Multi-Channel, in terms of "Soundstaging"

Just read this reply to a Carole King Tapestry SACD post:

Just curious, what exactly does the Multi-Channel track DO in terms of the soundstage? In other words, if I were to attend a live concert either 'unplugged' or amplified, I would expect the sound to emanate from the stage left, stage right and stage center in front of me. I could, depending on the venue, hear some ambient reflected sound of various degrees. Is that ambient information what multi-channel adds? If so it I could see it could providing a "more realistic" reproduction of the event. Does it give a more accurate reproduction of the positioning of the musicians & instruments? If so how does it accomplish this?
From my point of view and, I'll admit that I'm not all that educated in Multi-Channel as pertaining to music, if it were to do anything else but what is described above wouldn't that be be falsifying the original musical event? I really can't see how most members in this forum who would scream and shout if any "processing" were used in the remastering of a disc could turn around and accept a false representation of the soundstage of a musical event through spatial manipulation. That just wouldn't make any sense at all.
Maybe I'm way off base, if so please explain.

Opinions?

 

If you think of multi-channeling in terms of rock outdoors events, it makes no sense. If you think of it in terms of a concert hall, it does. For me, the multi-channeling gives you the feel of sitting in a great hall which "enhances" the music by way of the natural acoustics.

 

Hello to all.

Having witnessed the power of ambiance recreation, I am at this point sold on that concept. That plus a dedicated custom-made room is Nirvana.

Ambiance recreation in this case is the enhancement of mono and stereo recordings by the use of electronic delay and extra speakers. The most comprehensive approach is Ralph Glascal's ambiophonics
Ambiophonics WWW site
No true single box ambiophionics box has been developed but existing Lexicons and the such do provide a very good effect. In my case I could live with that but hope for better products in the future.

But most of the multichannel market is 5.1/6.1/7.1 with speaker placement set by home theater standards. Ambiance mixes (and some sorts of ambiance recreation/extraction from stereo) can be made for those setups but for whatever reason they seem to be the exception.

Compromises can be made to have the same setup/room for movies and ambiance recreation.

Most pop multichannel recordings are agressively discrete, with mixes that are not meat to recreate a realistic performing space but to provide other sorts of experience. This applies to old Quad recordings and the current crop of multichannel DVDs and HiRes digital recordings.

The way I prefer it, as long as the producers do a true stereo mix I don't mind an extra multichannel mix if that doesn't increase the cost of the product too much. It might provide for a fun and interesting listen at times, as with Quad.

99.99% of the music I enjoy is already recorded and in vinyl so the future of music recording doesn't affect me too much, if at all. But the biggest danger ahead is labels to do stereo as a simple fold-down of a gimmicky multichannel mix.

Best regards.

 

So true!

I attended a Roger Waters concert recently in an outdoors venue. It was near-field listening at 300 ft.

He used side/back speakers for effects.

 

In modern popular music, even the stereo image is not accurate to the original musical event. Even the stereo mix is a false representation of the sound stage. How can you accurately create THE natural soundstage when the band did the basic track sitting is a circle so that they could visually cue one another, with final vocals, and maybe the horn section done 3 days later in an isolation booth. The lead guitar may have been overdubbed in an adjacent studio 70 ft down the hall on the second day. Any multi-channel mix (including stereo) manipulates the soundstage.

I was at a classical choir concert recently (god bless my daughter - like we say in NY "she sings like a boid"). The choir entered singing from the rear of the W55th Street Presbyterian Church. In another "chant like" number, the choir surrounded the audience with singing and percussion as they walked around the hall. How do you represent that soundstage in stereo?

I guess if you are a musician used to hearing the music "from the middle of the action", surround sound music doesn't bother you as much. However, if in a live setting - there ARE circumstances which require more than stereo - FOR AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE SOUNDSTAGE.

Gotta admit that those wonky surround mixes (like Venus and Mars) drive me nuts as well.

