<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is a bias on every Forum on the Internet.[/quote]
"This" forum is biased? Let's see its called
"QuadraphonicQuad" ......now exactly what kind of bias could you be referring to? So, I guess you could infer a bias towards "Quadraphonic" music and equipment.....but most all here are also early adopters of all the "new" multichannel formats.....including Dolby Digital, DTS, DVD-Audio, SACD, and whatever they come with next!! If anything, I think it could be said that here on this forum you will find the most "open minded" audio enthusiasts. Many of us here appreciate everything from MONO to Stereo to .......Ambiosonics!!
Most here I would propose, see music as an audio experience to be enjoyed regardless of the format utilized. But, I would certainly agree with you that those feelings aren't shared across other audio forums. Including I might add those that deal with Ambisonics almost exclusively! The problem as I see it.....is that "others" tend to lock themselves into what they believe is RIGHT!! The MONO purists.....who luckily are so small in number they pretty much hide from public view! The STEREO purists...who apparently think that the world should stop spinning......that the development of STEREO should end any discussion or possible change to the music "experience".
And, of course this has absolutely nothing to do with their constant quest for better "imaging", "soundfield presentation", or musical "reality"!!
And, even the devoted AMBISONICS proponents who seem to subscribe to the theory that "Everything You Know Is Wrong" (Firesign Theater, Columbia CQ-33141 SQ) but probably haven't actually listened to it as it is in the inferior "SQ Quadraphonic" format. But, if you actually did, you'd soon realize that "Were All Bozos On This Bus" (Firesign Theater, Columbia CQ-30737 SQ)!!
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Generally, there is a bias here in favor of gimmicky, low-fidelity mixes that have instruments in the rear, over multichannel mixes that use the rear channels to make the music sound more real.[/quote]
Let's see............define "real" please? A lot of us here are into (now) Classic Rock and pretty much everything classed as "popular" from the '60s to present. Since the invention of the multi-track recorder, virtually ALL of this music recorded in the studio is in fact a "creation" of the artist/group/engineer/producer. It usually has little or no relationship to "reality".....tracks are bounced, reverbed, overdubbed, played backwards, sampled, etc. etc. etc. to obtain the "sound" that they want. So, at least when it comes to THIS type of music you would have to have a pretty loose intepretation of "real" to include any of it! Of course "live" recordings of both classical and popular music probably could (and should) be captured as "realistically" as possible on both recording and playback. The STEREO enthusiasts insist that this can and should only be done through TWO speakers....even though most all of this is produced via the same 16/24/32 track "multichannel" recordings and therefore would be more properly classed as "creations" again!
I will tip my hat though to the Ambisonic spin-off creation of the CALREC microphone. For capturing "real" live recordings it offers an exceptional clarity and detail not easily found in other recordings. Check out the Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions and their other early releases for a fantastic listening experience!
But, back to your point........the devoted Ambiosonic enthusiast appears to insist that ALL music should be captured as a "soundfield" recording. And, that the basic premise of "pan-pot" mixing is false and unacceptable. Unfortunately for these Ambiosonic purists.......the rest of the industry, from engineers to artists to producers to the listener simply didn't immediately jump onto this "Everything You Know Is Wrong" philosphy and the format languished as a result.
I would certainly agree that this is unfortunate, as Ambisonics can offer a very engaging musical experience....but then again I'm one of those "quad" guys that accepts all the formats with a grain of salt, enjoying them for what they offer and glossing over any and all of their faults from EV/Stereo4/SQ/QS/CD-4 to Q8, and QR! (Update to include DD/DTS/DVD-A/SACD)
But, on your point of instruments in the rear channels...I hope you'll forgive me if I defer to the viewpoints of those like Paul McCartney (Band on the Run, Venus and Mars) as I enjoy listening to HIS music the way he mixed and produced it. I haven't had the pleasure of listening to anything you've done.....is it on the radio?? Or, perhaps you're suggesting that he doesn't know what he's doing?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For example, note that despite the average poster spending hundreds of dollars on quad equipment, virtually no one in this Forum has ever heard Ambisonics, which is by far the best surround format, since instead of placing sounds (instruments) in one of four speakers, instead it places sounds in particular locations in a three-dimensional sound field, and then requires the hardware to put that sound in your room in the same location. [/quote]
"Hundreds"? Ok, my first "quad" setup was a little Panasonic "all in one" Quad 8-track/AM-FM/TT that I bought in 1974 for $300. But, THOUSANDS of $$ later I do feel that I have a system that works for me...and I can listen to ANY of the past or present multichannel formats. And, I think you "assume" (remember the definition of assume?) too much if you think that many of us here haven't heard a properly setup Ambiosonic system, or at least listened to UHJ encoded Ambiosonic music.
