Philips says 20 million Sack-Dees sold (1 Viewer)

[Phil A]

Lee on this we could not agree more. There are some very good multi-channel mixes. On something like DSOTM or Avalon, given the type of music, I can live with what is done in the rears and enjoy. A few good multi-channel mixes (there are more) off the top of my head:

Greta Matassa "Live at Tula's"
Either of the Alison Krauss MC albums
Kind of Blue
Many classical releaase such as those by the San Francsico Symphony (Mahler's 1st and 6th., Zuben Mehta's Mahler's 2nd on DVD-A and the Telarcs I have

 

[Chu Gai]

I think you're right about trying to do 5.1 out of something that was never mic'd and recorded as such. There's some pretty active research being done on how to properly do this (new recordings) so that a person can have the ability to walk about a bit rather than be constrained to a small spot. I'd imagine there's a lot of 5.1 setups out there and a lot of people would benefit let alone drive the business when consistently competent MC recordings come out.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Yes, I believe AT&T is involved on the research end.

 

[LanceJ]

Enjoying music--or art since these terms are almost interchangeable--for many people has nothing to do with "realism". What's truly important to some is being moved emotionally by certain sounds and words and this can occur whether being heard though a pair of $20K Dynaudios OR a $10 AM radio. And to be surrounded by the music one loves makes that emotional connection that much more complete.

Sure some mixes stink but that's because today's generation of musicians & engineers are still learning, but many mixes DO sound incredible already so I'm not worried about surround's future.

LJ

 

[Rachael B]

I'd suggest that listeners are stille trying to sort out what they like or expect of M/C music as much as the engineers and mixers are trying to decide what to produce. For me, for most recordings, I like what I've come to call aggressive ambience. By this I mean that surrounds can be barely noticed some but there are almost never any guitars, saxophones, or other lead type instruments jumping out of them. I don't want stuff PUT into the surrounds just to prove that they can or that they're there.

I proably have 50-100 M/C equiped SACD's that I've only listened to in stereo so far. Why? Because I'm afraid it'll be a waste of time to try that option and because they're competing for theatre time against DVD's, LD's, and D-VHS'es. I have heard the M/C mix of every DVD-A that I have, that has one.

I've heard stereo that was so gimmicky that it didn't sound natural but that has been, indeed, rare over the years. It's far too common with today's M/C recordings. Of the ones I've listened to, which must be atleast 200, my quesstimate is well over 50% lacked realism. I don't mind if highly manufactured pop or rock lack realism, they lack it in stereo too in the ultimate sense.

Aggressive ambience and stereo both work for me.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I totally agree and I find that hearing more of what's on the tape helps get me there.

 

[Chu Gai]

Like when someone says...'You have the right to remain silent', or 'Tell your wife I'm pregnant', or...

 

[gene c]

Chu, he said "moved emotionally" not "thrown into shock!" Anyway, I've had as much fun listening to AM radio in my '63 Mercury as I have listening to $$$ systems in the house. The important thing is to get the most out of what you have. Music affects several parts of the brain at the same time. Lyrics provoke thought, music-emotion, 5.1 makes it sound like I have 5 ears (I look funny anyway so what's the difference!). I understand what you are saying, but competent to who? They can butcher a stereo re-mix as well (a song by the Police comes to mind), so 5.1 gives them 2 1/2 times the opportunity to screw it up. If they do it to please me, you might not like it. Some like passive, some like aggressive, most others somewhere in the middle. It must be tough trying to please everyone. I only hope they keep trying.