Why is surround lumped in with Video & Post?

[neilwilkes]

:confused:

[MattiasNYC]

Where do you think it should go?

[Animus]

I think since it was more to do with it being more a Post issue since Surround is mostly used for picture etc as you don't see a lot of 5.1 music productions. but we are open to ideas if you have any.

[MattiasNYC]

I don't think it's a problem. Rather than thinking of it as Video, Post & Surround as being part of "the same whole", you can simply think of them as individual types of work/issues instead. It's just that they're bundled up together into the same section. I'm guessing the people that do Surround for the most part are people in Post, which means they'll also be doing Video. Know what I mean?

Also, breaking out "surround" because it is also used in music "only" production seems to me to just open up a whole avenue of "definitions" to be made. Not sure it's that productive. At the end of the day, what matters is if we find what we are looking for easily.

Neil?....

[Sam]

I have to say that although I dont do exclusively surround stuff, the only time I ever seem to be asked mix music in surround is when there is picture involved, or there will be picture involved. I think this may be a case of 'most of the people, most of the time' if ya know what I mean :)

Yes there are those who do exclusively DVD-A and SACD for a living but me thinks they may be few and far between? I dont think there are too many of us multichannelers that it will be too crowded in here?

Move over dammit Neil! How many times have I told you your elbows are digging in my ribs! :D

[olamo]

Probably because the only posts concerning surround sound comes from you, me and a couple of others..;)

Ola

[TerryG]

Well, I bought Nuendo, the DD, and SE specifically for making 5.1 DVD-A's and encoding CD's of my new music... So, I'm in it primarily for audio.
Being a one man operation and needing to survive in the meanwhile, everything takes TIME.... so I'm glad Neil and the rest of you are here to learn from.
It's really a drag that Steiny has dropped DD and DTS though... and nothing for 64-bit... not very encouraging.

[kdm]

If Steinberg really wanted to set Nuendo apart, they would bundle DD and DTS with it as part of the standard upgrade. No reason not to with DD, but not sure what DTS licensing costs might entail there.

Any of you get a call for DVD-A from clients? Surround here is mainly film projects, but I keep pushing the concept with other projects/clients.

[neilwilkes]

If Steinberg really wanted to set Nuendo apart, they would bundle DD and DTS with it as part of the standard upgrade. No reason not to with DD, but not sure what DTS licensing costs might entail there.

Any of you get a call for DVD-A from clients? Surround here is mainly film projects, but I keep pushing the concept with other projects/clients.

I like that thinking - Sony have done it with DD, so STeiny could - admittedly they are a far smaller operation though, and SOny bundle AC3 as a loss-leader.
DTS could be included as DTS-HD MAS - I do not think that DTS would charge prohibitive amounts for this, as you can buy the MAS for sensible money if you want to, and the SAS is well under $750 retail. Perhaps as an extension/plugin again?

As far as DVDA goes, I am doing more & more all the time here. Just delivered 2 in December, with another 4 to deliver this month & another 12 on the books already for 2009 and the number is rising all the time. Possibly because there just ain't many of us left doing this stuff?

Surround should be on it's own IMHO - neither in Music or Post.
It's a mixing skill/art all on it's own, and if you're leaving the 5.1 to Post then it's been left for too long. Encoding to DTS/DD/Whatever at Post, maybe. but the mix stage - music & film are treated differently (and rightly so too).
Keeping the 2 apart might not be a good thing, this is true. I still think there is (should be?) a place for 5.1 music, and despite the IMHO almost criminal lack of any form of advertising/marketing for it still has a market out there but very little being created to fill that market.

Sam, sorry about your ribs....;)

[kdm]

Great thoughts Neil, and good to hear you are seeing a lot of surround work coming in. Maybe a separate forum for surround would be beneficial down the road, esp. to open up the music vs. film mix conversations and promote more surround music in general. I say let's see what the traffic is like in the post forum area, and as it picks up, it may make more sense to give surround a separate topic.

I too agree that surround is not getting the traction it should in non-film markets. Many households here have a full surround setup - not theatre quality of course, but the market is there for home/DVD surround due to film primarily, just not pursued on the music side.

[neilwilkes]

I don't think a separate forum would be justified - maybe a heading somewhere here would be great later on. As you say - lets see how it goes. Right now I keep hearing about bloody upmixing and hearing that getting called a "5.1 mix" really irritates me more than I can say. All stuff done like this should be clearly marked as such, otherwise it is a bit of a con.
Rant retch froth etc:mad::mad::mad:.

[kdm]

Upmixing might as well be lumped in with file format conversion since that's about all it is in effect at least.

[neilwilkes]

Upmixing might as well be lumped in with file format conversion since that's about all it is in effect at least.

:D:D:D:p

[TerryG]

That's encouraging Neil... At the rate I'm getting my material together for my bands 5.1 DVDA, it should just finally be getting popular by the time I'm done! ... 2017 ;)

[J L Bowie]

I don't think a separate forum would be justified - maybe a heading somewhere here would be great later on. As you say - lets see how it goes. Right now I keep hearing about bloody upmixing and hearing that getting called a "5.1 mix" really irritates me more than I can say. All stuff done like this should be clearly marked as such, otherwise it is a bit of a con.
Rant retch froth etc:mad::mad::mad:.

I had to join in and say that I agree completely, up-mixing stereo and calling it 5.1, or for that matter, down-mixing 5.1 and calling it stereo is a sad excuse for either format. Separate mixes need to be done if the product is going to be offered both ways.

That being said, I also wanted to add my two cents on music surround and what I think is one of the main obstacles to it being widely accepted; that being that music surround reproduction requires full range 5.0 on the consumer end to attain the fidelity the typical satellite surround system simply cannot adequately reproduce.
Now, I just got into surround last spring and am still on a voyage of discovery, and am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have to say that mixing 5.0 music is very cool indeed and something I hope will eventually be the norm, because there is nothing better than being completely enveloped by the sound field in a nice room.

[kdm]

That being said, I also wanted to add my two cents on music surround and what I think is one of the main obstacles to it being widely accepted; that being that music surround reproduction requires full range 5.0 on the consumer end to attain the fidelity the typical satellite surround system simply cannot adequately reproduce.

That could be a hurdle for surround - i.e. (interpreting your thinking here) if it doesn't sound that great they won't bother. Imho, fidelity for 5.0 isn't currently a consumer concern (considering mp3's wide acceptance). For the consumer, 5.0 just isn't practical for music unless it can be reproduced on an iPod or laptop while waiting in an airport, working out, or sitting in Starbucks.

