Missed the boat

[mgpt6]

The one application that would have been killer with IBOC digital is 5.1 surround sound. It is the one thing which analog can not do. ( matrix 5.1 not recommended on FM analog.)Many people have surround sound in their homes. The car is set up with 4 to 6 speakers, just need a head end for 5.1. Ibuqity should have looked at Dolby Labs business model. In 15 years from stereo to 4 channel to 5.1 channel and 6.1 and 7.1 channel now becoming common.

 

[murcuryvapor]

The one application that would have been killer with IBOC digital is 5.1 surround sound. It is the one thing which analog can not do. ( matrix 5.1 not recommended on FM analog.)Many people have surround sound in their homes. The car is set up with 4 to 6 speakers, just need a head end for 5.1. Ibuqity should have looked at Dolby Labs business model. In 15 years from stereo to 4 channel to 5.1 channel and 6.1 and 7.1 channel now becoming common.

Absolute bollocks. The streams can only accomplish marginal audio quality as it is in stereo (two channel) sound.
Where do you suggest the bandwidth come from? I submit that it's a similar dark place they pulled this poorly designed system from to begin with.
Where do you get '15 years' from? The first Dolby Stereo sound was available in 1975 (for film, mind you) in an analogue format. AC-3 was a theater digital sound in 1992. The first pro-logic system (analogue) system for a car was introduced in 1997.

Ibuqity? I bucket thee? Methinks so.

 

[LinoNYC]

The one application that would have been killer with IBOC digital is 5.1 surround sound. It is the one thing which analog can not do. ( matrix 5.1 not recommended on FM analog.)Many people have surround sound in their homes. The car is set up with 4 to 6 speakers, just need a head end for 5.1. Ibuqity should have looked at Dolby Labs business model. In 15 years from stereo to 4 channel to 5.1 channel and 6.1 and 7.1 channel now becoming common.

Yeah, in movies and soon television. In case you haven't noticed music has for the last 50 years been mixed down to two channel.

To make your concept worthwhile record companies would have to completely reissue their back catalogs to accommodate this assuming that multi track masters are even available, not many of those before 1967.

You also have to hire new mix engineers and in many cases, secure releases from artists for what would be a radically different conception of their product.

The better, more practical way to accomplish this is by end-based synthesis which most Home Theater receivers have had for the last 18 or-so years.

Lino

 

[murcuryvapor]

To make your concept worthwhile record companies would have to completely reissue their back catalogs to accommodate this assuming that multi track masters are even available, not many of those before 1967.

You also have to hire new mix engineers and in many cases, secure releases from artists for what would be a radically different conception of their product.

There are few surround releases compared to stereo releases, even in the reissue realm. The artists and albums in 5.1 tend to be 'classic' in nature, and consumed by people with a concern for audio quality in my estimation. We're talking about Miles Davis, Genesis, Yes, Billy Cobham and Zappa, among others. The Zappa trust has control over their content, and artists like Genesis are really hands-on in their catalogues. For reference: http://www.genesis-news.com/genesis/reviews/sacds/interview-with-nick-davis.htm.

What really fails is the quality sought for surround is high, and offering a 5.1 surround (as opposed to a Pro Logic embedding in 2 channels-simply decoded) in HYBRID DIGITAL RADIO really is a pearl-to-swine downconverting scenario, which makes the 5.1 thing pointless. Not to mention no one is gonna put Lil Wayne or Britney out in 5.1-unless they have already.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

This is about as comprehensive a list of available 5.1 surround releases (in the DVD-Audio format, which some Acura cars and many home DVD players can play back) as I've seen:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/category.cfm?section=dvd&id=23

Regrettably, the format has not caught on. I say "regrettably" because the sonic difference between a DVD-Audio disc and a CD is audible, even to those without so-called "golden" ears. Even the release of the Beatles' "Love" soundtrack from the Cirque du Soleil show in the DVD-Audio format was not enough to kick-start it.

On the radio side: In Boston there is a classic-hits station, WZLX, transmitting their HD in 5.1. Besides the utter lack of promotion for this tech, especially on their air, I'm told that Boston-area stores don't stock even one HD receiver that can handle surround sound. I'm not even sure there is one.

