Steve Hoffman forums full of CRAZY stereo obsessed people!

[Quad Linda]

The only sound bar I've ever liked:

It's in my area of Chicagoland. It's called Blarney Island. Since it's completely bordered by water, you could call it the only true surround sound sound bar. If the sound is too loud, just cover your ears with one of the many bras hanging from the rafters.

 

[dr8track]

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I offered my own offspring an old 5.1 receiver and speakers for his X-Box/TV/Music set up and he kindly declined an bought a sound bar instead.

 

[Larry Geller]

The only sound bar I've ever liked:
View attachment 14883
It's in my area of Chicagoland. It's called Blarney Island. Since it's completely bordered by water, you could call it the only true surround sound sound bar. If the sound is too loud, just cover your ears with one of the many bras hanging from the rafters.

Is that the sound bra?

 

[himey]

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I offered my own offspring an old 5.1 receiver and speakers for his X-Box/TV/Music set up and he kindly declined an bought a sound bar instead.

Most kids will go out of their way to be different than their parents.

 

[Fugue]

I imagine that most of them listen to pop/rock/jazz and don't like the "immersive" approach that some labels take by spreading the musicians around the room--that's not how live music sounds! I listen to classical 99% of the time, and most of those use the rear channels just for hall sound, with a few exceptions, and I intensely dislike the ones that place instruments all around the listener. One of my few non-classical SACDs is Deep Purple's Machine Head--I hate the way it is mixed. Ritchie Blackmore's guitar DOES NOT belong in the left rear channel! If non-classical labels used the rear channels for room sound, then I think they'd sound far more realistic.

 

[leevitalone1]

The only sound bar I've ever liked:
View attachment 14883
It's in my area of Chicagoland. It's called Blarney Island. Since it's completely bordered by water, you could call it the only true surround sound sound bar. If the sound is too loud, just cover your ears with one of the many bras hanging from the rafters.

And-how many have you donated?

 

[fredblue]

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I offered my own offspring an old 5.1 receiver and speakers for his X-Box/TV/Music set up and he kindly declined an bought a sound bar instead.

Kids eh.. @:

 

[fredblue]

I imagine that most of them listen to pop/rock/jazz and don't like the "immersive" approach that some labels take by spreading the musicians around the room--that's not how live music sounds! I listen to classical 99% of the time, and most of those use the rear channels just for hall sound, with a few exceptions, and I intensely dislike the ones that place instruments all around the listener. One of my few non-classical SACDs is Deep Purple's Machine Head--I hate the way it is mixed. Ritchie Blackmore's guitar DOES NOT belong in the left rear channel! If non-classical labels used the rear channels for room sound, then I think they'd sound far more realistic.

I think for Classical MultiChannel Music many listeners share your mindset and prefer surround mixes that represent the acoustics of the space the music was recorded in.. but for rock and pop those kinds of very discrete mixes like the Machine Head Quad which you dislike are just the kind of surround mixes many of us here and elsewhere with rock/pop tastes absolutely crave

 

[EMB]

I think for Classical MultiChannel Music many listeners share your mindset and prefer surround mixes that represent the acoustics of the space the music was recorded in.. but for rock and pop those kinds of very discrete mixes like the Machine Head Quad which you dislike are just the kind of surround mixes many of us here and elsewhere with rock/pop tastes absolutely crave

Although we're moving a bit away from the topic at hand...lest anyone forget, you are NOT locked in to a 'normal' quad or 5.1 setup; you don't have to have rear speakers BEHIND you. In fact, for many recordings, I move my rears forward but still a distance away from the fronts. This allows all the music to be in front of me (the room providing some ambiance all around) but nonetheless nicely separated. I can well understand why someone would be disconcerted to hear a lead guitar behind them (drums make more sense, even if that's fairly unnatural, too). The solution, then, is to take the speaker with the guitar and move it more up front leaving you, the listener, further back so you can drink in all the sound. It'll still be multi-channel but I think--at least it is to me--less contrived and gimmicky.

ED

 

[Scott M4]

I imagine that most of them listen to pop/rock/jazz and don't like the "immersive" approach that some labels take by spreading the musicians around the room--that's not how live music sounds! I listen to classical 99% of the time, and most of those use the rear channels just for hall sound, with a few exceptions, and I intensely dislike the ones that place instruments all around the listener. One of my few non-classical SACDs is Deep Purple's Machine Head--I hate the way it is mixed. Ritchie Blackmore's guitar DOES NOT belong in the left rear channel! If non-classical labels used the rear channels for room sound, then I think they'd sound far more realistic.

