DVD-A v.s SACD and... HD-DVD v.s Blu-ray

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

No offense but in my opinion 5.1 audio and 360 degree sound is unrealistic for music. Why? because when you are at a concert the musicians are in front of you and they usually stay on stage.

LOL, the majority of recordings have so much processing on them, the presentation is absolutely not "realistic." (Multi-mic'd, EQ'd and compressed drum kit, for instance.) Often "instruments" are synthetic, sample-based, or electro-acoustic. Even when there is an acoustic analog, why assume that's the ultimate presentation?

 

So I'd start from what makes a good listening experience, and in general, that's having most stuff panned towards the front. However, this doesn't make the surrounds irrelevant--indeed, in most movies the surrounds are mostly providing "ambience"--that's why if you go to a movie theatre you'll find a rear _array_ of maybe 16 speakers, specifically designed to create a "diffuse" soundfield; home THX-spec systems use dipole surrounds for the same reason. Shut off the surrounds, though, and listen how the sound just "collapses" right into the screen.

 

However, there are perfectly good processors (e.g. Lexicon's Logic 7 processing) that extract the "ambience" of a stereo source.

 

Originally posted by Loufrance:

I for one like open-source formats such as Ogg-vorbis, FLAC etc.

What's an "open-source" format? The format itself don't comprise source code, does it?

 

The words "open" and "closed" are value-laden, so I'd sooner use the term non-proprietary. But it's not this that most people really care about, anyway. What's important is that the format is a de-facto standard which, if it is proprietary, has favourable licensing terms. MP3 is a proprietary format, but unless you agree with the Richard Stallman's doctrine, you probably don't care. (In fact, quite a few people seem to think MP3 is a non-proprietary standard.)

 

Anyway, I would like to see lossless distribution of music online as a standard option.

 

Originally posted by Loufrance:

One of the big advantages of publishing your music online and not in a packaged format is that their is less pressure on an artist as far as image and packaging goes, meaning you won't have to make sure you do a nice photo shoot and make sure your wearing the hippist clothes, have your hair done just "right" and put 10 pictures of your self on the album(front cover, insert, back cover, maybe a picture of yourself on the disc) that means you don't have to pay a hair stylist, designer etc.

No need for a press pack and photoshot images suitable for use in publications (online or offline)? Adverts? The music video isn't going anywhere, nor are promotional appearances--at least not yet. Sure, for small time stuff you don't need that stuff--although I don't think you ever did.

 

Originally posted by Loufrance:

What the physical disc has become is a great way for big labels to show off their prized pop-artist while ignoring musical content(not in all cases).

Pop music isn't so popular today, hip-hop is. Whether you care to consider that "musical" or not is another matter--I'm certainly not a big fan--but it's clear that considerable resources are spent on the production of the big time material.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Omar Awapara:

I really don't think that it would be unrealistic just beacuse musicians don't get separated. It all gets solved arranging speakers in the concert hall. Besides music is not about trying to be "realistic" all the time, if that would be the case then we would never have had synthesizers and weird sounds that don't exist in nature.

Quite... music is entirely "artifical," and the construction of acoustic spaces and instruments is specifically intended to make everything sound as good as possible. Even taking the piano, the three strings used for most notes can be likened to a "chorus" effect and the lack of damping on the upper strings is a sort of "harmonic excitation."

 

The only goal should be the best possible sound, and it is silly to assume that the possibilities of "real" acoustics are the only ones that would achieve it. (Otherwise, write to Eventide and let 'em know how much their processors stink. )

 

Originally posted by Omar Awapara:

Besides mixing music in 5.1 is nothing new, we get it all the time in movie soundtracks, why would it be so tabu to use it on audio albums??

