a movie is the activity, and you will see some pretty pitiful results. When asked, some people will even look at you like you are from Mars, as though the prospect of listening to music in that way is completely absurd. We "nobody's" who do listen to music, unfortunately, have to live in their world.

Music is not a high priority in our culture, and what is presented for sale and pumped out on the radio reflects exactly this.

How true. Us old guys remember the joy of a friend getting a new album, and going over their house (or them bringing it over to your house) and listening to a new album "all the way through" for the first time. Then maybe borrowing it to see if it was worth getting. (Way before cassette players and recording the thing)

No one does anything anymore with a focus. Watching TV? Most have a laptop or tablet in their hands. Listen to music? Working on something or doing something. It's a multi-task world, and face it, try and get a kid to sit down and listen to music without doing anything else (unless you're in the car maybe) and it ain't happening.

We now live in a "Buy the song, forget the album" world
 
Yeah, but is that all that changed; the relative alignment of the fronts of the 3 speakers? How far were your fronts from the front wall of the room before you made the change? How far are they now? If your speakers were a few inches from the wall before and are more now, I would suspect that much of the change you hear is from that, not from a change in alignment. Most speakers and walls don't get along so well. Rear-ported speakers are especially sensitive to this.

The earlier configuration had the (rears) of the speakers about 18 inches from the front wall and toed in towards the listening position. Now they are about 5 feet from the front wall, closer to the side walls, spread further apart and somewhat closer to the listening position. I agree with you that increasing the distance from the front wall has contributed to the improvement to the sound (but my speakers are not rear-ported); and this improvement has manifested itself while listening in stereo as well. Every high-end audio salon that I've ever visited has the speakers in a stereo installation pulled out well away from the front and side walls. But I don't see how I could have possibly brought my front speakers into the recommended alignment (in front of the center speaker and 60 degrees between the two fronts) without pulling them away from the front wall. So the recommended configuration in steelydave's diagram also likely yields the benefits associated with pulling the front speakers further out into the room.
 
I think it is more the case that (statistically) nobody listens to music. For the vast majority of the music-buying public, music is just the backing track for some other activity. Ask 100 people whether they ever sit down to listen to music, where listening to music is the activity in the same way that watching a movie is the activity, and you will see some pretty pitiful results. When asked, some people will even look at you like you are from Mars, as though the prospect of listening to music in that way is completely absurd. We "nobody's" who do listen to music, unfortunately, have to live in their world.

Music is not a high priority in our culture, and what is presented for sale and pumped out on the radio reflects exactly this.

I agree and disagree to an extent. We have lost something, but it is hard to state specifically what it is. Jon references it in that the excitement is missing. I think a lot of it is disposable music. What I mean by that is you can get any song independent of the entire album, not to mention the fact that if you buy a current format recording in its entirity (cd, dvd, mp3, etc.) it is still easy to skip to the hits and bypass the other songs, the disposable ones. And to me, that was the beginning of the end of music the way I liked and wanted. I have discovered countless non-hit songs because I was "forced to listen" to the entire recording to get to the hits. And thank God! I can't imagine never having heard those songs because I could skip them instead. Maybe I am different and my music appreciation is in the minority, but I am doing my damndest to have my kids feel the same--and it is working! They love and appreciate it the way I do. Granted there are concessions. I have to suffer through Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus type stuff, but I get them into Zeppelin and AC/DC, so it is worth it, and we are all the better for it.

The other problem I see is too much techno and just catchy beats with no substance or musical talent or ability. I know I am showing my age with this perspective, but there is too much of a lack of musicianship and originality for my tastes. I can appreciate good music whether I am a fan of the genre or not, but there isn't exactly a plethora of it spewing on the airwaves. I know there are still students of the craft and there are still some fantastic lyricists and musicians, but they seem to be a giant minority. I also think music has been degraded with the iPod and portable music and the lack of quality in listening to it through a bluetooth tiny speaker, or similar things. Or streaming through Pandora over a cheap tv speaker system. I still think music is a priority and just as popular if not more so with the convenience of the mp3 players, I just think the degradation of the quality of how people listen has hurt it too much for multichannel hi rez recordings to ever make a comeback. The lack of marketing for it doesn't help either.

I do agree that most people are too busy doing nothing, but they won't admit how trivial their lack of attention is, to actually listen to music as you said. It is background noise, nothing more. They sing along with the stuff coming from the radio and forget who even made the song a month later. It is nice to talk to others who feel the same and share my sorrow at our loss.
 
I thought Steve Wilson made a good point about the music scene in the interview posted in another thread. Listening to music has been replaced by video games. When us geezers were young, part of how we defined ourselves was by the music we chose. We had an connection w/ others who liked the same band(s). Today's youth defines themselves by the games they choose to play- and they have an instant and more concrete connection by being able to play those games online anytime w/ others. It's a much more superficial connection, but it's available whenever they want it and w/ more people available. And it's understandable (though lamentable) that youth would find playing a game more compelling than just listening to music; it's more interactive and utilizes more of the senses.

Of course, there's little room left for the imagination to work. It's akin to reading a book vs. watching TV or a movie. As many marvels as technology brings us, it is at a cost. Us old-timers aren't immune. Enjoying music used to be a social event; sitting alone in a room listening to music- no matter how enjoyable- is a far cry from being at a live performance. And the live performances of today are not the same as live music used to be.

Don't know if anyone here has heard of Jacques Ellul; his "The Technological Society" was part of a Sociology class I took. He maintains that technology, which was critical to human's survival in the beginning, is a pandora's box that, once opened, becomes a juggernaut that will eventually lead to our demise. This theme has been repeated time and again in sci-fi; humans threatened by their own technological creations. We can see the evidence all around is in the ways we're destroying the Earth, in our energy dependence, in the ways we have become more isolated and alienated. Even forums like these are a replacement for true interaction.