Heck, I've heard of people putting their 5 speakers in different parts of the house so they could listen to music in more than one room; and I'm sure understanding the purpose of those 5 satellites and why the music sounded thin in some rooms was only part of the problem. Sitting and listening the sweet spot for surround just isn't a consumer mindset. I am guessing that most would rather have mono in 5 rooms of the house than even stereo in one (non-musicians at least).

Shame too. So many cool things that can be done with surround music, but it just isn't practical for most people.

Imho, we just need to keep pushing it and enjoying it ourselves - eventually people will catch on.

[J L Bowie]

That could be a hurdle for surround - i.e. (interpreting your thinking here) if it doesn't sound that great they won't bother. Imho, fidelity for 5.0 isn't currently a consumer concern (considering mp3's wide acceptance). For the consumer, 5.0 just isn't practical for music unless it can be reproduced on an iPod or laptop while waiting in an airport, working out, or sitting in Starbucks.

Heck, I've heard of people putting their 5 speakers in different parts of the house so they could listen to music in more than one room; and I'm sure understanding the purpose of those 5 satellites and why the music sounded thin in some rooms was only part of the problem. Sitting and listening the sweet spot for surround just isn't a consumer mindset. I am guessing that most would rather have mono in 5 rooms of the house than even stereo in one (non-musicians at least).

Shame too. So many cool things that can be done with surround music, but it just isn't practical for most people.

Imho, we just need to keep pushing it and enjoying it ourselves - eventually people will catch on.

Exactly, couldn't agree more, and you did indeed interpret my thinking correctly.
One other thing I am learning as I delve deeper into surround mixing for music
is that there is really no need to sweat an absolute sweet spot during the mix process. I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, but after setting everything up to exacting standards (Such as they exist at the moment), I'm finding in practice the whole process to be quiite a bit more forgiving than I originally perceived. For me it has come down to enveloping the room with a mix that doesn't require a static "sweet spot, " allowing you to roam the room and experience different musical sensations or perspectives.

[Animus]

Surround mixing for music would definitely be badass but sadly as has been suggested, it would never attain popularity amongst the masses.

[TerryG]

Well, being is that my day job for the better part of too long has been construction, most new homes (for the past 3 years where I live) are being built with 5.1 surround system "prewires" in the family room, living room, or bonus room of the buyers' choice.

There is hope.

I've been intrigued with surround since seeing Pink Floyd in the Seattle Center Coliseum play "Dark Side Of The Moon" in album sequence, in quadrophonic. What an experience at 15... '74 or '75 I think... and the engineer must have loved swirling the clock bells around 15,000 people with that joystick.
They also played half of the tracks from "Wish You Were Here" before the album had been released... Nobody there had ever heard or seen anything like it.
It was incredible.

[olamo]

Right now I keep hearing about bloody upmixing and hearing that getting called a "5.1 mix" really irritates me more than I can say. All stuff done like this should be clearly marked as such, otherwise it is a bit of a con.
Rant retch froth etc:mad::mad::mad:.

Very true.. That's why I always "force" myself into post facilities handling my music in filmproduction. Some of them tries to upmix my stereo track even if I already told them I have a dedicated 5.1 mix. They are too well used to lousy and "cheating" surround handling..

BTW, for the last years I have done most of my music projects in surround, but I guess the fact that these projects are electroacoustic music for installation venues and for stage have something to do with it? ;)

Maybe a separate topic would be the thing? "all things surround" or two separate "5.1 in music" and "5.1 for movies" threads?

Compared to guys like you Neil I know very little, but I'm quite dedicated nevertheless!

Ola

[neilwilkes]

I had to join in and say that I agree completely, up-mixing stereo and calling it 5.1, or for that matter, down-mixing 5.1 and calling it stereo is a sad excuse for either format. Separate mixes need to be done if the product is going to be offered both ways.

That being said, I also wanted to add my two cents on music surround and what I think is one of the main obstacles to it being widely accepted; that being that music surround reproduction requires full range 5.0 on the consumer end to attain the fidelity the typical satellite surround system simply cannot adequately reproduce.
Now, I just got into surround last spring and am still on a voyage of discovery, and am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have to say that mixing 5.0 music is very cool indeed and something I hope will eventually be the norm, because there is nothing better than being completely enveloped by the sound field in a nice room.

Some good points there.
Although for music the ideal case is 5.0 full range plus an LFE as opposed to Sub/Satellite setups where the LFE has turned into a subwoofer instead which of course is a totally different animal altogether, you can use something as inobtrusive as 5 well designed Mid-sized speakers (something essentially NS-10M sized but having a decent response to around 50Hz) and an LFE carefully set so that the LFE takes on the duties from the place the mains give up. Full range all the way down to 20Hz on all 5 channels with whacking great big floor standers made by Meridian or Lipinski is the ideal, but we can always compromise. Especially if it means we get our better halves to agree with us that surround is a good spend of the budget.

You're completely correct though in saying that the vast majority of "surround" systems you buy on the high street are for film use and precious little use at all for music.

We're a pain in the neck, us surround heads - and we are also hopelessly addicted to the greatly improved soundfield.
My next thing this year is for 7.1......2 more side channels.

[TerryG]

As if it wasn't hard enough convincing people to buy 5 or 6 speakers for surround audio... welcome 7.1 :eusa_whistle:

It might just be easier promoting this by setting up concerts where each bandmember gets his own platform stage floating on jet packs and circling the audience.
I can picture it, right out of The Jetsons...

[J L Bowie]

As if it wasn't hard enough convincing people to buy 5 or 6 speakers for surround audio... welcome 7.1 :eusa_whistle:

It might just be easier promoting this by setting up concerts where each bandmember gets his own platform stage floating on jet packs and circling the audience.
I can picture it, right out of The Jetsons...

You might be onto something here, Terry, sans the jet packs of course. :D The fact is that if surround is going to ever really catch on it might wind up being through live venues. I've always found the traditional live concert setup with everything coming at you from one end of the hall lacking, and would personally find the whole experience more satisfying with a more intelligent dispersal.

