Alright, Defend Multi-Channel Music for Me (1 Viewer)

[Jeff D.]

Quote:

Damn! Too good to be true! I do indeed have a DVD-Audio player, not SACD. I've thought about also getting an SACD player, but haven't seen enough to convince me. My DVD-A player (Panny RP91) was not purchased for this ability, so it simply comes by way of coincidence.
/Jeff

 

[Jeff D.]

Actually, it seems the crux of the argument is what we expect from the music listening experience. Obviously my views have been clear - I'm looking for recreation of the live event in most cases.

But I'm not blind to the fact that there are other methods of presentation. How do we all feel about this? Which way would we prefer to hear our music? Should it be a 'you are there' thing, or should it be more immersive - transporting you to a different place, as it were.

/Jeff

 

[Michael Lee]

When we go to a concert, be it a large stadium show or an intimate acoustic evening, how often do we find ourselves sitting in the middle of the band with everyone playing around us?

The thing that I think about this statement is, "Where would I want to be sitting if I had the choice?" Having been involved in music by playing an instrument, I much prefer to be a part of the band than being in the 305th row in a football stadium. A front soundstage was a limitation that I dealt with, not a choice. With that said, I think what makes a 5.1 mix good or not is the guy who remixed it. I tend to trust Mickey Hart in his supervision of the 2 Dead DVD-A's.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Should it be a 'you are there' thing, or should it be more immersive - transporting you to a different place, as it were.

Seems to me the way we have it now is fine- we get both. All multi-channel DVD-As and SACDs, if I'm not mistaken, have a stereo track.

Frankly, if you already have the capability to play DVD-As, I don't see why you don't just give it a shot. I'm sure you can find some recommendations (I've heard the Metallica, Queen, and Eagles discs are very good). You can always return the disc.

This all begs the question: why did you buy a DVD-A player if you're not interested in multi-channel? Did you just happen to get a really good deal on the player or something?

You mentioned the ability of stereo to create "holographic" images. If you're interested in SACD, that technology helps with that beautifully. Most of my SACDs are classical, and the orchestras just sound amazing. I'm washed over with a rush of sound, and all the mixes are stereo. I still can't get over how amazing my new Rachmaninoff disc sounds.

However, I'm a little pissed that I never see classical SACDs without a multi-channel track. On the bright side, some of Lee Scoggins' posts have been hinting at them moving in this direction (crosses fingers).

NP: Frank Zappa, Civilisation Phase III, CD

 

[Philip Hamm]

Seems to me the way we have it now is fine- we get both. All multi-channel DVD-As and SACDs, if I'm not mistaken, have a stereo track.

You're mistaken. Some DVD-As like Barenaked Ladies "Maroon" have no stereo track and no downconversion ability. :frowning:
NP: Midnight Oil: Redneck Wonderland

 

[Jeff D.]

This all begs the question: why did you buy a DVD-A player if you're not interested in multi-channel?

As I have said before, my DVD-Audio player is my Panasonic RP91 DVD player. It was not purchased for its DVD-Audio capabilities.

/Jeff

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

The best stuff in multichannel has yet to come. Just listen to some early stereo records to hear how gimmicky they were.

New tools and techniques take time to master. Recording good stereo is hard enough, so I could just imaging what the recording and mixing engineers must be going through to get non-gimmicky sounding mixes.

Who here has tried mixing to multichannel or to stereo?

