Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary editions to be released May 26, 2017* Anticipation Thread.

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JOSERENATO, Mar 5, 2017.

  1. RAJ717

    RAJ717 Forum Resident

    Surround sound (for movies at home) is one of the dumbest things I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. I'm sitting on a couch in the living room looking forward at a screen 15 feet in front of me where all the action is visible yet I'm hearing the sounds coming from BEHIND ME. Same with the left and right sides of the room. It would only be logical in a surround theater situation where you could hear the sound coming from the direction you're seeing it occur. My Bobservation.
     
    somnar, culabula, delmonaco and 4 others like this.
  2. RichardG

    RichardG Active Member

    Location:
    Wales, UK
    Sorry, but you're doing it wrong. This is the ideal SACD speaker setup:

    [​IMG]

    In an audio (not HT) surround system, the rear speakers SHOULD be behind you, by 20-30 deg. At least for SACD and DVD-A. I don't know about multichannel BluRay guidance.
     
    nasa09, Larry Geller, Klassik and 4 others like this.
  3. HfxBob

    HfxBob Forum Resident

    There's another thing about that Tiny Tim story. When John Lennon asked Geoff Emerick what he thought of Tiny Tim, Emerick had no clue who Tiny Tim was but pretended that he did - I believe he thought Tiny Tim was the name of a band. When Lennon realized this he tore a strip off Emerick. So it was actually an embarrassing moment for Emerick, though a valuable lesson in not trying to BS John Lennon.
     
    Keith V, ODIrony and maandrade like this.
  4. SJB

    SJB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    I'm not sure about Pepper specifically, but when the 2009 remasters were prepared, EMI staff went through making EQ fixes, repairing dropouts ("Day Tripper" being perhaps the most glaring and famous), smoothing bad edits, and so on. The point is that, for 2009, they didn't just transfer the tapes to digital; there was restoration work involved. I'm assuming that a "direct transfer" wouldn't include all that work, as it rather takes the directness out. Also, if they're calling it a "2017 direct transfer," I take that to mean a new transfer from the original tapes. If they went from an intermediate source, such as the 2009 remasters, once again we're no longer talking about "direct."
     
  5. seilerbird

    seilerbird Well-Known Member

    That diagram is wrong. It is correct for movies but not for music. Do a Google search on surround sound speaker diagrams and you will get dozens of hits and most all of them are wrong for music.
     
  6. Will the 2CD version sound exactly the same as the 2-tracks programmed together from the 6disc version? Or will the amount of silence vary on different players?
     
  7. That's what she said.
     
  8. galone_es

    galone_es Active Member

    Location:
    Spain
    The objects in fact, like the dolls, stone bust, trofy, TV set, etc
     
  9. RAJ717

    RAJ717 Forum Resident

    I've got to assume that the rear right and left speakers are for ambient noises and not sound coming from what you are looking at in front of you. Kinda like two wasted speakers for the music listening experience unless you have the crowd sounds there for live recordings or the sounds of producers and engineers yelling "cut!" or "Take 2" or something while the band is in front of you.
     
  10. More repetitive than immersive. ;)
    I think all the 'alternate takes' were included. It's hard to tell as it all sounds the same to me!
     
  11. kanno1ae

    kanno1ae Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dallas, Texas, USA
    I have surround sound (5.1) in my media room. The speakers that are behind me are the rear left, rear right, and subwoofer (the .1 hidden behind the couch). All of the dialog pretty much comes out of the front center channel. Music and sometimes sound effects related to things you see on screen will be placed somewhere between the front left, center, and front right. The two back speakers, when used effectively in a 5.1 mix, will typically be a sound effect of something happening off screen, which would naturally occur behind the viewer's POV. For example, if we are watching a scene taking place in a living room, and the camera is at an angle where the front door is behind it, a knock on the front door would be placed in one the rear channels (or possibly both but panned to one side). This gives the viewer the realistic sensation that the front door is in the opposite direction of where the camera is currently pointed. Another example might be low background conversation in a busy restaurant to give you the sensation that there are people all around the subjects currently dining on camera. The rear channels for most 5.1 movie mixes are not used very often throughout the movie. Hopefully that helps explain it a little.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  12. fogalu

    fogalu Forum Resident

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    I'm afraid the Beatles (or Apple) were never terribly generous with their long-term fans.
    In fact, as a protest, I don't think I'll buy this new Pepper set!
    (Although it might upset them too much if I went down that road. It would upset me anyway. :D)
     
