Stereo Vs. Surround Home Theater: The 2014 Edition

[Steve81]

With all the Atmos press lately, I figured I'd step back for a moment to look back the old argument of stereo versus surround, specifically as it relates to home theater. I believe we all know the strengths of surround: the addition of a center channel helps to anchor dialog for off axis listeners, the surround channels add an immersion factor, etc.

Now, I’m not going to sit here and argue in favor of 2.0, or even 2.1 audio for home theater. This isn’t 1950, and we can do better. What I do offer is a philosophical question: are movies supposed to transport us to another world, or do they give us a window to another time/place? From a video perspective, the answer is fairly obvious. We aren’t experiencing movies on the holodeck of the Enterprise; we don’t even have the wall TV’s of Fahrenheit 451. We have a screen directly in front of us…and that’s it. Why then are all manner of noises and effects coming from our sides and rear? If you turn around (which seems like a reasonable reaction to a noise coming from behind you), you see….the rear of your room. It seems like an odd disconnect.

So what exactly would I propose (as if the industry is listening)? Front oriented 5.1 or 7.1. Start with the classic front trio (left, center, right), and add front heights and wides. Such a setup would be far better at tracking the action on screen than a stereo system or even a conventional 5.1/7.1 setup. I imagine most folks would find such a system far easier to set up as well. Most importantly, given that my eyes and ears work together, such a setup makes more inherent sense with the current state of affairs.

I can dream anyway. At least now with Atmos, I can have the sound of a helicopter hovering over me, look up, and see my ceiling.

/rant

Thoughts/comments/concerns are of course welcome, even just to say I'm off my rocker.

 

[3db]

I politely disagree with you using this specific example; do you turn around and look out of your rear window if someone honks their horn behind you while driving forward? The thing is, we are bombarded with sound 360 degrees horizontal and sometimes vertically yet we don't always turn around to look for the source. I would argue you the point that on a daily basis we don't look backwards all that often. IHO, the bigger bang for the buck is 360 sound immersion in the horizontal plane (regular 7.1) verses the verticle plane (with height channels). We have the innate ability to correlate sounds behind us with the action that is in front of us.

 

[Steve81]

I politely disagree with you using this specific example; do you turn around and look out of your rear window if someone honks their horn behind you while driving forward?

I don't turn around because I don't need to (rear view mirror), nor is it terribly safe to do so under most circumstances. On the other hand, if I'm walking on the sidewalk and somebody honks, yeah, I usually turn to see what happened.

 

[lsiberian]

I think for living room setups stereo is normally much better than the surround sound most people put in.

 

[rojo]

I prefer my home theater's 2.1 music from the front over my car stereo's 2.0 coming from front and behind, so no argument there. But I enjoy my rear surround sound in movies and television.

Drawing the real life vs. home parallel further, when I'm in a concert hall and hear applause, I don't care who is behind me clapping. Likewise, if I'm watching and listening to a performance on screen, I don't turn my head to see who's clapping, but I relish the surround sound experience nonetheless. Hearing applause only from the front would not be as lifelike. And when I'm in a room full of ninjas and flip someone over my head, I don't need to look at the table he just landed on behind me to see how badly it's broken. But I do occasionally look back to see who's shooing at me and think, "Oh. It's the wall. Right." Then I'm amused by my folly.

360° immersion in sound is not only possible, but easy. The same can't be said for video. That's no reason to cripple the audio, though.

Steve, you're suggesting that substituting rear surround sound for front height and front wide channels would be a more enthralling experience, and a better application of multichannel efforts in content mastery, correct? Well, I can neither agree, nor disagree with that. All I can say is I am not displeased with what I have. I have no motivation to argue for a better way.

That doesn't mean you aren't off your rocker, though.

 

[Steve81]

Steve, you're suggesting that substituting rear surround sound for front height and front wide channels would be a more enthralling experience, and a better application of multichannel efforts in content mastery, correct?

More enthralling? That would be an individual subjective judgement. It would align more closely with the idea of "a window into another world" that we have on the video side of the equation, versus the current state of having a window of video, but attempting to immerse ourselves in audio. That's really all it boils down to. Why cripple the audio side? Why did we try to immerse ourselves audibly without the video to match in the first place? I don't want to be in a jungle, but I'd sure like to watch an attractive young girl battle people to the death in one

 

[rojo]

I think you need a bigger television.

 

[Steve81]

I think you need a bigger television.

I do, but then I'd need a new wall mount, and I'm too lazy to fight that battle

 

[j_garcia]

I am currently 2.0 and 3.1

IMO, surround DOES add to the sense of realism for SOME things, not everything. I have definitely found myself looking to the back of the room to see what that sound was or rewound a scene to hear a nicely mastered transition that moves around the room. That said, I can still enjoy a good movie without all that.

Is surround a necessity? I don't think so.

