This content has been marked as final. Show 73 replies
Copy and paste content from stereo sequence into a new 5.1 sequence.
I'm using an old version of Premiere, but from what I've read about CS3 or CS4 it looks to me like it will play back 5.1 surround, but I don't think it will create it. I wasn't sure what you were asking, but if you're looking to create surround sound files, the cheapest way I know of doing it is with SoundForge. If all you want is AC3 and don't care if it's surround, I know TMPGEnc has an add-on that does it for about $30. There may be some free ways of doing it by now though that someone else here may know of.
Ann's method would probably be the best and quickest. To Export to DD 5.1 SS, you will need the Minnetonka Audio SurCode plug-in. In previous versions of PrP, one got three free Exports, and then had to purchase the plug-in for additional uses. Note: it is/was cheaper to buy from within PrP, rather than directly from the Minnetonka site, by about US$50. Hey, any savings is good, right?
There was a glitch in CS4's initial release, regarding the SurCode plug-in, but IIRC, that was addressed and fixed with an update. At least Adobe was aware of the bug and was working on it.
[Update] I just received an e-mail from Minnetonka and they are having a big "sale" on the SurCode plug-in. I bought 2 copies @ US$250 each (through PrP) and it's now down to US$147! You might want to check this out. It is referred to as the Adobe VIP discount, and does require a code, that is specific to the geographic region, in which you have activated PrP.
I cannot praise Minnetonka too highly for that plug-in, and their recent "deal," sounds great. I almost wish that I needed another copy of it, 'cause the price just got better. www.minnetonkaaudio.com you might have to look around the site a bit.
Ann: Copying and pasting worked easily and well. Thank you.
Hunt: I could not find the $147 price on SurCode on the website, but I have emailed Minnetonka to ask about it. Thank you.
I could well be that the "special" has been offered to previously registered SurCode users? I will be interested to see what their response is. My experience has been that they answer all e-mails quickly, for both sales and tech questions. I only wish that all 3rd party suppliers were so good.
FYI - If you don't already have a good wave editor like Audition, you can get Sound Forge-9 for $299, and it comes with AC3 surround output built-in.
No offence, but there's no way on earth I'd pay nearly the same price for Minnetonka's encoder when all you get is...well, an encoder.
Of course I'm one of those guys that thinks surround sound is the worst invention since neckties anyway. It's made sitting through movies at the theatre unbearable, and I really think that's had an impact on why movie attendence keeps going down. If I bring home DVD's to watch, I can just run them through the TV or my stereo reciever and not get blasted out of my home with a surround setup. If you ask your friends who aren't filmmakers what they think of sound at the theatre these days I think you might be in for a surprise because I find very few people who like it.
Charles, your age is showing.
Discreet surround sound is the best thing to happen to movies since color. I don't know anyone who doesn't like it. Some may not care, or notice, but everyone I know whose aware of it prefers it, and has purchased their own surround sound setup for their home.
>and not get blasted out of my home with a surround setup
I don't understand why you're knocking surround sound because theatres play movies too loudly.
You can play stereo too loudly, it just comes from fewer angles. ;)
PremiereProPedia ( RSS feed)
- Over 350 frequently answered questions
- Over 300 free tutorials
- Maintained by editors like you
"Discreet surround sound is the best thing to happen to movies since color."
What, you like color too?!
By the way, the new Magix Movie Edit Pro 15 Plus is just out. It sells for $79 right now (normally $89) and it gives you Dolby 5.1 for an extra $10.
I wrote a review of their old Video DeLuxe 2.0 when it first came out a few years back and frankly trashed it. It had several problems, the biggest of which had to do with creating a default 16/44.1 sound output on their DV files with no way to change it. However, it had a ton of features and was only $50. This new edition aimed at the higher end user can do almost anything Premiere can and probably some things it can't. It has 99 tracks of auido or video available, does multi-cam editing, handles native AVCHD, records screen capture as video (yes, you could capture Hulu movies I suppose), has some 3D animation tools, Blue-Ray and DVD authoring with motion menus (although they still use Ligos GoMotion for mpg creation, and it used to be kind of so-so, but maybe they've improved it), 100 video effects, has an audio mixer that makes Premiere's look like a toy and includes an audio mastering suite (these are the same guys who make Samplitude), 3D titling, imports videos from DVD VOB files, supports multiple monitor views and quite a bit more. It's supposed to have improved its color correction filters, but I can tell you that past editions already had better color correction than Premiere and better chroma keying recognition as well. They also make it very easy to do picture in picture types of nesting/overlays. It always had a pretty darn good noise removing filter specifically aimed at the particular noise pattern of various camcorders you could choose from, but now it also gives a complete set of audio restoration tools. And unlike Premiere, it hasn't priced itself out of the market to the point where young folks feel justified in buying hacked copies (whether they should or not).
Unfortunately, from what I understand it doesn't export 5.1 sound to Blue-Ray; the 5.1 is strictly for Standard Def DVD's at this point. I'm not sure if the Blue-Ray discs are still converted to AC3 Stereo or whether they're mpg stereo. But if all you need right now is 5.1 for regular SD-DVD's, here you can get it for $90 and have an extra NLE on your puter with a bunch more effects and whatnot thrown in.
I'm sure it's probably got some bugs though. Magix always does. And it could be that the 5.1 sound is only produced during the DVD authoring in a way that forces you to use GoMotion to make the DVD's. I don't know. But there's a free trial of course. Might be worth looking at. Out of some respect for Adobe I won't provide a link to another NLE program, but you should be able to google it easy enough.
I received a message from Steve Clarke from SurCode. It appears that the lower price is for previous purchasers.
Thank you for the report. That is what I figured. Dang, and I bought a second copy! Oh well, I've been using it a bunch over the last few months, so I got my $'s worth. Sorry that I brought it up, but had just gotten the e-mail, and did not see anything in it about any limitations. Maybe I did not read far enough down?
Other than making the audio mixing process twice as long, how can you not surround sound?
"Other than making the audio mixing process twice as long, how can you not surround sound?"
Here's my long winded answer to that. You probably won't agree with a word of it. That's okay. I don't expect most people, especially those under 50, to agree with me. It's just my way of looking at the world.
I'm old enough (unfortunately) to remember when stereo came out, and how it took over a decade to really catch on. Most people just plain didn't like it. Even a lot of young people thought it was gimmicky. I recall Elvis Presley saying how much more he preferred people to buy his mono records instead of the stereo versions. He hated stereo. Old crooners like Bing Crosby detested stereo. Many stereo records were available throughout most of the 60's, but radio was still broadcasting mainly in AM mono. It wasn't until companies like RCA started hyping stereo that people began to listen even a little bit. People have always wanted to have the latest greatest thing precisely because it's called the latest greatest thing. They bought Earnest Tubb records didn't they? They bought disco. They bought punk rock. People are funny like that. I remember my parents buying a big Zenith stereo console. We still mostly listened to mono radio and old mono 45's on it though. It really wasn't until the early 70's in my area when FM radio started getting big that people started taking stereo for granted. Personally, I think it was more the fact that FM had so much more clarity and exceptional frequency response--people heard that and figured it must be something about the stereo signal that made it better because they didn't know anything about frequency response. Eventually that's how stereo caught on in my opinion. If it hadn't been for FM radio I really don't think anyone would have thought twice about stereophonics.
I still prefer monophonic recordings. They have a fuller midrange somehow. Imaging isn't an issue. And it sounds more like real life to me. Sure we have two ears, but if you step more than five feet away from anything it all sounds like mono.
I also remember quadraphonics. I recall very vividly my buddy Jim taking me over to his house one day to help him hook up his new system. I was less than thrilled with the result. Once again it sounded very gimmicky. Other people thought so too because it never did catch on. Now we've had surround sound music on DVD for a few years and again it's poised to die a miserable death. Nobody is buying it.
