Discussion in 'General Software Discussion' started by GigaWatt, Mar 4, 2009.
Very interesting indeed and nice posting by both of you makes for good reading
that's right... but nevertheless, quadraphonic audio was nothing more than enhanced stereo... back then most commercial sound systems didn't have any kind of multichannel support... the stereo signal (either from radios, tapes, record players, etc.) was simply converted (sort of speaking) into a 4 channel signal... now that doesn't count as multichannel audio...
yeah, i've ssen them too... ... but those kind of mixers are pretty expensive, and most of the record labels can't afort them... more of the well financed record lables (like Virgin, or Sony Music) probably have them... Jean Michel Jarre's Oxygen album was remixed in surround sound, burned toa SACD (Super Audio CD, which supports surround sound) and release under Virgin records (i think...)... but that is only a very small portion of the lables in the music industry... untill those kind of mixers become available at adequate prices, i guess the only available format for smaller lables is only stereo...
i agree on this... multichannel audio should be available for download... but the only problem is, how will you play the multichannel encoded files on regular MP3 players...? maybe some sort of a mixdown can be achived, something similar as to what the DivX (XviD) encoding does to DVD files when the auido is encoded in stereo... but doing that in realtime on a simple MP3 player may be too much to handle (not talking about iPod and such expencive MP3 players)... it's a good idea neverthelss...
Not familiar with Foobar? Look here foobar2000
Run Foobar, select two tracks from playlist and run the ABX comparator, it looks like this:
You can find if you can hear the difference between two tracks.
wow, this really is a great tool for blind testing... i don't like the interface of the player, but this great tool makes up for it...
Foobar is a great app surprised you never hear of it Bro.
The reason why multi-channel formats aren't too common is that surround sound is not really a good idea for most forms of music
the only way to truly listen to surround sound music is to sit/stand in the "sweet spot" - central and equi-distant to each speaker- anywhere outside of there you're not getting the whole picture
for most purposes stereo audio is in fact better, can be played on any device, if mixed well, can be down-mixed to mono (for clubs/radio) with no adverse affects on the music - down-mixing surround sound, while possible, is a lot more problematic unless done properly
now I'm not saying there's no place for multi-channel/surround sound - but there's not much use for it on anything other that movie sound-tracks or audio for special listening situations
as for mixing in surround sound, I've mixed several tracks in surround for school, and I wouldn't say it's difficult, just a different way of going about it. It's actually quite fun, but there are several "rules" to follow depending on what you're mixing for, music in surround, sound effects for picture or music for picture
nope, never heard of it... this is a first for me... the player is kinda weird though, and has no (or very little) directx optimization for fullscreen visualization... but the ABX comparator tool is great...
actually, that is what i was trying to say...
I'll agree that a Stereo mix is far easier for positioning.. but it's obviously nowhere near as ideal as mono... but of course most people are going to take a stereo mix over mono mix... even dj's or any artist would agree. Hell live bands prefer a stereo mix of their audio.
1 points is easy to setup
2 points requires balancing depending where your sitting. Only 2 points to balance equals being far easier if you only have to provide for a single persons point.
5 points is obviously significantly more difficult to get the intended audio setup, but in reality, isn't all that far of from the problems that stereo has.
It doesn't matter where your sitting, it's not going to be perfect. Specially with peoples unbalanced hearing to begin with.
This isn't a reason to ignore it, or we would have just stuck with Mono and never went with stereo....
the arguements or disagreements about the move from stereo to surround sound mimic IDENTICALLY that of Mono to Stereo.
At some point it's going to happen. And alot of people will be quite pleased with it over stereo formats.
well, let's just hope that that happens when people know how to properly set up their surround systems... and that the cheap surround kit's are off the market for good... there is no point in having surround sound when the surround speakers are terrible...
but there will ALWAYS be the shitty stereos... surround sound units.... and there will always be the people that never have it setup properly ever.. (you don't know how many houses i've been in where they have a stereo with both speakers litterly sitting beside each other or ontop of each other)
that's the benefit stereo has over surround - it still sounds acceptable no matter how the speakers are arrayed - where as surround sounds like pure crap if the speakers aren't set up correctly
surround sound sounds just as good if all the speakers are allined side by side in the proper order.. and frankly i haven't come across a single household that hasn't setup the surround sound inproperly in that way..
