Re: 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.2... Where should it stop?

[Sterckx Zoe]

More speakers are for a better panning effect. Because surround speakers
are usually smaller and less powerfull than the mains, you'll hear the
transitions better, they have poor stereo imaging or whatever,
and this is why they add a rear center speaker f.e.,
that way the distance between the 2 surround channels becomes smaller
and you get a better panning effect from one side to the other, and
it seems you're getting a stronger stereo effect behind you.


>
> By 4.1 I meant first generation surround with a subwoofer added in. I
guess
> I am a purist, but not for nostalgia or anything emotional... I just don't
> get it from an engineering perspective. If you put half of the sound you
> want centered behind a person into each of the two rear speakers, this
> should be no different to the ear than a rear center channel with all of
the
> sound.
>
> Is it about increasing the size of the sweet spot... I guess getting the
> full effect from only four speakers does require the listener to be pretty
> well centered. (Maybe I am just being wishful because I can't afford any
> more speakers!)
>
> Cheers!
>
>

[Barry Mann]

In >, on 07/07/03
at 10:36 PM, "Jeff Hawkins" > said:

>Hi,

>Is 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, or 8.2 really any better than 4.1 surround?
>(Assuming your speakers and amp are good, and the encoding was done
>well?)

>It seems to me that the only reason adding more speakers sounds better
>on most systems is because you get more wattage out of the extra
>channels. But, if you had 100 high current watts per main and surround
>channel plus about 250 for the subwoofer and good speakers all the way
>around, it might be just as good.

>Has anyone out there with good ears heard the difference?

>Thanks!

I can imagine a 12.2 system. (four front and rear, two sides, two
centers, and two subs) Perhaps a 12.2.1 system would also be fun. (adds
a "shaker" mounted in your chair)

At that point there will probably be a consumer backlash and we will
start incresasing the signal processing to create "virtual" speakers
while decreasing the number of "real" speakers.

Surround sound or not, "Wattage" in itself does not offer much because
there are cheap and expensive Watts. Expensive Watts usually sound
better than cheap Watts.

While it is uaually a bit more expensive, you'll find that matching the
speakers all around will yield better results than doubling the power.
Matched speakers will become more important in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------------
SPAM:
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, SPAMers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Mark A]

"Barry Mann" > wrote in message
om...
> In >, on 07/07/03
> at 10:36 PM, "Jeff Hawkins" > said:
>
> >Hi,
>
> >Is 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, or 8.2 really any better than 4.1 surround?
> >(Assuming your speakers and amp are good, and the encoding was done
> >well?)
>
> >It seems to me that the only reason adding more speakers sounds better
> >on most systems is because you get more wattage out of the extra
> >channels. But, if you had 100 high current watts per main and surround
> >channel plus about 250 for the subwoofer and good speakers all the way
> >around, it might be just as good.
>
> >Has anyone out there with good ears heard the difference?
>
> >Thanks!
>
> I can imagine a 12.2 system. (four front and rear, two sides, two
> centers, and two subs) Perhaps a 12.2.1 system would also be fun. (adds
> a "shaker" mounted in your chair)
>
> At that point there will probably be a consumer backlash and we will
> start incresasing the signal processing to create "virtual" speakers
> while decreasing the number of "real" speakers.
>
> Surround sound or not, "Wattage" in itself does not offer much because
> there are cheap and expensive Watts. Expensive Watts usually sound
> better than cheap Watts.
>
> While it is uaually a bit more expensive, you'll find that matching the
> speakers all around will yield better results than doubling the power.
> Matched speakers will become more important in the future.
>

Actually, you don't really need more than 4 speakers right now to get decent
surround. If you don't have a center channel, most receivers will feed the
signal into the front L and R. This works fine if the fronts are not spaced
too far apart. Subwoofer can also be routed to the fronts if they have
decent bass drivers.

[Geoff Wood]

"GregS" > wrote in message

> I think a top speaker and a floor shaker should be mandatory.
> Might just be able to double to 10.2 to get top and bottoms and
> floor shaker.


An extra .1 in every chair really gives you a boot in the arse .


geoff

[kryten_droid]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...

> An extra .1 in every chair really gives you a boot in the arse.

Crikey!

That must make your eyes water.

[GMAN]

In article >, "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:
>
>"GregS" > wrote in message
>
>> I think a top speaker and a floor shaker should be mandatory.
>> Might just be able to double to 10.2 to get top and bottoms and
>> floor shaker.
>
>
>An extra .1 in every chair really gives you a boot in the arse .
>
>
>geoff
>
>
I'd love to accuire one of those old 1970's era "Sensurround" speakers from a
theater

[Neill Massello]

Jeff Hawkins > wrote:

> Is 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, or 8.2 really any better than 4.1 surround? (Assuming your
> speakers and amp are good, and the encoding was done well?)

