Similarly, I've never seen an orchestra arranged around a concert hall and the audience, also as you say, the surround sound capability would only add an extra level of realism to the ambience of the venue and not give any better resolution.
So you don't think the extra level of realism will be of any benefit? I think surround sound HD format will sound pretty amazing, with better audio separation and spatial experience.
Not at all. The benefits of recreating a more realistic live environment are obvious, it's what has been done for a long time though, particularly in movies. The whole idea of surround sound is to recreate the illusion of actually being in a particular place, in this case a music hall or theatre.
The image shows musicians being recorded in a circle though and far from creating a higher level of realism, this type of recording would sound artificial, as you don't ever hear a live performance with musicians surrounding you.
Artificial is the perfect world, this doesn't reflect any sort of real life situation. Pointless.
No signature worth mentioning...
Surround sound would only have a benefit for music in the case of live performances and for the playback of additional ambience, either present in the venue or produced and mixed in the studio.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
I'm afraid the stereoluddites are goin to be left behind.
I don't have room for 5 speakers anyway. Just read a post on Steve Hoffman forum about 5.1 and it seems that most people prefer their music (pop/rock) in stereo anyway. There are a few good multichannel recordings like Pink Floyd's WYWH but many are flawed. Think I will save the cost of 3 speakers and carry on in stereo.
You may have hit a nail on the head there, in so far as people's perspective's on this will in large part be influenced what set-up they already have.
If someone is primarily 'music' driven and has invested heavily in a two channel purist hi-fi set-up, then the costs of expanding that out to 5.1 are not going to be justified by the promise of (yet another) 5.1 music format that at best will probably offer a small selection of titles and be properly supported by only a handful of artists/labels.
On the other hand, if someone already has a 5.1 set-up (by virtue of being a home cinema enthusiast or having previously taken a 'leap of faith' with SACD/DVD-Audio) and already owns a 'Universal' bluray player, then there'll naturally be an interest in the prospect of a new 5.1 format that's compatible with their existing equipment and can only add to whatever selection of legacy 5.1 titles they already own.
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
Why "universal blu-ray player"? I thought the whole point of this was that it would work on any blu-ray player?
I must be a luddite because I prefer some recordings in mono to stereo.
True, was referring to those of us with universal players and a legacy of 5.1 titles in previous formats as being the most likely receptive audience for the new format (as we're already engaged with the principal of 5.1 music), but as you say BluRay-Audio will work on any BluRay player.
Ok, cool. You illustrate the problem though, those "already engaged" isn't a very big audience, comparitively, that's why I don't see this succeeding.
Also as said earlier many prefer stereo anyway. I think 5.1 is a bad feature it will hold back this format, as fewer releases will be issued, who is going to spend at that time doing 5.1 for old music? So is this going be widespread or just similar to SACD which is very limited.
If you look in terms of the global market, you'll see in the US there is a big move to home theatre, so the format could well succeed because of that alone.
However, it's worth remembering stereo is an illusion anyway, so listening in 5.1 as equally valid. There'll always be people who listen to stereo alone, as there are people who listen only to mono, but the market does move on.
If the format does fail, it will be nothing to do with most of the arguments here, but because people are moving away from physical media. Downloads will rule, if they don't already.
AL, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the premise of Blu-Ray audio, but buy into the tech on its real merits as opposed to imagined ones.
Edit: The key to good sound reproduction, is in the recording and not the format. There are no current formats that have such glaring issues so as to be noticeably audibly deficient.
You have summed up the situation perfectly there LHC.
I'm not sure why people can't understand that provided they used same mastered version of the recording a CD will sound identical to a high resolution Blu-ray (stereo only though).
good master + mp3 = good sound on a portable
good master + cd = good sound on anything
good master + hirez = good, but overkill
bad master + any of the above = waste of music
System here http://www.whathifi.com/forum/your-system/my-dream-system-oh-maybe-one-day
In fact it sounds anything but artificial, with a superb sense of involvement and beautiful clarity.
Apart, of course, from the real-life situation in which the recording was made.
Audio Editor, Gramophone
No, purchases of physical media could remain the same and it'd still fail.
Formerly known as al7478...
HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR
Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.
"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"
Reasons why, Alec?
It's not a real-life listening scenario though, you know, one with an audience, no audience is ever going to be surrounded by the musicians (other than a Mariachi band in a Tex-Mex restaurant perhaps) in that manner, so what is it trying to achieve?
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing