William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so
quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings
for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically
reproduce anything.
I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people
consume media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.
So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should
not acquire or listen to surround recordings?
It might not hurt you to get out a little more...
I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and
reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers
who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it.
There's little doubt of that. I am thinking that the problem would
be more one of having a culture or subculture that supports it - which
might actually be a solvable problem.
I just despair of what passes for entertainment these days. I got
a Facebook link of a camera video. Not only was it out of focus, the
audio was just a blur. I am pretty sure it was of human
performers using some variation on Western diatonic tonality, but that's
about all I could say. I'm pretty sure that 1) the "videographer" paid
to be there and 2) probably heard about what the video sounded like.
Lotta *THOOM* now and again. I presume it was a "kik drum" synthesis
of some sort. Coulda been mortar fire for all I could tell.
But Blu-Ray burners and multichannel formats are available, so there's
nothing to prevent a "maker" movement towards this.
I am, frankly, just not the guy to ask about this sort of thing. I have,
uh, Queen records
Not my wheelhouse.
--
Les Cargill