-JNS

NP: Some "Bloody Well Right" song on the Classic Rock radio.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Some pros about multi-channel music
1) Improved bandwidth
Some things to ponder.....
1) It can sound good, but never has (the Eagles disc that is so highly regarded is laughable, especially when watching the video with it)
2) If you were really "in the band" (I was) you would hear very loud drums, and really loud, distorted guitars with very crappy sounding vocals. There would also be sounds coming from the front of you at your feet (floor monitors). The sound from on the stage is terrible, why try to reproduce that? An orchestra would be worse yet.
3) The brass section in a jazz band does not belong on my right shoulder
4) (VERY IMPORTANT and always overlooked) The size and design of most 5.1 audio system speakers (center and surrounds) are ill suited for accurate music reproduction. How many of you have identical speakers all around? The poor sax player in the right rear has his solo sound like a portable radio because he gets heard through a tiny surround speaker.
5) Perfectly balanced instruments from all around you is anything but "sonic realism"
6) John K is right. There is no objective reality in a studio recording of any kind. If that is what you want, lkisten to one instrument at a time, that is how it was recorded. However....each instrument would be in front of you unless you were the studio janitor.
7) 2 channel is a limitation only if you have improperly set up or sub-standard equipment. Id put my 2 channel rig up against any multi channel one you can bring on.
8) Music (two channel or multi channel) need not represent a live event.
9)If all you want is ambience in the rear, two channel will give it to you.

Here is what you can achieve with two speakers. Depth, height, width and even ambience behind you. Notice the instruments and vocalist placed properly in their space. Especially the vertical aspect. Instruments are placed at the height they would be. The trumpet is at mouth level and the guitar (yes I know it is an electric one and the sound doesnt come from its physical position) is placed at the waist. The singer in in front of the speakers and the drums are behind them. When you throw in a center channel, you lose all of this (in EVERY multi-channel recording I have heard).
All that being said....listen to what you enjoy!
Mike

 

[Philip Hamm]

When you throw in a center channel, you lose all of this (in EVERY multi-channel recording I have heard).

You haven't heard many multichannel recordings have you? At least maybe you haven't heard them with three identical speakers for the front soundfield.
I enjoy both multichannel and stereo music.
NP: U2: Elevation 2001 Live from Boston (CD I made from of the DVD stereo track)

 

[John Kotches]

Mike,
We will simply have to disagree.
The traditional perspective is all well and good, and has what, about 50 years of practice behind it?
Multi-channel music mixing (5.1) has about 10 years in this iteration, and likely less for Quad.
Also, the original intent for stereo was to use 3 speakers Left/Center/Right, but 3 channels wasn't possible to cut in an LP, so they compromised and went with two. Key statement there -- and it indicates that stereo was compromised to begin with, but I digress.
Your argument about specific mixes is noted, but this is a subjective point of view, and for 99+% of all recordings (as I pointed out earlier) the stereo presentation is no more (and no less) valid than any other presentation.
I spent a lot of time in band Mike, and I agree that you didn't get the benefit of a mixdown, so it wasn't perfect. The goal is to give you that perspective -- which some recordings do quite well.
I don't have the drawing skills the Knappster has, but even very well executed stereo cannot project into an entire 360 degree soundfield. I don't have a compass, but I'd bet you there's less than 120 degrees in Mikes image. Since I have 240 degrees of space left that I can perceive, why not use it?
Surround music has been around for ages, witness the use of auxiliary choirs, instruments etc, which were a form of surround sound. Choir lofts in churches are often behind the congregation.
There is no right or wrong here, it's all about our individual preferences.
Regards,

 

[Mike Knapp]

John, Consider yourself invited down to Florida. I will fill that 240 degrees behind you with ambience and only use two speakers to do it with. I'll buy the steaks as well!
No one seems to have mentioned that ambience comes from the room, not a speaker. Try having a trumpet played in front of you and listen to the room. There are no speakers putting the reflections behind you, there is only the room.
Playing a trumpet through a speaker in a properly set up two channel system will give you the same room ambience that the live trumpet did without the need for rear speakers. Using rear speakers to provide ambience is a crutch for a poor room. Thats OK, but lets just admit that is what it is.
In the case of "tricky mixes", Phillip is correct, if thats what the artist wanted you to hear then thats what you should hear. I happen to think it sounds hokey, even when Don Fagan does it. .
To each their own but keep in mind, almost all the people getting into 5.1 channel audio are doing so utilizing their current HT systems and the speakers are ill suited for the use. If you are serious about 5.1 music you need to make sure those speakers are the same all around.
Mike

 

[Jeff D.]

