[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/31/2014 2:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The thing about surround is that you don't actually have to use it. You can
put instruments in the surrounds, you can put ambience in the surrounds, or
you can consciously decide not to put anything back there at all. Just because
you have all these channels doesn't mean you have to do anything with them.

That speaks to the heart of the issue; the artist &/or producer has a
concept that they represent in the final product. What is the best way
to experience their intent?

I prefer a system that adds as little coloration or alteration of the
original sound as possible. There is a marked difference between the
"bootleg" version of the "Let it Be" album and the final commercial
release, and although the audio quality of the former is far below the
latter, it is a more enjoyable experience to me.

Others prefer systems that have a "character" that pleases them or that
add to the presentation with sub-woofers or spatial effects like hall
synthesis. That's OK... just not what I'm interested in.

They're there if you want, but people feel obligated to cram them full of stuff
so they feel they're getting their money's worth. It's like how once we had
24 tracks everybody had to put more instrumentation on because they couldn't
waste all that tape area....

Yes, there is that, too. But, some of those people have produced the
same thing with lesser equipment, whether it be Specter's "wall of
sound" or Les Paul and Mary Ford's many overlays. In those cases, their
artistic concepts connected well enough.
--
best regards,

Neil