Why isn't more music released in surround sound?
cause people dont have four ears to listen surround as it would with four speakers like in your picture, it's just evolution man
I wish more artists would take advantage of the format. My 5.1 audio collection is only 2 strong: Bjork - Vespertine, Flaming Lips - Yoshimi at this point, but I like the format so far. Both artists creatively use the additional channels.
Why isn't more music released in Mono?
>>63841756
Only 2 strong, but Bjor and FL 5.1 mixes are some of the absolute most beautiful and creative out there. Yoshimi is an especially great place to start with 5.1
>>63841856
Shit *Bjork
>>63839711
because people can't even be bothered to set up a stereo system correctly
there's loads of classical releases in surround, on SACD and more recently on bluray audio as well
cuz its fucking dumb - reach 2016
>>63841903
*bonk
This one is pretty fucking cool
>>63839711
Because nobody has a 4 channel system anymore, and 5.1 is for movies. The center channel is for dialog and not part of the multichannel diffusion.
>>63841756
you should get the new Amused To Death surround release! James Guthrie spent years on it
This was originally mixed in 12.6, fun little fact
I mix and master in surround, and have been for about 10 years. I'm too tired to get crazy into it, but the format has limitations that make it more appealing for movies and less appealing for just music or sound. There's definitely a market out there for people who want to hear beautifully recorded/produced music (or just soundscapes) in surround, but not enough to make a competitive industry.
Also, starting in the 80s but mostly since the 2000s, the production and mix quality of surround music is fucking atrocious. Half the guys doing it professionally don't know anything about the psychoacoustic principles involved and take no consideration of it, and the other half are barking up the wrong tree with the wrong (imho) approach.
Also, it's just expensive and properly mixed surround doesn't fold-down into stereo well. So it's hard to sell something to people twice - one stereo version for fun and one audiowanker-tier surround version for sitting and listening in your special chair in your special spot at home.
Also, AC3 and DTS files are super fucking lossy - this goes back to what i started saying about the technical limitations. They're far lossier than mp3s are and don't sound so hot by themselves. If you're watching a movie the visuals make up for it. DVD-A had amazing lossless quality but the format is dead, SACD has amazing quality but for the format is dead, Video DVD has to use DTS or AC3 which sound bad. Blu-Ray finally has the capability to have proper HD/HR audio but it's still a video format and hard to sell albums on.
Sigh.
>>63842842
SLIP INSIDE THE EYE OF MY MIND,
DONT YOU KNOW YOU MIGHT FIND,
A BETTER PLACE TO PLAY.
>>63839711
People are lazy and mixing/mastering in surround sound is a fucking chore.
>>63841715
Yeah but a stereo speaker setup is an imperfect recreation of real life anyway. Your logic makes sense when talking about headphones but with speakers the sound is so much affected by the sound of the room. Surround sound could be cool but it's just not the standard and recordings need to be made to fit the listening setup which most people have.
>>63841756
If you like Rush at all they released 2112 in 5.1 and it sounds fantastic
>>63839711
only two ears
>>63839711
its been tried. true stereo sounds better.
>>63841756
Soft Bulletin 5.1 is even better