Mike;
Thanks for chiming in, and thanks for the graphic. That was the one I was referring to!

the Eagles disc that is so highly regarded is laughable

Thank heavens. I was hoping I wasn't the only one.
/Jeff

 

[Jeff Keene]

I think it all comes down to OAR = Artist's Intent (TM).

I don't buy the "A concert is in front so that's reality and that's the way it is" theory for even a second. The only reason concerts were set up this way in the beginning and thus we do so now for tradition's sake is that logistically there are only so many options for a large group of people to be a present audience for a relatively small group of musicians. There is NOTHING intrinsically, musically CORRECT or INCORRECT about this set up.

That said, the composers and conductor's that created the majority of our music DID write and arrange with the traditional orchestral presentation in mind. So this music should be presented with the integrity of this presentation intact.

Does this mean 2-ch? Nope. It means the orchestra is in front of you, with the audience and acoustical reflections of the venue coming from the rear or even the sides. This is over simplifying, but the point is that the concert contributors (venue included) should be presented in their respective space. This simply cannot be achieved in 2-ch. No matter how "deep your soundstage" is, you won't feel the correct sounds behind you.

Mike says that your room will provide the reflections. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but who in the world would want that? Do I want to feel like I'm in my compromised, tiny podunk basement ("wow it felt like I was really in a cement dungeon!"). Not likely. I want to hear the reflections of a properly engineered hall meant for concerts!

But I agree that having the instruments surround me in a recording of a traditional concert doesn't make sense.

And I agree that with older albums that we know and love we should ALWAYS be given the choice to listen in stereo. Again, OAR.

BUT... with new album's, such as Bjork's Vespertine, when the artist is directly involved in creating a surround-sound experience on purpose, with a studio-produced work MEANT to surround the listener, this is just as correct. Who's to say that the 2-ch CD of this album isn't a down-mix of what was originally intended?

If a pianist fell in love with the instrument by lying underneath it when she was five-years old, and wants to use multi-channel to attempt to show us how she felt, and David Chesky helps her by recording a 5-ch mix with the intent of placing 4 speakers on the damn ceiling and a single channel in the back of the room portraying her father washing the dishes, then listening to this album in 2-ch in front of you is just plain wrong.

My 2 cents.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Do I want to feel like I'm in my compromised, tiny podunk basement ("wow it felt like I was really in a cement dungeon!"). Not likely. I want to hear the reflections of a properly engineered hall meant for concerts!

There are two schools of thought here. One is to take the user to the performance (artificial location ambience or added ambience from the actual location) and the other is to bring the performance to the user (allowing the users room to create most of the room ambience).
Question,
How likely is it that any multi channel mix will make you think you have been transported from your "podunk basement" to the Vienna symphony hall? One look around and you will have no doubt of your surroundings.
Also, as I said, music does not need to represent a live performance or a venue of any kind. Let your room be the venue.
Even if you do find a multi channel mix that sounds like the Vienna hall, it is still being reproduced in podunk! So what you have is a symphony hall reduced in size and placed into a basement. The basement walls will inter-mingle in the hall mix and you will have an accurate representation of neither. You will have a sort of "music bastard child".
Your room is your room. Live with it and make it work for you. Dont try to trick it with tom foolery.
But whatever you do, enjoy the music!
Mike

 

[Jeff Keene]

I'll admit that my knowledge of the "take the user to the performance" school of thought is largely a theoretical one, since I myself don't yet have many of these recordings. But in theory, I like it. I do firmly believe that the venue is an integral part of the package, and if multichannel can be used to bring me even a baby-step closer to that venue (even if I have to close my eyes), I'm for it.

 

[Philip Hamm]

What Mike said.

Whether or not the ambience of the hall used while recording is included in the mix, you'll always have your own room interaction.

And I just want to add that a stereo mix very well can include the acoustic signature of the room it was recorded in. I have a LaserDisc of Mozart's Symphonies 39-40-41 performed in a concert hall (EDIT: It's conducted by Harnencourt who's just as interesting to watch as he is to listen to) where the particular signature of the room is unmistakable and very enveloping. One of my favorite music LaserDiscs actually, and one of the most real sounding and enveloping 3D stereo experiences I have heard.

