Peter Gabriel Seeks Audio Upgrade

[Rob Adelman]

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>

"LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."

" He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
often there isn't enough space on stereo."



I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.

[Geoff Wood]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.


Well his recent stuff has been rather cluttered. But I don't think adding
more channels will help that ....


geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.


Well his recent stuff has been rather cluttered. But I don't think adding
more channels will help that ....


geoff

[John Washburn]

"Rob Adelman" wrote:
tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
>
> "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
>

Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.

Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm not
excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two speakers
correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?

I guess it sort of makes sense with a "home theater" since you have to face
the TV anyway, which (hopefully) puts you somewhere near the sweet spot be
default.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Rob Adelman" wrote:
tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
>
> "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
>

Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.

Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm not
excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two speakers
correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?

I guess it sort of makes sense with a "home theater" since you have to face
the TV anyway, which (hopefully) puts you somewhere near the sweet spot be
default.

-jw

[Paul]

Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
>
> "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.

Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.

MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
'Avalon' close second)

the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
Sting.

[Paul]

Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
>
> "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
>
> " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> often there isn't enough space on stereo."
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.

Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.

MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
'Avalon' close second)

the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
Sting.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message
.. .

> Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm
not
> excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two
speakers
> correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?

So true. And placement's even more important in 5.1. I went to someone's
house who had all five speakers and the subwoofer stack on top of each
other! They equate "loud" with better. Once again the marketing people have
snookered the general public.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message
.. .

> Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm
not
> excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two
speakers
> correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?

So true. And placement's even more important in 5.1. I went to someone's
house who had all five speakers and the subwoofer stack on top of each
other! They equate "loud" with better. Once again the marketing people have
snookered the general public.

[Steve]

(Paul) wrote in message >...
> Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> >
> > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
> >
> > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
>
> Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
>
> MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> 'Avalon' close second)
>
> the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> Sting.

IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
right path.
I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
way round.

Steve Lane

[Steve]

(Paul) wrote in message >...
> Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> >
> > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
> >
> > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
>
> Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
>
> MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> 'Avalon' close second)
>
> the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> Sting.

IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
right path.
I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
way round.

Steve Lane

[Ken Platt]

Well, the fact remains that people WILL play surround stuff. I've been to
friends houses where they have their playback system on with all the
surround speakers on. Maybe a delay of some sort on the rears and a
'theatre' EQ curve on it. Of course it sounds like sh*t, but if a
steelworker pays for six speakers and an amp/reciever with lots of buttons
on it he's gonna want to use them. If I'm gonna have to hear all those
speakers at John Doe's house the program material might as well be mixed for
it. Hell, we live in a society where some people put thousands of watts and
12" subs in a Honda! Even they must hear the rattling. If you build it
they will come.
kp

"Steve" > wrote in message
om...
> (Paul) wrote in message
>...
> > Rob Adelman > wrote in message
>...
> > >
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/musi
c_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> > >
> > > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now
on."
> > >
> > > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in
stereo.
> >
> > Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> > was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> > times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
> >
> > MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> > 'Avalon' close second)
> >
> > the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> > Sting.
>
> IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
> classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
> to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
> It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
> alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
> right path.
> I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
> way round.
>
> Steve Lane

[Ken Platt]

Well, the fact remains that people WILL play surround stuff. I've been to
friends houses where they have their playback system on with all the
surround speakers on. Maybe a delay of some sort on the rears and a
'theatre' EQ curve on it. Of course it sounds like sh*t, but if a
steelworker pays for six speakers and an amp/reciever with lots of buttons
on it he's gonna want to use them. If I'm gonna have to hear all those
speakers at John Doe's house the program material might as well be mixed for
it. Hell, we live in a society where some people put thousands of watts and
12" subs in a Honda! Even they must hear the rattling. If you build it
they will come.
kp

"Steve" > wrote in message
om...
> (Paul) wrote in message
>...
> > Rob Adelman > wrote in message
>...
> > >
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/musi
c_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> > >
> > > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now
on."
> > >
> > > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in
stereo.
> >
> > Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> > was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> > times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
> >
> > MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> > 'Avalon' close second)
> >
> > the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> > Sting.
>
> IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
> classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
> to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
> It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
> alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
> right path.
> I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
> way round.
>
> Steve Lane

[Tommy B]

