Surround Music - Fad or Future.

[ted_b]

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

 

No and no. They are simply to add some color to an otherwise black and copper (wood) room. I have enough diffusors (ceiling cloud, side walls, back wall, front resonator, etc) to, well, diffuse.

[esldude]

I guess I tripped over a good question. If advanced DSP can take a two channel system, process a 5 or 7 channel signal and put all the right acoustic cues in your ears that would occur with 5 or 7 channels why isn't that fidelity? Further, if you had two terrific channels instead of 7 mediocre channels it might be higher fidelity at least in theory. See this isn't quite the case of altering sound just to make it sound good to you (though it might do that as well), it is a case of reproducing in your perception what was supposed to be in the original multi-channel source even if it manages this with only two channels. Anything wrong with that idea?

[Julf]

I guess I tripped over a good question. If advanced DSP can take a two channel system, process a 5 or 7 channel signal and put all the right acoustic cues in your ears that would occur with 5 or 7 channels why isn't that fidelity?

 

That is only possible with acoustic music recorded in a "real" space. How will a DSP figure out how the drug-wasted brain of the artist intended the piece of progressive new-age fusion rap to *really* sound?

[brunk]

Surround music is here to stay, but it will be a niche. For it to overcome stereo, every studio would have to start recording/mixing in 5.1, 7.1 etc. I have heard multi-channel SACDs/BDs that were actually mixed for it and they are amazing. Another problem is room correction. Audyssey XT32 is great, but it doesn't compare to a proper music room. It's getting close though, only if they can fix the "forced" feeling of it and let the music flow. That is where room correction will truly shine, in multi channel. Until 1) studios adopt it and 2) Room correction software is 99% perfect --it will remain a niche.

[esldude]

That is only possible with acoustic music recorded in a "real" space. How will a DSP figure out how the drug-wasted brain of the artist intended the piece of progressive new-age fusion rap to *really* sound?

 

By testing with drug-addled listeners so it all will mesh properly. You might one day have DSP that operates differently taking into account which drugs you are using. Just select them from a menu and let it go.

[Daudio]

... the piece of progressive new-age fusion rap...

 

Love it ! (well, one out of 2111... ?)

[Daudio]

DigiPete,

 

I have been meaning to ask, and this is as good a place as any...

 

How many, if any, of the multichannel recordings are actually recordings of multiple, spaced microphones to capture the 'surround' experience, as opposed to synthesized inventions ? Is there any clear way to tell the difference on the product packaging ?

 

Thanks,

[Kiwi2]

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.

 

Rather than side track this thread which is about multichannel music becoming more popular or not... this thread is on the topic of 2ch into surround sound. I have proposed a question there for you.

[DigiPete]

DigiPete,

 

I have been meaning to ask, and this is as good a place as any...

 

How many, if any, of the multichannel recordings are actually recordings of multiple, spaced microphones to capture the 'surround' experience, as opposed to synthesized inventions ? Is there any clear way to tell the difference on the product packaging ?

 

Thanks,

 

I am still struggling to find the answers, and it seems like a crap shoot.

However, pristine Surround recordings are just as easy or difficult to find as pristine stereo recordings.

 

QuadraphonicQuad Forums - QQ Home

Is a great source of inspiration and knowledge.

 

I do not generally find off the rack concert DVD's a good source of surround sound, while the total experience with a large screen may still be good fun.

 

I have had better experience with dedicated DVD-audio releases, but still mixed results.

 

 

Prestine Surround Recording Sources

 

I find these companies consistently deliver well recorded true audiophile surround recordings.

24 bit 44-192khz in 5.0 or 5.1 surround, with 88-96khz as the most frequently used.

 

2L - the Nordic Sound

AIX Records - Home Page

Cybele Records - Klassik der Zukunft. Innovatives Label für neue und klassische Musik und für Literatur

http://highresaudio.com

iTrax

Téléchargement de musique en haute qualité. Ecoute en streaming.

 

All offer downloads.

