What is the real purpose of four channel sound?

[mutant_matt]

Perhaps a stupid/already answered question that only just occurred to me, watching that. IF the SQ/surround part of that video is still "muxed" into the stereo (and not destroyed by whatever audio format/compression may have been applied by YT), is there a way to use a software player (or ffmpeg etc.) to turn that old recording into a modern contained/codec 4.0 (or better 5.0 with a silent centre (for better software player compatibility)) for "proper" multi-channel listening on our (presumably well setup/expensive) hi-fi systems?

Hopefully, whoever ripped that video did so in a "Quad non-destructive" way to make this possible?

Thoughts?

 

[barfle]

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.

I recall, when quad was a modern thing, discussing the relationship between the invention of a technology and the artistry imvolved in using it. If there had been the sudden invention of a blue paint, there would undoubtedly be a few “artists” who would cover their canvas with that blue paint and call it a portrait. Others would use that new tool to much more subtle effect, implementing it in a way that enhanced their art instead of overwhelming it.

 

[barfle]

To take my money.

You’re a volunteer, not a victim. Maybe an addict, though.

 

[barfle]

To get to the other side.

Break on through to the other side.

 

[MidiMagic]

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

In other words, it is not being used to provide such an experience.

I have heard very few recordings that have this "I am there" quality. All of them have this quality when played in EV-4 or QS. Some of them are not sold as surround products.

- "Hallelujah Chorus" from the Dynaco 4D demonstration record (DQ track)
- Neil Diamond "Hot August Night" (Stereo album The record has it, the CD does not)
- Steppenwolf "Live" (Stereo album The record has it, the CD does not)
- Three Dog Night "Live at the Forum" (Stereo album)
- Melanie "Candles in the Rain" (Stereo album)
- ABBA "The Visitors" (Stereo Track)
- Beethoven Symphony #9 in D minor, Op. 125 Eugen Jochum, London Symphony Orchestra (SQ album)

 

[Sal1950]

I recall, when quad was a modern thing, discussing the relationship between the invention of a technology and the artistry imvolved in using it.

Amen.
The largest problem we faced then and now is the attitude by the "stereo only" type that using the surround channels for anything beyond hall ambiance is simply gimmicky. We can't seem to open their minds to the idea of being immersed in a 3d audio canvas. Painting a surrounding musical picture is a new reproduction art all it's own.
The old "open window to a fairly flat concert stage" is so limiting in vision.

 

[MidiMagic]

Amen.
The largest problem we faced then and now is the attitude by the "stereo only" type that using the surround channels for anything beyond hall ambiance is simply gimmicky. We can't seem to open their minds to the idea of being immersed in a 3d audio canvas. Painting a surrounding musical picture is a new reproduction art all it's own.
The old "open window to a fairly flat concert stage" is so limiting in vision.

I like that too. But it does not give me the impression that I am there. I hear cute little squidges of isolated sound.

 

[MidiMagic]

I like that too. But it does not give me the impression that I am there. I hear cute little squidges of isolated sound.

 

[Tribby2001]

Amen.
The largest problem we faced then and now is the attitude by the "stereo only" type that using the surround channels for anything beyond hall ambiance is simply gimmicky.

Err, what of the mono-sapian types that gotta have the Beatles in mono collection?

 

[jimfisheye]

Err, what of the mono-sapian types that gotta have the Beatles in mono collection?

I think this is genuinely more about picking your favorite between the two mixes. There also was a pattern for a few years where the mono mix was fussed over with band involvement while the stereo remix was given to "the new stereo guy" as more of a novelty. So we have some albums where the stereo version is actually a rework.

No one is actually saying they prefer mono over stereo or stereo over surround. They're saying that in spite of the better format, the lesser format mix is a better mix.

Funny though, there is one thing I agree with Phil Spector on. (Someone I normally have no respect for.) A mono mix can't be skewed by a rogue playback system! He's not wrong.

You've probably heard a Beatles stereo album in a friend's car where they only had one channel hooked up. Obviously that changes the mix! A 5.1 system give exponential opportunities beyond that to hear a mix all screwed up and wrong. Now with 12 channel mixes... Safe to say it will only be the enthusiasts that ever hear these even close to what the engineer intended!