It goes far beyond the demise and niche-ification (to coin a term) of our beloved hobby. But to quote the Dead "I may be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride..."
 
The past wasn't better - just different. I know we are way off topic but I want to counter ProgRules post. The opportunity is always here; it's never gone. I'm an old-timer too but we all only live right now and there is always more to discover.
 
The past wasn't better - just different. I know we are way off topic but I want to counter ProgRules post. The opportunity is always here; it's never gone. I'm an old-timer too but we all only live right now and there is always more to discover.

Not much of a counter, though, since you missed the point of my post. I never said the past was better- just that for every gain we make, there is a cost. And the sum total of those costs will lead to our demise. How long that will take is of course unknown, but one way or another, our demise is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever.

Don't get me wrong- I love my technology. I think back to the days when I first got into music and am amazed at how far we've come in our ability to enjoy it, both in quality and quantity. I imagine what it would have been like to have had all this music and technology when I was a teen. But then if I was a teen now, I probably wouldn't be into music like I am, since the culture is so different. What is needed is a time-travel machine, so I could take all this good stuff back to that music-loving teen.

Not sure what you mean by the opportunity is always here, but there are some opportunities from back in the day I really miss. Like concerts that were readily available and reasonably priced and a plethora of live music in clubs and bars to dance the night away. As much as we bemoan the changes in music appreciation and listening habits, to me the worst effect of music being devalued in today's culture is the lack of cheap and readily accessible live music.
 
Not much of a counter, though, since you missed the point of my post. I never said the past was better- just that for every gain we make, there is a cost. And the sum total of those costs will lead to our demise. How long that will take is of course unknown, but one way or another, our demise is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever.

Don't get me wrong- I love my technology. I think back to the days when I first got into music and am amazed at how far we've come in our ability to enjoy it, both in quality and quantity. I imagine what it would have been like to have had all this music and technology when I was a teen. But then if I was a teen now, I probably wouldn't be into music like I am, since the culture is so different. What is needed is a time-travel machine, so I could take all this good stuff back to that music-loving teen.

Not sure what you mean by the opportunity is always here, but there are some opportunities from back in the day I really miss. Like concerts that were readily available and reasonably priced and a plethora of live music in clubs and bars to dance the night away. As much as we bemoan the changes in music appreciation and listening habits, to me the worst effect of music being devalued in today's culture is the lack of cheap and readily accessible live music.

If, we had all this when we were teens, we would still be out! In the 70's a good system cost as much as a car. In my world a stereo did not get you what a teenage boy needed the most, and it's not music! Besides, then, who could afford it? Not me!
The reason I hung out and eventually worked at an FM station. I knew one person who had a real nice setup for music.
It would have been great to have high res. then. When I did get a decent system, you had tracking and feedback howl to contend with. records get damaged so easy-and the sound was nothing to compare to now.
 
If, we had all this when we were teens, we would still be out! In the 70's a good system cost as much as a car. In my world a stereo did not get you what a teenage boy needed the most, and it's not music! Besides, then, who could afford it? Not me!
The reason I hung out and eventually worked at an FM station. I knew one person who had a real nice setup for music.
It would have been great to have high res. then. When I did get a decent system, you had tracking and feedback howl to contend with. records get damaged so easy-and the sound was nothing to compare to now.

Well, I didn't have a great system, but back then my HK330C cost about $300, another $100 for a decent Sony TT and $200 for a pair of Electrovoice speakers. It was a good system in my mind and was far below the price of a car- at least a decent car (I drove a Pinto! when I was a teen). And while a good stereo might not get you a girl, once you had the girl, some good music helped set the table...
 
Now, this is getting fun.

I may have to re-think the layout of the room.

The few Living Stereo 3 channel SA-CD's I have sound new.

The 5.1 discs I have live. The Beatles 'Love' makes great use of the center channel for vocals.

Whole new ball game now.
 

Attachments

  • nat.jpg
    nat.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 206
  • front.jpg
    front.jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 213
Now, this is getting fun.

I may have to re-think the layout of the room.

The few Living Stereo 3 channel SA-CD's I have sound new.

The 5.1 discs I have live. The Beatles 'Love' makes great use of the center channel for vocals.

Whole new ball game now.
Can you raise the TV by wall-mounting it? And position the speakers so that tweeters at ear-level when sitting in the listening position.
 
Well, I didn't have a great system, but back then my HK330C cost about $300, another $100 for a decent Sony TT and $200 for a pair of Electrovoice speakers. It was a good system in my mind and was far below the price of a car- at least a decent car (I drove a Pinto! when I was a teen). And while a good stereo might not get you a girl, once you had the girl, some good music helped set the table...

OK, but who wants to keep he same girl? rather have the car, and more girls than just one! Like a chip, one is never enough
 
Can you raise the TV by wall-mounting it? And position the speakers so that tweeters at ear-level when sitting in the listening position.

I got the same issue, I raised the TV and I was sitting here looking up getting a stiff neck. I think it's bets to wall mount center and aim it down. Having it at ear level with a Tv is not an option.
 
Can you raise the TV by wall-mounting it? And position the speakers so that tweeters at ear-level when sitting in the listening position.

What I am thinking is simply removing the center stool and placing the speaker sideways on a small table for movies. I only watch one a week, so it is only a temporary challenge.

All 5 tweeters are at ear level now. Golden rule. :)

I spend hours each week listening to music.

But, I may take your advice of wall mounting the plasma. It gives an early reflection point for the center speaker.

The only audio components that need to be in the mix are the Oppo and the Onkyo. I can place them on small stands between the 3 fronts.

Audio wins over video. :)
 
Back
Top