[J L Bowie]

Some good points there.
Although for music the ideal case is 5.0 full range plus an LFE as opposed to Sub/Satellite setups where the LFE has turned into a subwoofer instead which of course is a totally different animal altogether, you can use something as inobtrusive as 5 well designed Mid-sized speakers (something essentially NS-10M sized but having a decent response to around 50Hz) and an LFE carefully set so that the LFE takes on the duties from the place the mains give up. Full range all the way down to 20Hz on all 5 channels with whacking great big floor standers made by Meridian or Lipinski is the ideal, but we can always compromise. Especially if it means we get our better halves to agree with us that surround is a good spend of the budget.

You're completely correct though in saying that the vast majority of "surround" systems you buy on the high street are for film use and precious little use at all for music.

We're a pain in the neck, us surround heads - and we are also hopelessly addicted to the greatly improved soundfield.
My next thing this year is for 7.1......2 more side channels.

Hey Neil, I've been avoiding the LFE for music for the time being, again due to the average consumer setup not being able to handle it effectively. Perhaps I should change that, though, and start experimenting with it, especially since we are playing for a limited audience at this point in any event.

[neilwilkes]

You might be onto something here, Terry, sans the jet packs of course. :D The fact is that if surround is going to ever really catch on it might wind up being through live venues. I've always found the traditional live concert setup with everything coming at you from one end of the hall lacking, and would personally find the whole experience more satisfying with a more intelligent dispersal.

Sonically, this would be a disaster. Most live engineers these days seem to have enough trouble with a simple stereo stack - Line Arrays all over the place (and these IMHO are dreadful sounding things - all bottom end & tops with nothing in the middle where you need it) where they should be left for stadiums only - and stadia are not the greatest places to see music. Bloody great concrete bowls designed by the Romans to throw criminals to the lions in. So no change there then. You get the sound just to the point where it's not too embarrassing, and then the TM makes you take it all down & go someplace even worse.
How many times have you been to a club or small venue - even a mid sized one - and heard loads of bass & kick drum, plenty of cymbals but strain to hear the vocals as everything has dissolved into an intolerable howling mess?
Now give those engineers a surround rig? Please, for the love of all that is holy & the sake of my ears NO!!!
Having said that, there are some great live engineers. They are still an endangered species though.

LFE for Music.
This is a personal choice, and there is no really good reason why you should use one, and lots of good reasons why you might want to avoid it altogether.
The biggest bugbear for using an LFE is that most end users will either have it incorrectly set up in the first place, or it won't be an LFE but instead a Subwoofer. Even if you don't use it, cheap consumer systems (and some expensive ones too) will have a bass management option either in the DVD player, or the AV amplifier, or in both. This has to be set correctly & most users leave this as default. It takes a surround head to set it up properly - after all, we are (sad but true) dealing with an entire generation here who thinks MP3 is how music is supposed to sound. Depressing, wot!

[SafeandSound]

I have to make my current thoughts known.

I believe surround can be detrimental to "hi fi" experience.

I have yet to hear anything from a sub woofer in a movie that does not
equate to the single emotion of "being thrilled/scared/tense" and it gets very fatiguing, very quick. In addition your average "house" sub is like a balloon deflating or a wet fart coming from behind the couch, a low end undefined mess of audio arse splatter.
Coupled with a grossly impractical speaker setup pattern which almost no one can plan correctly, not to mention an average domestic rooms acoustic response, more speakers, more problems, worse sound. (can you move the table out of the way love).

Now I respect that people are making a living and are highly skilled in the systems, mixing and media production of this area and I am very pleased about this and really hope it continues to be a viable business for everyone involved, but I just don't get it personally.

Surround is firmly in the "Niche dabblers" / " I don't care about sound quality as long as it's everywhere" category at least from a listeners perspective.

Making a room sound very good with 2 speakers is a challenge, never mind 6 !

As I say I highly respect those engineering this material but as a producer and consumer I find it uninteresting.

[D]

I like this guy already.

[olamo]

Now I respect that people are making a living and are highly skilled in the systems, mixing and media production of this area and I am very pleased about this and really hope it continues to be a viable business for everyone involved, but I just don't get it personally.

Surround is firmly in the "Niche dabblers" / " I don't care about sound quality as long as it's everywhere" category at least from a listeners perspective.

Making a room sound very good with 2 speakers is a challenge, never mind 6 !

As I say I highly respect those engineering this material but as a producer and consumer I find it uninteresting.

A very ignorant statement IMO.. But anyway, if you're not into it, that's alright.. :icon_lol:

[MattiasNYC]

I have to make my current thoughts known.

I believe surround can be detrimental to "hi fi" experience.

But it's not surround that's detrimental, it's the potentially poor implementation of it. And so the same applies to stereo, of course.


Surround is firmly in the "Niche dabblers" / " I don't care about sound quality as long as it's everywhere" category at least from a listeners perspective.

Nonsense. Lumping all users together into one group of ignorant people is fairly ignorant in itself.


Making a room sound very good with 2 speakers is a challenge, never mind 6 !

A challenge with setup. Not a flaw in either concept, technology or mixing necessarily.


As I say I highly respect those engineering this material but as a producer and consumer I find it uninteresting.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. Personally, the most well sounding system I've ever heard was a surround system playing back a trio-recording (SACD btw). I've yet to experience such depth of soundstage and such realism in a stereo setup. Perhaps it can be done, I just haven't heard it yet. This being the case, I obviously find surround "interesting".

The way I see it is that we should strive for better "quality" and more "rewarding experiences" in the technology of the arts. The fact that it's hard to implement certain systems shouldn't mean that we should stop trying to do the best we can. But that's just my opinion....

[olamo]

But it's not surround that's detrimental, it's the potentially poor implementation of it. And so the same applies to stereo, of course.



Nonsense. Lumping all users together into one group of ignorant people is fairly ignorant in itself.



A challenge with setup. Not a flaw in either concept, technology or mixing necessarily.



You're entitled to your opinion of course. Personally, the most well sounding system I've ever heard was a surround system playing back a trio-recording (SACD btw). I've yet to experience such depth of soundstage and such realism in a stereo setup. Perhaps it can be done, I just haven't heard it yet. This being the case, I obviously find surround "interesting".

The way I see it is that we should strive for better "quality" and more "rewarding experiences" in the technology of the arts. The fact that it's hard to implement certain systems shouldn't mean that we should stop trying to do the best we can. But that's just my opinion....

:emote_beerchug:

Well said..
That being said, we should not have to defend surround sound, at least on these terms.

[neilwilkes]

I have to make my current thoughts known.

I believe surround can be detrimental to "hi fi" experience.