Well at least this time there is an agreed upon format....lol
tom
"Ken Platt" > wrote in message
...
> Well, the fact remains that people WILL play surround stuff. I've been to
> friends houses where they have their playback system on with all the
> surround speakers on. Maybe a delay of some sort on the rears and a
> 'theatre' EQ curve on it. Of course it sounds like sh*t, but if a
> steelworker pays for six speakers and an amp/reciever with lots of buttons
> on it he's gonna want to use them. If I'm gonna have to hear all those
> speakers at John Doe's house the program material might as well be mixed
for
> it. Hell, we live in a society where some people put thousands of watts
and
> 12" subs in a Honda! Even they must hear the rattling. If you build it
> they will come.
> kp
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Paul) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Rob Adelman > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/musi
> c_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> > > >
> > > > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared
that
> > > > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from
now
> on."
> > > >
> > > > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > > > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in
> stereo.
> > >
> > > Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> > > was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> > > times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
> > >
> > > MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> > > 'Avalon' close second)
> > >
> > > the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> > > Sting.
> >
> > IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
> > classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
> > to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
> > It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
> > alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
> > right path.
> > I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
> > way round.
> >
> > Steve Lane
>
>

[Tommy B]

Well at least this time there is an agreed upon format....lol
tom
"Ken Platt" > wrote in message
...
> Well, the fact remains that people WILL play surround stuff. I've been to
> friends houses where they have their playback system on with all the
> surround speakers on. Maybe a delay of some sort on the rears and a
> 'theatre' EQ curve on it. Of course it sounds like sh*t, but if a
> steelworker pays for six speakers and an amp/reciever with lots of buttons
> on it he's gonna want to use them. If I'm gonna have to hear all those
> speakers at John Doe's house the program material might as well be mixed
for
> it. Hell, we live in a society where some people put thousands of watts
and
> 12" subs in a Honda! Even they must hear the rattling. If you build it
> they will come.
> kp
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Paul) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Rob Adelman > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/musi
> c_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> > > >
> > > > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared
that
> > > > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from
now
> on."
> > > >
> > > > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > > > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in
> stereo.
> > >
> > > Thats interesting. I thought his surround mix at AES at the Sony demo
> > > was one of the worst in the group. His vocals got lost a bunch of
> > > times, and there wasn't a balance like some of the other takes.
> > >
> > > MHO, the best 5.1 surround mix was Pink Floyd 'Money' (Roxy Music
> > > 'Avalon' close second)
> > >
> > > the worst, as always, in everything he gets his hands on these days.
> > > Sting.
> >
> > IMO 5.1 is more for video sfx than music. It is certainly no good for
> > classical music reproduction. If you want a system that will take you
> > to a place, Ambisonics is still the best way to go.
> > It's a pity that PF and RM could not have come out with an Ambisonic
> > alternative. I think I will drop a line to PG and point him to the
> > right path.
> > I believe it is easier to morph an Ambisonic mix to 5.1 than the other
> > way round.
> >
> > Steve Lane
>
>

[michael harris]

Once you hear a well mixed 5.1 album on a decent system, you might
change your mind about the merits of surround. It does take some
getting used to at first.
"Dark Side" is great, as is Toy Matinee and the Super Furry Animals
DVDs. These really show off the potential for surround, without
sounding like a gimmick.






"John Washburn" > wrote in message >...
> "Rob Adelman" wrote:
> tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> >
> > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
> >
> > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
> >
>
> Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
> playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
> Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.
>
> Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm not
> excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two speakers
> correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?
>
> I guess it sort of makes sense with a "home theater" since you have to face
> the TV anyway, which (hopefully) puts you somewhere near the sweet spot be
> default.
>
> -jw

[michael harris]

Once you hear a well mixed 5.1 album on a decent system, you might
change your mind about the merits of surround. It does take some
getting used to at first.
"Dark Side" is great, as is Toy Matinee and the Super Furry Animals
DVDs. These really show off the potential for surround, without
sounding like a gimmick.






