What is the real purpose of four channel sound?

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

I’d also just like to add that I don’t even think people need to hear instruments to determine which is better (mono/stereo vs. surround). When you have harmony and background vocals physically separated in space from the lead vocals, …when those voices come together & you’re in the center of it, …to me, nothing sounds more natural or better than that.

 

[quicksrt]

I believe that no one has mentioned this so far: The increased dynamic range afforded by taking analog multitracks and mixing them into four (or five) channels rather than two. There are less tape saturation issues, more speakers, and more amplification to deliver what actually was recorded in the studio.

Indeed, it provides a "fresher" mix of the music in the room.

 

[jimfisheye]

I do find it noteworthy that there are a lot of people claiming to prefer Mono releases of things, mostly of older classic rock such as the Beatles and the Who. Even I myself picked up a copy of "the Beatles in Mono" boxed set when a genuine one presented itself at a good price. I can't actually say that I have listened to any of the CDs in that box though. There are youtube offerings of such things as "mono release".

I don't know where the point of diminising returns is but I think mo channels= mo bettah.

Perhaps folks are pining for the sound they remember from the AM radio days when that is what we had in our cars. That changed in the late seventies and early eighties.

It has little to do with the format and any limitations it might have and everything to do with the quality of the mix. Sometimes even though the more channel format has obvious higher potential, a mix can be so poorly done that the original but technically limited one outshines it.

That's with actual remix attempts good or bad. Without going into the manipulated re-channeled or upmixed.

The mix takes any/all original recorded elements and creates a balanced mix that sounds like it's in the appropriate space and everything. You're creating the whole vibe. Some mono mixes have it going on and the stereo remix did not. Some quad mixes had it going on and the 5.1 remix did not. Even if the fidelity was better than the copy of a tape from 1970 for that quad mix.

Or sometimes it wasn't that there was anything wrong with either mix. They each have nuances and fans need both. (Or however many.)

 

[Tribby2001]

That was so silly … especially when so many like Sony stopped having the capacity to play them in their products…

What's silly is critiquing a 20+ year old TV commercial promoting a then new superior format that's still alive and well today. Got vinyl? Now that's silly.

 

[MidiMagic]

What I listen for is the "you are there" sense from the recording.

I have created recordings that have that sense that "you are there". They include the sounds of the musicians, along with reflections from the walls and reverberation from the back of the room. The recordings are in QS.

This is what I wanted quadraphonics for. And most of the new technology (including Atmos) does not provide it.

 

[AYanguas]

What I listen for is the "you are there" sense from the recording.

I have created recordings that have that sense that "you are there". They include the sounds of the musicians, along with reflections from the walls and reverberation from the back of the room. The recordings are in QS.

This is what I wanted quadraphonics for. And most of the new technology (including Atmos) does not provide it.

But new technology has nothing to do with that. It's the recording and mixing processes that matter, right?

 

[jaybird100]

My take on it is that modern recordings are made with multiple tracks; often as many as 24, or more. The mixing engineer has a daunting task: how to take all these tracks, each recorded with a specific part of the total recording, and mix them down to two channels, and not making the sound seem "cluttered". By adding the additional channels, there's more room for the mixer to allow more of what was recorded to reach the ears of the listener. To mix to two channels, often parts of the recording have to be discarded, for no more reason than they just don't fit. More channels mean more room to keep more of that music that reaches the listener's ears. If that engineer is worth his salt in creating a good, sensible surround mix, so much the better.

One of the biggest arguments I've heard from naysayers has been that it's just not realistic. But is it realistic to hear a rock band, or a symphony orchestra, in your living room, or car? No! What quad does, that stereo doesn't, is to involve the listener in a way that stereo can't, by using psychoacoustics to create a more exciting experience. You can be in the middle of that rock band, as if you're performing with them. Or, you can be in 10th row center, of a famous music hall, such as Carnegie Hall, as the orchestra plays just for you. The ambiance of the hall is created by microphones at the rear of the auditorium. Real? Not really, but it's one hell of an illusion!

 

[ar surround]

One of the biggest arguments I've heard from naysayers has been that it's just not realistic.

What’s realistic is hearing what is supposedly a Chicago concert in some pavilion in Camden, New Jersey that is nothing more than a night of ear bleeding distortion and mud.

 

[ar surround]

I’d also just like to add that I don’t even think people need to hear instruments to determine which is better (mono/stereo vs. surround). When you have harmony and background vocals physically separated in space from the lead vocals, …when those voices come together & you’re in the center of it, …to me, nothing sounds more natural or better than that.

Spot on Grandpa. I make home brewed 5.1‘s using DeMix Pro that separates the lead and backing vocals. When I put the lead vocals in the front and the backing vocals spread across in the rears, the blended result is spectacular. And the instrumentation split turns out to be not that important.

 

[jimfisheye]

What’s realistic is hearing what is supposedly a Chicago concert in some pavilion in Camden, New Jersey that is nothing more than a night of ear bleeding distortion and mud.

Haha. I suspect most people mean hyper-realistic when they say realistic.

 

[audiomaster]

It's so, over 50 years, people can start conversations about, "why quad?"

Besides, we only have two ears.



Doug

Yes, but they are "directional ears" and can locate sounds in any direction. Hooked to the ultimate multi channel decoder, the BRAIN!

 

[Doug G.]

Yes, but they are "directional ears" and can locate sounds in any direction. Hooked to the ultimate multi channel decoder, the BRAIN!

It was a joke.

Doug

 

[himey]

recreate the ‘musical performance’

What percentage of albums do you think this is the intention?

 

[Sal1950]

Quad, 5.1, Atmos, etc; has allowed a new artwork to be created in the presentation of reproduced music. Artists and engineers joint together to write a new immersive system that takes us miles beyond the flat, comparatively non-involving case of 2ch..
Although hardly it's equal, I find it hard to listen to 2ch music without using some sort of multich upsampling to bring stereo it out of the doldrums.

 

[drh3b]

To take my money.

 

[Sal1950]

To take my money.

You got plenty. LOL

 

[timbre4]

To get to the other side.

 

[drh3b]

You got plenty. LOL

Not anymore.

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

Spot on Grandpa. I make home brewed 5.1‘s using DeMix Pro that separates the lead and backing vocals. When I put the lead vocals in the front and the backing vocals spread across in the rears, the blended result is spectacular. And the instrumentation split turns out to be not that important.

As you probably know, I also create surround mixes, ...I only use stems and multi-tracks but our belief seems to be the same, ...that separated vocals can often make the difference between a decent surround mix and a really good one. On my YouTube channel I have a separate playlist for my "recommended mixes", ...most of the time the deciding factor for that playlist is if the mix has extra vocals in the surround speakers.

My very first surround mix that I ever made was SO simple, but it sounds amazing; I found a 4-track of the Eagles performing Seven Bridges Road, and I turned it into a quadraphonic mix.
Front Left --> Glen Frey vocals & guitar
Front Right--> Don Henley vocals & guitar
Rear Left --> Timmy Shimdt vocals
Rear Right --> Joe Walsh vocals

When I heard those vocal harmonies fill the room, ...I was hooked!!! I had LOVED quadraphonic music but the realization hit me that I had just created my own fantastic quad mix so I had a new mission & since that day, I have found/bought/traded for thousands and thousands of more multi-tracks so I can mix them into surround sound as well.

 

[Doug G.]

To take my money.

And the cynicism of the early years rears its ugly head!



Doug