Side Surround Recording (Or Absence Thereof)
Dear Gary:
The “Setting A New Surround Sound Standard” article in Issue 107, March 2006 was a great read/reread. I’m actually personally a bit on “both sides” of the issue (that being You and Them).
The biggest surprise to me, however, was when Elliot Scheiner revealed that he rarely mixes a phantom side image. Owning many DVD-Audio and DTS® surround releases (many of which are his generally pleasurable mixes), this along with the other affirmations from the various engineers was rather disturbing. Maybe the “stagnancy” of the current state of surround is not the market, not the consumers, and not the confusion of setup, but rather the fact that there are so many “respected professional engineers” who so easily cart around the word “impossible.” To me, although I sometimes cringe reading the excessive use of the trademark “holosonic™” in your magazine (reminds me of CocaCola® cans held with the label facing the camera by the star in a movie), that is exactly what people in general are expecting with surround. Moreover, the concept of 5.1 (or more) loudspeakers to me is the definition of “ambitious,” so why are all the people commonly involved in its architecture so in love with the status quo?
As to “impossible,” these gentlemen need to listen to the Medeski Martin & Wood Uninvisible DTS Entertainment DVD-Audio disc. The clear intent of the mix engineer, Joe Harley, is to create a drum kit staged to the right SIDE of the listener (note: the DTS-ES mix appears to be drastically different). It is an immediately eye-openingly stunning effect (even if, musically, the album leaves a little to be desired). Or, how about the DTS mix of On Air by Alan Parsons, wherein on the final track (“Blue Blue Sky” reprise) the vocal starts in the rear left and slowly “floats” over your head to the right rear, and gradually on to the right front (maintaining a discernable “position” along the way), and on to the center.
I think these are examples of true “surround.” And, I understand that “by the books,” maybe humans aren’t supposed to be able to position sounds completely to one side of the head (ear). However, this discounts the reality that our OTHER ear still has feedback to the sounds hitting the opposing ear. If it were impossible for humans to track sounds to our sides, there would be no driving; we would all be in accidents EVERY DAY.
It seems that the more rational reason (as exemplified by the many dispassionate “do whatever you want with your mixes and your loudspeakers” attitudes) is that it requires much more EFFORT and time to produce a convincing holosonic (there’s that word again) effect with side origins from a 5.1 (or greater) mix.
Which brings me to the other side: where I do agree with the engineers is (being a “budget audiophile” with median, not unlimited, funds and using more general-brand components) that 5.1 is enough. If you want a standard, especially after this eye-opening article, the standard needs to be setting more guidelines for excellent engineering. The general consumers already have a standard surround format: 5.1. And, if the electronics magazines spent less time debating the hairline differences between SA-CD and DVD-Audio (I had both at once, but prefer the latter), and just supported the winning format (since DVD-Audio can now be found on many DualDiscs, and those don’t appear to be going away, I call that a “win”); we could perhaps have an infusion of some more avant garde surround mixers––who aren’t afraid to broach the barriers of the “impossible.”
Damon Appel, Mayfield Heights, Ohio
Editor-In-Chief and Publisher Gary Reber Comments:
Wow! You got it. Actually Alan Parsons has for years been my inspiration with respect to engineering absolutely fabulous “holosonic” surround mixes. On the 2004 Home Theater Cruise, Alan played for our group his exclusive DTS digital copy of the original analog four-channel quadraphonic master discrete mix of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side Of The Moon. If there was ever a mix that demonstrated the possibility of sidewall imaging and seamless imaging-specific surround originating 360 degrees around the listening position and supporting incredible dimensional imaging listening from anywhere in the room, it is this mix. Quad was accomplished with just four discrete tracks of recorded information and four full-range channels/loudspeakers for playback. Loudspeakers were placed along the circumference of an imaginary circle equi-distant relative to the “sweet spot” mixing/listening position and with each loudspeaker pair (front, left sidewall, back wall, and right sidewall) at a 90-degree angle. The four quadrants made a square at which every corner was a loudspeaker. Mixes were performed to optimize phantom signal imaging positioned between any two loudspeaker vector points to create a seamless, imaging-specific 360-degree surround presentation. You mentioned On Air, which was recorded in the same manner.
As for staying with a channel allocation represented by five full-range channels and one bandwidth limited LFE “.1” channel, I have always supported this approach but advocated that the loudspeakers be positioned according to an equi-distant, equal-angled scheme similar to quad, not the de facto scheme advocated by Home THX, which does not optimize imaging-specific-capable surround, but instead non-imaging-specific diffusive surround.
The “Setting A New Surround Sound Standard” was the topic I chose again for the 2006 Home Theater Cruise because there is a push by consumer electronic manufacturers and Dolby and DTS to promote eight discrete channels of full-range delivery (aka 7.1) in the new Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD formats. My feeling is that the creative community needs to have a dialogue with manufacturers of processors and codecs to explore what the listening position and loudspeaker position relationships should be for this new scheme to optimize a seamless, imaging-specific 360-degree surround experience. Unfortunately, the engineers representing the surround creation community resisted having this dialogue, even not wanting to discuss the position of loudspeakers within the current 5.1 format, as is evidenced by the transcription of the recorded panel discussion that I published in Issue 106, March 2006 of Widescreen Review.
At this juncture, there does not appear to be a consensus of opinion and as you say, the attitude will continue to be “do whatever you want with your mixes and your loudspeakers”; it will be close enough.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com