Does Surround needs more then 4.0?

[Quadro-Action]

After reading some interesting articles and comments here all around surround - old and new - I think, it would be also interesting for any surround-freaks to read, what I and some other fans (not only here in Germany) think about the important points of consumer audio-surround.
To cut it short, we convinced quadraphonic-listener (often since 30 years) means, that audio or music-surround needs no more than 4 channel - and a separate center and the LFE woofer-information is superfluous for surround at home and hifi music-reproduction. Of course, everybody is the ruler about his surround-equipment and will have his own taste for music and technic, but I think, the channel- and technic inflation by today-surround needs some clearness. And if you have yesterday buyed a 5.1 installation - you are already "old-fashioned" (to say it witty), because the industry will promote now 6-7.1 and THX-Holman dreams from 10.2 and the last cry for the cinemas is now 16.4.
But whichever way you look at it - the base of all surround and the 360°soundfield is the quadraphonic 4.0. All channels more will be only a support or a completion. And too much of this, it will smear the sound (especially by different technics by amplifier or speakers of new complete systems). What may be possible and needed in a cinema, must not be taken at home. For example the center: Also quadraphony will produce for listening 5 channels (by only transmitting 4) - with a phantom center, which will be enough for a well locating for 1-2 people (if there are more in the room, there is more speaking than listening). And the LFE (I don't mean the subwoofer as completion for litttle sattelites) by +10 dB about the average sound-level is only needed for cinema-surround and will be by music only bothering. Any new surround-mixes will have anyhow too much basses. There could be written something more. But I think, it is a fact, that many of the majority of today stereo-listeners don't like to have a complicated surround-technic. The step from 2 channel to 4 will more easier as to 6 or 7 or 12. Especially, when the 4 equal channels (not all by "modern" surround will be equal) will produce already a real convincing surround-sound. It can be easy and it should be easy.Only than music-surround will have a real breaktrough for many - the moaning industry and us surround-fans and those, who don't know, how satisfying surround sounds by music. So I hope, that also a few AV journalists and sound-engineers will read here, what some surround-freaks wants. And what is your meaning as surround-fan about 4.0 also today? I am very stretched to read your echo. Dietrich Räsch

 

[JonUrban]

Dietrich,

There is a lot to be said about 4.0. In some ways, I like it better, especially with recordings that were created that way. Separating the base is a strange thing, and the center channel can be used properly, or not used at all.

I like 4.0, that's what got me started all those years ago.

 

[MC Maniac]

I highly recommend using Tab's services for 4.0 recordings..I never kept those quad 8-tracks from the 70's but have been able to get em again thanks to Tab..

I am very happy with the SQ of most of them and agree with Jon that many are so much better than many of the 5.1 mixes we get today..in the quad mixes in the 70's, they were not afraid to use all speakers and to make em discrete and then have specific instruments or vocals appear in the centre..

Today too many 5.1 mixes get very predictable - they tend to be front dominated with some ambiance in the rears

 

[Cai Campbell]

I prefer 4.0 much of the time but only --as I've mentioned before--- because of the invariably compromised nature of the center channel. A properly utilized stereo pair can create a quite realistic phantom center, but it is never going to be the same as a hard center. Notice I did not state a preference of hard vs. phantom; I only said it is not going to be the same. Stereo imaging and reliance that the end user will have two identical, properly positioned speakers is a fairly safe bet. However, the center channel is still largely a wild card. When I play, I prefer to eliminate any wild cards.

As for the LFE channel, I view the subwoofer as a tool for fine-tuning your audio system (whether it be stereo or surround). My speakers are relatively flat down to around 35 Hz. I use my subwoofer to help fill out the bottom end, and with the use of a spectrum analyzer, I've managed to find a good blend that gives me a relatively flat response down to 20 Hz. With this application, the subwoofer is barely working most of the time, and its effects are quite subtle except in extreme cases where there is a lot of low-end bass. Like any tool, the subwoofer can be abused, and it certainly is much of the time.

So, as for being superfluous, I would say that the center channel is, to a large extent, but not 100%, since a hard center can offer a different experience from a phantom center. By contrast, I would say that the subwoofer is not superfluous, unless your main speakers offer flat performance into the very low frequencies that subwoofers are meant to handle.

 

[Bob Romano]

I actually prefer the LFE channel because I have bookshelf speakers. They sound nice by themselves but I prefer more bass than they can put out.

