Multichannel Mixes and Surround Sound

[GMav]

Could someone please explain to me the big deal about multichannel mixes and surround sound. What is so great about them?

[Grant]

Hi Greg! I thought that was you from the ICE forum.

I don't think it's so much that people like to be enveloped in sound or have realistic ambience, I think the AVERAGE person just wants that "gee-whiz" and "oh cool!" effect of different sounds coming from different places. The less realistic, the funner! Yeah, FUNNER!

Remember, the average or casual consumer doesn't think like an audiophile. Audiophiles are probably like less than 1% of the population.

[MikeT]

Originally posted by GregMav
Could someone please explain to me the big deal about multichannel mixes and surround sound. What is so great about them?

It's all a matter of opinion, taste and the quality of the surround mix. I don't think it can be "explained" to you. You either like them or you don't.

I for one love surround sound and own many DVD-Audio and MCH SACD discs. I view the surround sound mix as just another experience in life - one that complements the original stereo mix and does not replace it.

For instance, I am a big Grateful Dead fan, and the new Dead DVD-Audio discs are phenomenal. I love listening to the surround mixes of "American Beauty" and "Workingman's Dead" - yet I wouldn't give up the original stereo mixes for anything.

I always say that the surround sound mix of an album is like a roller coaster ride. Some people love the thrill and excitement of the ride, others won't go near one with a "10 foot pole". It is all a matter of opinion.

I would hate to see surround sound replace 2-channel stereo mixes. But I guess anything is possible. Does anyone really ever record in mono anymore. Yet this was probably how people felt about stereo when it was introduced and mono was the norm.

So, relax, if you don't like surround sound music - be glad that for all recorded formats - the stereo mix still exists (at least 90% of the time with DVD-Audio).

As they say - "One man's meat is another man's poison".

Enjoy. :)

[guy incognito]

I think older recordings should be left in whatever mixes the artists and/or producers signed off on "back in the day". Something like the multichannel remix of Miles Davis's Kind of Blue may be sonically impressive (I wouldn't know, I haven't heard the SACD version), but to my way of thinking it's too close to historical revisionism.

As for newer material that's recorded with multichannel expressly in mind, I don't mind the idea in principle but like Grant I think there might be too much temptation to go for the showy, "gee-whiz" effect rather than using the surround channels sparingly and tastefully. On the other hand, there might be some types of music--electronica, for instance--in which a more "far out" surround effect might work very well. So I guess it would all depend on the genre and character of the music itself.

And I would hope, of course, that any multichannel SACD or DVD-A that's released in the future also includes a standard two-track mix in the program for those who don't wish to explore the Brave New World (or lack the hardware to do so).

[JohnnyK]

Originally posted by guy incognito
I think older recordings should be left in whatever mixes the artists and/or producers signed off on "back in the day".

I fail to understand why some people are getting so upset over these surround mixes. As long as the original 2 channel mix is still available, what’s the issue? I have heard the statement, “the surround mix is not what the artist intended us to hear.” Now think about this for a second. The Beatles early albums were originally mixed in mono, and from what I understand, The Beatles had little input in the stereo mix. Does that mean that the stereo mix is “not what the artist intended us to hear?” I think not. What the artist wants us to hear is their music, it doesn’t matter if it is in mono, stereo or surround.

As the saying goes, “try it, you may like it”. I have the DVD-A discs of Fleetwood Mac “Rumors” and The Eagles “Hotel California”. Since I do not have a DVD-A player, I play these on my DVD player and I am limited to listening to the DD5.1 mix. I also have these on regular CD and LP. The surround mix on the DVD-A disc is not any better or any worse than the 2 channel mix, it is just different. To be honest, the surround mix of the song “Hotel California” is really awesome! The first time that I heard it I got “goose bumps”. Depending on my mood, I either listen to the stereo mix or the surround mix.

[Steve Hoffman]

JohnnyK,

Some people are concerned because, just like in the days gone by, the "real" mono mix of (let's say) "Sgt Pepper" is no longer in print. ONLY the stereo mix is.

So, it's only a matter of time before the same thing happens, (at least with the majors), to all of our beloved stereo mixes. The next generation will only know "Hotel California" in surround. The stereo mix will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Too much time, trouble and expense for the majors to include the stereo mix. Kind of like worrying about all of the folks who only had mono machines when LP's went all stereo. The stereo mixes were made "compatable", with mono players, but only for a little while. Then, anything mono vanished from history and "electronic stereo" held sway, like the Red Death in that Poe story.

Don't cha think?
:(

[Todd Fredericks]

Steve,

I think you're right about the demise of stereo eventually happening. My first thoughts were that the average person wouldn't fuss with having a 5 or so speakers but with the take off DVD and inexpenive surround gear it makes sense. 2-ch stereo (and our beloved mixes/history) will most likely just be phased out but there's another possiblity. Look at films and the increasing awareness OAR. Maybe one day (or even now with an increase in mono releases) a movement will happen to perserve music?