A few offer physical media (DVD-audio, SACD, Blu-ray)

2L has DSD and DXD download samples, and Cybele DSD.

 

Personal favorites

 

Pink Floyd - DSOTM and WYWH - Blu-ray

Jean Michel Jarre - Aero - DVD-audio

The Beatles - Love (Mashup) - DVD-audio

 

And everything from 2L and Aix Records

[DigiPete]

Software

 

Decibel (Mac)

plays multichannel FLAC and WAW files from memory.

 

VLC

plays just about everything.

 

JRiver (PC)

plays just about everything.

 

Hardware

 

I use:

 

- MacBook Pro with 8GB ram

- Firewire to

- Weiss AFI-1

- AES/EBU direct to

- Genelec 5.1 setup 82XX series digital input DSP capable active speakers

 

You can also use a multitude of external multi channel sound cards fed by firewire, thunderbolt or possibly USB.

 

From there

 

- analogue out to amps or

- S/PDIF / AES/EBU to a HT processor.

 

Examples:

 

- Lynx AES16 (internal, AES/EBU, no DAC)

- Lynx Aurora 8 or 16

- TC Electronic studiokonnekt 48

- Apogee Ensemble

- Apogee Symphony

- Prism Orpheus

- Mytekdigital 8x192 ADDA (includes multi channel DSD option)

 

and many more.

[ted_b]

Digipete,

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but you listing several mulitchannel computer options is easy to do....the devil is in the details. For example, you list the Mytek 8X192 with multichannel DSD option. Please detail for me how you'd do multichannel DSD.

 

The reason I ask is that you can't really, right now, without either a very unique SDIF-modified Sony SACD player (leaves out DVD-A) or buy a $10k Sonoma workstation. Option A, the Sony SDIF modded player, is not exactly COMPUTER audio. It's simply spinning discs and sending them via SDIF to the Mytek. Not sure where speaker delays or channel trims occur, cuz trimming digital DSD is a no/no (except in Sonoma). A Mykerinos card is another option (with SDIF daughterboard) but not only very expensive but still doesn't address all obstacles, and requires some expertise...and is overkill, like the Sonaoma, for those of us simply wanting playback (and not state-of-the-art recording and mixing flexibility).

 

What I'm trying to get at is that there are few full turn-key systems that allow lossless PCM and DSD multichannel playback via the computer.....yet. Even the more simple PCM-only multichannel computer playback requires delays and channel trims in the software player or DAC console (like Metric Halo's, for example) but doesn't address things like where master remote analog volume control would be done, since output from these multichannel dacs would likely go to separate dedicated amps (Digipete's active speaker setup is unique and perfect for this setup, but again, requires....er, active DSP'd speakers!). AES to HT processor? Like which HT processors accept multichannel AES inputs (Meridian maybe, via their proprietary MASH)

 

And Tom (tailspn), no fair responding...you own a frickin Sonoma workstation.

[esldude]

Thanks Digipete, didn't know about some of those sources for multi-channel music.

[Old Listener]

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

 

Not much.

 

Surround sound has been the wave of the future for a long time. Home theater is a mature market. I think that iPods, iPhones, iPads and similar devices are the context for buying and listening to music. That's a 2 channel context.

 

Bill

[prufrock]

Not much.

 

Surround sound has been the wave of the future for a long time. Home theater is a mature market. I think that iPods, iPhones, iPads and similar devices are the context for buying and listening to music. That's a 2 channel context.

 

Bill

 

As it is headphone based?

[Old Listener]

As it is headphone based?

 

My crystal ball says:

 

I see portable, personal devices as being the key to the music market for the near future. One benefit of cloud storage for music collections is that a customer can buy music at any time and from any place if they have a network connection. No personal computer required. For Apple, that really facilitates casual music purchases.

 

If a customer happens to be someplace where there is a "dock" available, he/she might play music on a fixed system with better quality speakers. Headphones will always be available as an option for listening on those iDevices.

 

Some people might use a personal computer to play music when they are at home. It will be an option that some people use.