Very few theaters ever use anything beyond 6.1. For home theater, 6.1 is
definitely the point beyond which additional channels will essentially
be marketing hype.

[Mark A]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I'm not sure what your words are implying (particularly the
> >term "3-d soundfield"), but this I know for a fact: One can
> >create a 3-dimensional audio experience matching to a
> >significant degree that of the original acoustic event (for
> >a live sound) for a single listener using only two speakers.
> >I can prove this from a purely mathematical point of view given
> >a couple of constraints which can be met in a real system. Such
> >a system is not just a mathematical oddity but can be practically
> >implemented.
>
> Yes. A lot of people have never heard stereo. Just multi-channel
> pan-potted mono.

Maybe that's true in the UK (I don't know) but very few people in the US
fall into that category.

[Mark A]

> Home Cinema systems are almost uniformly crap.

I don't think that is accurate. For a reasonable amount of money, a person
can almost duplicate the movie theatre sound experience in their homes.
Maybe you think that sound in movie theatres are crap, but that is a
different issue.

[Nousaine]

"Mark A" wrote:



>> Home Cinema systems are almost uniformly crap.
>
>I don't think that is accurate. For a reasonable amount of money, a person
>can almost duplicate the movie theatre sound experience in their homes.
>Maybe you think that sound in movie theatres are crap, but that is a
>different issue.

IME home theater systems are more frequently better set-up than 2-channel
systems even among enthusiasts. I think the primary reason is the screen
orientation.

No one agrues that a small screen is better than a larger one. So people obtain
a screen as large as they can abd find a place for it in a room; nearly always
along a wall or occasionally across a corner.

Once the screen is positioned then seating is arranged so the screen is
visible. This often entails dragging chairs and sofas out into the room away
from walls.

Finally the screen-focus seems to add new, deeper meaning to the terms left,
right and center although 'surround' often remains vague :)

In any case a greater percentage of Home Theater systems are better set up than
2-channel systems I've seen.

[GamezCore]

4.1/5.1 that is where it's at. Most movies don't even properly utilize 5.1
encoding yet to make it THAT much of a deal over a solid 2.1 system.
Generally it seems as if it is done as an afterthought rather than tightly
tied into a scene or entire movie.

I can probably count on one hand the number of hollywood titles that have
really made excellent usage of 5.1.

"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Mark A"
> wrote:
> >"Barry Mann" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> In >, on 07/07/03
> >> at 10:36 PM, "Jeff Hawkins" > said:
> >>
> >> >Hi,
> >>
> >> >Is 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, or 8.2 really any better than 4.1 surround?
> >> >(Assuming your speakers and amp are good, and the encoding was done
> >> >well?)
> >
> >
> >Actually, you don't really need more than 4 speakers right now to get
decent
> >surround. If you don't have a center channel, most receivers will feed
the
> >signal into the front L and R. This works fine if the fronts are not
spaced
> >too far apart. Subwoofer can also be routed to the fronts if they have
> >decent bass drivers.
>
> I think a top speaker and a floor shaker should be mandatory.
> Might just be able to double to 10.2 to get top and bottoms and
> floor shaker.
>
> greg

[choro-nik]

You are forgetting that the listening chamber has SIX sides. 7.1 on covers 4
sides. What about the floor an the ceiling?

Surely you need at least pairs of front and rear speakers for the floor as
well and the same again for the ceiling.

So you really need at least an 15.1 system (7+4+4 = 15). HeHeHe!

Such a system could even accurately reproduce the sound of a listener's
FART?

--
choro-nik
*******
Original quotable quotes from choro-nik
"The triumph of mediocrity is represented by the body politic."
"Politics is the art of trying to unravel the repercussions of yesteryears'
policies."
"Trust one scoundrel to quote from another"
**********


"Lymp Baygul" > wrote in message
...
> David Chesky makes a good case for 6.1 for audio reproduction, with front
> and rear pairs at ear level, and a side pair for vertical information,
> creating a true 3-D soundfield. The center channel is worthless for
audio,
> and should only be used for home theater.
> if you wanted to cover all AV bases, 7.1 would give you 6.1 plus a center
> fill for watching movies.
>
> As far as 4.1, 5.1 will offer no improvement for music listening, may
> actually detract a bit, since a good setup won't need any "fill", and
would
> only be useful for movies where it enhances dialogue.
>
>
> "Jeff Hawkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, or 8.2 really any better than 4.1 surround? (Assuming
> your
> > speakers and amp are good, and the encoding was done well?)
> >
> > It seems to me that the only reason adding more speakers sounds better
on
> > most systems is because you get more wattage out of the extra channels.
> But,
> > if you had 100 high current watts per main and surround channel plus
about
> > 250 for the subwoofer and good speakers all the way around, it might be
> just
> > as good.
> >
> > Has anyone out there with good ears heard the difference?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Trevor]

"choro-nik" > wrote in message
...
> You are forgetting that the listening chamber has SIX sides. 7.1 on covers
4
> sides. What about the floor an the ceiling?
>
> Surely you need at least pairs of front and rear speakers for the floor as
> well and the same again for the ceiling.
>
> So you really need at least an 15.1 system (7+4+4 = 15). HeHeHe!
>
> Such a system could even accurately reproduce the sound of a listener's
> FART?