 

[murcuryvapor]

Regrettably, the format has not caught on. I say "regrettably" because the sonic difference between a DVD-Audio disc and a CD is audible, even to those without so-called "golden" ears. Even the release of the Beatles' "Love" soundtrack from the Cirque du Soleil show in the DVD-Audio format was not enough to kick-start it.

Most people don't care, which is kind of a shame. I seem to be the only one who bitches about the horrible quality of cell phones.

On the radio side: In Boston there is a classic-hits station, WZLX, transmitting their HD in 5.1. Besides the utter lack of promotion for this tech, especially on their air, I'm told that Boston-area stores don't stock even one HD receiver that can handle surround sound. I'm not even sure there is one.

With an HD-2, that's gotta sound craptacular.

 

[mgpt6]

Suround home receivers started getting popular in early 90s with 4.0 channels BY early 2002 we had 5.1 and 6.1 receivers. It has been a slow go in the car going to surround. Maybe BluRay might kick start Hi_rez surround.
On Boston board a ZLX jock has posted that he can enjoy the music in surround in the studio.
Still think that 5.1 could have kicked started HD Radio . but now who knows.
btw, FMXtra could do surround with 56kbs and still have analog stereo. FMXtra could do surround at 128kbps ,IF FM analog is mono only.

 

[KB1OKL]

On the radio side: In Boston there is a classic-hits station, WZLX, transmitting their HD in 5.1. Besides the utter lack of promotion for this tech, especially on their air, I'm told that Boston-area stores don't stock even one HD receiver that can handle surround sound. I'm not even sure there is one.

I listen to WZLX sometimes and if they're trying to aim for the audiophile set with their barrage of Radio with a boob job commercials thye're not going to do it that way, Beavis and Butthead types maybe. I get so tired of the insulting commercials I change the station most of the time and that's too bad because as far as classic rock stations go it's a pretty good one that I've listened to on and off since about 1984 when it first began.

 

[clouseau]

I listen to WZLX sometimes and if they're trying to aim for the audiophile set with their barrage of Radio with a boob job commercials thye're not going to do it that way, Beavis and Butthead types maybe. I get so tired of the insulting commercials I change the station most of the time and that's too bad because as far as classic rock stations go it's a pretty good one that I've listened to on and off since about 1984 when it first began.

Bob,

It's my understanding you're on the upside of 55. Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, consider that you find the commercials offensive because you're just too dog gone old. Frankly, on a personal level, I find them dumb. But, actually, get out a calendar. They ARE in fact trying to appeal to the Beavis and Buthead types. (Who I believe are in their 30's and 40's, now.) As one who made a nice living programming to the 25-54 demo for quite a while, you have to understand OUR PERSONAL TASTE IS IRRELEVANT. We're not the target audience. (Yep, you're too old for today's classic rock.)

Otherwise we all just end up as the crusty old crumudgeons.

Insert your "60 is the new 40" takes here. And pass 'em on the the agencies as well., they need a laugh"

It sucks, but it's so.

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

Surround sound has been the "coming thing" (for music) since Nixon was president. Only this "coming thing" never came. The latest, most serious, and potentially best arguments for adopting it in the home...SACD and DVD-A failed miserably, and are going away (the exception being small audiophile labels). And I'd venture that most true audiophiles who buy SACD for music PREFER two-channel, and only use their players that way (that's the way they're most often reviewed in magazines catering to audiophiles).

One thing that record executives never learned is that the mix is a part of the completed work. Remixing, even if it's lovingly done by the original producers/engineers, CHANGES THE SOUND...the balance of instruments is different. It's no longer the completed work that people fell in love with. Ever bought an oldies collection, only to be shocked when you heard that the versions you got were not the ones you heard on the radio? Me too...and it SUCKS!

I'd take a cleaner, clearer, more lovingly remastered two-channel stereo recording of the ORIGINAL MIX of, say "Dark Side of the Moon", or Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors", or "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" ANY DAY over a remix. In the early days of cd, no less than Gus Dudgeon...original producer/engineer for Elton John remixed many of his hits for digital, to "clean them up". Yes the sound quality could be argued to be cleaner. But the excitement of, say, "Crocodile Rock" was missing. The track now had wider dynamic range and more bass, but it no longer was IN YOUR FACE! It didn't sound anything like the song I fell in love with on the radio.

