Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford.
This is utter nonsense. How would you listen to any surround with less
than 4 speakers, as long as we don't speak about heaphones? (Even
Ambiophonics will need a front and back pair, otherwise you have a 180º
representation.)
This talk about "crappy center speakers" is fuzzy logic, at best. (How
should 5.1 work in practice if you are using one or several "crappy"
speakers? Should I bang my head? I am very close to...)
To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities.
Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and
access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing.
There is plenty of pop/rock music available in 5.1, in the market, or
in the archives. This is not the point, IMO.
This is about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who go to some local dude with a computer and analog mixing desk that sounds horrible but looks impressive to have their music produced.
No serious musician does this, even if you seem to think so.
These people are not going to ever understand spherical harmonics, nth order
something or another. They can intuitively grasp front-back, left-right and
mono. They will be able to make a stereo CD (UHJ), and have an extra gimmick to
sell: now you can listen to your CD in surround sound.
As a musician, I don't care for so-called gimmicks. And your listeners
ain't be stupid, as well.
Nobody is talking about stable images, just as little as The Beatles stereo
recordings were Blumlein stereo. But they can make sounds swirl around, and
people who do location recording can get a decent ambience.
But you can hear such details as "a stable image". If a surround
recording is offering an unstable impression, stick with stereo -
hopefully well-done stereo.
Someone throwing a speaker in each corner of the room and enjoying some
spaciousness in the sound they didn't have with stereo before, that is
realistic. Who cares about how precise the sounds can be localized, how big the
sweet spot is, as long as it has some ambience all over. It will sound
spacious, regardless of whether or not it sounds like things are where they
were when it was recorded (or intended to be during the mix).
All it has to be is pleasant, not more, not less.
Ronald
Well, this is exactly what a bad 5.1 mix is about. Or what "killed" 5.1,
BTW... :-)
Did I miss anything?
This "who cares" attitude doesn't work for a musician. If you like the
music you are recording, don't present it in such a horrible way. Really!
Best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
