Gimicky surround may be here to stay

The latest issue of Sound and Vision contains an article titled surround at Work, which I think contains some disturbing news about the direction surround mixing is taking. Thes quotes are from two major enineers who have been or will be responsible for remixing some great music.

From Eliot Scheiner (REM, Eagles, Queen, Toto, Zeppelin, Steely Dan):

I do the same thing with lead vocals on almost all my mixes. [The lead vocal] is in every speaker, but ... a little lower in the center and the surrounds.

I like the startle effect. I don't mind when main things are in the rear. I don't see antything as a distraction, ever.

I don't want to just surround someone. I want to entertain him.

From Tiny Visonti (Bowie, T Rex, Thin Lizzy) :

I think my Thin Lizzy stuff would sound huge in surround. I could put two guitars in the front and two in the back, and I could pan the solos.

Be adventurous [with surround]. Abuse it and mangle it.


Looks like we're going to be hearing a lot of STRANGE 5.1 mixes ala 1970s quad, with stuff popping up everywhere, if these guys get their way. The sad thing is, the bands LIKE this stuff. To ME, that is NOT a "musical" experience. I don't WANT to be "entertained." I want to listen to MUSIC. After hearing part of "Kind of Blue" in 5.1, I was considering adding surround, but now I have my doubts.

The aricle DOES have a voice of reason (Kansas, regarding an upcoming 5.1 mix):

We decided at the start we don't want a gimicky mix. We want to fit the picture. If I'm watching a choir up front I don't want to hear it behind me.

 

I'm sure 'Tiny' Visconti loves his new monicker
Actually, Tony's best work has panning in Stereo. I love his productions. I'd love to hear his surround remixes. You can bet I'd be in line for those releases!

 

Surround sound is the exact reason that I don’t care for DVD-A, or most newly proposed high-resolution formats in general. That and the importance placed on copy protection.

And for what, when we already have something as worthy as DVD-V? Add lossless compression to the mix and we've already created something far more substantial at very little cost.

But it isn't about the music, it is about control and the money. And adding surround sound to previously existing stereo mixes isn't at all about the music either. It's like placing an extra period at the end of a perfectly clear sentence. It doesn’t do anything meaningful for me.


Josh

 

I think this says a lot. The attention span of the average person these days is microscopic. Music simply being good is no longer good enough. Apparently, a gimmick is needed to revive interest in perfectly entertaining music. I don't want a contemporary interpretation of a classic, I want the original statement.

Heh...he said it, not me.

 

I second that emotion!

 

Being a recording engineer/producer, I can understand the mentality. You worked on the record, you recorded it, produced it, mixed it... way back when. The mark has been made - Now it's time for some fun. As long as the 5.1 mix is complimentary, not the standard.

 

Paul, does the public at large see the surround mixes as complementary, and not the standard? The masses don't live with the music like the engineers or producers do.

 

All I can tell you is that being a drummer, you miss half the sound because if you don't have monitoring, all the sound reinforcement points outward. But, it's natural. If I hear one of these surround mixes that put you in the middle, yet hear everything, it is unnatural and doesn't sound enjoyable. If I listen to music I want to hear it from the audience's perspective.

 

I hate being at the center of a mix. It reminds me that I'm listening to a recording whereas I prefer it sound like I'm at a concert. And at a concert the only reason I hear music from behind me is because of imperfections within the listening environment.


Like I said before in this forum, if you close your eyes the location of your speakers should disappear (or at least thats what I've believed for over 20 years). Thats the single biggest argument against listening to tunes in 5.1.

 

Right now I think the masses see them as complementary but probably not for long as most " average" listeners are starting to buy surround sound systems. Talk about a joke - my sister has a surround sound system that I set up for her correctly (initially) and then she put all the speakers in a row (all 5) on top of her entertainment center because she moved some furniture around. I bought my parents a nice set of Boston Acoustics speakers which they now have set up - one behind the couch and the other behind my mother's knitting table - in another room!. I give up. Don't even get me going about my friends that have both speakers butted up right right next to each other on top of the entertainment center!

 

From reading the articles, the issue most of those engineers seem to agree upon is that the hardware manufacturers need to make players that will handle multi-formats. Amen!

 

I really don't understand the negativity concerning surround mixes. I find it similar to bashing certain genres of music. If you don't like, don't buy it. Bashing it only festers bad will for the people who actually enjoy it.

 

If I want to hear the band around me I'll be playing a gig instead of enjoying and listening to music like an audience member in my home. I don't like to take my work home with me.

Surround seems to me to be another "I'm a rock star now" synopsis gimmick. If you want to hear it like that, pay your freakin' dues and become a musician/performer like real people do, but leave my listening pleasure alone.