Why? There are those who consider the move from mono to stereo to be equally "detrimental" as well. Some of the highest fidelity I have ever heard comes from 5.1 material & even 4.0 material too.


I have yet to hear anything from a sub woofer in a movie that does not
equate to the single emotion of "being thrilled/scared/tense" and it gets very fatiguing, very quick. In addition your average "house" sub is like a balloon deflating or a wet fart coming from behind the couch, a low end undefined mess of audio arse splatter.
Coupled with a grossly impractical speaker setup pattern which almost no one can plan correctly, not to mention an average domestic rooms acoustic response, more speakers, more problems, worse sound. (can you move the table out of the way love).

Oh dear. In the world of surround, we don't use subwoofers - we use an LFE.
The difference is both vast & subtle at the same time. An LFE is what it says - Low Frequency Extension and extends the bass response of a system down to below 20Hz. A Subwoofer is an appalling abomination used in cheap & nasty consumer systems designed to part the ignorant from their money and carries all the bass content often from as high as 250Hz because the "main" speakers incorporated into these setups cannot handle any true bass at all. We certainly do not mix with these systems.
All other problems mentioned in the above paragraph can be solved by either getting a proper setup (would you listen to music on PC speakers? Same principle) or by setting up what you have properly. Most do not, leaving players/amplifiers etc at default settings from the factory which is usually a serious mistake. Incorrect Bass Management or DRM (Dynamic Range Management) will seriously screw with the sound as well.
More speakers does not necessarily mean worse sound. Never heard such rubbish in my life.
Finally, you're talking (or so it seems to me) about FILM surround here, meaning you're almost certainly also talking about Dolby Bloody Digital - the surround/DVD equivalent of MP3 sonically. And that is like trying to discuss the fidelity of stereo by playing an MP3.


Now I respect that people are making a living and are highly skilled in the systems, mixing and media production of this area and I am very pleased about this and really hope it continues to be a viable business for everyone involved, but I just don't get it personally.

Personally, I don;t get anyone who can say this either.


Surround is firmly in the "Niche dabblers" / " I don't care about sound quality as long as it's everywhere" category at least from a listeners perspective.

Utter balderdash. Where on earth do you get off saying this? Some of the best quality I have ever heard is in multichannel, and I find the comment that surround listeners do not care about quality deeply offensive.


Making a room sound very good with 2 speakers is a challenge, never mind 6 !

That all depends on several things.
1 - Have you set the room/playback system up properly?
2 - Are you mixing too bloody loud? If you are having that amount of room issues then either the room is seriously awful or else the mix levels are too loud for the size of the room, and you're hearing reflections. Mix with a calibrated setup & keep the levels down unless checking low end - and I mean down to not too much above background levels. This applies equally to stereo. Go ask any of the grammy nominated producers how loud they mix. Come to think of it....go ask lots of them. Most will say the same (IE, if someone is talking on the mix room, it gets irritating. If not, you're mixing too loud anyway - this is a whole different thread though)

[SafeandSound]

When you hear a trio where does the sound come from?

End of story.

[neilwilkes]

When you hear a trio where does the sound come from?

End of story.

All around me.
Depends on whether or not we are talking about any reflections, and how the trio is playing, and how well the PA (If any) is set up.
Whatever way you look at it, we are not hearing a live trio from 2 boxes using an artificial phantom centre.

Apart from that - I fail to understand the point. I thought we were talking about Surround Sound, which is totally different for film and music.

[TerryG]

S&S, a trio comes from wherever they are in relation to wherever you are.

If you're mixing a trio for surround, and you put yourself 7th row center from a listener perspective in a theater, the side/rear speakers will simply be reproducing the very subtle ambient reflections of the environment you wish to create.

You may choose to be creative and mix from a standpoint of someone walking around the stage or inbetween the players. That's your perogative...

To dis the whole thing because you don't see any practicality does not negate it's value for those who do. And to generalize without distinction between $200 consumer level 5.1 bookshelf systems used for lo-fi crowd noise during football games and full spectrum audiophile surround is a disservice to the point I imagine you're trying to make.

Surround can be detrimental to the hi-fi experience... when the product is created by those who don't know what they're doing and reproduced on systems bought and setup by those who don't know what they're doing.
Of course, the same is true of stereo in that sense.

[olamo]

When you hear a trio where does the sound come from?

End of story.

A part of the sound comes from stage in front of you, rest comes in from the sides and back of the hall as projections and reflections of overtones and combination tones which gives you a completely different experience.

You would be amazed if you went to a concert hearing a stereophonic signal as reproduced by your stereo speakers. It is naive to think that there is an direct analogy between stereo and realism. Yes, we have two ears but we are able to recognize whether sounds comes from the front or from behind. That is a crucial instinct we have inherited from the Neanderthals - to locate either a prey or a danger lurking from behind.

A stereo production can't give you anything near the effect of overtones in the different instruments projected through a room or hall. Surround is not a perfect image either, but you get a better sense of the space/air which is a very important part of any musical experience.

For that matter listening to an old mono recording gives you a different quality, not necessarily bad because it is one channel. But again, different quality..

:sulkoff:

[SafeandSound]

Yes I am not thick, thanks.

Audiophile listening suggests niche to me, there are incredibly few of these.

I don't like it personally. I like stereo.

Yes and I don't think you can accurately convey an auditorium through speakers
spaced around a room either anymore than a stereo pair. (and you still have the set up issues in a
typical playback enviro, i.e. a living room)

[MattiasNYC]

When you hear a trio where does the sound come from?

End of story.

Wow! Ever heard of reflections?

[MattiasNYC]

Yes and I don't think you can accurately convey an auditorium through speakers
spaced around a room either anymore than a stereo pair. (and you still have the set up issues in a
typical playback enviro, i.e. a living room)

These are two separate issues:

1) Can you convey an auditorium more accurately through surround than stereo? I don't see how the answer can be any other than "yes". But feel free to tell us how.

2) Is it easier to set up a stereo system than a surround system? I think the answer is "yes", BUT, it begs the following question:

does that mean we shouldn't strive for a better experience?