Really "most" live sound is mixed mono (so people on the sides can hear all the sound) and in an arena that Deep Purple or their brothers would be playing in there would be a huge slap-back echo smear unrelated to the groove, odd room resonances plus constant chatter and yelling from the audience. That would seem to be the ideal for achieving a far more realistic live sound. Perhaps then Depeche Mode 101 is the pinnacle of rock surround recordings!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think for Classical MultiChannel Music many listeners share your mindset and prefer surround mixes that represent the acoustics of the space the music was recorded in.. but for rock and pop those kinds of very discrete mixes like the Machine Head Quad which you dislike are just the kind of surround mixes many of us here and elsewhere with rock/pop tastes absolutely crave

I am with you. For classical music (or any live acoustic event), I much prefer a recording that attempts to recreate the event. This, almost invariably, means music up front and realistic ambiance in the surround. For music created in the studio with multitracking, anything goes as long as it achieves a satisfactory result. One of my favorites is Willie Nelson's "Night and Day" in which the instruments are distributed all around the listener and includes lead instruments in the surround. I find that absolutely delightful.

 

[fredblue]

Just checking.. yep.. this is still QuadraphonicQuad.. I'm taken aback to hear from a QQ loooong time member (and mod right?) about contrived and gimmicky rear channel surround music.. :yikes

ah well, each to their own, I'll just get back to this delicious Watermelon Man with rear channels fully engaged! Quadtastic!

where were we? Oh yeah the SH Forums.. @:

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I could care less about instrument placement; just give me clean dynamic sound and I'm happy. The idea of certain instruments needing to be in certain places is an antiquated concept IMO.

 

[fredblue]

I am with you. For classical music (or any live acoustic event), I much prefer a recording that attempts to recreate the event. This, almost invariably, means music up front and realistic ambiance in the surround. For music created in the studio with multitracking, anything goes as long as it achieves a satisfactory result. One of my favorites is Willy Nelson's "Night and Day" in which the instruments are distributed all around the listener and includes lead instruments in the surround. I find that absolutely delightful.

Thanks Mr.R That's the eloquent summation I was looking for. Classical really works with an ambient mix, rock & pop just ends up sounding like it was recorded in a cave.. Oh yes.. that Willie DVDA is a real treat (the labels called something like Surrounded By iirc) :wave

 

[Werno]

Here's a multichannel SACD that might convert an ambience-only classical listener or two- The Tacet label is all about the panning, plus excellent engineering.

http://amzn.com/B00E9HXFZWI

I still look up with surprise when the extremely convincing bass drum makes its entrance in La Valse. The dynamic range also serves Bolero very well.

 

[Werno]

Crap, Amazon, way to generate a useless link.

Try this one-

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/8909

 

[Scott M4]

Here's a multichannel SACD that might convert an ambience-only classical listener or two- The Tacet label is all about the panning, plus excellent engineering.

http://amzn.com/B00E9HXFZWI

I still look up with surprise when the extremely convincing bass drum makes its entrance in La Valse. The dynamic range also serves Bolero very well.

Thanks for the tip. I'm one who enjoys being immersed in orchestral sounds as well as rock. Ordered!

 

[Fugue]

I've only attended two live concerts with "surround sound": Emerson, Lake, and Palmer during the tour from which "Welcome Back My Friends" derives, and Queen around 1978--mostly Brian May's guitar. I admit that those two were successful, but on the whole it's not my cup of tea.

 

[cupboy]

Crap, Amazon, way to generate a useless link.

Try this one-

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/8909

www.amazon.com/dp/B00E9HXFZW
A bit pricey.

A little better: http://www.importcds.com/music/2647518/m-ravel-ravel-la-valse-ma-m-re-loye-tzigane-bol-ro-pavane

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Here's a multichannel SACD that might convert an ambience-only classical listener or two-

Didn't work for me. OTOH, the Tacet DVD-A (probably on SACD by now) of the Bach Motets remains hair-raising after all these years: The opening Motet is formatted so that the MLP is in the front row of the chorus with the ambiance of the hall in front. The others are similarly presented with novel perspectives but, imho, none are as successful as the first.