Nothing wrong with it, but I'm not sure anyone has really settled on a way to use it for music--rather like how it took a while to reach the usual standard for stereo (e.g., centre lead vocals, kick and snare drums centre, other drums panned, etc.) I think it's a lot more sensitive than movies to the set-up--e.g., the centre speaker and left/right must be the same distance from the listener's ears, or with accurate time-delay compensation. With a movie, the visual cues compensate for this somewhat--and then (with music) you're chained to sitting in one location. The vast majority of listeners don't even know what stereo is for, and almost certainly don't want the trouble of a 5.1 system just for music.

 

Meanwhile, many of the "limitations" of stereo have been compensated through many mixing tricks--e.g., use of pre-delay on reverbs to achieve "depth" in otherwise pan-potted stereo.

 

BTW, talking of movies, in the film Terminator 2 sound designer Gary Rydstrom said in an interview that for the gun sounds... well, this is from memory... but it's a composite sound with a cannon in there. A "real" gun doesn't sound "big" enough! The point is, movies are "larger than life" and we do the same thing with music. If I want to see/hear the "real world," I can just look/listen out of my window...

[Cliffk]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Apple upgraded the video quality of iTunes video downloads (so I suppose there's hope that improvements will occur in time) but unfortunately the music is stuck at 128kbit/s AAC which IMHO is unacceptable and I've decided that I won't buy any music from them until it's lossless.

Oh damn! My wife's just got me an iPod, which I'd been bleating about for a while. Is there no way to increase the capacity (and quality) of iTunes mp3s to that of, say, WMA files? Oh, and I suppose the Zune takes all formats?! (Amazing how one starts to research things ex post facto )

[soundscape]

You can convert your CD's to any AAC (.M4A file) or MP3 bit-rate you like (say 192 or 256kbit/s is reasonable), or to Apple Lossless (or WAV) if you don't want any quality loss. But the downloads from the iTunes Music Store are all 128kbit/s... which is OK, but not CD quality. But if you're not too impatient, you might as well buy most stuff on CD from Amazon marketplace or eBay...

 

I haven't really looked too much into Zune yet but it certainly won't play tracks from the iTunes Store.

[soundscape]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune

 

"Supports unprotected MP3, WMA, WMA Pro (2-channel),WMV, JPEG and AAC"

 

I guess that means it will play AAC files encoded in iTunes, but not those bought from the iTunes store.

 

"The European release date is tentatively set for late 2007 or early 2008. There has been no official word on Zune launch outside the US."

 

WTF? Well, that rules it out as an option for us right now, I suppose.

 

 

Does anyone know what bit-rate content is offered on, er, Zune music stores (or whatever they're called)?

[Cliffk]

Thanks for this. I'm a bit of a technophobe so please bear with me: are you saying that if I want to put tunes from my cd collection onto my iPod, I can retain that (cd) sonic quality?

[soundscape]

Originally posted by cliffk:

Thanks for this. I'm a bit of a technophobe so please bear with me: are you saying that if I want to put tunes from my cd collection onto my iPod, I can retain that (cd) sonic quality?

Exactly. Just select "Apple Lossless" in the preferences.

 

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7448/losslesshc5.png

[Cliffk]

Brilliant - thanks, man.

[dp2]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

No offense but in my opinion 5.1 audio and 360 degree sound is unrealistic for music. Why? because when you are at a concert the musicians are in front of you and they usually stay on stage. As far as hearing each instrument on a seprate speaker,while it would be cool it's somewhat novel because for one the musicians onstage don't even get that type of separation .

I guess none of the musicians danced (or moved) while performing in most of the concerts you've attended or performed in.

 

Marching bands--like the LSU marching band--dance while they play. Horn sections in R&B, Jazz, and Rock groups move/dance while they play. Actually so do pianists like Keith Jarret, Brian Culbertson, Liberace (when he was alive), etc. Don't forget about Prince sliding across the stage while belting lyrics and/or going off on guitar, and everybody danced--including the musicians--in The Time.

 

My point is some of us would like to also capture that part of the performance, and we're willing to pay for it. Additionally, 5.1 audio and 360 degree sound will enable musicians and sound engineers alike to do new things to help transform the experience of listening to music into something out of this world.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

I guess none of the musicians danced (or moved) while performing in most of the concerts you've attended or performed in.

