Could it be more obvious that 5.1 is not the end all?

[RCA Dimensia]

It seems like people have gotten attached to 5.1 and are generally unaccepting of new formats. It seems almost anything over 5.1 is all matrixed, or there is very little source material for it and it's the least necessry channels (rear) that are added.

I was researching the history of 5.1 itself and found that six track sound systems have been around since the FIFTIES!! And I'm talking about an actual format, not just a one time thing like Fantasound. It was six channel analog magnetic systems that used; get this; Five FRONT speakers and ONE rear speaker (no LFE, so it was 6.0). Well, that means that the very first six channel system had a better frontal image (theoretically, obvoiously it was lossy) than modern systems. Can you believe it actually downsized from 5 to 3 front speakers. It's so obvious that the front soundstage is soooo much more crucial than the rear. The fact that new formats are adding more rear channels, not up to 4 of course, which is MORE than the front channels, is such a marketing joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.2 :
10.2 is considered by Holman to be "the next feasible step" in surround sound, but certainly not the end. He states that 5.1, a name which he himself came up with in 1987, was chosen as it was "the MINIMUM number of channels necessary to give a sense of spaciousness" http://www.audioholics.com/education/surround-sound/audyssey-dsx-10.2

People seem so stubborn against it; the only thing I can think of that's a reasonable cause for it not to be easily feasible is the amount of manual effort it must take to mix.

 

[Bloodstriker]

I think what we really need is a channel above and below the listener. Imagine hearing a flock of birds going from the rear, passing over your head, and to the fronts where you see them on screen. Or on hearing the sounds of leaves blowing in the wind under your feet.

 

[RCA Dimensia]

A ceiling channel was used once

well there was one system used for a single movie a few years back that used a single channel and speaker mounted directly on the roof pointing straight down, but it was just for one movie in select theaters.

It was called Sonic Whole Overhead Sound, used by Dolby in 2002 for We Were Soliders.

Pro logic IIz and audyssey DSX of course use height channels, they are just matrixed though of course.

 

[Seth=L]

I think I majority of people don't want that many speakers in the front of their room. Think about having 5-7 speakers all at the front of your room. Placement would be difficult, and it could be obstructive as well. Sony has a surround method called Sony Dynamic Digital Sound that has 5 front speakers, 2 rear speakers, and a low frequency channel.

I don't think it's a matter of what is best in terms of surround capability, but rather conveniance that keeps these type of systems out of the home.

BTW, RCA Dimensia. A friend of mine has an RCA Dimensia preamp and amplifier and I have seen the same units floating around for sale used as well. What was the extent of Dimensia, how high did it go?

 

[RCA Dimensia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Dimensia

Haha I wondered when one of my RCA Dimensia screen names would catch someone's attention; lol any RCA Dimensia account you see is basically me. It was a television system that debuted in 1984. I wrote this article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Dimensia
The main picture was not free so it got removed but google image it; the whole system cost 5,000 in 1984. The Digital Command Component System had one of the first Dolby Pro Logic decoders available.

 

[lsiberian]

Look buddy if you want your own theater then go for it, but a home theater doesn't need all those speakers.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It was hard to convert to 5.1. Can you imagine what it would be like to go to 10.2? Or more? Both software and hardware.

 

[RCA Dimensia]

How was it hard to convert to 5.1? And as far as software capabilities it should be nothing at all. And wait; did the thing under my name just change? Does that just go by number of posts? I thought it said audiophyte or something like that before.

 

[yepimonfire]

i like audyseys (spelling?) idea by expanding the front soundstage, this is where your hearing is most sensitive, second would be wide right and wide left (surrounds) ive had a 7.1 setup before and to be honest never could i detect the back speakers or notice any increase in spatiality, two channel sound is able to produce a convincing 3 dimensional soundstage as it is, try running a 5.1 movie in 2ch mode and you will see what i mean, i absolutley love the idea of increasing the depth and width of the front stage rather then adding more stuff to the sides and back, the idea is to create a spherical soundstage, since we live in a world where we hear things spherically (badly phrased but you get the idea). this involves adding more depth and width to the front stage. to be quite honest i always thought 5.1 and 7.1 recommended setups (angles and placement etc) was way to rectangular and i made my own adjustments to give it more of a circular dimension. i recently took down my 7.1 setup, stuck with a 5.1, and just got tired of it and went back to two channel because of the space issues in my room and the weird way my living room was set out you couldnt have a sofa or chair in the middle of it thus pretty much ruining the effect. but when i did have a 7.1 setup i had 9 speakers connected and i found a large improvement in the envelopingness (probably is not a word) of it. i had two surrounds wired in parallel and was going for more of a circle rather than a rectangle. worked out pretty good imo.

boy do i wish my room was this size

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

More isn't necessarily better.

