Dumbest anti-surround argument you've heard

[Wagonmaster_91]

One I’ve heard that is not on the list is, “The sounds coming from all around is unnerving.” I’m not going to say that it’s a dumb response, but I had never heard that one before.

Also, I’m not a big fan of watching movies in surround sound...When I do, I always find myself cranking up the dialogue channel as it often gets drowned out by the sound effects.

Audioholics did a youtube video about this. Yes, some of us seem to have more trouble understanding (not hearing) dialog these days, but it is not just because our ears getting older. Check it out:

 

[Albert Dagger]

This is an unusual comment I've heard from a friend of mine, after my friend's first experience with surround sound, listening to Yes' Fragile (an album my friend is very familiar with):
"Oh, now the album sounds like a movie soundtrack (or like I'm watching a movie with my eyes closed). It's nice but I'm not sure I'm enjoying it more than the stereo mix". There was a certain expectation of how the album should sound, and surround was surprising to this friend of mine, but not necessarily in a good way.

 

[par4ken]

I only have two ears is the most lame comment ever, as if you can only hear in two directions!

No room for the extra speakers, I can see holding the most weight, followed by too complicated. Anything with more than an on off switch is too complicated for many people.
Can't tell the difference, so why bother. They should still be making mono systems for those people!

 

[boxhead]

I only have two ears is the most lame comment ever, as if you can only hear in two directions!

No room for the extra speakers, I can see holding the most weight, followed by too complicated. Anything with more than an on off switch is too complicated for many people.
Can't tell the difference, so why bother. They should still be making mono systems for those people!

They do! Doesn't that describe most Bluetooth speakers?

 

[Q-Eight]

What kind of bothers me is the apathy towards surround sound in general. I don't know about all of y'all, but everybody I introduce it to seems pretty keen on the idea and they think it's cool.... but when asked if they'd want to get into it, they just shrug and say "nah". People don't get as revved up about music as others do. And yet, again, in my world, more than one person has asked me how I didn't go postal or at the very least, become dependant on a substance with the job I had?

I enjoy music. When I went home at the end of a shift, the store disappeared, my music came on and nothing else mattered.

Nobody I know is as into surround as much as I. Two friends of mine actually own vintage Quadraphonic systems and I've hooked them up with several LP's and tapes but more often than not.... they just use them as fancy stereo playback units. Meanwhile, my own system has had the selector knob set to discrete for so long, I had to clean/lube it the other day to get it to move again!

 

[Doug G.]

One I’ve heard that is not on the list is, “The sounds coming from all around is unnerving.” I’m not going to say that it’s a dumb response, but I had never heard that one before.

Also, I’m not a big fan of watching movies in surround sound...When I do, I always find myself cranking up the dialogue channel as it often gets drowned out by the sound effects.

Yup and the closely related, "It's distracting."

A vacuum cleaner is distracting. Lightning is distracting. Somebody talking loudly or yelling is distracting. Surround is music.

Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

I always thought CBS did a good job of anticipating some of the objections to Home Quad (SQ demo LP):

An Introduction to the World of SQ Quadraphonic Sound - YouTube
^^^
(comments about everyday life being in "Quad", and "Quad" music being composed in the year 1590)


I only convinced 1 friend to buy a few Quad (CD-4) albums, he bought the Rick Wakeman Journey/Center album and special ordered the Rick Wakeman King Arthur album (on my recommendation), although he never bought a Quad system (only a Stereo system).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Simplepast Presentperfect]

Your comment about "Drugs" from Fear of Music really made my day, it is also for me a prime example how to make a relatively obscure song (last track of the album) in the extensive Talking Head discography come to life with a good surround mix. I didn't pay attention to that song before. With surround, I love it.

Most of the choices presented in the survey boil down to convenience and personal choices, and that is OK. I am interested in chess but don't obsess over the world chess championships. But I do obsess over music.

But the one you selected is also factually wrong as a general statement. Frank Zappa himself decided to present Hot Rats in one way in 1969, and in a totally different way in 1987. He released both stereo and quad mixes of Apostrophe and Overnite Sensation. He stated at some point that quad was the future, and mixed One Size Fits All in quad as well. Which of them is actually "the right way" he intended his music to be heard? The same argument can be made for all simultaneous quad releases in the 70's (including those that for commercial reasons didn't get to see the light of the day), actually most of Jethro Tull releases between Aqualung and Songs from the Wood had also quadrophonic mixes. By the way Ian Anderson personally oversaw and approved Steve Wilson's 5.1 remixes. The same goes for Gentle Giant and Yes.

So that is the only argument that rubs me the wrong way, because is provenly wrong just looking at the very extense list of simultaneous releases in quadrophonic format from a very long list of artists in a variety of genres. And that list includes several undisputed seminal albums.

There might be indeed specific cases where the artist, for whatever reasons, believes that his/her music is intended to be heard only in a certain way, even in a certain format. But the evidence I present strongly suggests that these are exceptions rather than the rule.

The only one that truly annoys me is the "not the way the artist originally wanted it heard" - it's such a myopic viewpoint that also gets leveled against remixes, even if they're only stereo. Worse, it's the kind of argument used to elevate the original Vinyl releases as the be-all and end-all. It's crazy.

