Stereo isn't natural reproduction - (just one man's opinion)

[RickH]

Wasn't sure whether to post this in music or not, since it's not specific to any particular music - it's more a technological issue, but who here agrees with the following observation? And this is not intended to start a flame thread over 2-channel vs. 5.1, it's just what I've come to a conclusion about regarding the proper reproduction of audio...

Music isn't heard acoustically-correct with only two speakers, surround channels are necessary to provide "natural fidelity". I've been doing a lot of listening to CD's in DPLII lately (and true 5.1 sources as well) in a sweet spot surrounded by 4 Optimus LX-5's with sub and center channel and I'm of the opinion that since we live in a 3D world, in a 360-sound field, then listening to music confined to two front speakers just isn't natural. To fully experience close-to-true live ambience as well as the artist's emotional intent of his music you have to have that surround ambience that fully envelops the listener, because in any musical setting whether it be studio or stage, live music is going to be reflected from the room boundaries - two speakers just can't reproduce that natural surround/ambience dimensionality properly. Not only do you need left & right, but you need front & back acoustics to approach a sense of “live musicians playing in your room”. A stereo mix, no matter how well-done, is always going to be missing some crucial spacial element that a surround mix will reveal, for the betterment of the musical experience.

So, if iPod's can ever reproduce CD-quality 5.1 in headphones, maybe surround will prosper with and be appreciated by the masses.

Your thoughts?

[Dave D]

My thought is that this thread will self destruct into a 5.1 vs stereo thread. So to keep my sanity, I'll let you guys have all the fun!

[Brian Clark]

I generally prefer mono over stereo

Brian.

[Ed Bishop]

Well, since ya asked.....IMO, no single format is *natural*--can't be, the human ear hears up, down, all around, and any sound configuaration attempting that would have to have a speaker above you, a speaker below, etc. etc.

A surround mix is no more or less accurate than stereo is, it's still an artificial representation.

[grbl]

Originally Posted by Ed Bishop

A surround mix is no more or less accurate than stereo is, it's still an artificial representation.

What he said.

[markl]

I think what you're saying is valid so long as a performance is captured live with microphones placed within the stage in the corresponding alignment with a typical 5.1 set-up, i.e. a microphone where every speaker is situated in your room. Then you are listening to the performance pretty close to how it was captured and actually occurred in realistic 3D space.

But, when you are talking about the majority of heavily over-dubbed performances with musicians that never actually played the whole song together in the same room, putting all that in 5.1 is just as "fake" as when they are all mixed together in 2-channel. Instruments are placed at will within the soundstage regardless of where they occurred. You are still listening to an event that was manufactured and never really occurred, mixed from separate tracks. In 5.1 you may also get "fake" ambience added, with added delay for the rear channels, a reproduction of another "event" that never occurred, so that doesn't make 5.1 more "real" either. You also get instruments mixed behind the listener, etc.

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

I've been to hundreds (maybe a thousand?) live shows and that's they way i think of music. So, for me, stereo is a decent representation of a live show since it best illustrates the effect/illusion of standing in front of the soundboard (my favorite sweet spot) at a live gig.

Take care,
Jeffrey

[Ed Bishop]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Hi,

I've been to hundreds (maybe a thousand?) live shows and that's they way i think of music. So, for me, stereo is a decent representation of a live show since it best illustrates the effect/illusion of standing in front of the soundboard (my favorite sweet spot) at a live gig.

In that case, Jeffrey, your hearing is apparently different from most other humans......because you're not just hearing what's in front of you at any live venue(especially indoors), but ambience from the sides, in back, above you...not to mention the fact that, at most concerts, the instruments tend to blend together and not be isolated left/center/right. There is simply no way two-channel stereo can even come close to replicating what a concert really sounds like.

5.1 can help in this regard, but basically, to be accurate(in a general sense)you stick the ambience in the rears to get that concert hall effect, rather than isolate instruments or voices in those speakers.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Ed Bishop

In that case, Jeffrey, your hearing is apparently different from most other humans......because you're not just hearing what's in front of you at any live venue(especially indoors), but ambience from the sides, in back, above you...not to mention the fact that, at most concerts, the instruments tend to blend together and not be isolated left/center/right. There is simply no way two-channel stereo can even come close to replicating what a concert really sounds like.

5.1 can help in this regard, but basically, to be accurate(in a general sense)you stick the ambience in the rears to get that concert hall effect, rather than isolate instruments or voices in those speakers.

Hi ,

We definitely disagree on this one.

I'll speak to what i know the best. Mickey Hart mixed 5.1 GD DVD-A's to give the effect of sitting in the middle of the band on stage NOT sitting in front of the soundboard waaaaaaay out in the middle of the audience! Dan Healy intro'd surround sound to live GD shows in the mid to late 80's by adding non-stage speakers. As you suggest, it was used mostly for ambience (and weirdness) and showed the effect of not having all speakers in front of you at a live gig. This tweak was short-lived in GD land. Excluding Dan's surround period, all speakers were located in front of you (kinda like 2 channel stereo) on the stage. Tapers pointed their mikes toward the stage, not all around them, for a very good reason.

