To Surround Or Not To Surround.

[moviebuff2]

That is my question!

Hi everyone:

For movies, surround sound is THE CHOICE, THE ONLY CHOICE. I can hardly imagine Star Wars spaceships flying in simple stereo alone.

But for music? A friend of mine demonstrated to me his surround system in his new car. Frankly, I found it very weird to listen to plain music in surround mode like that.

IMO, surround sound aims to add reality to what one is watching. A spaceship flying over one's head, bullets flying across the screen, etc. Whereas, with plain music, the musician(s) is (are)always in front of you. He/she/they will not dance around you while performing a musical piece. :P So, what reality does surround sound hope to recreate with plain music?

Please let me know what you think.

[dvdguy4]

To me music really wasnt meant to be in surround unless its a movie soundtrack. I cant watch a movie without it being in 5.1 surround. Your friend must have a THX certified radio in his car cause its the only one that I know of that has surround sound.

[träskmannen]

For me it is simple: if the artist recorded the music in stereo, it should be enjoyed by playing it in stereo. Artificial surround created afterwards may be fascinating and may give interesting possibilities but to me it is to deviate from the original intent of the artist and to warp his/her work. If, on the other hand, the music has been created for surround sound it should preferrably be played back that way.

[guns1inger]

Most music is mastered to be stereo, and does sound better that way. That said, quadrophic recordings, such as Dark Side of the Moon do deserve to be released as surround tracks, as they were mastered for 4 channel output. I also think there is a place for multi-channel recordings of some classical orchestral work, as there is enough in the sound field to get a good spread and feel.

I did start to play around with the V.I plugins to create a 5.1 mix of The Wall. Some tracks came out pretty well, for others, not so much.

[cowgoo]

I've played around with music cds on my home surround, and the only cds that sounded decent were mid career Pink Floyd (ie. Meddle, Dark Side, Animals). This was when they were experimenting with quadrophonic sound, so you can hear faintly what they were trying to do but were limited with the technology from back then.

[greymalkin]

there is actually an SACD release of Dark Side Of The Moon that is in full hi-res surround glory.

.http://entertainment.circuitcity.com/Music/Album.aspx?a_id=R+++638258&p_id=P++++76669&...6SACD#sublinks

yes, usually stretching a stereo source to surround sounds funny, but music that was mixed in surround sounds quite nice. Sometimes the rear speakers are just used for ambience, and other times they pull obscure instruments out so that they are more defined. For instance on the DVD-Audio release of metallica's "black" album there is an orchestra peice in "nothing else matters" that was almost completely drowned out in the stereo mix. With the surround mix, it swells and plays in the back speakers. It definitely widens the field for the instruments. I've got a few surround albums on dvd-audio/sacd and I do enjoy them alot.

So it's possible he has a dvd-audio or SACD setup in his car..i've heard of some cars that have those players in them.

[moviebuff2]

My friend has an Accura. His audio system (CD/DVD player & speakers) was designed for stereo and surround sound. The manufacturer gave him an audio CD recorded in surround mode. When he played it for me to listen, the bongo sound moved around the car. It just sounded weird to me.

Naturally, I did not say anything to my friend except some white lies like "interesting" and "wow!". :P

[DereX888]

99.99% of music out there was mixed in a studio with plain stereo in mind, no surround or any other spatializing effects.
I.e. very few old albums were quadrophonic (those would be great to 'transfer' them into AC3 or DTS), and lately only some film music should be listened in any kind of multidirectional audio setup, DSoTM being great example.

[Cornucopia]

...Whereas, with plain music, the musician(s) is (are)always in front of you. He/she/they will not dance around you while performing a musical piece. :P So, what reality does surround sound hope to recreate with plain music?

Please let me know what you think.

Having witnessed live concerts where the guitarist falls into the audience and lays flat, getting passed around by the audience, all the while playing his solo...

or

Having recorded an Accordian ensemble-in-the-round from the vantage point of the very center (in Binaural, no less),

I can assure you that you can't pidgeonhole music into "just sit on stage" forms. There is a place for surround in music, even if it's an assistant role of ambience/openness.

And if you ever check out some of the Quad sites on the internet, you'll find that there are MANY quad discs that have been transferred to surround (some professionally, some not).
Surround isn't great for everything, but it can be beneficial for lots of styles.

Years ago, I rewired my car speakers to use a Hafler-type circuit (switch defeatable), which is a 3rd channel "L-R" stereo enhancement effect, and it greatly improved MANY (though not all) types of music.
I have a similar Polk-SDA-style setup at home, which now has been incorporated into my new Surround setup--giving a sweet 9.1 speaker arrangement. This works great for movies AND for music--although I change the Surround Program Mode often, depending on the title. It doesn't always have to be In-Your-Face (or At-The-Back-Of-Your-Head as the case may be) or Ping-Pong bongos for it to be "surround".