"John Washburn" > wrote in message >...
> "Rob Adelman" wrote:
> tmpl=story&cid=769&e=3&u=/nm/20031017/music_nm/music_gabriel_dc>
> >
> > "LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that
> > if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on."
> >
> > " He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and
> > often there isn't enough space on stereo."
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree. It is amazing how much space you can find in stereo.
> >
>
> Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
> playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
> Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.
>
> Of course, I still think mono is fine for most things, so whatever. I'm not
> excited about 5.1 for music at all. If most people can't set up two speakers
> correctly, how are they going to be expected to set up six?
>
> I guess it sort of makes sense with a "home theater" since you have to face
> the TV anyway, which (hopefully) puts you somewhere near the sweet spot be
> default.
>
> -jw

[John Washburn]

"michael harris" wrote:
> Once you hear a well mixed 5.1 album on a decent system, you might
> change your mind about the merits of surround.

I suppose. I don't have anything *against* surround, per se. But I think a
well mixed stereo album on a decent system is a pretty satisfying experience
on its own, and comparatively rare.


> It does take some
> getting used to at first.
> "Dark Side" is great, as is Toy Matinee and the Super Furry Animals
> DVDs. These really show off the potential for surround, without
> sounding like a gimmick.


I guess my feeling is that if the program material on the record is strong
and presented in a way worth listening to, I don't think it really much
matters how many playback channels there are.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"michael harris" wrote:
> Once you hear a well mixed 5.1 album on a decent system, you might
> change your mind about the merits of surround.

I suppose. I don't have anything *against* surround, per se. But I think a
well mixed stereo album on a decent system is a pretty satisfying experience
on its own, and comparatively rare.


> It does take some
> getting used to at first.
> "Dark Side" is great, as is Toy Matinee and the Super Furry Animals
> DVDs. These really show off the potential for surround, without
> sounding like a gimmick.


I guess my feeling is that if the program material on the record is strong
and presented in a way worth listening to, I don't think it really much
matters how many playback channels there are.

-jw

[Graham Hinton]

In article >,
(michael harris) wrote:

>Once you hear a well mixed 5.1 album on a decent system, you might
>change your mind about the merits of surround. It does take some
>getting used to at first.
>"Dark Side" is great, as is Toy Matinee and the Super Furry Animals
>DVDs. These really show off the potential for surround, without
>sounding like a gimmick.

I first heard surround sound with the Floyd's Azimuth Coordinator, it was a
gimmick 35 years ago and I'm still not used to it and still can't say it
does anything for the music. I heard the first and later DSOTM tours with
and without the quad PA and I can't say that the quad performances were an
improvement or not. They only used it on the occasional guitar solo or
backing tape FX too. The audience says "oooooh the sound went round" and
then there is not much else you can do with it. Rather like inflatibles and
puppets.
Very few (I can't think of any actually) other bands have ever gone in for
live surround sound at all, so where is the "demand" coming from?

I saw Tony Andrews applying his new surround system at a festival a couple
of years ago completely inappropriate for the folk rock band performing.
The engineers were so engrossed planning their surround sweeps on computer
screens they did not notice the lead singer frantically waving on stage
because she could not hear herself in the stage monitors.

Potential? Has somebody just found one after all these years? Not Peter
Gabriel.

Whatever six loudspeaker channels cost that money can always be better
spent on just two better ones.

[MikeK]

Graham Hinton wrote:


> Very few (I can't think of any actually) other bands have ever gone in for
> live surround sound at all, so where is the "demand" coming from?

Emerson, Lake and Palmer on the Brain Salad Surgery tour. I think that was
back when the term was Quadrophonic.<g> Again, the big deal was swirling
electronica.

[Nathan West]

Graham Hinton wrote:

> The audience says "oooooh the sound went round" and
> then there is not much else you can do with it. Rather like inflatibles and
> puppets.

The audience are who you would mix a 5.1 for in the first place. If they go
*ooooh* then you have achieved something, and if they buy it then you have
achieved more.

> Very few (I can't think of any actually) other bands have ever gone in for
> live surround sound at all, so where is the "demand" coming from?

The demand is coming from the market that wants to see bands along with hearing
them. A whole segment of the market have basic surround systems in their
houses that go with their Cable/DVD/TV systems. And those consumers like being
excited by hearing what their systems can do. If a guitar swirls around behind
you, it becomes simply plain aural fun for the end listener/watcher. If you
hear the Friends show, and have laughter coming from behind you, it is either
startling or cool. A lot of my non-audio friends think it is cool and makes it
more fun to listen to.


> I saw Tony Andrews applying his new surround system at a festival a couple
> of years ago completely inappropriate for the folk rock band performing.
> The engineers were so engrossed planning their surround sweeps on computer
> screens they did not notice the lead singer frantically waving on stage
> because she could not hear herself in the stage monitors.