So the fact that the great records we've all grown up with were mixed to either stereo or mono originally, and the fact that probably 98 percent of the existing catalog of popular recordings is in one of these two formats, the only thing for a fulltime "surround station" to play would be remixes, often made with far less care than the originals.

Finally, and I was a surround fan in the early days of quadraphonics, I have reached an astounding conclusion. Having musicians playing behind me sounds STUPID! It resembles nothing in real life. As an occasional effect, fine. But for an entire 40 minute to 1 hour recording? NO FREAKIN' THANKS! Would you REALLY go to a concert and turn your back on some of the musicians? When you hear recordings made that way, don't you want to turn around and face the soloist? Isn't that unnatural?

Now if you want to make properly mixed (in my opinion) recordings in surround, with hall ambience, reverberation, and perhaps audience sounds (if it's a live recording) in the rear, then BRAVO! You're actually using surround technology to bring me closer to what I might hear in the presence of real musicians. Otherwise, NO THANK YOU!

 

[murcuryvapor]

One thing that record executives never learned is that the mix is a part of the completed work. Remixing, even if it's lovingly done by the original producers/engineers, CHANGES THE SOUND...the balance of instruments is different. It's no longer the completed work that people fell in love with. Ever bought an oldies collection, only to be shocked when you heard that the versions you got were not the ones you heard on the radio? Me too...and it SUCKS!

I'd take a cleaner, clearer, more lovingly remastered two-channel stereo recording of the ORIGINAL MIX of, say "Dark Side of the Moon", or Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors", or "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" ANY DAY over a remix. In the early days of cd, no less than Gus Dudgeon...original producer/engineer for Elton John remixed many of his hits for digital, to "clean them up". Yes the sound quality could be argued to be cleaner. But the excitement of, say, "Crocodile Rock" was missing. The track now had wider dynamic range and more bass, but it no longer was IN YOUR FACE! It didn't sound anything like the song I fell in love with on the radio.

So the fact that the great records we've all grown up with were mixed to either stereo or mono originally, and the fact that probably 98 percent of the existing catalog of popular recordings is in one of these two formats, the only thing for a fulltime "surround station" to play would be remixes, often made with far less care than the originals.

Finally, and I was a surround fan in the early days of quadraphonics, I have reached an astounding conclusion. Having musicians playing behind me sounds STUPID! It resembles nothing in real life. As an occasional effect, fine. But for an entire 40 minute to 1 hour recording? NO FREAKIN' THANKS! Would you REALLY go to a concert and turn your back on some of the musicians? When you hear recordings made that way, don't you want to turn around and face the soloist? Isn't that unnatural?

Now if you want to make properly mixed (in my opinion) recordings in surround, with hall ambience, reverberation, and perhaps audience sounds (if it's a live recording) in the rear, then BRAVO! You're actually using surround technology to bring me closer to what I might hear in the presence of real musicians. Otherwise, NO THANK YOU!

I think your arguments are valid. With most music DVDs (not sure about SACD) the menu has the stereo option along with the 5.1.

I like to think of any multitrack-based recording as something that can be tinkered with as long as the interest permits. In other words, if it can shift a few units to a rather small audience, g'head. The aesthetics of the mix...? Well, that's an even further philosophical direction of conversation one can spend hours on. It's all artificial to begin with, even with just two channels. I think the main appeal for me is to 'deepen' the mix with more detail. As long as I'm agreeing to sit there and listen, let the engineer play around a bit. I like the idea of Lennon's voice coming form dead center on 'I am the Walrus'. The goofy breathing sounds on 'A Day in the Life' running around the room? Not the way I would've approached it, but maybe someone will find it 'psychedelic'.. The mix is as much as a composition as the music in a sense, especially with these surround mixes. The Martins were trying to be clever, perhaps a bit too clever. To each is own.

I think most surround mixes call for some involvement from the musicians and/or original engineers. Pink Floyd and Genesis are certainly hands on, as is Martin and Son.

Live albums with ambiance or crowd sounds? I guess it depends on the material. But a studio album should be played with a little bit. Alice In Chains did the ambiance thing with a studio record and I thought it was just lazy or record company cheapness.

Maybe some outboard compression gear will put Elton back in your face.