Did DPLII, DTS:Neo & stadium/church/etc ruin surround music's reputation?

[DaneelOlivaw]

Ever since getting into surround music and talking to others about it in the hopes that they would try it out, I have had to explain to many of them that surround music simulators like DPLII, DTS:Neo, etc and all those DSP modes even cheap no-name HTiBs include are - to me anyway and I believe many other surround fans - are not actually producing true surround music.

To me, "true" surround music is created from the music's multitrack master recording by a human being with a specific idea in mind for that particular piece of music. Or if not the multitracks, at least a mix put together by a human by whatever means available that can generate whatever he/she thinks best fits the music.

I am totally prepared to see other surrround fans post their own opinions on what constitutes a genuine surround recording - aggressive, immersive, ambient*, aggressively immersive etc - but I think most of us can agree that the above simulators - but particularly those generic reverb-drenched stadium/church/etc DSP options - can sometimes generate convincing multichannel mixes, but IMO they can also many times generate rather blah and unmemorable mixes.........and sometimes also create mixes that are completely inappropriate for the music they are handling and/or placing voices and instruments in seemingly random locations causing the listener to do some head-scratching while reaching for the stereo button.

---> Does anyone else think that many music fans who have dismissed surround music as a gimmick or "fake" or boring are also people who have only listened to their receiver's built-in simulators and have never heard a from-the-multitracks surround recording mixed by a competent engineer?


* to clarify: a surround recording sourced from the actual recording venue, one that used mics to record the venue's own reverb & ambience (though I guess those last two terms mean the same thing), as opposed to using a piece of gear to artificially create those reverb effects

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I don't know if that's why. But I do know that surround sound is certainly something that can be very confusing for the typical consumer, and many typical consumers just aren't going to care enough to sort it all out or figure it all out. I do have a friend who is very knowledgeable of some things when it comes to audio and equipment, and he somehow has me just shaking my head at some of the things he says. My particular favorites are when he talks about how he couldn't stand up during the middle break in Whole Lotta Love by Led Zepplin when his friend played him the quad album of it, which was followed by him swearing his friend had it in true quad when I pointed out it wasn't released in quad, and he also talks about how surprising it is that some things he plays on his receiver were mixed in 7.1, since audio comes out of all 7 speakers, and it's not the same thing coming out of every speaker. So, I guess for him, whatever dsp or decoder is doing his decoding actually leaves him liking surround sound. And then when I was telling him about the Rare Earth album, he is all like, well I have this Rare Earth mp3 of I just want to celebrate that's from the cd4 quad mix, because it's labeled cd4, and the only cd4 I know of is quad. Yeah....turns out it was an mp3 ripped from Compact Disc 4 of the Hitsville USA box set. So, even for the more knowledgeable audio consumer, surround can be a mystery, and leave someone not fully understanding how everything works.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I don't think this had much to do with the fact that surround music isn't a mainstream product or even a healthy niche product. There have been a number of theories offered here over the years with blame assessed to Silverline, Sony, the format war, Nick Didia, the sometimes odd sounding processed surround modes, and a few others. I think surround music is just a premium priced product that has very limited appeal. In the mid 70's, my friends and family either didn't like it or liked it but didn't think the cost could be justified and the exact same situation exists again 30 years later, only the friends and family members are different. I didn't offer stereo processed to quad in the 70's as a demo and I didn't offer stereo processed to surround 30 years later as a demo nor did I offer one of the faux Silverline stunning 5.1 DVD-A's as a demo.

What I don't understand is why this tiny niche market can't be profitable but it may be as simple as cost. What market exists may not be willing to pay a price that justifies serving the market. There are a lot of factors that seem to be preventing a thriving surround music niche market but that is a different discussion. I dumped my 70's quad stuff a long time ago but this time I stocked up and I am set with hardware redundancy and a large selection of commercially produced SACD, DVD-A and DVD-V surround music and if my neighbors and family don't give a hoot about any of it, I don't care. I still hold out hope that Blu-ray which is already much bigger than SACD or DVD-A ever was might provide an ongoing niche surround music market.

Chris

 

[JohnN]

Ever since getting into surround music and talking to others about it in the hopes that they would try it out, I have had to explain to many of them that surround music simulators like DPLII, DTS:Neo, etc and all those DSP modes even cheap no-name HTiBs include are - to me anyway and I believe many other surround fans - are not actually producing true surround music.

