Vinyl vs surround

[Dan T]

Hi.

Over the last year or so I’ve been on the surround forum and benefitting from many kind folks posting when new surround or atmos versions of albums or singles come out.

At first it was fun and I liked to hear what had been done, particularly to some of my favorite albums.

However, it’s had the reverse effect and I’ve recently upgraded my stylus and started buying vinyl all over again because I realised that I just couldn’t get a better music listening experience.

I’ve found atmos to be fun at times but ultimately a bit of a gimmick, and in some songs, even just inappropriate.

Had anyone else had this experience?

 

[IMachine]

I often also listen to stereo music as it is the punchier sound for me.

 

[jimfisheye]

Hi.

Over the last year or so I’ve been on the surround forum and benefitting from many kind folks posting when new surround or atmos versions of albums or singles come out.

At first it was fun and I liked to hear what had been done, particularly to some of my favorite albums.

However, it’s had the reverse effect and I’ve recently upgraded my stylus and started buying vinyl all over again because I realised that I just couldn’t get a better music listening experience.

I’ve found atmos to be fun at times but ultimately a bit of a gimmick, and in some songs, even just inappropriate.

Had anyone else had this experience?

I've certainly had the experience of better mixes in stereo vs their surround mix counterparts. Always hate to admit it as a surround addict but I've heard more accomplished stereo mixes than accomplished surround mixes.

I do have an expensive vinyl setup with a nice cartridge and preamp. (Benz Micro and Mark Levinson stuff.) I've heard plenty of vinyl copies that were the best sounding commercial release of a mix.

Vinyl at it's best has at least 2 analog generations. You can't make an exact copy of anything like you can with digital. 24 bit HD digital is absolute happiness and light over mechanical vinyl. And it opened up discrete lossless delivery of surround mixes to consumers. The original quality of the recording is fully preserved and there is never generation loss. I'll never go back!

There are examples of decent work with lesser systems bettering poor work with the best systems. There are novelty audio releases that intentionally use lo-fi lossy digital formats and 'loudness war' style mastering. Don't confuse that stuff with any perceived limitation in digital. Also you have 70 years worth of stereo mixes to curate for the good ones. Barely 7 years of 12 channel mixes now? There are only a handful. Give it time.

You start with 2 channels of high quality audio reproduction. Treat your room and calibrate the system for accuracy. You're reproducing a mix at reference level. Now you expand to 12 channels of the very same quality. The very same speakers and everything. It's all in the mix quality. If a 12 channel mix sounds like a novelty or less than the stereo mix, that's the fault of the mix work. (And someone should feel bad because they managed to screw something up THAT badly with much better tools!)

I suspect there are examples where someone seriously downgraded their overall system quality when they expanded to Atmos because they couldn't afford the same speakers or whatever it was. Or struggled with Dolby's software lockdown and ended up having to replace an AV receiver with a compromised model just to get the new decoder. That's the real issue, right?

 

[Dan T]

I've certainly had the experience of better mixes in stereo vs their surround mix counterparts. Always hate to admit it as a surround addict but I've heard more accomplished stereo mixes than accomplished surround mixes.

I do have an expensive vinyl setup with a nice cartridge and preamp. (Benz Micro and Mark Levinson stuff.) I've heard plenty of vinyl copies that were the best sounding commercial release of a mix.

Vinyl at it's best has at least 2 analog generations. You can't make an exact copy of anything like you can with digital. 24 bit HD digital is absolute happiness and light over mechanical vinyl. And it opened up discrete lossless delivery of surround mixes to consumers. The original quality of the recording is fully preserved and there is never generation loss. I'll never go back!

There are examples of decent work with lesser systems bettering poor work with the best systems. There are novelty audio releases that intentionally use lo-fi lossy digital formats and 'loudness war' style mastering. Don't confuse that stuff with any perceived limitation in digital. Also you have 70 years worth of stereo mixes to curate for the good ones. Barely 7 years of 12 channel mixes now? There are only a handful. Give it time.

