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

[ArmyOfQuad]

I think one of the biggest problems is lack of surround music. Yes, there are many titles out there if you look for them, but relatively speaking there is just such a low amount of surround material. If the industry were as big pussies about stereo as they are being about surround, we'd still be listening to mono. There needs to be a serious effort made by the industry to establish the concept of surround as a standard, not just the bullshit title here and there, and wait and see if everyone buys it. It's a standoff, the normal consumer doesn't want to invest in small time fads that they don't care that much about, and the industry doesn't want to jump in without interest. Which they will need to do in order for there ever to be interest. Basically, the labels need to grow a pair.

 

[Key]

I think one of the biggest problems is lack of surround music. Yes, there are many titles out there if you look for them, but relatively speaking there is just such a low amount of surround material. If the industry were as big pussies about stereo as they are being about surround, we'd still be listening to mono. There needs to be a serious effort made by the industry to establish the concept of surround as a standard, not just the bullshit title here and there, and wait and see if everyone buys it. It's a standoff, the normal consumer doesn't want to invest in small time fads that they don't care that much about, and the industry doesn't want to jump in without interest. Which they will need to do in order for there ever to be interest. Basically, the labels need to grow a pair.

I was thinking about this as well. But I think it's the artists that need to grow a pair hehe. With video games for example it almost seems counterintuitive that these game consoles would survive in an economy where computers are so cheap and can quickly outpace a dedicated "hardware" console. But what they have going for them is exclusivity. If you want to play the "coolest" games you HAVE to buy a console. If there was even ONE exclusive must listen to album that was recorded in surround sound I think there would be a lot more people with setups.

 

[leevitalone1]

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.

Good, VERY GOOD point! Big business, not actually caring for the consumer, only the profit margin. The very reason I was not able to afford quad in the 70.s, and not to mention all the crummy equipment that followed the quad idea. My neighbor had a garage sale with tons of vinyl. I inquired about quad, and they got all confused, stating what the hell is that? The same is true of the new multi channel formats, sooo much confusion!!!!

 

[Chris Gerhard]

The lack of surround music is the result of lack of demand. Warner, Sony and Universal all did a great job with hundreds of albums. The resulting pathetic sales meant most titles were cutout and cleared out for low prices, nothing to cause the companies to spend more money to release more surround music. Now a few special releases, limited quantity and high priced are about all we see.

Chris

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

You know, do most people who buy CDs buy it for the stereo content or the stereo mix? Do most people who buy a CD from a store think of that at all? You could put mono or stereo CDs in the bins at the CD store, and that isn't going to make a difference in sales. I really don't think the Britney Spears audience is thinking, wow, they really did some great stereo imaging on this disc. So, with such a low interest in stereo sound, then by your logic, there should have been a lack of stereo music as a result of lack of demand. I honestly think that if the industry went about stereo sound the way they went about surround, we'd all be listening to mono still. However, I wasn't around at the time, so I can't speak from the viewpoint of someone who was there and experienced how the industry did the changeover, but I do know that there are many albums that came out in both, at some point it became standard to have both, and then mono got phased out. Surround never came close to that ever happening, there is no effort towards making it standard. I think there's just as much demand for surround as there is for stereo, meaning that most people are going to buy it if it's available and the standard, and not put a lot of thought into that aspect of it.

 

[Key]

I think exclusivity of stereo mixes DID prompt a change. I was not around but I assume a lot of cats probably tried to listen to some Hendrix or Dark Side in mono and got strange looks from the friends that had heard those mixes in stereo. Those are two essential artists in my book who sold an insane amount of records in STEREO. If you want to hear the record you bought you need two speakers and someone is bound to point it out.

 

[ssully]

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.

DPLII and other sophisticated surround synthesis technologies are not the same as the room simulation DSP modes. They shouldn't be lumped together, nor should the tackiness of the latter be used to impugn the former.

I sometimes prefer the DPLII synthesis from two-channel -- which is user-adjustable, btw -- to the 'hard' surround mixes created in the studio.
And I sometimes don't.

