5.1 surround sound mixes - how are these enjoyable?

Meh ... then it would just go over the head of most of the participants ...

 

Its funny everybody says 5.1 is 3d, when it's 2d. Stereo is 1d and everybody thinks it's 2d. Atmos i believe is 3d, but i'm in no position to give it a go yet lol

 

Liking or not liking 5.1 to me is the same as liking or not liking a band or type of music. It is subjective IMO. I don't have a 5.1 setup and have only heard a few (I do own some from some box sets I have). I liked the ones I heard, but not enough, at least for now, to go out and invest in a 5.1 setup. Like everything in life, I say if you like it, other people's opinions be damned. Buy, listen, eat, drink, vacation, work, etc in whatever capacity makes you happy and scratches that itch. At 49, I am well beyond caring about trying to change someone's opinion, especially in a hobby setting. I have found this thread very informative on 5.1 with some stuff I did not know and for that, I am truly appreciative. Soooooo, if you like 5.1 groove on it. If you don't, don't groove on it. That's my over-simplified stance on 5.1!

 

Good attitude. I have only ever been annoyed when stereo "purists" suggest it's not the right way to listen. 2 ears = 2 speakers and all that guff.
I tried to start a thread asking the why are folks against 5.1, and it seemed all i got was "music is only supposed to be through two speakers" thing. So i shut it down, due to it just being a dodge the point frustration.
I respect your balanced opinion. I wanted folks like you answering because I'm 49 also and love it. Its my ultimate headphones experience.

 

The winner of the war makes a big pile of money licensing their technology. The system is set up to encourage a battle every time. For instance, a friend of mine has eight different 1/2" video cassette formats that came out around the same time as VHS and Beta.

 

and the consumer loses ever time .....

 

I have heard surround sound in an number of different places/rooms. They all seem a little weird to me because the room that they are being played in and the effects that surround sound conveys seems unnatural, ie the "ambiance" of the listening room doesn't correlate with the sound coming out of the speakers. However, when stereo is played from the front, you get the natural ambiance of the room in which are listening which sounds correct, as if they were playing that that particular room. Maybe it's just me and the way I like to hear things. Some great stereo recordings sound so good it's like being there, yet others don't. Like all music, I think it comes down to the way it was recorded, mixed and mastered.

 

Umm, in this equation, what exactly is mono...?

 

Yeah, you're onto something...

The problem with the "purists" point of view is, they seem to have a highly-skewed definition of what exactly is "pure". That "two-ears-two-speakers[/I] line is hogwash, and anybody who has ever been in a studio to see how they really create the, "illusion of stereo, knows it. "Stereo" is merely a theoretical soundstage, in which the engineer assigns a position in-between the right end and the left end of the soundstage, to each separately-recorded track (or at the very least, each discreetely-recorded track). In other words, IF that stereo "illusion" did not exist before the mixdown...how can one call that, "pure"?

It is a compromise of all the recorded signals, spread around the room to make sure you can hear the specific elements of the recording the producer wanted you to hear: position chosen by the producer, NOT the almighty great spirit of HowManyEarsAndSpeakersHaveBeenOrdainedByDiety.

Hey, ask your great-grandad if he remembers those good old days, when humans only had one ear, and musical players only had one speaker? Man, that must have looked weird, all those people walking around with one ear.

If I listen to Allison Krauss' live Indianapolis show on SACD, this is an excellently-recorded, relatively-factual document of the show, as if you were located in the theater facing them, perhaps about 10 rows back. If I take it out, and put on my Carole King Tapestry, it's more like I'm in a coffeehouse, and the session players are strewn around the room, whereaver they could find a seat, still perfectly-mic'd, and I can still enjoy every part, be some of them back over my shoulder or not. Take that out, and put in one of Kitaro's DVD-A releases, and frankly, I have no idea where the frack I am...because that's how the music from his instruments sound to his imagination (and that's really what I pay a synth artist for - their imagination, not their actual position)(rather, the position of the sound coming out of their monitors).