 

Marching bands--like the LSU marching band--dance while they play. Horn sections in R&B, Jazz, and Rock groups move/dance while they play.

Yes... but that doesn't mean it's desirable for the sound to pan around in a recording. Except for the odd special effect, it's mostly annoying and fatiguing.

[dp2]

Originally posted by RABid:

And wasn't Sony more than a bit too demanding in what it wanted in return for other companies to use Betamax? The result was very few companies willing to manufacture Betamax and lots of companies producing VHS decks.

For similar reasons, I plan to resist Blu-ray and to support other non-proprietary technologies. I suspect Phillips (or another competitor) is already working on an answer to Blu-ray, and I suspect that newer technology will be released more openly.

 

Besides, the price per GB of storage keeps dropping so fast, that I suspect the market for Blu-ray will erode in a year (or two)--unless Sony opens up Blu-ray more.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

For similar reasons, I plan to resist Blu-ray and to support other non-proprietary technologies.

Well, the media per se is one thing, but all current video standards (MPEG-2, H.264) are proprietary.

 

We're a while away from an "iPod" that supports HD-video, I'd imagine. (And even there, I'm not sure how much is strictly non-proprietary.)

 

The thing is that with any consumer format too much flexibility isn't really a good thing. You just want the damn thing to be plug-n'-play.

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

I guess none of the musicians danced (or moved) while performing in most of the concerts you've attended or performed in.

 

Marching bands--like the LSU marching band--dance while they play. Horn sections in R&B, Jazz, and Rock groups move/dance while they play.

Yes... but that doesn't mean it's desirable for the sound to pan around in a recording. Except for the odd special effect, it's mostly annoying and fatiguing.

Annoying and fatiguing for some; yet, highly desirable for some like myself.

 

Furthermore, this technology is growing in popularity for game audio, and I'll help to do my part to make it less annoying and fatiguing in that context. Nevertheless, I also plan to incorporate some of the relevent technology in my other recordings--not on every beat of every track of every song. The point is to tastefully engineer--not to over-engineer--the audio.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

Annoying and fatiguing for some; yet, highly desirable for some like myself.

LOL, that was an objective statement. Seriously, what's the point in having micro-adjustments of instruments panning around? With no visual cues? What would it relate to in the case of a studio recording? How about on headphones? And if there are visual cues (as in a concert DVD), then the poor mix engineer has to constantly match the panning to every cut from camera to camera, which would also result in the sound suddenly "jumping" around.

 

You've also got the problem of equalizing and compressing everything so it fits in, etc., which is going to be a disaster area if lots of parts are constantly moving around.

 

If you really enjoy that, then just listen to a worn out tape or a bad LP/record player where the image constantly "jumps around."

 

Originally posted by dp2:

Furthermore, this technology is growing in popularity for game audio, and I'll help to do my part to make it less annoying and fatiguing in that context.

Yes, but that's more like a movie where the the sounds (of objects) are often panned to match visual location. And even movies don't necessarily jump the sounds around on every cut, while almost all dialog is centrally panned.

 

Originally posted by dp2:

Nevertheless, I also plan to incorporate some of the relevent technology in my other recordings--not on every beat of every track of every song. The point is to tastefully engineer--not to over-engineer--the audio.

Ultimately, it may be better to distribute recordings using game-like technology with a number of channels which contain positional ifnormation and mixed in real time with respect to the current speaker configuration. Whether the record industry would ever want to do this is another matter.

 

As for "over-engineer," I think this (and "over-produce") is a misnomer. More engineering means a *better* result. Bad and tasteless engineering is *not* over-engineering!

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

For similar reasons, I plan to resist Blu-ray and to support other non-proprietary technologies.

Well, the media per se is one thing, but all current video standards (MPEG-2, H.264) are proprietary.

