The Science and Philosophy of Surround Music

[JimofMaine]

Let's talk about the love of music and how it's best indulged. And for the sake of civil discussion, we'll divide the sound reproduction universe into two groups: 1) Surround with multiple speakers People and 2) 2-Channel means 2 speakers People.

Staunch 2-Channel audiophiles NO NOT subscribe to extra rear, side or height speakers, discrete or not.

Passionate Quad/Surround/HT people DO NOT subscribe to stereo as bonafide surround.

What is surround sound? How big is the surround-sound tent? How big is the 2-Channel tent?

Contradictions of the two groups:
2-Channel People strive for speakers that "disappear" AND a soundstage that, "goes on forever." Surround speakers give you that!

Surround People strive for an immersive sound experience where sounds can originate from literally anywhere. Stereo contains front, back, left, right, up, down in other words, sound from everywhere!

Are these two groups putting artificial constraints on their mutual love of music?

 

[marpow]

That is a good question. Glad you pointed out music because that is the most important, to get to a place where you can sit at home, walk, drive, whatever and listen to your music.
I love stereo and surround. I think mostly I listen to stereo it is the easiest for me to listen to.
Surround music sometimes is too engaging for me, it, when listening as intended forces me in a certian seating position and has lots of brain activity going on.
However nothing beats a great surround experience.
Sometimes I will have a stereo and surround versions and I will pick the stereo version, just because I am in that mood.
I have met people here on QQ that only like surround.
I love both, I think equally. I enjoy stereo listening so much I was thinking about getting a tube preamp for my front L/R main speakers.

 

[The56Kid]

Like @marpow, I love both stereo and surround. Stereo in my car and via UE Boom on my deck, in garage, or showering. Main system is mostly dedicated to surround, but I still listen to stereo on it too. It’s all good, man!

 

[ar surround]

For whatever reason, I'm more fascinated by a great stereo mix where I sit in the sweet spot and get all sorts of imaging than I am by discrete surround. I guess it's because it's harder to get an enveloping effect from stereo than surround. Although I do listen to surround 95% of the time.

Back in the day, I was more fascinated by matrix quad systems than discrete quad...Again, I guess it's because a great matrix quad was more difficult to pull off than a discrete one.

 

[HomerJAU]

For whatever reason, I'm more fascinated by a great stereo mix where I sit in the sweet spot and get all sorts of imaging than I am by discrete surround. I guess it's because it's harder to get an enveloping effect from stereo than surround. Although I do listen to surround 95% of the time.

I like Quad mixes as it’s the best of both worlds: Stereo imaging from my front pair AND the enveloping effect from my two surrounds. I think there’s many here that prefer Quad for that reason. I know some that still listen to 5.1 in quad (no centre speaker, mixing that to their FL & FR).

 

[Bill B]

I love both but since bands/albums with 5.1/quad mixes are really a small subset of the larger music universe I listen to stereo more way more. I won't tailor my listening choice based on whether there is a 5.1/quad mix or not. It's about the music first and the sound second.

It amazes me when I am listening to really good stereo mix and swear I am hearing things from the rear speakers to the point where I have to get up, walk over to the speaker, and check.
I'd also say it takes more concentration to listen to a surround mix, at the very least you have to make sure you are centered in the sweet spot. On the other hand, stereo is a bit more forgiving, you can move around a bit more and not lose the effect. I also feel stereo has a more powerful presentation if you really want to crank it up and rock out. But if you really want to get inside the music nothing beats surround.

 

[RustyStatic]

I also feel stereo has a more powerful presentation if you really want to crank it up and rock out. But if you really want to get inside the music nothing beats surround.

I only got into surround in the last two years, but was surprised to have this same experience. The more I think about it, I suppose it makes sense, but I found it a little counterintuitive at first. But yeah, I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Af the end of the day, it’s nice to have the best of both worlds and to know why I’m reaching for a certain format (or mix) and what I can expect from it. Not much different from the way I feel about my Strat vs. my Les Paul, and why I would never part with either!

 

[jimfisheye]

My Science and Philosophy of Surround Music is more channels = better.