[TerryG]

S&S, perhaps there is a better place to start your argument for stereo than the Video, Post & Surround subforum?
:wink:
Then again, it's not like any of us are trumpeting against stereo, so I don't know whose opinion you're attempting to sway (?)
We know how you feel, and we know you didn't express it in the best manner.
No need to respond, really. Just take some advice from this icon and slip out of this thread quietly. :sulkoff:

Soon, we'll forget it ever happened...
:icon_cool:

[psvennevig]

The most incredible Surround music sound I've ever heard was in this studio:
http://ftp1.zenithstudio.com/pas2/pas/webgfx/aththepalms.png

Studio At the Palms, Las Vegas, NV (http://www.studioatthepalms.com)

They have a custom Griffin Loudspeaker System (http://www.griffinaudiousa.com/)

Surround done right is wicked. Sounds bloody amazing.

Pål

[shelter]

Going back to the original question, I personally differentiate
post from production activities in the following way:

In the context of film, post production is the process of
applying the soundtrack in order to promote a specific
atmosphere, to solicit emotion from an audience and to
reinforce a desired impact in conjunction with the film.

In the context of surround sound, post production is the
process of creating or recreating a desired sonic field or
environment relative to an audience.

Preparing a soundtrack for reproduction in a THX compliant
environment,with its many variables and pitfalls, is probably
one of the most challenging and expensive activities that I've
ever encountered.

[neilwilkes]

These are two separate issues:

1) Can you convey an auditorium more accurately through surround than stereo? I don't see how the answer can be any other than "yes". But feel free to tell us how.

2) Is it easier to set up a stereo system than a surround system? I think the answer is "yes", BUT, it begs the following question:

does that mean we shouldn't strive for a better experience?

Number one is an obvious & emphatic "Yes" from my point of view. That is a very small part though, as the auditorium experience is really only suitable for live performances - even then perhaps a minority of those.
From where I sit, there are several different approaches to surround mixing and these are sometimes (but not always) interchangeable.
1 - Live shows (The "Auditorium" or "Audience" Perspective).
This places the listener approximately 10 rows back into the arena. Front 3 channels are used for the actual mix with the 2 rear channels generally getting ambience only. The biggest downside to this approach (IMHO) is when these mixes are created by stereoheads. Because they do not know how to use a centre channel (or are scared of it?) the mix tends to end up not as what I would call a proper "surround" mix, but more as "Big Stereo" as the centre channel is often completely ignored altogether resulting in a mix that is essentially stereo with reverb in the rears (Queen Rocks Montreal" is a good (??) example of this approach.
2 - Live Shows (The "Stage" Perspective)
This is a more aggressive approach, utilizing the rear channels for essential & discrete musical information & not just ambience. There are also sub-genres here as well, again centre channel related. As before, some mixers either avoid it completely or under-use it & make the (again, IMHO) cardinal "error" of routing dry vocal or solo parts exclusively to it. Downside here of course is that the image is perhaps not as stable as it could be (although still far better than phantom centre that wanders as you move from the sweet spot) or that a dry vocal in particular is just too exposed. It's a taste thing. I prefer to put a percentage of the centre feed to the L/R as well.
Good examples here are the Elliot Scheiner mixes on the "Crossroads 2007" DVD - in particular the Blind Faith tracks - and Steven Wilson's work with Porcupine Tree (Arriving Somewhere) and Blackfield (Live NYC 2007).
3 - Studio Recordings.
Again, sub genres here. Although an aggressive approach is much more common, this breaks down into 2 types.
A - Fairly static positioning, but aggressively placed. (Steven Wilson, Elliot Scheiner, and an interesting variation being Neil Young's "Harvest" where the band are arranged as if in a rehearsal room, with the musicians placed almost in a circle around the listener)
B - Lots of panning around & movement. (Flaming Lips)
The other approach is again utilizing the rear channels mainly (but not exclusively) for ambience & effects. I find this a more tedious type of mix as again it is often little more than "Big Stereo".
4 - Film Mixes.
This is a completely different discipline altogether. Here you almost have to use centre channel for dialogue exclusively, or things will go fruit shaped on you in a hurry. Imagine you have crafted your masterpiece, not having read the delivery specs, to find you also have to provide an M&E mix for dubbing into different languages. If dialogue is to the centre, just mute that & off you go. Otherwise you have to find all cues & mute individual channels. Having just said that, lets now break that rule anyway as there is an argument for not feeding dialogue exclusively, but instead using small (and I mean small) pans for dialogue - especially with 2 characters onscreen - that seems to be fashionable amongst the hollywood mixers. Danger here is that when these mixes get either downmixed (which I hate) or matrixed (which I also hate but is necessary) it can be very easy to get things horribly wrong. Dialnorm also works on the assumption (Isn't "Assume" a horrible word? I was always taught that to "assume anything makes an ass out of U and Me) that dialogue is centre channel exclusive and bases all it's weighting on that assumption..

Number 2? I'm not so sure it is harder to set up for surround. For playback it is probably more awkward because of the plethora of truly appalling systems that seem to proliferate like maggots in rotten meat - I am not going to name names, but I am thinking specifically of these dreadful sub/satellite setups where what should be the LFE is actually a subwoofer that carries the vast majority of all the bass signal as opposed to the way these things are mixed, which is for the main channels to be full range and an LFE to extend the bass response for effect - hence the LFE = Low Frequency Effects - which can be misused (and sadly often is)

But I am rambling & I apologise. What I was going to say (before I got diarrhoea of the Word Processor) is that it is actually easier to mix in surround than in stereo once you learn the ropes as you don't need anything like as much EQ or reverb to make everything fit properly because you're not shoehorning everything into 2 boxes.

Unless you have actually sat down with as wide a range of material as possible then statements like

Audiophile listening suggests niche to me, there are incredibly few of these.
and

I don't like it personally. I like stereo.
are strange to comprehend from my position. "Audiophile" to me means someone who cannot tolerate MP3 and it's like. If that really is niche then we are in trouble. Seems there is an entire generation growing up who think MP3 is how things are supposed to sound.
Don't like it personally? Fine. As opposed to what? Isn't this almost like saying "I don't like stereo - I prefer mono" after hearing the early Beatles stereo mixes where there is no phantom centre at all and not much else?

[SafeandSound]

I really appreciate your knowledge being shared Neil and I am convinced that studios have the sound nailed. I think that every system I have heard in a domestic situation could have warranted the use of a stereo system to make the source recordings be presented in a better way. It's the set up problems that cause the issue and as such I haven't heard decent surround yet.

This is why I don't get the principle from start to end, so to speak.