As to whether it is the "best surround format".....I would have to ask "What is your point of reference" for this statement? Have you heard well mixed SQ through a TATE II or S&IC? Or QS through a QSD-1000 or modified QSD-1? Quad reel or Q8? The key I believe is that a well engineered and produced multichannel recording can sound fantastic in ANY format. The point is that it was "well engineered and produced". The same recording can sound horrible in ANY format if not done well!!! Please remember my earlier point that all our modern music is a "creation" from Multi-track masters......the enjoyment and musical experience is much more dependent on that "creation" than it is on the particular format to deliver it!!!
On whether the "normal" quadraphonic formats localized an instrument to one of four speakers or into a three-dimensional soundfield. I would defer to the engineers at Sansui who developed QS vario-matrix quadraphonic. QS was defined as a "symmetrical" matrix and the algorthym was developed to insure just such a "balanced" soundfield in a 360 degree radius. While it didn't include a "height" component like a total ambiosonic environment it nonetheless recognized the difference between 4 distinct points and the total 360 degree radius around the listener. Beyond that, it again falls to the artist/engineer/producer to USE its capability. I would also agree that not many have had the opportunity to listen to Ambiosonics including the height component due mostly to the lack of availability of either the equipment or properly encoded music to enjoy it!
Of course with the "new" digital formats anything is possible, articles have been written recently regarding the inclusion of a "height" channel, additional speakers and other modifications to the basic "quad" or 5.1 speaker arrangement. So there may very well be a future for those that desire this capability. Many of us "stuck it out" for many years hanging onto "dead" formats only to see it rise again and become commercially available! (Can I hear a big AMEN?? ) Perhaps Ambiosonics will adapt also, and become available again in some way...but the die-hard proponents of this format don't do themselves, the industry or the public any favors by sticking to their "Everything You Know Is Wrong" mentality......not a great way to make friends and influence people if you know what I mean!
I see Cai's added an Ambiosonic section to the QQ forum.....so I'll cross post this rather lengthy post to there also, let's see how much activity you can generate!!
QuadBob
"This" forum is biased? Let's see its called
"QuadraphonicQuad" ......now exactly what kind of bias could you be referring to? So, I guess you could infer a bias towards "Quadraphonic" music and equipment.....but most all here are also early adopters of all the "new" multichannel formats.....including Dolby Digital, DTS, DVD-Audio, SACD, and whatever they come with next!! If anything, I think it could be said that here on this forum you will find the most "open minded" audio enthusiasts. Many of us here appreciate everything from MONO to Stereo to .......Ambiosonics!!
Most here I would propose, see music as an audio experience to be enjoyed regardless of the format utilized. But, I would certainly agree with you that those feelings aren't shared across other audio forums. Including I might add those that deal with Ambisonics almost exclusively! The problem as I see it.....is that "others" tend to lock themselves into what they believe is RIGHT!! The MONO purists.....who luckily are so small in number they pretty much hide from public view! The STEREO purists...who apparently think that the world should stop spinning......that the development of STEREO should end any discussion or possible change to the music "experience".
And, of course this has absolutely nothing to do with their constant quest for better "imaging", "soundfield presentation", or musical "reality"!!
And, even the devoted AMBISONICS proponents who seem to subscribe to the theory that "Everything You Know Is Wrong" (Firesign Theater, Columbia CQ-33141 SQ) but probably haven't actually listened to it as it is in the inferior "SQ Quadraphonic" format. But, if you actually did, you'd soon realize that "Were All Bozos On This Bus" (Firesign Theater, Columbia CQ-30737 SQ)!!
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Generally, there is a bias here in favor of gimmicky, low-fidelity mixes that have instruments in the rear, over multichannel mixes that use the rear channels to make the music sound more real.[/quote]
Let's see............define "real" please? A lot of us here are into (now) Classic Rock and pretty much everything classed as "popular" from the '60s to present. Since the invention of the multi-track recorder, virtually ALL of this music recorded in the studio is in fact a "creation" of the artist/group/engineer/producer. It usually has little or no relationship to "reality".....tracks are bounced, reverbed, overdubbed, played backwards, sampled, etc. etc. etc. to obtain the "sound" that they want. So, at least when it comes to THIS type of music you would have to have a pretty loose intepretation of "real" to include any of it! Of course "live" recordings of both classical and popular music probably could (and should) be captured as "realistically" as possible on both recording and playback. The STEREO enthusiasts insist that this can and should only be done through TWO speakers....even though most all of this is produced via the same 16/24/32 track "multichannel" recordings and therefore would be more properly classed as "creations" again!