 

I think that the roles of subscription services versus music purchase are still undecided. Apple is the gorilla in the music purchase marketplace and they have the best infrastructure for seamless purchasing. What are they going to do about subscription services? Apple has been clever about entering markets at the right time rather than being first. When will they decide that it is the right time to enter the music subscription market?

 

Neither the Airport Express nor the Apple TV seems like an important product for Apple. A TV designed and engineered by Apple might signal their getting serious about home theater oriented products (and home based media listening / watching.) Maybe they might see potential in surround sound for music in that context.

 

It's just my personal crystal ball. Since I don't want to be dependent on the Apple commerce world, how do I get the gear and music content I want in the future? Right now, I'm buying used CDs on Amazon Marketplace as they are available cheaply.

 

Bill

[prufrock]

My crystal ball says:

 

I see portable, personal devices as being the key to the music market for the near future. One benefit of cloud storage for music collections is that a customer can buy music at any time and from any place if they have a network connection. No personal computer required. For Apple, that really facilitates casual music purchases.

 

If a customer happens to be someplace where there is a "dock" available, he/she might play music on a fixed system with better quality speakers. Headphones will always be available as an option for listening on those iDevices.

 

Some people might use a personal computer to play music when they are at home. It will be an option that some people use.

 

I think that the roles of subscription services versus music purchase are still undecided. Apple is the gorilla in the music purchase marketplace and they have the best infrastructure for seamless purchasing. What are they going to do about subscription services? Apple has been clever about entering markets at the right time rather than being first. When will they decide that it is the right time to enter the music subscription market?

 

Neither the Airport Express nor the Apple TV seems like an important product for Apple. A TV designed and engineered by Apple might signal their getting serious about home theater oriented products (and home based media listening / watching.) Maybe they might see potential in surround sound for music in that context.

 

It's just my personal crystal ball. Since I don't want to be dependent on the Apple commerce world, how do I get the gear and music content I want in the future? Right now, I'm buying used CDs on Amazon Marketplace as they are available cheaply.

 

Bill

 

Yes good stuff on Amazon. Often get useful reviews as well.

Headphones and other ear devices are here to stay. Convenient and non disturbing -a big thing in a crowded world. Maybe software improving to create a portable and very convincing surround sound for that group of listeners? When I say "surround", I mean like sitting in a hall/ auditorium/concert hall etc.

Or is there only so far you can go with algorithms and we are there pretty much?

[sdolezalek]

Critical Listening vs. The Experience:

 

As long as kids buy earbuds and adults buy headphones stereo won't go away as the primary source of music. In many ways, stereo and surround serve different purposes. If I'm lying in bed and I want crystal clarity, I listen in stereo with headphones. If I want to sit in a seat and feel as though I'm there in the concert hall, I listen in surround.

 

As to surround, as others have already said, the biggest issue is the quality and characteristic of the recording. I, for one, don't like the feeling of sitting in the middle of the band/orchestra and thus dislike all surround sound recorded that way. But there are terrific surround sound recordings (some in 5.1 SACD) that capture the real feeling of being there in a live performance. In addition, there is an increasing amount of concert material available in 5.1 and 7.1 24/96k recorded on BluRay that sounds quite good (see Chris Botti in Boston).

 

When listening to such properly recorded material, I prefer the surround sound over stereo by a good margin. Of course, I am also a very early adopter of the Magnepan Tri-Center concept (which you can read about elsewhere) and have found that it really creates a highly three dimensional soundstage with individual instruments placed very clearly across a wide soundstage.

 

Lastly, I'll say that I have never gotten the spooky feeling of the performer actually being in the room with me from stereo, but I can sure get it from a great surround recording.

[prufrock]

Critical Listening vs. The Experience:

 

As long as kids buy earbuds and adults buy headphones stereo won't go away as the primary source of music. In many ways, stereo and surround serve different purposes. If I'm lying in bed and I want crystal clarity, I listen in stereo with headphones. If I want to sit in a seat and feel as though I'm there in the concert hall, I listen in surround.