If you mixed it on $100,000,000 of audio gear it is trounced by the $200.00 setup at the other end and the room. This applies less to a stereo setup, less speakers, less room issues.(esp with a cheap sub that goes to 30Hz in a less than Hi Fi way)

Of course there is exception to the rule with the audiophiles.

[MattiasNYC]

But doesn't the same principle apply to any limitation in practice by the public though?

Why mix on a 50,000 dollar system and track in a 1,000,000+ dollar studio when most people will hear it on an iPod at max 256k anyways? Right? Same principle, isn't it.

I think the answer is/should be that we in the arts try to strive for the best experience possible within reason. I think surround is "within reason". Only issue is that it hasn't been part of our consumer audio culture long enough for people to understand basic quality and setup. I do however think it'll happen as digital TV broadcasts will include more 5.1 material.....

[shelter]

A couple of thoughts.

When I was a boy there was no such thing as stereo, at least not for the
public and I was experimenting with surround sound before Dolby existed.

Without wishing to get all philosophical about this, I think that the
industry has driven the market to expect more content for less
investment, more convenience for less quality and more individuality for
less experience. Values have changed I think for the worst but that's the
way it is. The only victim in my opinion is art itself.

If I were to set out with the notion that my product would be consumed
by some spotty teenager crumpled in the corner of a bus and twitching
rhythmically to the output of an MP3 player jammed into the side of
his/her head then, I would most probably go off and lay down in a very
dark room somewhere.

It's because I choose to believe that consumers will hear and hopefully
experience my work as intended, that I am driven to use every means at
my disposal to produce the finest product possible.

When all that we had was analogue the challenge was to try and capture
the original sound as faithfully as possible, that is now a given. I believe
that today's challenge is to encourage our customers to experience what
we intended.

Give art a chance!

[neilwilkes]

This thread has turned into a bit of a monster!! The funny thing is that it also seems to be mimicking the real world attitudes to surround too - those who "get it" asit were feel very strongly about it but those who don't cannot understand why. The trick to it (if that is the right word) is to initially hear something seriously good on a properly set up system. Once this has happened - you're hooked.

@ safeandsound. When you say

I think that every system I have heard in a domestic situation could have warranted the use of a stereo system to make the source recordings be presented in a better way.
I don't get the point at all - as m2 said:

Why mix on a 50,000 dollar system and track in a 1,000,000+ dollar studio when most people will hear it on an iPod at max 256k anyways? Right? Same principle, isn't it.
And of course he is right.
The stereo for me is *never* asgood as the surround - the surround has more energy when the mix is right (and when it's not been butchered in the mastering as some have been) compared to the stereo, which given you have 5 speakers is what you would expect.
The other great myth that needs to be debunked is that you must sit in the middle of the sweet spot to get the benefits - this is nonsense, as I have found that if I am working on a video system then I will use the main DAW to play back 5.1 whilst working on it's visuals (It helps with the authoring to play what you're designing for) and rather than everything sounding disjointed & out of focus, it actually sounds as if the band is in the room with me.

Moving over to shelter's points.
Whilst I find that I agree with what he has written, I think he's also missed a very important point as to why surround has not taken off as well as it should have done. Format proliferation is the villain of the piece here.
Let's have a look at why. Back in the days of Quad, the biggest reason it all failed then was *not* (despite the myth) that nobody cared or the soundfield was awful (it wasn't great all the time, but has abnyone here actually heard much of the old Quad material? When it was good it really was superb. Alan Parsons mix of DSOTM for example blows Guthries 5.1 away for me and the original Quad mix of The Temptation's "All Directions" album is a real treat. I could go on....) the main reason for the failure was that every major label had their own proprietary & incompatible system.
Columbia had SQ (Matrix), Sansui created QS (another Matrix) that was used by Polydor (if memory serves), JVC created CD-4 (Discrete vinyl using a carrier at 15/30KHz needing demodulation) used by Warners amongst others and Denon created yet a 4th Vinyl system - the discrete UD-4 (although this was rare even then with only a handful of releases). Add to this the 2 tape based methods - Q8 (8-track cartridge) and Q4 (1/4" reels) sadly ignored in the UK and for my money still the way to go in prehistoric surround.
The issue was that there were 6 different competing systems, and each one required specialist playback equipment. Result was disaster.
Fast forward 20 years and have we learned the lesson? Have we hell.
It all got going again really not with Dolby - that never went away as it was used since the 1930's (Disney's Fantasia) in the cinema and DVD was tailor made for surround films (which is a completely different thing to surround for music. The disciplines are vastly different, as are the system setups).
Modern Surround Music really came of age with the introduction of DTS-CD - a way to get discrete 5.1 on an ordinary CD. Naturally, the DVD form was always planned - originally it was all going to be one form, but lossless (IE Full/High Resolution) was limited to 6.144Mb/sec, and moreover tied to the video/graphics, so if the graphic changes then the music must also change. Not good, so in came DVD-A allowing up to 9.6Mb/sec for pure audio with MLP packaging plus navigable visuals that did not glitch the music & a Video_TS layer for compatibility with all DVD players should have made this a hands-down winner. Enter the fly in the ointment called Sony, who seeing the end of exclusive CD royalties tried to (and succeeded) delay the introduction of DVDA by shouting about Copy Protection worries with master grade audio being in consumerland & the lack of CD player compatibility too. The smart money says they said this just so they could force their own "alternative" of SACD (DSD was developed as an archival medium, never for playback as the single bit nature requires heroic noise shaping to make it listenable at all and this aliases down into the audible band) which has now been all but dropped completely by Sony. There is indeed a school of thought that says they were only ever interested in torpedoing DVDA. If it were Copy Protection that worried them, why have they persisted with mandatory AACS & BD+ on Blu Ray, when both have been hacked wide open? The Verance watermarking system for DVDA, by comparison, has still remained unbroken.

But I digress - sorry about that. Where was I? Oh yes - competing formats.
This time it is all digital, so should not be the bugbear it was last time. Okay, we have the following:
SRS (Matrix)
Dolby Surround (AKA Dolby ProLogic) (Matrix)
Dolby ProLogic II (Matrix)
Dolby Digital (Discrete)
Dolby Digital Plus (Discrete)
DTS (Discrete)*
DTS-ES (Discrete & Matrix both)*
DTS-HD HighResolution (Discrete)*
DTS-HD Master Audio (lossless) (Discrete)*
MLP Lossless (AKA PPCM) (Discrete)
* - not actually incompatible with each other as all DTS streams contain the core stream, meaning all DTS decoders can decode this at the very minimum.
Additionally, all Dolby Digital decoders can decode DPL/DPLII & DS although with Dolby processors one thing that is critical to correct playback is that the dynamic compression MUST be turned off, and in nearly all systems it is ON by default from the factory.
Which brings us neatly round in a dirty great big circle to the setup issues.
Most consumers get this wrong for the simple reason they assume the factory setup is done for them, and it is a "plug & play" setup. Nothing could be further from the truth - although setting it up correctly is not that difficult to do. People are very lazy these days & just cannot be bothered to put in the effort it seems - and this is in all things rather than surround.