Nuff said

 

I don't mind surround sound, but I think of it as a novelty. It's like listening to DES versions of old mono songs - just a different way of hearing something. The bottom line is that the stereo mix still stands as the standard reference. I wouldn't want someone ****ing with my mixes - like I complained about in an earlier post: 5 speakers lined up in a row, one behind the couch, the other in the next room. It's hard enough to get people to listen to stereo correctly, never mind surround sound!

 

vex, I agree with you completely. You hear the same old tired arguments about how music was never meant to be heard except in the standard stereo setup fashion. I've never understood this mentality. If you're talking about a live stage presentation then I can understand that to a degree, but most music is studio created. The only reason there is a front soundstage to begin with is because the engineer mixed it that way based on his interpitation as to how he thinks it should sound. There is no manual that says how music should be heard, other than the fact that it's always been done that way. Listening to music in surround is a personal choice just as listening to classic vs rock is. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. Simple enough. I guess the bottom line is, "You can't teach an old dog, new tricks" and this forum is full of old dogs!

 

>>>>>Whats the difference if a guitar is left, right, rearL or rear R??

If ist not mono, and NOT one coheisve ball of sound, really, whats the difference?

 

I could not AGREE with you more! I have both DVD-A and SACD (Not Multichannel) and I bought it because it is a different way to "EXPERIENCE" the music! I certainly don't ever want it to replace true STEREO, buttttttttttttttttt some of these forum members describe SURROUND Sound like it's an EVIL EMPIRE coming to destroy their STEREO systems! Damn, if small experiences like surround are this trying for you, I'd hate to imagine what your first dates must have been like!!!

 

Good for you! Buy the stereo version. Don't by the surround version. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

That is your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, I have never, even remotely, thought such a thing when listening to surround.

Ah, so that's how it should be. The 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not enjoy surround sound unless thou becomest a rock star and play on stage in a real live surround environment". Ummm, okay...

Hardly!

If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't listen to it. But don't disrespect those whose opinion differs from yours. Now THAT is NUFF SAID.

 

My reservation with surround isn't so much surround itself, per se...it's the philosophy behind it's creation. It's essentially a gimmick intended to portray classic mixes in a contemporary light. The philosophy implies the mix is no longer adequate. Use surround for new releases...nothing wrong with that. To reiterate a sentiment that's been expressed on this forum before, tampering with classic mixes cheapens the original work, much like the colorization of black & white movies. Folks who hold certain titles and their original mixes in high regard don't want to hear Joe engineer's interpretation of how it oughta sound in 2002, they want to hear the original statement in it's proper context. Those surround advocates who are frustrated by the refusal of some to accept surround as a legitimate application to classic two-channel mixes should consider the frustration felt by those who view this very practice as a statement that the original work is no longer adequate. Mixing to surround fundamentally alters the work, and that is rewriting history. If you don't like it, don't buy it? I say surround is best left to contemporary applications. Just my opinion. Oh, my first date went quite smoothly!

 

Don't buy it, don't watch it, don't think about it, pretend it isn't there...

Life is full of choices. Exercise your choice! It is your god-given right. However, don't try and limit someone else's choices.

 

Fine & dandy, vex, until the industry does to us with multi-channel what it did to us when they decided it was time to stop making LPs. You either had to buy the CD or you were screwed.

I'll show them this time though: do away with the true stereo segments on SACDs and I'll simply stop buying your products.

I have no complaints about those who want this stuff, just don't force me into buying it.

 

Well, problem is, when classic two-channel titles offered in the latest hi-rez format are only available in surround, my choices are limited. When it comes to these titles, I believe two-channel is the default. The default shouldn't be the experimental technology. Dual layers with 5.1 and stereo would be ideal.

 

I'd love to have the option to buy the high-rez stereo mix without the 5.1 mix. It would make it easier to express my opinion as a consumer. The DVD-Audio of ELP's Brain Salad Surgery specifically says it has an Advanced Resolution STereo track, when in actuality, it doesn't. I guess if I was true to my convictions, I would've taken it back.


I'm tired of reading reviews of a DVD-Audio discs, like Eagles Hotel California, and having the reviewer compare the 5.1 mix to a stereo CD. And as an afterthought mentioning that there is a stereo mix on the disc without explaining to a potential reader of that review why (theoretically) that high-rez stereo mix should sound better than a red-book CD of the same material.


What I want to know is this... If a vocalist shouts into a microphone at a 45 degree angle, should I rotate the speakers 45 degrees in the other direction to get the desired effect of the artist?

 

I'm totally with you sgb in that I don't care what format ends up being the final say and vex you can have your surround, but don't take away the original intention of the way that album was intended, either mono or stereo is how the majority of all music was originally recorded. My only real beef is the possible loss of the original sound.

BTW vex, do you know of any bands recording in analog 5:1?