The Science and Philosophy of Surround Music

[KMO]

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

Absolutely. I guess the main practical issue is that a lot of people have to compromise with placement and type of centre speaker because of a TV in the same damned place.

We can't all be set up up like this, although it's certainly my ideal:



As I'm upgrading my speakers, and as they've not all arrived yet my FL+FR are currently a lot better than my centre.

I did configure for a while so my Dolby Pro Logic II Music was "centre width 7" to avoid the old centre, but I've changed it back. Even with an inferior speaker, and a non-discrete mix, using the centre is better.

I've seen some great work with the 3-channel front stage. Mixers have a width control. It's a whole other dimension.

 

[chucky3042]

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

The center speaker in the sweet spot then has no function. It's effect then typically is to distort the sound image below the screen. This really throws me.
If your speakers "image" well the center should be sonically there without the speaker. This is best demonstrated with largecelectrostatics

The only use of the center is to keep a steady center for those sitting off center. We have our own patented technique that keeps a consistent non shifting image for all those in the room called SST (sweet spot technology)...... See www.involveaudio.com

 

[JimofMaine]

Can the case be made that 2-channel music will NEVER sound as good on a surround system? Conversely, surround mixes will never sound as good on a 2-channel system?

Why don't more 2-channel enthusiasts incorporate surround speakers?

 

[AYanguas]

Can the case be made that 2-channel music will NEVER sound as good on a surround system?

2-channel music will sound exactly the same on a surround system IF the surround system is of equal quality and performance. Just only two speakers sound.

Conversely, surround mixes will never sound as good on a 2-channel system?

If the quality of systems is the same, it will depend on how good downmix the surround compared with a perhaps different stereo mix.

Why don't more 2-channel enthusiasts incorporate surround speakers?

1 - Because they have never listen to a good surround mix in a good surround system. So they think it will sound worse if they incorporated bad small satellite speakers only useful for explosions or shots in films.

2 - Even if they have listen, their neuronal emotions work in a different way as ours (surround fans). They don't get excited by different sounds coming from different directions, or maybe they are scared.

3 - Because they know that to make it sound good they need the same quality (or similar) of stereo speakers for the additional surround speakers and they cannot afford it. Apart from the multichannel pre-pro and amps or AVR, additional cabling, etc.

4 - WAF considerations also applies sometimes.

5 - Because the effort of installing and tuning a good surround system is not worth it. Think about the amount of stress that comes when deciding on the correct placement of the Atmos height speakers

 

[Bill B]

oops, sorry bad post

 

[JimofMaine]

2-channel music will sound exactly the same on a surround system IF the surround system is of equal quality and performance. Just only two speakers sound.



If the quality of systems is the same, it will depend on how good downmix the surround compared with a perhaps different stereo mix.



1 - Because they have never listen to a good surround mix in a good surround system. So they think it will sound worse if they incorporated bad small satellite speakers only useful for explosions or shots in films.

2 - Even if they have listen, their neuronal emotions work in a different way as ours (surround fans). They don't get excited by different sounds coming from different directions, or maybe they are scared.

3 - Because they know that to make it sound good they need the same quality (or similar) of stereo speakers for the additional surround speakers and they cannot afford it. Apart from the multichannel pre-pro and amps or AVR, additional cabling, etc.

4 - WAF considerations also applies sometimes.

5 - Because the effort of installing and tuning a good surround system is not worth it. Think about the amount of stress that comes when deciding on the correct placement of the Atmos height speakers

Would any 2-channel zealots out there like to respectfully dispute these points?

 

[MidiMagic]

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).

I did that back when I was making the tests in 2000.

That is the main reason I chose Dolby Surround.

I have some of the discrete tapes (4-track recordings of a local band). I was unable to make anything localize to either side. Then I encoded them and played them back through PL-II. They worked quite well.

My usual method of making a 4-track master is to pan all of the front information onto 2 tracks, and pan all of the back information onto two more tracks. With this method, sounds between LF and LB and sounds between RF and RB are recorded on the back tracks.

When the tapes are played discretely, the sounds appear between the front pair and between the back pair.

When I encode the tapes, the result played through PL-II is a complete circle of sound.