I will tip my hat though to the Ambisonic spin-off creation of the CALREC microphone. For capturing "real" live recordings it offers an exceptional clarity and detail not easily found in other recordings. Check out the Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions and their other early releases for a fantastic listening experience!
But, back to your point........the devoted Ambiosonic enthusiast appears to insist that ALL music should be captured as a "soundfield" recording. And, that the basic premise of "pan-pot" mixing is false and unacceptable. Unfortunately for these Ambiosonic purists.......the rest of the industry, from engineers to artists to producers to the listener simply didn't immediately jump onto this "Everything You Know Is Wrong" philosphy and the format languished as a result.
I would certainly agree that this is unfortunate, as Ambisonics can offer a very engaging musical experience....but then again I'm one of those "quad" guys that accepts all the formats with a grain of salt, enjoying them for what they offer and glossing over any and all of their faults from EV/Stereo4/SQ/QS/CD-4 to Q8, and QR! (Update to include DD/DTS/DVD-A/SACD)
But, on your point of instruments in the rear channels...I hope you'll forgive me if I defer to the viewpoints of those like Paul McCartney (Band on the Run, Venus and Mars) as I enjoy listening to HIS music the way he mixed and produced it. I haven't had the pleasure of listening to anything you've done.....is it on the radio?? Or, perhaps you're suggesting that he doesn't know what he's doing?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For example, note that despite the average poster spending hundreds of dollars on quad equipment, virtually no one in this Forum has ever heard Ambisonics, which is by far the best surround format, since instead of placing sounds (instruments) in one of four speakers, instead it places sounds in particular locations in a three-dimensional sound field, and then requires the hardware to put that sound in your room in the same location. [/quote]
"Hundreds"? Ok, my first "quad" setup was a little Panasonic "all in one" Quad 8-track/AM-FM/TT that I bought in 1974 for $300. But, THOUSANDS of $$ later I do feel that I have a system that works for me...and I can listen to ANY of the past or present multichannel formats. And, I think you "assume" (remember the definition of assume?) too much if you think that many of us here haven't heard a properly setup Ambiosonic system, or at least listened to UHJ encoded Ambiosonic music.
As to whether it is the "best surround format".....I would have to ask "What is your point of reference" for this statement? Have you heard well mixed SQ through a TATE II or S&IC? Or QS through a QSD-1000 or modified QSD-1? Quad reel or Q8? The key I believe is that a well engineered and produced multichannel recording can sound fantastic in ANY format. The point is that it was "well engineered and produced". The same recording can sound horrible in ANY format if not done well!!! Please remember my earlier point that all our modern music is a "creation" from Multi-track masters......the enjoyment and musical experience is much more dependent on that "creation" than it is on the particular format to deliver it!!!
On whether the "normal" quadraphonic formats localized an instrument to one of four speakers or into a three-dimensional soundfield. I would defer to the engineers at Sansui who developed QS vario-matrix quadraphonic. QS was defined as a "symmetrical" matrix and the algorthym was developed to insure just such a "balanced" soundfield in a 360 degree radius. While it didn't include a "height" component like a total ambiosonic environment it nonetheless recognized the difference between 4 distinct points and the total 360 degree radius around the listener. Beyond that, it again falls to the artist/engineer/producer to USE its capability. I would also agree that not many have had the opportunity to listen to Ambiosonics including the height component due mostly to the lack of availability of either the equipment or properly encoded music to enjoy it!
Of course with the "new" digital formats anything is possible, articles have been written recently regarding the inclusion of a "height" channel, additional speakers and other modifications to the basic "quad" or 5.1 speaker arrangement. So there may very well be a future for those that desire this capability. Many of us "stuck it out" for many years hanging onto "dead" formats only to see it rise again and become commercially available! (Can I hear a big AMEN?? ) Perhaps Ambiosonics will adapt also, and become available again in some way...but the die-hard proponents of this format don't do themselves, the industry or the public any favors by sticking to their "Everything You Know Is Wrong" mentality......not a great way to make friends and influence people if you know what I mean!
I see Cai's added an Ambiosonic section to the QQ forum.....so I'll cross post this rather lengthy post to there also, let's see how much activity you can generate!!
QuadBob