I agree with "not actually producing" true surround music.

However, when it comes to Dolby II music I've found some surprises. For example, Santana "Definitive Collection" CD when played without a center/centre channel is a "you must listen and report back" near Quad surprise.

cheers

 

[etzeppy]

I spend some time over on the Steve Hoffman forums and occasionally read audio magazines. I can't tell you why, but it seems that audiophiles in general have a problem with surround sound, including SACD and DVD-A. I have seen many threads at SHF where people talk about owning SACD's and DVD-A's but only listening to the stereo tracks. The hardware area is sprinkled with threads about how most if not all multichannel audio gear is garbage. I recently met a local gentlemen who specializes in custom, very high-end audio. After telling him that my system needs to support 5.1 music, he immediately started making his case for why no self-respecting system could be anything other than 2.0 channels. He even suggested that if you could achieve good 5.1 sound reproduction, your brain could not interpret it properly.

Most of the angles I have heard focus on inferior 5.1 equipment. But then there is this passage from the April 2009 issue of Stereophile...

I love stereo-but if I could get the whole enchilada of a 360 degree virtual-reality experience, I'd plunk down serious cash. However, I've yet to hear a multichannel mix, whether on SACD, DVD-Audio, or Blu-ray, that's appreciably better than two-channel sound.​

I don't agree with it, but above a certain price point "multichannel" is a dirty word in the audio world.

 

[JohnN]

I believe Steve Hoffman is working on a "secret" 3 channel SACD project. Someone is going to need the conversion to at least 3 channels. LOL

HK's Logic 7 music is the most convincing surround mode to me, precisely because it is front (3) channels weighted.

 

[JonUrban]

The biggest problem with surround sound through the last 40 years is that there has never been ONE standard. It's always been confusing. Every manufacturer has wanted to do it "their" way. This has led to RM, QS, SQ, CD-4, UD-4, UHJ, DD, DTS, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc, etc.

You could never go into a store and by "_________" album in surround without checking first to see if you had the proper equipment to play it. The closest we ever got was Q8 and Q4, which was cut and dry.

If in 1973, everyone dumped all quad LP formats but one, and in 1999, either SACD or DVD-A went away, the landscape would have been much clearer. We saw it happen with VHS/Beta, and again with remarkable swiftness when HD-DVD disappeared (with press conferences and buy-backs none the less).

You can get into the minutia, the Silverline shit, the Sony forcing SACD into surround to battle DVD-A, the poor decoders of the '70s, the crappy all-in-one quad units from Claricon, Audiovox, etc. All of that. However, the bottom line is that you have to work very hard to be able to enjoy surround sound - especially if you're not a techie like most of us.

 

[Key]

K.i.s.s.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

The biggest problem with surround sound through the last 40 years is that there has never been ONE standard. It's always been confusing. Every manufacturer has wanted to do it "their" way. This has led to RM, QS, SQ, CD-4, UD-4, UHJ, DD, DTS, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc, etc..

That is a problem and if SACD and DVD-A can just go away completely and leave all high resolution surround music to Blu-ray, then we can go forward with one format and many millions of potential customers with hardware to play it. I think it is the best and last hope during my lifetime. It will only be a small segment of the Blu-ray market that will be involved, what I don't know is if the market can be big enough for Sony, UMG, Warner and several smaller labels to give it the kind of effort that would be required. A unified effort by all the music companies might work.

Chris

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

A unified effort to give Sony the win? Use a format that I can't easily author a disc myself? Use a format that is too expensive for the little guy? Buy yet another player? No f---ing way, bluray can rot in hell for all I'm concerned, it is by no means the unified answer. Dvd-a was the perfect solution, high quality audio, flexibility in sample rates and bitrates, backwards compatibility with dvd-video, easy to author myself, duplication is as simple as duplicating regular dvds, and if you must have cd there are 2 options, 2 disc set, or dualdisc. There is no need for another audio format, the perfect audio format already exists, if only people would use the damn thing. Let the movie studios have their bluray, but I say bring back dvd-a. I think that needs to be the message and campaign we need to be starting.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

A unified effort to give Sony the win? Use a format that I can't easily author a disc myself? Use a format that is too expensive for the little guy? Buy yet another player? No f---ing way, bluray can rot in hell for all I'm concerned, it is by no means the unified answer. Dvd-a was the perfect solution, high quality audio, flexibility in sample rates and bitrates, backwards compatibility with dvd-video, easy to author myself, duplication is as simple as duplicating regular dvds, and if you must have cd there are 2 options, 2 disc set, or dualdisc. There is no need for another audio format, the perfect audio format already exists, if only people would use the damn thing. Let the movie studios have their bluray, but I say bring back dvd-a. I think that needs to be the message and campaign we need to be starting.

