Surround Music - Fad or Future.

[crisnee]

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.

 

This reminds me of when I lived in NYC during the quad heyday (more like huh? day really but...). I used to go to Grand Central station regularly to an AR (Acoustic Research) room setup pretty much in the middle of the main huge waiting hall. It was setup solely for quad, and I used to listen in envy, and marvel at the music/sound. Then back to my studio apt. and Lafayette stereo; but really, I even loved that. It was about the music then, and with a short dimwit detour or two interspersed, it still is today, I'm glad to say.

 

I'm also amazed how much of a surround effect you can get with just two speakers when set up properly. Of course you need good imaging speakers and recordings. But the setup is crucial and can be time consuming. You probably can't get real surround sound (like drums behind you), but you certainly can get wall to wall sound and great depth.

 

-Chris

[Sumflow]

Surround seems to be the way of the future ...

I don't even want to hear your stock picks.

 

 

See:Dive Into Media: Neil Young | Videos - AllThingsD

[bleedink]

That was funny.

[Boy Howdy]

It is hard to respond to this poll because the production of multi-channel (similar to the production of 3-D video) is not well-understood across the recording industry - lots of ignorance and disagreement along with lack of standards or enforcement for those standards. So, of what is available, LOTS of it is junk. On the other hand, serious wireless speakers may open the market for multichannel which will lead to greater demand. The CES should learn from the failure of the market for 3-D... Lots of variables...

Mike

[bleedink]

It is hard to respond to this poll because the production of multi-channel (similar to the production of 3-D video) is not well-understood across the recording industry - lots of ignorance and disagreement along with lack of standards or enforcement for those standards. So, of what is available, LOTS of it is junk. On the other hand, serious wireless speakers may open the market for multichannel which will lead to greater demand. The CES should learn from the failure of the market for 3-D... Lots of variables...

Mike

 

Actually, great observation, but the industry has been doing surround since the mid 90s for music with the original DTS CDs. This carried on to the SACD/DVD-A era which was short lived, but thousands and thousands of albums were prepared for the formats and are currently vaulted. The trickles of stereo high res releases we see from HDtracks come from just such vaulted tracks, they've just been released in stereo rather than including a surround version as you would see on discs. While I will say there is a lot of junk out there, there are also some very sublime surround albums around. Folks like Steve Wilson have really shown that the genre has not only legs, but he is very good at producing the 'on stage' surround that takes advantage of all the speakers and doesn't relegate mere ambience to the rears. I think that most of what you see in terms of junk is the stuff that has been done 'in the box' so to speak. IOW they just run a dolby processor on it and call it a day. Not a lot of imagination or creativity. They've had 15 good years or so to get it together and produce high quality surround music (the film industry has been doing it much longer). There just doesn't seem to be the desire to do it right with the exception of a few producers. Add to this the questionable provenance of most of these files (which continues at HDtracks to this day)--given that a great many look and sound upsampled even to the uneducated ear--and you have just the recipe for something that sucks. It's a shame that one has to go to so called 'Audiophile' labels to find music that doesn't give you a headache (not because it sounds bad but because of the production used). Anyway, my rambling point is that they've been working on this stuff for nearly 20 years so they should be at the experiential level where they should be able to make pretty convincing surround albums. The latest Rush, Pink Floyd, etc. and the wide stereo effect are even worse. It's like pseudo surround. Fortunately I have pseudo surround built into my AVR in the form of Dolby! If I want bad surround I can call it forth at will! This actually may be more the reason for lack of surround titles now that I think of it. If you can produce bad surround at home and not have to pay 150-600 dollars for it in a boxed set of obsolete CDs and vinyl eye candy and marbles and scarves, I can see why it hasn't caught on. OTOH, listen to SW's Grace in MC then try to go back to stereo. Whole different animal there.

[Brian A]

I vote “niche market”.

