5.1 music - help me understand

[DRZ]

So you have one man in a chair with a guitar in a room. You mic up that man and his guitar and record it.

You use a pair of stereo speakers to reproduce that in your own room - there you go, the man and his guitar are perched in the centre of your stereo image. The acoustics of the original room have "coloured" the recording and the acoustics of your own room have coloured the playback.

With a 5.1 playback of that recording, there is no advantage whatsoever, agreed?

So what about a live concert. You have The Eagles stood in front of a sellout wembley crowd, performing away. This is what is going on:

Singer, guitarists, drummer all fed into a mixing desk. A live mix is done and this gets fed out to the zillion watt PA rig ramming sound out to the masses.

Now, the microphones used for the singer arent stereo - its an omnidirectional monophonic mic wired (still in mono) into the desk which is then split into two for each side of the PA array. At no point does the engineer take into account that the singer is moving about - there is NO NEED to - the people in the audience couldnt give a flying one about a stereo image because one simply doesnt exist.

Then, when you take the above into account, does a 5.1 mix even need to be considered? All you have "behind" you is a whole load of screaming fans disturbing your "listening" coupled with some god-awful destructive reverberance. It goes no way to accurately reproducing what it was "like" to be there, it cant possibly do - they dont mic up the seating positions in the stadium!

Why the need for 5.1 then? What is the "aim" of it? I have heard a few 5.1 mixes (indeed, the Pink Floyd 5.1 mixes were done by a guy I know, I think) and all of them sounded reasonable but I still cant see why you would actively choose to listen to one over an accurate stereo recording of the event, fed straight from the live mix!

 

[Matblack]

Just my POV

I don't have many 5.1 music, the ones I do have are great Pink Floyd DSoTM and Jeff Wayne's WotW, these are enhanced by the suround sound because they deliberately use sound effects in the rear channels. Recorded music doesn't HAVE to be about reproducing the on stage experience ir can be something more, more like a musical production (stage) than a concert where souund and events happen all around you.

In WotW for example during the unscrewing of the cylinder scene Wayne (Who did the remix himself from the original masters) used the rear channels to hive the listener the impression that they are in the middle of the cylinder and its uncrewing around them, seamlessly moving the sound through the surround channels to encircle the audiance.

I've tried the same CD in 5.1 and 2.0 and as far as musical experience is concerned 2.0 wins hands down (issues here with source and amp), however 5.1 allows me to really emerse myself in the story.

Can't see where you would get benifit for a proper concert, unless its reproduction of the acustics as the sound echos at the back of the hall.

MB

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

DRZ, you're not wrong mate.
Couple of years ago, I listened to a £90k Meridian 5.1 system playing a DVD-A disk of a pianist. The way it was mixed, the high notes on the piano were right rear, with the rest of the piano left front. Felt like you were in the middle of the piano, which I simply didn't find believable. Put me off completely. I used to listen to my grandfather play every single day when I was a kid (he was a professional pianist), and it just wasn't right.

I'll stick to 2 channel thanks.

 

[9designs2]

Ok, where do we start !!!!
Are we debating the "mix" or the "equipment" ????
Now I have been a long term 2 channel, and had the same view as you guy's, but I've tried to be open minded, and based my view on what I have achieved in my set-up.

As ever so much does depend on the "mix" Mr_S example being a very good one. I think sometimes the engineers must be like kids in a sweet shop, playing with all the controls...because they can !!! Yep agreed spoils it for me too. Hence I have not rushed out to go SACD multi channel, I still pick the 2 channel track on the few I have.
Ok, but some exceptions, Eric Clapton Sessions For Robert J. Has DVD of the full recordings, Eric stands in the middle of a studio, the band all around the outside of the room. Plus some sitting on a chair in a small room etc !
Also included is a CD which lifts some of the same recordings as 2 channel.
The 5.1 DTS sounds better !!! the CD has been "squashed" sounds lifeless, muddled and flat in comparison. The DVD has ambiance, openness, life... and doesn't over do the fly around effects !!! Sure some time piano is from behind... that's because he's on the other side of the room, and camera has moved up to the drummer !!! It works because you have the pictures as well I think.