You start with 2 channels of high quality audio reproduction. Treat your room and calibrate the system for accuracy. You're reproducing a mix at reference level. Now you expand to 12 channels of the very same quality. The very same speakers and everything. It's all in the mix quality. If a 12 channel mix sounds like a novelty or less than the stereo mix, that's the fault of the mix work. (And someone should feel bad because they managed to screw something up THAT badly with much better tools!)

I suspect there are examples where someone seriously downgraded their overall system quality when they expanded to Atmos because they couldn't afford the same speakers or whatever it was. Or struggled with Dolby's software lockdown and ended up having to replace an AV receiver with a compromised model just to get the new decoder. That's the real issue, right?

Spot on.
To be honest my two channel set up is technically superior.
My surround system is geared up primarily for movies and I invested in hi-fi reproduction for vinyl.
I took the plunge at Christmas to invest in an expensive stylus and the difference was truly staggering.
Combined with my Pro-ject turntable it’s revolutionised my listening experience.
I’d forgotten about the impact that uncompressed vinyl has.
So I confess my atoms set up isn’t as technically superior.

However. I do find a lot of atmos music mixes to be a bit hit and miss. For me, the worst ones are when they are too playful and are done for effect.
For me, the best (like the Chic stuff) really brings the sub to life and just expands the overall field of music to great effect.
Like you say. Give it time, and hopefully more atmos mixes will be done with the right mindset, which for me is releasing the potential of the music across a wider field of listening.

 

[jimfisheye]

Exactly why I stand by the advice of quality before more channels. You will not be happy with a downgraded system once you set the bar for yourself! It turns it into novelty just like you say. This is why I keep posting with ideas to avoid the software spoofing and hidden software decoders in hardware products and return to (or stay with) the old school modular separate components approach.

Steve Wilson's 12 channel mix of King Crimson Larks' Tongues is blowing my mind right now for how accomplished a mix can be and the level of fidelity and dynamics that can be delivered to the listener. It's not only beyond what you could physically do with stereo but even 5.1 as well.

I probably have 2 or 3 other examples that are at 'mind blown' level. Then a dozen or so that are really good mixes - that could have probably been delivered in 5.1 just as well - but they're good mixes. Of course I can be easy to please one day and an impossible critic the next like anyone.

I think you bring up a great point @Dan T! I think the greedy angle Dolby is going so hard for has led directly to people starting over with Atmos because they couldn't figure out the hidden and restricted decoding software. Starting over vs. adding on to their existing system. And that landed on the Atmos system being a downgrade from their previous system and coming across as novelty. And this scenario is so incredibly wrong! Dolby's business practice with this absolutely infuriated me! The ambitious creative work I've heard so far has won me over. Worth it and I'd do it all over again!

 

[marpow]

My music listening experience started in the 60's with records, then 70's had a cassette recorder and recorded the sound out of speakers to bring the music to school.
Then as I got older started investing in higher end equipment for record listening.
Then in the 70's & 80's Cassettes & CD's came out and I was reborn. No more scratches, click, pops, and I could play them on the go and in my car.
Music and ease of playing music was all that was important.

Now, the last 10 years I have been 100% committed to a better digital listening experience through gear and formats, discs, downloads, etc. Records have never come back to my thought process.

I believe in the digital world of listening to music, with moderately priced gear, proper room acoustics, and enhancing the room acoustics with DSP filters, etc.

As Jim has said, the mastering/mixing/lack of compression, etc is paramount to the listening experience.

I have friends who are blown away by my listening machine and room, however, they love their records and have no interest in what I have even though they love it.
Along the lines of this subject, NOBODY is wrong, of course, that would be ludicrous to insinuate that.

How I like to think of myself is, stereo listening, whatever format of delivery, is very relaxing to me, calming, I don't have to listen to so much around me, yet surround music if I am in the mood takes me to places, I can only go to through surround music.

It's the music that makes us happy, I have listened to music out of two tiny 1/4" speakers in my iPhone and has been great.

