Does anyone want to get really irritated?
- Thread starter Scott M4
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
How Does this guy have a job writing for Cnet? He seems totally out of touch with the entire spectrum/genre of Surround Sound. Ugggggggggggggh...............his analogy of going to a concert and being able to place where each instrument is...........I wanna reach through and throttle him through my monitor. 
@:
Please tell me that was a joke
@:Please tell me that was a joke
The world is clearly moving towards headphones and single box players. Nothing new, really. New cars will lose their CD/DVD-A players any moment now, and streaming, file storing, and instant recall will become the norm.
The days of having a "stereo" in the living room are pretty much gone for the masses. In reality, it's deja vu all over again! I never thought surround music would ever return after it died in the late '70s. Nothing surprised me more than the DTS CDs, followed by SACDs and DVD-As. The fact that we got those is quite remarkable, when you think about it.
The days of having a "stereo" in the living room are pretty much gone for the masses. In reality, it's deja vu all over again! I never thought surround music would ever return after it died in the late '70s. Nothing surprised me more than the DTS CDs, followed by SACDs and DVD-As. The fact that we got those is quite remarkable, when you think about it.
At a classical concert a conductor gets surround sound from where he stands... especially if it's a piano concerto
Failed Muso
800 Club - QQ All-Star
I just read this, like you Scott, over on Synthtopia's FB page. I also left a wordy response
The author of this piece is not only out of touch, but quite contradictory. People have been saying that multi-channel audio is dead since the days of Quad, but it still remains. Judging it to be a failure means you must know what the measure of success was, and he doesn't know that. It's niche, that's for sure, and there are many obstacles to overcome if it is ever to become mainstream, but does he not realise that virtually all the 2.1 soundbar systems he refers to have pseudo surround features because what people REALLY want is multi-channel audio with minimal physical impact.
Articles like this, and some of the responses to it, show how much ignorance and confusion there is out there. A lot of that is the fault of an industry unable to decide on a common, universal delivery system. Much has to change, but multi-channel audio is far from dead
Don't blame the messenger here. I began listening to Quad in '71 and haven't looked back since.
I sold hi-fi in both Quad's heyday and the resurrection of surround music at the turn of the new millennium. It was stillborn both times. The economy tanked both times. In '73 - '74 there was an energy crisis and gas lines. In retrospect, I'm dumbfounded that I was successful in those economic climates. Add in format wars and stillborn technologies like SQ (Sorta Quadraphonic), you clearly have a recipe for disaster. Yes, a great decoder can make SQ sound SPECTACULAR.
People feel they own all the audio gear they need: a PC, an iPod/iPhone/Android, earbuds and perhaps a soundbar. It's all lowtech crap. Few people under 40 have ever heard a quality audio system. They wouldn't know accurate reproduction if it bit them in the ass. There are even a few surroundoholics that are listening through gear that was considered low tech forty years ago. They have yet to hear anything remotely approximating real fidelity. As much as I love multichannel music, I must admit that 4 channels of slop is still slop.
IMHO, the public at large is mostly ignorant about surround music. There was some buzz in the early quad days, but I've seen little or no interest in the public at large since '75. By the time the Tate came around in '78, Quad was dead. The hi-fi business was booming at that time as I've never seen it before or since. At that time, I managed the #2 volume store in the largest chain in the US. We employed over two dozen full time salespeople. We had not a one piece of Quad gear in our store. And we were owned by CBS!! If one customer a month inquired about Quad, it was a lot. No one special ordered a piece of Quad. Dead in the water.
In Quad's heyday and it's resurrection 10-15 years ago, most consumers could have cared less. I demo'ed it until I was blue in the face. "Sure it sounds good, BUT I don't have the room and/or money for it. And besides, my wife/girlfriend wouldn't allow all that stuff in the living room." Let's face it, guys, fondling someone's rear is far more important to most guys than rear channels.
Imagine if CD's were Quad, which was a feature of its original design. I'd own 20,000 surround titles, rather than the 1000 I do own. :yikes
IMHO, Mr. Gutenberg doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding surround music. Has he ever sat down and critically listened to surround music? As many people have voiced over the years, "it's a gimmick!" Are quality sound reproduction and hearing things that were buried in the 2 channel mix gimmick's? These days, it appears that they are. The music and high fidelity industries are doomed.
Don't blame the messenger. I think I'll go have a good cry. Perhaps it's just the hormones.