 

[Steve81]

The thing is, we are bombarded with sound 360 degrees horizontal and sometimes vertically yet we don't always turn around to look for the source.

Drawing the real life vs. home parallel further, when I'm in a concert hall and hear applause, I don't care who is behind me clapping. Likewise, if I'm watching and listening to a performance on screen, I don't turn my head to see who's clapping, but I relish the surround sound experience nonetheless. Hearing applause only from the front would not be as lifelike. And when I'm in a room full of ninjas and flip someone over my head, I don't need to look at the table he just landed on behind me to see how badly it's broken. But I do occasionally look back to see who's shooing at me and think, "Oh. It's the wall. Right." Then I'm amused by my folly.

True enough, and I'd probably agree that ambient noise emanating from the surrounds (street noise, a ship creaking, clapping, whatever) is less of a distraction / disconnect than rojo's specific effect example of a gunshot. OTOH, I'm still not sure that ambiance factor is still enough to warrant dedicated surrounds. I don't really care about an audience clapping (I'm usually in the cheap seats anyway, so having it front of me is more natural ), and a half decent front array can do a respectable job of creating ambiance in any event (not to say it could equal dedicated surrounds in immersiveness, but as I've noted, if you're staring at a screen, it doesn't necessarily need to anyway).

Edit: As a side note, I will state that music is a different animal because we are specifically trying to recreate an acoustic event in our room with as much accuracy as we can afford.

 

[ImcLoud]

I think this like 100% of the other topics around here come down to what the end user prefers. I like 5. systems for movies, 7. systems tend to pull me from the material when the rear light, 3.1 works for me too, but I do like the side surrounds for a little wider effect... My brother is up to 11.4 in his largish' living room, I don't see the value in it, he has an attic over his living room so wiring wasn't too bad, but still a lot of money and time invested... We watched The Wolverine over there and I kept being pulled from the action by the unnatural sound coming from behind be, the front stuff worked well, but the rear presence and straight rears just don't work for me BUT he loves it, sooooo, it comes down to what you want in your theater, I am not crazy about watching tv, if I watch 8 hours a week I would be surprised, I am more of a turn the stereo on and play on the laptop or ipad when I have spare time.. I get 15 minutes of news in the morning while getting ready for work, a couple datelines every week maybe 2 movies a month and 2-3 shows a week depending on which of the series I follow are airing at the time, but now music is another story, I listen in the car, in the office, at the house, in the shop, in th egym, at the job sites, while I cut the grass, ect ect ect ect, always listening to music and thats easy to count 2 channels and as many subs as you can afford or fit...

 

[lsiberian]

I think this like 100% of the other topics around here come down to what the end user prefers. I like 5. systems for movies, 7. systems tend to pull me from the material when the rear light, 3.1 works for me too, but I do like the side surrounds for a little wider effect... My brother is up to 11.4 in his largish' living room, I don't see the value in it, he has an attic over his living room so wiring wasn't too bad, but still a lot of money and time invested... We watched The Wolverine over there and I kept being pulled from the action by the unnatural sound coming from behind be, the front stuff worked well, but the rear presence and straight rears just don't work for me BUT he loves it, sooooo, it comes down to what you want in your theater, I am not crazy about watching tv, if I watch 8 hours a week I would be surprised, I am more of a turn the stereo on and play on the laptop or ipad when I have spare time.. I get 15 minutes of news in the morning while getting ready for work, a couple datelines every week maybe 2 movies a month and 2-3 shows a week depending on which of the series I follow are airing at the time, but now music is another story, I listen in the car, in the office, at the house, in the shop, in th egym, at the job sites, while I cut the grass, ect ect ect ect, always listening to music and thats easy to count 2 channels and as many subs as you can afford or fit...

I knew you'd come back and glad you did.

 

[herbu]

If you turn around (which seems like a reasonable reaction to a noise coming from behind you), you see….the rear of your room. It seems like an odd disconnect.

I don't "turn around" when I hear a door open or floor creak or phone ring behind me in a movie... but the camera and character on the screen do. There are so many cameras and angles used, you're often aware of a 360deg stage, and the sounds beside and behind do indeed enhance the "immersion" for me. It can be pretty cool to hear what the character is looking at, coming from the direction he's looking. I don't know about Atmos, and seriously doubt I'll be cutting holes in my ceiling any time soon, but the idea is cool. For music, no. And regarding your rocker, that would likely need its own thread.

 

[Steve81]

I don't "turn around" when I hear a door open or floor creak or phone ring behind me in a movie...

We get trained over time I suppose, though doorbells can still throw me off (especially if I'm expecting a pizza delivery ).

There are so many cameras and angles used, you're often aware of a 360deg stage, and the sounds beside and behind do indeed enhance the "immersion" for me. It can be pretty cool to hear what the character is looking at, coming from the direction he's looking.