  13. fitzysbuna

    fitzysbuna Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    just because there is sound coming out of 5 or 7 speakers does not automatically make it better ! it still all comes down to choices made when mixing and mastering . I have heard a lot of 2.1 stereo mixes that sound far better than 5 or 7. I actually I don't like surround at all! why? because I have hearing difficulties in one of my ears so for me 5.1 etc is pointless also you have to keep in mind the intentions of the artist and original producer any change in mixes has to have there blessing and I have read a few times about artists and producers not happy about having control over their album releases . this new remix I doubt is a cash grab like some here have said and I don't think Paul would release something he was not happy with so I can't wait for the new album to drop. any news on who is doing the booklet?
     
  14. RichardG

    RichardG Active Member

    Location:
    Wales, UK
    If you're going to be so adamant, at least be factual.

    The previous diagram is what was included with every early multichannel SACD release as the ideal layout for multichannel music, and is the recommended layout prescribed by Sony and Philips. So it IS the correct speaker layout for music. I deliberately didn't reference a home theater layout. You say it's correct for movies, but you're wrong about that too. Here is an HT ideal layout:

    [​IMG]

    For HT, THX (they know quite a bit about this stuff, certainly more than you and me) recommend that surround speakers are in line with your listening position:
    [​IMG]

    "Front Left & Right Speakers (L & R): Place the Front Left and Right speakers at ear height, producing a 45° angle as viewed from the main seating position. This delivers a wide soundstage and precise localization of individual sounds.

    Center Channel Speaker (C): Place the Center channel speaker either above or below the TV. Then, aim the speaker either up or down to point directly at the listener. If you have a perforated projection screen, center this speaker both horizontally and vertically behind the screen.

    Left Surround and Right Surround Speakers (Ls & Rs): Place the Ls & Rs speakers between 90° to 110° to each side and 2 feet or higher above the listener. The Ls & Rs speakers recreate the enveloping sound and intense special effects that you experience in the cinema."
    source FAQ - THX

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Your preference for having surround speakers only 60 degress off centre-axis (10 o'clock and 2 o'clock) is just that - a preference. For ambient mixes I'm sure it sounds OK, but for aggressive surround mixes with deliberately placed discrete instruments or effects, it'll be a disaster. Your speaker placement won't be anywhere close to that used by the mixing engineer when he or she created the sound design.

    I'm not sure why you're so aggressive, but please, stop with the inaccuracies???
     
  15. dobyblue

    dobyblue Forum Resident

    So when a helicopter or jet plane approaches the screen and then disappears behind...you think the sounds should still come from in front or the noise of the aircraft should just immediately cease?

    I was watching Jordan to the MAX last night on Blu-ray and in one of the scenes he throws the ball at a hoop but you're about 2ft in front of Jordan and the hoop is clearly going to be behind me, the sound of the net comes from behind, makes perfect sense and I thought it was an excellent sound effect design.

    I can't ever imagine going back to watching modern movies at home without surround sound

    If you only want the band in front of you, you can listen to mono or stereo. My ideal surround sound mix of a studio album can place me directly into the music, so it's all around me instead of just in front of me. This may not appeal to everyone, it may not work on everyone's system; I have the same Acoustic Energy AELite 3 towers for rears that I have for fronts so I built my system with surround sound studio material as my #1 consideration as it's my favourite configuration for studio listening. With the massive difference in available material I of course still love my music collection that exists only in stereo or mono, but nothing makes my room disappear when I close my eyes and makes me feel like I'm floating away in the music like 5.1 does.

    Some mixes unfortunately just aren't very good, 1+ for me is like that, Adam Kasper's work on Soundgarden and Temple of the Dog is not very good...but Elliot Scheiner, Steve Wilson, Bob Clearmountain, these guys know how to do it. Whomever did The Stranger (B Joel) and Strange Beautiful Music (J Satriani) also gets it. Make my room a thousand years wide, with me in the middle, sound all around, trip me the F out, that's what I want.

    After hearing Bob Marley's Exodus in surround, the stereo version sounds boring now.
     
  16. Norman Day

    Norman Day Well-Known Member

    Location:
    UK
    I am sorry. I thought we were referring to the 2009 Mono remaster. I didn't think much 'fixing' went on with that.