 

Six of us spent last weekend at a friend’s huge cabin/mansion at Lake Tahoe. All the weekend, we listened to Pandora radio blaring from the speakers of their 55” TV. The homeowners could afford anything, yet TV sound was good enough for them. In fact, it seemed to be good enough for all of us as often someone would hear a song that made them feel nostalgic and they would begin singing along. Most times in music, the content trumps the reproduction medium.

 

Surround sound has it’s place, but it doesn’t make you feel like singing along anymore than a TV. My wife and I saw “LOVE” in Las Vegas last month and I pulled myself out of the experience once in a while to admire the technology. Sometimes (for example) Paul would be singing lead from somewhere on stage and John, George and Ringo would sing harmony from speakers in the seats themselves. Likewise, there were ‘butt kicker’ shakers in every seat which made the bass feel big when it was not. It was a powerful experience made better by multi-channel sound, but it was not essential to the music.

 

... and Ray Charles in monaural still knocks my socks off.

[Old Listener]

I commented earlier that I thought portable devices would ensure that the music market remains focused on 2 channel recordings. The consequences are different for gear-heads and music-lovers.

 

- There is a decent chance that if you want some well recorded surround recordings to play on your high quality surround sound gear, you'll be able to find some.

 

- If you identify some music you want to buy and play, most of the time there will not be a surround sound version to purchase.

 

Surround sound will be entertaining for gear-heads but not very useful to music lovers. If you are both, you might be listening to surround sound in gear-head mode and to 2-channel recordings in music lover mode. I'm in music lover mode 99% or more of the time.

 

Another 2 cents worth.

 

Bill

[Kiwi2]

- If you identify some music you want to buy and play, most of the time there will not be a surround sound version to purchase.

 

True. The vast bulk of music available is in 2ch. I love scouring through old CD collections in second-hand shops as one source for my music collection. I'm not going to miss out on any music simply because it isn't available as multichannel.

 

 

 

Surround sound will be entertaining for gear-heads but not very useful to music lovers. If you are both, you might be listening to surround sound in gear-head mode and to 2-channel recordings in music lover mode. I'm in music lover mode 99% or more of the time.

 

But I still prefer listening to *music* in surround sound. The ability to float music in the room detached from the speakers ads to the sense that you are listening to *music* as opposed to listening to a set of speakers, I feel.

 

Hence why I have worked hard on up-sampling 2ch into surround sound. I can buy any music I like and yet still enjoy a surround sound experience at a level I prefer.

[wappinghigh]

Well other than SACD the music listener *still* doesn't have a mainstream way to source, then play this content. There is simply no consumer grade multichannel DAC available. Or online website which sells all the surround tracks available. And given single disc playback (ie CD/SACD) is yesterday's technology and most have moved on to online sourcing then digital streaming, USB playback or playback from an ipod/iphone... what does everyone expect? Surround will not take off until the content and playback becomes as easy to source and play as stereo content. It's as simple as that.

[ted_b]

Surround will not take off until the content and playback becomes as easy to source and play as stereo content. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. When spinning discs were status quo (or state-of-the-art) surround was "as easy to source and play" as stereo and yet surround was one billionth of the market. I think it will remain as such, with slightly higher percentages in this forum. It just requires users to "pay too much attention" and requires decent setups and commensurate investments. When folks see my surround setup they think I'm nuts (not saying they don;t think my 2 channel is nuts, but it's never anywhere close to the same reaction).

[bleedink]

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. When spinning discs were status quo (or state-of-the-art) surround was "as easy to source and play" as stereo and yet surround was one billionth of the market. I think it will remain as such, with slightly higher percentages in this forum. It just requires users to "pay too much attention" and requires decent setups and commensurate investments. When folks see my surround setup they think I'm nuts (not saying they don;t think my 2 channel is nuts, but it's never anywhere close to the same reaction).