DVD-A has gone down the toilet and Blu-ray is a much better format anyway. Players are very inexpensive and it is this silly bias that you offer that might be a problem for the format.

Chris

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Forgive me, I know this is long winded and may seem off topic a bit. I don’t want to mow the lawn now!

In the Quad era the economy was screwed up here in the U.S. in the 1970’s. The average person back then knew what Quad was and it was in the conscience of the mainstream. High end component systems where the AMP and turntable etc., was the thing to get in the 70’s in order to get high-end sound was expensive for the average person. One first had to start with a decent AMP, that’s what all your friends and everyone would agree on and good speakers. Nowadays one just buys the best of vintage gear. But back then everyone would fuss over all the specs and models of all the Amps, speakers and turntables. You bought the best you could afford with what money you had and stores like Pacific Stereo were more than willing to give you easy payment plans. Later on you’ll add an 8 Track or reel to reel deck, maybe. The idea of having to buy a more expensive AMP, extra expensive cartridge and 2 more speakers was some of the reasons people did not buy Quadraphonic. Still, you could afford a Quad system if you knew what to look for and you could get decent results - even with all in one inexpensive systems - with SQ / CD-4 decoders that were not a Tate or an expensive CD-4 box. But the rear speakers, people did not know where to put them or would not accommodate them in their homes. And if you lived in a small apartment the problem became worse as speakers were fairly large or boxey (my favorite kind ) back then.

If I had to blame one thing, THE one thing why Quad did not make it and why people didn’t buy and thus one format didn’t win and record companies quit putting out titles due to low demand, I blame the rear speakers and people not knowing how or where to put them. Many people put their speakers on the floor. I can’t tell you how many beer cans / plants were put on top of speakers causing water damage. The speaker manufactures could have made it easier by creating speaker shelves / wall mounts. My Dad built shelves for my mid size big box speakers for my bedroom that worked perfect. It's still an option for an uncluttered room. The average person, like today is just not willing to do that unfortunately.

As we all know, in the 1980’s people got tired of lugging around heavy AMPS when they moved and “all in one” cheap Stereo systems took over for the average person along with boom boxes and cassette walkmans. And it became a Stereo world, with a stereo mindset that were still dealing with today. Quad did have at least one victory that still lasts to this day: Four speakers in the car front and back to give one an “ambient sound.” Also, most if not ALL AMPs in the past 10 to 20 years will do multi-channel and have some sort of inputs / decoders. But then again the Stereo mindset prevails with not hooking up the Rear Speakers. Adding a center channel made the problem worse IMHO (7.1 is not helping either) with yet again even MORE speakers to deal with. Also, people with the latest or not so old surround gear do not have their AMP / DVD player hooked up right. I’ve given away one of my DVD-A conversions to a neighbor who’s supposed to have surround sound, only to get back the response, “It didn’t work.” Also, the average consumer is unaware or unable to get great multi-channel titles easy (regardless of format Blu-ray / DVD-A / DVD-V / SACD) except as concert footage – which can be uninspiring many times because of the mix IMHO. Music only in the front with crowd yelling in the back.

When presenting multi-channel to the open minded, it's important the right material be played as people have asked me "what am I supposed to listen for?" Answer: blow them away with vintage material they're already quite familiar with in Stereo.

So…………. The bottom line is, I don’t think DSP modes are the problem if people do not have their systems setup properly and are not willing to hook up rear and center speakers.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

You're just as biased as I am. When it comes to audio, bluray us unnecessary and overly costly for the manufacturing. Dvd-a all the way!

 

[Chris Gerhard]

You're just as biased as I am. When it comes to audio, bluray us unnecessary and overly costly for the manufacturing. Dvd-a all the way!

