Simplest path to surround

[Carey Carlan]

Make vs Buy. A surround sound release of an organ recital.

Is it yet practical to invest in surround sound software and do it myself?
Or am I better off sending my finished 4 channels of WAV files to a
competent third party for construction of center and bass channels and
rendering to a DVD?

Is a simple DVD video with 5.1 sound the most common system? Can home
theatre systems commonly handle DVD-A?

1) There has been some discussion recently of the various surround formats.
Is there a "winner" (a 90% market leader)? Failing that, is there a format
with stand-out audio performance?

2) Authoring software is also different. The last time I checked (a couple
of years ago), the only true 5.1 programs I found were in the $thousands.
Is that still the case?

My favorite organ expanded to the four corners of the church (101 ranks,
5,400 pipes). I can no longer practically monitor on headphones as I must
keep track of front, rear, and both sides. A pen and paper are my best
friends during tracking. I monitor recording sessions with a score in my
lap, making notes of which chambers are sounding when.

I see this as the beginning of a trend. I cannot yet predict how often
I'll want to upgrade from 2 channels to 6 (or 8 or whatever next year
brings us). I do see surround as a reasonable upgrade path from CD's. As
more homes aquire home theatre systems, people view them as their "good"
stereo systems.

[seriousfun]

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Make vs Buy. A surround sound release of an organ recital.
>
> Is it yet practical to invest in surround sound software and do it myself?
> Or am I better off sending my finished 4 channels of WAV files to a
> competent third party for construction of center and bass channels and
> rendering to a DVD?

It's not free, but it might be practical. It sure might be fun, if you
are so-inclined.

Absolutely no reason to construct center and bass channels to release
this 4.0 recording. There is never a reason to use the LFE for a music
release. I am a great fan of the center channel, but with your
recording the use of it may or may not enhance the presentation.

> Is a simple DVD video with 5.1 sound the most common system? Can home
> theatre systems commonly handle DVD-A?

DVD-V can use Dolby Digital or DTS to deliver surround. Both are lossy
codecs and will not be your best choice for sonic quality. DVD-V
certainly is the only truly common surround format, though.

> 1) There has been some discussion recently of the various surround formats.
> Is there a "winner" (a 90% market leader)? Failing that, is there a format
> with stand-out audio performance?

DVD-A and SA-CD both can deliver stunning surround audio. Production
and replication of DVD-A is far easier and cheaper than SA-CD.

> 2) Authoring software is also different. The last time I checked (a couple
> of years ago), the only true 5.1 programs I found were in the $thousands.
> Is that still the case?

Programs under $100 can author a DVD-A such as Minnetonka discWelder
Bronze (this will be a 24-48 disk, playable only on DVD-A players).
Diskwelder Chrome with their MLP encoder, to make a true DVD-A with
24-96 audio, is quite expensive.

> I see this as the beginning of a trend. I cannot yet predict how often
> I'll want to upgrade from 2 channels to 6 (or 8 or whatever next year
> brings us). I do see surround as a reasonable upgrade path from CD's. As
> more homes aquire home theatre systems, people view them as their "good"
> stereo systems.

Dolby estimates 60-80 million surround systems in homes worldwide.
That's quite a market, and testimony to the music industry's abject
failure at introducing and marketing a new format (DVD-A or SA-CD) to
the public.

[Ethan Winer]

Carey,

> Is it yet practical to invest in surround sound software and do it myself?
<

Doug gave you all the right answers. I'll just add that I "did it myself"
recently using Vegas and it was a rewarding experience, even with a bit of a
learning curve. (Of course, you need a way to monitor accurately in surround
too.) But if you think you may do this even once more, it's worth the effort
and expense.

--Ethan

[Carey Carlan]

"seriousfun" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> Carey Carlan wrote:
>> Make vs Buy. A surround sound release of an organ recital.
>>
>> Is it yet practical to invest in surround sound software and do it
>> myself? Or am I better off sending my finished 4 channels of WAV
>> files to a competent third party for construction of center and bass
>> channels and rendering to a DVD?
>
> It's not free, but it might be practical. It sure might be fun, if you
> are so-inclined.
>
> Absolutely no reason to construct center and bass channels to release
> this 4.0 recording. There is never a reason to use the LFE for a music
> release. I am a great fan of the center channel, but with your
> recording the use of it may or may not enhance the presentation.

1) LFE = low frequency effects? There's real content here down to 17 Hz.
I'll assume (a) most systems won't produce that at all and (b) most of
the rest will only manage it with a subwoofer.

2) Aren't most home theatre systems designed to produce most of the
volume from the center channel? The one's I've seen (cheap) couldn't
produce the dynamic range of this concert through just the side channels.

>> Is a simple DVD video with 5.1 sound the most common system? Can
>> home theatre systems commonly handle DVD-A?
>
> DVD-V can use Dolby Digital or DTS to deliver surround. Both are lossy
> codecs and will not be your best choice for sonic quality. DVD-V
> certainly is the only truly common surround format, though.
>
>> 1) There has been some discussion recently of the various surround
>> formats. Is there a "winner" (a 90% market leader)? Failing that, is
>> there a format with stand-out audio performance?
>
> DVD-A and SA-CD both can deliver stunning surround audio. Production
> and replication of DVD-A is far easier and cheaper than SA-CD.

DVD-A can store an uncompressed PCM stream of 24/48K up to 5.1.
SA-CD uses DSD. Is there any advantage to going to DSD from my PCM
source? I understand the benefits of end-to-end DSD, but see no
advantage in just the final stage.

>> 2) Authoring software is also different. The last time I checked (a
>> couple of years ago), the only true 5.1 programs I found were in the
>> $thousands. Is that still the case?
>
> Programs under $100 can author a DVD-A such as Minnetonka discWelder
> Bronze (this will be a 24-48 disk, playable only on DVD-A players).
> Diskwelder Chrome with their MLP encoder, to make a true DVD-A with
> 24-96 audio, is quite expensive.

I imply from your statement that multi-disk players which play both DVD
movies and DVD audio will probably not be able to play uncompressed
audio? That's counter-intuitive.

The DVD-A format supports my chosen 4 channel (quad) 44.1/24 format. I
am still firmly in the camp that says higher sampling rates don't yield
better sound. I'm quite content with 44.1/24 or 48/24. Is there any
player-compatibility-associated reason that I should up-sample to 96K?

>> I see this as the beginning of a trend. I cannot yet predict how
>> often I'll want to upgrade from 2 channels to 6 (or 8 or whatever
>> next year brings us). I do see surround as a reasonable upgrade path
>> from CD's. As more homes aquire home theatre systems, people view
>> them as their "good" stereo systems.
>
> Dolby estimates 60-80 million surround systems in homes worldwide.
> That's quite a market, and testimony to the music industry's abject
> failure at introducing and marketing a new format (DVD-A or SA-CD) to
> the public.

Do the majority of those systems also support DVD-A disks?