Live stadium/open air concerts work better as well, you get such a better sense of scale and size. AC/DC Stiff upper Lip, and Robbie Williams Knebworth work very well/better.

Movies, ambiance space, scale, flyby's in Sci-Fi, acoustic cues, ie re verb in a big hall etc...all adds to the immersion... I'd rather have a great 5.1 and small screen. than a huge screen and poor sound. The tension, drama and scary moments come from the sound track. The whole room comes alive !

So I got to thinking what does this extra channels really cost, has it diluted my 2 channel set up ? well not much.
As my set up is chosen on music, assuming I kept my brand loyalty, I'd have the same player, pre-amp and power amps, main speakers etc etc.

So to go 5.1 I bought the following as "extra" over a period of time
Kef Cresta 1 £50... rears
Linn LK85 power amp £230 exdem
Dynaudio 122c Centre £250 auction.
Built a 12" sealed sub for approx £500

In the context of the rest of the system that's a small investment

So that £1030 could have been spent where ? I could have added an extra power amp for the L+R ...... hmmmm small gain ?
Better speakers, no.... it would take many thousands to improve on my Dynaudio Gemini kit, or the Keltiks I got for £650 S/H that have replaced them for now.

So you CAN have both...???? But as ever the "mix" is what makes it work or fail......

 

[darreny]

why would you need stereo though for 1 guy in a room sat in a chair, most concert sounds are cleaned up before going into distribution so your not really getting a accurate recording of the concert anyway

 

[james.miller]

it's bad. very very bad. studio mixes that place instruments in various positisions in the soundfield can be....ok. Best example i can think of right now is probably aero by JMJ. But in general, and absolutely for live recording, 5.1 music is garbage.

 

[matty]

for 1 guy in a room with a guitar, you have a choice, a dry recording, with reverb added after, or a live recording. with the ambience of the room(assuming its a properly designed/treated recording environment)giving the recording some depth and feel, for 2 channel, a live recording is better(again providing the room doesnt colour the recording badly)though if the engineer is mixing in a properly treated(and i dont mean a chunk of foam on the wall, i mean proper, as in tested, treated, tested again, tweaked etc)then a very good dry recording can be mixed into a reasonable live sound, but not as good as real live take

5.1 etc is only really suitable for music designed for it, if you want to sit in the middle of an orchestra then 5.1 is good, or for movie soundtracks, though i can see that a live concert in 5.1 might have a good feel to it?

 

[YooEntSinMeROYT]

A positive 5.1 Music experience is definitely dependent on the mix as mentioned more than once in this thread. I would agree that 5.1 is best suited to music that is designed for it.

I personally think listening to the 5.1 DVD Audio mix Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody upmixed through my 7.1 system is a mindblowing experience! The harmonies placed around the room really suit the song.

However The Flaming Lips track Fight Test from the Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots album through 5.1 DVD Audio constantly has the sound of the drums rotating around the listener. Which can be a bit distracting.

I quite enjoy listening to 5.1 mixes where guitar licks will come out of one of the surround channels.

My most played album at the moment has to be the SACD of Goldfrapp's Supernature. As the 5.1 mix just seems to work for me.

However I'm not a big fan of listening to live recordings. I'd much rather actually be at a gig.

I think you need to have an open mind really when listening to 5.1 music mixes.

I've been a big advocate of decent 2 channel reproduction over the years with respect to music.
However now I'm a total multi-channel music convert.

As far as movies go I've always been a fan of multi-channel surround sound. It draws you into the movie experience so much more.
Listening to the DTS 6.1 ES mix of the Lord Of The Rings extended trilogy at a decent volume is an absolute revelation.