 

The commiserate set up factors, extra speakers, the work that entails, may be one barrier. But actually playing surround files shouldn't be an issue unless you are using SACD. FLAC easily scales to the number of channels, word length, sampling rate. Even many players that don't advertise multichannel flac capabilities nonetheless are able to play them. SACDs--you're right whole different animal. But even I can play MC SACDs in PCM. Not ideal. But not exactly impossible either. The other thing that is a barrier at least for audiophiles would be the DAC. Most folks have a preference for what connection they use (spdif/analog) so they may be limited in terms of what their dac will allow them to output. Perhaps if there were more multichannel and/or multi zoned DACs the equation might change. I think once you're equipped with a surround system you tend to seek stuff out to exploit your system. So chicken and egg. I know that 2 channel has never engaged me in the way that an excellently produced MC production can.

[Alice Wonder]

I usually listen to music while doing other things, meaning I'm moving around. Surround sound really doesn't have much of a benefit for that type of listening.

[bleedink]

I usually listen to music while doing other things, meaning I'm moving around. Surround sound really doesn't have much of a benefit for that type of listening.

 

Correct. I would say that is one of the benefits to surround myself. I like it because it forces me to stay put and listen actively to the music. A great mix will generally have enough going on whereby it would be impossible to catch every nuance unless you were to listen critically and actively. This is what I personally love about surround. Unlike headphones or 2 channel, I can't focus on this or that thing in my life. While I only have about an hour a few days a week to listen like that I find it a wonderful experience that cannot be replicated with 2 speakers. The only 2 channel recordings that put me in that same state are extremely rare. The best still require a sweet spot. The best of the best will sound like surround anyway. Hence for you to experience the totality of the musical experience you still have to be in the proper place unless you're wearing headphones. I am not exactly sure that argument is very accurate. Less forgiving? Absolutely. But not really different in terms of needing a particular spot to enjoy the music.

[realhifi]

I usually listen to music while doing other things, meaning I'm moving around. Surround sound really doesn't have much of a benefit for that type of listening.

 

I think it fills a whole room with sound and even when not in the so called "sweet spot" it feels more immersive to me if the recording itself (like Pink Floyds recordings) are high enough quality. IF it is processed from the masters right I think multi channel is fantastic. Trick of course is having the hardware to do something of high enough quality to be superior to a good two channel hifi.

 

PS. I think the link to the interview with Neil Young was a wasted opportunity for him to let people know that high resolution files are not only available NOW but there are a NUMBER of companies that have the hardware to play them NOW. The one gentleman looked incredulous when Neil started to quote 30 min per song for a download, groan. Not a great interview except for the part about Steve Jobs listening to vinyl.

[realhifi]

There is simply no consumer grade multichannel DAC available. Or online website which sells all the surround tracks available. And given single disc playback (ie CD/SACD) is yesterday's technology and most have moved on to online sourcing then digital streaming, USB playback or playback from an ipod/iphone... what does everyone expect? Surround will not take off until the content and playback becomes as easy to source and play as stereo content. QUOTE]

 

Blue Ray. Multi channel, enough room for 7.1 channels of 24/192 sound and EVERYONE seems to have one now. BUT, who buys Blue Ray discs? Movies even. The slow changeover to streaming and buying movies online should see a shift to multi channel music also seeing as you can get a 5.1 soundtrack with a 1080 video experience for $20 from iTunes. You can then play it through your $100 Apple TV into a decent multi channel receiver (or if you like, a hot shot prepro from one of the high end companies, ie. multi channel dac) and voila, there is your Dac, there is your multi channel music, there is your HD based solution.

 

The SOURCE of files seems to be the BIG sticking point in this picture. If we could have someone (iTunes?) please step up and offer things at a somewhat reasonable price then we could see the dam break on this. I'm betting there is a sticking point in the industries need to keep a lid on higher resolution files vis a vis pirating issues.

