Do some not hear surround?

[skherbeck]

I think people who enjoy surround are active listeners... and by "active" I mean we listen to the individual instruments, and how they interact contributing to the whole; this is how I listened to stereo recordings (especially with headphones) before discovering surround, and surround has only enhanced the experience. Some people who don't "get" surround just don't actively listen in this way; others are annoyed or overloaded by the extra sounds coming at them.

 

[jimfisheye]

I have a suspicion about hearing.
Think about how much vision varies among people. Everything from not being able to focus on just about anything to needing reading glasses for up close but great otherwise. We're visual creatures and reading is a required modern thing so this is noticed and people get glasses if they need them. So I imagine a similar variation in hearing. Details in sound might be blurred as much to one person as small printed words are to another. No one gets hearing correction unless it's for severe loss. (There's no such thing that would be safe. Hearing correction is brute force 'turn it up'.)

 

[4-earredwonder]

I've always said that us MCH folk are smarter than people who "don't get it" cause we process more information and ENJOY it... for the non MCH people, it's like WORKING HARDER to enjoy it, but it comes naturally to us!!

And I do not mean it in a bad way..as many other members have noted, many people nowadays are not aware of their surroundings , especially now with the attention span of a mosquito (apologies to the mosquitoes), some just can't process all the info and , well, it takes all kind of folks in all walks of life to make the world go round...
And AS IT IS, we are all different and appreciate all kinds of MCH, some don't like swirling effects or early Quad, others like JG DSOTM mix (ugh!) and others just like..WHATEVER!!!

I am just happy I found a corner of the internet where we "strange folk" converge...

KLAATU BARADA NIKTO, KAP

 

[markshan]

Really listening is a learned trait. Like music itself, there is a tiny portion of the populace which is born with it, but most need instruction on an instrument. Listening really is no different.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Really listening is a learned trait. Like music itself, there is a tiny portion of the populace which is born with it, but most need instruction on an instrument. Listening really is no different.

And quite truthfully, kudos to those handful of brilliant remix engineers who can unlock the inner details of a recording heretofore unheard in the original stereo mix rendering it refreshed and more vibrant...akin, on occasion, like hearing it for the very first time!

 

[Jim the Oldbie]

Somewhere I heard that white people can't hear Jimi Hendrix...

Holy crap, am I ever glad that's not true...

 

[HomerJAU]

I've always said that us MCH folk are smarter than people who "don't get it" cause we process more information and ENJOY it... for the non MCH people, it's like WORKING HARDER to enjoy it, but it comes naturally to us!!

And I do not mean it in a bad way..as many other members have noted, many people nowadays are not aware of their surroundings , especially now with the attention span of a mosquito (apologies to the mosquitoes), some just can't process all the info and , well, it takes all kind of folks in all walks of life to make the world go round...
And AS IT IS, we are all different and appreciate all kinds of MCH, some don't like swirling effects or early Quad, others like JG DSOTM mix (ugh!) and others just like..WHATEVER!!!
...

A mate of mine who’s also into surround thinks maybe we’re closer to cave man. Back then if you lived in the forest being able to hear things in 3D you’d have much better chance of survival if you could hear predators (both animals and other humans) than if you could only hear what’s out front.

 

[drphibes]

Probably the same people that HATE 3D have no use for

With respect, this is a big fat no from me, and I must actually protest a bit.

I have a condition called strabismus, aka Lazy Eye, this led to amblyopia, meaning one eye is weaker than the other. My brain learned to see by making one eye very dominant over the other, and the amount of my visual field where I can really see depth is limited.

This means 3D movies don’t POP for me the same way they do for other people. I would have never paid for a 3D TV. Not worth the expense. Those “hidden picture” things that were all the rage in the 1990s were useless for me.

So, my lack of enthusiasm for 3D had nothing to do with my feelings for 5.1 music.

I can imagine some people would have the same issues with sound that I have with vision.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

I have a suspicion about hearing.
Think about how much vision varies among people. Everything from not being able to focus on just about anything to needing reading glasses for up close but great otherwise. We're visual creatures and reading is a required modern thing so this is noticed and people get glasses if they need them. So I imagine a similar variation in hearing. Details in sound might be blurred as much to one person as small printed words are to another. No one gets hearing correction unless it's for severe loss.

Brilliant and original insights, right up until the parenthetical afterthought:

(There's no such thing that would be safe. Hearing correction is brute force 'turn it up'.)

Seems to be a shot from the hip, not as well thought out as the preceding paragraph.
These assertions may have had some credibility in the last century, but not today.
I'm living proof of quite the opposite.

I wish we had an audiology professional on this forum.
There are a few who specialize in treating musicians.
The state of the art today is light years beyond "brute force" amplification.

My hearing aids are designed to dampen acoustic shocks in real time.
They have a "music" mode to compensate for high frequency loss without damage or negative side effects.
Two years of using them to listen to music daily has lessened my tinnitus.

Anyone who would like to discuss offline, feel free to shoot me a PM.
(Or start a "conversation" as the new forum software terms it.)

~dave~

 

[4-earredwonder]

With respect, this is a big fat no from me, and I must actually protest a bit.

I have a condition called strabismus, aka Lazy Eye, this led to amblyopia, meaning one eye is weaker than the other. My brain learned to see by making one eye very dominant over the other, and the amount of my visual field where I can really see depth is limited.

This means 3D movies don’t POP for me the same way they do for other people. I would have never paid for a 3D TV. Not worth the expense. Those “hidden picture” things that were all the rage in the 1990s were useless for me.

So, my lack of enthusiasm for 3D had nothing to do with my feelings for 5.1 music.

I can imagine some people would have the same issues with sound that I have with vision.