I think you have that backwards ... The surround channels are modulated true speaker placement in stereo is harder to achieve.
i'm not sure what you mean by modulated... but even if "true" stereo isn't achieved, the result is still acceptable - you can still hear what's been played with a minimum of phase issues, no matter where you're standing in relation to the speakers - surround sound pretty much fails if you're not in the "sweet" spot
I understand how improperly setup stereo speakers will destroy the stereo image and there'll be no "sweet" spot, even moving out of the sweet spot will destroy the stereo image - BUT - it's much less of an issue than with surround sound
That's not entirly true, back around '75-'77 there were some 8track and LP's that were quad and were mixed from the get go for quad systems, which included special turntable and tape deck. Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" was one, it was relesed in both versions and the quad would not play (properly) on a stereo system. Dark Side in quad through quad headphones, yes they existed also, was very impressive. Not quite as impressive as the live show but they had some monster 20 channel PA or something for that gig.....
These systems would "enhance" a stereo signal, but could also play true quad tapes or lp's with discrete channels.
Me thinks I just gave away my age..... :rofl:
I did some more looking into the quadrophonic 8 track player and yes... with the 8 track players.. they were capable of up to even 8 seperate channels of audio at a time provided you had a player capable of it and you also lost amount of play time in the process (no tracks to switch to..)
aka, typically 4x stereo tracks..... however the pink floyd one (as an example) used a 2x quad tracks for it's specific 8 track.
i actually got that 8 track tyrson (not mine though)
Via a FM Stereo, the quadrophonic would kick in to "simulate" where as the 8 track is fully capable of playing the pink floyd quad channel audio.... and it's exceptionally noticeable....
Surround sound even if your sitting UNDER the rear left speaker, you still get the full surround sound experience very well... just as much as you'd get stereo experience if you were sitting under that speaker.. (or on it.. or whatever)
Some people have zero perception of audio though. someone could be screaming on the other side of the room, and they couldn't tell. This is a known fact... Similare to that there are people that have extremely narrow tunnel vision.
Modulated meaning the rear and side surround speaker signals are processed. There is more flexibility because of this, delays and levels can be adjusted easier than conventional stereo whether the stereo setup has 2 of 4 speakers.
I know what your saying DJ but it also depends on the sound environment and "room". For example I work on car audio and speaker placement for stereo is crucial. Speakers too low in door panels to reproduce high frequencies properly (which are very directional), speakers in rear doors canceling each other out (bass cancellation due to phase).
I have 2 rear and 2 side surround speakers in my small computer audio setup which also includes fronts and a small sub. Out of those speakers the side and rear surround are the least affected by location and even shifting them a few feet or changing there direction can be compensated for by adjustments.
ok well that "modulation" or processing is done by the receiver/decoder, the original source material has no such processing embedded (unless you're talking about "matrixed" formats like Dolby SR, which really aren't used for anything other than films these days)
I get what you're saying, that placement can be compensated, but I feel I haven't really stated my case properly
consider listenign at a club, concert, outdoor event, party at home, or even just lying in bed listening to a CD - in those situations multi-channel sound loses any advantage it has over stereo, or even mono. When you consider that's how commercially released music is going to be listened to at least 70-90% of the time, there's no real need to mix in anything other than stereo
now when mixing audio for film, that's another story, for a cinematic release you're guaranteed to have the audience sitting in a set position, and for a DVD movie, the same is generally true in a home theatre setup, so this is where multichannel really comes into it's own, but you've got to take into account mixing for stereo there for those without surround systems
yeah, i agree placement is very important, especially in an enclosed space like a car
but again, there's still no "one-size-fits-all" setting that works for anywhere in the room...
Thanks for the feedback and I think we are pretty much saying the same thing after reading your last post. My point was simply it is harder for positioning in stereo than it is in surround to obtain a true sound.
I have quite a bit of experience in live situations over 30 years now since my first "roadee" gig lol. On DSP or surround I don't use that with music myself I like a true feel to it.
On modulation and processing for surround that's the whole idea behind surround to allow the surround speaker components to use unnatural characteristics to achieve effects of a larger room amongst other things. These settings can be set up for a "sweet spot" as far as I am concerned with any speaker location scenario (within reason). To do so with a true stereo setup you don't have that flexibility.
(Sorry if I missed anything working on dinner here lol .. thanks for the reply )
i really had no idea that Dark Side Of The Moon was released as a 4 channel LP... or that there were special 4 channel vinyl players available back then (i don't even know ones that are available now for that matter LOL )... it's good to know that there were... even if the regular LP players couldn't read them properly...
LOL ... don't worry, my lips are sealed LOL ...
anyway, i think we got a little bit off topic... LOL
so, who want's to try a blind listening test of the mp3PRO and AAC+ codec using foobar2000...? you get to pick the track to be encoded at in 64kbps, 44,1KHz, 16bit format and listen to it, use the comparison tool in foobar2000 and post your results...
so who is up for it...?
Separate names with a comma.