And I've seen basic audio ****ed up too. It doesn't mean anything nor does it
point to a fault in the delivery. Sounds to me like they needed a PIP IMAG of
the stage on their screens in this case, or a more observant Stage Manager on
Com or perhaps a spotter at the FOH.

Nate

[EganMedia]

>Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
>playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
>Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.

And if you *need* to go thirty miles per hour, that's awful fast. Maybe you
ought to learn to slow down a little and appreciate your horse. That foolish
horseless carriage is never going to catch on anyway...

I personally love the possibilities that 5.1 offers. I don't care that a lot
of people will abuse it. I don't care that a lot of people can't or don't
appreciate it.

I have a ****ty home theater set up out of spec and it still blows away its
predacessor- a similar straight stereo system. I have a calibrated 5.1 mix
room at work which leaves no doubt as to the validity and promise of the
technology. Give it a chance.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Lou Gimenez]

Pink Floyd before that
--Lou Gimenez
The Music Lab
2" 24track w all the Goodies
www.musiclabnyc.com



> From: MikeK >
> Reply-To:
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:11:27 GMT
> Subject: Re: Peter Gabriel Seeks Audio Upgrade
>
> Graham Hinton wrote:
>
>
>> Very few (I can't think of any actually) other bands have ever gone in for
>> live surround sound at all, so where is the "demand" coming from?
>
> Emerson, Lake and Palmer on the Brain Salad Surgery tour. I think that was
> back when the term was Quadrophonic.<g> Again, the big deal was swirling
> electronica.

[Denny F]

"EganMedia" > wrote in message
...
> >Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
> >playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
> >Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.

<snip>

Ya know, we only have two transducers in our heads (ears). Seems it should
be possible to create any sonic image you want with just two speakers and
the right processing.

In fact, I seem to remember Yamaha had come up with a "software" solution to
do exactly this which could be played on any standard two-channel system. Or
was that a dream?

In any event, seems to me it should be possible, however I guess speaker
placement would be fairly critical, and the "sweet spot" fairly small. But
that's just intuitive guessing.

And since this wouldn't require one to buy a whole new slew of equipment, I
guess there would be no incentive to go this route. Other than elegance.
--------------------------------------------------
Denny Fohringer
Itinerant guitarist
--------------------------------------------------
Lessons and music:
http://surf.to/dennyf
Bands:
http://bluepearlband.com http://doubletakeband.com
--------------------------------------------------

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:24:03 -0400, "Denny F" >
wrote:

>Ya know, we only have two transducers in our heads (ears). Seems it should
>be possible to create any sonic image you want with just two speakers and
>the right processing.

In theory. In practice, most of these leave a lot to be desired in
accuracy. Just effects.

Kal

[EganMedia]

>Ya know, we only have two transducers in our heads (ears).

True. And they are designed to pick up sounds coming from all around us.
Further, our brains are able to process the frequency and time information from
our ears to let us know which directions the sounds are coming from.

Seems it should
>be possible to create any sonic image you want with just two speakers and
>the right processing.

Binaural "dummy head" recordings played back over headphones can convey the
frequency and timing information for a two speaker "surround" experience. As
soon as those recordings are played over ordinary loudspeakers in a room, the
subtle information is largely lost. You can get a decent left/right image, but
there is no discernable verticle or front-to-back information.

The fact is, sounds come at us from all around, not just from two point
sources. 5.1 provides a balance between the ideal and the practical. If you
ever have a chance to hear a really good surround recording in a good listening
environment I'll bet you'll agree.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Andrew M.]

Surround ROCKS! I picked up a B&W 5.1 setup and it kicks ass. I bought
Sting's CD Ten Summoners Tales and Steely Dan's Two Against Nature and
couldn't believe how engaging the surround mixes are. I really enjoy
surround and everyone I have played it for loves it as well. I can't
wait to get more music.