DVD-A had its chance and flopped. I am not biased at all, I purchased it and have purchased over 150 commercially produced DVD-A's. I look at this open mindedly and make decisions based on facts. Since I have now owned Blu-ray for over two years, I know it is better than DVD-A but I didn't make it that way, it isn't difficult to observe. Blu-ray isn't only Sony, Sony is one of the owners of the licensing pie, I believe second behind Panasonic and I believe all major consumer electronics companies are involved now except Toshiba and I guess even Toshiba is involved indirectly.

Chris

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

There is no such thing as not being biased.

 

[penteosurround]

One of the biggest problems we have in marketing Penteo is not being confused with the alphabet soup of surround processors and simulators. I can say it hasn't helped us; in fact it's the thing we have to work hardest to convince people that we're doing something totally different.

-John

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Most of the angles I have heard focus on inferior 5.1 equipment. But then there is this passage from the April 2009 issue of Stereophile...

I love stereo-but if I could get the whole enchilada of a 360 degree virtual-reality experience, I'd plunk down serious cash. However, I've yet to hear a multichannel mix, whether on SACD, DVD-Audio, or Blu-ray, that's appreciably better than two-channel sound.​

I don't agree with it, but above a certain price point "multichannel" is a dirty word in the audio world.

That quote is, I believe, a reflection of the inability of many people, so invested in stereo, to entertain a different listening paradigm, even if it is both more accurate and more satisfying. Change is hard.

 

[etzeppy]

DVD-A had its chance and flopped. I am not biased at all, I purchased it and have purchased over 150 commercially produced DVD-A's. I look at this open mindedly and make decisions based on facts. Since I have now owned Blu-ray for over two years, I know it is better than DVD-A but I didn't make it that way, it isn't difficult to observe. Blu-ray isn't only Sony, Sony is one of the owners of the licensing pie, I believe second behind Panasonic and I believe all major consumer electronics companies are involved now except Toshiba and I guess even Toshiba is involved indirectly.

I really don't think it is a matter of DVD-A or SACD having issues or losing a format war. They both lost and there was no competition at the time. History tells us that Blu-ray audio will meet a similar fate. As the OP pointed out and my personal experience seems to confirm, surround music has a bad reputation or at best, limited appeal. It is unlikely that Blu-ray will change that. It's possible that Blu-ray will finally be the format that works commercially after all of the quad formats, DVD-A, and SACD did not. If I had to bet on it, I would go with historical data.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I really don't think it is a matter of DVD-A or SACD having issues or losing a format war. They both lost and there was no competition at the time. History tells us that Blu-ray audio will meet a similar fate. As the OP pointed out and my personal experience seems to confirm, surround music has a bad reputation or at best, limited appeal. It is unlikely that Blu-ray will change that. It's possible that Blu-ray will finally be the format that works commercially after all of the quad formats, DVD-A, and SACD did not. If I had to bet on it, I would go with historical data.

Surround music has limited appeal, that much I am certain of and it will never have mass market appeal like CD or DVD. I don't hear the negative opinions really about surround music, just an opinion that most prefer stereo or prefer less expensive lesser quality portable formats, AAC or MP3. If mass market is a requirement, there is no hope it can ever happen, at least in my lifetime. Blu-ray is growing rapidly and surely headed to being in around 50% of US households with an HDTV before long. Of course it will be in less than 1% of US households without an HDTV but HDTV growth is phenomenal. There will be a market that might work with one format and a unified push by all music companies. We are still too early, but maybe 2011 will be when the player base is great enough.

Chris

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Surround music may have limited appeal now, but I believe there’s lots of room for future growth. We do have the next generation of consumers who are used to doing a bit of work to use technology. As people buy HDTV’s (because that's all they sell now at stores) and perhaps Blu-Ray players and go for the “home theater experience” maybe they’ll make the effort and hook up the back and center channels. I don’t see why DVD-A can’t live on in Blu-Ray player’s. A CD / DVD-A/V music package is a great way to go. That’s why I will only buy Oppo BR (when the price is right) because of their great DVD-A / SACD support. Hi-Def movies with the high end sound on disc are a must for movie lovers when re-mastered properly. Great. But Sony is famous for dropping new formats if past is prologue. We indeed should have a better idea in the next couple of years if the general public is buying Blu-Ray in enough numbers to replace regular DVD. It is too early to tell now. But I could see Blu-Ray becoming a Betamax or an HD-DVD with more titles if player prices do not drop well below $200 or better yet, below $100 to compete with regular DVD. And Blu-Ray must absolutely sell in enough quantities to replace regular DVD players if it expects to be a lasting format.