 

[Bill B]

Err, what of the mono-sapian types that gotta have the Beatles in mono collection?

In my case I got the mono versions (in addition to the stereo versions) because I am an anal completist. And I'd wager I wasn't alone. Have I listened to the mono versions? Sure, but 99 out of a 100 times, when I reach for a Beatles album, it's going to be the stereo version (or a multi-channel version, of course).

 

[Sal1950]

I like that too. But it does not give me the impression that I am there. I hear cute little squidges of isolated sound.

As in "there at a live event" ?
That's not really the plan.
It's a different paradigm than "I am there", live concerts aren't presented that way either, and probably never will be. Listen to some of the new modern immersive recordings being done by Point Yello, Booka Shade, Steven Wilson's own and others mixes, new Bob Clearmountain mixes, TFT - Tipping Point, Orbital, etc. It's more about painting a visual canvas of music all around and above you.
You need to take a new perspective on what recorded music is and can be.

 

[MidiMagic]

Err, what of the mono-sapian types that gotta have the Beatles in mono collection?

I can tell you why. The early Beatles stereo albums are pure L R stereo with nothing in between.

Hole in the mix.

 

[MidiMagic]

As in "there at a live event" ?
That's not really the plan.
It's a different paradigm than "I am there", live concerts aren't presented that way either, and probably never will be. Listen to some of the new modern immersive recordings being done by Point Yello, Booka Shade, Steven Wilson's own and others mixes, new Bob Clearmountain mixes, TFT - Tipping Point, Orbital, etc. It's more about painting a visual canvas of music all around and above you.
You need to take a new perspective on what recorded music is and can be.

I don't know how others did it. It is a pleasant surprise when I find one.

I do know how I made the ones I recorded of that band. I used a special mic array.

I do like other kinds of mixes. I just love it when I find one of these.

 

[par4ken]

I can tell you why. The early Beatles stereo albums are pure L R stereo with nothing in between.

Hole in the mi

They still sound great that way! As kids we would say WOW ever good stereo!` It's just that they don't decode to quad worth a damn.

The masters were never intended for stereo, just meant to be mixed down to mono. At least it's real 2-channel and not that horrible rechanneled for stereo crap that they started releasing in the early seventies instead of original mono!

 

[barfle]

Err, what of the mono-sapian types that gotta have the Beatles in mono collection?

Well, the first Beatles “stereo” records had voices on one side and instruments on the other. IIRC, that was because the tapes that were shipped to the US were that way, but intended to be mixed as mono before pressing. Of course someone here thought otherwise.

 

[shokhead]

The Beatles had recorded all their previous albums in mono, with stereo versions made without the Beatles’ participation.
Abbey Road is the first album that the band released in stereo only!

 

[Doug G.]

My friends and I thought it was way cool that the stereo Capitol records were that way. We would turn the balance control so only the instruments were heard and sang along. We thought it was miraculous that they could do that on a record, anyway.

Doug

 

[par4ken]

The Beatles had recorded all their previous albums in mono, with stereo versions made without the Beatles’ participation.
Abbey Road is the first album that the band released in stereo only!

Until the very late sixties almost all stereo records were dual inventory with mono, and mono were about a dollar cheaper. A heavy mono cartridge would not move in the proper directions to track stereo properly and could damage the grooves of a stereo record. By the late sixties most people had stereo (or a stereo cartridge wired as mono).

Myself I never noticed any record damage from playing stereo with a mono cartridge, it would depend on how heavy the tracking is set. I'm sure that the Beatles were involved with stereo releases before Abbey Road!

 

[Bill B]

Until the very late sixties almost all stereo records were dual inventory with mono, and mono were about a dollar cheaper. A heavy mono cartridge would not move in the proper directions to track stereo properly and could damage the grooves of a stereo record. By the late sixties most people had stereo (or a stereo cartridge wired as mono).

Myself I never noticed any record damage from playing stereo with a mono cartridge, it would depend on how heavy the tracking is set. I'm sure that the Beatles were involved with stereo releases before Abbey Road!

I think the deal was that they would record with the mono mix in mind and then the stereo version was, in a way, an afterthought. Until stereo became the dominant "format" in the late 60s.