Jump to content
IGNORED

Surround Music - Fad or Future.


Surround Music - Fad or Future. 2012 poll  

84 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Do you think surround music has a serious future in the marketplace?

 

More and more households have surround home theater systems, and the quality keeps getting better.

Surround seems to be the way of the future for movies and even television.

Stereo setups may become a thing of the past, except for very cheap systems and dedicated audiophile systems.

 

Could this pave the way for more surround music or will stereo keep dominating?

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Main: Genelec 5 x 8260A + 2 x 8250 + 2 x 8330 + 7271A sub
Boat: Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

Hifiman Sundara, Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile”

Link to comment

I love hirez surround music, and have invested quite a bit in a state-of-the-art (IMHO, of course :) ) 5.1 hirez music surround setup (7.1 movie too, but those dedicated sides and rears are less demanding).

March52010-2.jpg

 

DSC_0010med.jpg

 

However, it takes some work to do it right, not just plop unmatched drivers all over the room, and run wires to poorly performing surround speakers, etc. I think that is why some folks have a bad taste for surround. Done right, whether it's immersive, ambient or aggressive mixing, great multichannel surround can create an amazing musical experience.

 

For live you-are-there re-creation (i.e classical and some jazz or other live venue recordings) the multichannel playback can recreate better than simple 2 channel, with correct ambient cues, proper phasing, etc. For highly produced surround-as-entertainment mixes (Sea Change, Kamakiriad, UP, etc) multichannel can transport you to a different world.

Link to comment

I can't vote on this one. I have some excellent surround recordings and some I think are crap. When I go read other reviews on the same recordings their opinion is 180 degrees of mine. I don't think surround will ever go mainstream because no one can, and probably should never, decide what goes into the other channels.

 

The recordings I love in surround take a "less is more" approach to the other channels. They are also the same recordings I see a lot of people complain "Why did they even do a surround mix there is nothing there!"

 

P.S. For those that mix in surround, I like to sit in the middle of the room with the instruments and vocals in front of me. I do not like to sit in the middle of the band with instruments surrounding me. Thanks

Link to comment

However, it takes some work to do it right, not just plop unmatched drivers all over the room, and run wires to poorly performing surround speakers, etc. I think that is why some folks have a bad taste for surround. Done right, whether it's immersive, ambient or aggressive mixing, great multichannel surround can create an amazing musical experience.

 

For live you-are-there re-creation (i.e classical and some jazz or other live venue recordings) the multichannel playback can recreate better than simple 2 channel, with correct ambient cues, proper phasing, etc. For highly produced surround-as-entertainment mixes (Sea Change, Kamakiriad, UP, etc) multichannel can transport you to a different world.

 

I think that is probably right. I think surround could probably be supreme, but is very unlikely to be so in the main stream, for set-up/cost reasons, and the consequent lack of recordings done right. It's difficult enough to get a two channel set-up right in a room, never mind the ever multiplying channels. And the expense, yikes!

 

-Chris

Link to comment

Digipete, I think you left out a choice, or at least it would be my choice. Stereo will remain king for audiophiles, but lesser quality surround will augment or be part of many audiophile's systems for movies, games, old surround SACDs, concerts etc.; as is my case.

 

-Chris

Link to comment

Well stereo at least can be all in one end of a room, or on each side of a desktop computer or each side of a bedroom dresser. Or each side of a person's head with portable sources.

 

Now surround seems stuck mostly for movies I think. I also cringe when someone spends $500 or less for one of those tiny 7.1 systems. Nothing wrong with being in that end of the market, but I really have to think the same money spent on 2 channels would end up as a better quality more satisfying system. The extra channels won't make enough difference over two better channels that way.

 

One could say the same at any level almost, but at a higher price point more money on two channel might bring decreasing improvements and more channels might net more listener benefit.

 

I have heard one 5.2 system employing Soundlabs for the 5 channels. It was somewhat nice and in a room large enough for panels to work on all channels. At the time I didn't find music to benefit enough to make it all that attractive. Some things did have added realness not possible on two channels it just wasn't that much better.

 

I also find the processing lots of movie disc players can do to simulate surround over two channels to work usefully. If using quality components it seems to get you at least 75% or more of the surround effects one hears in movies. It can firmly place sound source up and down the sides very well, give that extra spacious quality, and place sounds definitely behind you. I tend to think processing that does that is where movies and music might go. Thinking of this it might be a good time to investigate those type processing algorithms. Might be worth downloading some hi-rez multi-channel recordings if it works on my two channel rig. Don't know if there is a market for it. I also think a single rear channel combined with that processing might be the best thing if you sold the idea to the public.