Todd

[Grant]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
JohnnyK,

Some people are concerned because, just like in the days gone by, the "real" mono mix of (let's say) "Sgt Pepper" is no longer in print. ONLY the stereo mix is.

So, it's only a matter of time before the same thing happens, (at least with the majors), to all of our beloved stereo mixes. The next generation will only know "Hotel California" in surround. The stereo mix will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Too much time, trouble and expense for the majors to include the stereo mix. Kind of like worrying about all of the folks who only had mono machines when LP's went all stereo. The stereo mixes were made "compatable", with mono players, but only for a little while. Then, anything mono vanished from history and "electronic stereo" held sway, like the Red Death in that Poe story.

Don't cha think?
:(

THAT is my worry exactly! If the majors continue down the DVD-A remix road, give it time. It will happen. And, since most people don't have proper DVD-A playback, the music won't even get played back properly. Already, people right here on this forum don't seem to care if the bass is not right.

The stereo-fanatics don't care if the mono Sgt Pepper, or all the other unique mono versions ever appear again Most don't seem to care about how history WAS and that it should be preserved.

With surround we are already hearing from the producers, "but now we can do this, we were never able to get that instrument to sit in the mix until now, let's remix and put it all around". "Hey, Let's make it so the listener is in the band, WOW!!!!!! Cool!"...and there goes the integrity of the original mix, my friends!

[lennonfan]

Well, I love surround and look forward to many new releases in this exciting format. As far as sgt. pepper, I bought the original mono in '67 and I think it sounds like CRAP. In the 70's I got a british mono and that was better, but I still prefered the stereo. In the late 80's I got the red vinyl Japan mono and I do find that one superior to all the other monos, but I still enjoy the cool panning that goes on in the stereo, and I find that on A Day In The Life the stereo has much more detail especially in the orchestral buildup. Pushing 100-odd instruments into 1 channel makes for a kind of mush, IMO, and spreading it out opens it up to closer examination of detail. In multi-channel, ADITL is even better, and the detail is phenomenal....you have to hear it to believe it. I think 2 channel mixes will co-exist with the multi's for a long time, as it isn't that great an expense to include them and many portable future DVD-A/SACD players will likely still be 2 channel....you really don't need 5.1 for the beach;) ...so, if you haven't heard surround, check it out....I say find someone with a quad 8-track deck who owns Edgar Winter's They only come out at night album, sit in the middle and demand to hear Frankenstein;)....I've made many a convert to surround on that track alone!
-regards from lennonfan

[Grant]

Most stereo-only people also tend to forget or ignore that the mono mixes are different from the stereo mixes.

I think part of the problem is that most stereo lovers listen almost exclusivley with headphones.

[JohnnyK]

Originally posted by Grant
Most stereo-only people also tend to forget or ignore that the mono mixes are different from the stereo mixes.

I think part of the problem is that most stereo lovers listen almost exclusivley with headphones.

I agree with you, some mono mixes are WAY better than the stereo mixes. For example, The Rascals early songs (95% of their big hits) sound much better in mono than stereo.

I don’t agree that most stereo people listen only w/ headphones. The only time that I listen with headphones is either on the train or in a plane. I really don’t like the sound image created by headphones.

[JohnnyK]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman

So, it's only a matter of time before the same thing happens, (at least with the majors), to all of our beloved stereo mixes. The next generation will only know "Hotel California" in surround. The stereo mix will be relegated to the dustbin of history. :( Steve,

I agree with what you are saying re: the potential demise of the original stereo mix. I guess that the music industry has determined that “stereo only” hi-res playback systems (SCAD) will not attract a large enough audience to be profitable. Therefore, they feel that they need to make SCAD and DVD-A into a surround sound. Media. The music industry also knows that in order to attract interest in the new formats they will initially need to provide surround mixes of well-known recordings. Which leads to the remixing of Hotel California, The Doors, etc.

Unfortunately, there is not much that we can do to prevent this from happening. Audiophiles are such a small group of people that we have little impact on what the music industry does. The music industry really doesn’t care about the quality of music, all they care about is the quantity of money that they make.

[GMav]

I feel that if the music was not originally recorded AND mixed for multichannel or surround, then it should be left alone. How many artists record that way and then intend to present it that way? To me, it is ARTIFICIALLY trying to recreate something that wasn't there in the first place.

The Edgar Winter scenario. Here is what I picture.......I am in the studio, and they have set up their equipment exactly like someone now would set up a surround system. Then I sit right in the middle and record them that way, and then mix it the same way. Did it really happen that way? I think not.

Quad started out with the same promise. I remember reading an article about its virtues.........the conclusion was........it would be great if you had four ears to hear it. Funny stuff.