 

[ssully]

DVD-A has gone down the toilet and Blu-ray is a much better format anyway.

If you mean DTS-HD Master audio vs DVD-Audio, how so? They're both ridiculous overkill in terms of the audio specs they offer. Both typically use basically the same technology -- lossless compression -- to deliver 'high definition' sound. The only advantage I can foresee is that maybe Blu_ray players and AVRs aren't as poorly thought out as the DVD-A players/receiving ends that had the LFE bug.

 

[Ge Someone]

The decoders (Dolby Surround, DPL, Neo:6) are for playing stereo back in surround. Sometimes it works, a few other times it is worse than the stereo. Some movies or LP/CD's have real "surround" information encoded.

But ... when a 4 or more channel source is played these decoders are switched of automatically (at least on the digital amps/receivers of this age). So it doesn't hurt the real quad/surround stuff.

There have been a lot of threads here about this subject, it is probably a combination of things. CD sale are declining too, people don't sit down and listen to a disc as much as 20 years ago and for surround that's a must. Also other interests like DVDs, smart phones and personal audio players have eaten away from the budget spent on music only. Also the big (record) companies don't really care for niches, they want mass sales. They rather spend money on a videoclip than on a surround mix (unless the artist demands it and even then they argue that nobody cares for it).

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

Sorry everyone for the delay in replying - some buddies unexpectantly showed up Thursday morning with one of their dad's RV and we went on a "spontaneous" camping trip in the Hill Country outside Austin & I just got back today. I'll start reading the replies tonight!

Later..........

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

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...............

This helps back up my own thoughts. Just speaking hypothetically here, but if no DSP modes or DPLII/DTS:Neo/Logic 7 existed (Logic 7 is my favorite simulated surround processor btw) then most people would have a better understanding of what true surround music can sound like. Though technically speaking of course, those modes DO cause the listener to be surrounded by music much of the time, but for this particular discussion I am leaving out this aspect.

However, when it comes to Dolby II music I've found some surprises.

Same here - some CDs I've listened to with DPLII sound eerily similar to some of the better surround mixes I have heard.

I can't tell you why, but it seems that audiophiles in general have a problem with surround sound, including SACD and DVD-A.

This is just theory on my part, but I have a feeling some audiophiles are horrified at the thought of owning a surround system. Why? If you're the type of audiophile who is deeply concerned over every cable choice, isolation device placement, room standing waves and speaker break-in schedules for a two channel system, the thought of doing this for SIX separate channels must stop them in their tracks!

I own a strictly mid-fi system made up of Technics and Pioneer electronics and speakers from Boston Acoustics & Infinity along with a few 70s vintage speakers from Radio Shack (when the 'Shack used to sell decent gear) and Pioneer; cables are from Belden and 16ga speaker wire from a hardware store. So setting up a surround system is a fun project for me.

BTW I am fully aware of the opinion that any surround music is "evil" because music played live does not occur in a circle around the audience. Well music is art to me and art shouldn't be confined by the limits of the *physical* world i.e. if it makes one feel good, IMO that is all that matters. And enough about that subject!

The biggest problem with surround sound through the last 40 years is that there has never been ONE standard. It's always been confusing.

Yep. If only we could get all the various companies together for a softball game and dinner at Chili's with a few pitchers of beer, maybe a cohesive/common sense standard could be hammered out. :sun

Blu-ray for surround music? How about keeping the dvd-audio format - which does everything needed already - and simply include the dvd-audio software/hardware in future Blu-ray players? Dolby TruHD is basically dvd-audio anyway so this shouldn't cost much to implement, if it cost anything at all. Yes the BD format can include up to eight channels of 192/24 PCM but IMO that is overkill (many recording professionals still argue about whether or not 192kHz/24bit sounds better than 96kHz/24bit PCM).

And don't forget all the literally MILLIONS of dvd-based systems out there that can play back a dvd-audio disc's Dolby Digital and/or DTS lossy tracks and if included, 96/24 LPCM hi-res stereo tracks.

.......rear speakers and people not knowing how or where to put them.