What don't I like about surround sound movies? It's completely artificial. Nothing about it is like real life. In real life sounds behind you are muffled--they have less highs and generally don't sound as loud unless it's something REALLY loud like a car laying rubber 10 feet away. Right now I can hear my dryer in the room behind me. I'm aware of its presence, but because it's muffled I don't pay much attention. With surround sound things behind you are seldom muffled. They in fact tend to be very crisp, almost like spirant speech patterns. They also tend to get mixed very loud. And they have way too much low end. Real life has nothing in common with it. It gets especially exaggerated in a movie theater where you can have large speakers way over to each side, front and back. Let me ask you this: when you hear your kid's garage band rehearsing and you're sitting just ten feet away, do you hear sound coming from extreme sides? Of course not. It all sounds like mono even that close. Most real life sounds are like that. And when we do hear something from the extreme side that catches our attention what's the first thing we do? We turn our heads in that direction so that the sound is now mono and right in front of us. having two ears is really only good in that it gives us an extra dimension in which to construe direction, but once we have the direction nailed we quickly do everything we can to get rid of the directional aspect of the sound. That's what our minds prefer. So when people tell me they like surround sound I take it with a grain of salt and figure they're only fooling themselves--literally.
I just got the DVD version of How Green Was My Valley. It came with a choice of either stereo or mono sound. The stereo track simply doesn't sound right. Now you can say I'm a product of my generation, but couldn't I say the same for you? My feeling is that if I took any one of you guys that says they prefer stereo or surround sound and put you on an island for a couple of years with no speakers, no music or television playback devices, just real people playing real instruments or real stage actors in real plays without sound systems, that when you came back you wouldn't like stereo or surround either one anymore. You've simply grown accustomed to it.
My 74 year old dad was just 6 when How Green Was My Valley was made. It was in black and white and had mono sound. It's still the best movie I ever saw far and away, and I doubt there will ever be another one on a par with it for another hundred years. It had the best cinematography, the best music score, the best script, the best directing, and some of the best acting I've ever seen. Being in color and with stereo or surround would in my view only detract from the more important aspects of what's there. Just my opinion.
>Even a lot of young people thought it was gimmicky.
You shouldn't confuse the early attempts at stereo music with movie sound.
>but if you step more than five feet away from anything it all sounds like mono.
You may want set yourself up with an appointment with an audiologist. Even from 13 feet away, I can tell when my speakers are just an 1/8" out of place because the imaging is off.
>I also remember quadraphonics.
Again, not to be confused with motion picture surround sound.
>What don't I like about surround sound movies? It's completely artificial.
That depends on how well it's mixed. A good sound designer whose work is played back on excellent equipment will create a very believable environment. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not. Probably depends on the movie. But believable? Definitely.
>And when we do hear something from the extreme side that catches our attention what's the first thing we do? We turn our heads in that direction so that the sound is now mono and right in front of us.
I recall suppressing the instinctive feeling of wanting to duck during the opening scene of "Private Ryan". That's how well done the sound mixing was. Without that, that scene would have been far less realistic.
Flyovers as well. You can easily 'locate' a plane flying low overhead just by listening. It's unnatural to hear that sound coming only from in front of you when you know the plane is behind you. Granted, if you turn your head, it will be in front of you. But for a movie, you don't have that option. The director decides which direction you'll be 'looking in', so sounds coming from behind the visible scene are more believable when they sound like they're coming from behind.
>My 74 year old dad was just 6 when How Green Was My Valley was made. It was in black and white and had mono sound.
Not a good comparison. Stereo and color for that movie alter the original. If you try watching "The Dark Knight" in black and white and mono, it too would suck.
>Sure we have two ears, but if you step more than five feet away from anything it all sounds like mono.
From a technical point of view, that's not quite the case, and it's highly dependent on the frequency (hence wavelength) of the sound. The ears are sensitive to volume differences between the two.
Just try to plug one of your ears and then try walking around, you'll be amazed on how much you use the benefit of two ears (meaning stereo in one way).
Heck, some blind people can even walk around with no stick just using clicking sounds (made by the mouth). They make a mental picture of the surroundings by listening to the echoes, and that can only happen when they have information available from both ears.
To me, stereo and surround sound is the "right" thing. But, I agree it's used way to many times as a gimmick and just sounds funny.