EganMedia wrote:
>>Ya know, we only have two transducers in our heads (ears).
>
>
> True. And they are designed to pick up sounds coming from all around us.
> Further, our brains are able to process the frequency and time information from
> our ears to let us know which directions the sounds are coming from.
>
> Seems it should
>
>>be possible to create any sonic image you want with just two speakers and
>>the right processing.
>
>
> Binaural "dummy head" recordings played back over headphones can convey the
> frequency and timing information for a two speaker "surround" experience. As
> soon as those recordings are played over ordinary loudspeakers in a room, the
> subtle information is largely lost. You can get a decent left/right image, but
> there is no discernable verticle or front-to-back information.
>
> The fact is, sounds come at us from all around, not just from two point
> sources. 5.1 provides a balance between the ideal and the practical. If you
> ever have a chance to hear a really good surround recording in a good listening
> environment I'll bet you'll agree.
>
>
> Joe Egan
> EMP
> Colchester, VT
> www.eganmedia.com

[John Washburn]

"EganMedia" wrote:
> John Washburn wrote:
> >Yeah. There is a lot of space in stereo. If you *need* five channels of
> >playback in order to fit everything in, that's an awful lot of stuff.
> >Perhaps you really actually need to cut back how much stuff there is.
>
> And if you *need* to go thirty miles per hour, that's awful fast. Maybe
you
> ought to learn to slow down a little and appreciate your horse. That
foolish
> horseless carriage is never going to catch on anyway...

That analogy doesn't make any sense. First of all, I'm not saying that 5.1
is bad or that stereo is inherently superior or taking any particular stand
either way on the inherent pros and cons of of any playback standard.

My point is really more about cluttered arrangements than technology. If you
feel like you need more playback channels to fit in all your music perhaps
it might be beneficial to re-examine how the parts are fitting together. The
right tool for the job, etc.


> I personally love the possibilities that 5.1 offers. I don't care that a
lot
> of people will abuse it. I don't care that a lot of people can't or don't
> appreciate it.
>
> I have a ****ty home theater set up out of spec and it still blows away
its
> predacessor- a similar straight stereo system. I have a calibrated 5.1
mix
> room at work which leaves no doubt as to the validity and promise of the
> technology. Give it a chance.

I'm giving it a chance. But I still think that if you're using it fix
problems in the arrangement, then the arrangement must really need work.
Most (all?) of the records that everyone are getting in a tizzy about the
5.1 mixes over (Dark Side of the Moon, etc) worked really well in stereo.

-jw

[Buster Mudd]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message >...
> My point is really more about cluttered arrangements than technology. If you
> feel like you need more playback channels to fit in all your music perhaps
> it might be beneficial to re-examine how the parts are fitting together. The
> right tool for the job, etc.

"Cluttered" by whose standards? Some folks are more attracted to dense
arrangements than others. Some might even be attracted to arrangements
that are so dense they can't be properly documented in a stereo
record/playback medium. To say that there is a flaw in the arrangement
because the playback medium can't represent it accurately is not only
a somewhat elitist attitude, but it also misses the point of a
record/playback medium: to accurate capture & represent the
arrangement.

Stereo barely does justice to Elliott Carter's String Quartets, &
that's only 4 guys sawing away at their instruments. It would be
ignorant or asinine to suggest that Carter's arrangement might be too
dense.

[John Washburn]

"Buster Mudd" wrote:
> "John Washburn" wrote
> > My point is really more about cluttered arrangements than technology. If
you
> > feel like you need more playback channels to fit in all your music
perhaps
> > it might be beneficial to re-examine how the parts are fitting together.
The
> > right tool for the job, etc.
>
> "Cluttered" by whose standards? Some folks are more attracted to dense
> arrangements than others. Some might even be attracted to arrangements
> that are so dense they can't be properly documented in a stereo
> record/playback medium. To say that there is a flaw in the arrangement
> because the playback medium can't represent it accurately is not only
> a somewhat elitist attitude, but it also misses the point of a
> record/playback medium: to accurate capture & represent the
> arrangement.

Maybe.

But I don't see how it's elitist to think that, under most conditions and
for most program material, it's possible to play back the sound with just
two channels quite satisfactorily.

Again, I'm not saying that surround is bad, or that people who want to
explore it are bad, or that there's anything wrong with being interested in
it. If you dig it, go nuts. Live large.

I'm just saying that I don't think it's the appropriate solution--under most
circumstances--to not being able to sonically fit in all the elements of a
mix. That's all. Not that dense mixes are bad, or that the music should be
changed so as to have all the elements transparent. Just that the solution
to over-density generally shouldn't be to add more space, but to better
manage the space you have. There's a lot of ways to do that.

>
> Stereo barely does justice to Elliott Carter's String Quartets, &
> that's only 4 guys sawing away at their instruments. It would be
> ignorant or asinine to suggest that Carter's arrangement might be too
> dense.