To quote Alan Parsons, "Most people listen to the music, audiophiles listen to their equipment".
I love being an audiophile, as I certainly am, but I try to not be.

 

[par4ken]

Odd thread title, "Vinyl vs Surround", there are many surround (quad) tiles on vinyl. To say that the original stereo version has more punch or often subjectively sounds better (than a modern re-mix) I would often agree.

I play all my "stereo" through the Audionic Space and Image Composer or Sansui QSD-1. I never listen to plain stereo unless I have to. The S&IC does not alter what you hear in the original stereo mix, it just pulls it apart stretching it around the room. It is like listening to stereo through a magnifying glass! The same can be said of QS Surround mode.

Dolby PLII just doesn't cut it! I would rather listen to double stereo! I'm sure that many/most are unimpressed as well, which is why most people stick to listening to music in stereo, while using surround for movies. The myth that multichannel is not suited to music persists.

Vinyl is often more satisfying for a number of reasons. The biggest reason (and one that you can measure) is that most CD and even some Blu-rays are brickwalled. Limiting and compression also had to be used in the vinyl days as well but only to the necessary degree. Never was vinyl "brickwalled"! Sadly modern vinyl releases taken from digital masters often are. I stick mainly to the vintage stuff. And there is so much on vinyl that will never be put out in a digital format! I'm still discovering many overlooked gems on vinyl.

I like to digitise my vinyl for convenience and to save my records and stylus. The warm analogue sound quality is preserved and you can remove any ticks and pops. I record at 192Khz and save the files like that, disc space is cheap. Audio nirvana for the most part.

 

[jimfisheye]

I think it's rare for a remix (often done years later) to better an original mix. It's just a tall order no matter who you are! An original might be incomplete or lacking vs its full potential but it still has a mountain of nuance worked in. The musicians might be riding faders throughout! Pulling a few slightly too loud notes into perfect balance. Ducking out that weird noise in the violin track at 2:53. etc etc. Maybe someone does a new mix 20 years later and the kick drum sounds better now and a layer of saturation has been removed but all those nuance moves are missing now.

20 years later... Heck, even a couple years later!
That's what we're up against with remixes.

So the thread title maybe suggests encoded vinyl vs discrete digital for surround? I know that wasn't the intention but the answer to that would be no contest! Digital is happiness and light! OK... it has a weird 'all or nothing' element to it. Everything hinges on the initial AD capture and then the DA reconstruction of the audio at the end. Botch the initial AD and you have fully failed! Nothing to show for it and nothing to restore. It's on the cutting room floor now. So that's not nothing. With analog systems though, every last device counts. A bad connection in the middle screws the whole thing sometimes. Digital lets you shuttle ones and zeros around losslessly in between. Love that part! The DA at the end is up to the consumer. If the data set is good, you know you can at least buy better DACs and put together a reference level system to hear it.

 

[stoopid]

 

[par4ken]

I think it's rare for a remix (often done years later) to better an original mix. It's just a tall order no matter who you are! An original might be incomplete or lacking vs its full potential but it still has a mountain of nuance worked in. The musicians might be riding faders throughout! Pulling a few slightly too loud notes into perfect balance. Ducking out that weird noise in the violin track at 2:53. etc etc. Maybe someone does a new mix 20 years later and the kick drum sounds better now and a layer of saturation has been removed but all those nuance moves are missing now.

I agree, one glaring example is "Tubular Bells". Reading the liner notes they spent a lot of time to try to duplicate the sound of the original. IMHO they didn't even come close.

With analog systems though, every last device counts. A bad connection in the middle screws the whole thing sometimes. Digital lets you shuttle ones and zeros around losslessly in between.

I agree, that is why the quality of the analogue equipment is very important. It is also the beauty of it, sound quality is due to many factors and that perfect sound is often missing from fully digital systems.

I would go so far as to say that recording techniques reached near perfection in the early seventies. Modern digital releases often lack something, often being harsh/hard sounding and lacking in warmth. On the other hand those already "perfect" recordings can be transferred to digital without any apparent loss.