 

[Marcsten]

I agree with Dietrich almost completely. I am a little surprised to see that so many others have done so too. I always thought that many people on this list felt rather strongly that the center channel and the separate subwoofer channel were essential. Just goes to show how wrong such inferrences can be! For myself, I have never lived with a true 5.1 system, although I have listened to alot of them. I think with the center channel, the issue is down to room size and layout. There are certainly some settings where I can see that the center channel would be necessary to keep from smearing the center. Of course, the same can be said for any phantom channel, but the center is by far the most used, Toys in the Attic notwithstanding. But I confess that I can really see no point in a separate channel for the sub in the home. I use a sub as I have small speakers for my satelites, and using a sub to fill with an adjustable level and crossover point is very nice. I just see no need to utilize a the sapce on a disc of putting the sub in its own track. Other opinions?
Marc

 

[bizmopeen]

I often find the center channel superfluous, but that makes it more of a non-issue for me in terms of sound reproduction (it’s nice to have, but I’ve heard a few 4.0 mixes that didn’t need one, and in fact were mixed well enough to make me think there WAS one!) What I’m more concerned about is how it informs modern mixing philosophy. As the 5.1 format is designed more for movie soundtrack reproduction than music, many engineers seem to think that placing the isolated lead vocal in the center channel is the only “correct” way to mix. I’m pretty bored by mixes that anchor the sound in the front and really only send ambience to the rears…if you’re going to mix it that way, why have multichannel at all? (Which, I’m sure, is exactly what some people who don’t like surround would agree with. Witness the tired “Why have more than two speakers? You’ve only got two ears” argument.)

However divisive the recent “Pet Sounds” multichannel mix may be, at least it showed a bit of creativity by daring to be different…and staying true to the spirit of the original album. I usually tune out at mention of mixing “rules”…the true pioneers in audio have usually made their marks by breaking them!

 

[Marcsten]

As far as 4.0 mixes that use other than the center front for lead, check out 'Blow by Blow' by Jeff Beck - mostly center rear! In SQ that's pretty daring given the limits of the system! My reference to 'Toys in the Attic' is that although the vocals are all center front, several guitar solos are center left or center right. I also love the mix on the 'Crazy Eyes' by Poco. Some interesting phantom chanell stuff. There was alot more experimentation and risk taking in the old quad mixes. That's what makes the likes of Silverline so disappointing. The technology really makes the mixing alot easier, yet the outcome is poorer. I really take off my hat to some of those quad engineers at CBS for the work they did with the limitations of the matrix format. Its really my favorite surround material! Just my opinion.
Marc

 

[Quadro-Action]

By this answer I will also thank the other first writer for their echo of my column - this will be Jon, John, Cai, Bob, Joe and Marcsten. Most of you will agree with me, that 4.0 will be general enough to have a convincing surround-soundfield. But of course, the whole field of hifi and especially surround will have so much "flowers" for some special interests, that there are also else, who like to "smell" them - like the LFE or the separate Center. There is of course freedom for anybody to work like his own taste. Only the purists among the journalists, which prefere further on a Surround, which will be more Stereo- will patronize the consumers, what is allowed to listen and in which way. I call their surround with only stereo-stage music and a reverberation-cloud for behind a "Stereo +" System.
You know the disparaging meaning ot those writers about many real surround-mixes as "gimmicks" etc. But I think, the real gimmick is to tell the people, they could at home sit in a music-hall. I don't like to listen a fata-morgana stage nor only the hall-reverberations for behind - I like to listen music in the best reproduction for our surround-listening ears. That is the difference.

Those purists are also fulminat again a new surround-remix from older stereo-programms and their x-channel recording-tapes. But on the other hand there are some quadraphonic programms, which will now changed from 4.0 to 5.1 Why that? And a few new mixes will produce not only the superfluous additional informations of center and LFE - they even change the position of the channels. That is a real nuisance.

And if today sound-engineers means, that also music-surround (4.0) must be work like cinema surround (5-7.1) then they must allow the consumer, to make self the mixdown to 4.0. But that is most not possible. Where is the music-democracy? In beginning september in Berlin/Germany we will have the "Funkausstellung" like a big CES. There I and other fans of Quadraphonic-surround will look and listen - also with discussion - which will be the latest trend for music-surround. After this time I will report more about our most interesting theme. But I can only repeat: For a big success of surround for the music we need for many
consumers and still now only stereo-listeners a general surround-base, which is easy and together convincing - like Quadraphony.
Dietrich

 

[bizmopeen]

As far as 4.0 mixes that use other than the center front for lead, check out 'Blow by Blow' by Jeff Beck - mostly center rear! In SQ that's pretty daring given the limits of the system! My reference to 'Toys in the Attic' is that although the vocals are all center front, several guitar solos are center left or center right. I also love the mix on the 'Crazy Eyes' by Poco. Some interesting phantom chanell stuff. There was alot more experimentation and risk taking in the old quad mixes. That's what makes the likes of Silverline so disappointing. The technology really makes the mixing alot easier, yet the outcome is poorer. I really take off my hat to some of those quad engineers at CBS for the work they did with the limitations of the matrix format. Its really my favorite surround material! Just my opinion.
Marc

Thanks for the heads up, Marc! I don't have the "Blow by Blow" SACD yet; does anyone know if this is the original quad mix?

 

[Guy Robinson]

If you want to hear something that sounds really great in 4.0 (as long as you have the speakers for it) try the SACD of Bucky Pizzarelli Swing Live. It is without doubt one of the best discs that I have ever heard.