I know of a lot of conditions which preclude tolerance for 3D but I suppose my point was people that find 3D annoying and gimmicky also share similar feelings for surround.......I do LOVE 3D but have astigmatism in both eyes so I have to wear prescription glasses under my 3D glasses which makes the process a bit bulky. But I strictly observe the sweet spot seating protocol for effective surround listening which I know is positively annoying to a lot of folks especially as one poster put it, this ADD prone society of ours.

 

[Fourplay]

I have a good friend whom I excitedly sat down for his first surround session and he said "you know I am totally deaf in one ear," which I did not know. For him, the effect is not totally lost but he basically has to "scan" the sound field with his one good ear. So clearly it is not a great revelation for him. His wife enjoyed the experience more than he did.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A mate of mine who’s also into surround thinks maybe we’re closer to cave man. Back then if you lived in the forest being able to hear things in 3D you’d have much better chance of survival if you could hear predictors (both animals and other humans) than if you could only hear what’s out front.

Hence, the reference to Darwin.

 

[jimfisheye]

Brilliant and original insights, right up until the parenthetical afterthought:



Seems to be a shot from the hip, not as well thought out as the preceding paragraph.
These assertions may have had some credibility in the last century, but not today.
I'm living proof of quite the opposite.

I wish we had an audiology professional on this forum.
There are a few who specialize in treating musicians.
The state of the art today is light years beyond "brute force" amplification.

My hearing aids are designed to dampen acoustic shocks in real time.
They have a "music" mode to compensate for high frequency loss without damage or negative side effects.
Two years of using them to listen to music daily has lessened my tinnitus.

Anyone who would like to discuss offline, feel free to shoot me a PM.
(Or start a "conversation" as the new forum software terms it.)

~dave~

You're right that I didn't do any current research for that comment! But it warms my heart to hear what you wrote and I happily stand corrected!

 

[ar surround]

My experience has been that people appreciate surround sound music when I play a very familiar piece for them. Case in point...played Pinball Wizard in 5.1 for my Who fanatic friend. He responded with a huge smile and the statement that "This is really over the top!"

I often do not like watching a movie in surround sound because the music and sound effects can drown out the dialogue. It's not a big deal at home because I can juice up the center speaker volume or even turn on subtitles; but I can't do that in a theater.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The real question we all should be asking: Why are so many musicians opposed to remixing their current and/or back catalogues into surround? Can't be bothered, too expensive, hearing loss due to loud decibel exposure performing live and jamming' in the studio??????

Not only would the soundstage be opened on their stereo centric recordings but they might sell a lot more albums to an older and newer generation. We at QQ have certainly double/triple/Quadruple~dipped over the years on various formats and remasters and look how much we've spent on pricey box sets when all we really want is the surround disc.

I can understand certain musicians perhaps being offset by 'radical' 70's QUAD remixes.....and, if so, can certainly have them more tastefully remixed, but I'm sure some musicians are just opposed to anyone tampering with what they consider definitive stereo versions of their albums.

As I've stated before, in almost EVERY instance, a well remixed surround album actually improves upon the stereo mix immeasurably and almost every album I hear could benefit from the surround treatment.

 

[holland123]

not withstanding those who have actual hearing issues i believe it is absolutely true that some folks lack the ability to distinguish surround sound. My old lady is one of them. She just can't hear it no matter what I try to play for her! But then again she usually doesn't hear most of what I say to her either! So maybe it's actally just voluntary ignorance?

 

[Fourplay]

not withstanding those who have actual hearing issues i believe it is absolutely true that some folks lack the ability to distinguish surround sound. My old lady is one of them. She just can't hear it no matter what I try to play for her! But then again she usually doesn't hear most of what I say to her either! So maybe it's actally just voluntary ignorance?

For those who don't know what they are hearing, I pick a song they are very familiar with that has a very discrete mix and play them the (usually) rear channels only. This isolates out parts that are normally not evident. This can be revelatory, especially for musicians. Again, works best on songs they really know well.

 

[salsdali]

Darwin would suggest that these people are not likely to be repeat customers anyway.

The pressures that affect evolution are interesting.

If, for example, the music industry decided to get rid of producing surround music and instead only sold mp3 stereo music the human genome would evolve to favor mp3 stereo because it would be an evolutionary advantage to be able to respond to one's environment better than someone else who is constantly using their "old" genes to try to listen to their environment in surround.

In other words, evolution has no master plan, it's literally just genes adapting to a changing environment.

The problem is when man changes that environment that is what people will adapt to so man needs to be oh so careful how they change the environment but since man has shown itself to be piss poor at how they change the environment the human race is doomed to a fate of adapting to crap.

 

[bmoura]

Recently I’ve started to wonder if some people can’t hear sound location/direction. Occasionally I’ve asked ‘what do you think’ about a specifc effect after a song and sometimes I get a blank look, like ‘WTF are you talking about?’.

Anyone have similar experiences. Do some just not hear ‘surround’?

Discrete Quad FM and CD-4 Developer Lou Dorren contended that everyone hears in Surround Sound. His test: put your hands behind your ears and then remove them.
The added sound you hear when your hands are removed is Surround Sound.

 

[DuncanS]

A mate of mine who’s also into surround thinks maybe we’re closer to cave man. Back then if you lived in the forest being able to hear things in 3D you’d have much better chance of survival if you could hear predators (both animals and other humans) than if you could only hear what’s out front.

When I first built myself an SQ Quad decoder in the late 70s I got spooked by the sounds coming from behind me, and had to turn the rear channels down as I got nervous, but I persisted and got to love listening to music all around ..................... I like the night, so maybe I'm a troglodyte..........I also loved the book "Stig Of The Dump" as a kid, and don't forget the Beatles played in the Cavern