Dumbest anti-surround argument you've heard

[JonUrban]

Too funny! I logged in and saw the title of this thread in the new list and said "Nice, I'll check it out" and lo and behold, I was the one who started it!! Back in 2009. Totally forgot that I did.

I seem to recall that I got pissed off reading a thread over at SHF about surround, where everyone was trashing it. It got me fired up, so I took a lot of the 'excuses' I was reading over there, added a couple from my decreasing memory bank, and created this thread.

I am glad to see it get some new life. Keep up the discussion. And HEY! You new members, or any members for that matter.

If you have ideas or questions like this that you want to ask, create a poll thread. It's threads like this one that keep the forum going and communicating. They are much more fun to read and join in than the threads complaining about shipping or pricing or stuff like that!

And hey, Happy December. Hopefully we can wash this shitty year out of our systems and step into 2021 with an improved outlook for everything, including surround audio!

 

[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]

Tell me about it - describes my parents exactly!

There’s a favorite line of mine in “The Dark Knight Rises”: “They know. They just don’t care.”

 

[Owen Smith]

- What about the Berlioz "requiem". It has 4 brass choirs to the north, east, south, and west (and my copy is in Dynaquad).

- I attended a version of the Handel "Messiah" with small choral groups in a church nave and in balconies on both sides and behind the audience. This was years before quad appeared.

Gabrieli composed in surround about 400 years ago for performance in St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. It's not remotely new.

 

[DuncanS]

Any argument against surround!

as we can also hear and determine whether sounds are from behind, above and below, a nice evolutionary benefit which means we can enjoy surround mueic

just don't put a roaring lion left or right rear

 

[4-earredwonder]

The BASIC SIMPLE TRUTH IS like Jazz and Classical music, Surround will always remain a niche market. To expect the average joe to leave their 'comfort zone' and invest in multiple speakers and new receivers and basically be 'forced' to sit in a sweet spot is, IMO, expecting a LOT.

Why do you think Soundbars have become so popular? They exceed the sonic limitations of MOST flatscreens, take up very little space and satisfy the criteria of most purchasers seeking a sonic upgrade.

Yes, most people who have listened to a good surround system are wowed by the experience but to expect them to run out and make that investment is a futile exercise in 'Whistling in the Wind!'

 

[haikubass]

Not really an argument, more like a verdict - here's a real life quote that has stuck with me for a few years now:

"Oh, so you're listening to the sound rather than the music then..."

Yeah, it's a bit OT, yet still embarassing for me to hear.

 

[esimms86]

Not really an argument, more like a verdict - here's a real life quote that has stuck with me for a few years now:

Yeah, it's a bit OT, yet still embarassing.

That’s actually a valid response to audiophiles who preferentially purchase and playback well recorded music solely because they’re well recorded. You can experience an enormous share of such recordings by attending any high end audio show.

 

[kap'n krunch]

I have posted this before and I often am misunderstood (I am used to this, I was born with Mercury Retrograde)..
Not only are we a RARE breed, who SIT DOWN and listen to music (I can't read and have music in the background, it distracts me), which my father in law who9 had a R2R player and a very good stereo also used to do -my wife will always be flummoxed by me or others like her Dad who actually sit down and pay 100% attention to music- my stepdad was the one who turned me on to Quad in the 70s...
My main point is that, within that very small group of attentive listeners, we may have a more advanced psychoacoustic system because we can process music in more than 2 channels, and it seems natural to us. It's not that we are more intelligent (well, maybe!....ah-hyuck!! ...funnily enough , I have NEVER met a Surround enthusiast who is dumb...some are nasty, but not stupid) but that we are able to absorb and enjoy music coming from all four corners which is the way life is...

