Modern Stealth Surround Albums

[LB-V]

When I make a surround mix, it is purely matrix. There is no 4-track discrete version.

Actually, I am working on a way to be able to listen to ATMOS and other discrete systems and hear the side panning correctly without the cogging. If I get it to work, my objection to discrete recordings is gone.

I do not mix, just a listener of provided media...help me understand / educate me.

Strictly from a listener's perspective, by the time the music leaves my speakers, it's a discrete sound....regardless of what it was in the primary media source. It was either a matrixed / encoded source that was decoded and placed into discrete channels or it was a discrete source carried through to discrete channels or it was a stereo source upmixed by a Stereo 2 Surround technology.

I may have a preference for many reasons of the delivery method, but it is fundamentally discrete by the time my ears hear it.

And regardless of the delivery method, it is either going to be a good or poor mix...it may have a wonderful immersive sound field (my definition of a good mix) or it may have isolated sounds from specific channels that fail to create a sound field or just poor use of multiple channels (a poor mix by my definition).

I only have a 4.1 system....so perhaps I am not able to experience something related to your position on discrete vs. matrixed that occurs with a larger speaker array.

But with all things being equal, I do not understand the concept of a matrixed mix resulting in a better listening experience than a discrete version of the same mix.

 

[Francis Drake]

I do not mix, just a listener of provided media...help me understand / educate me.

Strictly from a listener's perspective, by the time the music leaves my speakers, it's a discrete sound....regardless of what it was in the primary media source. It was either a matrixed / encoded source that was decoded and placed into discrete channels or it was a discrete source carried through to discrete channels or it was a stereo source upmixed by a Stereo 2 Surround technology.

I may have a preference for many reasons of the delivery method, but it is fundamentally discrete by the time my ears hear it.

And regardless of the delivery method, it is either going to be a good or poor mix...it may have a wonderful immersive sound field (my definition of a good mix) or it may have isolated sounds from specific channels that fail to create a sound field or just poor use of multiple channels (a poor mix by my definition).

I only have a 4.1 system....so perhaps I am not able to experience something related to your position on discrete vs. matrixed that occurs with a larger speaker array.

But with all things being equal, I do not understand the concept of a matrixed mix resulting in a better listening experience than a discrete version of the same mix.

There is no need to appologise for only having a 4.1 system, i have a 4.0 set-up, which i'm more than happy with.

 

[barfle]

There is no need to appologise for only having a 4.1 system, i have a 4.0 set-up, which i'm more than happy with.

I bet most of us started with 1.0 systems, if the word “system” isn’t overkill. I probably had three or four before going to 2.0.

 

[MidiMagic]

I do not mix, just a listener of provided media...help me understand / educate me.

Strictly from a listener's perspective, by the time the music leaves my speakers, it's a discrete sound....regardless of what it was in the primary media source. It was either a matrixed / encoded source that was decoded and placed into discrete channels or it was a discrete source carried through to discrete channels or it was a stereo source upmixed by a Stereo 2 Surround technology.

I may have a preference for many reasons of the delivery method, but it is fundamentally discrete by the time my ears hear it.

And regardless of the delivery method, it is either going to be a good or poor mix...it may have a wonderful immersive sound field (my definition of a good mix) or it may have isolated sounds from specific channels that fail to create a sound field or just poor use of multiple channels (a poor mix by my definition).

I only have a 4.1 system....so perhaps I am not able to experience something related to your position on discrete vs. matrixed that occurs with a larger speaker array.

But with all things being equal, I do not understand the concept of a matrixed mix resulting in a better listening experience than a discrete version of the same mix.

For one thing. I want to hear the sound from the direction it actually was recorded to come from, not from where the speakers are. I do not want my ears to be able to find the speakers.

I use Dolby Surround because it does not locate the speakers. I hear the sound coming from the direction I panned it to when I made the recording.

I am using 4.1 when using Dolby Surround.

Dolby Surround's delay in the back speakers makes the panning audible without turning your head. I can face forward and turn the panpot for a full 360 degree pan and hear the whole thing smoothly pan.

With purely discrete systems, a sound panned in a circle around the listener can't be heard to pan smoothly unless the listener turns his head toward the sound as it moves. With the head facing forward, smoothly panned sounds seem to jump from speaker to speaker when at the sides of the head.

Second, I prefer LP and CD to other media. They do not do discrete surround.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

For one thing. I want to hear the sound from the direction it actually was recorded to come from, not from where the speakers are. I do not want my ears to be able to find the speakers.