 

We're a while away from an "iPod" that supports HD-video, I'd imagine. (And even there, I'm not sure how much is strictly non-proprietary.)

 

The thing is that with any consumer format too much flexibility isn't really a good thing. You just want the damn thing to be plug-'n'-play.

You're correct. What I meant is an open standard like MPEG-2, which although it technically is privately owned, is also developed and governed collectively.

 

I wrote non-proprietary--for the lack of a better word--hoping to circumvent the flames I know I'd have received had I used "open".

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

You're correct. What I meant is an open standard like MPEG-2, which although it technically is privately owned, is also developed and governed collectively.

 

I wrote non-proprietary--for the lack of a better word--hoping to circumvent the flames I know I'd have received had I used "open".

Well, to me it doesn't really matter how it's developed. It just matters that it's a de-facto (or becomes a de-facto) standard with reasonable licensing terms, etc. AC-3 (i.e., Dolby Digital as used in movie theatres, DVDs, etc.), for instance, is a throughly proprietary standard, but it's been very successful and the proprietary nature is no problem. Unlike MP3, Dolby enforce quality control on the encoders, too, so AC-3 audio is, in my experience at least, always free of super-obvious artifacts.

 

If you ask Richard Stallman, the term "proprietary" and "non-proprietary" have very specific meanings. If you ask the open-source guys... well, as often as not whole thing reeks of a bandwagon movement that's not really sure what it's about. Open is better... right? Who'd possibly support closed?

 

In reality, there are examples of good and bad open standards, e.g., HTML is an example of a pile of cr*p open standard. MPEG-2 is not a strictly non-proprietary standard, but it's been very successful, and as far as I'm aware, H.264 is the best video encoding standard on the planet.

[soundscape]

BTW... I would definitely like to explore large arrays of speakers with many channels of audio. There was one using 50 speakers or something that I read about. Not quite sure how it would have a practical application outside of large installations, though. And unless I used Bose Acoustimass "cube" speakers, where would they all fit?

 

Also, if you've never heard of it, Ambisonics should be of interest.

 

However, at the moment I'm more concerned with the poor fidelity of music with bad mixing and sample library/soft-synth of the week, which pale by the standards of 15 years ago.

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

You're correct. What I meant is an open standard like MPEG-2, which although it technically is privately owned, is also developed and governed collectively.

 

I wrote non-proprietary--for the lack of a better word--hoping to circumvent the flames I know I'd have received had I used "open".

Well, to me it doesn't really matter how it's developed. It just matters that it's a de-facto (or becomes a de-facto) standard with reasonable licensing terms, etc. AC-3 (i.e., Dolby Digital as used in movie theatres, DVDs, etc.), for instance, is a throughly proprietary standard, but it's been very successful and the proprietary nature is no problem. Unlike MP3, Dolby enforce quality control on the encoders, too, so AC-3 audio is, in my experience at least, always free of super-obvious artifacts.

 

If you ask Richard Stallman, the term "proprietary" and "non-proprietary" have very specific meanings. If you ask the open-source guys... well, as often as not whole thing reeks of a bandwagon movement that's not really sure what it's about. Open is better... right? Who'd possibly support closed?

 

In reality, there are examples of good and bad open standards, e.g., HTML is an example of a pile of cr*p open standard. MPEG-2 is not a strictly non-proprietary standard, but it's been very successful, and as far as I'm aware, H.264 is the best video encoding standard on the planet.

While I respect RMS, his work, and opinions, I and others in the open source community don't necessarily agree with all of his ideas. I take more of a pragmatic approach more like that of Bruce Perens and Linus Torvalds: I use whatever works best. Nevertheless, I also believe that open technologies tend--and have repeatedly shown themselves--to be better over time.

 

This, again, is why I believe that Blu-ray already has a leg in the coffin.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

While I respect RMS, his work, and opinions, I and others in the open source community don't necessarily agree with all of his ideas. I take more of a pragmatic approach more like that of Bruce Perens and Linus Torvalds: I use whatever works best. Nevertheless, I also believe that open technologies tend--and have repeatedly shown themselves--to be better over time.