When the original recordings were made, mixed, and pressed, they worked under the restrictions of the time. All options weren't available, and time was constrained. The original version will forever be the original, but it's not necessarily how the artist truly wanted it to sound. It's 2020, and we ought to be able to improve on tech from the 1960's and 70's, and in retrospect you can get clarity on how things sound best. For example, listen to two Kiss titles - Hotter than Hell and Dressed to Kill, or Led Zep's In Through the Out Door - surely they could be improved?

Same with remixes, and to an extent remasters. Often I see people comment that it doesn't sound like the original Vinyl - but if you go into the argument thinking that the original vinyl is the be-all and end-all, then there's no way for any remaster or remix to better it. You have to be open to experiencing the music anew. If not, buy the original Vinyl and be done with it.

For me, Surround is a way to hear music that I love in a totally different way. I always hear things I've never heard before. For example, I bought the Talking Heads albums when they were originally released, and have loved them always, but when I heard the Surround mix of Drugs from Fear of Music I was blown away, and was once again "hearing it for the first time". There is no comparing it to the original, in truth, it's like a whole new song.

Of course, much of this is up to debate, but it's the attitude I dislike. As I say, if you go in with a closed mind, holding the original up on a pedestal, then you're probably better off staying away from Surround, imo. Instead, be prepared to a totally new slant on familiar sounds. I won't claim Surround is more immersive, because honestly I fell in love with a lot of music playing it back on a small mono player all those years ago. The lack of fidelity didn't make me love the music any less, but I will say it tends to open things up and allows you to hear a little further, to experience more of what was happening. It breaks things down without losing the cohesiveness.

Either way, it's an annoying response.

 

[VaughanX]

Your comment about "Drugs" from Fear of Music really made my day, it is also for me a prime example how to make a relatively obscure song (last track of the album) in the extensive Talking Head discography come to life with a good surround mix. I didn't pay attention to that song before. With surround, I love it.

Most of the choices presented in the survey boil down to convenience and personal choices, and that is OK. I am interested in chess but don't obsess over the world chess championships. But I do obsess over music.

But the one you selected is also factually wrong as a general statement. Frank Zappa himself decided to present Hot Rats in one way in 1969, and in a totally different way in 1987. He released both stereo and quad mixes of Apostrophe and Overnite Sensation. He stated at some point that quad was the future, and mixed One Size Fits All in quad as well. Which of them is actually "the right way" he intended his music to be heard? The same argument can be made for all simultaneous quad releases in the 70's (including those that for commercial reasons didn't get to see the light of the day), actually most of Jethro Tull releases between Aqualung and Songs from the Wood had also quadrophonic mixes. By the way Ian Anderson personally oversaw and approved Steve Wilson's 5.1 remixes. The same goes for Gentle Giant and Yes.

So that is the only argument that rubs me the wrong way, because is provenly wrong just looking at the very extense list of simultaneous releases in quadrophonic format from a very long list of artists in a variety of genres. And that list includes several undisputed seminal albums.

There might be indeed specific cases where the artist, for whatever reasons, believes that his/her music is intended to be heard only in a certain way, even in a certain format. But the evidence I present strongly suggests that these are exceptions rather than the rule.

The whole "what the artist wanted" argument is, for me, a non-starter. What I knew and understood in 1970 is not the same as i know now. Metallica would not have sounded like Metallica if they had recorded in 1950. What we have is a snapshot in time. I can accept that's what they wanted, at the time. And as such, it has validity and stands alone as the first release. However, we can do better now, or at least, make it sound more to the liking of our modern ears. I'm not talking about compressed music, but things like Steve Wilson remixes - which universally sound "better" to my ears.

One thing great Surround Sound has against it - it's not mobile. I know there are approximations, but given the cheap-ish earbuds people use.........

 

[Guy Robinson]

"I only have two ears" Dum..Dum..Dum..Dum...Dumbbbbbbb!

A really good surround mix becomes the only version of that title that I will ever listen to again.

 

[Rhinojack]

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

That has always been my comeback, “The whole world and all your life has been in surround sound”.

 

[Simplepast Presentperfect]

"What the artist wanted" is also often something very different from the released product.
Regarding Aqualung, Ian Anderson said several times that he was not satisfied with the result. And that Steve Wilson brought it closer to what he wanted.
I pass the microphone to Ian Anderson (liner notes from Aqualung 40th Anniversary Adapted Edition):

"... in the brand new Basing Street studios ... we and Led Zeppelin were the guinea pigs for that studio and we had a lot of technical problems! We did the best we could do, but it was very frustrating and worrying, the process of making Aqualung. It always felt sonically challenged to me, both from the recording sessions and from the mixing and mastering. I knew it wasn't a great sounding record. But Steve Wilson, to give him credit, not only works very fast and authoritatively, but also quite simply. He thinks 60s and 70s while working in a state-of-the-art digital context, so he's a good man to have. It's almost a shame he spends so much time being a musician, because his skills and observation and attention to detail would be extremely valued by a host of great artists who want to revitalize their great recordings. The stereo mixes and the surround sound mixes bring authority and clarity and transparency to recordings, without fundamentally changing the nature of the album itself."