As someone who sold HT gear for three years, I am aware of the unfortunate fact that many people never bother to read the instruction manuals for their electronic gear. I don't really have a good solution for this problem, other than warning customers multiple times that they need to do so at least one time or else XX% of their investment will be wasted.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Blu-ray for surround music? How about keeping the dvd-audio format - which does everything needed already - and simply include the dvd-audio software/hardware in future Blu-ray players? Dolby TruHD is basically dvd-audio anyway so this shouldn't cost much to implement, if it cost anything at all. Yes the BD format can include up to eight channels of 192/24 PCM but IMO that is overkill (many recording professionals still argue about whether or not 192kHz/24bit sounds better than 96kHz/24bit PCM).

Because, simply, DVD-A is dead and has been rejected by the market. In addition, the use of a single medium is necessary for market success as the format wars have shown.

And don't forget all the literally MILLIONS of dvd-based systems out there that can play back a dvd-audio disc's Dolby Digital and/or DTS lossy tracks and if included, 96/24 LPCM hi-res stereo tracks.

But those DVD player users have rejected DVD-A already.

Kal

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

Because, simply, DVD-A is dead and has been rejected by the market. In addition, the use of a single medium is necessary for market success as the format wars have shown.

Well actually surround music in the form of dvd-a........and sacd and DTS-CD and 5.1 dvd-video is effectively dead except for a tiny subset of the music fan population (who are probably already all registered right here! ). Why? Because in my mind, 99.9% of the music listening population doesn't even know of surround music's existence. But if given the choice, for surround music purposes - stereo music listening can be handled by CDs and MP3s - I truly think dvd-audio would have made it as a niche format.

I do agree that one format definitely helps, and I've said so myself on this very forum, but that leads to another problem with using Blu-ray for surround music (at least initially) and that is the cost of the players. Even generic brands still cost @$200, but even major brands like Sony and Panasonic now regularly offer basic SD dvd players for $45 to $50. Plus the discs themselves are still costly to manufacture. Just two more stumbling blocks for an already fragile "what-the-heck-is-that?" format (I mean surround music, not the Blu-ray format).

The SD dvd format is very probably going to be around I'll bet for another decade at least because it can still do many things that many people like (well, except for interactive/animated menus like a BD disc) and is now seriously inexpensive to manufacture, software and hardware. And all BD players I know of can play them.

But those DVD player users have rejected DVD-A already.

See first paragraph above.

So while Blu-ray would seem to be the next logical choice with which to sell surround music, if the labels want surround music to succeed even in a minor way, it would require a really wise decision on their part to not repeat what they did with sacd and dvd-audio, which was NOT marketing it in any coherent/effective manner. Plus the lousy title selection for newer rock/pop didn't help at all.*

I still see the Beatles' CD+dvd-audio package available for sale, and the King Crimson dvd-audios are still on schedule, so someone must still believe in dvd-audio's viability.



* and even as a fan of the format, I have to say the authoring of many dvd-a discs was horrible, even if AFAIK the standards include options that can cause a dvd-a disc to act essentially like a conventional CD : discs that started playing whether or not you pushed the play button; discs that automatically repeated playback after it ended without the user choosing that option ; discs that would not allow the user to switch to other mixes during playback i.e. to stereo by using the remote's "audio" button; menu music that never stopped, etc. Based on what I've read, all these features can be chosen/rejected by the person authoring the disc and thankfully, are not mandatory features of the dvd-audio standard. Warner Bros' and DTS Inc's discs are the best discs I've used navigation-wise and act much like a regular CD most of the time. And dvd-audio discs don't even need a video portion to work - the Elv1s greatest hits disc was proof of that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Well actually surround music in the form of dvd-a........and sacd and DTS-CD and 5.1 dvd-video is effectively dead except for a tiny subset of the music fan population (who are probably already all registered right here!

Agreed.

I still see the Beatles' CD+dvd-audio package available for sale, and the King Crimson dvd-audios are still on schedule, so someone must still believe in dvd-audio's viability.

