Surround sound album

[Matse]

After listening to Depeche Mode's newest album in DTS format (basically meaning there are not just two channels as in stereo, but six channels (one for each corner + center + bass = 5.1)). This opens up more possibillities for a more intense music experience with slightly different channels coming from each direction, it can add to the emotion passed on by an instrument etc.

So basically I want you all to say how awesome it would be if DT would do that since it would be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwaw8q6MiY&NR=1 .
The only disadvantages would be of course more work during production and obviously a surround sound system is necessary.
As far as metalbands go I only know of Opeth who have released 5.1 versions of several versions, but since I am not up to date as far as metal bands are concerned I am sure they are not the only ones.

[DisplayofCharacter]

Porcupine Tree has done a bunch of stuff like that, but Steve Wilson is an audiophile so that's why. Honestly, I think it relates much more to those bands who care that much extra about it rather than genre. It would be awesome, but I'm OK with the regular formats.

[Defiance]

Originally Posted by Matse

After listening to Depeche Mode's newest album in DTS format (basically meaning there are not just two channels as in stereo, but six channels (one for each corner + center + bass = 5.1)). This opens up more possibillities for a more intense music experience with slightly different channels coming from each direction, it can add to the emotion passed on by an instrument etc.

So basically I want you all to say how awesome it would be if DT would do that since it would be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwaw8q6MiY&NR=1 .
The only disadvantages would be of course more work during production and obviously a surround sound system is necessary.
As far as metalbands go I only know of Opeth who have released 5.1 versions of several versions, but since I am not up to date as far as metal bands are concerned I am sure they are not the only ones.

I think this is a very important topic, vielen dank for writing it!

I would really love to hear DT albums in 5.1! Can you imagine Damage Done with that?!? Or *shrugs* Terminus?

Actually, it'd be magnificent if the reissues that are coming out soon had 5.1.;I would totally buy every DT album again if they were in 5.1!

And Symphony X also made Paradise Lost into 5.1. Actually I own the previous version but I'll buy the new one tomorrow. Which means that I'll have to buy 5.1 speakers .

DT in 5.1! DT in 5.1!

[Matse]

Originally Posted by DisplayofCharacter

Porcupine Tree has done a bunch of stuff like that, but Steve Wilson is an audiophile so that's why. Honestly, I think it relates much more to those bands who care that much extra about it rather than genre. It would be awesome, but I'm OK with the regular formats.

Yep, Porcupine Tree has by now released most of their albums in dts-versions. In Absentia probably has about the best 5.1 mix there is, especially the calmer songs like Heartattack in a Layby. All the Depeche Mode albums are nicely mixed as well.
I am not sure if you have to tend towards being an audiophile to be interested in such possibilities. Imo every musician has a natural interest to get their music and ideas to the audience as good sounding as possible and surround sound is a way to improve the result. The only problem is the work that has to be put in and the low spread of needed systems.

[La Rocque]

Bring back mono, simpler is better
Mono or monophonic describes a system where all the audio signals are mixed together and routed through a single audio channel. Mono systems can have multiple loudspeakers, and even multiple widely separated loudspeakers. The key is that the signal contains no level and arrival time/phase information that would replicate or simulate directional cues. Common types of mono systems include single channel center clusters, mono split cluster systems, and distributed loudspeaker systems with and without architectural delays. Mono systems can still be full-bandwidth and full-fidelity and are able to reinforce both voice and music effectively. *The big advantage to mono is that everyone hears the very same signal, and, in properly designed systems, all listeners would hear the system at essentially the same sound level* -

[Matse]

Mono may be better for a party or something similar where everyone at every place is supposed to hear the same and maybe even if you see the music as entertaining background noise, but if you actually listen to music stereo and even more so surround sound beat the shit out of mono easily, I don't know why anyone would prefer it.

[DisplayofCharacter]

Originally Posted by Matse

Yep, Porcupine Tree has by now released most of their albums in dts-versions. In Absentia probably has about the best 5.1 mix there is, especially the calmer songs like Heartattack in a Layby. All the Depeche Mode albums are nicely mixed as well.
I am not sure if you have to tend towards being an audiophile to be interested in such possibilities. Imo every musician has a natural interest to get their music and ideas to the audience as good sounding as possible and surround sound is a way to improve the result. The only problem is the work that has to be put in and the low spread of needed systems.

Well, what I meant by that was that musicians and audiophiles can be mutually exclusive, as I'm sure you know, and Stevey Wilson has paid special attention to those mixes so that's why I brought it up. I agree that most musicians want their music to be heard in its best possible form, but mixing in higher fidelity likely costs more money than regular stereo and if nothing else it certainly requires more effort by the studio tech which relates to more money in a less direct way (unless the musicians themselves do the mixing which is sometimes the case). Problem is, especially for certain genres, the effort will never be appreciated (not so much the case in metal, but could you imagine a rap or county album in 5.1? truthfully, I'm not sure if there are any, and if there are I can't imagine they'd sell well). I'd love to have metal albums in 5.1 (though admittedly I'm a bigger fan of headphones, though I think we've had that conversation), but I feel that the effort or want isn't there on the part of the majority of the bands and the majority of audiences. Thusly I'll live with regular stereo until the paradigm shifts. I wish more people cared as much about sound quality as you and I do (but not to the ridiculous extent of say, Monster Cables or something like that), but until that happens, we're stuck.

In retrospect, I may have just re-hashed what you said and thrown it back at you. If that's the case, sorry. I just got off of work.

[Matse]

I know that what you say about most bands is true, but I thought I should just poke some people's noses into it as in advertising it a bit.

And monster cables have nothing to do being an audiophile, but just with being a headcase and a victim of commercials. It is proven that they don't change anything about the sound. All changes heard by buyers are only because they want to hear better sound, because they spent a lot of money for it. Placebo effect ftw. A common copper cable with the right thickness depending on the length of the cable is sufficient.

[DisplayofCharacter]

Originally Posted by Matse

I know that what you say about most bands is true, but I thought I should just poke some people's noses into it as in advertising it a bit.

And monster cables have nothing to do being an audiophile, but just with being a headcase and a victim of commercials. It is proven that they don't change anything about the sound. All changes heard by buyers are only because they want to hear better sound, because they spent a lot of money for it. Placebo effect ftw. A common copper cable with the right thickness depending on the length of the cable is sufficient.

I'm down with advertising. Its definitely a worthy investment for music fans if they can part with the cash, and entry level headphones are only 60-70 USD (Grados) while speakers are not much more expensive. It certainly gets better than that, but starting off is not that hard.

I agree with you about the cables. I brought up Monster Cables because they're the most recognizable, but there are a ton of companies that make a ton of money selling bullshit products that are supposed to improve sound when there are no tangible benefits. I'm sure if a battery of scientific tests were done, the increase in quality would be nominal and insignificant relative to the sometimes extreme amount of money invested. I know for a fact (read it in a popular mechanics magazine about a year back) they did a quick test on HDMI cables (digital, not analog as I realize, but this is to illustrate a point) and they observed that the generic cable that cost 10$ performed exactly as well as the gold-pin supercable that costs 150$ and up. Though its different with analog sound, if imperfections in the cable have ramifications, its certainly not to the extent that is recognizable (with the exception of the cable being damaged to the point where it is deteriorating). That kind of stupidity (and the occasional pretentiousness that goes along with it) is what I dislike about some sections of the audiophile group. I am, however, all for great sound, as long as its tangible.