 

[esimms86]

I have posted this before and I often am misunderstood (I am used to this, I was born with Mercury Retrograde)..
Not only are we a RARE breed, who SIT DOWN and listen to music (I can't read and have music in the background, it distracts me), which my father in law who9 had a R2R player and a very good stereo also used to do -my wife will always be flummoxed by me or others like her Dad who actually sit down and pay 100% attention to music- my stepdad was the one who turned me on to Quad in the 70s...
My main point is that, within that very small group of attentive listeners, we may have a more advanced psychoacoustic system because we can process music in more than 2 channels, and it seems natural to us. It's not that we are more intelligent (well, maybe!....ah-hyuck!! ...funnily enough , I have NEVER met a Surround enthusiast who is dumb...some are nasty, but not stupid) but that we are able to absorb and enjoy music coming from all four corners which is the way life is...

Leonard Bernstein admonished his children to never ever do anything else while listening to music.

 

[ar surround]

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.

Not only is the center the same brand as the other speakers, it also uses the same woofer, midrange and tweeter. It actually sounds quite good with surround music that utilizes the center. I’m sure that the presentation across the front would be totally seamless if I elevated this center speaker to place it’s midrange and tweeter at the same elevation as those in the fronts.

 

[ar surround]

I have posted this before and I often am misunderstood (I am used to this, I was born with Mercury Retrograde)..
Not only are we a RARE breed, who SIT DOWN and listen to music (I can't read and have music in the background, it distracts me), which my father in law who9 had a R2R player and a very good stereo also used to do -my wife will always be flummoxed by me or others like her Dad who actually sit down and pay 100% attention to music- my stepdad was the one who turned me on to Quad in the 70s...
My main point is that, within that very small group of attentive listeners, we may have a more advanced psychoacoustic system because we can process music in more than 2 channels, and it seems natural to us. It's not that we are more intelligent (well, maybe!....ah-hyuck!! ...funnily enough , I have NEVER met a Surround enthusiast who is dumb...some are nasty, but not stupid) but that we are able to absorb and enjoy music coming from all four corners which is the way life is...

Two things in your post Krunch. A high school teacher told the class that we could listen to music while studying as long as there were no vocals. Otherwise it’s too distracting. So I tried to read a book while listening to one of those DV classical quads with “active“ mixes in the rears. While I could read the book just fine, I found myself getting just too interested in the music and mix to want to continue reading the book.

The second thing is that Nick Nolte quote from the Mandalorian. I’ve been toying around with using it for some time now. Gotta love it!

 

[ar surround]

Gabrieli composed in surround about 400 years ago for performance in St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. It's not remotely new.

Has the Gabrieli quad ever been reissued on SACD? Or is that a request for the DV suggestion thread?

 

[ar surround]

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

So the song “I Only Have Eyes For You” means that no one else is interested in her; and that he may yet prove to be a philandering SOB?

 

[jimfisheye]

I was born with Mercury Retrograde)..

There's an anti-vax joke in there somewhere...

Not only are we a RARE breed, who SIT DOWN and listen to music (I can't read and have music in the background, it distracts me), which my father in law who9 had a R2R player and a very good stereo also used to do -my wife will always be flummoxed by me or others like her Dad who actually sit down and pay 100% attention to music- my stepdad was the one who turned me on to Quad in the 70s...
My main point is that, within that very small group of attentive listeners, we may have a more advanced psychoacoustic system because we can process music in more than 2 channels, and it seems natural to us. It's not that we are more intelligent (well, maybe!....ah-hyuck!!

I think some of this might be differences in hearing. We're a visually oriented species. That led to vision correction as SOP for the masses. Everyone can read a written page. If you can't naturally, you have the tools laying around to do so (reading glasses or the unpinch zoom gesture for modern times). Hearing though... No one gets hearing correction unless they are so compromised they can't hear and understand speech! All the in-between cases are walking around compromised with no correction. Imagine someone trying to ask for your opinion or appreciation of the detail in a painting if you needed vision correction to read but didn't have your glasses on. You literally wouldn't know what they were trying to show you! This is how I believe people with compromised hearing are responding to music and why there is so much simplified pop stuff out there.

