[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I classify *most* surround rather like 3D movies or TV. Something
which crops up regularly when the equipment makers need to sell
a 'fresh' idea, but which doesn't stand the test of time.

The movie industry has never been able to make 3D "stick". The problem isn't
so much that people have to wear glasses, it's that 3D doesn't generally add
anything that enhances one's enjoyment of the film. It isn't inherently
gimmicky, but it's often used in a gimmicky fashion. Its presence draws
attention to itself -- which could be considered pointlessly distracting. *

There was a similar argument in the 1920s about whether color motion pictures
were artistically acceptable. The apparent reason for the argument was that
all the practical systems (including the original Technicolor) used only two
primaries, which made for a narrow (and ultimately unappealing) color gamut.
Once three-strip Technicolor was introduced, the arguing largely stopped.

So the issue with surround sound is, basically, whether it enhances or
distracts. Or, if you like, it sounds natural or artificial.

I'm not going to rehash the arguments about ambient surround, whether natural
or synthesized. The fact is that it can greatly enhance one's listening
pleasure, because it brings one closer to the sound of a live performance,
without becoming audible. Anyone in this group is welcome to stop by for a
//proper// demonstration of both approaches, and decide for themselves. (I
agree that Ambisonics is the gold standard here, ** but well-made "discrete"
recordings are acceptable.)

So what happens when you immerse the listener within the performers or
instruments? You're now asking him to pay attention to something that's hardly
ever heard in real life. How is one supposed to react to instruments
all-around? Some people like this, simply for the added acoustic complexity.
(I do.) Others find it irritating, probably because there's no way to decide
what one should pay attention to. *** The listener might feel "battered".

And then there's the psychoacoustics of hearing sounds from behind you. The
mechanisms that control rear localization are not those that control frontal
localization. You can confirm this simply by turning around while playing a
recording with good imaging. It doesn't sound the same. Most notably, sounds
seem to come out of the speakers, rather than forming a continuous image.
Center-rear sounds can appear to be inside your head. For this type of
immersive surround to work well, the mix has to be closely monitored. In
particular, the rear channels should be limited to "discrete" sources, not
used to create a panoramic image.

There are current classical recordings that immerse the listener in this
fashion. In the Jacobs' "Nozze", the dancers and associated musicians enter
from the front and takes places around the listener. In the Jacobs' "St
Matthew Passion", the work is performed in a church with the choirs split
front and rear, //as it was in Bach's time//. The rear singers sometimes
appear to be localized at the speakers, rather than forming a plausible
spatial image (as the front singers do). A similar problem occurs with the
Rilling "War Requiem", which attempts to duplicate the spatiality of a live
performance.

I suspect a larger listening room would let me better position the speakers to
reduce these effects. (I have large planar speakers, each driven by a bulky
amplifier.) It's time to give it serious thought.

Regardless... Anyone testing listener perceptions of surround sound ought to
be aware of these problems, which necessarily interfere with drawing valid
judgments. Dr Rumsey's presentation gives no indication of how he handled
them -- or if he was even aware of them.

* I was impressed with the understated way "Up!" used 3D. But if it's so
natural you aren't aware of it -- why use it?

** Ambisonics is simply a better way of recording than any two-channel system.
It resolves a lot of the problems of conventional stereo. This is one of the
reasons why I got so upset at Dr Rumsey's ill-drawn conclusions.

*** I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the quad
version of DSM.