Carter's music has--as far as I can determine--never been released in
surround, so what's your point? And even if it has been, how would surround
improve comprehension of the elements of his music? He is always in full
control of how he wants to focus the listener, whether it's a single line or
multiple motifs swarming at once.

In any case, his music is composed to be presented in the traditional
fashion, with the musicians on a stage in a hall, facing the audience. The
only sound coming from the sides and back are reflections off the walls.
While surround might make for a more realistic simulation of a concert
experience and might be make for a more realistic sonic image of the stage,
I don't see how it would clarify the "mix".

-jw

[Graham Hinton]

In article >,
"Denny F" > wrote:

>In fact, I seem to remember Yamaha had come up with a "software" solution to
>do exactly this which could be played on any standard two-channel system. Or
>was that a dream?

I think that the system that Yamaha tried to bring out mid '80s was based
on John Chowning's other patent that they also aquired when they bought the
FM one. I never heard the Yamaha system, it seemed to die on the vine, but
I did hear an original Chowning demo around '76 which was highly
impressive. Just two speakers on stage playing a two track tape and
everybody in the theatre heard the surround effect. I was more impressed at
hearing detailed sounds dancing *up and down* apparently a few feet in
front of my face and knowing that it only came from two speakers.

That still doesn't make me want to buy all my albums again remixed for
surround especially on a home 5.1 system with speakers the size of
cigarette packets and about the same quality.

[Graham Hinton]

In article >,
(EganMedia) wrote:

>I personally love the possibilities that 5.1 offers. I don't care that a lot
>of people will abuse it. I don't care that a lot of people can't or don't
>appreciate it.

We've been here before. Haven't you ever heard of SQ/QS?
I had a console with quad panpots in '76. The first SSL 4ks had a
quadrophonic mix bus back in the late 70s when everybody assured us that
surround sound was the next big thing. I worked on that, I also designed
the SSL film surround panners for the Lucasfilm consoles. That was a long
time ago now and I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a
possibility that isn't just maybe interesting on the first hearing, boring
on the second and increasingly annoying thereafter.

[Thomas Bishop]

"Buster Mudd" > wrote in message
> "Cluttered" by whose standards? Some folks are more attracted to dense
> arrangements than others. Some might even be attracted to arrangements
> that are so dense they can't be properly documented in a stereo
> record/playback medium. To say that there is a flaw in the arrangement
> because the playback medium can't represent it accurately is not only
> a somewhat elitist attitude, but it also misses the point of a
> record/playback medium: to accurate capture & represent the
> arrangement.

Would you agree that we, as engineers, mix to the very best standards, but
keep in mind that there will be people listening on all types of crappy
systems, including mono? A lot of people don't have full 5.1 surround and a
home theatre. Even those who do listen to music in cars, portable CD
players, boom boxes, etc. The CD should sound good on all playback systems,
and not cluttered everywhere except for the surrround sound home theatre.

[Steve]

"Tommy B" > wrote in message et>...
> Well at least this time there is an agreed upon format....lol
> tom

snip

Yes, but it's a real shame that the market is forcing a system that is
at best a poor second best to the true multidimensional potential of
an Ambisonic system.

Stevel

[Kurt Albershardt]

Thomas Bishop wrote:
>
>
> Would you agree that we, as engineers, mix to the very best standards, but
> keep in mind that there will be people listening on all types of crappy
> systems, including mono? A lot of people don't have full 5.1 surround and a
> home theatre. Even those who do listen to music in cars

Most of which already have four speakers and quite a few of which will
soon be shipping with multichannel-capable playback systems. Several CE
industry pundits are predicting that automotive will be the driving
force in 5.1 playback systems (the one that gets the content authors and
distributors interested.) Time will tell...

[Romeo Rondeau]

Great, 6 channels of over-compressed garbage, woohoo! :-)


> > Would you agree that we, as engineers, mix to the very best standards,
but
> > keep in mind that there will be people listening on all types of crappy
> > systems, including mono? A lot of people don't have full 5.1 surround
and a
> > home theatre. Even those who do listen to music in cars
>
> Most of which already have four speakers and quite a few of which will
> soon be shipping with multichannel-capable playback systems. Several CE
> industry pundits are predicting that automotive will be the driving
> force in 5.1 playback systems (the one that gets the content authors and
> distributors interested.) Time will tell...
>
>
>

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:06:05 -0500, "Romeo Rondeau"
> wrote:

>Great, 6 channels of over-compressed garbage, woohoo! :-)

3 times better/worse than the typical over-compressed 2 channel
garbage.