I sold hi-fi in both Quad's heyday and the resurrection of surround music at the turn of the new millennium. It was stillborn both times. The economy tanked both times. In '73 - '74 there was an energy crisis and gas lines. In retrospect, I'm dumbfounded that I was successful in those economic climates. Add in format wars and stillborn technologies like SQ (Sorta Quadraphonic), you clearly have a recipe for disaster. Yes, a great decoder can make SQ sound SPECTACULAR.
People feel they own all the audio gear they need: a PC, an iPod/iPhone/Android, earbuds and perhaps a soundbar. It's all lowtech crap. Few people under 40 have ever heard a quality audio system. They wouldn't know accurate reproduction if it bit them in the ass. There are even a few surroundoholics that are listening through gear that was considered low tech forty years ago. They have yet to hear anything remotely approximating real fidelity. As much as I love multichannel music, I must admit that 4 channels of slop is still slop.
IMHO, the public at large is mostly ignorant about surround music. There was some buzz in the early quad days, but I've seen little or no interest in the public at large since '75. By the time the Tate came around in '78, Quad was dead. The hi-fi business was booming at that time as I've never seen it before or since. At that time, I managed the #2 volume store in the largest chain in the US. We employed over two dozen full time salespeople. We had not a one piece of Quad gear in our store. And we were owned by CBS!! If one customer a month inquired about Quad, it was a lot. No one special ordered a piece of Quad. Dead in the water.
In Quad's heyday and it's resurrection 10-15 years ago, most consumers could have cared less. I demo'ed it until I was blue in the face. "Sure it sounds good, BUT I don't have the room and/or money for it. And besides, my wife/girlfriend wouldn't allow all that stuff in the living room." Let's face it, guys, fondling someone's rear is far more important to most guys than rear channels.
Imagine if CD's were Quad, which was a feature of its original design. I'd own 20,000 surround titles, rather than the 1000 I do own. :yikes
IMHO, Mr. Gutenberg doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding surround music. Has he ever sat down and critically listened to surround music? As many people have voiced over the years, "it's a gimmick!" Are quality sound reproduction and hearing things that were buried in the 2 channel mix gimmick's? These days, it appears that they are. The music and high fidelity industries are doomed.
Don't blame the messenger. I think I'll go have a good cry. Perhaps it's just the hormones.
I really get annoyed when I hear the argument against surround music that goes "When I see a concert, the music is coming from in front of me, not behind me".
So? What does that have to do with a 5.1 system or 5.1 music. IT'S NOT A CONCERT! IT'S AN AUDIO PLAYBACK. I don't have a stage in my room, or in my car, or wherever I choose to listen to surround music. The rears don't even have to be behind the listener, they can be to the sides, or even spread out in front if so desired. It just means that sounds are coming from distinct positions, not matter where you put them, giving them more clarity and exposure.
It's very easy to dis surround music with the above argument, the "I don't want speakers all over my room", "I don't have 4 ears", "I never sit in one spot and listen" - those arguments are from the totally clueless. It's like when someone dismisses 5.1 in a car that has never heard 5.1 in a car.
If you tell me that "It's too much work", or "I just listen to music with headphones" - I can buy those arguments. It's the weak arguments like the "Stage", "Two Ears", "Sweet Spot", and other tired bull like these that burn my butt when I hear them.
If you just say "I don't like it", to me, that is the best argument of all. But please, just say THAT, don't come up with all of the used, worn, crappy rhetoric that it doesn't sound like it's on a STAGE.
So? What does that have to do with a 5.1 system or 5.1 music. IT'S NOT A CONCERT! IT'S AN AUDIO PLAYBACK. I don't have a stage in my room, or in my car, or wherever I choose to listen to surround music. The rears don't even have to be behind the listener, they can be to the sides, or even spread out in front if so desired. It just means that sounds are coming from distinct positions, not matter where you put them, giving them more clarity and exposure.
It's very easy to dis surround music with the above argument, the "I don't want speakers all over my room", "I don't have 4 ears", "I never sit in one spot and listen" - those arguments are from the totally clueless. It's like when someone dismisses 5.1 in a car that has never heard 5.1 in a car.
If you tell me that "It's too much work", or "I just listen to music with headphones" - I can buy those arguments. It's the weak arguments like the "Stage", "Two Ears", "Sweet Spot", and other tired bull like these that burn my butt when I hear them.
If you just say "I don't like it", to me, that is the best argument of all. But please, just say THAT, don't come up with all of the used, worn, crappy rhetoric that it doesn't sound like it's on a STAGE.
look at this video.. you can clearly see at the 24 second mark that the conductor is getting surround sound from the orchestra and piano http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGx8TRWFVA and at 1.48 you can hear the conductor telling Yuja to slow down....