 

As to surround, as others have already said, the biggest issue is the quality and characteristic of the recording. I, for one, don't like the feeling of sitting in the middle of the band/orchestra and thus dislike all surround sound recorded that way. But there are terrific surround sound recordings (some in 5.1 SACD) that capture the real feeling of being there in a live performance. In addition, there is an increasing amount of concert material available in 5.1 and 7.1 24/96k recorded on BluRay that sounds quite good (see Chris Botti in Boston).

 

When listening to such properly recorded material, I prefer the surround sound over stereo by a good margin. Of course, I am also a very early adopter of the Magnepan Tri-Center concept (which you can read about elsewhere) and have found that it really creates a highly three dimensional soundstage with individual instruments placed very clearly across a wide soundstage.

 

Lastly, I'll say that I have never gotten the spooky feeling of the performer actually being in the room with me from stereo, but I can sure get it from a great surround recording.

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts regarding your preference for well executed multichannel recorded in that format. You are not the only person who likes it I notice. I would actually bet that a sample would show the pubic likes it better as well. Probably by a big margin. So a future there for the optimistic maybe.

[wgscott]

(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)

 

Well, I'll be cheering you along. But I take a tiny bit of comfort knowing that it wasn't just me being an idiot. I got quicklime to play a test 5.1 track with some sort of hack, but it is too clunky for real use.

[bleedink]

I sort of agree with the fact that it is here to stay but will likely remain a niche. One thing that was brought up is that the system needs to be set up correctly or you will not get the entire surround experience as much of what goes on in the surround recordings is phantom based. I am on board with room correction for the most part-however, I had an interesting experience with the Oppo the other day. I previously wasn't able to output dsd over analog to my receiver without a conversion to PCM (apparently when the Oppo is connected to TV it outputs PCM out the analog). Now that I know how to get a pure DSD (or whatever approximation can be achieved without an external DAC) I am revisiting some SACDs that are MC. (Note: the receiver is in direct mode--the oppo is set up to do all the work). I am surprised how completely forgiving it is in terms of not adding DSP--you are basically getting a straight signal from the Oppo. In fact, given how much easier it is to apply DSP to PCM I was floored by the phantoms and the whole imaging of DSD without all that good stuff. Donald Fagen had much better instrument/vocal placements, etc. Anyway I just wanted to add that some of these recordings don't need DSP at ALL to sound FAB. However, with PCM recordings I make sure everything is set up correctly and the delays and such are all correct, speaker in right places ect. It seems much more important in that realm and yet the SACDs I just listened to suffered none of the ill effects one would expect from no DSP.

[Paul R]

I quite agree that multichannel sound is here to stay, but I believe it will remain a niche product...

 

Until one one invents much better technology to play it back. Much simpler technology. It is simply beyond the average Joe or Jane to setup properly. And doing it properly isn't cheap either - or an experience easily shared or enjoyed with other people. All that needs to change. Until it Ida's simple as setting up a TV, it will never replace the less capable, but far easier to set up stereo system. Not counting those ghastly $129 all in one box things WallMart sells.

 

Video s so integral to that experience that we need to see the next generation of music videos come around before it will happen too. And portables. Already you can tailgate with a tv and DISH service.

[DigiPete]

I quite agree that multichannel sound is here to stay, but I believe it will remain a niche product...

 

Until one one invents much better technology to play it back. Much simpler technology. It is simply beyond the average Joe or Jane to setup properly. And doing it properly isn't cheap either - or an experience easily shared or enjoyed with other people. . . . .

 

I agree that easy to set up multi channel systems are in short demand.

 

The technology is however there, and will come down in price as DSP becomes cheaper and cheaper.

Here we are talking years and not decades.

 

Companies like Genelec, Meridian and Lyngdorf Steinway has has had easy to use quality systems in the market for years.

Now we are waiting for the rest of the industry to wake up and pick up in all price ranges.

[bleedink]

I quite agree that multichannel sound is here to stay, but I believe it will remain a niche product...