So far open-source has worked pretty well with "boring," mature and standardized but hard and expensive to develop technologies that are, somewhat paradoxically, almost worthless commodity parts--as in many of the "hidden" parts of an operating system/platform. I'm not sure that at the application level so much it's the case, though.

 

As we've seen, many standards are not "closed" in the sense of being developed/ratified by "public" bodies, yet are full of proprietary/patented technologies... and this isn't a new situation. So at some point I think it's more than a little misleading to talk about some sort of "open" standards movement or whatever, it's just business as usual. As is usual with any "buzzword," it's applied to all manor of things. There's no way any standard is going to emerge without various political and market forces pulling in different directions, the best you can hope for is that the licensing is favourable and it's a robust/high quality standard. Process X or Y (open, proprietary, non-proprietary, etc.) is not a panacea. There are good and bad examples of both, and situations where one or the other tends to be more or less appropriate.

 

As for Blu-Ray, maybe you'd like to elaborate on what makes it more "closed" than anything else?

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

BTW... I would definitely like to explore large arrays of speakers with many channels of audio. There was one using 50 speakers or something that I read about. Not quite sure how it would have a practical application outside of large installations, though. And unless I used Bose Acoustimass "cube" speakers, where would they all fit?

 

Also, if you've never heard of it, Ambisonics should be of interest.

 

However, at the moment I'm more concerned with the poor fidelity of music with bad mixing and sample library/soft-synth of the week, which pale by the standards of 15 years ago.

Rather than trying to fill up a room with lots of speakers, I'm more interested in solving problems to help project the sound such that it can be heard in 3D with whatever number of speakers an arbitrary system has.

 

No, I haven't heard of it, but I'll definitely google it.

 

As for the soft-synths and sample libraries, are you inferring (or implying) that they generate sounds more inferior in quality than the hardware 15 years ago? If so, then I'd have to disagree.

 

On the other hand, if you're inferring (or implying) that quite a bit of music today is being recorded and distributed more often by players/engineers who spend increasingly less time to craft and perfect the sound, then I'd have to agree.

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

While I respect RMS, his work, and opinions, I and others in the open source community don't necessarily agree with all of his ideas. I take more of a pragmatic approach more like that of Bruce Perens and Linus Torvalds: I use whatever works best. Nevertheless, I also believe that open technologies tend--and have repeatedly shown themselves--to be better over time.

So far open-source has worked pretty well with "boring," mature and standardized but hard and expensive to develop technologies that are, somewhat paradoxically, almost worthless commodity parts--as in many of the "hidden" parts of an operating system/platform. I'm not sure that at the application level so much it's the case, though.

 

As we've seen, many standards are not "closed" in the sense of being developed/ratified by "public" bodies, yet are full of proprietary/patented technologies... and this isn't a new situation. So at some point I think it's more than a little misleading to talk about some sort of "open" standards movement or whatever, it's just business as usual. As is usual with any "buzzword," it's applied to all manor of things. There's no way any standard is going to emerge without various political and market forces pulling in different directions, the best you can hope for is that the licensing is favourable and it's a robust/high quality standard. Process X or Y (open, proprietary, non-proprietary, etc.) is not a panacea. There are good and bad examples of both, and situations where one or the other tends to be more or less appropriate.

While system software (OS, etc) is boring for you, it's exciting stuff for others (like me).

 

For that matter: what's the point of developing new synths, samplers, mixing consoles, etc? After all, they are "mature and standardized but hard and expensive to develop technologies" which consist of many "'hidden' parts. . . ." The point, IMHO, is because one can.

Originally posted by soundscape:

As for Blu-Ray, maybe you'd like to elaborate on what makes it more "closed" than anything else?

