How soon discrete 7.1?

[MikeSp]

Anyone have an idea when we can expect discrete DD or DTS 7.1 on high def DVDs in the future?

MikeSp

 

[Seth=L]

They already have 7.1 LPCM, what more could you want? If you have a capable processor or receiver, doesn't appear that you do at this time. If you get a new processor with at least HDMI 1.1 it will decode 7.1 LPCM at 192/24. That should be as good as the DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD stuff. After all the player decodes those formats and converts them into usable high resolution LPCM. Of course things might be different once the formats are decodable by a processor.

Most, if not all Blu-Ray discs have 7.1 LPCM, and some HD-DVD's have TrueHD and/or DTS-HD.

 

[UFObuster]

Anyone have an idea when we can expect discrete DD or DTS 7.1 on high def DVDs in the future?

MikeSp

Begs the question: how necessary is it really?
Regarding music playback, 5 channels (+ bass) seem to do it. A concert hall or live stage environment is most adequately reproduced in 5. More channels could only add very limited benefit if any. We have only 2 ears and there are physical limitations to our spectral and spatial senses. Movies use more than 5 for just sound gimmicks. Movement and depth is still easily represented in 5 channels.
I don't really see the consumer buying expensive speakers, cables, amplification, DA converters, etc to hear a bus crash with the pieces falling all around behind you. I forsee better and better 5 channel reproduction with the surround sound channels done in full-frequency/speakers as already represented in DVD-A and SACD. Going over 5 is passing a pain-in-the-a** vs. benefit ratio.
I'm sure that 7.1 will still be around...but I don't see the market exploiting it to any large degree except to produce equipment to satisfy bragging rights.
..just my 0.02..
Roger

 

[MikeSp]

Begs the question: how necessary is it really?
Regarding music playback, 5 channels (+ bass) seem to do it. A concert hall or live stage environment is most adequately reproduced in 5. More channels could only add very limited benefit if any. We have only 2 ears and there are physical limitations to our spectral and spatial senses. Movies use more than 5 for just sound gimmicks. Movement and depth is still easily represented in 5 channels.

Roger

Roger--I really appreciate your point of view and I felt the same way until I added a pair of speakers behind the listening position (both connected to the same amp channel for a 6.1 system) and it really does add a spatial soundfield that is expanded--say a helicopter that sounds as though it is flying around the listening position -- I can literally (rather acoustically) discern it as the DTS-ES sound is processed and moved from speaker to speaker. It certainly is not as great an improvement as going from 2.0 to 5.1, however ;-)

MikeSp

 

[Seth=L]

Not only that, but it really helps in larger listening rooms. That is one good reason why they have so many speakers in a theater.

 

[UFObuster]

more on 7.1

OK, a large listening room needs more speakers...that seems to work for me.
But to continue being the contrarian: will more than 5+ channels really have enough real content to make it worth the $$. Even now, music playback can barely justify having much more than some "noise makers" for surround channels.
Not many DTS or DD concert films or music discs make use of surround in any way justifying full frequency play back. There are exceptions of course such as the DTS recordings of Gaucho by Steely Dan or some work by Diana Krall for example. There is a good Beethoven series by Daniel Barenboim in surround. Even yet it's a little disorienting to hear the horn section (Gaucho) coming from surround left while you see it in front of you. If you check out the "In the Flesh" (Roger Waters) it doesn't even use the center channel for music!...just sound effects.
The best use of the technology seems to keep the sound stage up front, full frequency surround for best ambients to create the 3D listening environment.
In a very large room, there may be a justification for a full frequency center back just for balance. But when there isn't really a need for two centers in the front....what in the world do you need two back channels for??? The answer seems to me just to provide the "wow" factor of sound effects. There is were I'm off the bus. For excellent sound reproduction, I would rather have 5 full frequency channels (+bass) with good recordings to make use of it.
As for requiring extra channels to "place" a sound effect for a movie...seems like a waste...or more aptly: using hardware to overcome poor recording technique. Don't forget: old fashioned stereo sound engineers do an EXCELLENT job of imaging a sound stage which you hear in detail if the playback equipment is good. Should be the same thing for surrounds if the engineers have done their job.

 

[Seth=L]

OK, a large listening room needs more speakers...that seems to work for me.
But to continue being the contrarian: will more than 5+ channels really have enough real content to make it worth the $$. Even now, music playback can barely justify having much more than some "noise makers" for surround channels.

Have you ever used a 6.1 or 7.1 system in your home?

 

[mike c]

Have you ever used a 6.1 or 7.1 system in your home?

bump

 

[Seth=L]

OK, a large listening room needs more speakers...that seems to work for me.
But to continue being the contrarian: will more than 5+ channels really have enough real content to make it worth the $$. Even now, music playback can barely justify having much more than some "noise makers" for surround channels.

It occurs to me that it is quite strange you would be against 7.1, especially since you started a thread about how much impact a center channel makes.

 

[UFObuster]

7.1 channel issues..

It occurs to me that it is quite strange you would be against 7.1, especially since you started a thread about how much impact a center channel makes.

...first let me apologize to the OP for taking us off topic from his original question...
...with respect to center channels...I like the current 5.1 surround formats...DD, DTS, DVA-a, SACD. Some recordings are exploiting the format really well...like the new Beatle "Love". Keep in mind, I'm playing the 'devil's advocate' raising some things that I think need some good answers. I have 7.1...didn't go out and buy it but demoted my speaker sets one by one as I up graded with Klipsch RF-7 front, RC-7 center, RF-5 surround, and my old Def-tech BP-6 towers in the back (Yamaha RX-V2600).
...when I was starting to really hear some good playback quality, I became more aware of the often poor quality of the surround presentation in too many products. I worry that the focus of too many recordings may by-pass developing good surround sound products in rushing to push out gimmick products just to hear in multi-channel formats. I think too many listeners buy the 'sizzle' of wattage and channel numbers. Can't you see HT in boxes with more and more cubes?...like "tribbles" in Star Trek...they keep on growing!
And yet, too many HT users are having trouble even setting up their 5.1. Some posters in another thread surmised that Roger Waters' producers didn't use the center channel for music ("in the flesh") for fear that home HT systems didn't have the playback quality for it...so they concentrated the presentation in just the front L&R. What happens when we get 7 channels?
I think the technology is fine...I worry about what there will be to play on it.
Thanks for letting me vent....and being around to respond to it.
Hope everyone is having a fine week-end.
Roger