Dumbest anti-surround argument you've heard

[JonUrban]

There are so many, choose the one's that really tick you off, or add your own in the thread. Go ahead, you can vote on as many as you like.

Remember, just pick the one's that REALLY TICK YOU OFF. There are many excuses, but some are just so annoying and stupid.

Don't forget to add you own to the thread.

 

[Lucanu]

My multiple choice is 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I have heard all of these and I never dispute that others don't like surround music, it is definitely not for everyone. I do believe if more people could hear a system set up properly and understand it doesn't have to be complicated or even very expensive, I think more would appreciate it. More puzzling to me is the move to MP3, AAC, and iPod. I can't even fault someone for believing CD is good enough for stereo music and seeing no need for 96/24 or stereo SACD, but I sure can't understand the market move from CD to something much worse.

Chris

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

You know, one day I stopped in an irc chatroom called #hi-fi, and started a conversation with a random person in there. It was a friendly conversation, but the guy was anti-surround. He commented that his speakers are so good there's no need for more than 2, and that would ruin the field of sound, or something to that effect. This was days before the DSOTM SACD came out, so I made some comment to the effect that, well, we'll see what effect the upcoming big release has. To which he replied, DSOTM was only ever meant to be in stereo. After I pointed out the quad mix, he still stood by that statement. I think that conversation had some of the dumbest anti-surround comments. The dumbest audio comments I've ever heard include

The mini-disc was meant to replace the CD, it actually sounds better, just that no one bought it.

When you rip an mp3 at 192, you're actually going beyond the 44.1 rate of a CD, the only improvement you would get is better error correction which is a result of oversampling. (I had a deer caught in the headlights look after hearing that one)

 

[ndiamone]

My supposedly titanium eared 88 year old grandfather still prefers his music in MONO out of a 1948 Philco Radio-Phono console he's spent the prices of several cars to keep working over the years.

Taken from the sales brochure he's kept in a baggie forever:

``Fills the room with a ``stunning'' four-watt power amplifier a ``massive'' 10-inch cone speaker with two tweeters and plays all records including Columbia's new Long-Play records that can play over a half hour per side! For RCA Victor's 45-RPM records, simply plug the 45-RPM turntable into the convenient plug on the back.''

``Keeping up with the Newest Technology, You can Record your own voice and music either live or from radio or back and forth between disc and wire with the built in disc and wire recorder!

This contraption used the turntable as the takeup spool for the wire recorder. You could make a 78-RPM disc, a wire recording or both either live through the mic or off the radio.''

Granddad rigged it so it would record the wire at 33-RPM nearly doubling the time, normally the record function on the wire recorder would be disabled at 33. I have it now, and surprisingly other men were doing the same thing, because I have people sending me their ``half-speed'' wire recordings to restore onto CD, and I just use this. It's crazy.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

The strange formats and devices you talk about never cease to amaze me. Got any pics?

 

[leevitalone1]

Of all the people I know, one is aware of what is going on here with multi-channel music. Even stinking dvd's! I do home repairs and see every day 5.1 "in the box" stuff set up, not one set up correctly! Or, "nah my wife says the subwoofer is too much"! or just accepting tv sound. Ask as I did my neighbors about 5.1 audio. or even quad. I get the "look" as in what the heck is that? So I feel it's all of the above! What a terrible waste!! There is so much yet I wish to hear in 5.1.

 

[JonUrban]

Of all the people I know, one is aware of what is going on here with multi-channel music. Even stinking dvd's! I do home repairs and see every day 5.1 "in the box" stuff set up, not one set up correctly! Or, "nah my wife says the subwoofer is too much"! or just accepting tv sound. Ask as I did my neighbors about 5.1 audio. or even quad. I get the "look" as in what the heck is that? So I feel it's all of the above! What a terrible waste!! There is so much yet I wish to hear in 5.1.

