Topic: 5.1 music

[Touti]

I don't have any 5.1 music CD/DVD yet.  I would like to slowly start building a collection of classical music, I have some but not much.  I'm curious, does anyone here has those and are they worth it ?

[RossRoy]

Well I don't have Classical music in 5.1, but I have a Jazz/Swing/Big Band DVD that has a 5.1 DTS track.

While it does sound good, and I like the effects of having the trumpets front and center, the trombones to the left slightly back, the saxamaphone to the right slightly back, and the piano, drum and bass all around, it does wear off and can't beat a good stereo recording.

I think 5.1 music is just a novelty.. I mean, even at live concerts (be it jazz or classical), the band/orchestra is in front, center stage, so at best you have stereo sound (ok, might somewhat become 5.0 if you're in a cathedral ) but still. I may be "old school", but I think a good 2.0 mix will never beat a 5.1 mix in recreating a natural soundstage, as it would be if it were live.

Oh actually, I lied. I do have a 5.1 classical. It is Holst's The Planets, but it is a SACD format, but I never had a player for that 

[SailorRipley]

The only DVD/CD's I have are a Bach called Ultimate Bach, in DTS and the two sets for Howard Shore's The Lord of the Rings: The Complete Recordings. These are for Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, each is a three cd set plus a dvd of the entire score in 5.1 at 48 kHz in 24-bit.

Worth it? I'd say an absolute YES. Why? Well, current configuration of CDs will only allow for stereo reproduction, even on a 5.1 system. The clear advantages for these are the channel separation and the very high sampling rates; you will begin hearing notes and instruments you wouldn't be aware of otherwise. It all makes for a very impressive and captivating listen. But don't take my word for it, go to any store and ask for a demonstration. I'm sure you will be blown away.

However, I should say the format appears to be dependent on very particular acoustics. So, for classical it sounds pretty good, but no so much with, say, a rock concert. My ex-gf had a DTS version of a David Bowie concert, and I was very disappointed. Maybe this is related to the conversion from stereo to 5.1, but I found the lack of punch (which is a huge plus on the regular CD edition) very distracting.

Other downside is, the format hasn't been exactly popular, (although it's been around since 2002 or so I believe), and especially on the classical side, the selection is still very limited. I'm very picky in terms of conductors & orchestras, so I'm still waiting for a larger selection of titles. I'm not sure if this will catch on eventually or it will become a forgotten thing of the past.

[RossRoy]

You know, I thought about that a bit more, and read Sailor's reply. I still stand by my claim that I prefer a good stereo mix to any 5.1, but I might have a deeper reason for that.

I am a musician. I play trombone. I KNOW how a 5.1 orchestra should sound, as I've regularly sat right in the middle of one. Same for a jazz band. So I think what I find lacking in 5.1 mixes is the fidelity to where each instrument should be.

For instance, the trumpets are never center stage in a jazz band, that should be the saxamaphones. Trombone shouldn't be on the left, but on the right. Trumpets are on the left. That's the standard setup. There are exceptions, as always, but still.

And why the heck is the rythm section (piano, drum, bass) all over the place? They're usually packed together on the side.

Also, the 5.1 classical music I've listened to, also had the instruments mixed up all over the place. If you're going to try and place the listener in the middle of the band, at least place the instruments at their proper place!

[SailorRipley]

Ross, your post makes a lot of sense and I've found that there's still a huge debate about the 5.1 mixes. Instrument placement is of course extremely important, and with new 5.1 mixes, I believe the problem lies with the original design.

Any recording should have a proper channel separation, a standard 2.0 stereo mix has been designed that way, so what happens if you convert that into 5.1? Instruments all over the place, depending on the sound mixer. This may be the reason for which many music recordings have been royally screwed up when they're converted into 5.1 channels and they can turn out even worse if you have a lousy sound mixer that has no idea where the instruments should be. I've heard people say the whole 5.1 thing in regular recordings is just a showoff, an artificial representation of the spatial soundscape. I didn't think about that at first, but reading your post, I have to say you're right. A standard 2.0 mix converted to 5.1 can be a really bad idea.

However, if by design you're implementing a 5.1 channel mix from the very start, the experience can be entirely different. In the case of The Lord of the Rings recordings, they all have been implemented with 5.1 in mind, and the result, I should say, is quite spectacular. Just for kicks, a few minutes ago I made a track comparison between the regular 2.0 stereo cd's and the 5.1 mix in the dvd. The sound in the cd is very muddled and noisy, a result of all the instruments clogging up the channels when the original design was in 5.1. The DVD sounds quite precious (lol) by comparison, the music flowing beautifully with very clear and accurate instrument placement.

So, what we may need is proper recordings for this format.

[RossRoy]

So, what we may need is proper recordings for this format.

And that's the problem.

The Big Phat Band album I have here (the jazz one in DTS, well it's actually a DVD-Audio but I can't play that, I'm stuck with either the DTS or a DD mix) sounds great, with nice channel separation and clarity, as well as a nice "boom". But it was originally recorded to be that way, and if I'm not mistaken (I don't have the disc handy so I can't check) the producer on that is also the band leader, so the instrument location in the mix makes sense, even if it's not a "standard" setup. I actually have very little complaints about this one, but that's just 1 recording...