Accuracy has nothing to do with the number of speakers, I still prefer HIGH
quality MONO to the normal crap 5.1 or 7.1.
Anyhow if the area has six sides, six full range speakers should be
adequate, or six plus sub woofer if they are not. The listening sweet spot
will only be in the centre of the room, but I can't see how you could get
away from that no matter how many speakers you use.

Trevor.

[detlaf]

Well I only have two ears so 3.1 would seem to be the most efficient.
If we are to have more channels I would like a mono speech one with no
background sounds as the current batch of blockbuster movies gives
great background but makes the mumbled speech almost impossible to
decipher.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 14 Jul 2003 18:15:06 -0700, (detlaf) wrote:

>Well I only have two ears so 3.1 would seem to be the most efficient.

I think you do not understand how hearing works. You do hear what
is behind you in the concert hall.

Kal

[Ian Buckner]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Jul 2003 18:15:06 -0700, (detlaf) wrote:
>
> >Well I only have two ears so 3.1 would seem to be the most efficient.
>
> I think you do not understand how hearing works. You do hear what
> is behind you in the concert hall.
>
> Kal

Yep, all that coughing, rustling, ring tones....
I guess 3.1 (or 2.0) is ideal to mimic the True Concert Experience from
seats in the gods ;-)

Regards
Ian


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:32:12 +0100, "Ian Buckner"
> wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 14 Jul 2003 18:15:06 -0700, (detlaf) wrote:
>>
>> >Well I only have two ears so 3.1 would seem to be the most efficient.
>>
>> I think you do not understand how hearing works. You do hear what
>> is behind you in the concert hall.
>>
>> Kal
>
>Yep, all that coughing, rustling, ring tones....

Yup, all that plus ambience and reverberation. Of course, you hear
them in 2.0 and 3.1, just from the wrong direction.

Kal

[Geoff Wood]

"choro-nik" > wrote in message
...
> You are forgetting that the listening chamber has SIX sides. 7.1 on covers
4
> sides. What about the floor an the ceiling?
>
> Surely you need at least pairs of front and rear speakers for the floor as
> well and the same again for the ceiling.
>
> So you really need at least an 15.1 system (7+4+4 = 15). HeHeHe!
>
> Such a system could even accurately reproduce the sound of a listener's
> FART?


What about a 360 enveloping radiating cocoon ?


geoff

[choro-nik]

Now, why didn't I think of that?! A speaker in which you can live!

Would it contain a "studio couch" and a hopeful "starlet"?
**********

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
>
> "choro-nik" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are forgetting that the listening chamber has SIX sides. 7.1 on
covers
> 4
> > sides. What about the floor an the ceiling?
> >
> > Surely you need at least pairs of front and rear speakers for the floor
as
> > well and the same again for the ceiling.
> >
> > So you really need at least an 15.1 system (7+4+4 = 15). HeHeHe!
> >
> > Such a system could even accurately reproduce the sound of a listener's
> > FART?
>
>
> What about a 360 enveloping radiating cocoon ?
>
>
> geoff
>
>

[Bobby Owsinski]

In article >,
"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:

> "choro-nik" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are forgetting that the listening chamber has SIX sides. 7.1 on covers
> 4
> > sides. What about the floor an the ceiling?
> >
> > Surely you need at least pairs of front and rear speakers for the floor as
> > well and the same again for the ceiling.
> >
> > So you really need at least an 15.1 system (7+4+4 = 15). HeHeHe!
> >


You have a couple of concepts wrong. 7.1 doesn't have additional
speakers on the side (and the SDDS theater system is the only one that
utlizes 7.1). It has 5 speakers across the front (L, C, R plus Center L
and Center R) for more level in large theaters.

There are many configurations that utilize height speakers with some
amazing results. Tom Holman's (the godfather of THX and 5.1) 10.2
system has stereo height channels.

[Trevor]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...

> How about just '8'. Plus a '.1' if you want to annoy the neighbours.

Yep, one in each corner of a cube is easier to live with than one in the
middle of each side :-)
All the systems seem designed to address problems (real or imagined) of
size, location, room acoustics etc, and maintain compatibility with stereo.

Trevor.