onthewall2983
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 274
Older pre-multitrack recordings aside, what band and/or genre do you think wouldn't be able to be captured as well in surround as it is in stereo (or even mono)?
What music doesn't translate so well to 5.1?
- Thread starter onthewall2983
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
If the multitracks are there then it will always be better in surround.
If Steve Wilson or Elliot Scheiner is at the controls for any multitrack remix it will benefit from the artistry of a master.
I don't agree. I found Tears for Fears' Songs From the Big Chair boring, and R.E.M.'s Green could be the most disappointing discrete 5.1 I've heard compared to the stereo mix: it made it sound under produced.
I cant expect even the masters to bat 1000
kap'n krunch
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
A solo instrument performance or even a duo....
Piano could be an exeception cause you can spread it to all 4 corners...
Piano could be an exeception cause you can spread it to all 4 corners...
Everything sounds better in surround if you have an acoustically dead room. I've been in some people's houses where all of the surfaces were so hard (i.e. southwest motif ceramic tile floors, large windows, open floor plan, etc.) that everything sounded better in straight stereo. His environment provided its own surround field with all of the reflections. His 5.1 system was just too overwhelming.
I wouldn't dispute that however this is not what the opening post was asking about.
onthewall2983
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 274
I've heard some disagreements that shoegaze (My Blood Valentine, Slowdive) for example wouldn't translate too well. I think it could because the layers of sound would mean a lot of rear speaker action.
First, you'd have to define what 'pre-multitrack' means, since an audiophile would simply say 'mono' or 'twin-track' or binaural stereo. Realistically, you need at the very least three tracks to work with, and that is not a good option. With four tracks and some creative work some great mixes *could* be made, so let's assume for discussion that 4-track is the minimum we have to work with.
Of the genres, I believe the most problematic would be the milder--that is, 'countrypolitan'--side of country music of the '60s into the mid-'70s. I've heard some country albums in MC, but other than Johnny Cash's, not many are that impressive because their musical scope is so limited. Which is to say, a quad or 5.1 mix can be made but that won't necessarily make it satisfying, even if it is discrete. Some adult pop music would likely have similar issues, though with orchestral or band backing, the potential for a good mix is possible.
I think it really comes down to the artist's intent. A lot of Springsteen might work well, but even though it was recorded on a portable 4-track machine, NEBRASKA is not an album that would make any kind of sense beyond the might-as-well-be-mono it was intended to be. The sparseness of the recording would mitigate against anything beyond stereo, IMO, but even that would probably ruin the unique atmosphere Bruce wanted to create.
ED
Of the genres, I believe the most problematic would be the milder--that is, 'countrypolitan'--side of country music of the '60s into the mid-'70s. I've heard some country albums in MC, but other than Johnny Cash's, not many are that impressive because their musical scope is so limited. Which is to say, a quad or 5.1 mix can be made but that won't necessarily make it satisfying, even if it is discrete. Some adult pop music would likely have similar issues, though with orchestral or band backing, the potential for a good mix is possible.
I think it really comes down to the artist's intent. A lot of Springsteen might work well, but even though it was recorded on a portable 4-track machine, NEBRASKA is not an album that would make any kind of sense beyond the might-as-well-be-mono it was intended to be. The sparseness of the recording would mitigate against anything beyond stereo, IMO, but even that would probably ruin the unique atmosphere Bruce wanted to create.
ED
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
None at all.
It's the cramming of everything into only 2 channels that is unnatural - the more channels you have the better the imaging must therefore be and the closer to natural sound.
Okay, when you get right down to it there is nothing even remotely natural about multitrack recording either but that's not the point.
In unadorned terms - all music sounds better in surround - when done properly.
