Surround sound for music is a dumb idea

[4-earredwonder]

I'd probably but more of today's music if it wasn't bludgeoned with compression and shrill and didn't sound like click track MIDI tinkerbell production. Or the karaoke band robot voice warble thing. Even Styx with their vocoder abuse wasn't this cheesy!

Agreed though!

Happily and luckily, the past few dozen RBCDs I have purchased are COMPRESSION FREE. But I'm sure it's one of those hit and misses game of chance. And lest we forget, some of those surround remixes/remasters could also use some judicious reduction in treble.. midrange boosts and a bass increase!

 

[srbjab]

The issues I have with Guttenberg's and Paul McGowan's arguments are that they are both reductive and based on false assumptions. I think it's amusing that McGowan seems to think the ONLY reason to have a good sound system is to recreate a live performance right in front of you. Does he really think that most albums being released today are from live shows rather than multi-tracked, heavily mixed studio recordings where many of the performers are playing in isolation? Does he really think most people prefer to only listen to live recordings? Guttenberg seems to think that surround music without benefit of visual cues (such as accompanying concert footage) makes no sense, even though aggressive surround mixing (with instruments originating to the side and rear of the listener) actually makes no sense for most live concerts. Guttenberg also seems to think that surround music "is dumb" because none of the "rules" for surround mixing were ever decided and agreed upon. What an arrogant dismissal of the skill and imagination of artists like Steven Wilson, Bob Clearmountain, Alan Parsons, Bruce Soord and many others who are pioneers and champions of surround sound. As S. Wilson has often said, the only "rules" are what sounds good and best serves the music. One of the most ridiculous arguments from McGowan is that while a good surround system playing "the right" recording is absolutely superior to stereo, surround will never succeed because too many people can barely be persuaded to install 2 tiny speakers, and will never install 6 or more. I guess he's missed the whole home video / surround sound development over the last couple of decades. It's hard not to get snarky about the people making these kinds of criticisms of surround sound for music, but to me at best they are woefully out of touch and at worst are engaging in provocative click bait, and therefore not really worth debating.

 

[kap'n krunch]

my Mom (RIP) used to say something that at first I thought was a joke but after many years I see she was right...whenever someone did or said something stupid she'd say
"Just look at that face...what do you expect???"

 

[mandrix]

I'm going to lay some facts on you. The only people whose opinions about music I read (except rare exceptions) are right here at QQ. Even when I don't agree I usually understand where you are coming from.
I'm old, and life really is too short to give one damn minute fretting over people that don't like surround. Why not mingle with those of like minds and just avoid all the scribes that don't feel the same?
For the record, I like stereo as well, though I don't invest much in it anymore...
Everyone is entitled to an opinion re Stereo vs Surround but I don't have a need to care about it.

 

[par4ken]

many people can barely be persuaded to install 2 tiny speakers, and will never install 6 or more.

While I would dismiss almost everything he has to say I do agree with that one statement.

Back in the quad days It was often hard enough for people to properly place four speakers in a typical listening room, having to deal with a non supportive other half would typically complicate matters or rule out multiple speakers altogether.

Modern systems like to use smaller speakers for the surrounds which might be a bit easier to integrate but that is a compromise that I myself can not live with.

 

[gene_stl]

My wonderful Mrs. rolled her eyes and said ,"Love me, love my speakers!" and has never complained about the way they look. And now she likes opera. I may even set up a 5.1 system in our bedroom. With a bit smaller speakers of course. I don't think I would call her enthusiastic about the move to 7.X but she also knows there are many worse habits and hobbies a husbin can have.

 

[jimfisheye]

Yeah, not everyone sits down for a piece of music like they do a movie. Shocking, I know! I was the only one in my group of friends in high school to have a real stereo at home. Everyone else had a boombox. Nothing's changed. Seems about the same number of people are OCD about music nowadays. The rest have shitbars or earbuds now.

I like stereo. As well as glorious mono!
Ya know... Make a mix that delivers in mono without the aid of multiple channels, direction cues, and motion! I dare ya!

However I've definitely settled into this attitude that, especially in this era, REAL albums have a surround version! Otherwise... meh.