[monteverdi]

I have been in concerts where multiple ensembles where located not only in front of me like Biber's Missa Salisburgensis in Salzburg with 4 orchestras in 4 wings of the cathedral. But these are very rare exceptions and I think it is difficult enough to generate a good stereo setup optimizing equipment and room acoustics. All the surround systems I have heard where 2 good main speakers and 3(or2) inferior speakers which did not improve the sound relative to a stereo set up. Of course if one is interested to hear the applause of the audience more realistic stereo is not sufficient. One problem is timing both on the recording and reproduction side. At least simple 2 mic stereo recordings get it fairly right. I think soundstage (the ability to locate sound sources in space) is a secondary parameter compared to resolution, dynamics, timbre and timing (but it is more obvious - the reason stereo replaced mono).

[bleedink]

I am not sure the point of surround is to produce something realistic anymore than most music these days is anything like realistic. I realize there are exceptions to this, particularly among audiophiles. Let's stick with Pop/Rock. Nothing remotely realistic about it and it hasn't been that way for 40 or 50 years. Surround is just a widening of that field. I've actually found it to be remarkably forgiving given the huge diversity in set ups that the average consumer might have. I'm lucky to have some good speakers, properly arranged and I've heard so many people describe things I've simply never heard when listening to it on my decidedly consumer system. I've got a better than average system but compared to a few folks on here I might as well have went to K-Mart! But seriously, even SACDs played natively without the delays and such still convey the sound field extremely well, pans are well-defined and geometric, perhaps to the credit of the producer? My not so great system? I'm deaf? Just saying that there is a lot more to surround than putting some hand claps in the rears. Many have made it an artform in and of itself. Steve Wilson is exemplary in terms of understanding that the number of speakers merely increases the possibilities. It's not anymore or less real than anything in stereo. I mean when you hear the guitar or synths going wildly from speaker to speaker in stereo surely we know the guy playing that instrument isn't actually running back and forth right? Sorry I've just never understood the argument that surround is somehow less realistic than 2 channel when 2 channel isn't at all realistic to begin with. At least modern recordings produced during my lifetime and Im mid aged. Back in Sgt Pepper The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn't produce the experience in 'real life' at the time! I applaud the experimentation folks like The Flaming Lips and others have done to show the artistic possibilities of this form of expression. Stereo harkens back to a day when performers were always in front of us, halls were arranged in a certain way to reflect this. Today that's not always the case. Pink Floyd's been doing it for years. Roger Waters is doing very well these days with his show. I can assure you it isn't in stereo. Often the entire show is best enjoyed in ones own home. Even the Stones have some lovely surround material from their old live shows. Mostly ambience but you get the feeling you are there sonically. Just my opinion--not an attack. I think today we can experience a wider variety of things that were not possible just a few years ago in a way that simply awes most listeners. Shoot the new Lynyrd Skynyrd thing sounds awesome using a DTS codec from 10 or 15 years ago! The ladies singing backup were never more there than they are here. I grew up listening to this because of where I grew up. I've listened to it my whole life and I can't discern any timing issues--it sounds like a wider stereo with some neat things in there as well I've never heard.

[realhifi]

I agree 100%.

[mav52]

in 2010 over 350 million Blueray discs were sold worldwide

 

The new Home Media Magazine article indicates that, "BD disc sales in the United States will reach about 115 million units in 2011, compared with 85 million units in 2010 — spearheaded by the Star Wars: The Complete Saga boxed set release, Jim Bottoms, analyst with Futuresource in London, told Home Media Magazine.

 

In Europe, BD disc sales will balloon 42% to 63 million units, compared with 44 million units last year — driven by strong adoption in Germany. Global BD disc sales will increase to 234 million units, up 45% from 161 million units in 2010

 

In another article: Blu-ray grows, but DVD sales slide which noted ;

The number of U.S. homes with Blu-ray players grew to 40 million, 38% higher than in 2010.

 

 

I say Blue ray is here to stay for the masses which appear to greatly outnumber those in computer audiophile (hi-res), which pretty much indicates to me people seem to like the 5.1, 7.1 or even 9.1 sound better than 2.0 or 2.1. I still like my 2.0 and 2.1 sound, but watching a ,movie on my 70" with mulit-chl amp power and a processor to drive a 7.1 speaker system with room treatments is really nice.