Check out:

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-14029/Section-14033/Section-14038/Article-14856.html

 

Pay special attention to phrases like: "content protection renewability," "ROM Mark" (which is basically an embedded watermark), "his ROM Mark can only be mastered with equipment available to licensed BD-ROM manufacturers," etc. Also take a look at how Sony is marketing this technology to the MPAA and RIAA.

 

Heard of region-less and region-encoded DVDs and players? That will be a thing of the past if Blu-Ray becomes more dominant.

 

Perhaps, this doesn't mean anything to you, but it means a lot to me, because I like to purchase DVDs domestically and abroad. I shouldn't have to purchase a separate player for units encoded for a specific region. I don't know about you, but that region encoding nonsense doesn't sound like fair play to me--perhaps it might to you.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

While system software (OS, etc) is boring for you, it's exciting stuff for others (like me).

I never said I found them boring--just that they are a "boring" (as in non-novel) technology. That's roughly the words of Andrew Morton (Linux developer/Kernel maintainer) too. I mean, tons of this stuff is just standard textbook theory and the research was way back in the 60's... no doubt Dijkstra could have told you how build a good "modern" OS 35 years ago. (Probably combined with a long and entertaining polemic on various subjects. )

 

Originally posted by dp2:

For that matter: what's the point of developing new synths, samplers, mixing consoles, etc? After all, they are "mature and standardized but hard and expensive to develop technologies" which consist of many "'hidden' parts. . . ." The point, IMHO, is because one can.

These are more at the application level but sure, of course, I love new developments.

 

However many of the new plug-ins aren't anything new, or even as good as the old stuff--maybe sometimes they gain from the generic hardware improvements (more memory,) but at the same time many of them seem to use CPU cycles like no tomorrow with poor polyphony as well.

 

 

Originally posted by dp2:

Heard of region-less and region-encoded DVDs and players? That will be a thing of the past if Blu-Ray becomes more dominant.

 

Perhaps, this doesn't mean anything to you, but it means a lot to me, because I like to purchase DVDs domestically and abroad. I shouldn't have to purchase a separate player for units encoded for a specific region. I don't know about you, but that region encoding nonsense doesn't sound like fair play to me--perhaps it might to you.

Personally I believe that DVD got it right--the regional coding system was good enough to cause confusion for the average consumer such that bulk imports of DVD's from other regions doesn't make sense, yet enables the enthusiast to import material. I believe that many of the companies--especially those who are *not* in the consumer electronics business (e.g., media companies)--simply do not understand that often to get a format off the ground you start by selling to enthusiasts--and they generally aren't pleased by handcuffs.

 

And yes, I too import DVD's.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

Rather than trying to fill up a room with lots of speakers, I'm more interested in solving problems to help project the sound such that it can be heard in 3D with whatever number of speakers an arbitrary system has.

 

No, I haven't heard of it, but I'll definitely google it.

Well, there are two-channel or headphone-based systems that use HRTF's (head related transfer functions) which work to a lesser or greater extent... in my experience with headphones, they can get a sound to feel like it's tickling me on the back.

 

 

Originally posted by dp2:

As for the soft-synths and sample libraries, are you inferring (or implying) that they generate sounds more inferior in quality than the hardware 15 years ago? If so, then I'd have to disagree.

Oh no, I'm saying the average stuff is worse! JD-800 or average soft-synth... I'll take the JD. And believe me, I've tried out enough of them.

 

(Don't forget a good studio 15 years ago may well have had MKS-80, Oberheim, Fairlight, Emulator, etc. lying around.)

 

Originally posted by dp2:

On the other hand, if you're inferring (or implying) that quite a bit of music today is being recorded and distributed more often by players/engineers who spend increasingly less time to craft and perfect the sound, then I'd have to agree.

Sure, that's another problem. I was listening to a recent UK "hit" using the iTunes preview feature, and I applied a 200Hz low-pass filter. A good engineer will often high-pass filter many of the sounds so that the bass-end doesn't get muddy, but that didn't appear to be the case on this track... which, BTW, also seemed to have that horrid "fake analog" sound about it--as though someone had gone way overboard with PSP VintageWarmer or something. I mean, a range of different aims in sound are valid (from sugary and sweet to more gritty) from an "artistic" standpoint but, regardless of intent, it is possible to achieve a bad result.

