5.1 music listening is more true to the original recording than 2 channel stereo.

There, I said it.

Why, well here is why I think why:

I have always heard that some feel that hearing the original recording with you as the audience and the sound coming from the stage was truer to the original recording. Other people like to hear the recording as if they were on stage with the musicians, some recordings like AIX records allow you to switch between the two. But one thing I noticed is that when trying to listen to the audience presentation, as if I were in the audience, Stereo, the applause came from away from me (mic's on stage), not around me.

So what this means, what we already know, is that the microphones used for the recording were on stage with the musicians, whether or not you are listening in stereo or surround.


------------------
MeanGene's Home

There are no hard rules when recording in surround, and no real problems with having microphones in the audience for surround pickup. Most masters are recorded on many more tracks than the final 5.1 (or stereo) release format, then mixed down to 5.1 or however many channels there needs to be.

most music sounds funny in surround modes other than 5-7 channel stereo or normal (2ch) stereo. the exception being material formatted to surround on the disc...

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I enjoy a good deal of music in a surround mode.

I think the earliest and simplest of the surround sound ‘encoding/decoding’ from a two-channel source was merely: if a particular part of the two signals appears only in the left or right channel, leave it alone; if a part of the signal exists in-phase in both the left and right channels, remove it from the left and right channel outputs and put it in a center channel; if a part of the signal exists in both the left and right channels at or near 180º out-of-phase, remove it from the left and right channel outputs and place it in the surround channel(s).

If a sound recording engineer is recording a ‘live’ event with a simple* two or three microphone rig, sounds from the audience, like applause, are going to arrive at the microphones, depending on where each individual clap originates, in a mix of in-and-out-of-phase signals. When this ‘live’ recording, even without specific ‘encoding,’ is played back two-channel via DPLII or similar, the ‘decoding’ still takes place. The result is not to aurally place each clap at the same listening point relative to the microphones as in the original environment, but listening in a surround sound mode places the audience sounds ‘all around’ similar to, but not exactly the same, as attending the performance live.

The same in-and-out-of-phase decoding of a live recording affects the playback in a surround sound system of the reverberations and other aural aspects originating within the venue. Will it sound exactly the same at home? No. Will it add to the feel of a ‘live’ event? Yes.

What about multiple source, mixed-down studio recordings? Even in the days of stereo, engineers knew that if a voice were placed in both channels in-phase, it would appear in the center of the playback soundstage. If purposely placed in both channels out-of-phase, the voice would then seem as if it were all around instead of localized. Producers and engineers have been artistically affecting the playback of stereo materials for many years prior to surround sound by adjusting the relative level and phase of various signals within the mix. If the engineer is aware of what happens in surround sound processing, even further refinement of the mix may take place so that certain sounds are ‘dispersed’ when listening in stereo and ‘spread’ around or to specific locations when listening in a surround sound mode. This can sound gimmicky if applied crudely, or enhance the listening experience if applied with finesse.

The recordings that, in my mind, may sound better in one of the stereo modes are those made where everything is in-phase and just spread left and right in the soundstage by relative level setting, commonly called ‘panning’ the sound to some degree right or left.

Of course one of the stereo modes may also work better, no matter what type of two-channel recording, if you are going to fill your listening area with sound, softly or loudly, while many people are present in a ‘party’ atmosphere, rather than a one-to-a-few people just ‘listening closely.’

*I don't mean to say that such recording is a 'no-brainer' task, only that, relatively speaking, there are harder and more complex ways to do a live recording. Often the 'simple' way works better for certain goals.

that is a good post. for me, having attended some, but not a tremendous amount of concerts, symphonies, etc. i enjoy all channel stereo rather than an attempt to spatially seperate the music. stero sound out of every channel just makes more of the same sound come out from everywhere, it kind of feels like you are in the center and the music is focused on you instead of you hearing the music from a distance. so the main benefit i get is loudness, and not seperation of sound. i like stereo the best though for more critical listening, all channel stereo is better for mood music at something like a party, etc.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

curegeorg

If you want seperation,width, you simply boost the level of (L-R)+(R-L) signal in stereo.