A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Duke]

What I doubt is that upmixing 2-channel mixes is widely preferred by most listeners, since the result depends a lot on how the 2-channel mix was done. Some mixes are done to try to recreate/document a full musical event as if the listener were there in person, while others focus more on the sound quality of individual sound objects panned for effects or maximal separation. One single "static" upmixing algorithm can simply not sort them out equally well, making the upmixing either a hit or a miss depending on the material.

Great observations. I think there are too many variables and too many unknowns for me to add usefully to the topic of "general preference for upmixed 2-channel vs non-upmixed 2-channel".

In the past I've given up on approaches to improving spatial quality wherein the results varied significantly from one recording to the next. The results tended to be fantastic with some recordings and disappointing with others, calling for adjust after adjustment. For me, the enhancements ultimately got in the way of simply "getting deep into the music". I wanted to just put on whatever recording and enjoy it without distractions.

So I'm trying to squeeze all the juice I can out of non-upmixed 2-channel, particularly in the area of "envelopment", which is arguably the area where upmixing has the greatest inherent advantage... my theory being that if you can consistently get a "you are there" presentation, "there" is going to be enjoyable (though not equally so!) on just about all recordings. But I'd be surprised if good upmixing (dialed-in if needed) doesn't do a better job of delivering the sensation of "envelopment" on many if not most recordings.

 

[goat76]

Playing stuff in stereo is hiit or miss too, for the same reasons: recording quality, mix quality, and of course performances themselves, vary.

Yes, but I tend to think that playing a 2-channel audio track on a 2-channel system has at least a known outcome by the mixing engineer (no matter whether the person is a good or a bad mixing engineer), while up-mixing introduces an uncontrolled and unknown factor to the equation. I think that up-mixing will, in general, work best for audio production that doesn’t contain a lot of obviously panned mono objects, like classical music, for example. But with multi-mono mixes, a “fit-them-all” static up-mixer will definitely introduce obviously strange effects depending on how the mix is panned and voiced.

I do. I enjoy both the simple expansiveness/envelopment upmixing lends to many 'classical' (acoustic instruments in 'real' spaces) recordings, as well as the similar trick it can perform on studio work, where as a bonus there's the occasional surprising/fun placement of a pan-potted or time-distorted (e.g. phase shifted) element. (I wouldn't dream of listening to Jimi Hendrix these days without upmixing.)

And as I've said before, I not infrequently prefer an upmix of a stereo mix I already like, to someone else's attempt at remixing it in surround from multitracks.

The up-mixing I’ve tried over the years in different receivers from Sony and Marantz have all sounded pretty bad to me with the rock genre I mostly listen to. Do you find any of the up-mixing options available in a Marantz Cinema 50 a good option, or do I have to try a third-party solution to get a good-quality up-mixer?

 

[Mort]

Device upmixing has always been bad. I doubt anyone is arguing that sounded better. As for upmixing at the mastering stage - well, it depends on the music and person. Not much you can say generally about it. I don't think you are right that "the majority of people dislike upmixing" as a broad statement.

 

[goat76]

Device upmixing has always been bad. I doubt anyone is arguing that sounded better. As for upmixing at the mastering stage - well, it depends on the music and person. Not much you can say generally about it. I don't think you are right that "the majority of people dislike upmixing" as a broad statement.

What do you mean by “upmixing at the mastering stage”?

 

[Cote Dazur]

Playing stuff in stereo is hit or miss too

It absolutely is, to a point that adjusting speaker placement can be a pain. There is a point where you need to accept what is playing and enjoy the music.
With experience, you know what is possible and what is not.
Adding possibilities with additional speakers and up mixing software to me fit in the definition of a somethign being a blessing and a curse.
When it clicks, as was mentioned by Floyd Toole earlier in the thread, I have no doubt it can be divine and way above what stereo can dream to deliver, but there is also more possibilities for train wreck with the added complexity, when stereo wins the day with the simplistic approach.
At the end of the day we settle for what feels right for us, until the "perfect" solution is available.

 

[Mart68]

A lot of this up-mixing discussion seems to be focused on classical music, where there is a 'real event' in a real location and all sound is from acoustic instruments. For those of us who don't listen to classical, I'm not at all sure there are similar advantages to be had by going multi-channel, unless the recording was specifically, and originally, mixed for it.

 

[Newman]

A lot of this up-mixing discussion seems to be focused on classical music, where there is a 'real event' in a real location and all sound is from acoustic instruments. For those of us who don't listen to classical, I'm not at all sure there are similar advantages to be had by going multi-channel, unless the recording was specifically, and originally, mixed for it.

Nobody has to be sure, they just have to be open and equally willing to praise as to criticise.

cheers

 

[john61ct]

The whole broad topic of spatial perception is IMO a "niche of a niche", even if more audiophiles were aware of it, only a small subset would care to put in a fraction of the extra effort and expense required.

So to me, the question of general preferences wrt the unwashed masses is moot.

For those "elites" who do care, each of us having different preference profiles, between the various decoding / upmixing / spatial enhancement variables, EQ/tone adjustments etc

I envision a more broad application of "mode presets" would be helpful to cut down on the manual twiddling required to adapt the system to different source-content profiles. Say a half dozen, shortcuts for some, "starting points" for others.

But recognizing this does approach "niche of a niche of a niche" for those who want to just "accept what is playing and enjoy the music".

All comes down to personal preferences!