All good points..........but this is the main one Snood is in agreement with :banana:
I Used to be one of those guys, until I was accidentally hit in the head with a DVD-A disc............what's great is nice rear channels are now way easier to acquire then actual people rears. :51banana:
leevitalone1
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I think, folks like snood, need only to hear it, instead of trying to explain the format. Like the time I suggested QQ to another forum, a member regarding 5.1 music he was interested in, he simply said he wasn't interested in quad. And, shut down on the idea.
When I bought my Integra all those years ago, it had 5.1 inputs, I had no idea what they were for. (there was a button on front labeled MCH). It wasn't until my friend came over soon after raving about dvd audio and I realized I could actually play them.
When I bought my Integra all those years ago, it had 5.1 inputs, I had no idea what they were for. (there was a button on front labeled MCH). It wasn't until my friend came over soon after raving about dvd audio and I realized I could actually play them.
The thing is, 'surround sound' is a format that folks don't think about when they're watching movies in a theatre (though I do; you'd be surprised how many indie films claim to have surroudn sound but use it occassionally at best); they've gotten so used to it it's taken for granted, like watching/hearing a DVD film at home. Audio-only sonics still confuse the masses because they don't equate multichannel sound to their favorite recording acts. WE do, but that's we, not THEM. If THEM cared, we'd have a lot more modern music in surround, but you know how limited even that is...
The other day I told somebody that I bought Adele's 21 album on vinyl and she asked, 'why'? Well, if I have to explain why, then there is no point explaining. Sigh....
ED
The other day I told somebody that I bought Adele's 21 album on vinyl and she asked, 'why'? Well, if I have to explain why, then there is no point explaining. Sigh....
ED
The other day I told somebody that I bought Adele's 21 album on vinyl and she asked, 'why'? Well, if I have to explain why, then there is no point explaining. Sigh....
ED
We still have to try to explain to "them"............we must make headway. We must fight the good fight, even if they roll their eyes at us. Snood used to be one of those people
Well, thing is, first they want to know why you still buy vinyl, and then explain why Adele, of all people? The former (I've been a vinyl hound all my life, since eight years old, which is 1963 to now) is easier than why I think Adele is one of the few great singers of this new, strange century we're living in. At least, she's the most successful great singer I've heard and, not being particularly interested in modern pop, she had to be good to get the attention of a guy who grew up with Peggy Lee, Ronnie Bennett/Spector, the Shangri-Las, Aretha, Streisand, Fontella Bass, Etta James, so many others...that the belting or bleating of most women today leaves me cold, with Adele (and Duffy) being rare exceptions. I like to think I know actual talent when I hear it, but others disagree, and y'know, whatever....
ED
ED
leevitalone1
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
The thing is, 'surround sound' is a format that folks don't think about when they're watching movies in a theatre (though I do; you'd be surprised how many indie films claim to have surroudn sound but use it occassionally at best); they've gotten so used to it it's taken for granted, like watching/hearing a DVD film at home. Audio-only sonics still confuse the masses because they don't equate multichannel sound to their favorite recording acts. WE do, but that's we, not THEM. If THEM cared, we'd have a lot more modern music in surround, but you know how limited even that is...
The other day I told somebody that I bought Adele's 21 album on vinyl and she asked, 'why'? Well, if I have to explain why, then there is no point explaining. Sigh....
ED
A really good way to get to the point is mention if you liked the movie in 5.1 you'll love music in 5.1, that seems to work pretty well.
just look at that guys face..REALLY ,are you gonna take him SERIOUSLY????
I received this in my email today from Dr. AIX.
Mark Waldrep has a daily email which is really quite interesting for those who are interested in HiRez stereo and surround. At any rate, with all due reverence, here is the email which addresses this CNET article
Anyone looking to get on the daily email list can register over at the AIX website
Mark Waldrep has a daily email which is really quite interesting for those who are interested in HiRez stereo and surround. At any rate, with all due reverence, here is the email which addresses this CNET article
Anyone looking to get on the daily email list can register over at the AIX website
It's times like this I wish there was a "LOVE this post" option
Excellent e-mail Dr. AIX! I've really enjoyed the AIX discs I've acquired and appreciate the quality that goes into them.
Jon, thanks for sharing this.
Jon, thanks for sharing this.
What they said!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Similar threads
