Convince Me That 5.1 Surround Is A Benefit

[maxcap]

Don't take it the wrong way but, I don't see how it's NOT a benefit to you.
.......there's so much you could do. Think about it.

[maxcap]

Well to be honest with you PeeTee,
I was thinking in an experimental kind of way. But AudioSfx mentioned a good benefit. ...using the surrounds to enhance
the reverb field.
The surrounds could have the audience audio in a live show recording.


I 'll post more as I think of them

[Lee Blaske]

Here's a stupid neophyte question for all of you already firmly in the 5.1 world:

How do you calculate the fees paid to Dolby for using the 5.1 system? Is it a per project charge or per CD unit? How do they charge for commercials, TV shows, etc.? Can someone post a link to the site that has this information?

I notice that Sound Ideas now has a 5.1 Dolby Surround efx library. I assume that even if you were mixing in stereo, if you used any of those efx, you'd need to pay the licensing fee for your project. Is that correct?

Lee Blaske

[fatcatpost]

First of all, let's get a few things straight. The sound fx library that Sound Ideas is offering is encoded in dolby Pro Logic, not 5.1. Which means that they can be used as stereo files, or run through a decoder for LCRS positioning. As far as licensing is concerned, dolby digital is paid for in the purchase of encoders ad decoders. There is no fee for the content creators. It's different for Pro Logic, the content creator is responsible for paying licensing fees, varying upon the use of the end product. But those prices are coming down. That's just the way I understand it. I could be wrong on some points.

As far as justifying the use of 5.1, I personally think it has a lot of merit. Listen to the 5.1 mix of the Eagles Live. I heard it at a demonstration, and it gave me a rush. I felt like I was in the audience, and all of the instruments and vocals were very clear and defined. I think because you're not trying to cram so much audio into two speakers, 5.1 is able to reproduce what you hear in the real world, and speaking from experience it is easier to mix in surround because of the discreet channels. I love 5.1 in films to, it extends the life of the movie off of the screen a little bit, making it more realistic. These are just my opinions, and obviously everyone has there own experiences and thoughts about surround sound, I'm just giving you mine.

[guitates]

PT--Go to the mall--Find the Bose Store (outlet) and go into their theater and give a listen. This May convince you of the vitality the NEW technology of today...

If you want to stay locked in the 60's, well I like it to, but, the new millenium will show you something extremely special---5.1 or surround sound. I like 56 Chevy's too..

I can NOT imagine watching "Gladiator" without surround sound....

[AUDIOSFX]

People are not 2 dimentional and either is hearing..we hear from a very wide area unless we are deaf.. Yes movies are 2D and that is the point. How do we enhance a bunch of really fast moving pictures that really hasnt seen a major advancement in 80 years (n.i. *DP) Multi channel sound is meant to enhance not detract.. Unfortunately in order to hear a mix the way it was intended you need to be at the stage or in a very freshly cal'd room or theater. That is a huge problem.. Using 5.1 or stereo or any other medium to mix in should be relavent to the production involved. And if you where smart do both mixes just in case the producer, client or director wants to release an additional version of said film or disk.
The point of this long winded message is 1.do what works for you.. who cares about trends if you dont like it let it be. 2. Stereo sound does have limitations and 5.1 can enhance as well as detract. 3. 5.1 can give the mix breathing room.. its kind of cool... actually its great. it is a bigger palette to paint from and if used well a benefit...No one will give you secrets of the trade but experimenting is the only way it can be ironed out...

BTW.. If Mr. consumer didn't like it over 12million set top and 40 million pc in US DVD players woudnt have been sold and many stores and installers can not keep up with the demand for multi-channel home theaters...especially high end...

Re think your stand apply your knowledge and see what comes of it..

*DIGITAL PROJECTION

Will S
AUDIOSFX

[This message has been edited by AUDIOSFX (edited January 16, 2001).]

[joy4u]

With Surround you loose in quality and you gain in spectacularity.
The question is, what is more important?

The loss o f Surround quality is due to:

1. the impossibility to have at home a really good sounding room that can handle so much sound sources w/o compromisses.

2. The price of 6 good enclosures is too high for the household, so most will hear surround music on bad systems.

BUT:

i think that we have to create new music styles, and there will be place for FANTASTIC! music in surround, but please don't mix a grunge band in surround!

Bye

[This message has been edited by joy4u (edited January 16, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by joy4u (edited January 16, 2001).]

[VirtualMixer]

If you don't see why 5.1 can be beneficial, close your eyes and listen........ listen carefully............and you will notice sound comes from all directions around you.

[Shawn Parr]

Back to one of the original statements. "I don't want to 'feel' like I'm in the middle of the orchestra." But one of the points of recording in stereo originally was to better recreate the sense of the space of the recording.

I have been wanting to experiment for a while now with the concept of doing a classical recording in 5.1 with the orchestra coming from L - C - R like normal, but try to capture the essence of the Concert hall through both the mains and the surrounds. ( I happen to work at a center that has an extremely beautiful sounding Concert Hall, check out anything from Zephyr Records).

Most audiophiles (our biggest audience in the classical world) spend big bucks getting an esoteric high-fi system to better reproduce the stereo image and there for can get a feeling not only of the beauty and strength of the orchestra/group, but of the entire concert/event space, because that space is an integral part of the sound of the orchestra/group.

If this can be reproduced more accurately with 5.1 it could be very exciting for a couple of reasons:

1) the obvious reason that the audiophiles would get a more accurate feel of the performance with their esoteric 5.1 setups.

2) people with less expensive setups would also see a great increase in the spacial reproduction of a recording on their cheap 5.1 systems as compared to on their cheap 2.0 systems.

My $0.02

[mike connelly]

One thing to be pointed out is that generally adding more discrete channels and more speakers adds to the perceived sound quality.

For example, people will often prefer the sound of stereo playback over two cheaper speakers over mono playback over one better speaker.

So a 5.1 system doesn't have to be six top-notch speakers to improve over stereo. Even adding "budget" speakers as surrounds can improve the sound. Obviously, this is all within reason - the speakers can't be terrible, but standards can be relaxed moreso than with just two speakers.

I don't think there's any question that surround makes a huge difference for film/TV, but the musical side is still very much in development (and the delivery format is in its infancy). Many engineers will probably just want reverb and subtle effects in the rear while others may want to pan instruments in every direction. It will be interesting to see the different approaches taken.

Mike