What is the real purpose of four channel sound?

[trevorspiro]

In life, behind almost every question is another question being of the type ‘what are you trying to achieve?’ In other words, you may be considering going down a particular path in order to achieve a certain goal, but that goal may not be realisable down any current path that has been considered.

In this group, members discuss, examine, and comment on the various techniques used to reproduce four channel signals from a single piece of plastic from the 1970’s. As we know there are various ways of doing this, each with their own merits and demerits. But the question behind the question is why would we want four channel sounds in the first place? Is it ‘better’, whatever the word better means, than single or two channel sounds, or is it just some sort of gimmick designed to make us cough up hard earned cash.

Indulge my thoughts for a moment. I believe the ultimate goal is a faithful reproduction of a series of sounds as close to those originally recorded on a storage medium. This is not necessarily the same as a performance of musical instruments together. A live concert captured by a series of microphones and then distributed by a media is probably the closest you will get to a performance, but a rock album recorded over many months in different studios cannot approximate a collective performance. Therefore the notion that playing such sounds in stereo or quadraphonic will recreate the ‘musical performance’ is far fetched. Agreed, it the intention of the producer was to seemingly place the listener within a sound flied that surrounds him, quadraphonic sound can be said to realise that goal, but that is a different objective to the goal of presenting a totally coherent musical form.

I was a big fan of quadraphonic reproduction, had a sophisticated setup in the seventies, but I saw it for what it was. Did I get more pleasure from quad than stereo? No. Did I appreciate musical quality more? No. Was it fun? Yes, definitely!

 

[kfbkfb]

Although this is a demo disc for promoting the SQ matrix, it makes good points about why quad/surround sound is a step forward from stereo.

Regarding popular music (multitracks recorded at different locations and times) mixed to quad/surround sound - the final mix (listened to in surround sound) is the art.

For classical music, in most cases, the goal is to capture the performance and the acoustic environment of the performance and replay that at home.

From my POV, when all is said and done, quad/surround sound is more entertaining than stereo or mono (my audio system is set to decode Dolby Digital & DTS [as needed] and create fake surround sound from stereo otherwise).


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

In the late sixties and very early seventies I rarely ever heard stereo. Everything back then (TV, radio) was mono! When I finally started to purchase stereo records I didn't find a whole lot of improvement over mono with the exception of some of those releases with more gimmicky effects. Stereo headphones produced a nice effect but did not image in front.

Very quickly (fast forwarding to the quad days) even the lowly DynaQuad speaker connection was a big improvement over stereo! I was forever hooked!

Quadraphonic is like having six stereo systems running simultaneously. Regular stereo sounds nice with the speakers widely separated but that produces hole in the middle stereo. With a quad system you can get that same "stereo" effect plus, largely without the hole in the middle. While many here seem to not mind being glued to the "sweet spot", you can still move through a quad sound field and sit in different positions and still get that same "stereo effect". I do sit in the middle at times for critical listening but much more often do not.

Therefore the notion that playing such sounds in stereo or quadraphonic will recreate the ‘musical performance’ is far fetched. Agreed, it the intention of the producer was to seemingly place the listener within a sound flied that surrounds him, quadraphonic sound can be said to realise that goal, but that is a different objective to the goal of presenting a totally coherent musical form.

I agree with you but I primarily care about what sounds good to me, not whether it replicates or recreates the real world!

Ambisonics is a likely better way to replicate a real soundfield but has its own issues. Lack of program material for one.

At home I never listen to stereo without running it through some kind of quad decoder!

 

[Electric Moo]

Well in my case, I mixed an album into 4ch surround to give a sense of immersive movement. Each track represented a journey of sorts, so even though there is music, you are always moving forward through an environment: the imaginary world of Nox Archaist.

Link

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...game-soundtrack-discrete-quad-lossless.31599/
I tried to do this with the initial stereo mix too, but it's not as convincing since sound only moves L-->R across the front speakers.

Creatures & things you encounter move past and around the listener too.

 

[proufo]

In order of importance:

1) Listen to stereo recordings with ambiance to the sides.

2) Listen to a few spectacular mixes that provide a much enhanced enjoyment of the music.

3) Listen to instruments and sounds from different directions, so they don't mask each other.

4) Sell more speakers.

 

[Bill B]

I find there are things that I hear in multichannel that were buried in the stereo mix. You can probably hear them if you’re really looking for them in stereo but by spreading everything out, those details are really noticeable.
I also like the feeling of being enveloped in music.
Do I enjoy it more? Not really. I enjoy music no matter what it’s being played from. If it hits a nerve or scratches an itch, then that’s all that matters.