 

Until one one invents much better technology to play it back. Much simpler technology. It is simply beyond the average Joe or Jane to setup properly. And doing it properly isn't cheap either - or an experience easily shared or enjoyed with other people. All that needs to change. Until it Ida's simple as setting up a TV, it will never replace the less capable, but far easier to set up stereo system. Not counting those ghastly $129 all in one box things WallMart sells.

 

Video s so integral to that experience that we need to see the next generation of music videos come around before it will happen too. And portables. Already you can tailgate with a tv and DISH service.

 

Very good observation. I've been using a MC system for almost 2 years. It wasn't until say 6 months ago that I really understood how to actually set it up! According to any manual you read for a commercial receiver (which is what consumers buy-you know those non-audiophiles who purchase the majority of music and equipment) you can just put your speakers anywhere in the room, run a set up program with a 50 cent mic, and get great sound! This is just not true. As I stated, real surround is as much about what takes place between any two given speakers (or more!)--not just what comes from the speakers. One thing I think is encouraging is systems like Atmos (I'm not a Dolby fan but hey seems like a good idea), ie an object based systems rather than a speaker based system. The ability to have a true 3d image shouldn't be dependent on the number of speakers, but a function of how many speakers a consumer has and to truly take advantage of those, whether there are 3, 4, 5, or 11.2. And until it trickles down to headphones forget it! Persons of a certain age these days really don't listen to music like some of us. I would think that for an audiophile, surround would be almost a priority. It is the one format that actually forces one to remain in one spot and actually listen actively to the music. This is why I think it fails with young people. They have no interest in that kind of immersion. For example, living in SF I see a lot of concerts. Lately I've been disgusted with the manners of the 'kids' at these things. Nearly everyone under 30 had a cell phone that they were actively communicating on at the expense of the music. I've been to several shows where if you were not sitting next to the speaker you wouldn't be able to hear the concert! It's as if there were no band in front of the audience. The audience seemed to care less. So I would think that unless the sound format is preconditioned to be accessible to ADD damaged brains that it will remain a distinct niche. Off my soapbox now!

[venkey]

Surround makes a big difference in classical. Every concert hall is essentially surround sound. Sometimes, to an extreme. I just attended the Philharmonic 360 performance in the Park Avenue Armory. The audience was in the center surrounded by the orchestras, each with their own conductor.

[bleedink]

Surround makes a big difference in classical. Every concert hall is essentially surround sound. Sometimes, to an extreme. I just attended the Philharmonic 360 performance in the Park Avenue Armory. The audience was in the center surrounded by the orchestras, each with their own conductor.

 

That actually sounds very interesting. Of course, Pink Floyd was doing this 40 years ago with their quad concerts. I am not sure if concerts these days are done that way or not? Anyone know? It seems that irrespective of whether there are actual speakers behind you or not, that the reflections and such off walls etc would be the ambience the rears often carry in conservative surround recordings.

 

One thing that really caught my eye and one that was very telling was a comment by Ted. He has a kick as- DAC and can't configure it to play MC DSD from a computer (if I understood you correctly Ted). Heck, it took me over a year of reading up on various speaker placement schemes until I found one that actually sounded 'right' with the music I was listening to. Most folks will still resort to putting their speakers willy nilly, use the 50 cent mic, and call it a life. Which means their impression of surround won't be very positive. I have a decidedly mid to lo fi set up compared to most here. But when I audition MC material for my guests who've never heard it done (relatively) right--I've never failed to get a look on people's faces of complete amazement. I had a gentleman over to discuss some computer equipment and he'd never heard an SACD before. I love showing off stuff like that so I threw on an Elton John MC. He was stunned. He was like "I've never heard that before" and all that kind of stuff. The stunner? He's in the music business and had never heard an SACD.

This is the kind of thing that not only MC but high res music is up against.

BTW Ted--Love to hear how that DAC sounds whenever you figure out how to make it work-When I come back in another life I'd like to be reincarnated somewhere near your listening room.