Or movies...this is a great one. I go to a theatre and see a great action movie. A helicopter flies by the left side of the screen and disappears off the screen, but I continue to hear it move to my left and keep on behind me. Now, in the real world I could turn to my left and behind me, and see the helicopter moving off away from me. Can't do it in a theatre. A neat effect, but artificial....not real. Of course this has nothing to do with recorded music.

In a concert hall, listening to an orchestra. The sound appears to be around you. Are there speakers behind you and all around you creating that sound? No...you are hearing reflected sound. I feel a properly set-up sound system, and a properly treated room can create the same effect. I don't believe any orchestras or artists are playing their music in multichannel or surround sound when you see them in concert.

Bottom line....it is a matter of personal preference and taste, IMHO

[romanotrax]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GregMav
[B]I feel that if the music was not originally recorded AND mixed for multichannel or surround, then it should be left alone. How many artists record that way and then intend to present it that way? To me, it is ARTIFICIALLY trying to recreate something that wasn't there in the first place.

Well... couldn't the same be said for stereo. With all of the overdubs and such, I do believe that no recording, even live ones are true representations of what REALLY happened. A little panning here... a little panning there etc....

[luke j. chung]

It's my feeling that multichannel surround mixes of classic recordings can be, if done well, a positive listening experience both for the average listener and the audiophile. Like stereo or mono mixes, in any new format, a bad mix can spoil a recording just as easily as a tastefully done mix can enhance it for the listener. There's a big learning curve involved, and I think Steve is starting to look at surround as a new challenge for him in order to adapt to new market conditions in his business. For the stereo and mono purists, as long as the original mixes are included as part of the listening package, as Steve obviously intends, I don't think we'll ever have to worry to much about DCC or S & P involving themselves in radical historical revisionism!:)

[Doug Hess Jr.]

But at least all of the overdubs, etc. on the original albums were put there as part of the original album.

It would be like my school work in Jr. High. Well back in 1977, I had to write my reports either by hand or hunt and peck on a manual typewriter. Now I can use Word 2000 and my laser printer after I spell and grammar check. It's still the SAME text in the reports and the SAME homework and the SAME ideas, but it's NOT what I originally created with the tools I had at the time. It doesn't matter that I can do it better now, it only mattered what I could make then.
So it doesn't matter that now we can take the original 4, 8, 16 or whatever track master tapes and remix surround. It's NOT what was originally created and purchased by the public and made the hit record that it was-- it's just playing around-- even if the re-mix is endorsed by the original artist. Remember, ZZTop actually LIKES those horrible remixes of LaGrange and several others that have the new reverb drum sound-- but that's not what was released when the songs became hits.

[Uncle Al]

I wouldn't worry about stereo mixes dissapearing because..... well, if they do - it will only enhance my hobby to seek them out (while increasing the value of my current collection). I also feel that the general public - those people many blame for allowing the bar to be lowered beneath our standards - will ultimately reject it. Realistically, how would a surround mix sound in the back seat of a car? For that matter - how would it sound in the drivers set? Surround sound just doesn't have the "practical portabilty" that EVERYONE (including audiophiles) desires. Just because you have a $15,000 dollar system doesn't mean you don't want to hear some tunes at a BBQ or at the beach..............

There is a certain amount of "gee-whiz" to these surround sound mixes, but to use examples like Sgt. Pepper or Edgar Winter's Frankenstein as representative of ANY semblance of a natural soundatge in stereo is ludicrous. Both of those selections are as equally "gee-whiz" in stereo as any active surround mix. The former has vocals panning side to side, sound effects doing the same, instruments and vocals presented out-of-phase to create an unnatural surround effect. The latter has synthesizers, drums and guitars panning from channel to channel. They weren't recorded for stereo - they were mixed that way. They were SUPPOSED to make you say "holy ****", and they did. They are multichannel recordings, and the effects that pan left to right may have been panned right to left if the track was mixed on Wednesday as opposed to Tuesday - the same element may have been centered on Thursday or right channel only on Friday.

When using examples from classical music, or Miles Davis, or even The Eagles (maybe it wasn't representitive of the ACTUAL soundstage, but it was mixed to SOUND liike a natural soundstage), the argument becomes more sensible. I don't want to sit in the middle of an orchestra. That ensemble is too large; any major shift in the soundstage makes for an unatural balance. However - the musician in me doesn't mind sitting in the middle of a smaller band. That's the way music sounded during jam sessions, recording sessions and rehearsals when presenting a "forward facing" soundstage was not a paramount importance.

The bottom line for me is: I agree that the current state of the art has some serious technical problems (bass management, calibration of playback equipment), I feel the general public will ultimately (once again) reject it, but i cannot agree that it sounds "unatural" - since thousands of stereo mixes sound equally unatural and if you were "playing in the band" as opposed to being in the audience - you might just hear that horn section behind you to the right... and, btw - even in stereo - when I open my eyes to see Jimi standing to my right, he isn't there.

I guess the rant is over.