Thread: Minimum Expectations - why stereo and not multi-channel? What can we do?

Posts: 31
Page: 1 2 3 4 next

Post by Cornan July 12, 2007 (1 of 31)
Now that Sony has finally released car SACD players [I've got mine, do you?], I'd really like to hear something more than 30-year-old American pop and current foreign and jazz/classical recordings [though I'm buying those, too!].

I've been thinking lately about minimum expectations.

BluRay and HD-DVD video - surround sound expected

DVD video - surround sound expected

go to the theatre in person - yep, surround sound

But music - - - -stereo... and automobile sound? four-channel "dual stereo" + derived subwoofer, unless there's video in the dash.

Think about it. Video, which is after all shown only up front on one screen, somehow needs surround sound, but music gets only two channels.

Would any pop producer record and mix a monophonic album these days? I doubt it very much. It's a matter of minimum expectations.

So how can we advance to the point where more people just naturally expect surround music, in their cars, and on their home theatre systems when music is being played?

I know that some of the people on this forum are really committed to the "high resolution" aspect of SACD, and maybe that divergence between high-res and multichannel emphases is one (but only one) of the reasons the new discs lost out in the pop marketplace.

Personally, I've been waiting 25 years for more multi-channel sound, and though I have a strong preference for lossless compression, DVD-Audio "versus" SACD has never meant much to me (I'll be happy if there are BluRay / DTS multichannel music discs).

I could ramble on for some time, and perhaps I will some day, on the silly marketing of DVD-Audio and SACD, beginning with the high percentage of solo performers or single instruments in multichannel discs for the first few years, almost painfully avoiding the "gimmicks" of the quadraphonic era but also avoiding much material that would best highlight surround sound.

But let me get back to the topic at hand. What can we do to make multichannel sound for music more the norm?

Surely a downmixable format (hybrid SACDs?) should be the norm (and someday another down-mixable format), so that Joe Public will get his stereo (or even mono in his CD clock radio!), while music lovers, not just audiophiles, will get their surround music just as they get their surround video, and making better use of "all those speakers" in their cars, trucks and SUVs [and BOATS!].

I've begun to listen to the streaming 5.1 sound from Surround Radio in the Netherlands (http://www.concertzender.nl/sr.php, was I the first to alert them to the empty rear channels that is currently affecting their stream?) and "NRK 5.1" in Norway (look for NRK 5.1 on this page: http://www.nrk.no/tjenester/nrk_nettradio/3220264.html?kanal=p1).

Back here on the American airwaves, meanwhile, discrete multichannel sound never even got started on Sirius and XM, and apparently also not on HD Radio.

Heck, I'd PAY for Sirius or XM if they had real surround sound. (On a side track, how many of you remember the days when on of the big debates in the quadraphonic era was "discrete versus matrix"? I couldn't believe it when I read about matrix systems being discussed for terrestrial or satellite broadcast!)

Finally, what about the artificial ambience that is so common in today's surround receivers? Frankly, compared to real ambience, I find it lacking. I've had at least four dedicated or built-in ambience processors, starting with the first consumer digital delay [I have trouble remembering the brand after 20 years!], through Phase Linear and Yamaha and Sony receivers.

I know I'm not the only one that prefers REAL surround sound.

So it comes back to the same question: What else can we do?

Post by hawk July 12, 2007 (2 of 31)
Cornan said:

Now that Sony has finally released car SACD players [I've got mine, do you?], I'd really like to hear something more than 30-year-old American pop and current foreign and jazz/classical recordings [though I'm buying those, too!].

I've been thinking lately about minimum expectations.

...

For me the biggest kick out of SACD is the surround sound aspect...
I suspect a lot of people don't want to or simply can't invest in
high end audio equipment. But if they could see what a simple
and relatively cheap SACD/DVD player combined with even a
half way decent 5.1 set up can do in terms of the music it offers-
discrete surround sound and an independent bass track they would be
converted. A lot of my friends have. Several issues though:

1. Like you say, if people can't find the music that they regularly
listen to, then this turns them off of SACD. Only real fans of surround
sound would give up their regular music just for jazz, some pop and
classical releases, unless of course these were the genres that they
listened to in the first place.

2. When people promote SACD to the general public it should be/have been
on the basis of the discrete surround sound (if SACD has it),first and
foremost. In my experience everyone can tell the big positive difference
well-made surround SACDs make in the average listener's listening experience
even when the music is played on humble pieces of equipment. The frequency
ranges and other improvements in sound quality are undeniably important
but may not be readily apparent or accessible to the average person given
their background, the equipment they are using etc.

3. And perhaps people care about the portability of there music more than
the quality (this is where the sacd car player comes in handy). I think listening
habits of the average person does not include sitting in a listening room
or a lounge devoting time to really appreciating music. For the general public
music is consumed like fast food-on the go with minimum hassle. Also people are
social creatures and they want to share. Film is great for this so you can sit
down and watch films with friends and family and so DVDs have been very succesful.
But I think even though people will focus on a movie together music is different.
To really enjoy SACD surround you need to sit in a particular place and remain
quiet like you are watching a film. But people don't usually consume music
together as a group in this way. People usually listen to music at parties
as background and they move around and talk a lot so the benefits of surround
or stereo SACD will be lost in all the activity.

So in conclusion, in my humble opinion, SACD will remain more of a niche market
and will not develop into the format of choice for the masses, but that is ok
as long as knowledgeable fans keep the fires alive.