I want to suggest that some of the 'purest' audiophile attitudes against surround aren't against the concept so much as the what were likely poor examples they heard. Think of the most butchered surround mix you've heard. What if you heard a bunch of those first? Just like thinking CDs sound loud and tinny because there is so much volume war mastering.

Same deal with quad vs 5.1 or more. The meat of a 5.1 mix is still the 4 main speakers. I think it's more a mix critique. Although 4.0 does force the issue a little more and it was treated as 4 corners. That style of 4 corner mix is unique to the period. A proper 5.1 setup can also have the 4 mains being 4.0 at the same time. And you could mix in a four corner style if you wanted to.

All the channels give you live show like dynamics. Sound in motion in a plane. You can do anything from virtual reality to hyper realistic.

Yeah, so an audiophile has 2 pristine channels of reproduction in a decent room. OK, now you have 4 or 5! What's the problem again? It's... more of what you like! That depth you liked in stereo? Now you have that same thing to the sides and behind you also. You want stuff that likes to be loud and rockin? Well the same style surround mixes that are on point rock 6 times as much now! It's all the stuff you like but now you can also move sounds around and precision image stuff.

The mixes... That's the problem. You get a volume war CD and it's the only thing you can find. Well shit, but you know, there's still most of the music there to listen to. There's still worse ways to hear stuff. But some of the more novalty surround mixes are just so messed up it's absurd. Surround mixes are still too few and far between to begin with and then half the time you get one it's bs!

 

[kfbkfb]

I mentioned this in other threads, I'm kinda disappointed that the Audio industry of the 1970s didn't promote DynaQuad speaker matrix surround sound more, they could have sold an extra speaker or 2 and in many cases, the surround effect is quite good (and DynaQuad somewhat decodes Stereo-4, QS, SQ) and it would have acclimated listeners to surround sound.

Perhaps the record companies could have been persuaded to (at least) monitor their Stereo mixes with DynaQuad decoding and maybe place some sounds in the surround "channel".


Kirk Bayne

 

[HomerJAU]

My Science and Philosophy of Surround Music is more channels = better.

So when is your Atmos system going in Jim?

 

[chucky3042]

The first step in a good surround is to get a set of speakers that vanish. Ideally you should be able to stare direct at the speaker and conclude that there was no way known that the sound is coming from that object.

Then proceed to surround and get rid of the center channel!!

 

[jimfisheye]

So when is your Atmos system going in Jim?

If they ever release the decoder codec and thus make it possible to get access to those channels. Without the forcing hardware sales of DAC channels that I already own. I have at least 32 channels of outputs across a few audio interfaces. 10 are Apogee. I have some speakers I could hang from the ceiling right now. I'm not spending $1000's on more DAC channels because these assholes are behaving like this hiding their software in hardware products. Goes without saying that one of the cheapo AVR options with OK-ish converters and unbalanced outputs would be a system downgrade for me. So that's not a reasonable option in any way.

This is probably another big negative for surround, actually. Putting unreleased software into hardware to make sales. And the other end. AVR hardware products that restrict some formats for competition between brands. I know what's going on here and what companies like that are trying to do and it's still a roadblock sometimes. (Like now until they finally release Atmos.) I expect the average user to just think "Nope, this shit doesn't work!"

 

[MidiMagic]

I like to just come in and hear surround sound without having to mess with 1771561 formats.

Right now, I am hearing my TV with Dolby Pro-Logic II giving me a nice smooth surround field. It works fine for TV, FM stereo, CDs, DVDs, records, cassettes, and everything else I have. For most of these I don't have to do anything but turn things on.

I can also mix my own recordings in it and can pan a sound anywhere in the 360 degree circle and I hear it from where I put it. This is what I want.

I also want recordings that play on any stereo or surround system right off the shelf.

I tried the discrete systems and found that it was not possible to pan sounds where I wanted them with simple panning techniques. As I panned the sound, it jumped from speaker to speaker because the human hearing systerm can't follow a pan along one side.

I am also equipped to play the different matrix systems, though I usually play all RM recordings with PL-II.