It's in the recording stage the efforts of making it sound right should be done, and not left to post production only.
>In real life sounds behind you are muffled
Then you have never heard my wife coming up behind me being angry!
So your saying Spielberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Lucas, Danny Boyle, Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, list goes on.......They all use surround sound.
They are wrong and you are right? Sure buddy lemme see your flick.....Prove us wrong. You obviously think you know more than than all these killer directors, who's first movies were mono or stereo.
Even though "big shots" do something doesn't mean it's right. There are some examples of that through history.
One has to remember that they (your list of people) also want to have their wallets filled, so they simply do what the majority of people want to buy. Just as most of us do I guess.
EDIT: I'm sure, if you could earn a (or two) million dollars on downconverting stereo to mono, you wouldn't have, for one single moment, said: Hey, that's not right.
"You shouldn't confuse the early attempts at stereo music with movie sound."
I didn't; it's called a simile.
"You may want set yourself up with an appointment with an audiologist. Even from 13 feet away, I can tell when my speakers are just an 1/8" out of place because the imaging is off."
If I had you here in my studio I would quickly prove you wrong I believe.
"Again, not to be confused with motion picture surround sound."
Again, it's called a simile.
"That depends on how well it's mixed."
Only to a small degree I think. You said something the other day about someone doing surround "discretely", but I guess I still have not seen that movie because I've yet to see one that was discrete. There may be some merit in what you say about planes coming from behind in Private Ryan. However, aside from being irritating, it didn't bolster my movie watching experience.
"It's unnatural to hear that sound coming only from in front of you when you know the plane is behind you."
It's just as unnatural to hear sounds behind you that have both the high-end and low-end blown out of all proportion. Sounds from behind you shouldn't be crackling with treble as they always are with surround mixing. But again, perhaps out of the hundreds of movies I've seen during the last few years I still haven't stumbled upon the one that was mixed suitably.
"If you try watching "The Dark Knight" in black and white and mono, it too would suck."
How would anyone know the difference?
By the way, not to pick on you, but block quotes are for no less than four lines of sentence. It's not proper form. Sorry, but I can't abide a poor wordsmith. However, if you want surround sound in your movies that's fine and dandy. At least it's a lesser sin.
"So your saying Spielberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Lucas, Danny Boyle, Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, list goes on.......They all use surround sound.
"They are wrong and you are right? Sure buddy lemme see your flick.....Prove us wrong. You obviously think you know more than than all these killer directors, who's first movies were mono or stereo."
You've just shown the philosophic abilities of a small child. I can think of no reason to respond further to it. Have a good evening.
"From a technical point of view, that's not quite the case, and it's highly dependent on the frequency (hence wavelength) of the sound. The ears are sensitive to volume differences between the two."
Yes, I was exagerating the point. Still, when a man sits in the audience out front of a marching band (that isn't marching) he doesn't here drums roll across his ears from one side to the other as in stereo recordings unless he is right on the stage with his head between the drums. I think the same sort of logic applies to surround sound mixing. Not once have I heard it not exagerating things. Not once have I heard a movie benfit from it. In every case it has been obstructive and gimmicky sounding to a childlike degree. But, of course I haven't seen every movie.
>he doesn't here drums roll across his ears from one side to the other as in stereo recordings
That would be a good example of bad recording, or should I say bad post work.
Please don't base your meanings of bad work, there are stereo recordings out there that are fantastic. One can shut the eyes and simply feel (hear) the band and how they are positioned. The bass player is slightly right of the drummer and so on. Very close to a real concert/live experience!
If you ever get to listen to a recording (direct to disc) of Cal Tjader (Hurracan), I guess you would reconsider stereo. BTW, it's a 45rpm LP vinyl record.
>One has to remember that they (your list of people) also want to have their wallets filled, so they simply do what the majority of people want to buy.
I'd have to disagree with that. "Raging Bull" comes to mind.
>I didn't; it's called a simile.
But an inappropriate one, is my point. There's little correlation between early stereo music production and motion picture sound design.
>If I had you here in my studio I would quickly prove you wrong I believe.