Hmm. Compare that with the continuing stream of classical SACDs and it is trivial. However, both formats are effectively dead since they appeal only to a tiny few buyers. That is why only a medium that achieves a general mass acceptance has any chance of being, at the same time, a hi-rez MCH medium. It is possible for BluRay to do so and I can think of no other at this time, except for direct downloads.

Kal

 

[JohnN]

(Logic 7 is my favorite simulated surround processor btw)

Same here - some CDs I've listened to with DPLII sound eerily similar to some of the better surround mixes I have heard.

Someone on the www agrees with me about Logic 7.

DPLII reveals many hidden treasures.
Many years ago...The Toronto Sun reported that quad sources had been used for some of the tracks on Santana "Definitive Collection" CD. Compared to other CD sources (in DPLII) of Santana this sounds like a true case.

cheers
Infinity worshiping tootull

 

[dwight]

All of the various methods of extracting multi-channel sound present on modern day receivers are an indication of consumer demand for a multi-channel experience. These technologies are not responsible for the failure by the industry, as a whole, to properly service that demand. Look at the millions of surround systems that have been sold. If you go by the numbers, the public loves surround sound, but as Jon Urban indicated in his post, the public generally doesn’t care to fiddle as much as we do…our need is on a far different level altogether!

Although we are unfortunately in a transitional period from the traditional hard copy to something as yet to be determined, and as a result seem to have lost out, we still should be of good cheer. From such difficult times entrepreneurs like John Wheeler are prodded to develop technologies like his Penteo process which satisfy the need to expand listening possibilities for those so inclined. If his process surpasses the type A Variomatrix in its ability to recreate a discreet multi-directional performance, and if it can reproduce master recording fidelity without degrading the original, we will be close to all but the very last little bit of audio nirvana. Think about our long love affair with the phonograph record and the compact disc. Producers put their product into two high quality channels of audio, the very best they had to offer (sometimes), and we extracted it, every last drop, as best we could. It appears that we can, through Penteo, extract and complely isolate discreet parts of the mix, or discreet recorded channels if you wil; therefore the recreation of the sound field as described by Mr Wheeler is for all intents and purposes identical,from a positional standpoint, to the Sansui VarioMatrix or the Fosgate-Scheiber Space Matrix, i.e. stereo hard left to left rear, and hard right moves to right rear. Mid right would move to front right and mid left to front left. We are really getting close to a perfect solution for all concerned…..a two channel final mix that can be perfectly presented in compromised two channel for those who prefer the compromised form, and with a Penteo Panorama Slicer, a more perfect multi channel version as discreet as if it were a DVD-AUDIO or MC SACD. An engineer could define a 3D space for the consumer without worrying about formats, royalties and the complexities that arose during the recent MC war.

I have yet to hear a Penteo demo with the fidelity of say GAUCHO in DVD-AUDIO, for instance, but if the fidelity is there, and if someday it can be processed “on the fly” as suggested, everything else may become moot. I understand we're talking considerable cost and time, but eventually it could very well be a reasonably affordable proposition for those who desire it, if the discussion that's been going on here and elsewhere are an indication of Penteo's future.
Dwight

 

[Eggplant]

The biggest problem with surround sound through the last 40 years is that there has never been ONE standard.

There might be one exception today.

If you buy a new HD home-theater setup today, and have it set up properly and connected to an HD service (cable, dish, FIOS), you're going to get true 5.1. As in Dolby Digital.

Ick ptooey, say some. I know. But the fact is that HD broadcasts, thru DD, are exposing the masses to the real thing in droves -- this minute.

The problem has been the mixes. Until very recently, most broadcasts -- and even theatrical movies -- have had very conservative mixes of music. But that's changing, big time. Heard the new Volkswagen commercials? Even the MGM lion roars in glorious true surround now.

Many young adults I talk to are quite familiar with surround sound, even for music. If anything, they seem to be less excited about it not because it isn't cool, but more because . . . it isn't novel to them (like it was to us). It's expected.

Again, I say surround music will be mainstream in the near future.
Just don't expect it to take the form of your favorite format.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

All of the various methods of extracting multi-channel sound present on modern day receivers are an indication of consumer demand for a multi-channel experience.