 

Re: Re: Multi-Channel, in terms of "Soundstaging"

Hello Al.

It doesn't have to recreate the real, original soundstage -if there was any- just a realistic portrayal of a performing venue with no annoying distractions.

Just as stereo made possible to convey movement in the stage, there are situations where multichannel recordings can create a more realistic portrayal. Live concerts come to mind. Never attended a concert where applause came from the stage

With the right paradigms, newly recorded music in multichannel can provide much better domestic listening than before. Potentially it can widely surpass what you can get from ambiance recreation/extraction and 2-ch recordings.

 

Since I was the one who wrote that original quote, let me try to explain...

When I listen to multichannel mixes I never think "What the hell is that doing in the back". I listen to the mix as a kind of 3-D experience as a whole, not with the mindset that you should never have vocals in the back of you or certain instruments in back of you or even just the reverb of a certain size room setting. I guess as someone who has worked in various studios making dance music and remixes I never think about music in terms of left/right only because I realize that the stereo soundstage is never acurate anyway. I place keyboards, drum sounds, vocals, etc. wherever I want, not necessarily where they would be if I was watching a band. So it doesn't bother me that sounds come at me from all directions - it can actually add to the experience (but thats just me). I have always been a huge fan of quad and now with SACD and DVD-A the quality is even better. I bought my SACD player specifically so I could listen to multichannel mixes, and though the sound IS better on SACD (vs. CD) my first play is always the multi-channel mix. I don't have a DVD-A player, I listen to all my DVD-A discs in surround using my DVD-V player. With regard to the "Tapestry" MC mix, when I first listened to it, I was stunned that I heard things so clear and open (especially because I have listened to that album hundreds of times since it first came out). It's all personal taste but I really love multichannel music. Rumours (Fleetwood Mac) and Toto IV are also great examples of just how great MC can be.

 

This is all wonderfull as I think that surround offers a great experience, but...When is a company going to produce a Pre-amp, multi-channel power amp system that sounds great in both multi-channel and stereo. Every single one that I've heard either does one or the other correctly and ruins the other.

 

Hello again.

As a sample of the risks of multichannel, see this review:

Brain Salad Surgery DVD-A

Not a single word discussing the stereo mix. Nada. Rien.

Message to the labels? Don't spend more dollars in 2-ch remasterings and mixes, just do the 5.1 and fold it, or let the player fold it.

Reportedly, a typical total budget for a 5.1 mix is US$35.000. Do you think they would spend a single additional buck if nobody cares?

 

Well, the Brain Salad Surgery DVD-A disc does not include a dedicated stereo mix (despite what it says on the cover). This is not typical of the majority of DVD-A discs, and this disc is often mentioned by people who want to point out that DVD-A's often do not contain a stereo mix.

I think it's still important to include the stereo master on these discs. No matter how well the fold down works, the resulting version is still a re-mix. Even BSS has some quirks in the re-mix - like a rather poor fade of an edit in the quiet section of Tocatta. In any case, while I find the surround mix fun, I would never use that fold down for 2 channel listening - nor would I consider this disc to be the definitive version.

 

No, I don't agree with that. SACD has the format right in that it demands a 2-channel encoding. Backward compatibility is important for those of us who have no interest in m/c. I don't support DVD-Audio because a 2-channel encoding is not mandatory. No fold-downs are acceptable to me in any shape or form - not by the studio or from within the player.

Regards,
Geoff

 

I agree totally Geoff! I will not support an audio format that does fold-down stereo.

 

Hello Geoff.

What I meant is that when the labels see a review that doesn't give a fig about a true stereo mix they get reinforced in the paradigm at they can get away with fold downs.

I'd love to have a digital remastering of Brain SS that does justice to the vinyl. BSS is one of the albums I use to demo heathens on the superiority of vinyl. Have had a regular issue and a Rhino issue and they are crap. Gave them away toot sweet.