Surely with a properly-calibrated high-end system this would not be an issue? I wouldn't know, my system's cost is below what some people spend yearly here on surround music...
Well, I don't SEEM to notice the speakers in my setup...but I have a lot of post-processing/room correction going on. I do notice some cogging, but that's due to a rather drastic mismatch in speaker capabilities between my fronts and my rears, nothing more.

 

[MidiMagic]

Surely with a properly-calibrated high-end system this would not be an issue? I wouldn't know, my system's cost is below what some people spend yearly here on surround music...
Well, I don't SEEM to notice the speakers in my setup...but I have a lot of post-processing/room correction going on. I do notice some cogging, but that's due to a rather drastic mismatch in speaker capabilities between my fronts and my rears, nothing more.

I notice it even though I have identical speakers.

The first time I ever heard cogging was when I was playing Columbia's original SQ demonstration record. The narrator said "I can slowly move up to the right front speaker" (from the right back). I heard his voice suddenly jump from the right back to the right front.

This is a problem with our hearing system, not with the recording.

When we hear sounds across the front, we hear a sound, followed by a sound in the other ear. The panpot works because our ears use the sounds from both speakers to fake a sound coming from between them.

When both speakers are on the same side of the head, this does not work. Each speaker creates a pair of left-ear-right-ear signals. They are perceived as separate objects. Since they have the same material at different levels, one set becomes the primary auditory image, and the others are perceived as echoes. As the levels change, the loudest pair is heard as the object with the others heard as echoes.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I notice it even though I have identical speakers.

The first time I ever heard cogging was when I was playing Columbia's original SQ demonstration record. The narrator said "I can slowly move up to the right front speaker" (from the right back). I heard his voice suddenly jump from the right back to the right front.

This is a problem with our hearing system, not with the recording.

When we hear sounds across the front, we hear a sound, followed by a sound in the other ear. The panpot works because our ears use the sounds from both speakers to fake a sound coming from between them.

When both speakers are on the same side of the head, this does not work. Each speaker creates a pair of left-ear-right-ear signals. They are perceived as separate objects. Since they have the same material at different levels, one set becomes the primary auditory image, and the others are perceived as echoes. As the levels change, the loudest pair is heard as the object with the others heard as echoes.

You say the effect is mitigated when encoded through a matrix system...then isn't it possible to mitigate the effect using digital processing techniques in a discrete environment as well? I'm not sure what that would entail...Maybe modifying the reflections and stuff in the discrete copy so that the cogging is reduced?
One notable discrete 5.1 recording I don't seem to hear any cogging when an instrument is being panned slowly around the room is Yoshimi by the Flaming Lips...the first track has a drumset that circles the room the entire song...

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Hey @kap'n krunch , where are you? I hope you don't abandon this thread you started.

It's turned out to be pretty interesting.

 

[LB-V]

For one thing. I want to hear the sound from the direction it actually was recorded to come from, not from where the speakers are. I do not want my ears to be able to find the speakers.

I use Dolby Surround because it does not locate the speakers. I hear the sound coming from the direction I panned it to when I made the recording.

I am using 4.1 when using Dolby Surround.

Dolby Surround's delay in the back speakers makes the panning audible without turning your head. I can face forward and turn the panpot for a full 360 degree pan and hear the whole thing smoothly pan.

With purely discrete systems, a sound panned in a circle around the listener can't be heard to pan smoothly unless the listener turns his head toward the sound as it moves. With the head facing forward, smoothly panned sounds seem to jump from speaker to speaker when at the sides of the head.

Second, I prefer LP and CD to other media. They do not do discrete surround.

I'm unable to understand why or how encoding / decoding a multi-channel mix / song will produce a different result when compared to the same mix / song delivered discretely, sans the matrix encode and decode process.

It's the same mix / song...

I appreciate the effort @MidiMagic has made to clarify, but if somebody can explain in a different way, that would help!

 

[barfle]

As I understand it, and I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, our ears are unique to each of us, although there are certainly common factors. The shape of our outer ears (the pinnae) affects the frequency response of the sounds they direct to the ear canal, and that, through individual learning events, gives us information as to what direction the sound is coming from.

If there’s a sound we haven’t heard before, we can’t really distinguish where it’s coming from because we aren’t used to the spectrum of that sound enough to discern how it has been affected.

As far as my own experience is concerned, I never noticed cogging, and my fronts and rears are significantly different. That doesn’t mean it’s not something that other people could notice. Other people hear things I can’t. My ears continue to age and they aren’t improving.

I also don’t understand how the effect would necessarily be different depending on the encoding method, although the limited separation of matrix encoding would certainly result in blending of the signals sent to each speaker. I would expect that an experienced quad mixer would take such things into account, but experience was hard to come by in a new technology such as vinyl carrier encoding.