Leaving aside the fixation with some (a lot?) of modern pop music concerning loudness and brickwalling, it's incredible how little mainstream music is actually available in 5.1, given the digital technology and unlimited number of tracks one can potentially use. Not that it would do most of what passes for music these days much good--crappy, loud and grating in stereo would hardly be much better in 5.1--but given what you can do with computers and sundry these days, stereo seems so lazy and unimaginative that you'd think some of the superstars, if no one else, would give 5.1 a go.
One could argue that the upsurge in current (that is, 21st century) albums on vinyl is a genuine positive. I'm not sure about that, because the way so much modern music is recorded and mixed just doesn't seem to suit the medium. Yet it's ironic that you can find the likes of Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift, Coldplay, etc., on vinyl, yet not in multichannel. The fact is that by 2015 stereo should have given way to 5.1 long ago; only laziness (not only on the part of the creators but fans, too) can be used as an excuse. If no one but a minority cares, why bother?
ED
One could argue that the upsurge in current (that is, 21st century) albums on vinyl is a genuine positive. I'm not sure about that, because the way so much modern music is recorded and mixed just doesn't seem to suit the medium. Yet it's ironic that you can find the likes of Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift, Coldplay, etc., on vinyl, yet not in multichannel. The fact is that by 2015 stereo should have given way to 5.1 long ago; only laziness (not only on the part of the creators but fans, too) can be used as an excuse. If no one but a minority cares, why bother?
ED
There's the rub.
Leaving aside the fixation with some (a lot?) of modern pop music concerning loudness and brickwalling, it's incredible how little mainstream music is actually available in 5.1, given the digital technology and unlimited number of tracks one can potentially use. Not that it would do most of what passes for music these days much good--crappy, loud and grating in stereo would hardly be much better in 5.1--but given what you can do with computers and sundry these days, stereo seems so lazy and unimaginative that you'd think some of the superstars, if no one else, would give 5.1 a go.
One could argue that the upsurge in current (that is, 21st century) albums on vinyl is a genuine positive. I'm not sure about that, because the way so much modern music is recorded and mixed just doesn't seem to suit the medium. Yet it's ironic that you can find the likes of Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift, Coldplay, etc., on vinyl, yet not in multichannel. The fact is that by 2015 stereo should have given way to 5.1 long ago; only laziness (not only on the part of the creators but fans, too) can be used as an excuse. If no one but a minority cares, why bother?
ED
So sad really. Not to get off on a tangent...but yeah. I'm mostly a 60's & 70's music lover....but admit that "some" of the newer artists would just be excellent in 5.1. You mention Bruno Mars...I think he would...but so many others....
Tame Impala
James Blake (would be stunning)
The Nationals
Aimee Mann (not new, but...)
Phantogram
Flying Lotus
On and on and on...
The fact is that by 2015 stereo should have given way to 5.1 long ago; only laziness (not only on the part of the creators but fans, too) can be used as an excuse. If no one but a minority cares, why bother? ED
You make some good points in your post, but I cannot agree with those quoted here.
Laziness cannot be the only thing to blame. I feel a far more important factor is the short attention span of the average consumer. Modern westerners cannot sit still long enough to occupy a sweet spot. The car should be the ideal listening environment (if it can be isolated from road noise) because people are essentially forced to sit in one place. I confess to doing very little stereo listening in a fixed position relative to the speakers outside of my car. I got shit to do. This is one of the things I like about surround. It brings my focus back to the music when I have the intelligence to put aside my laptop. No, I think rather than laziness it is a wide variety of external elements competing for our attention and focus that is the biggest enemy of multichannel music.
On your last point, there is always room for a niche market if it can demonstrate its' own viability. Ask Audio Fidelity!
To answer the original question, I agree that solo performances are not good in surround, unless it is a single artist in multitrack like Tubular Bells. Minimum raw elements = nominal surround.
I don't think it's laziness. I think a lot of it is down to lack of interest, which is fine. I mean there's some bad product out there too, but in my experience people really aren't that bothered. I don't think the car should be the sweet spot: the negative potential of a fully immersive sound system in that environment troubles me.