>> > Would you agree that we, as engineers, mix to the very best standards,
>but
>> > keep in mind that there will be people listening on all types of crappy
>> > systems, including mono? A lot of people don't have full 5.1 surround
>and a
>> > home theatre. Even those who do listen to music in cars

I am not trying to pick a fight but how often are you engineers
permitted to mix to the very best standards? One of the nice
things about much of the new discrete MCH stuff (SACD/DVD-A) is that
they sound good on good equipment.

Kal

[Kurt Albershardt]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>
> One of the nice
> things about much of the new discrete MCH stuff (SACD/DVD-A) is that
> they sound good on good equipment.

Even nicer is that they sound passable on less-than-stellar systems.

Localization and imaging on the vast majority of 2-channel home systems
is frightful.

[Romeo Rondeau]

>3 times better/worse than the typical over-compressed 2 channel
garbage.

LOL! Sorry, just had to edit something today that was recorded at 24/96k,
but it was compressed to no end, like -3db average level at times, it was
all distorted, sounded like ass, all in the name of "competing with today's
releases". Why bother going 24/96 in the first place? Evidently there will
be a prize awarded to the loudest most distorted piece of ****. <rant mode
off>

> I am not trying to pick a fight but how often are you engineers
> permitted to mix to the very best standards? One of the nice
> things about much of the new discrete MCH stuff (SACD/DVD-A) is that
> they sound good on good equipment.

I don't get to mix to the "very best standards" very often because of time/
budget constraints, but I wish we could raise the level of the "very worst
standards"

[Buster Mudd]

"John Washburn" > wrote in message >...

>
> But I don't see how it's elitist to think that, under most conditions and
> for most program material, it's possible to play back the sound with just
> two channels quite satisfactorily.

Of course, & I agree with you there. What I didn't agree with was the
implication that the arrangement was flawed if it couldn't translate
well in a stereo mix. (>>If you feel like you need more playback
channels to fit in all your music perhaps it might be beneficial to
re-examine how the parts are fitting together.<<) Maybe I
misinterpreted that comment; it struck me as an ivory tower commentary
on the quality of Gabriel's arrangements. Upon re-reading it I see how
you could have simply been making a comment on compositing soundstage
elements in a stereo mix, in which case I apologize for
misinterpreting and overreacting.


> >
> > Stereo barely does justice to Elliott Carter's String Quartets, &
> > that's only 4 guys sawing away at their instruments. It would be
> > ignorant or asinine to suggest that Carter's arrangement might be too
> > dense.
>
> Carter's music has--as far as I can determine--never been released in
> surround, so what's your point? And even if it has been, how would surround
> improve comprehension of the elements of his music?

My point, again, was that the playback medium has nothing to do with
the arrangement...and vice-versa. There's a fairly universal consensus
that Carter's string quartet music is very dense. Yet no one goes
about suggesting that he remix it in 5.1, or, heaven forfend,
"re-examine how the parts are fitting together" in order to make the
listening experience clearer.

Peter Gabriel is certainly correct in thinking that the surround
medium will offer more space for the many elements of his arrangement,
but he may be misguided in thinking stereo is incapable of providing
the required space. I certainly agree that stereo still has a ****load
of three-dimensional space that the creative mix engineer can make use
of. I just don't think Peter should be downsizing his imagination
and/or stripping away his arrangements just because things get a
little "dense".

[EganMedia]

>My point is really more about cluttered arrangements than technology. If you
>feel like you need more playback channels to fit in all your music perhaps
>it might be beneficial to re-examine how the parts are fitting together.

A lot of people think surround sound is about guitar solos flying front to rear
and background vocals coming from behind the listener, etc. etc. What excites
me about 5.1 is the potential for creating a more realistic ambiance. Sure in
movies it's fun to hear the jet fly past you. But with music, I like to hear
the relections off the side and rear walls of the space the music was performed
in. I like to be able to add a sense of depth to the sound stage. Arrangement
aside, I like the space that 5.1 offers.