 

[Scottmoose]

If you want to hear something that sounds really great in 4.0 (as long as you have the speakers for it) try the SACD of Bucky Pizzarelli Swing Live. It is without doubt one of the best discs that I have ever heard.

Try the SACD of Tubular Bells too -it's the original 4.0 mix, and it's rather good.
Hmm. Depends on how you view surround. I'm with Jon, Cai as a rule -the centre channel could be put to good use, but often isn't, and in a narrow room, it's not really necessary; the front stereo pair will suffice nicely.
In terms of surround channels, you can go all the way into 20 + speakers and you'll never get perfect surround -it's the old law of diminishing returns all over again, especially in smallish rooms. The more, the better generally, but for quad, I'll stick with 2 rear channels. I do like a strong centre / frontal image for stability in most recordings, though that's just me- instruments honking behind my ear for no good reason I find pointless. If there is a good reason for it, then fine.
I'll stick with the 4.0. As many now believe, so long as the speakers are sensibly positioned, there's still a great deal to be said for it.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Try the SACD of Tubular Bells too -it's the original 4.0 mix, and it's rather good.
Hmm. Depends on how you view surround. I'm with Jon, Cai as a rule -the centre channel could be put to good use, but often isn't, and in a narrow room, it's not really necessary; the front stereo pair will suffice nicely.
In terms of surround channels, you can go all the way into 20 + speakers and you'll never get perfect surround -it's the old law of diminishing returns all over again, especially in smallish rooms. The more, the better generally, but for quad, I'll stick with 2 rear channels. I do like a strong centre / frontal image for stability in most recordings, though that's just me- instruments honking behind my ear for no good reason I find pointless. If there is a good reason for it, then fine.
I'll stick with the 4.0. As many now believe, so long as the speakers are sensibly positioned, there's still a great deal to be said for it.

Speaking of Tubular Bells.........................
http://www.musictap.net/Reviews/OldfieldMikeTubularBells2003.html

 

[P901]

Very new to all of this.
I`ve read the discussions regarding 5.1 to 4.0, sorry to say could not glean the piece of information I sought.
What are the actual connections from the 5.1 player, (LF, RF, LR, RR, Center and Sub) into the LF, RF, LR, RR?
In the discussion of the subject it was generally indicated that the signal from the Center and Sub is not utilized (or utilized effectively from some recordings) but if it was desired to bring these channels into the QRX, how is that physically accomplished?
a

 

[sspsandy]

In one of the other threads, Quadro Action discusses a box that will take 5.1 inputs and mix it down into 4 outputs.

 

[sspsandy]

I primarily run everything, including the cable box for the TV, through the Tate II in SQ mode. The only time this differs is when playing DVD-As where I use an extra receiver for the center channel. Even then, I have 4 outdoor speakers set up, so I'll utilize the Dolby Surround encoding from the DVD-As through the Tate. And while I may ultimately set up a subwoofer or two, right now 5.0 works fine, with good matched speakers you get impressive bass response. I also run 5.0 in the car using a Fosgate RFQ5000 Prologic II processor, but you have a switch that diverts the center channel to LF and RF, giving you 4.0. Best of both worlds. :sun :brew :spot :wave

 

[P901]

In one of the other threads, Quadro Action discusses a box that will take 5.1 inputs and mix it down into 4 outputs.

Ah, another box.
Thanks for the direction, I will search "Quadro Action".
andy

 

[Quadro-Action]

Ah, another box.
Thanks for the direction, I will search "Quadro Action".
andy

Hi Andy, before you will search, I will answer. Most of the here (Germany) known fans of Quadraphony will mixdown the DVD-Audio to 4.0 with a separate mixing-console, which is connected after the players output. (May be available by ebay). It must be a console, with panpot one channel to another or one to some other. For example there is suitable an older console of Teac A2 from the 80's. Or a newer set by the german firm "Monacor", which will work comparabel, but with panpots. The Teac has for each channel 4 keys. So you can the separate center steer to the left and right front-channels by pushing the corresponding keys. The two back channels will be connectet of course direct by the multichannel-amplifier.
Dietrich

 

[Scottmoose]

Hi Andy, before you will search, I will answer. Most of the here (Germany) known fans of Quadraphony will mixdown the DVD-Audio to 4.0 with a separate mixing-console, which is connected after the players output. (May be available by ebay). It must be a console, with panpot one channel to another or one to some other. For example there is suitable an older console of Teac A2 from the 80's. Or a newer set by the german firm "Monacor", which will work comparabel, but with panpots. The Teac has for each channel 4 keys. So you can the separate center steer to the left and right front-channels by pushing the corresponding keys. The two back channels will be connectet of course direct by the multichannel-amplifier.
Dietrich

Gulp! Does that mean you aren't a believer in the 'keep the signal paths as short as possible' myth then? (as if at 186,000 miles per second an extra few feet make any audible difference whatsoever! And they call us mad?!)
Scott (The high-end unbeliever)

 

[Quadro-Action]

Hi Scott, nice to read your mystic words, but I can understand nothing. If you write me in clear words, I can give an answer. Dietrich