The merits of surround-sound audio recordings

[emptydesk]

5.1 has always struck me as a boring gimmick, just at least offer 24/96 downloads with the vinyl tracks and b-sides

[sheepdean]

5.1 has always struck me as a boring gimmick, just at least offer 24/96 downloads with the vinyl tracks and b-sides
I consider 24/96 a boring gimmick, if it's not part of something like 5.1 :P.

[emptydesk]

that's silly

[sheepdean]

Why would you spend the money on a decent system to play lossless quality, which most likely has the capability to do 5.1 anyway, and then not desire the music to be mixed perfectly for audience experience? Sure, not everything needs to be in surround, but not everything needs to be filmed in 3D - the things that DO lend themselves to the format, however, are well worth it. Hell, stereo sound was called a gimmick once, pushed into cinemas solely for a vanity project for Walt Disney and not even released for consumers in the audio market for almost 2 decades afterwards.

[emptydesk]

Because the original work wasn't made in 5.1. I don't like most stereo mixes of albums made in mono, either. A higher resolution version of the original is fine with me. I don't need a bunch of useless panning.

[sheepdean]

So, your issue isn't with 5.1, but re-releasing in the format? In that case, I partially agree - in cases like this where the musician, producer and mixer are all the same as original, then you know it will be a true master, and perhaps bring out sounds that normally were hidden - such as the whispering in JLYI. If it's just done to flog records, then it's as pointless as, well, most things record labels do.

[emptydesk]

Are there any solely 5.1 albums of note? Gimmick format. I have tons of old quadraphonic mixes, sometimes I'll play them for the novelty. But usually for a song or two and then I put on a real mix.

[MAD]

I'm pretty sure you also work without layers in Photoshop and you listen to music solely through one or two speakers.

You clearly haven't experienced 5.1 music in the right way. Whatever you were subjected to, clearly created a bad impression.

[Leviathant]

With Teeth was released both as 5.1 and stereo, simultaneously. Sort of like those Beatles albums that were released in mono and stereo. (Stereo, such a gimmick!)

The CD release of And All That Could Have Been was mixed down from the 5.1 mix.

Yes, not all music benefits from a surround mix. A singer/songwriter playing in a room can be captured fine with a stereo pair. But I think Nine Inch Nails in particular lends itself to a more-than-two channel format, and I'm glad that TR's put out a few albums in 5.1 now. Looking forward to hearing The Fragile in surround, too.

[botley]

The CD release of And All That Could Have Been was mixed down from the 5.1 mix.

Not strictly true; Dave Ogilvie did a dedicated stereo mix but it was only done after the DVD edit had been locked to the surround mix done by TR & Jon Lemon (the Fragility tour's front-of-house sound engineer). Hence it closely copies the surround in several aspects.

[theimage13]

My two cents on 5.1: booooooooring.

Sure, it's kind of neat, but I really don't like having to sit my ass down in one place and not move when I'm listening to music. I usually do anyway when listening to a disc for the first couple of times, but after that, I'd really rather just be able to put in a pair of IEMs and listen to the music while I go for a walk, work around the house, etc.

[BRoswell]

Surround mixes are designed for people who actually want to sit and LISTEN to the album, not use it as background music. To criticize it for being something that you can't use when you're on the go is to miss its point entirely. The reason Trent and Co. have created 5.1 mixes is because they want you to give your full attention to the work they put into it, like people used to do back when vinyl records and turntables were all people had. It's all about focus. There's nothing wrong with having regular stereo mixes, but surround mixes are worth having around as well.

[emptydesk]

Right, apparently I wasn't really "listening" to music prior to 5.1, I was just using it as wallpaper.

[Virtua Afro DJ]

I never thought that 5.1 would be much of a difference. Then I heard A Warm Place.

[Leviathant]

Just cuz these folks aren't into 5.1 mixes doesn't mean you listen to music better than they do, or they haven't heard 5.1 mixes.

[jmtd]

If you listen to music on IEMs you've just voided your audiophile club membership.

[cheddamash]

I always rip CDs in 8kbps and record them in mono on cassette and listen to it on my Talkboy. But I'm kind of a purest like that.

http://screencrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Kevins-Infamous-Talkboy-Voice-Changer-26-8-10-kc.jpg

[Frozen Beach]

Are there any solely 5.1 albums of note? Gimmick format.
No offense, but that doesn't make it a gimmick. The reason why there isn't an album mixed strictly for surround is because many in the mainstream audience REFUSE to upgrade because they find it a hassle. Many people still don't have HDTVs, but that doesn't make HD a gimmick format.