 

[DuncanS]

For me its not about reproducing a performance, its being able to hear as distinctly as possible the musical arrangement/production of the album, so when spread around I can identify the elements that make up the track, but it has to fit/suit the music. A bad mix can ruin a track, but its rare a good mix can improve the music. So ultimately for me its about being surrounded by the music.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

Unless the recording is a concert performance, I have never considered the purpose of a mono, stereo or multi-channel recording to represent an absolute reproduction of a group of musicians and singers performing simultaneously. It is a fantasy world of sound created by the performers and recording engineers and producers.

When I see a painting, my first thought isn't, "That doesn't look like a photograph", because I know it is the artist's interpretation of the scene or object.
Take for example a movie set in the future on a space station, planet or spaceship. Everything in that world is a fantasy - the ship, planet or station, the technology, the weapons and especially the alien beings. If you keep telling yourself that the alien is just an actor in a costume and makeup, you are missing the point of the character and the story.

If you listen to a Rock/Pop song like Grand Funk's "I'm Your Captain", does it bother you to know that the orchestra was added after the group played their parts? It shouldn't. The end product is the point. Surround sound enhances further what mono and then stereo set out to achieve.

 

[Tribby2001]

What's the real purpose of surround?
Evolution...

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

My answer as to why I like multi-channel sound is quite simple because its determined by my musical preferences. My most listened to genres are progressive rock and jazz fusion (mostly from the same "Golden Era" of the 70s common to both). Quad, 5.1, etc. allow for the possibility of (re)mixing tracks from many instruments to achieve a level of separation and discreteness from different speaker source points that, typically, stereo cannot adequately capture because there is too much going on.

What Steven Wilson did with the YES catalogue in 5.1 is a good example of this. I've now heard stuff (on Relayer especially) that was hitherto buried so far down in the original stereo mix that I never really heard all that the band were playing (and that's not a slight on Eddy Offord's mix, just that it shows the limitations of stereo for that album). On the other hand, I see no reason to need surround sound solo recordings of just a single instrument (e.g. Julian Bream on guitar, or Keith Jarrett on piano).

 

[Akaiquadster2]

What's the real purpose of surround?
Evolution...

That was so silly … especially when so many like Sony stopped having the capacity to play them in their products…

 

[Electric Moo]

As far as listening to music: as mentioned by others above, being able to pick out elements in songs that were buried or obscured in a dense stereo mix, but easily heard in 4ch+ is a lot more enjoyable.

Also I was always disappointed by most stereo pipe organ recordings, but when I heard that side 2 track of Rick Wakeman's "six wives of Henry VIII" in surround, with the rear ambience it sounded HUGE & really sold the sound. I have no idea if it was real or simulated but it worked!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

It's as simple as liking stuff coming from all over the room instead of in front of me. I want to be IMMERSED in the sound. Hence the colloquial term...immersive sound!

 

[ar surround]

I believe that no one has mentioned this so far: The increased dynamic range afforded by taking analog multitracks and mixing them into four (or five) channels rather than two. There are less tape saturation issues, more speakers, and more amplification to deliver what actually was recorded in the studio.

 

[barfle]

It’s cool. It’s groovy. It’s bitchin’. It’s freaking AWESOME!!

Sorry your experience with surround sound didn’t compare with mine. I found that adding two channels in the back added to my music listening experience, even when the setup was so rudimentary that “separation” was simply due to the tinny sound out of the incredibly crappy back speakers.

No doubt, the expense was something that slowed me down from getting the latest and greatest set of quad decoders, but every step I took (and, I assume, the ones I intend to take), improved my enjoyment of listening to not just music, but sounds in general. Sure, the manufacturers were in business to make a profit, keep their employees paid and return stockholders’ investment, but that’s true of every enterprise, right down to the kid who mows lawns.

 

[Doug G.]

It's so, over 50 years, people can start conversations about, "why quad?"

Besides, we only have two ears.



Doug

 

[jimfisheye]

Isn't it simply a quest for 'virtual reality' level of sound reproduction?

Sound in nature comes from all directions and is fully immersive. Nowhere in nature will you hear stereo sound. We do have a binaural listening and tracking system with two ears. Intended for listening and tracking in this immersive world.

I'd say isolating the binaural pickup characteristics and focusing on that is the weird digression. Also, we are aware of the blind spot we have with front vs behind perception off to the sides that limits stereo-only perception. Hence the active listening and occasional needed head movements when listening in full surround or in nature. This is why ambisonic and binaural techniques are limited. That popular keys jangling around your head binaural effect relies on added reverb to resolve the blind spots. You can't just start adding additional reverb to music mixes after the fact without screwing up the mix balances that were fussed over.

So anyway, stereo recordings/mixes are incomplete. Like a 2D cartoon instead of a live action film. That's why!