    I was fully aware of the 'restoration' carried out on the Stereo remasters. My particular favourite with those was the repairing of the fault in Lennon's shout in 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)' - I used to think it was tracking failure!
     
  17. RichardG

    RichardG Active Member

    Location:
    Wales, UK
    That's a very valid point. The use of discrete sounds in classical music usually sounds forced at best and ridiculous at worst, so surround mixes tend to use the surround channels to convey the sense of space the music was captured in. For more "adventurous" music (maybe incl SgtP), the studio itself was an instrument and the surround mix can be far more aggressive - imagine the laughter run out on ADitL coming at you from 360 degrees rather than just in front of you...

    These are creative decisions and some people will love them, and some won't.
     
  18. vince

    vince Stan Ricker's son-in-law

    I just woke up...
    what are we talking about...
    I saw chocolate a few pages ago..
     
  19. Norman Day

    Norman Day Well-Known Member

    Location:
    UK
    With respect, in a cinema you are still looking at a screen in front of you, the same as you are with a TV only bigger. Possible the aim is to put you in the 'head' of the camera, i.e. the director whose point of you would indeed have all the sounds surrounding it.

    Nevertheless, to be fair, most home cinema doesn't throw much sound to the back anyway - its just ambience mainly.
     
  20. Norman Day

    Norman Day Well-Known Member

    Location:
    UK
    ODIrony and Klassik like this.
  21. Klassik

    Klassik Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Definitely agreed. There are a few moments in Emerick's book that make me wonder if he checked his ghostwriter's copy, so basic are a few misconceptions at large therein.
    Then again, while Emerick came up against the white coat brigade himself, in this case he may have been wearing his own :p
     
  22. mongo

    mongo Forum Resident

    Actually that diagram is correct for 5.1 music and it is how I have my system configured for music.
    BTW, someone mentioned SACD & DVD-A & Blu-ray configurations. It's the same for all 5.1 music. 5.1 is 5.1 no matter the format.
    The only difference really for 5.1 soundtracks is that the side surrounds should equal to or slightly behind 90 degrees of the listening position.
    With a 7.x soundtrack the rear surrounds are directly behind the listening position.
    Atmos is another animal.
     
    BeatleJWOL and marcb like this.
  23. Klassik

    Klassik Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I've tried this but my legs get tired standing there in no time and the cat is no respecter of the soundfield's integrity.
    BACK TO MONO, I say!
    :p
     
    nasa09, Sean Murdock and Keith V like this.
  24. mongo

    mongo Forum Resident

    One notable exception to this diagram is that the L/C/R position from the listening position is really not based on degrees but on an equilateral triangle based on the distance of the listener
    to the front speakers. So if the listener is 10 feet from the center speaker, the left and right speakers ideally would be 5 feet each from the center speaker with all speakers being 10 feet
    from the listener. That formula may resolve to 30 degrees but measuring in feet is far easier.
    Room correction software, I have Anthem ARC, can digitally delay the signal to compensate for any differing distances, room boundaries etc.
    My room is large enough to accommodate equi-distance for all 5 speakers
     
  25. Klassik

    Klassik Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The fact of the matter is that the albums not created for 5.1 are like the films not shot in 3D.
    Post-processing can't get back to the source material as other than 'material for gimmickry' and, despite the enjoyment that many derive from 5.1, it's nothing more than that.
    At least until you make fresh work for the format, then we're in gear.
    This is why anyone imagining the sound and excitement of LOVE transferred to any 5.1 reworks of Beatle albums will be disappointed somewhat.
    Love was a fresh canvas, with the 'sacred' material firmly feeding gimmickry.
    Applying 5.1 TO the sacred material is a different order of project and it's going to take a few tries and a lot of discussion about who got it best before we can contemplate any 5.1 Beatles albums joining any 'canon' or being in any objective sense 'best'.
    I'll go with Giles as a good bet because he's amassed a lot of experience 'close to the source'.
    But you've still gotta give him due consideration here. He's got Paul and Ringo in one corner suggesting he be as sacriligeous and extreme as an idea takes him but in many other corners, he has technical and canonical opinion to deal with.
    The other 5.1 remixers don't work with Beatles stuff which is available in 'primitive format' by comparison to most 5.1 source material (eg. drum kits not recorded in stereo etc).
    The suggestions that (insert current fave 5.1 rave remixer) would produce something better or more adventurous or (insert their supposed gift) is a tall order.
     

Share This Page