[Loufrance]

Soundscape said: What's an "open-source" format? The format itself don't comprise source code, does it? [Wink]

Haha very funny , but seriously I don't fully agree with your opinion on open-source, I myself feel that open-source and "copyleft" will co-exist with everything else in the universe.

 

There's too much to quote but I do agree with some of the statements you made about 5.1 music, I understand 5.1 for movies(I think I was misunderstood on that) as far as 5.1 music goes I agree with it being odd to listen to a recording without any video to tie it down and it sounding like the singer is in front, behind you etc.

 

I think as far as a wider stereo field goes would be this: Why not take a page from 5.1 and improve upon stereo with 3.1 sound (left spkr right and center channel) the center channel might be a nice addition but as far hearing the same thing on a pair of headphones I don't know?

 

Originally posted by dp2:

I guess none of the musicians danced (or moved) while performing in most of the concerts you've attended or performed in.

 

Marching bands--like the LSU marching band--dance while they play. Horn sections in R&B, Jazz, and Rock groups move/dance while they play.

No I don't really listen to marching bands, and as far as anyone dancing onstage, what's the realation between that and 5.1, I mean if it was possible to get that much detail it would be in front of you therefore more so in relation to stereo. I don't think it's such a good idea to expect the same advancements out of music that we get from movies.

 

Edit: Originally posted by dp2:

My point is some of us would like to also capture that part of the performance, and we're willing to pay for it. Additionally, 5.1 audio and 360 degree sound will enable musicians and sound engineers alike to do new things to help transform the experience of listening to music into something out of this world.

 

I don't agree with your view because that calls for more of a focus on engineering and audio tech, The focus needs to stay on the music itself, I'm tired of hearing all of the crystal clear, polished songs on the radio that IMHO have very little If any musical content.

 

And as far as being "natural" what I meant was misunderstood, I do realize that audio is processed, tweaked etc. I just think that it would be odd to sit down and listen to music that was all around me, when has the audience sat in the middle of the performers while they "danced" around them playing music? but don't get me wrong if an artist want's their music mixed in such a way it's their choice. I'm concerned that it might become a gimmick that the big record labels would love.

----

My view on audio formats is that I feel whether anybody agrees they are open-source or not is just arguing over the "name" and ignoring the underlying fact that they are, but the main thing is that I'd like to be able to buy a media player(avoiding saying "I-pod" or MP3 player") that supports more formats then MP3,AAC, WAV, and WMA.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

Soundscape said: What's an "open-source" format? The format itself don't comprise source code, does it? [Wink]

Haha very funny , but seriously I don't fully agree with your opinion on open-source, I myself feel that open-source and "copyleft" will co-exist with everything else in the universe.

Sorry... seriously though, why use the terminology sloppily? As we've seen in this thread, there are so many definitions of "open". I mean, it seems sometimes people mean by "open" that there is no DRM... NOT that there are no patents on the format per se (e.g., MP3)... these are completely different issues... and unless you're of the exact views of Richard Stallman trying to build a "FREE" (in his (confusing) terminology) Operating System/platform etc. you probably don't give a damn whether MP3 is "FREE" or not 'cause we all have an encoder or two and a player or two! (Besides which a DRM scheme could be open-source.)

 

 

Originally posted by Loufrance:

I think as far as a wider stereo field goes would be this: Why not take a page from 5.1 and improve upon stereo with 3.1 sound (left spkr right and center channel) the center channel might be a nice addition but as far hearing the same thing on a pair of headphones I don't know?