It happened, Charles. I noticed an imaging problem with my speakers. Bothered me for days. Finally I checked my speakers and sure enough, one of them was 1/8" off it's mark. The problem cleared up after I put it back.
>Again, it's called a simile.
Again, an inappropriate one. You can't draw a meaningful connection between quadrophonic music and proper motion picture surround sound design. You might as well try arguing that sniper rifles aren't very accurate because the you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten feet away with a blunderbus.
>Only to a small degree I think.
Then again, I suggest an appointment with an audiologist. The quality of sound design makes a vast difference in the believability of a sound field.
>It's just as unnatural to hear sounds behind you that have both the high-end and low-end blown out of all proportion.
Agreed. That's where the quality of sound design comes into play.
>Sounds from behind you shouldn't be crackling with treble as they always are with surround mixing.
Two things. First, movies are often mixed with extra treble to compensate for the large spaces they'll be played back in. Listening to that same mix at home can be a little bright. This is why THX home systems dampen treble, so that it sounds more natural when played back in the smaller space of a home theater. Non-THX systems, of course, often lack this feature.
And second, many movie sounds are "punched up" for effect, regardless of what speaker they come from. What, you think a punch to the face really sounds like that?
>How would anyone know the difference?
Because we can see in color and hear binaurally.
>but block quotes are for no less than four lines of sentence.
I guess it was pretty childish to think you might have made a feature to prove your point. Most of the directors I mentioned have the pull to do a stereo mix if they really wanted. They don't. Last movie I can remember in stereo was Roger Avery's Rules of Attraction.
Along with raging bull I can add Peter Jackson's pre-hollywood movies like 'heavenly creatures' or 'dead/alive aka braindead.
BTW play Dark Knight on stereo dvd player and turn it Black and White. You'll see/hear the difference.
Also not taking account what the modern 'classic' directors do is plain ignorant and self serving.
Were mixing my feature surround sound right now. It's my choice. IF was doing a '70's grindhouse type movie I can understand the stereo. It goes with the times. But whatever I'll agree to disagree and leave it alone if you can man-up like that.
>Also not taking account what the modern 'classic' directors do is plain ignorant and self serving.
Yes probably, but they are for sure not posting here...
Yeah but there's a ton of featurettes, interviews ect to support the fact that they embrace surround. That was my point.
"That would be a good example of bad recording, or should I say bad post work."
I agree, but that's just about every rock and pop record made the past four decades. Jazz and classical are a bit different, and they generally have much superior sound recordings compared to rock records I believe. Most of the great jazz stereo records were usually recorded direct to 2-track. Think of all those records made at the Village Vanguard. It's a tiny little club that probably wouldn't seat more than 200 people if you used a giant shoe horn to get them in. Most of those records were either made in mono or in stereo with 2-mics well out front of the stage. You didn't have drum rolls going from one side to the other. That's still my favorite way to mic drums. Just two mics out front in an AB spaced pair and maybe two others in the corners where the walls meet the ceilings to catch reflections.
Funny you mention Cal Tjader. Have you ever heard any of the early stuff he did with Brubeck in mono during the early 50's? Those are still some of the best sounding records I've ever heard. As much as I liked the later "Time Out", the stereo version is odd sounding with the drums way over in the left speaker and the piano on the right like that. It was a great recording in every other way though. It's different now. Back then before EQ if you wanted a different sound you used a different mic, or placed it differently, or used a different room altogether. I used to have it on quarter track, and you haven't lived until you've heard some of the old quarter track tapes. They weren't very convenient, but the sound quality is still unsurpassed I think.
Regardless of the stereo arrangement, "Time Out" is still the best sounding recording I've ever heard sonically speaking. If you've got iTunes go and take a listen to refresh your memory. It's just stellar. But it's a lot better if you stand back from the speakers and turn it up.
"But an inappropriate one, is my point. There's little correlation between early stereo music production and motion picture sound design."
Boy that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I think it's a great parallel as to how humans react to aural changes in media.
I'm not going to argue any of your other points because you've obviously got a different point of view from mine which you aren't going to change, and I doubt I will either.