 

Finally, don't know how it sounds, but Dolby has put out a theater standard for 62.2 channels. I certainly will go listen if a halfway interesting movie comes around once a few theaters are so equipped.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I jumped on board early with surround systems and music with SACD and DVD-A but after several years I tired of it and went back to a two channel system. For the time being I cannot conceive that I would return to surround. It is not the systems I find fault with but rather the software. Early on voices or guitars over my left shoulder were a curiosity but overall it just seemed too weird. There were certainly those that were well done with the ambiance of the room palpable but it seemed so hit and miss with more misses than hits.

 

I guess I objected to the logistics of all the speakers and wires that were required also but I think the reality of audiophile wireless speakers is on the horizon if not sheer with products like the Dynaudio Xeon and I think Genelec also.

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment
Digipete, I think you left out a choice, or at least it would be my choice. Stereo will remain king for audiophiles, but lesser quality surround will augment or be part of many audiophile's systems for movies, games, old surround SACDs, concerts etc.; as is my case.

 

crisnee, you are spot on for the equipment.

 

My question is really about surround music sources.

 

Will surround music recordings become more common or mainstream, now surround equipment is mainstream?

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Main: Genelec 5 x 8260A + 2 x 8250 + 2 x 8330 + 7271A sub
Boat: Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

Hifiman Sundara, Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile”

Link to comment
Digipete, I think you left out a choice, or at least it would be my choice. Stereo will remain king for audiophiles, but lesser quality surround will augment or be part of many audiophile's systems for movies, games, old surround SACDs, concerts etc.; as is my case.

 

-Chris

 

That is my situation, too, and I don't see it changing.

 

Dennis,

 

" ...Soundlabs for the 5 channels. It was somewhat nice..."

 

 

I love that damning with faint praise :)

 

Seriously, I get your point. If surround doesn't serve the music and the listener, what is the point ?

Link to comment
All I can say is that surround if surround sound didn't take off in the psychedelic early 70's, it's probably going to be even more uphill today.

 

 

Though this time round we have digital processing for necessary delays to the other speakers and real time analysers to sort out phase issues. Joe average now has the technology to make it work unlike before.

 

Me, I'm not even sitting around waiting for more multichannel music to be released. I use an AVR to up-mix 2ch music in to surroundsound. This way I don't have to complain if a multichannel mix was too aggressive or too subtle. I can tailor my own level of submersion.

Link to comment
Me, I'm not even sitting around waiting for more multichannel music to be released. I use an AVR to up-mix 2ch music in to surroundsound. This way I don't have to complain if a multichannel mix was too aggressive or too subtle. I can tailor my own level of submersion.

 

Nothing wrong with that - it's all about what you enjoy. It just not "accurate".

Link to comment

DSP can in principle even increase the accuracy. Just to take a simple example, if I have an irregularly shaped room that dictates my left and right speakers be placed at different distances from the listening position, DSP can compensate for the phase/timing lag, and thus deliver something more accurate.

 

Of course you can argue that it is best to place the speakers symmetrically and not have to compensate, but in reality, there are always irregularities, and application of DSP could help compensate for much more subtle room variations as well. I'm not at all convinced that it is a negative (although I don't do it with my 2-channel system).

Link to comment
Ad Hominem

 

I dispute that :)

 

Or, rather, I will follow my own suggestion and acknowledge that I have lost the argument and won't continue the argument, but not without first pointing out why I disagree with the invocation.

 

I was not attacking Kiwi2, or his use of an AVR to up-mix 2ch music into surround sound. I was merely pointing out that that up-mix process creates an artificial surround effect that was not present in the original recording and thus is not an accurate reproduction of it.

 

Still consider my response an ad hominem? If so, so be it, I'll guess I have to follow my own rule. Annoying :)

Link to comment
I dispute that :)

 

Or, rather, I will follow my own suggestion and acknowledge that I have lost the argument and won't continue the argument, but not without first pointing out why I disagree with the invocation.

 

I was not attacking Kiwi2, or his use of an AVR to up-mix 2ch music into surround sound. I was merely pointing out that that up-mix process creates an artificial surround effect that was not present in the original recording and thus is not an accurate reproduction of it.

 

Still consider my response an ad hominem? If so, so be it, I'll guess I have to follow my own rule. Annoying :)

 

This thread is in no way about whether surround sound is bit perfect (god knows standard DTS and Dolby aren't). Channel trims, room correction, etc are all part of the typical surround music environment. Me, yes, I keep my lossless hirez surround music bit perfect by doing channel trims in analog, but it's not the point of this thread, so it seemed borderline attack....

 

Also, was just giving you sh$t about the ad hominem thread. :)

Link to comment
I love hirez surround music, and have invested quite a bit in a state-of-the-art (IMHO, of course :) ) 5.1 hirez music surround setup (7.1 movie too, but those dedicated sides and rears are less demanding).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1107[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1108[/ATTACH]

 

However, it takes some work to do it right, not just plop unmatched drivers all over the room, and run wires to poorly performing surround speakers, etc. I think that is why some folks have a bad taste for surround. Done right, whether it's immersive, ambient or aggressive mixing, great multichannel surround can create an amazing musical experience.