Indeed; but no matter how many cameras and angles are used, you're still left with...a window from which the entire visual presentation stems. Yeah, you can film things as a first person presentation where surround might make a little more logical sense, but most movies that I'm aware of aren't filmed like a first person shooter video game. Of course, all this isn't to deny that surround can be immersive, or that the effect can be cool.

 

[markw]

A York Peppermint Patty won't give you a blast of arctic air but is is a welcome treat

I think we're talking two different things here: Music and movies. As such, I don't see where one is locked into any one set of parameters for both.

All movies require a a bit of suspension of belief from the viewer. I don't think anyone is going to be fooled by multi-channel surround effects in a movie soundtrack into believing they are actually "in the scene" as you seem to imply but an occasional sound from over your shoulder on occasion can help the illusion a bit and add a bit more immersion/realisism to what you're watching. It does help recreate the original (good) movie theater experience if it's done right.

As for music, now, here I generally tend to like my soundstage up front. A good 2, or 2.1, system is all I need for music. This doesn't include some very specific exceptions which are made purely for multi-channel listening, such as the SACD 5.1 version of PF: DSOTM and a very few others. FWIW, some RCA Living Stereo SACD's are avaliable in their original recorded mode of 3.0.

In any case, I like to play back my "stuff" in the number of channels it was recorded in but, OTH, I woud rather movies "forced" into 2 (or 2.1) much more than two channel music fed thru DSP in an attempt to create a multi-channel experience.

 

[shadyJ]

Someone mentioned first person video games, and this is the type of thing a surround sound system is really good for, probably the most ideal application for it, to be honest.

For movies, it's cool, but, to be honest, as much as I enjoy home theater, I don't really care about it all that much in this aspect. Sometimes it is cool. A great demo scene for how to use it effectively in movies is the pod racing scene in Star Wars Phantom Menace. What a great sound mix that is (shame about the movie). However, for movies surround sound is and always has been pretty gimmicky in my opinion, not that that is a bad thing. If the movie is any good, eventually I just forget about the sound system. Any movie which relies upon a surround sound system to be improved is probably a crappy movie undeserving of anybodies attention in the first place. It then becomes a gimmicky crutch for creatively impoverished film makers.

For music, I think there is great potential for the use of surround channels which have never been used. It should be seen as simply an expansion of the sound stage. I think for music surround sound could go well beyond gimmicky if anyone ever really tried to create and mix something with more aggressive use of the surround channels than what has been the case so far.

 

[ImcLoud]

I still get tricked by car doors, phones ringing, and the door bells.. I was in the kitchen today and the tv was on, the phone rang in the show and I can close to picking up the phone next to me before I Caught myself...

 

[herbu]

I still get tricked by car doors, phones ringing, and the door bells..

Ditto... and dogs barking. Sometimes we will pause a show to see if we're hearing our "dog alarm" or just the show.

 

[3db]

The best example of surround sound is Master and Commander and the surround use very realistically portrayed what it's like to be in the hold of a sailing ship. I've been in one and it sounds just like the movie. I don't think that height channels would achieve the same impact as a surround system.

 

[TLS Guy]

This an interesting thread.

I think the benefit for movies is how good the mix is. I do think 7.1 is better then 5.1 For most movies I don't think it adds much. For some it does.

I would point to War Horse. The sense of space, and distance is incredible on my rig. Your really do feel right there acoustically and vehicles can move seamlessly from one end of the room to the other. You have sense of distance in miles, not just feet or yards. This is the best mixed movie I know of. The recording of the orchestra is also first class.

However I think the greatest benefit is for music, and not just antiphonal music. Stereo can give an excellent window to a performance with depth of stage, but it can't give you the sense of really being there the way a good multichannel recording can. I have some SACDs and BD discs that are incredible in that regard. For instance the BIS recordings of the Minnesota Orchestra in Orchestra Hall really put you there. In addition a good many two channel recordings with reliable spacial cues can do a very good job of creating the original space with Dolby plx2 Music. And I agree with other critics that this algorithm works much better in 7 then 5 channel. I would site especially the long running BBC program Choral Evensong, where there has been a weekly audio broadcast form one of the UK's great cathedrals since 1926. The engineers take great pride and attention to detail for these broadcasts. On my VPN link to get the BBC HD audio, the sense of space and realism is incredible in Dolby plx2.

I agree that I'm lucky in that all my speakers are very good and none stand out in error so to speak. In other systems I get no benefit when the surrounds are lesser speakers to the fronts. I'm drawn to the poor quality speakers and the illusion is immediately lost.

For antiphonal music my rears to a fantastic job holding there own with the fronts.

In closing I would far rather have good two channel audio, the poor surround. I would also pick good 2.0 over poor 3.0. In fact when I audition other systems I think I am universally distracted by a poor blend of center speakers. This is something really hard to get right and something I devoted enormous effort to.