(I also like to hear the jets in movies fly past me)



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 21 Oct 2003 13:04:42 GMT, (EganMedia) wrote:

>A lot of people think surround sound is about guitar solos flying front to rear
>and background vocals coming from behind the listener, etc. etc. What excites
>me about 5.1 is the potential for creating a more realistic ambiance. Sure in
>movies it's fun to hear the jet fly past you. But with music, I like to hear
>the relections off the side and rear walls of the space the music was performed
>in. I like to be able to add a sense of depth to the sound stage. Arrangement
>aside, I like the space that 5.1 offers.

I agree with you but let me mention 2 recordings which offer relevant
ideas.

1. A DVD-A called "Immersion" (Starkland S-2010) which contains music
written explicitly for a multichannel (surround) experience and which,
in two channel playback, becomes inconsequential.

2. Another DVD-A of Mendelssohn's Octet (Tacet DVD 94) in which the 8
instruments are spread around the listener in a circle. While clearly
not a traditional setup, I have never been so able to follow the score
and extract all the counterpoint before. Stereo sounds fine on this
but it's much less fun.

>(I also like to hear the jets in movies fly past me)

Me, too.

Kal

[John Washburn]

"Buster Mudd" wrote:
> "John Washburn" wrote:
>
> >
> > But I don't see how it's elitist to think that, under most conditions
and
> > for most program material, it's possible to play back the sound with
just
> > two channels quite satisfactorily.
>
> Of course, & I agree with you there. What I didn't agree with was the
> implication that the arrangement was flawed if it couldn't translate
> well in a stereo mix. (>>If you feel like you need more playback
> channels to fit in all your music perhaps it might be beneficial to
> re-examine how the parts are fitting together.<<) Maybe I
> misinterpreted that comment; it struck me as an ivory tower commentary
> on the quality of Gabriel's arrangements. Upon re-reading it I see how
> you could have simply been making a comment on compositing soundstage
> elements in a stereo mix, in which case I apologize for
> misinterpreting and overreacting.

That's closer to what I meant.


>
> > >
> > > Stereo barely does justice to Elliott Carter's String Quartets, &
> > > that's only 4 guys sawing away at their instruments. It would be
> > > ignorant or asinine to suggest that Carter's arrangement might be tooI
wou
> > > dense.
> >
> > Carter's music has--as far as I can determine--never been released in
> > surround, so what's your point? And even if it has been, how would
surround
> > improve comprehension of the elements of his music?
>
> My point, again, was that the playback medium has nothing to do with
> the arrangement...and vice-versa. There's a fairly universal consensus
> that Carter's string quartet music is very dense. Yet no one goes
> about suggesting that he remix it in 5.1, or, heaven forfend,
> "re-examine how the parts are fitting together" in order to make the
> listening experience clearer.

Well, I doubt that Carter much thinks about recording at all when he sits
down with pencil and paper. When he wants to write something dense, he
writes a lot of music that happens simultaneously. If he wants to make sure
that a part is clear, then he uses dynamics, register and degrees of density
to ensure that.

If he wanted a piece to be in "surround", he would have the musicians
actually surround the audience.

>
> Peter Gabriel is certainly correct in thinking that the surround
> medium will offer more space for the many elements of his arrangement,
> but he may be misguided in thinking stereo is incapable of providing
> the required space. I certainly agree that stereo still has a ****load
> of three-dimensional space that the creative mix engineer can make use
> of. I just don't think Peter should be downsizing his imagination
> and/or stripping away his arrangements just because things get a
> little "dense".

I would be the last person to suggest that someone (particularly someone
with PG's resources) cater his imagination to the limitations of lowest
common denominator technology.

However, I think that if you really can't fit all the elements within a
stereo image, having **** coming from behind isn't going to help
comprehension much. The basic compositional relationship between foreground
and background elements doesn't expand with the size of sound field. It's
the same in mono as it is in 5.1, though stereo certainly gives you a lot
more room to play with (hang yerself with) than mono.

If you want each and every part to be in focus at once, you have to have
fewer parts than if you're presenting a complicated texture made up of
sub-elements which may or may not be intended to draw attention. That's not
a technological issue, that's a human limitation. When Carter has tons of
motifs happening all at once, he intends to overwhelm the listener because
he's trying to reach him on a different level.

I had assumed that was the same with Peter Gabriel, but perhaps not. I
dunno. Maybe he just wants to play with the new toys.

-jw