Surround releases sure should be treble-y volume war mastered though. We are literally the niche audience that have nice sound systems at home! I think the absolutely brutal reviews are well deserved for those. And surround releases that are lower fidelity that their stereo or mono counterpart... Man, come on now!

Something has changed though actually. We have the happiness and light that is 24 bit discrete HD surround releases. (Sometimes anyway.)

 

[Electric Moo]

Yes, no reason to pit surround vs stereo, or even vs mono: enjoy each version of a mix for it's own merits! It's good to have choice & variations.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Time to give my consumers no choice and force them to listen to a 1.5 channel mix.
5 subwoofers
1 rear channel

 

[mandrix]

Time to give my consumers no choice and force them to listen to a 1.5 channel mix.
5 subwoofers
1 rear channel

lol!
But, but, but I just gave away my subs. Actually I seldom use a sub, and I let the AVR tune without it. I seem to be hyper sensitive to lows. But if you ever do 4 Front speakers I got you covered; my corners are a matched set!
EDIT: should have added the AVR always tunes the crossover for the fronts down to 40dB, which works OK for the room.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Time to give my consumers no choice and force them to listen to a 1.5 channel mix.
5 subwoofers
1 rear channel

Should be great for listening to Toad Less Company!!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Should be great for listening to Toad Less Company!!

There have been so many downloads of it and barely any reviews or talk, but let's not take away from the main thread here.
I've found in recent surveying that a lot of people associate Home Theater with costly and emulating an actual theater instead of a surround sound setup.
If you market it towards people as surround sound and not a home theater, they'll be less scared of it.
Wild.

 

[amco]

The issues I have with Guttenberg's and Paul McGowan's arguments are that they are both reductive and based on false assumptions. I think it's amusing that McGowan seems to think the ONLY reason to have a good sound system is to recreate a live performance right in front of you. Does he really think that most albums being released today are from live shows rather than multi-tracked, heavily mixed studio recordings where many of the performers are playing in isolation? Does he really think most people prefer to only listen to live recordings? Guttenberg seems to think that surround music without benefit of visual cues (such as accompanying concert footage) makes no sense, even though aggressive surround mixing (with instruments originating to the side and rear of the listener) actually makes no sense for most live concerts. Guttenberg also seems to think that surround music "is dumb" because none of the "rules" for surround mixing were ever decided and agreed upon. What an arrogant dismissal of the skill and imagination of artists like Steven Wilson, Bob Clearmountain, Alan Parsons, Bruce Soord and many others who are pioneers and champions of surround sound. As S. Wilson has often said, the only "rules" are what sounds good and best serves the music. One of the most ridiculous arguments from McGowan is that while a good surround system playing "the right" recording is absolutely superior to stereo, surround will never succeed because too many people can barely be persuaded to install 2 tiny speakers, and will never install 6 or more. I guess he's missed the whole home video / surround sound development over the last couple of decades. It's hard not to get snarky about the people making these kinds of criticisms of surround sound for music, but to me at best they are woefully out of touch and at worst are engaging in provocative click bait, and therefore not really worth debating.

Totally agreed. With the probable exception of AudioScience, most of the ¨Expert¨ Audiophiles¨ publishing on Youtube are really just folksy Influencers striring up themes to get followers with likes and maybe earn some $$$. Most of them talk 10 to a dozen, just like Influencers for quack medical miracle cures etc., and several of the craziest are Spanish speaking !!! But surely Paul from PS Audio takes the prize for his so condescending ¨Grandfather knows best¨ style, of course as indirect marketing for the sometimes strange and always wildly overpriced PS Audio products.

Back to business: Sure, all surround sound has faced the speaker installation challenge for consumers, but personally I believe there is even more scope with music than movies. I play all music including old CDs via my 5.1 rig, and without worrying about sweet spots, I can thoroughly enjoy music, with much greater PRESENCE than stereo, anywhere in my large open plan living area. Great HTs with surround for movies are few outside USA, due to smaller living spaces, and anyway, who and when has time to schedule a ¨visit¨ to a dedicated HT ?!? However, being always an optimist, it now seems that soundbars and DSP are cracking open the installation barrier for surround surround. Though far from ideal, the world is now finally advancing with surround sound.

Happy New Year 2022, Onward and Upward for a bigger and better surround future...

