"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news:YLEmb.21684$mZ5.82013@attbi_s54...
On 25 Oct 2003 02:53:11 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

Recall JJ or someone saying research into how many channels
was enough had been done. And the minimum was 7 equally
spaced. I guess 8 would give you the result you need.

One reason we need more is that we humans do not locate a phantom
lateral source (created by a front and rear transducer on the same
side) as well as we locate a phantom center source (created from L and
R transducers).

Kal


I would guess this is partly why the ITU standard calls for the "surround"
speakers to be at 110 degrees...it puts them far enough "forward" that the
early can locate the directionality to some degree, versus further "back" in
the rear. However, from my experience living with it for a year now, I'd
have to say that it is barely adequate, and I can see where 7.1 with "side"
speakers as well as rears would be a pretty big plus. Of course, for pure
ambience it probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but in a pop surround
mix it certainly would. I'm not holding my breath, though, either for
fitting the equipment in a non-dedicated room and getting two additional
channels onto disk are both pretty big challenges. My guess is we are
stuck for better or worse withy 5.1 for most purposes, including our
surround music.