Post by flytomars July 13, 2007 (3 of 31)
I also bought my SACD / DVDA player mainly for its surround features-
I plugged 2 stereo amplifiers, not going for the 5.1 home cinema option- this way I get the same high quality that I had before, and it didnt cost more than a less than decent 5.1 receiver.
Anyway, I think the answer to your question- what can be done to make surround formats more common- if I look at artists like Bjork and Beck, artists that still have their hand on the pulse, their first surround discs were SACD-
But soon after, they got to the conclusion that this format is not basing itself, so they moved to DVD DTS.
This format, although lossy, can achieve decent sound quality and can be played on any home cinema rig.
Bjork has a box-set called surrounded, which has all of her albums in Dual Disk format- one side is regular RBCD, the other side- a DVD with Dolby / DTS 5.1 .
Her last album, Volta, came in a special edition- double album, one RBCD and the other DTS.
Same goes for Beck`s last album (which included DVDA too).
By the way- Sea Changes SACD by Beck is long ago out of print, on the other hand the DVDA is still available...
As much as I prefer SACD to DVDA, and as much as I prefer DVDA to DTS, I think the answer for surorund popularity lies unfortunately in the DTS format- it can be played in most homes these days.
Mabe HD and BLU Ray will bring a new lossless audio surround format, we can only hope...

Post by armenian July 13, 2007 (4 of 31)
Cornan said:

Now that Sony has finally released car SACD players [I've got mine, do you?],

No I do not have one yet, but just one question regarding auto SACD players; With all the freez-ups and NO-Disc and other problems so common with desktop SACD players what technology is Sony using to deal with dust, vibration, heat and host of other problems that will add on top of all the current issues and still be able to read these discs?

Vahe

Post by Windsurfer July 13, 2007 (5 of 31)
flytomars said:


As much as I prefer SACD to DVDA, and as much as I prefer DVDA to DTS, I think the answer for surorund popularity lies unfortunately in the DTS format- it can be played in most homes these days.
Mabe HD and BLU Ray will bring a new lossless audio surround format, we can only hope...

There is an audiophile SACD player by Ayre and in the Stereophile review of that player there was something of an interview of the designer and owner of the company. Asked why this player was stereo and not multichannel he said: Who wants the sound of performers coming at them from behind?

And that is the crux of the problem. For acoustic music the answer to him is: "No one - you dummy, we want the reflections off the back and side walls so that it sounds like we are actually in a concert hall".

But for electronically generated pop? This use of multi-channel may be for a very small minority, and that is truly unfortunate for although my fancy is for acoustic music and I want the ambience of the concert hall - the reflections off the side walls, the reflections off the back wall and ceiling coming from the appropriate speaker - for ultimate commercial success, we probably need the pop community to be convinced that multi-channel is what they want. I would then hope at least those who have the least of audiophile aspirations would want SACD.

I think, judging from Ayre's response to the question though, it may take a lot of selling. There are still people who prefer acoustic music and whom for some strange reason, (No, I'm not trying to get you started Dave!) still think stereo is the end all be all! Again, I am afraid the people who want the sound of the performers coming at them from the rear channels may constitute a very small minority.

Post by flytomars July 14, 2007 (6 of 31)
Windsurfer said:

There is an audiophile SACD player by Ayre and in the Stereophile review of that player there was something of an interview of the designer and owner of the company. Asked why this player was stereo and not multichannel he said: Who wants the sound of performers coming at them from behind?

Me, me! :P
I find the music much more involving this way (acoustic AND "pop").
Actually when it comes to acoustic music, I dont like the rear channels to be only the reverberations, I prefer them to include real musical information...

Post by Julien July 14, 2007 (7 of 31)
flytomars said:

Me, me! :P
I find the music much more involving this way (acoustic AND "pop").
Actually when it comes to acoustic music, I dont like the rear channels to be only the reverberations, I prefer them to include real musical information...

So you are not interested in high fidelity, but in creating a musical presentation in your room that you don't hear in concerts. Or I guess you enjoy more a concert while sitting in the middle of an orchestra then.

Post by flytomars July 14, 2007 (8 of 31)
Julien said:

So you are not interested in high fidelity, but in creating a musical presentation in your room that you don't hear in concerts. Or I guess you enjoy more a concert while sitting in the middle of an orchestra then.

Yes and no.
I am interested in high fidelity AND in creating a musical presentation in my room that you don't hear in concerts.
and definately- if I had the chance- I would enjoy more a concert while sitting in the middle of an orchestra.

Post by Polly Nomial July 14, 2007 (9 of 31)
flytomars said:

and definately- if I had the chance- I would enjoy more a concert while sitting in the middle of an orchestra.

Sometimes perhaps but speaking as someone plays in the middle of the orchestra week in, week out - not hearing the whole perspective can be pretty infuriating! So it's probably a good thing that most companies provide us with the "best seats in the house" approach whilst a few (most notably Tacet) give us the "on stage" version...

Post by flytomars July 14, 2007 (10 of 31)
Polly Nomial said:

Sometimes perhaps but speaking as someone plays in the middle of the orchestra week in, week out - not hearing the whole perspective can be pretty infuriating! So it's probably a good thing that most companies provide us with the "best seats in the house" approach whilst a few (most notably Tacet) give us the "on stage" version...

Do you find the "on stage" versions of Tacet not giving the whole perspective?
I think it gives the best of both worlds- sitting in the middle of the orchestra and hearing it all in the same time...

Page: 1 2 3 4 next

Closed