 

[shokhead]

I enjoy surround music either SACD, DVD-A, DTS. DVD or Blu Ray. Pictures, no pictures, video, no video, I don't care. All my 2ch listening is in 4 speakers setup. To me for a while now, just front speakers are a bit boring.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

I usually watch concert videos with the picture, but if I have seen the program a time or two I sometimes play those programs without the TV/Monitor on. I also occasionally listen to music in a darkened room because I do believe it heightens your sense of where particular sounds are coming from or moving to. I think this is why most vision impaired people develop a heightened sense of hearing. I usually listen to surround recordings loud (my wife often tells me...), but sometimes turn them way down to get a better sense of what is coming from each speaker.

On the other hand, I remember back during the heyday of MTV I was often bothered by once you saw the music video for a particular song (especially if it was a 'story/mini-movie' rather than a performance), then whenever you heard the song the video story is what played in my head rather than what my mind would have applied to the experience.

For example, when you hear Michael Jackson's "Thriller", doesn't your mind go to the images of the official video? If there had been no video, what images would that song bring up in your mind? I doubt it would be dancing zombies. Or if when you first heard a song, the lyrics and mood of the recording triggered a serious scenario but then you see the video of the group clowning around at an amusement park. It kind of spoiled it a bit sometimes.

 

[t4mber]

I’ve spent some time last year composing live quad music and learning about the format. It’s quite interesting - and not as simple as playing to four speakers.

The human brain uses a variety of signals to locate objects in 3d space, primarily through sight and sound (and tactile proximity sense via the hairs on our body). Without visual cues the perception of location via sound is easily lost and muddled especially when there’s loss in the playback.

However, despite the degradation of location tracking without visuals, our brains remain receptive to overall spatial environment conveyed through sound. This is one of the great discoveries the original stereo jazz recordings and by dub engineers remixing songs in 1970s.

I think that spatial music has more of an opportunity to take advantage of capturing space or synthesizing new spaces. And this where I’ve focused my quad work.

There’s a bit more to be said imo. While surround music is degraded without video, mono and stereo sound is enhanced through video. We can enjoy mediocre music performances more when we see the artist play the guitar or the synthesizer blinkenlights because the brain is creating a richer experience from the multimodal information that’s greater than the sum. And I believe that spatial reference we derive from mulitmodal experience is recalled merely from later auditory cues without video; this is one reason why concert recordings are more powerful for those that attended.

 

[gene_stl]

The serving of video with music has more than one flavor. I enjoy watching concert videos where I can listen and watch the musicians.

I generally don't care to watch "Music Videos" or at least not more than once. Especially when the video content is moronic or has nothing to do with the music. Even back in the day, hippies sqwooshing petrie dishes on overhead projectors (aka "psychedelic light shows" ) used to piss me off. Ditto "color organs". Something more "concept" like Thriller I was and am willing to watch once to see if the video content is of any use to me. Normally it is not.

I love the Who and almost all their music but they have some annoying videos, Like the black and white burglary in the "Happy Jack" video and the seque into bad computer psychedelia in the "studio" version of "Won't get fooled again".
Also please spare me a stoned camera man pulsing the zoom and/or focus control in rhythm with the music.

For me I would prefer just let the camera's roll on the musicians and skip the sophomoric effects and scripts. If you can't come up with anything equal to the music, then just display the album cover. jmo

 

[~dave~~wave~]

Even back in the day, hippies sqwooshing petrie dishes on overhead projectors (aka "psychedelic light shows" ) used to piss me off.

Different strokes for different folks... ☮
I prefer a liquid light show to most of the cliched "beams of light in fog" stage lighting of the last 30 years.

 

[gene_stl]

Whenever I saw light shows like that I always was figuring out what and how they did it. Usually petrie dishes on overhead projectors and different dyed aqueous and oily phases. The laser ones weren't much better because I did the same thing but it was figuring out hardware. Usually rotating scanners and X-Y scanners. They were all good fun , for about 20 seconds. The liquid light shows became cliched the second time you saw them. Tedious the first time. If I want to see 2001 A Space Odyssey I will go to the Cinerama theater. But as you say. Diffunt strokes.

 

[salsdali]

mono is a horrible idea

stereo is a bad idea

surround is an appropriate idea

totally immersive (yet to come) is the best idea

the world is three-dimensional, don't limit yourself, ever