The source on the block quotes is just about any book written on grammar including the Chicago Manual of Style. What's really bad about using them within the confines of an internet forum is that they take more source code thereby making the web page load slower for your fellow forumites. Of course most of the people here are undoubtedly on cable, but you might want to keep it in mind with other forums.
"Also not taking account what the modern 'classic' directors do is plain ignorant and self serving."
I understand, but on the other hand, I'm an individual--not a follower. I don't know of any mathematical theorem which indicates that any majority of humans will be more often correct than a minority. It was a majority of Jewish leaders that wanted Christ killed, a majority of Germans that sided with Hitler, a majority of the democratic senate that passed the recent spending...I mean stimulus bill. I really couldn't care less what somebody else does with their movie unless I like it. The majority of films, and especially television, today seem enamored with close-ups. You never see body language in a film anymore. During the golden age of movies (1930 to 1950 I think) body language was just as important as facial expressions. When Jimmy Stewart put his hands in his pockets you knew he was thinking. W. C. Fields did some great tricks with his hands. John Wayne had that famous walk. You just don't see that anymore. Should I use tons of close-ups because most of the modern guys are doing it now?
I'll have my first feature length documentary showing at the St Louis Film Festival this year. Yes, it's in plain old stereo. Actually mostly mono as it's a documentary with a lot of narration. People will like it or they won't. I doubt very much that a single person will walk away talking about the sound one way or the other though...well unless they hate my guitar playing.
I totally respect what you say about individuality. Really.
But I gotta say very rarely is a documentary surround sound anyway. You don't go to a docu for good sound design. Unless it's a Michael Moore "docu" :) Which doesn't count in my book.
But it's cool, agree to disagree. Good luck with your flick.
>If you've got iTunes go and take a listen to refresh your memory. It's just stellar. But it's a lot better if you stand back from the speakers and turn it up
Surely you're not talking about the AAC audio version? AAC, MP3, and WMA are compressed so heavily that they force the brain to work really hard to fill in the missing audio data. You don't hear the music. You hear your brain's interpretation of the digital data that is being fed to you. "Stellar" and "turn it up" are not phrases that any audiophile should utter when describing AAC audio. Just ask Phil Ramone. :)
"Surely you're not talking about the AAC audio version? AAC, MP3, and WMA are compressed so heavily that they force the brain to work really hard to fill in the missing audio data."
Actually for higher bitrate files a lot of what is removed is just dead space. The difference between a 256k (or higher) mp3 and the wave it came from is practically nil. Once you get down between 128k and 256k the codec will start removing high-end and low-end content that few people can hear anyway. Do you realize that your hearing starts going bad in junior high? By the time you're 12 you probably won't hear much of anything above 18k, and by the time you're 20 you'll be lucky to hear anything above 16k. Take any wave file you want (even cymbals) into a wave editor and EQ out everything above 16k and I think you'll see that it sounds the same unless maybe you're very young. If it's a noisy file you might get rid of some hiss up there, but otherwise there's not enough difference to tell. Once you get down to 128k and lower midrange bits start getting taken out, and then you'll definately notice. Of course you're only as good as your encoder though. For the most part at my age I can take out high-end all the way down to 14k without noticing much difference. And a lot of what you have below 120Hz is just rumble and it often sounds better to be rid of it.
"Good luck with your flick."
Thanks man; I'm probably gonna need it because it's a pretty plain-jane affair.
Actually, Charles, it's not just about the frequencies. It's not a hearing test. It's about how the music makes you feel as you listen to it. I'm not talking about the emotional impact of the music itself, or the poignancy of the lyrics. I'm talking about the delivery of the music.
I'm 51 years old, and I've spent the better part of my life hanging around jet engines at various decibel levels (and with ear protection). I can't hear 20k frequencies any more, at least not in my annual flight physicals. But I do hear up to 18k. And I can sit in a studio with studio monitor speakers and listen to a favorite piece of music, and after 2 or 3 minutes I can tell you whether it's an .mp3 or a .wav file that's being played. The compressed audio makes me feel slightly edgy and tense, even though the piece is familiar and enjoyable. The .wav doesn't have that effect. And if you play me a 24-bit/96k DVD-A, I can tell the difference even faster.
