Why not native multi-channel / mix-down to stereo?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Colin Dunn

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
74
I'm wondering why the industry doesn't distribute everything in multi-channel and mix-down on the fly to the end-user's speaker configuration. Blu-ray players already can do this for 5.1 and 7.1 movies being played back on other speaker configurations (2-4 channels), but the idea could be extended to other devices.

For example, for portable music players - why not use "headphone surround" technology (such as Dolby Headphone) to play back a multi-channel recording with a pair of headphones but surround effects?

It seems that for so long, the industry has focused on how to jam multiple channels into a stereo signal. Why not convert to discrete multi-channel signals and adapt to stereo or virtual headphone surround on the fly?

That would solve the multiple-inventory problem by making EVERY recording a surround recording. Stereo listeners would be accommodated with mix-down, and headphone listeners would get 360-degree surround sound.
 
For starters, Multichannel is more expensive than Stereo. When companies do not see more sales for Multichannel releases, they question why do it at all.
 
Why would it be more expensive Brain? Colin's idea is that only one mix is made. Now people like Steven Wilson start with a stereo mix and expand from their, so that would be more expensive as it takes more work. But would that really matter so much when there is only one version, the mch, to distribute?
 
Because then they would all have to agree on a set of standards industry wide for basic mix layout and downmix compatibility.

Try getting four friends to agree on pizza toppings. Same problems. Everybody will invent their own way, multiple format wars and everybody loses because it's a niche market to begin with.
 
they all flow by inertia. i guess 99% of artists and producers have no even slightest
clue about existence of surround sound format for musical productions.
of those who have heard surround - 99% stuck to stereo due to habit and unwillingness to experiment.
 
Why would it be more expensive Brain? Colin's idea is that only one mix is made. Now people like Steven Wilson start with a stereo mix and expand from their, so that would be more expensive as it takes more work. But would that really matter so much when there is only one version, the mch, to distribute?

Well, you have 6 extra channels of audio to record, master and quality check. At the recording session, that means extra speakers, cables, amplifier channels, etc. It adds costs and complexity to a project.

As for distributing only in Multichannel, since the lion's share of the market is for Stereo, I doubt you'd get even the producers and engineers that are Multichannel fans to consider that.

But we do have record labels like Channel Classics, Pentatone and others regularly recording every new session in Stereo and Multichannel. So Multichannel does live on. An encouraging trend.
 
Thanks Brain. We are on a different path here. I was thinking about a normal recording of an album, where each musician/instrument has its own tracks on the mixing board. But you are talking about a live, in the studio, atmospheric recording. I agree that will give extra cost.

For the rest, multichannel does live on, which is exciting.
 
I'm wondering why the industry doesn't distribute everything in multi-channel and mix-down on the fly to the end-user's speaker configuration. Blu-ray players already can do this for 5.1 and 7.1 movies being played back on other speaker configurations (2-4 channels), but the idea could be extended to other devices.

For example, for portable music players - why not use "headphone surround" technology (such as Dolby Headphone) to play back a multi-channel recording with a pair of headphones but surround effects?

It seems that for so long, the industry has focused on how to jam multiple channels into a stereo signal. Why not convert to discrete multi-channel signals and adapt to stereo or virtual headphone surround on the fly?

That would solve the multiple-inventory problem by making EVERY recording a surround recording. Stereo listeners would be accommodated with mix-down, and headphone listeners would get 360-degree surround sound.

I've been saying that since the Quad days.

There are a number of reasons that it's unlikely to happen, first the masses don't care about multi-channel. Second it's more work and more expense. Lastly a multi-channel mix-down to stereo is a compromise for stereo listeners, compared to a recording mixed specifically for stereo.

In the early days of Quad I had expected that the record companies would be releasing everything in compatible quad only, as they would be backwards compatible with stereo, the same as they didn't bother with separate mono releases anymore.
Unfortunately it didn't happen and the lack of new surround material contributed to Quad's demise.
 
It's all about expectations, too. First movie studios experimented with stereo and multichannel, but didn't starting making a habit of it until Dolby Surround technology was installed in most theaters. Even then, it took the advent of the DVD to make multichannel cinema a regular thing.

Music-only audio still suffers from the perception that stereo sound is all most listeners want, and the fact that this is probably true is why that is mostly what you still get to this day, even while the technology has continued to be refined to the point where you would think multi-channel audio on regular releases would be the norm rather than exception.

In the end, though, blame the artists. If anyone fairly successful really wanted their music in multichannel, it's hard to imagine they couldn't get it done. The cost for a popular act would not impact their bottom line much, and might expand their fan base even more. But when you sell in high numbers doing the same old same old, well, that's pretty much what we can expect.

ED :)
 
Thanks Brain. We are on a different path here. I was thinking about a normal recording of an album, where each musician/instrument has its own tracks on the mixing board. But you are talking about a live, in the studio, atmospheric recording. I agree that will give extra cost.

For the rest, multichannel does live on, which is exciting.

I've had the discussion with many people in the music industry over the years. There is added cost to recording, mixing and quality controlling a Multichannel recording - "normal" or otherwise.

As far as only selling a native Multichannel mix and using a Stereo mix-down - or having the listener do the mix-down on their equipment - that capability has been available for years.
The lack of releases in that manner provides the answer to the question. :)
 
It's all about expectations, too. First movie studios experimented with stereo and multichannel, but didn't starting making a habit of it until Dolby Surround technology was installed in most theaters. Even then, it took the advent of the DVD to make multichannel cinema a regular thing.

Quibble: I think DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS were pretty firmly established as popular theatrical formats before DVD really got underway. The great thing about DVD was being able to hear those same mixes at home.

The downside is that discrete digital killed 70mm pretty much overnight.
 
Back
Top