Should We Have Pure Multichannel Audio?

[bmoura]

A new YouTube video from Paul McGowan, founder and owner of PS Audio answers a customer question "Should we have pure multi-channel audio?"
It sounds like he is teaming up with Gus Skinas from the Super Audio CD Center in Colorado to explore that question - and more ways to increase the number of Surround Sound listeners.

 

[MCDave]

I agree with him. The biggest barriers to acceptance are the requirements for equipment and the room. The majority of the public doesn't even have surround sound for their movie setup, which means they have little incentive to buy surround music even if they're interested in it. One promising answer is a good pair of headphones and a Smyth Realiser.

 

[bmoura]

I agree with him. The biggest barriers to acceptance are the requirements for equipment and the room. The majority of the public doesn't even have surround sound for their movie setup, which means they have little incentive to buy surround music even if they're interested in it. One promising answer is a good pair of headphones and a Smyth Realiser.

True. The Smyth Realiser with quality headphones does give good Surround Sound performance over Stereo headphones.
But nothing beats the real thing with 5.1 or more speakers...

 

[MrSmithers]

Nice setup! And that rug should add some warmth to the recordings?!

So at least the acknowledgement is there that MCH sounds a lot better. What would be interesting is if they did some blind testing with a more modest surround setup (bookshelf speakers?) vs a mega stereo set up and see how people reacted to the different versions? It could go some way to allowing people to get into it if deemed a success...

 

[proufo]

Most music was/is recorded in two channels, and it is unrealistic to believe that that will change.

But you can approximate the surround/hall experience with DSP ambiance recreation. It doesn't have to be complicated. Just a bit of delayed signals to the sides.

 

[beerking]

I'm reading they are having real problems getting the latest 'Smyth Realiser' to the market. And the main man involved in the project hasn't been very forthcoming since Aug 2018. Make of that what you will.

As to the idea of 'Pure Multichannel Audio', if it increases general awareness and promotes this to a broader audience, then surely it makes sense. Although the cost factor will be the number one factor for the majority of folk, I believe. This is not a cheap pastime by any means.
Give it a go I say...

 

[ssully]

Good lord, he certainly takes a long time to say very little.

Notes:
His 35' x 35' room is a square room, an acoustic challenge. Was an acoustician even consulted? No wonder he's got a wall full of diffusers ready to go.

He also uses the phrase 'pure audio' in different ways in his talk. By 'pure audio ' the letter writer meant, surround audio released for its own sake, not as accompaniment to a video. The challenge there is purely *commercial*, not technological or acoustical: is there enough of a market for it? That's something every company has dealt with since the advent of SACD. He seems to later use 'pure [surround] audio' as if it requires some special playback technology versus DVD-V surround audio. It doesn't. They both require >2 loudspeakers, and to that extent they share the same commercial impediment. Otherwise, there's nothing exclusive about 'pure audio' from a home playback standpoint. A home theater can be a 'pure audio' listening room, and vice versa. The rules of good acoustics don't change. Of course, a high-end dealer would very much like you to believe otherwise....

 

[bluelightning]

Good lord, he certainly takes a long time to say very little.

Notes:
His 35' x 35' room is a square room, an acoustic challenge. Was an acoustician even consulted? No wonder he's got a wall full of diffusers ready to go.

He also uses the phrase 'pure audio' in different ways in his talk. By 'pure audio ' the letter writer meant, surround audio released for its own sake, not as accompaniment to a video. The challenge there is purely *commercial*, not technological or acoustical: is there enough of a market for it? That's something every company has dealt with since the advent of SACD. He seems to later use 'pure [surround] audio' as if it requires some special playback technology versus DVD-V surround audio. It doesn't. They both require >2 loudspeakers, and to that extent they share the same commercial impediment. Otherwise, there's nothing exclusive about 'pure audio' from a home playback standpoint. A home theater can be a 'pure audio' listening room, and vice versa. The rules of good acoustics don't change. Of course, a high-end dealer would very much like you to believe otherwise....

If the author/folks involved want a more widespread adoption of surround music, maybe they can start with a simplification of terms involved. Use of high falutin terms leads end user to believe they need special equipment. But as you said, that goes against the motivations of most purveyors of "high end equipment".

 

[4-earredwonder]

Most music was/is recorded in two channels, and it is unrealistic to believe that that will change.

But you can approximate the surround/hall experience with DSP ambiance recreation. It doesn't have to be complicated. Just a bit of delayed signals to the sides.

Most music today is recorded via multi track and remixed to Stereo. 2 Channel recordings are somewhat rare in this day and age but some jazz combos and classical recordings are direct to two track.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A new YouTube video from Paul McGowan, founder and owner of PS Audio answers a customer question "Should we have pure multi-channel audio?"
It sounds like he is teaming up with Gus Skinas from the Super Audio CD Center in Colorado to explore that question - and more ways to increase the number of Surround Sound listeners.