Talk about a generational loss. I have to admit that reading through this thread has taken me back down memory lane.
I too, remember the mono to stereo transition. I combined two 7" VOA tape machines together to create stereo. One was "stereo ready." I was 12 at the time, very much into electronics, and more than handy with a soldering gun, splicing block, etc. When I managed to hook up a "new" stereo turntable to the contraption and it began playing true stereo, I thought I'd converted two dimensions into three. Sounds now (properly) blossomed into an aural field. And each and every member of my family, upon listening to the A/B comparison, agreed that stereo was the way to go (over mono). (Full disclosure: My father was a radio DJ, with a 15 minute program, aired each Sunday afternoon. He braodcast from a ficticiously creative spot called "Iron Mountain." He often had jazz musicians over to our house for jam sessions. There was a silver box-like mike in our tiny living room. I still have it. Charles, do you remember the Charioteers?
Mono vs. stereo? Stereo wins, each and every time. All the time. Why?
We have two ears. Most animals do. Eyes, nostrils, legs, arms, kidneys, lungs. 2. OK-only one heart, but who listens with that? My point is that we are wired for a 3-dimensional world, and it often takes separate inputs to achieve the fullness of the "realm." And I might concur with the gentleman who mentioned a trip to the audiologist--mono-only beyond 5 feet seems like a disability.
As for Quad. Dismissed as gimmicky. Returned years later under a different name--Surround Sound. Essentially the same thing-EXCEPT-the science of sound allowed better sound field recording, thus more realistic. Quad was only an infant. And even during stereo's infancy, there were those who pushed the envelope in the wrong direction (some early Blue Note jazz recordings had horribly mixed, stereophonic fields).
Human frequency response does fall off rapidly as one ages. We lose those higher-end sounds gradually, starting at about 12k. But what we do not lose, is the FEEL of the harmonics, the 2nd and 3rd (and sometimes 4th) elements of sounds that help flesh out the aural
field, enriching the experience. Now please remember that harmonics, isolated, are basically inaudible. It is only when they are present, that they can influence the "fundamental" notes, adding the Umami, if you will. Note that these are the very same sounds that are crushed during compression (MP3 anyone?). Even folks who would not be considered audiophiles can tell the difference. In fact, the aural differences typically noticed, between CD and vinyl recordings, and typically attributed to digital sampling (versus analog), are more often due to the complete loss of the harmonic elements, or the loss of their connection to the fundamental tones.
> "...It's still the best movie I ever saw far and away, and I doubt there will ever be another one on a par with it for another hundred years. It had the best cinematography, the best music score, the best script, the best directing, and some of the best acting I've ever seen..."
Yes, age is shown, when such polarized opinions appear. Best, best, best? Subjective at best, period. And period is the operative word here, because, oh, Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player that ever lived. Or was it Pete Sampras? Or is it Roger Federer?
I can be highly subjective too: The best ever computer keyboard ever made was the Keytronic Flexpro, because it placed the function keys on the left, WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, not along the top. Agree, everyone, or am I only showing my age-related exposure preference? Several folks, newspapers and companies considered the automobile a short-lived fad, not possibly a replacement for good old horse, er, power. Do horses have hoods?
There will be no persuading of anyone, to another's POV on this subject, due to its inherent subjectivity. I prefer stereo. I find mono both confining and unnatural. Your opinion is polar to mine. I also like surround sound, done properly, in theatres (although most movie houses ALWAYS have the overall volume too high, and the environment too cold).
>I can be highly subjective too
Everyone who CLAIMS to be objective, is at best: Subjective :)
If I was truly objective, I'd be more of a royal pain in the bum to those around me than I am now.
I'd constantly have to ask what time it was, or what room the TV was in, because objectively, I couldn't assume that the clock in front of me showed the correct time, nor could I assume that the TV was in the same room that it was in when I left that room ten minutes ago.
I think your confusing objective with abjective.