You're right. How many folks buy 5.1 system in a box deals, then don't hook up the rears and the sub because they don't want them in the room! @:

 

[Bill Sherbon]

One of my housmate's friends told me he also had a full surround 5.1 system after seeing my Integra/Mackie power monitor setup.... A few weeks later I was over there for a BBQ and saw that he had one of those 5.1 system in a box system, but with all the speakers lined up in a row up front under the TV. Turns out that he doesn't wan't the speakers anywhere else in the living room, so that's his speaker layout.

sigh

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I remember one time working at wal-mart this guy was looking at one of the home theater in a box things, and I was explaining it has 5 speakers plus a subwoofer, and with that the guy was like "lets see, I could put 2 speakers in one room, 2 in the next, and run 1 out to the garage...." I had to stop and explain why that wouldn't work. Many people don't set them up right, but I think that most people put some effort into setting up the speakers somewhat correctly, while working around the furniture and decor. I could be wrong on that, though.

 

[Key]

I have yet to see one "layman" (outside of production or home studios) set up a stereo correctly let alone surround sound.

 

[rusinurbe]

the two ears argumnet always gets me!
There is no way you should be able to hear anything comming up from behind that is how the human race survived and thrived, adapt of becoem part of the food chain

 

[solaris]

I only have one #@%$ so why do you need three girl friends. Oh sorry that(#@%$) word is car.

 

[Jack Daniels]

Most folks have closed minds and can't get past that.

 

[tejanoboy]

I think many people who remember the 70's had bad experiences with quad, what with primitive decoders, some pretty cheesy records, too many competing systems, and poor set-up. So far I have two friends who thought quad was a total failure, "just a fad", until they heard our local oldies FM station through a DPL-II system.
(I don't use a center speaker, so yes, by speaker count, it IS quad) Younger friends who barely remember (or don't at all) vinyl records have commented on how much better FM stations and some CDs sound in my old truck...and it has just a passive decoder! I think if we avoid the term "quad" or "surround" when first exposing strangers to our passion, maybe just sort of "sneak it in", we may find that with today's great technology (or the best of the 70's, you guys with QSVM or CD-4 or Tate rigs!), there IS an un-tapped market of young ears eager to experience the same thrill we did so long ago.

Excuses? I heard them so much back when I was pushing Q8 and the EV system for Rat Shack, and probably the strangest one was "more than two speakers is only appropriate in a theater!" That customer didn't know it, but he gave me a great sales tool! I started asking folks if they had seen "How the West was Won" at our local Cinerama house, and if they had, asked them what they thought of the multi-channel sound. Then I just told them, "The whole idea of Quad is to let you have that same kind of realism in the comfort of your own home." Today of course, we could make the same comparison, with most theaters showing some kind of surround-blessed films. Other than that, I just turn on my rig, and let the sound do the talking to the un-initiated or un-interested.
If sonic realism, and the pursuit of it is a "fad", so be it...it is one "fad" I hope lives as long as I do!
TB

 

[timbre4]

Two ears but less than 1/2 a brain and that's rock solid!

Most people don't know jack about a lot of things in this world but most especially surround music.

 

[jaybird100]

The dumbest one I've heard, and I have heard some gems, was "it scares the dog"!

 

[shinksma]

The "only have two ears" argument always gets me - as rusinurbe/Fletch pointed out, I guess those folks are really easy to sneak up on from behind, because they think you are approaching from the front but can't see you.

shinksma

 

[JohnN]

"I only have two ears"

This statement would make you a CRAZY man. lol

 

[Baker]

Sorry, I HAD to pick up two answers. I really could NOT choose one.

"I sit in front of the performance"... yeah, especially on SACD or DVD-A when you can't see a bloody thing ! What's worth, people often tell me that they can see a point in using surround for MOVIES, but not for MUSIC. To me it's exactly the opposite, for one very simple reason : when you're watching a live DVD, you're supposed to be somewhere at the centre of the crowd. When watching a movie, you're NOT supposed to be ANYWHERE, and the editing process makes the audience impossible to be "set" in space. So telling me that 5.1 is useless for the music, why not. But saying that as opposite to 5.1 in movies, sorry, I can't understand.

and of course "I have two ears". Yeah sure. So I guess in the mono era, everybody had one ear. I also guess that neither you, nor any normal guy can hear sounds that come from behind them. Poor guys. Would get lost in the woods at night. Could be killed when crossing the road. Can't hear me laughing behind their back.