Excellent surround sound music production document

When Cool Edit Pro added surround mixing capabilities, it was a dream come true, and I expected that with new related tools such as Windows Media Audio Pro 9, DTS-encoded CDs, DVD-Audio, and SACD, that an explosion of surround music production would occur.

I was wrong.

Home theater certainly isn't dead -- it's just not so much about music -- but the clear winner is obviously lossy compression and portable music players such as the iPod.

Still, some of us are still called upon to produce in 5.1, or are just simply interested in playing with it.  And this forum has plenty of occasional questions from newbies about what to do.

Here is a link to an outstanding primer produced by some of the world's finest engineers on behalf of the Grammy organization (NARAS):
http://www.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf
Anyone involved in surround at any level, beginner to mastering engineer, would benefit from a stroll through this.  I couldn't fault a single statement (though I don't totally agree on an item or two).  And a great many topics are covered very, very nicely, topics that novices usually get wrong like speaker choice and setup, or technical requirements.

Enjoy.

Ah yes; how to do the wrong thing properly...

Paul

Ah yes; how to do the wrong thing properly...

Yes - quite interesting to read the history of surround sound without a single mention of the A-word...

Yes - quite interesting to read the history of surround sound without a single mention of the A-word...

Well, considering the date of the document, they hardly could've heard of Audition by then since it had only been out for a few months...   

Steve, I presume you're referring to Amibisonics.  If so, a reminder might be in order that this (unfortunately) isn't an international document, and that Ambisonics has had zero commercial impact over here.  Hey, for that matter, it hasn't had much there either, but that's besides the point...

Paul, I'd suggest that you get out of the other side of the bed next time, and I hope you have better toys on that side so you can appreciate where the non-mobile-electronics world is heading.

[much]

Steve, I presume you're referring to Amibisonics. 

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that Paul is too...

If so, a reminder might be in order that this (unfortunately) isn't an international document, and that Ambisonics has had zero commercial impact over here.  Hey, for that matter, it hasn't had much there either, but that's besides the point...

Much? No, about as much here as across the pond. But you have a 'better' excuse - you didn't invent it! But that's not really a reason for ignoring it completely in the '70's coverage in that document, even if you are going to dismiss it in a few words - that's just plain inward-looking.

I keep an eye on what's going on with Ambisonics (there's an e-group), but realistically it's not going to catch on at all unless there's a commercial reason for it to do so - and since '5.1 Surround Sound' (as per your production document) is effectively the de facto standard, I very much doubt whether it ever will.

I was going to put in a load of other stuff about this, but it doesn't seem worth it - although there are a couple of things to note about the document: The first is that the requirement in 3.3.1 is actually generally applicable, not just to surround - that's not a bad state to aspire to, whatever you are mixing. And the second thing to note is that despite what's been said in the past about this, the speaker placements recommended for the front pair aren't going to be optimal for stereo - +/- 30 degrees is generally not considered to be sufficient*, and if you are going to include a centre channel as well into a stereo monitoring situation, that will make it even worse.

So whilst what's in the document is fine for the purpose it was intended, you can't (despite what some people might think) just ditch the bits of a surround monitoring setup you don't want and call it 'stereo' - the monitoring requirements are different.

* There's some mystery about where this mythical figure actually came from, with all that stuff about equilateral triangles, etc. Most people find that if they do experiments, sitting with the speakers at more like +/- 45 degrees will often give a far more realistic reproduction, especially of 'naturally' recorded sound. And there appears to be no theoretical basis for the former figure either - its origins are somewhat obscure, to say the very least...

Paul, I'd suggest that you get out of the other side of the bed next time, and I hope you have better toys on that side so you can appreciate where the non-mobile-electronics world is heading.

 

In my role as advocate of lost causes, all my original recordings since about three years ago have been done using ambisonic surround; and indeed a couple of my recordings have been used at AES demos of ambisonics. 

However, none of my friends and acquaintances have the faintest interest in any form of surround sound - and only a couple have 5.1 systems, which are set up with no regard to any "standard" or even sense whatever.  The problem for surround sound is that (against what one might predict from theory) stereo works phenomenally well, and for most listeners it is almost impossible to make an improvement that they consider worthwhile in either cost or domestic convenience terms (or often at all).

In the non-consumer world, ambisonic techniques are used internally, when appropriate, in Waves plug-ins; some games producers are now using them to generate decent envelopment for their soundtracks; and they are used for large-scale sound projection, giving better image stability and control than most other techniques.

Paul

Sorry Paul, I completely missed your intent until Steve kindly pointed it out.  I mistook you for your cloth-eared friends!  But keep the faith.  Someone is bound to come along sooner or later who admires the difference.  And I'm glad you're enthusiasm is for Ambisonics, not against surround altogether.  I apologize.

There is such a dearth of interest in Ambisonics here, that had I not found some Nimbus LPs in a store years ago, would never have heard of it until this forum.  Sad.  But movies, not music, is what is pushing technology forward more than not, so it would seem.

Steve, I've never cared for the +/- 30 thing either (by ear), and tend to hit 45 in most setups.  Glad I got something right by common sense!

i want to buy a home theatre but I don't know much about that What can u suggest me between the Samsung HT-TX75, LG LH-E932TB, Panasonic SCPT950K, Pionneer HTP55HDFS, and Sony DAVHDX466 , which one has a great sound quality and especially a very heavy bass effect.

Christian howes - Innovative music,Music producer, Music Composer

If you're looking for a heavy bass effect by buying a receiver, you're going about it backwards.  The heavy bass is there -- well-mixed music and your average blockbuster adventure movie have plenty of bass or LFE.  What you need is a true subwoofer, not one of these little Bose boxes or knock-offs that fill in what's missing from those bitty satellite speakers by putting all the low midrange into a so-called "sub."  A true subwoofer starts around 50-80 cycles and delivers thundering performance down to 35 (cheap), 30 (more $$$), or 20-something Hz ($$$$).  You'll spend far more on a ture bass speaker than on a receiver.  Velodyne, Sunfire, and Bag End all offer compact packages with lower-than-normal extension.

I don't know any of those models and won't bother to learn.  ePinions.com can do that for you, and if the wattage is sufficient and you like the features, half of the circuitry is all the same anyway.  So buy the best features for the money.  But surround is a waste of time without quality speakers.