So the thread title maybe suggests encoded vinyl vs discrete digital for surround?

My take on it was stereo vinyl vs digital surround.

 

[jimfisheye]

Any modern digital recording that lacks anything and especially if it has any fidelity issues is 100% the fault of the mix work. And someone should absolutely feel bad for that! Digital recording is the most accurate recording device anyone has invented so far.

There's just a lot of cheap schlocky work out in the wild! The aesthetic for cheapness has just morphed from muddy to tinny. That's not to be dismissed either! A muddy recording can still often be restored or corrected. A brutal 'volume war' treatment recording with high compression and shrill saturated treble is nearly fully lost and unrecoverable. So that's a digression in that way.

Don't think of "digital" as some mysterious perfect absolute system. It's just another type of recording device. Oh, and sample rate clocks have variance just like tape deck motors. That's not a timing absolute either! (A magnitude more stable but they're all unique just the same.)

 

[barfle]

At one time, I thought it was important to be able to play any format that was out there, but the variety quickly outpaced my budget. No mini-discs or elcassettes or RCA video discs or cartrivision. I still love my vinyl collection, though, and it’s part of my project list to get the quad decoders all working and integrated into my A/V system.

Of course, there are plenty of quad LPs that don’t sound as good as the stereo version (some of it due to cramming four channels into a two-channel medium). And there are known “loudness war” issues with many digital releases as well. But overall, I feel that it’s entirely possible to have a 12 channel (digital, to be sure) release that sounds wonderful. In fact, I own a bunch of them.

 

[MidiMagic]

Hi.

Over the last year or so I’ve been on the surround forum and benefitting from many kind folks posting when new surround or atmos versions of albums or singles come out.

At first it was fun and I liked to hear what had been done, particularly to some of my favorite albums.

However, it’s had the reverse effect and I’ve recently upgraded my stylus and started buying vinyl all over again because I realised that I just couldn’t get a better music listening experience.

I’ve found atmos to be fun at times but ultimately a bit of a gimmick, and in some songs, even just inappropriate.

Had anyone else had this experience?

I have started buying records again. I usually listen to them with Dolby PL I engaged.

I have so many records that I could never let go of it.

 

[MidiMagic]

Limiting and compression also had to be used in the vinyl days as well but only to the necessary degree. Never was vinyl "brickwalled"! Sadly modern vinyl releases taken from digital masters often are. I stick mainly to the vintage stuff. And there is so much on vinyl that will never be put out in a digital format! I'm still discovering many overlooked gems on vinyl.

Wrong. I have quite a few vinyl records that were brickwalled and most were before the CD appeared. Most of them were 45s. Here are some examples:

"Pilot of the Airwaves" Charlie Dore
"Fox on the Run" Sweet
"Ballroom Blitz" Sweet
"We are the Champions" Queen

 

[par4ken]

Wrong. I have quit a few vinyl records that were brickwalled and most were before the CD appeared. Most of them were 45s. Here are some examples:

"Pilot of the Airwaves" Charlie Dore
"Fox on the Run" Sweet
"Ballroom Blitz" Sweet
"We are the Champions" Queen

Compressed yes, but I have never seen where analogue compression has been used such that each and every peak is the exact same level. IMHO that is only possible with digital technology. It is a digital tool that has been abused over and over again! By the way I never liked any of those 45's anyway!

 

[barfle]

When I worked at Altec, we had a few compressors (analog was all there was at the time) in our product line. IIRC, the most popular one had a small light bulb that indicated the loudness to a photocell that would reduce the level accordingly. The engineer I was working with and I developed a peak-detector circuit that would actually clip the first quarter-wave if it exceeded the threshold by reducing the gain instantaneously, then releasing it gradually.

It worked well, unless you were playing something with an attack (plucked or struck vibrating device), in which case it clicked on every note. We had to add an R-C circuit to delay the limiting. Pianos were definitely a no-go!