[ted_b]

I say Blue ray is here to stay for the masses which appear to greatly outnumber those in computer audiophile (hi-res), which pretty much indicates to me people seem to like the 5.1, 7.1 or even 9.1 sound better than 2.0 or 2.1.

 

Wish I could concur, but I don't. I don't think BluRay disc sales has ANYTHING to do with 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 sound at all...at least for the masses (your numbers). Hidef has caught on and folks are willing to buy or rent their next movie in bluray due to the better picture. Most watch using tv sound or HTIB's at best.

[mav52]

Wish I could concur, but I don't. I don't think BluRay disc sales has ANYTHING to do with 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 sound at all...at least for the masses (your numbers). Hidef has caught on and folks are willing to buy or rent their next movie in bluray due to the better picture. Most watch using tv sound or HTIB's at best.

 

well until I see some facts that dispute the sales figures of blueray players and disc's I will hang onto my position. I do agree that a lot of people are enjoying the Hi-def channels but BlueRay and HD-TV still depends on the quality of HDTV

[bleedink]

Wish I could concur, but I don't. I don't think BluRay disc sales has ANYTHING to do with 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 sound at all...at least for the masses (your numbers). Hidef has caught on and folks are willing to buy or rent their next movie in bluray due to the better picture. Most watch using tv sound or HTIB's at best.

 

Gotta agree with you there Ted. If it had something to do with audio...well, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would exist. In my own humble experience, I've seen some very nice home theaters. Most however, are still being listened to through TV speakers or as Ted said HTIBs. Those folks who enjoy concert recordings might understand the audio component but for most people the audio part of the blu ray is completely beside the point. They get the picture quality though.

[ted_b]

well until I see some facts that dispute the sales figures of blueray players and disc's I will hang onto my position. I do agree that a lot of people are enjoying the Hi-def channels but BlueRay and HD-TV still depends on the quality of HDTV

 

You misunderstood my pushback. I don't dispute the player or disc sales figures you presented; I dispute the reasoning being anything audio-related.

[mav52]

You misunderstood my pushback. I don't dispute the player or disc sales figures you presented; I dispute the reasoning being anything audio-related.

 

Understand I see where your coming from.

[cgregory4]

I usually listen to music while doing other things, meaning I'm moving around. Surround sound really doesn't have much of a benefit for that type of listening.

 

I have a somewhat different 'slant' on this. My actual experience with this, took me on a trip (think 60s ;?) where I 'never left the farm.

 

1) Updated 'main' system recently. A guy should do this every twenty years, or so. ;?) Sitting in the 'sweet spot', with beter sources and better equipment: Wow, sound is awesome, and immersing! Oppo CD direct through pre/pro to Classe' power.

 

2) Pre/pro has a '5 channel stereo' mode. Tried it once, and was amazed! I could move around, in, and through the large listening area, and still hear a 'good sound'. So, in my case, I discovered a 2 >>> 'multi' conversion assisted in enjoyment of the music while 'doing other things'.

 

3) I am so 'smitten' with this 'effect' that I'm trying to buy a Proceed Madrigal AVP to go between my Berkeley Alpha USB and the Classe' in my 'man cave' where my computer audio 'junk' resides. I think it will be interesting to see what I can 'coax' out of 4 Nola Boxers and the REL sub, for times when I'm just filing, copying, writing, wasting time, in my 'so called' office. ;?)

 

4) I had 'written off' surround after listening some older DVD-A material. Then someone -- Steely Dan? -- made a 'from-the-start' surround recording. Ie, a 'proper' recording: complete with microphone placement and engineering by some folks who obviously knew their 'stuff'. Once again -- blown away! (Sitting at my 'sweet spot'.)

 

Makes me wonder what can be done ...........