 

[KMO]

I tried the discrete systems and found that it was not possible to pan sounds where I wanted them with simple panning techniques.

But obviously in a discrete system you can do anything that Pro Logic II can do. You have complete control of all the speakers. So it's certainly possible, you just don't know how.

I agree there is certainly scope for a mix to be excessively discrete, and bad at panning. Whereas Pro Logic II forces everything to be its way. It will isolate things, but not excessively.

It would be interesting for you to experiment with running your discrete mix tests you weren't happy with through a Dolby Surround encoder then back through the Pro Logic II. Does it recreate what you were missing?

(You can easily do this on consumer gear by telling a player to output a 2.0 downmix with Lt/Rt surround).

 

[jimfisheye]

It turns out panning (stereo or surround) isn't as simple as it might seem. It doesn't always work to simply grab the joystick (or stereo pan knob) and move it. There's a reason we play with different pan law settings with this on the mixing board! Sometimes the reflection components play a part in sound elements in motion too. (And the reflections have to follow - mirroring or however that's being done.) Masking can be an issue if there's other content in a spot along the path of that pan.

As far as any anomalies of the older encoded systems (that were jumping through hoops to store surround in 2 channel formats with encoding), that stuff is what it is. It led to mix restrictions in some of the old quad mixes. Maybe some things (like a 360 deg pan) got particularly stepped on if you tried them. That's all what it was. We have direct discrete 1:1 delivery of the channels now in 24 bit. The mix can be anything you want.

But even with the weirdness, caveats, and restrictions of the encoded systems out of the way, it can still be tricky to deliver sound in motion.

My 2c

 

[kfbkfb]

The first step in a good surround is to get a set of speakers that vanish.

Is the difference between the 1970s Quad [square] 4 speaker array and the newer ITU 5 speaker array (no CF of course) significant?

aside: on 1 music video on YouTube, my Polk T15s seem to disappear in a few parts of the song (it sounds like the wood blocks player [I hope that's what it is] is right here in my basement with me, [video isn't surround encoded, played w/DPL])


Kirk Bayne

 

[KMO]

Is the difference between the 1970s Quad [square] 4 speaker array and the newer ITU 5 speaker array (no CF of course) significant?

Enlighten a young one - what actually was the recommended Quad speaker configuration, in detail? If ITU = 30° front and 120° rear, Quad was...?

And indeed is the difference between a newer 7-speaker array (30°/90°/150°) and ITU significant?

I'm busy upgrading my speakers, and I'm wondering how many of the original satellites to retain. Do I end up with 5 (ITU), or 7 (Dolby EX) or 9 (ITU + Dolby EX)? My 7.1 receiver supports "surround A/B" so I can have both surround sets connected at 90°/120°/150° and switch easily. Put the good speakers at 120° for music.

What's people's experiences with 5.1 music as real ITU versus Pro Logic IIx (or DSU with 7-speaker config)? Still waiting for new speakers to turn up, so not able to do my own A/B testing yet.

If you do have a 7-speaker config, are there any systems that let you send sound "direct" to the surround backs instead of the surrounds? Seems to me like that would be better than sending them to 90-degree surrounds, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[markshan]

Ideally you should be able to stare direct at the speaker and conclude that there was no way known that the sound is coming from that object.

Then proceed to surround and get rid of the center channel!!

If you can't tell which speaker it's coming from what is the issue with a center speaker? I don't understand.

 

[kfbkfb]

Enlighten a young one - what actually was the recommended Quad speaker configuration, in detail? If ITU = 30° front and 120° rear, Quad was...?

Quad speaker arrangement (from the inventor of the Discrete Quad FM broadcasting standard for the USA):
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...4-demodulator-archive.9035/page-13#post-73313
(I don't know why the ITU arrangement is different, I haven't read any technical papers about the ITU arrangement yet)


Kirk Bayne

 

[AYanguas]

Then proceed to surround and get rid of the center channel!!

The center channel can be as good as any other surround channel. You know: more channels = better.

The issue here, specially with the locked main vocals, and with whatever other channel is the mix quality and the mixer style.