First, there is nothing new here at all. People have said the same things since the last century.
Second, his use of the term "pure" is not clear. It seems to be home theater with the video turned off but the term is so.... um.... impure already that a definition is necessary.
Third, making a recording with a central microphone array places the listener in the middle of the band/ensemble, something that characterized Quad and which probably contributed to its failure.
Fourth, "we're working on it." Many of us are doing it and would love for him to contribute to the effort.

I had a nice talk with Paul about multichannel at RMAF and he indicated an interest. I hope he has something up his sleeve.

 

[4-earredwonder]

First, there is nothing new here at all. People have said the same things since the last century.
Second, his use of the term "pure" is not clear. It seems to be home theater with the video turned off but the term is so.... um.... impure already that a definition is necessary.
Third, making a recording with a central microphone array places the listener in the middle of the band/ensemble, something that characterized Quad and which probably contributed to its failure.
Fourth, "we're working on it." Many of us are doing it and would love for him to contribute to the effort.

I had a nice talk with Paul about multichannel at RMAF and he indicated an interest. I hope he has something up his sleeve.

Another Surround convert, eh, Kal?

I interpreted Paul's definition of PURE SURROUND Audio as a recording conceived for Surround rather than remixed from existing multitracks ..... as an afterthought.

It sounds like Paul is a convert [I cannot go back to listening to stereo after I've heard THIS], the obstacle being the missus [yes, the wife factor].

Hopefully, as you've ascertained, Paul will have 'something up his sleeve' in the very near future and what better accomplice than Gus Skinas?

 

[MCDave]

...Third, making a recording with a central microphone array places the listener in the middle of the band/ensemble, something that characterized Quad and which probably contributed to its failure.

Whaaaaaa?? But we WANTS quad! We wanna be in the middle! I mean, the name of this forum ain't 5.1aphonic5.1 you know, it's QuadraphonicQuad. We luvs our QUAD!

 

[proufo]

Most music today is recorded via multi track and remixed to Stereo. 2 Channel recordings are somewhat rare in this day and age but some jazz combos and classical recordings are direct to two track.

Oh dear.

You know what I meant.

So to keep you happy, "most music is released in two-channel media".

 

[4-earredwonder]

Oh dear.

You know what I meant.

So to keep you happy, "most music is released in two-channel media".

Ah, I can sleep soundly tonight. Thank YOU!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

[QUOTE "Should we have pure multi-channel audio?"[/QUOTE]

Another Surround convert, eh, Kal?
I interpreted Paul's definition of PURE SURROUND Audio as a recording conceived for Surround rather than remixed from existing multitracks ..... as an afterthought.

Well, I have thousands of those but he did not say that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Whaaaaaa?? But we WANTS quad! We wanna be in the middle! I mean, the name of this forum ain't 5.1aphonic5.1 you know, it's QuadraphonicQuad. We luvs our QUAD!

I didn't say that everyone feels that way and those who do did not contribute to the failure. OTOH, for some of us it was a no sale.

 

[ssully]

[QUOTE "Should we have pure multi-channel audio?"

Well, I have thousands of those but he did not say that.[/QUOTE]

?

You've both lost me.

What constitutes "a recording conceived for Surround rather than remixed from existing multitracks " supposed to mean and how are there thousands of them? TO me a recording 'conceived for Surround' would be something like the old Subotnik electronic works, and Wendy Carlos's. Mixing down from a multitrack recording was still involved.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Well, I have thousands of those but he did not say that.

?

You've both lost me.

What constitutes "a recording conceived for Surround rather than remixed from existing multitracks " supposed to mean and how are there thousands of them? TO me a recording 'conceived for Surround' would be something like the old Subotnik electronic works, and Wendy Carlos's. Mixing down from a multitrack recording was still involved.[/QUOTE]


I think Kal was referring to the many thousands of Classical Recordings {HIS preference} conceived as multichannel with mainly ambience in the rears.

I was referring, in post #11 above, to more contemporary recordings conceived from the get go in multichannel rather than remixing them at a later date.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

? You've both lost me.

I don't think so.

What constitutes "a recording conceived for Surround rather than remixed from existing multitracks " supposed to mean and how are there thousands of them?

You correctly define them below.

TO me a recording 'conceived for Surround' would be something like the old Subotnik electronic works, and Wendy Carlos's.

Let's not confuse a recording conceived for surround (see almost anything from Pentatone, Channel Classics and 2L) with a composition conceived for surround (many of which are, unfortunately, recorded only in stereo).

I think Kal was referring to the many thousands of Classical Recordings {HIS preference} conceived as multichannel with mainly ambience in the rears.

Yes but there are some that are more immersive and there are also non-classical examples. I enjoy those, too, but they are not as essential to me as classical

I was referring, in post #11 above, to more contemporary recordings conceived from the get go in multichannel rather than remixing them at a later date.

Indeed, yes.

 

[marpow]

This looks interesting the video, I’ll watch it tomorrow.