But, all these actual, or hypothetical, or somewhere-in-between environments are brought to me on/in/at a 5.1 soundstage, and my position giving me my best satisfaction is MORE defined, NOT confused, by virtue of having three speakers in front of me, two behind me, and one big-ol' rumbling thing in the corner taking the low road.

Next time you get that "two-ears-two-speakers" guff from your "purist" friends...invite 'em over to the gym for a little raquetball....

 

You make a very good point in the way different multichannel mixes present different "effects". Not really a right or wrong way with each approach more like a preference one might have.

 

I only know about, and can find this, recorded in Louisville Ky : Alison Krauss + Union Station* - Live

Is there another not listed on Discogs ?

 

mono is also one dimensional.

 

i am completely with you. i have worked in a studio and used to own one. perhaps that's why i am not chained to two speakers like a cult victim lol
the ideas you put forward are the kinds of things i love about surround. i simplify it by saying it is like headphones without headphones. i always love being immersed in the album i was listening to, and as you say that experience is controlled by the folks placing the mics, the folks twiddling the nobs and mastering. i look at surround as the ultimate headphones experience without the headphones themselves.
someone stated they prefer stereo because it picks up their rooms ambience better .... most people's homes have crap acoustics .... you bought an album recorded in an expensive studio with specially designed rooms for capturing sound in the best most precise way, with someone the music industry or band figured had the best idea of how to capture the sound they were aiming for ... and you want crappy house acoustics?
surround as much as anything, except headphones does this via a discrete channel filling a space thereby cancelling out a certain amount of room interference.
I like all kinds of mixes for all kinds of reasons. i wish that the music industry didn't feel the need to compress everything so much and let music get back to breathing, but that has nothing to do with how many speakers one uses and i hope that like many industry fads it disappears and we get back to a place where sound has more importance other than purely volume.

 

Not quite that simple because there are sometimes two lead vocalists.

 

Ah, but - not really! From your listening position, it may seem one-dimensional, but, did it ever occur to you, what the music would sound like if the drums were up-front at the mic, and the singer were waaayy back here...?

OR, what if Brian was heavily-into "breakfast" that day, and his single mixes sounded really, really, "off"? (Remember, Bri heard it - and mixed it all - in mono, always. At least, when he was "played by Paul Dano"!)
If you've got 16-32 tracks of Wrecking Crew, and only one channel to hold them all, the only other spatial trick you have is...distance! Now, in 3 dimensions, you can "have" distance (along with height and width),
but how to keep components of the recording separate enough so you can "see" them in your head? Well, even without the first two, you can still have back-to-front.

And even in mono, there's two ways to do that: the presence of the immediate, forewardmost actor versus the one buried in echo, or, the loudest one overpowering (but not eliminating) the softer player.

Suddenly, one dimension doesn't feel quite so one-dimensional anymore now, does it.....

 

Nope, you're right, that's the one. I lived in both Indianapolis and Louisville, so frequently I confuse the two - particularly when I bring up the Krauss example.

It's funny, she would elect to have it produced from an audience POV, considerring she herself produced the two stellar multi mixes that grace the first two Nickel Creek albums. I mean, honest recording, and respect the space and all that, but it's the same quibble I have about classical recordings. Some of the most exhilarating experiences I have had with music have been in the middle of it, which I'll admit isn't the best perspective for a balanced performance (I'm talking to YOU, Chad! PLEASE listen to the trombone next to you, and watch your intonation...!) Band; orchestra; chorus: I'm a bari sax, bassoon, first tenor, in that order. And my favorite parts are where I get to be a part of the larger sound and changes in timbre, not as the solo line - I'm all about the sonority. That's where I learned Pershetti and Holst, that's where I discovered the brave beauty of Hanson and Bruckner.

The second-favorite position for me, when it comes to great ensemble music is standing about 10" higher-up than the sitting positions of ever other member, hiding behind a score, flailing a skinny little stick at 'em. In my early audiophile experiences, I knew a lot of fans who enjoyed the listening to the utmost when "air conducting" was the order of the day. And I daresay, once you've had the chance to run your own ensemble through that piece one more time in final rehearsal, well, that poor sap way back there in the audience with the $500 season ticket, has no idea what he's missing. I don't care who he's taking home afterwards (because...MY baton has already had it's workout for the day)!