[emptydesk]

Not sure 5.1 and HDTV are analogous, one is an increasingly superfluous audio format (for music), and the other is at least catered to by every major cable, streaming and physical media company.

If anything, the 3D analogy was more apt. 1080p is more like FLAC.

[Frozen Beach]

My point is that surround audio is only perceived as a gimmick because people ignore it. I mean, look in the past at how mono became replaced with stereo. Many saw it as a gimmick until it caught on with consumers.

[emptydesk]

I really don't see how it extrapolates the way stereo sound did. We have two ears for headphones, FM radio overtook AM, it made more sense for stereo to catch on. There is no avenue for 5.1 to get a foothold, as portability ultimately reigns for music and with 5.1 you're stuck in your living room.

This is from someone who has a ton of vinyl and a 5.1 capable stereo.

[Frozen Beach]

I really don't see how it extrapolates the way stereo sound did. We have two ears for headphones, FM radio overtook AM, it made more sense for stereo to catch on. There is no avenue for 5.1 to get a foothold, as portability ultimately reigns for music and with 5.1 you're stuck in your living room.
This is from someone who has a ton of vinyl and a 5.1 capable stereo.
The technology for portable surround sound audio devices would easily be invented if more people would support surround sound audio. Can you seriously not tell me that you couldn't imagine having surround sound capabilities in your car?

And from what I hear, there are actually headphones designed specifically for surround sound audio, and they offer a different experience than stereo headphones. A lot of people use them "sound whoring" in FPS games.

[emptydesk]

5.1 capability in cars exists, the issue with that is that nobody cares. A car is generally a noisy and distraction-filled environment as is, there's little point in several channel audiophile sound.

A major hurdle is that when you're listening to music in a portable situation, it generally means that all you need is decent enough sound to be delivered to your brain. For me that generally means 320kbps MP3. It could mean other things for you, but generally it seems that people are happy with their iPods.

[jmtd]

And from what I hear, there are actually headphones designed specifically for surround sound audio, and they offer a different experience than stereo headphones. A lot of people use them "sound whoring" in FPS games.

How many speakers do these headphones have? I imagine it's some combination of two speakers, some clever adaptive downmixing, wishful audiophile thinking and sprinklings of magic pixie dust.

[Frozen Beach]

How many speakers do these headphones have? I imagine it's some combination of two speakers, some clever adaptive downmixing, wishful audiophile thinking and sprinklings of magic pixie dust.
It's several speakers in both ear cups rather than two big ones.


5.1 capability in cars exists
Really? I need to look into then.



the issue with that is that nobody cares.
I have a big feeling that the reason why nobody cares about it is because it's not being pushed. I haven't even heard of 5.1 being capable of being in a vehicle, and I'm someone who'd be interested in


A car is generally a noisy and distraction-filled environment as is, there's little point in several channel audiophile sound.
Debatable. From my own experience, some of my best and favorite listening experiences have been in the vehicle. I may have higher end equipment at the house, but I'm more in zen on the road.


A major hurdle is that when you're listening to music in a portable situation, it generally means that all you need is decent enough sound to be delivered to your brain. For me that generally means 320kbps MP3. It could mean other things for you, but generally it seems that people are happy with their iPods.
I have an ipod too, however I only use it when I'm on foot. I prefer discs on the road.

[Leviathant]

I like 5.1 surround but having it in the car is a mistake. The aural environment of even the nicest motor vehicles makes for terrible fidelity when playing back music. You don't really realize it at the time, but if you've ever recorded audio in a moving car, you'll have a good idea of just how noisy it is.

The idea of 5.1 headphones seems absurd to me. One of the things I like about 5.1 surroudn sound is I can move around in the field and physically change my focus. If you've got headphones on, you might as well be listening to a stereo mix.

[Vertigo]

I like 5.1 surround but having it in the car is a mistake. The aural environment of even the nicest motor vehicles makes for terrible fidelity when playing back music. You don't really realize it at the time, but if you've ever recorded audio in a moving car, you'll have a good idea of just how noisy it is.