 

For live you-are-there re-creation (i.e classical and some jazz or other live venue recordings) the multichannel playback can recreate better than simple 2 channel, with correct ambient cues, proper phasing, etc. For highly produced surround-as-entertainment mixes (Sea Change, Kamakiriad, UP, etc) multichannel can transport you to a different world.

 

Ted

I do like do the sensation of being surrounded by sound. Perhaps you would be able to answer a couple of queries for me. You will have to dumb it down though, as I am not very knowledgeable on the subject.

With a setup like yours, what sort of area comprises the listening position and what is the sound like when you move away from the listening position?

Do you put normal (recorded in stereo) music through your system, i.e DSP it? If so, how do you find the sound?

You mentioned that you keep it bit perfect by trimming in analog. Can you explain how you do that?

TIA

Link to comment
This thread is in no way about whether surround sound is bit perfect (god knows standard DTS and Dolby aren't). Channel trims, room correction, etc are all part of the typical surround music environment. Me, yes, I keep my lossless hirez surround music bit perfect by doing channel trims in analog, but it's not the point of this thread, so it seemed borderline attack....

 

Definitely wasn't meant as an attack - merely pointing out that artificially creating surround sound from a 2-channel recording using an AVR is not really in the spirit of "high fidelity", but more of the "it sounds good to me" audiophile school. Also not passing judgement on either one, just pointing out the difference. Recordings that have actually been recorded in a multi-channel surround format are one thing, processing 2-channel recordings into surround is another thing.

 

Also, was just giving you sh$t about the ad hominem thread. :)

 

Appreciated :), but as there was no smiley, I guess I had to act according to my own proposal... :)

Link to comment

Prufrock,

I'm not sure if u can see from my downsized pics but my room is dedicated to ME. :) The sweetspot for both 2 channel and surround music listening is the center first row seat, my Ekornes listening chair. Good surround balancing is not really available in any of the other spots, but if my chair were a sofa the surround sweetspot might be two people wide, two people deep (i.e when buddies come over I sit on the sofa in the second row, centered. 2 channel is very nice from there, but 5.1 is a bit too much rear channel there :) ).

 

No, I do not add DSP to 2 channel, sorry. That is a no no for me, but I acquiesce to anyone who wants to use it in their system. My 2 channel, 5.1 and 7.1 signal paths are all dedicated; the latter two taking advantage via HT bypass in order to use the front mono amps/speakers (simply picking the HT bypass input on my pre). The 5.1 signal path goes from an Oppo 83SE (Bill, I do not have multichannel computer audio solved yet either; it is my next project since I have everything DVD-A or SACD ripped) analog outs to a multichannel analog preamp. That pre has channel trims (i.e individual volume/gain controls in analog mode, of course) so no DSP or digital trims are used. The 5.1 uses separate amps for the center and rear SP Tech Continuums (Same drivers as my mains). My movie 7.1 signal path is mostly digital, with Oppo HDMi going to a Denon AVR, then out to side and rear Alon Centris on-wall dipole speakers. The front soundstage uses the same amps and speakers as 2 channel and 5.1.

Link to comment
Prufrock,

I'm not sure if u can see from my downsized pics but my room is dedicated to ME. :) The sweetspot for both 2 channel and surround music listening is the center first row seat, my Ekornes listening chair. Good surround balancing is not really available in any of the other spots, but if my chair were a sofa the surround sweetspot might be two people wide, two people deep (i.e when buddies come over I sit on the sofa in the second row, centered. 2 channel is very nice from there, but 5.1 is a bit too much rear channel there :) ).

 

No, I do not add DSP to 2 channel, sorry. That is a no no for me, but I acquiesce to anyone who wants to use it in their system. My 2 channel, 5.1 and 7.1 signal paths are all dedicated; the latter two taking advantage via HT bypass in order to use the front mono amps/speakers (simply picking the HT bypass input on my pre). The 5.1 signal path goes from an Oppo 83SE (Bill, I do not have multichannel computer audio solved yet either; it is my next project since I have everything DVD-A or SACD ripped) analog outs to a multichannel analog preamp. That pre has channel trims (i.e individual volume/gain controls in analog mode, of course) so no DSP or digital trims are used. The 5.1 uses separate amps for the center and rear SP Tech Continuums (Same drivers as my mains). My movie 7.1 signal path is mostly digital, with Oppo HDMi going to a Denon AVR, then out to side and rear Alon Centris on-wall dipole speakers. The front soundstage uses the same amps and speakers as 2 channel and 5.1.

 

 

Cheers. Great looking room. Are the plants behind the speakers used as diffusers. If so, are they effective?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...