Anyway, I'm in the active listener camp. And I kind of only get really excited about weirder or avant garde stuff with lots of transitions and unexpected twists and turns.

...funnily enough , I have NEVER met a Surround enthusiast who is dumb...some are nasty...

Oh, so you've already seen some of my posts then.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Like you I sit down to music & give it my full attention. I rarely listen to music in my car (it has two EQ settings: boom & tizz) or at work. If the music & sound quality appeals to me then I give too much attention to the music & certainly not to the task at hand. Gene, I know you're not a movie guy but I am & I sit down & give it my full attention just like music.

My main point is that, within that very small group of attentive listeners, we may have a more advanced psychoacoustic system because we can process music in more than 2 channels, and it seems natural to us.

Well maybe sorta. Just like some people have perfect pitch others may be more sensitive to other aspects of sound. I've worked in photography & great deal of my career, and put in plenty of darkroom time. One interesting thing about that is when I'm in complete total darkness occasionally I might drop a roll of film or scissors on the floor. Because of good spatial hearing ability I could almost always simply bend down & pick up the dropped item as easy as if I could see it.

In the mid-70's I was obsessed for a while as to determining the optimum microphone placement to replicate live sounds. Probably not what you think when I say that but I took Superex headphones, mounted 2 Calrad mics on short goosenecks left & right on the head band, & carried a small portable tape recorder with me for amplification. And yes it did look as goofy as you think. Wearing it driving with windows open, in the park around the house. The mics could be pointed forward, sharp left/right, straight up down anything within the width mounting space of my head. Then I could whip the head set off & immediatley compare it to real life! My conclusion is there was no way using conventional 2 chs audio to make a good horizontal soundfield much less periphonic .

 

[esimms86]

So the song “I Only Have Eyes For You” means that no one else is interested in her; and that he may yet prove to be a philandering SOB?

Actually, it means that the only potentially romantic partner for me is you. “Only I have eyes for you” would mean that I’m the only one who really gets you.

 

[Owen Smith]

Has the Gabrieli quad ever been reissued on SACD? Or is that a request for the DV suggestion thread?

It's not quad, I specifically said surround. It was composed for performers to stand in the specific locations that were available in St. Marks, and took account of the acoustics in the cathedral. The building still exists, though I don't know how much it has changed in the last 400 years. Best bet would be for it to be recorded in St. Marks, preferably using ambisonics so it can be rendered to whatever you prefer.

I have one track of it on a DTS demo CD. It sounds good, but doesn't say where it was recorded.

 

[Doug G.]

Too funny! I logged in and saw the title of this thread in the new list and said "Nice, I'll check it out" and lo and behold, I was the one who started it!! Back in 2009. Totally forgot that I did.

I seem to recall that I got pissed off reading a thread over at SHF about surround, where everyone was trashing it. It got me fired up, so I took a lot of the 'excuses' I was reading over there, added a couple from my decreasing memory bank, and created this thread.

I am glad to see it get some new life. Keep up the discussion. And HEY! You new members, or any members for that matter.

If you have ideas or questions like this that you want to ask, create a poll thread. It's threads like this one that keep the forum going and communicating. They are much more fun to read and join in than the threads complaining about shipping or pricing or stuff like that!

And hey, Happy December. Hopefully we can wash this shitty year out of our systems and step into 2021 with an improved outlook for everything, including surround audio!

In fact, the SHF seems THE most likely place you heard those "arguments" against surround.

Doug

 

[esimms86]

It's not quad, I specifically said surround. It was composed for performers to stand in the specific locations that were available in St. Marks, and took account of the acoustics in the cathedral. The building still exists, though I don't know how much it has changed in the last 400 years. Best bet would be for it to be recorded in St. Marks, preferably using ambisonics so it can be rendered to whatever you prefer.

One would have to record during a time of year when Venice is not under water. And not wait too long as, barring some major investment in engineering, Venice will eventually be under water 12 months out of the year.