Depends on what you're driving. I'm in a Jaguar X-Type (which was equivalently priced to a new Ford Fiesta when I picked it up, before anyone cries "Not everyone can afford a Jag") and the car is refined enough that it provides a great listening experience - it almost feels equivalent to my home setup. Proper 5.1 capability (rather than basic surround expanding) would be very welcome.

On the subject of 5.1, in my opinion its usefulness is proportionate to the density/complexity of the music, rather than the song's originally intended format. With Teeth was produced with the intention of a surround mix from the outset, yet to my ear its 5.1 is nowhere near as successful as The Downward Spiral's, which tends to have a lot more going on in the mix. You can pick out the various elements with considerably better clarity, and the guitars and ambients feel far more powerful and effective. Something seriously intense like Big Man With A Gun is downright jaw-dropping in 5.1.

:edit: I have to say though, the thing I like most about 5.1 releases is that they're the next best thing to a multitrack.

[Frozen Beach]

The idea of 5.1 headphones seems absurd to me. One of the things I like about 5.1 surroudn sound is I can move around in the field and physically change my focus. If you've got headphones on, you might as well be listening to a stereo mix.
From what I've heard, 5.1 headphones work because you can hear each sound more clearly rather than it be blended with other sounds. FPS gamers love these headphones because it makes hearing enemy player's footsteps distinct, and gives you the ability of being able to tell exactly where the enemy is. I have no idea how they sound with music though because I haven't had first hand experience with them, but I do have friends who rave about them.

[BRoswell]

Right, apparently I wasn't really "listening" to music prior to 5.1, I was just using it as wallpaper.

Thanks. You missed my point AND you missed the part where I said there was nothing wrong with regular stereo mixes. I didn't say that you were listening to it wrong, I said it's about focus. It's about paying attention

My point was that there's a reason these albums exist in these formats. It's not just to take more money out of your pocket, it's about looking at those tracks that you know by heart and hearing them in a way that might make you appreciate them in a different manner. Again, there's nothing wrong with stereo mixes, and there's no reason to riot if an artist only releases their songs in that way, but if an artist puts out a surround mix, there's something they want you to hear that perhaps you can't in the regular mix. Dismissing it as simple stereo panning is ridiculous. If you're going to criticize it in that way, then you might as well downmix your stereo versions into mono versions, because you'd be surprised how much panning goes on in those as well.

[emptydesk]

Forgive me if I prefer the original artist statement over "HEY WERE YOU ACTUALLY LISTENING BEFORE BECAUSE PROBABLY YOU WEREN'T $30 PLEASE" reissues.

[emptydesk]

Someday I hope to have enough speakers to truly listen to THE FRAGILE.

[The Doctor]

Listening to the blu-ray of Dark Side of the Moon in 5.1 made me a true believer. Seriously. I discovered things in that album that I'd never heard in the million times previously in Stereo. It was like listening for the first time.

[Leviathant]

That's actually an great point - when The Downward Spiral was released in surround, I finally assembled a passable surround system to listen to it with. I can't really explain how many times I had listened to and studied that album. In the car, on my stereo, in crappy headphones, in amazing headphones. With stereo phase inverted, canceling out half the mix. It is, without exception, my favorite album. I thought I knew it like the back of my hand.

I heard things I swear were new in that surround mix. But then when I listened to my original copy, they were indeed there, but buried in the mix in such a way that they had been difficult to discern. Now, I have that fuller picture.

I look forward to learning more about what is buried in the stereo mix for The Fragile.

[theruiner]

^^At some point, when I have money, and if I ever have a surround sound system, I would seriously think about buying a DVD-A or Super Audio player in order to listen to TDS in surround sound. When it came out I tried to figure out some way I could listen to it like that, but alas, never did.

[Hazekiah]

Hey, I'm not enough of an audio-techie guy to know for sure, but reading about the portability-issue of 5.1 makes me wonder...couldn't that be solved by simply making a personal recording of a 5.1 album played on a 5.1 system and (re-)captured with a decent binaural mic with a proper acoustic environment and mic placement?

Call me an amateur or a heretic, but I've heard (and made) some DAMNED fine binaural bootlegs and it seems like that'd be a pretty decent way to transfer/convert 5.1 music into a decent set of normal headphones.

Or am I just crazy?

o_O

[jmtd]

So this is perhaps the right place to ask this.

In anticipation of Fragile 5.1 I'm quite keen to build/buy a surround-sound system.