 

[AYanguas]

My answer as to why I like multi-channel sound is quite simple because its determined by my musical preferences. My most listened to genres are progressive rock and jazz fusion (mostly from the same "Golden Era" of the 70s common to both). Quad, 5.1, etc. allow for the possibility of (re)mixing tracks from many instruments to achieve a level of separation and discreteness from different speaker source points that, typically, stereo cannot adequately capture because there is too much going on.

What Steven Wilson did with the YES catalogue in 5.1 is a good example of this. I've now heard stuff (on Relayer especially) that was hitherto buried so far down in the original stereo mix that I never really heard all that the band were playing (and that's not a slight on Eddy Offord's mix, just that it shows the limitations of stereo for that album). On the other hand, I see no reason to need surround sound solo recordings of just a single instrument (e.g. Julian Bream on guitar, or Keith Jarrett on piano).

I have also approached surround sound from my favorite style, progressive rock. However, I disagree with those who say that only certain types of music may need or be enhanced by immersive multichannel sound.
I’m convinced that every kind of music can benefit from multichannel/immersive. This includes a single instrument or even a solo 'a cappella' voice. Perhaps achieving a good immersive mix with a single voice or instrument is harder than placing different sounds in different channels and doing "ping-pong". But when achieved, it's as "magical" or even more so than a discrete "ping-pong", which tends to be more of a "gimmick".

Isn't it simply a quest for 'virtual reality' level of sound reproduction?

Sound in nature comes from all directions and is fully immersive. Nowhere in nature will you hear stereo sound. We do have a binaural listening and tracking system with two ears. Intended for listening and tracking in this immersive world.

I'd say isolating the binaural pickup characteristics and focusing on that is the weird digression. Also, we are aware of the blind spot we have with front vs behind perception off to the sides that limits stereo-only perception. Hence the active listening and occasional needed head movements when listening in full surround or in nature. This is why ambisonic and binaural techniques are limited. That popular keys jangling around your head binaural effect relies on added reverb to resolve the blind spots. You can't just start adding additional reverb to music mixes after the fact without screwing up the mix balances that were fussed over.

So anyway, stereo recordings/mixes are incomplete. Like a 2D cartoon instead of a live action film. That's why!

Agree.

All of this evokes certain emotions in me, which aren't evoked by simple mono or stereo. It's not just the music itself (melody, rhythm, etc.) or the sound of the instruments in a good musical production (and with a decent rig at home). It's something more. It's about enjoying additional sensations that our human auditory system (two ears + the brain) can provide.

Some enjoy looking at a painting in a museum... I guess. I enjoy a good surround/immersive mix. For me this is another kind of art: Sonic Audio Art.

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

I believe the ultimate goal is a faithful reproduction of a series of sounds as close to those originally recorded on a storage medium

The original product released on the first storage medium produced is not the goal, …the presentation of the song is.

The ingredients that are used to create songs are mostly recorded as mono tracks. Early Beatles songs were released only in mono (1.0) but most people would much rather hear those songs in stereo or multi-channel audio. The same can be said for any music. If a song was recorded in mono and originally released as stereo, does that mean it is somehow inferior or illegitimate to listen to that song in any other format? I don't believe so. Being that type of a purist would mean those stereo mixes of old Beatles songs or a 4K presentation of The Wizard of Oz in HDR is also somehow 'wrong' because it’s not the “original”.

1.0-> 2.0-> 4.0-> 5.1-> 7.1-> Atmos/360RA/Auro3D ….Technology changes, ...usually for the better and if there's a way to experience art in a new and most likely superior format or presentation, well as long as it's done with respect to the original intent of the artist, ...it should be embraced.


The "intent" of an artist's song is not stereo, ...it's the music itself and the emotions and feelings that we might derive from it, ...& in my opinion, it is much easier to experience the essence of a song if it is mixed discretely in a dynamic, multi-channel format because when done right, more of that song is distinguishable and less of it is buried due to having to squeeze all of the individual multi-tracks into just two speakers. Many songs have 24 to 48+ multi-tracks as their core and when you have 2, 3, or 8 times more available outlets for all of those sounds, (in my opinion) you are hearing perhaps a closer representation of the true nature of that song than what is even possible in mono or stereo.

 

[gene_stl]

I do find it noteworthy that there are a lot of people claiming to prefer Mono releases of things, mostly of older classic rock such as the Beatles and the Who. Even I myself picked up a copy of "the Beatles in Mono" boxed set when a genuine one presented itself at a good price. I can't actually say that I have listened to any of the CDs in that box though. There are youtube offerings of such things as "mono release".

I don't know where the point of diminising returns is but I think mo channels= mo bettah.

Perhaps folks are pining for the sound they remember from the AM radio days when that is what we had in our cars. That changed in the late seventies and early eighties.