[shelter]

Neil

+1 to your comments, which are obviously filled with passion even if
viewed only from the shear volume of your text.

Your absolutely right about the villian being the proliferation of formats
or "so called standards" but, wasn't that the case during the early days of
video, VHS vs. Betamax etc. There the public were given the relatively
simple choice of "standard" but the player was limited to an analogue
device that required a fixed installation.

Today the technology used, with the exception of a very few retrophiles
is digital, providing consumers with all of those disgusting opportunites to
dilute the work that we put so much effort into.

Whichever "standard" eventually wins the battle, something that I suspect
will occur if at all well after my lifetime, the problem remains that unless
the industry can woe consumers back into the theatres and places where
a production can be delivered as originally intended and create that
unique experience that, we're going to have to witness even more dilution
of the art.

Advances in mobile technologies will take care of the rest for us.
Head-up displays in spectacles and ski masks, surround sound earpieces etc.

[neilwilkes]

Neil

+1 to your comments, which are obviously filled with passion even if
viewed only from the shear volume of your text.

Your absolutely right about the villian being the proliferation of formats
or "so called standards" but, wasn't that the case during the early days of
video, VHS vs. Betamax etc. There the public were given the relatively
simple choice of "standard" but the player was limited to an analogue
device that required a fixed installation.

Not really - even though you had different decks for playing this, with Quad it went a whole stage further. For SQ you had to have an SQ decoder after the turntable. For QS you had to have a different decoder, as the SQ ones did not decode the QS matrix (different system). For CD-4, you needed not only the demodulator, but also a different turntable with a totally different cartridge & stylus (much narrower & sharper). UD-4 was yet another turnkey setup - see Denon's UD-4 system (http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/QQ-ud4_hifi.htm) for details. It was very complex as it allowed for both matrix & discrete operation & decoding on the same record. The 2 tape formats also needed serious hardware - the size of a Quad 1/4" machine makes even an old Betamax look portable - and the Q8 tapes & players were notoriously high maintenance. At least with Beta/VHS you had just 2 players that both used the same hardware to play back on.
And the better technology lost out IMHO.


Today the technology used, with the exception of a very few retrophiles is digital, providing consumers with all of those disgusting opportunites to dilute the work that we put so much effort into.

Whichever "standard" eventually wins the battle, something that I suspect
will occur if at all well after my lifetime, the problem remains that unless
the industry can woe consumers back into the theatres and places where
a production can be delivered as originally intended and create that
unique experience that, we're going to have to witness even more dilution
of the art.

Advances in mobile technologies will take care of the rest for us.
Head-up displays in spectacles and ski masks, surround sound earpieces etc.

Please - don't. I so hope you are wrong although (and sorry for going OT here) with the way the radio frequencies are being allocated and priced for sell-off after the big analogue switch-off, getting people into theatres will be no fun at all if there is not the spectrum for all the radios used in large productions these days. The mobile phone companies are salivating at the thought of a free-for-all with highest bidder getting the jackpot, and the audio industry cannot meet their pockets. What ought to be done IMHO is that the licensing authority should be taken to a top flight theatre show, and at the interval all the radio mics & receivers should be switched off and the audience asked how they liked the second half. This is what will happen if the mobile companies get all the spectrum - and it will happen. Our government is aware of this, and is ignoring the issue by postponing the sell-off until after what will be the fiasco olympics in 2012 as under the current proposals, the OB just could not be done.

It's getting bad out there. All we can do is hope that someone will appreciate the work & effort that we put in - and never to water it down on the grounds that "most people will listen on their telephones"
:piss2: on Apple!

[shelter]

I hope so too but I suspect....

morituri te salutant!

[funkcity]

Why is surround lumped in with Video & Post?

Because it always is in TV, DVD, BluRay, Film.... These are all "post" disciplines and this is where it belongs.

Ipods, Pop Radio, CDs....Surround is dead for the time being in the recording for music-only world.

I'm quite surprised this even came up!

[neilwilkes]

Why is surround lumped in with Video & Post?

Because it always is in TV, DVD, BluRay, Film.... These are all "post" disciplines and this is where it belongs.

Ipods, Pop Radio, CDs....Surround is dead for the time being in the recording for music-only world.

I'm quite surprised this even came up!

Oh Good Grief.
Surround is dead, Vinyl is dead, CD is dead - maybe alive is also dead?
you necrophiliacs drive me potty.

[TAFKAT]

:pop_corn:

[funkcity]

Oh Good Grief.
Surround is dead, Vinyl is dead, CD is dead - maybe alive is also dead?
you necrophiliacs drive me potty.

C'mon Neil grim up and face reality:D

Vinyl is cool, Cds are fine for what they are, even IPODs have their place...
but last time I checked. 99.99999% of those media offerings were and are NOT surround presentations and you know it!

TV shows that we score are in surround as are the movies, DVD, BluRay repurposing etc.. All but most reality TV is mixed in surround.

necrophiliacs? Maybe it'll take someone like you to pull surround music out of the grave. And your life may have purpose! :)

Maybe another thread would be interesting to actually talk about the state of surround and the gotchas involved with Theatrical Dolby surround, Dolby 5.1 AC3 Theatrical, DTS Film, Sony SDDS, Digital Cinema legal surround formats etc.... and then how those master tracks relate to the consumer release formats.

What really gets me is all the "consumer" 7.1 formats that marketing is asking us to provide and the serious hit that master audio track sustain at the hands of data compression... for another thread..

Take care.

[neilwilkes]

C'mon Neil grim up and face reality:D

Vinyl is cool, Cds are fine for what they are, even IPODs have their place...
but last time I checked. 99.99999% of those media offerings were and are NOT surround presentations and you know it!

So what? The fact that there is still a lot of work being done in 5.1 for music and these titles have their market - niche I grant you - proves it is a viable thing to do. It simply pi**es me off when I keep reading about how x, y & z is "dead" all the time.