 

[John Kotches]

Mike,
Weirdly enough, what's the first form of room treatments espoused? Well I'll be, it's to treat all primary reflection points in the room... floor, ceiling, all walls. Cancel that first reflection so that what you hear is less of your room. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about a stereo or multi-channel environment. Come to think of it, that's the goal of most room treatments, minimize the signature of the room.
Playing back a trumpet recording cannot give you the same ambience the live one did, unless you are literally in the same room, with all else being equal -- In other words, you are chasing after an ideal which can never be obtained.
A stereo recording cannot as convincingly portray an acoustic environment as Chesky Records' Bucky Pizzarelli Swing Live does in 6.0, nor can it as convincingly reproduce the conductor's position recording that Mark Waldrep's AIX Records did on their New Jersey Symphony Orchestra Beethoven's 6th Sympohony / Respighi's Pines of Rome in 5.1
Just because I prefer multi-channel mixes doesn't mean I don't enjoy stereo. I still enjoy stereo immensely -- but if MC is available I usually prefer that presentation.
Oh -- on the invitation.. my parents live in Orlando and one of my trips down there I want to swing by and meet you and Max anyway. So the next time I no I'll be down there, I'll let you guys know and make that horrible drive
This is a great exchange of points of view for others to consider, and I for one sincerely appreciate reading them all, especially the ones that don't agree with me
Regards,

 

[Mike Knapp]

A trumpet, recorded in a studio most likely will not have any "room" in it. Studios are mostly dead unless the artists specify something else.

So....playing a standard studio recording of a trumpet will indeed sound close (depending on your playback equipment) to a live trumpet in your room. If it is a "live" recording (one that includes the room sound *) then the trumpet will not sound close to realistic unless the room you are using is "flat" like the mixing studio.

You are more likely to find a studio "flat" recording than you are to have a "flat" room.

Anyway...I dont have anything against multi-channel technology. I just think that presently, the mixes suck eggs.(and I have heard quite a few)

Is anyone learning anything from all this banter between the camps? If not I will shut up.

Mike

* There are several different types of "live" recordings. Some use very few mics in the room to reproduce the atmosphere and the music (Chesky is a good example of this type) and some use a giant mixing board and many many mics directly on the instruments during a concert to capture the performance on tape and then work on "mixing" it later in a studio. There is also a method that is a live performance in a recording studio.

Most people dont realize that in modern recordings the musicians are seldom in the building together and that the songs are recorded one or two instruments at a time.

 

[Daryl Furkalo]

Jeff,

Recordings I would recommend would be The Eagles: Hotel California, Clapton: Reptile, and Metallica: Black if you are a Metallica fan. I have an RP-91 and very much enjoy the DVD-A multichannel experience, but I am not as hardcore about 2-channel music in general.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I also don't like having an instrument in each speaker. It is as gimmicky as the early days of stereo. They need to learn not to throw stuff to the rear channels just because they are there.

But we've got people like Elliot Scheiner who mixed Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, and Hell Freezes Over. I remember an article in Surround Magazine where he said it's his intention to make every 5.1 mix "blow your mind". He thinks that's what you demand. You've got 6 speakers and he believes if he doesn't do things completely different from stereo then you're going to take the disc back to the store for a refund. Do you want every 5.1 mix to blow your mind? I don't. I just want to enjoy the music. With a good stereo mix I'm listening to the music, not the mix. That's how a 5.1 mix should be.

If the music is going to surround me then it has to feel as "natural" as stereo. If you wouldn't shift a guitar from left to right and back to left in a stereo mix, then you shouldn't circle pan that guitar all around me in the 5.1 mix. If you wouldn't put an instrument only in the left channel of a stereo mix, then you shouldn't park it in the back left corner of a 5.1 mix.

Otherwise, just give me a concert hall mix.