You may have comb filtering.

If it sounds great, who cares if it is 5 speakers or 20 speakers?

Why do some people feel the need to have more speakers for the sake of having more speakers?

I mean if you think that having a lot more speakers look cool, then okay.

But not everyone is convinced that having more than 5 speakers makes the sound better.

More isn't necessarily better.

 

[yepimonfire]

i agree, im really not overly impressed with 5.1 in the first place over 2 ch, if you have a surround receiver 3ch C/L/R is certainly better then 2ch, because you have no sweetspots but as far as adding tons and tons of extra channels there comes a time when its time to stop, unless you have a dedicated room for you system theres no point in having 11ch sound, and you need a large room to properly image things, ideally u need a sofa or your chairs sitting right in the middle of the room, with equal distance from the left and right walls, and equal distance from the front and back walls, and a large space to fill with sound so that no matter where anyone sits in the seats they get nearly the same imaging. ive seen people have their tv on the front wall of the living room, but have their couch on the side wall. whats the point in that? those problems are only going to get worse as your going to have to ensure better seating positions with more channels if you really want to use them to their full potential. as far as theaters go there is certainly potential. as far as music goes im all in favor of 5.1 for it, when properly set up (surrounds directly to the sides) it greatly increases the stereo depth and width and gives you a center channel which kills the sweet spot, now when it comes to 7.1, that just sounds unnatural, in real life you dont have instruments playing behind you, i cant even imagine how screwed up music would sound on PLIIz. height channels in music? come on, seriously.


but of course surround sound could be greatly enhanced by more then 10 channels, four speakers angled from the ceiling, 5 front channels, two surrounds, three backs, as far as floor channels goes, thats really not practical.

 

[RCA Dimensia]

Ummm, I'm not talking about more speakers per channel; I'm talking about more discrete channels.....

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ummm, I'm not talking about more speakers per channel; I'm talking about more discrete channels.....

They could make 50 discrete channels and still not improve on the sound at all.

 

[RCA Dimensia]

I'm talking about more discrete channels not multiple speakers per channel

I'm not talking about adding a bunch of speakers. that would still be 5.1 duhhh. I'm talking about more channels.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

They could make 50 discrete channels and still not improve on the sound at all.

I'm not talking about adding a bunch of speakers. that would still be 5.1 duhhh. I'm talking about more channels.

Did I even mention the world SPEAKERS anywhere in my sentence?

I said DISCRETE CHANNELS.

They could make 50 discrete CHANNELS (NOT SPEAKERS) and still not improve on the sound.

 

[highfigh]

The problems with multi-channel recording starts with the fact that it's using a discreet number of samples and reproduction sources in an attempt to reproduce what was recorded in a way that's completely different from what we hear using two ears. Another issue is that the energy from a sound source and its reflections doesn't come from 5 places (or whatever number is chosen). Using the dispersion patterns from the speakers is great but it's still not completely accurate. Using more speakers will blur the lines between the direct/reflected sound locations but the next problem is in recording the original sounds with absolute coherence, relative to the placement of human ears. Microphones don't "hear" the same way we do, even if binaural recording is attempted. The human body resonates at certain frequencies- this, and what we hear directly, affects how we perceive the sound. Microphones can't do this the same way. Then, since microphones only cause current to flow in relation to the mechanical energy received, they don't/can't actually interpret it. Any electronic circuit made to emulate this interpretation is still just an approximation. The audio still needs to be split into whatever number of channels the engineers or producers desire and once human control is introduced, disagreement is a certainty.

Adding more channels adds a tremendous amount of complexity to everything else in the input through output chain and process.

 

[highfigh]

And, yes- the designation under our names changes with post count.

 

[pzaur]

Practicality. That's all that really matters in a home theater environment. What is practical? What isn't practical?

Besides, you don't need all those speakers when you can get room filling sound with two little cubes!

-pat

 

[mtrycrafts]

How was it hard to convert to 5.1? And as far as software capabilities it should be nothing at all. And wait; did the thing under my name just change? Does that just go by number of posts? I thought it said audiophyte or something like that before.

Let me see. Go out and find the compatible speakers. Replace components and wiring, setup properly, room compatibility and so it goes. I guess I was wrong in my assessment, it was an easy transition and cheap to boot.

 

[chris357]

what was the point of this thread? i mean in a wide range of rooms that people have there home theaters in ie living rooms family roms and such. I woudl think 5 speakers is planty to get an amazing surround effect. i had 7.1 for a while and went back to 5.1 since it didnt really improve on anything. I dont have this problem but I'm sure any man in a relationship woudl have a hard time selling 5 front speakers to his wife