The whole "what the artist wanted" argument is, for me, a non-starter. What I knew and understood in 1970 is not the same as i know now. Metallica would not have sounded like Metallica if they had recorded in 1950. What we have is a snapshot in time. I can accept that's what they wanted, at the time. And as such, it has validity and stands alone as the first release. However, we can do better now, or at least, make it sound more to the liking of our modern ears. I'm not talking about compressed music, but things like Steve Wilson remixes - which universally sound "better" to my ears.

One thing great Surround Sound has against it - it's not mobile. I know there are approximations, but given the cheap-ish earbuds people use.........

 

[MidiMagic]

Bigger center? l‘ve increased the size of the center three times. The current center is a large three-way with a 12” woofer. It’s a 31” tall floor stander and I’m very happy with it. It’s still dwarfed by the fronts which are 53” tall monsters. As for understanding the Brits...subtitles to the rescue when needed! Lol

If the center is not the same brand as the other speakers, the level may have to be adjusted. It's not the size, but the efficiency. Set it so it sounds right.

 

[MidiMagic]

Thank you for that grammar lesson. I have always wondered which is the correct syntax. I’m serious.

"I only have two ears" means that nobody else has two ears.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

How about the WIFE FACTOR and I once knew a nerd who thought that all speakers were UGLY and put floral arrangements in front of the speakers to disguise them.

Many years ago I had a friend who was into 'tronics, audio & would have loved to be into quad except he was married ( I wasn't!) & his wife would not allow the living room to be taken over by "boxes with knobs". My friend was positive if his spouse could hear a really good demo of music in quad, she would realize the value of it. So it was up to me; Money from the Pink Floyd SQ album through a Kenwood 9940 full logic with wave matching. If anything made SQ full logic sound good it was that song. And the song was wildly popular & liked by even women of the female gender.

She sat in the sweet spot & at the conclusion her remark was: "sounds just like stereo except louder".

Honestly I was speechless. To this day I still don't know what a good come back would be.

 

[jimfisheye]

Yup and the closely related, "It's distracting."

A vacuum cleaner is distracting. Lightning is distracting. Somebody talking loudly or yelling is distracting. Surround is music.

Doug

Music to actively listen to with focus is distracting to some people. My mother is one of those. "Easy listening" with nothing that pokes out beyond 3 or 4 boring chord pads or it's just noise. Dynamics are surprising and bad. The better and more accurate the sound system, the worse it would be. She eventually "upgraded" to department store ceiling mounted mono speakers. This is perceived as an upgrade to her in every way. We are VERY differently wired people! She has an unusually high level of indifference to music but these people are out there and that's where every single one of these triggering comments comes from. And that's with stereo. Surround would be doubling down on the all qualities they hate the most!

You can try to explain all day long. Arguments like: "Imagine trying to watch a movie 80 deg off axis to the screen! That would be silly right? It works the same way with sound and speakers. Just like with a screen, if we bought the thing to use, we're not going to be stupid and set it up all screwed up, right?"
Nope.
"I can still hear it fine. That's crazy. Can you turn that down?! I hAvE cHilDrEn SleEpiNg HErE!!"

 

[gene_stl]

Sonik that was very nice of you to try and help your buddy. His wife was not going to let an outsider change her 100% control of their home.

 

[Soundfield]

"I only have two ears" means that nobody else has two ears.

Nope.
The word ‘only’ modifies the application of the subsequent word(s), thus-
"I only have two ears" = I have nothing but two ears
"I have only two ears" = I have many things, two of which are ears
“Only I have two ears” = I am the sole person with two ears

In formal speech and writing, only is placed directly before the word or words that it modifies: she could interview only three applicants in the morning. In all but the most formal contexts, however, it is generally regarded as acceptable to put only before the verb: she could only interview three applicants in the morning. Care must be taken not to create ambiguity, esp in written English, in which intonation will not, as it does in speech, help to show to which item in the sentence only applies. A sentence such as she only drinks tea in the afternoon is capable of two interpretations and is therefore better rephrased either as she drinks only tea in the afternoon (i.e. no other drink) or she drinks tea only in the afternoon (i.e. at no other time)
Collins English Dictionary

 

[Soundfield]

We are VERY differently wired people! She has an unusually high level of indifference to music but these people are out there ..

Tell me about it - describes my parents exactly!

 

[esimms86]

This is an unusual comment I've heard from a friend of mine, after my friend's first experience with surround sound, listening to Yes' Fragile (an album my friend is very familiar with):
"Oh, now the album sounds like a movie soundtrack (or like I'm watching a movie with my eyes closed). It's nice but I'm not sure I'm enjoying it more than the stereo mix". There was a certain expectation of how the album should sound, and surround was surprising to this friend of mine, but not necessarily in a good way.

Your friend actually had a good point to make. People inherently dislike change so listening to Fragile in surround was understandably somewhat disorienting to him. Now, if you played Fragile in surround for him once every day for x days, my guess is that he would come to appreciate the surround mix to the extent where he would even begin to enjoy it and possibly even prefer it.