Personally I think it's the opposite case: all those surround formats are an industry trying to convince consumers that surround sound is a good thing......but IMO unfortunately not all those simulated surround formats are doing a good job of selling Joe Consumer on the positives of music in surround form.

Some (admittedly indirect) proof of that is the popularity of the iPod and its hundreds of imitators. Two channels, that's it. And to make things worse, the use of headphones, which seems to have replaced the "old skool" idea of sitting in a room & listening to music. So even stereo is being negatively affected!

These technologies are not responsible for the failure by the industry, as a whole, to properly service that demand. Look at the millions of surround systems that have been sold.

Because that's pretty much all that is available. Go to a big-box store and count the number of stereo-only systems vs. surround - I'll bet it's about a 1 to 10 ratio. So basically it's a vicious circle type of situation going on.


And on a slightly off-topic note, I feel that despite this huge emphasis on surround sound, many people still prefer the simplicity of a stereo system --> a major complaint by many I've talked to (I used to sell HT gear btw) is their intense aversion to "having a bunch of boxes sitting all over their living room" and/or the fact they just do not care about being surrounded by music or the sounds of a starship battle scene. But when faced with the major lack of stereo-based systems, either component or all-in-one, I wonder how many end up buying nothing and stick with their $30 table radio or aging stereo system bought in the 80s or just stick to listening to their car system.

 

[dwight]

Frisky,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my post. I agree with some of your observations, especially about the lousy simulators, but I respectfully disagree with your ultimate conclusions. Between 2000 and 2005, approximately 50 million surround receivers were sold. There were plenty of stereo only receivers in the early part of this decade, but the consumer wanted options for the future, and the industry gave the consumer what he wanted. 50 million surround receivers is a big niche for the music industry and it should have supplied a lot of true MC software into our waiting arms, but there was that stinking format war which interfered with the consortium’s attempt to replace the CD player with the DVD-A player. As it turns out we were really dealing with the disintegration of the entire music industry delivery system. The very existence of the “hard copy” is in question. Nothing is linear, and perhaps we should not expect it to be.

As you mentioned, the IPOD phenomena brought hour after hour of relatively good fidelity right between the ears and although it’s technically two channel, the experience is far closer to surround sound than listening to the typical two speaker stereo setup. The viceral experience is missing, but high quality ear buds can produce an amazing spacial experience.

If I were to tell you that I had two transducers, one for each ear and so small that they virtually couldn’t be felt in the ear, and music could be transmitted wirelessly to them in such a way that instruments would absolutely appear to be actually present in the room as they were in the recording session, whether 10 feet in front or 20 feet ahead spread out in a 140 degree arc; and If the quality of the sound would be equivalent to some of the best loudspeakers you have ever heard, and the only real loudspeaker necessary in the room would be a single low frequency driver in close proximity to your listening position, would you think that was an evolutionary improvement? Would you give up loudspeakers producing the illusion in the room, for the tiny transducers in your ears producing the illusion in the room? We are not far from that happening……but will it be acceptable?

The best high fidelity system that most people have ever heard is in the motion picture theater and that’s going to have been a surround system. There will be those, like the members of this forum, who will want that kind of reproduction, or better, in the home. They’ll want it for their music as well as video, and then of course there will be those who will not care to bring it home .They will be quite happy with the compromise that the two channel stereo system always was and is. If money can be made getting MC to the consumer, then someone will do it. Perhaps it will be through the PENTEO process, or something that emerges from the work on that system. Recovering information once thought lost or unrecoverable is something to be excited about.
Dwight

 

[penteosurround]

Perhaps it will be through the PENTEO process, or something that emerges from the work on that system. Recovering information once thought lost or unrecoverable is something to be excited about.
Dwight

Thanks again, Dwight. I can tell you that we are again at the R&D table and we have made some significant breakthroughs in precision panorama slicing. We now have 3-point stereo mixes of the 1960's down to essentially the same separation of the original multitracks. And we're constantly working to improve our separation between pan positions without incurring artifacts.