I have a two-bedroom flat, with a plasma TV in my living room. I recently renovated and layed hard-wood flooring in the living room; before I did that I ran two lengths of speaker cable across the room and the loops from them are accessible. One ends in an alcove behind the TV; the other behind the sofa, opposite.

My second bedroom is a study, with my computer sitting on a kitchen worktop fixed to the window wall. It's a small room, with the door in the left-hand side of the wall opposite the window/computer.

I'm interested in a budget set of equipment. I can't justify spending a great deal of cash on this stuff, but I'd love to hear the NIN back catalogue in 5.1, as well as things like Floyd etc. which I've never listened to (stereo or otherwise). And probably movies.

In the LR, I was thinking an AV receiver and 2.1 speakers *might* just fit with the TV (the existing TV stand is already a bit packed though). With luck, the cable loop could be used to plug the other two speakers in and they could sit to the side or behind the sofa. This is perhaps the ideal room, since I can use it for movies.

In the study, I could get a 5.1 sound card for my PC or laptop. Speaker placement would be tricky, due to the location of the door (would probably not get the back two speakers in an ideal place). I wouldn't likely watch movies like this which would be a shame, but I reckon this might be the cheaper alternative.

My partner is not particularly interested in this, in fact could be considered mildly hostile to the idea on a financial and aesthetic basis (big ugly speakers in the LR)

My question is, what sort-of kit should I be looking at? Scanning Richer Sounds now, I see I could get a speaker + receiver kit for around 200 quid (Sony BDVE280 one-box with redundant bluray player). I imagine cheaper is probably possible. What sort of questions should I be asking? ( A big thing will probably running possible speakers past the other half For aesthetic approval, however grudging :))

Quick edit; The "sound bar" concept is quite interesting, because fitting the front speaker(s) into something the TV can sit on would sell this whole thing a lot easier. Assuming it could take the weight of a 50" Plasma. However, the ones I've seen so far have been normal stereo, not 5.1 or even 2.1 (or capable of driving more speakers). Do integrated 2/2.1/amp soundbars exist (permitting the remaining speakers to be attached)?

[Hazekiah]

Stumbled upon something pretty cool recently...


In 2004, many lacquer masters were discovered in the vaults of Sony Music Studios in New York which consisted of recordings that Leopold Stokowski and his All-American Youth Orchestra had made for Columbia Records in Hollywood in the summer of 1941. These lacquers had been recorded in pairs, on two separate turntables, one being a safety back-up to the other in case something went wrong with the subsequent dubbing to 78rpm discs. Significantly, the pairs of lacquers were labelled "Left" and "Right" respectively, rather than "A and "B" as was usually the case. It was also usually the case in 78rpm recordings that the same microphone source fed each of the two turntables. However, these labelling differences led to a couple of experiments whereby the "Left" and "Right" lacquers of two recordings were painstakingly synchronised. These experiments proved that for these sessions two separate microphones had been used, placed near each other and each leading to its own turntable, with binaural sound being the result when synchronised. The two binaural recordings were made available to the Leopold Stokowski Society and both have now been released on CD: Wagner's Ride of the Valkyrieson Cala Records CACD0549 and the 'Scherzo' from Mendelssohn'sMidsummer Night's Dreamon Cala Records CACD0551.

Holy SHIT, that is AWESOME.

Can't wait to track that stuff down and slap on the headphones!

:D

[Leviathant]

I buy my receivers and speakers used on Craigslist. For actual media playback, I received an Oppo BDP-83 as a gift from a friend who I helped flee from fictional authorities.

[seasonsinthesky]

Hey, I'm not enough of an audio-techie guy to know for sure, but reading about the portability-issue of 5.1 makes me wonder...couldn't that be solved by simply making a personal recording of a 5.1 album played on a 5.1 system and (re-)captured with a decent binaural mic with a proper acoustic environment and mic placement?

Call me an amateur or a heretic, but I've heard (and made) some DAMNED fine binaural bootlegs and it seems like that'd be a pretty decent way to transfer/convert 5.1 music into a decent set of normal headphones.

Or am I just crazy?

o_O

err, well, i dunno why you'd bother, really — with the amount of variables that could make the music suffer (crappy playback system being the top), i don't see the point. may as well just do a stereo mixdown and get one of those 3D Space plugins, it'd at least keep the actual music fidelity.