I wonder if @MidiMagic had a chance to converse with someone like Stephen Tyler about the effect he’s hearing, would there be a study into the effect, and what might the final results be.

Science advances, at least I hope so.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

As I understand it, and I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, our ears are unique to each of us

This is exactly why I think binaural DOESN'T work. It will never beat discrete (or matrixed) surround placements. The problem with that is that the baseline level of equipment needs to be much higher.

 

[barfle]

This is exactly why I think binaural DOESN'T work. It will never beat discrete (or matrixed) surround placements. The problem with that is that the baseline level of equipment needs to be much higher.

There is a product out there called the Smythe Realizer, IIRC. It requires extensive setup, and that is unique to each user. I’ve heard that it works quite well.

I also heard that it is based on studies the Air Force did in having pilots be able to discern which direction (spherical) sounds were coming from through the headphones in their helmets. All book-learning, no direct experience.

 

[par4ken]

I'm unable to understand why or how encoding / decoding a multi-channel mix / song will produce a different result when compared to the same mix / song delivered discretely, sans the matrix encode and decode process.

It's the same mix / song...

I appreciate the effort @MidiMagic has made to clarify, but if somebody can explain in a different way, that would help!

Midi seems to be focused on the need for a delay to the rear output, to utilise the Hass effect to focus the sound to a single location rather than hearing that same sound from two (or more) speakers. I don't understand how that would improve panning to the sides as it would at least partly override the level differences that help determine position. Such sounds would pull to the front if the rear is delayed. It could also create a sense of spaciousness (if overdone), not actually present in the mix.

In theory you could add that delay to any surround source (even discrete), the system used for encoding would be irrelevant.

 

[Electric Moo]

I have three ears. Solves everything!

 

[stoopid]

I have three ears. Solves everything!

Might be better than three legs, that seems to create a lot of tension with other three-legged beasts.

 

[Electric Moo]

Ha....it's a bit annoying tying shoelaces in the rain, unless I have a cap on

 

[DrKlahn]

An interesting thread. I've experienced setups with the "pool of sound/localized" vs "sound moving in space/speakers blend". For me it hasn't been a phenomena tied to how it's encoded. I've found it to be more a product of timbre matching and how wide of a soundstage the speaker projects.

My first multichannel setup was in the Pro Logic days in the mid 90's. I had Klipsch towers and the biggest center Klipsch made at the time (which was significantly smaller and less capable than the towers). Rears were some other brand. Single small 12" sub. In that setup I could definitely localize things and there wasn't that cohesive bubble we all want. That stayed true into the AC-3 and DTS days. As I got more knowledge the rears were changed out to Klipsch bookshelves. Not a perfect match, but certainly much better. And the icing on the cake was when they finally made a center with the same sized horn and woofers. Those speaker changes were truly a big step in getting to where things felt like a sound space rather than point sources regardless of encoding.

Today my speakers are as matched as I can make them and a good Atmos mix absolutely creates a 3D space. It will image in the space between the front and rear. And the rear 4 can definitely create a seamless 3D space for objects to move in. The best example so far is The Harmony Codex. It's really pushed what can be done both behind and above the listening space.

That's not to say matrixed mixes can't sound great too.

 

[LB-V]

Thank you all for the help! I have a much better understanding and appreciation for @MidiMagic 's mission.

I threw on (well, clicked on) Emmy Lou Harris' Before Believing, as I pondered this all, and it digested. Thanks again.

 

[MidiMagic]

Midi seems to be focused on the need for a delay to the rear output, to utilise the Hass effect to focus the sound to a single location rather than hearing that same sound from two (or more) speakers. I don't understand how that would improve panning to the sides as it would at least partly override the level differences that help determine position. Such sounds would pull to the front if the rear is delayed. It could also create a sense of spaciousness (if overdone), not actually present in the mix.

In theory you could add that delay to any surround source (even discrete), the system used for encoding would be irrelevant.

When both sounds are on the left, that delayed sound from the back reaches the right ear first. It provides the missing cue to locate the panned sound correctly.

I am not sure exactly how this works, but I was quite pleasantly surprised when I played music through my mixer-encoder and I heard the music smoothly circle me when I operated the pan pot and F/B switch. This worked only with Dolby Surround and PL.

I am working on adding that delay just as you said.

 

[kfbkfb]

Is there any evidence that mixing "studios" are monitoring their stereo mixes with a surround sound decoder (maybe just a Hafler/DynaQuad setup)?


Kirk Bayne