TV shows that we score are in surround as are the movies, DVD, BluRay repurposing etc.. All but most reality TV is mixed in surround.

Repurposing has - and continues to do - no good at all for surround. It's as phoney as electoonic stereo is and every bit as ghastly. All repurposed "surround" titles should carry a warning.


necrophiliacs? Maybe it'll take someone like you to pull surround music out of the grave. And your life may have purpose! :)

Maybe another thread would be interesting to actually talk about the state of surround and the gotchas involved with Theatrical Dolby surround, Dolby 5.1 AC3 Theatrical, DTS Film, Sony SDDS, Digital Cinema legal surround formats etc.... and then how those master tracks relate to the consumer release formats.

What really gets me is all the "consumer" 7.1 formats that marketing is asking us to provide and the serious hit that master audio track sustain at the hands of data compression... for another thread..

Take care.

The last couple of points are well taken. The proliferation of mutually incompatible formats has also done no good at all, with every manufacturer wanting their own proprietary form just to avoid coughing up on royalties. Strange though how exactly the same thing applies to HD video, yet nobody is really complaining about that. You just have to deal with it. Last count I made there were over 23 different HD formats, each requiring specific & incompatible hardware to transfer to & from. And all applications that claim to handle all in the one project are usually flawed - often badly.

AC3 Theatrical?? No such thing.
DTS Film is a simple thing, just requires a call to DTS and you submit the mix (or get Dolby SR boxes & arrange to borrow the DTS boxes for the Lt/Rt)
Dolby Theatrical is a pig, requiring a Dolby Approved soundstage - but it's not a big deal for most of those involved and it does maintain a certain standard. Biggest problem with theatrical sound - and this applies for all, including stereo, is the number of theatres that do not bother to set up their audio gear properly.

If this argument is taken to it's logical extreme - as has been posted earlier here - is that as everyone (by this logic) is going to listen on ipod earbuds with a maximum of around 10dB of dynamic range then why bother with anything of high quality at all?
Which is plainly stupid.

Consumer 7.1 formats? There are not too many of those. DTS-HD MAS will provide you with every possible playback option in a single file so is not really hard to do.
Dolby True HD - that is mandatory in Blu Ray for stereo only, multichannel support is optional. Very expensive.
WMA Pro Lossless.
Dolby Digital Plus.
Cannot think of any more "consumer" 7.1 formats at all.
DTS-HD MAS is lossless, so no compression there. Dolby Digital is a sonic nightmare in any track count, and is barely acceptable for film work IMHO. DTS core (or legacy, same difference, same stream) smokes it because of the terrible transient smearing of DD which is really little better than MP3 for TV/Film.

I could go on, but what would be the point?

Oh - for a "dead" format, I am booked up for most of this year already......

[HDJK]

You might be onto something here, Terry, sans the jet packs of course. :D The fact is that if surround is going to ever really catch on it might wind up being through live venues. I've always found the traditional live concert setup with everything coming at you from one end of the hall lacking, and would personally find the whole experience more satisfying with a more intelligent dispersal.


Sonically, this would be a disaster. Most live engineers these days seem to have enough trouble with a simple stereo stack - Line Arrays all over the place (and these IMHO are dreadful sounding things - all bottom end & tops with nothing in the middle where you need it) where they should be left for stadiums only - and stadia are not the greatest places to see music.

Add to that the problem with delays caused by the long distances in a live venue and the disaster is perfect.



LFE for Music.
This is a personal choice, and there is no really good reason why you should use one, and lots of good reasons why you might want to avoid it altogether.
The biggest bugbear for using an LFE is that most end users will either have it incorrectly set up in the first place, or it won't be an LFE but instead a Subwoofer. Even if you don't use it, cheap consumer systems (and some expensive ones too) will have a bass management option either in the DVD player, or the AV amplifier, or in both. This has to be set correctly & most users leave this as default. It takes a surround head to set it up properly - after all, we are (sad but true) dealing with an entire generation here who thinks MP3 is how music is supposed to sound. Depressing, wot!

As far as putting it in your programme I agree, but for mixing it might me a good idea to simulate the end consumers set-up by going the bass management route (like checking stereo on Auratones).


And for all surround heads, here (http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/Guidelines/) you can find a nice PDF with surround mixing guidelines by the likes of Chuck Ainley, Elliot Scheiner, Frank Filipetti, Bob Clearmountain, George Massenburg,...,... Very informative read.

[neilwilkes]

As far as putting it in your programme I agree, but for mixing it might me a good idea to simulate the end consumers set-up by going the bass management route (like checking stereo on Auratones).


And for all surround heads, here (http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/Guidelines/) you can find a nice PDF with surround mixing guidelines by the likes of Chuck Ainley, Elliot Scheiner, Frank Filipetti, Bob Clearmountain, George Massenburg,...,... Very informative read.

Naturally mixes should be checked against a bass managed system - that really goes without saying. It's best to check back on a variety of systems to be safe. This can be done in both hardware with surround controllers or through plugins in the Control Room section (so that the mix won't get printed this way if you forget to turn them off). The best test approach is to write an RW disc & go physically play it on a sub/satellite setup though. If you have a good set of monitors,. no amount of bass management will make them sound as bad as those consumer things do - it's impossible to make the Adam Audio ribbon tweeters sound dull, for example, or their bass end too light & flappy.

The grammy.com post is a great read - mainly setup issues (calibration etc) and some great do's & don'ts. People should pay specific attention to the stance on repurposing/upmixing IMHO.

[funkcity]

Quote:
<<<Okay, I get it. Surround music is on life support. Why won't listeners embrace this technology?>>>
http://emusician.com/interviews/emusic_surround_music_dead/

Interesting take here.

Don't get me wrong, I think surround music can be fabulous! But last year I met with the chief engineer at the most popular and busy mastering facility in Los Angeles. They had mastering engineers for pop, classical and rap (yes I still call it rap :) I asked him about DVD-A, SACD Surround, and on. He told me they built a surround mastering suite for music surround projects..... and it just sits there vacant. One of their worst investments so to speak. His words:"It's technically outstanding but currently, it's just not a business!"

Get ready for.... iPod/iTunes surround
"Rumor hints at MPEG Surround support for iTunes"
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/rumor-hints-at-mpeg-surround-support-for-itunes.ars
Lets see if they can phuk this up also!