Take care,
Jeffrey

[Ed Bishop]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Hi ,

We definitely disagree on this one.

I'll speak to what i know the best. Mickey Hart mixed 5.1 GD DVD-A's to give the effect of sitting in the middle of the band on stage NOT sitting in front of the soundboard waaaaaaay out in the middle of the audience! Dan Healy intro'd surround sound to live GD shows in the mid to late 80's by adding non-stage speakers. As you suggest, it was used mostly for ambience (and weirdness) and showed the effect of not having all speakers in front of you at a live gig. This tweak was short-lived in GD land. Excluding Dan's surround period, all speakers were located in front of you (kinda like 2 channel stereo) on the stage. Tapers pointed their mikes toward the stage, not all around them, for a very good reason.

I'm aware that many bands have experimented in this fashion...however, what I'm referring to is what you and I hear from the front of the stage. In my experience, unless you're really up close and personal to the monitors, the sound tends to mesh together, to the point where it might as well be mono at times... However, in the concert setting, while most of the audio will be in front, it's inevitable that our ears will detect ambience and other anomalies from above, around and behind. Which is why 2-channel makes less sense than 5.1 when preparing a mix for, say, a concert DVD. I've found that most concert videos have sound that is anything but what we would have heard had we been to the actual show. I understand why this is so, but to suggest stereo is a better config for hearing a concert on CD or DVD doesn't make sense. 5.1, if properly utilized, would be far more effective but, as we know, too often it's used to place us in the center of things, with discrete information all around us, when what we would get at the show is a frontal assault with back ambience.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Ed Bishop

I'm aware that many bands have experimented in this fashion...however, what I'm referring to is what you and I hear from the front of the stage. In my experience, unless you're really up close and personal to the monitors, the sound tends to mesh together, to the point where it might as well be mono at times... However, in the concert setting, while most of the audio will be in front, it's inevitable that our ears will detect ambience and other anomalies from above, around and behind.

Hi ,

About the last thing i desire on a recording is "ambience and other anomalies from above, around and behind" such as some dude gagging b/c he took too big of a hit, or some dude screaming "Jerry.... Jerry", or some "security" dude hassling audience members. I'm strictly interested in the music which, as you state, "the sound tends to mesh together, to the point where it might as well be mono at times" to the point where, IMO, two front speakers do an excellent job representing it!

Take care,
Jeffrey

[JRH]

they should make surround recordings with lots of ambient crowd noise (coughing, cups dropping, etc.), or maybe the sound of someone continously kicking the back of your chair. And if it was presented real enough you would have the urge to turn around and tell the joker to please knock it the F*** off. For outdoor concerts, there can be recorded jets flying overhead. ;-)
Kidding aside, IMO it's impossible to fully capture the live experience on recorded music. Our senses are much to complicated for that. Recordings of live performances will always be a compromise, and surround recordings only exacerbate the problems. I've yet to hear a surround system that doesn't sound hoaky.

[RickH]

Originally Posted by Ed Bishop

A surround mix is no more or less accurate than stereo is, it's still an artificial representation.

It's still artificial, yes, but I still believe the more speakers, the closer to "accurate" it is. And, in the case of studio recordings/multi-tracking of instruments that didn't actually occur in real time, I think 5.1 should be utilized to artificially provide a sense that they did, with fake ambience, effects, etc.

[ivan_wemple]

Originally Posted by RickH

... in any musical setting whether it be studio or stage, live music is going to be reflected from the room boundaries

Isn't music reflected from the room boundaries when I play an LP or CD through my 2-speaker sound system?

- Ivan

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by ivan_wemple

Isn't music reflected from the room boundaries when I play an LP or CD through my 2-speaker sound system?

- Ivan

BINGO!

[Uncle Al]

Originally Posted by ivan_wemple

Isn't music reflected from the room boundaries when I play an LP or CD through my 2-speaker sound system?

- Ivan

.....and why would I want the recording to remind me of sitting on the third tier of Madison Square Garden (a canyon of "AMBIENCE") - when I can hear the ambience of the band from my listening room?

[Grant]

Originally Posted by daved64

My thought is that this thread will self destruct into a 5.1 vs stereo thread. So to keep my sanity, I'll let you guys have all the fun!

[Beagle]

Originally Posted by ivan_wemple

Isn't music reflected from the room boundaries when I play an LP or CD through my 2-speaker sound system?

- Ivan

Yup. This would also occur if you were only using one speaker in mono.

[Metralla]

I'll be staying out of this one too.

[Jeffrey]

Hi ,

I'm staying in!

Take care,
Jeffrey