Scott

[JimJohnD]

I’m working with a local musician (Johnathon Peeler) to mix his next CD as stereo but also have a DVD with stereo and 5.1. He provides me with individual instrument tracks from his Fostex VF160ex and I mix with Acid Pro for 5.1 output. We have one video done and are in the location scouting for the next. But as far as what having music in 5.1 gives you is the ability to move the listener onto the virtual stage. This gives more of an impression of a “jam session” than the traditional album (stage front) kind of sound. This has been a real learning experience for both of us. For as easy as it is for us as “independents” I can only foresee more “big bands” having 5.1 versions available soon.

[stevethomson]

This topic is like so many things, subject to personal preference, beliefs, etc., so really there are no absolute rights and wrongs.

Like Cornucopia, I also wired my car with a Hafler circuit "back in the day." I also had another pair of speakers with a Radio Shack potentiometers set up for pseudo-surround at home after first seeing the circuit in an old 70's electronic projects magazine. I was amazed at how it led me to discover hidden, buried aspects of the music and also how it brought some recordings to life (not all of course). The trick was always to get the level right. As the articles suggested, adjust the level of the surround until it becomes apparent and then back off slightly. It should reinforce the front instead of compete with it.

To some, the very notion of "surround sound" means distinct sounds originating in all the speakers, and anything else is simply a waste of time. I've seen some attempts at stereo to surround conversion that massacred the original performance just for the sake of separating all the sounds and then distributing them to separate speakers. Others seem to think surrounds are just for ambience when it comes to music. Crank the reverb and away you go!

For me, a good surround sound rendering of music gives it a sense of depth (I would write "three dimensional" but to be accurate, that would have to include height). I know stereo can give this to an extent when properly recorded, but with the right settings and setup, surround can give so much more.

When I was developing the V.I plugin a couple of years ago, one thing I added right off the bat was an on/off switch so that when one is monitoring the effect, it's possible to A-B compare it to the stereo source. I didn't want the original stereo soundstage mangled but I also wanted to be able to adjust the levels much like that old Hafler circuit, so that the surrounds reinforce the fronts and create a unified sense of space. I discovered that some recordings with, for example, acoustic guitar ended up sounding like the guitarist was sitting in front of me playing, or recordings with a set of drums sounded like the drums were right in front of me live instead of flat and just part of a mix. Basically, it sounded like the difference one gets when switching between mono and stereo. I've also described it as sounding like one is listening to music coming through the doorway from another room (stereo) and then walking into the other room (surround). It's not a matter of having the instruments or vocals surrounding me, nor is it everything at the front with a bunch of reverb in the back. Rather, it's a sense of realism as if I can sense the space in the room, or the "transparency" between instruments.

Once I get those levels (and no mind altering substances are involved , switching back to plain old stereo is like hitting the mono switch. Yeeuch! (I know, I know... there are those who prefer mono. I had enough AM radio as a kid!).

Regards,
Steve.

[Kurt S]

Remeber when samplers really took off in the 80's and musicians abused the crap out of them? This is my analogy to surround mixes. If done tastefully and properly, surround can add a depth to the music you just can't achieve with two channel stereo. When done poorly and over abused, it will sound bad. Instruments are not supposed to wander around the room but if you mix the right amount of delay and reverb in the rear channels along with the rythm section or other less pronounced instruments such as a droning synthesizer, it sounds fantastic. The main instruments should never be put in th rear channels either. This is where a great engineer and a so so engineer can really be put to the test. Listen to Alan Parsons On Air 5.1 mix. After hearing the 5.1 mix, I can't stand to listen to the stereo mix. Alternitively, listen to Metallica's 5.1 mix. It sounds like utter garbage. Some crappy engineer just put different instruments in various channels and cranked up the muddy-as-hell bass in the subwoffer LFE channel. There was zero thought to the sound stage and it really shows.

[SingSing]

Years ago, I rewired my car speakers to use a Hafler-type circuit (switch defeatable), which is a 3rd channel "L-R" stereo enhancement effect, and it greatly improved MANY (though not all) types of music.

[greymalkin]

transparency/imaging is what we're looking for in a surround mix. it seems to be alot harder to accomplish this with heavily compressed rock albums. I don't hear any "garbage" though. I'm sure you're an audio engineer though and have mixed many big name albums.

[moviebuff2]

Instruments are not supposed to wander around the room....

psst...They are if the performer was Victor Borge :P

Anyway, thank you very much for a very insightful discussion. Though I still feel some reserve towards "surround music", many of you, especially Cornucopia & stevethomson, have helped me open my eyes (and ears).

Have a good weekend.