 

[Mart68]

Nobody has to be sure, they just have to be open and equally willing to praise as to criticise.

cheers

Of course but you take my point that the attraction seems to be greater for the classical music fans? Same as it is for dipole, semi-omni and omni loudspeakers. For us rock fans there's no performance space to try to recreate (or create the illusion of).

 

[john61ct]

Live concerts?

 

[Mart68]

Live concerts?

Which use a 2 channel PA system. Big venues or outdoors they might have reinforcement speakers dotted about but it's still essentially 2 channel.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Which use a 2 channel PA system. Big venues or outdoors they might have reinforcement speakers dotted about but it's still essentially 2 channel.

Yes, and last concert I went to, outdoors, there was no sense of depth or even right or left sensation, just a big wall of ( loud) sound.

 

[john61ct]

Yes, and last concert I went to, outdoors, there was no sense of depth or even right or left sensation, just a big wall of ( loud) sound.

Sure, but the mixing desk captures individual channel feeds that once recorded, may be mixed in such a way that there are soundstage and other spatial cues captured.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Sure, but the mixing desk captures individual channel feeds that once recorded, may be mixed in such a way that there are soundstage and other spatial cues captured.

Yes, but then, we end up with a recording that does not capture what we heard, not a bad thing as such, just a different experience.

 

[Duke]

For us rock fans there's no performance space to try to recreate (or create the illusion of).

Well, my perception/experience is different. I hear a sense of space on pretty much every recording I have, and it doesn't really matter to me whether that sense of space is real or engineered or both. I want to hear it, and I enjoy hearing it.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Well, my perception/experience is different. I hear a sense of space on pretty much every recording I have, and it doesn't really matter to me whether that sense of space is real or engineered or both. I want to hear it, and I enjoy hearing it.

Yes. Reflections in recordings and in listening rooms both increase the audibility of resonances. If the resonances are in loudspeakers sound quality. is degraded. But voices and musical instrument sounds are fundamentally collections of resonances, so reflections - repetitions - increase the timbral richness. This is why many (most?) recordings add some artificial reverb to "sweeten" the mix. A basic sense of space is a desirable feature.

 

[john61ct]

Yes, fidelity and accuracy are excellent goals, but the mixing / mastering after the performance are just as much part of the "artistry" of the recording as the playing of the musical instruments.

As Dr Toole stated, the quality of the signals heard by the live audience may have been mostly poor, the playback of a well produced recording of the event much better, not just more consistent.

Regardless of the music genre.

Note, I did not say the mastering process is "just as important" as the musicianship.

Finally, the desire for spatial perceptions is very much a matter of personal taste, and at this point in time not so susceptible to objective quantification.

 

[Duke]

voices and musical instrument sounds are fundamentally collections of resonances, so reflections - repetitions - increase the timbral richness.

This is exactly what initially started me down the multidirectional loudspeaker path: The increased timbral richness...

This is why many (most?) recordings add some artificial reverb to "sweeten" the mix. A basic sense of space is a desirable feature.

... but then with a particular type of set-up conditions (a significant time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections) I noticed a sense of envelopment that varied greatly and appropriately and enjoyably from one recording to the next. This was with stereo. Multichannel recordings probably do it best, and obviously upmixing can do it too, and in a wider range of room set-up conditions than stereo.

 

[Newman]

Of course but you take my point that the attraction seems to be greater for the classical music fans? Same as it is for dipole, semi-omni and omni loudspeakers. For us rock fans there's no performance space to try to recreate (or create the illusion of).

I guess my point is that re-creation isn't the only way to gain perceptually from upmixing. Since we are discussing popular music that didn't involve a performance space at source, and said music is a sonic production from go to whoa, then a somewhat more relaxed and hedonistic attitude is justified. Like Floyd says a few posts up, it is routine for sound engineers to add some artificial reverb, because the perceptual gains are indisputable.

Anyone, perhaps not you, arguing that upmixing would be automatically a loss (of originality, per the 2-channel original) is trying to have their cake and eat it too. The sound engineers know what could have been done with a discrete spatial mix, both in terms of musical spatial arrangement and in terms of sense of space. So they know what a big loss it is, to their creative opportunities to create listener pleasure, when they are instructed to produce from their multichannel masters a 2-channel mix for playback in small rooms on 2 speakers. Upmixing from 2-channel is not 'a loss', it is an attempt to imperfectly claw back some of the losses that were inevitably incurred by the decision to make a 2-channel production.

If there had been production standards for 2-channel production, or even some embedded metadata requirements, then upmixing could have been significantly more successful and reliable at creating perceptual gains. But it is still somewhat successful.

Conclusion: upmixing of popular music still enables perceptual gains in the quality of reverberation, and also there seems to be some spatial rearrangement of the music itself, however imperfectly, moving beyond the front two speakers. Focusing on the positives (not on a discussion board, but in your listening seat) is key to justifying it.

cheers

 

[Mart68]

The sound engineers know what could have been done with a discrete spatial mix, both in terms of musical spatial arrangement and in terms of sense of space. So they know what a big loss it is, to their creative opportunities to create listener pleasure, when they are instructed to produce from their multichannel masters a 2-channel mix for playback in small rooms on 2 speakers. Upmixing from 2-channel is not 'a loss', it is an attempt to imperfectly claw back some of the losses that were inevitably incurred by the decision to make a 2-channel production

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. My pre-amp supports multi-channel and I have the spare speakers and power amps to do it, just not the incentive. Maybe if I get really bored one day.