Thing is, 5.1 audio (be it SACD or DVD-A) never really took off, so what's the incentive to make a real 5.1 mix? Not much.. So you get a somewhat decent upmixed 2.0. Well, if you're going to do that, stick to 2.0 and don't bother. I have vinyls here that sounds better than some modern recordings of jazz bands.. I don't know what happened or how a 1950 recording can sound better than a 2000 one... Hasn't technology improved 

There's also the whole "big sound" issue.. These days, the mixers seem to have the very bad tendency of over amplifying the sound on the disc, losing dynamic range. But that's another debate entirely, and one I'm not really knowledgeable enough to get into. My ears just tell me that CD of the 90s have better sound definition and range than the modern ones!

[Kathy]

Interesting discussion. Sorry I can't contribute, I still love my vinyl!

[Touti]

Interesting indeed.  When home theatre system came out people were all over in the stores asking it.  Everybody was talking about Pro Logic, DTS, DD 5.1, # of channels, decoders and all that stuff.

I think 5.1 music came out at that time as a marketting trick, a way of telling people "Hey! DVD's are great but there's still music out there, don't forget about us".  It could also have been a (lame) attempt at reducing piracy by offering a new technology.

Obviously it never picked up, same is true for SACD.  Ross' point is interesting but I suspect there is nothing on the packages that tells you if it's a true 5.1 recording or a 2.0 remix.  I guess I'll stick to regular cd's for while.

[Najemikon]

Interesting discussion. Sorry I can't contribute, I still love my vinyl!

Interesting comment that, Kathy. I used to have arguments with friends about how I thought vinyl was better than CD. Which it is. DVD-Audio should be better than both, but it seems to only be used for 5.1 recorded stuff.

The only DTS audio DVD I have is Queen A Night at the Opera. It's bloody marvellous. However, Queen used to experiment with multi-channel anyway, so 5.1 is closer to the sound they were after. Bohemian Rhapsody sounds so fresh it is incredible.

[lyonsden5]

I was an early adopter of DVDA. Bought my player before there were combo DVDA SACD players available  The biggest problme I had with the setup is I am limited to where I can listen to my discs.

With that said I have to say my favorites are "A Night at the Opera" (Queen) and "The Planets" (Holst) Also the "Audio" (Blue Man Group) is pretty good.

A well mixed surround surround recording beats out a stereo mix anyday IMO.

OT - From one Trombone player to another it's noce to see the old type of avatar back 

[Kathy]

Interesting discussion. Sorry I can't contribute, I still love my vinyl!

Interesting comment that, Kathy. I used to have arguments with friends about how I thought vinyl was better than CD. Which it is.

I think vinyl sounds better also. Or it might be I’m too cheap to replace my 3,000+ collection! Most of the records I bought during the performance, or right after, so I have a sentimental attachment to the album too. A CD wouldn’t bring back the memories of those times. Loving vinyl earns a merit badge in my book!

Queen rocks! I saw them live and bought their records. When I listen to the album, my mind takes be back and I can see them playing live. If my had to replace the vinyl with a CD  it wouldn't be quite the same.

[Najemikon]

Queen rocks! I saw them live and bought their records. When I listen to the album, my mind takes be back and I can see them playing live. If my had to replace the vinyl with a CD  it wouldn't be quite the same.

You saw them live? Oh that's me jealous then ... Is your DVD player capable of handling DVD-Audio? You must get A Night at the Opera if it does. It really is an improvement over the vinyl even. 

btw, that smiley you chose is called "thundergod"! How cool is that?

My dad always loved music and had a large vinyl collection. I remember his considered opinion that the main theme for On Her Majesties Secret Service was one of the best recordings he had. He'd often use it as a test track and rack up the volume. Sometime the windows would threaten to burst on that first "DA-DA-DA!!!". I've yet to hear any CD version that comes close in the same system. The range just doesn't exist and falters at similar volume. His favourite artist was Jim Reeves and I know how disappointed he was in an obvious loss of clarity over vinyl. I'm no Jim Reeves fan, but his voice was near perfect.

[Touti]

At the risk of looking stupid and uninformed.  What's DVD Audio ?  I had no idea that one needed a compatible player, any thought any player would be able to read them.

[Najemikon]

At the risk of looking stupid and uninformed.  What's DVD Audio ?  I had no idea that one needed a compatible player, any thought any player would be able to read them.

No such fear, I certainly fell for it. It is a different format and your basic DVD player won't touch it, though my Queen disc was at least dual format. I bought the disc, stuck it in my player and promptly got an on-screen menu and a PCM stereo track. I was gutted. 

Eventually I bought a new player in an all-in-one kit with speakers. I saw the DVD-A logo on the side and grabbed the Queen album, now two blasted years old! Oh my. There's your imporvement, right there! 

If your player can't handle it, check your PCs sound card. Creative software now includes a DVD-Audio player. As long as you can get your speakers hooked up to the PC correctly (normally two outputs, one for fronts, the other for rears), it's better than nothing.

I think DVD-A is a dead in the water format though. A Night at the Opera is now available in 5.1 on CD, which is a shame.

[Touti]

I'll have to get my manual out of the boxes to verify but I know for sure that it supports SACD so I would guess it does DVD Audio as well.