The problem with 3 front channels, I think, is that the centre speaker needs to be very accurately positioned or time-delayed (e.g., if it's nearer to the listener, which is often the case) with respect to the stereo pair... and although there are theoretical problems with a centre "phantom" image (and the issue of cross-channel comb filtering) engineers have gotten very good at using EQ, reverb etc. to position a voice nicely between a stereo pair. It's less bothersome with movies where the picture distracts from these issues and/or provides spatial cues.

 

And yes, I agree that there isn't much scope for blatant rear-panning with music... but like I say, this isn't used much with movies anyway, just for a plane fly-over or something--the rest is just ambient. It *might* be interesting to have a background pad part panned or "chorused" all the way around a surround system.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying, of course, that it can't be done well... just that there are certain challenges and I'm not aware that any kind of "standard" has emerged in the same way that exists for stereo music or 5.1 sound on movies.

 

Originally posted by Loufrance:

 

Originally posted by dp2:

My point is some of us would like to also capture that part of the performance, and we're willing to pay for it. Additionally, 5.1 audio and 360 degree sound will enable musicians and sound engineers alike to do new things to help transform the experience of listening to music into something out of this world.

I don't agree with your view because that calls for more of a focus on engineering and audio tech, The focus needs to stay on the music itself, I'm tired of hearing all of the crystal clear, polished songs on the radio that IMHO have very little If any musical content.

Music comes first but in my experience "crystal clear" songs are often good top to bottom... a lot of the stuff today is not as good as 15+ years ago!

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

My view on audio formats is that I feel whether anybody agrees they are open-source or not is just arguing over the "name" and ignoring the underlying fact that they are, but the main thing is that I'd like to be able to buy a media player(avoiding saying "I-pod" or MP3 player") that supports more formats then MP3,AAC, WAV, and WMA.

Oh sure, that's cool. The whole situation with the iTunes/iPod "Fairplay" DRM and "vendor lock-in" (e.g., you can't play music bought from the iTunes store on any other portable media player than an iPod) is a disaster area too. (However, I'd have no problem with, say, Dolby creating an online music distribution standard and licensing it for use on various portable players, in the same way that Dolby Noise Reduction is/was standard on cassette players, Dolby Digital on DVD players and A/V amps, etc. Dolby are paid royalities but there is a healthy and competitive market in both cases.)

[Griffinator]

Originally posted by soundscape:

BTW... I would definitely like to explore large arrays of speakers with many channels of audio. There was one using 50 speakers or something that I read about. Not quite sure how it would have a practical application outside of large installations, though. And unless I used Bose Acoustimass "cube" speakers, where would they all fit?

Easy - wall and ceiling-mount systems. I used to be a dealer for one really great manufacturer - can't remember the badge (sheesh, I'm getting old) that did high-quality sealed in-wall systems including in-wall subwoofers (better have some stout studs!)

[soundscape]

Hmm... Boston Acoustics and KEF used to (still do?) do some reasonable in-wall speakers.

 

(I guess you really don't like the idea of 50 Acousti-mess (as you call them) cubes, huh? )

[Griffinator]

Triad was the company - I just finally remembered.

 

They're one of the only companies out there that make fully-sealed-enclosure in-wall speakers.

 

Advantage being that open-backs in your wall turns the whole gap between the studs into the speaker enclosure - not a good thing for accuracy.

 

As to the Acousti-mess speakers, if you're up for listening to surround stuff through 50 alarm-clock speakers, be my guest. You'll be needing a hella lot of subwoofer and woofer to support them, though, unless you like no lower mids in your program...

 

http://www.intellexual.net/faq/am15freqa.jpg

 

LINK

[Cliffk]

Bump. Soundscape, while you're still good-naturedly dispensing ipod function tips, could I pick your brain once more?

 

Apparently, if you want to update your ipod library, any songs you've stored on it will be deleted if these songs have been deleted from your itunes library, once you sync up these 2 devices.

 

Now, I'd thought that once I'd transferred songs from itunes to ipod, I could delete those in my itunes library, as they'd be taking up a whole lot of hard-disk space. Please tell me this is possible.