So...I got 5-channels-and-change to work with, and those pro's who already know the exhilaration of getting the music smacked in your face at close range, wanna stick us listeners back in Row L? Yeah, sounds like "L" to me...!

 

Didja know, Peter Gabriel's "Kiss That Frog" actually toured as an amusement-park ride? The type that puts you in a room, then the room starts boppin' around on hydraulics, twisting this way and that. Only in this case, it's not a flight simulation of you and the wookie making the Kessel Run: it's that damn CGI frog and Peter's video come to nausea-inducing life, with the harmonica flyin' across the pond. I got to ride it when it stopped at the Mall of America years ago. Neat experience, but definitely in need of refinement.

I'm not saying we deserve, or want, that sensation out of our 5.1 mixes, but surely we could have a little more fun, and a lighter touch of the manufactured "reality" now and again?

 

This is what I enjoy of surround mixes (quad and 5.1):

1) sound effects are more powerful and real. Think about the beginning of Welcome to the machine, with the helicopter flying above you, or the introduction of Time, with ticking clocks everywhere (that's a nice example of a demo mix that later became part of the song composition). Pink Floyd's discography is full of these examples, but you can also find nice demos in Kraftwerk surround mixes. I'm now thinking about Tour de France (in Minimum-Maximum) and the nice effect of the bicycle chain that spins around you - meaning the cyclists are taking a break, not pedaling - while you can hear them breathing rapidly from the five channels.

2) it's easier to find yourself immersed in the places that the songs describe to us musically. Think about On the run and being in an airport terminal. Or about Autobahn (quad mix) and find yourself dangerously in the middle of the lanes of a highway. There are plenty of other examples that don't come to mind right now...

3) greater instrument separation and clarity. I'm thinking about King Crimson, Lizard and Thrak in particular... two albums with far too many musicians for a stereo mix. You will find yourself in the middle of a jazz band playing live while listening to the Bolero. And what about the double-trio? You are going to be in the middle of that KC incarnation while listening to Thrak in surround. The remixes of the Gentle Giant discography also fall in this category. Their music is quite articulated and there are so many layers that just open up with a surround mix.

4) a clearer sense of hierarchy for vocals and instruments. Obvious examples for this are: lead vocals/guitar in the front, back vocals/choir/acoustic guitar in the rear channels. Or when two interweaving melodies - played by two guitars - are placed front/left and rear/right (so that they have the same hierarchy but the placement enhance the feeling of two instruments that have a dialogue). There are plenty of examples like that, and of course exceptions that make 5.1 mixing an art.

I wish I had more time to draft this post... but hopefully I've been clear enough. If not, just ask and I'd be happy to rephrase my thoughts.

 

I have heard some bad 5.1s that would make me second guess the format's viability. The talking Heads 5.1 DVDs are well done, and it works well for those albums.

 

Fair enough, but I did say "lead" voacalist. Of course vocals should be spread across the sound field, but in the case of say Robert Plant, centre is the right place..

 

Am I grateful that I can enjoy all formats!

Mono, twin track stereo, stereo cobbled together from a multitrack, true stereo, left-centre-right, quadraphonic, 5.1 cobbled together from a multitrack, true surround, duophonic, somebody pratting around with a pan pot fake stereo, DES, DCS...

 

Very thoughtful and articulate. It makes me appreciate even further the 5.1 mixes I have, and now go search for more you listed. Well played.

 

it is coming from one plain, it is one dimensional. there may be a faux feeling of depth due to volumes of individual parts, but 1 plain is one dimension
and no matter how many speakers involved in the mixing, louder and more quiet elements may be mixed in any particular zone.

 

it really depends on the vocal and the aim of the artist with that vocal. two vocals may well balance each other slightly off center, or even set wide on either side of you. occasionally a completely different plain may suit the main vocal.
generally somewhere in the center line is generally the best place for a main vocal.

 

Only if you are an early adopter. Unless you have the money to burn on equipment that's only necessary for a small amount of media, it's best to wait a bit when new formats are released until the dust settles.