Since it would only be for an extremely short distance is there any chance the FCC would authorize larger bandwith at low power for Drive-In theaters that wanted to broadcast 5.1 to car radios? The sound could be extremely good if the car had the right equipment and since it was low power it wouldn't interfere with other stations. Is this idea an old one? Once in hawaii I went to a Driv-In that did broadcast on the FM dial--but I didn't know if it was stero or not. The movie was Dune--and I fell asleep during it! Maybe i could have stayed awake with 5.1! Anyone out there know the state of the art when it comes to Drive-In broadcasting?

The problem: how many people going to drive-ins would have HD radios in their cars?

You can get a part 15 transmitter.... Ramsey electronics would be an example... 1w TPO is the fcc limit. so if you can get that 1w up about 100ft, you could potentially cover a fair distance.

As for 5.1 in the car, sure you could try and transmit it... means someone has to be able to decode it though... and there's no car radio that i know of that can decode 5.1 via FM Tuner... The expensive LCD systems can do 5.1 through the dvd player, and have PLII decoding... but you'd be hard pressed to find anything right now, that's not in a lab, that'll decode DD/DTS/5.1 etc... HD2 and Tomorrow Radio are supposed to be able to do it... i've seen an article of a station actually recording and transmitting a multi-channel stream via HD Radio, but i'm not sure how they decoded it.

As an aside, the transmitting equipment for 5.1 i'd think would be rather expensive... if only it was as easy as taking the output of a Dolby box, and plugging it into a digital transmitter... And to get something that's usable on the HD Radio designed by Ibiquity, well i just think it might be a long wait...

im confused ?

About what? FM was never ment to be more than a 2-channel system. Digital will change that seeing as it's just a datastream, meaning it might be possible to cram 5.1 down the pipe and decode it, but analog FM just cannot do it. (unless you can dig up some old quadraphonic gear, but there hasn't been a reciever made for it in over 15 years)

About what? FM was never ment to be more than a 2-channel system. Digital will change that seeing as it's just a datastream, meaning it might be possible to cram 5.1 down the pipe and decode it, but analog FM just cannot do it. (unless you can dig up some old quadraphonic gear, but there hasn't been a reciever made for it in over 15 years)


Ok, I admit, I'm a drive-in nut and I have thought about this issue for over a couple years. Yes, it would be nice to have DD 5.1 audio at the drive-in, however there are still many drive-ins that transmit FM audio only in mono. The ones that do broadcast in stereo sound really nice.

The cost to upgrade anything at a drive-in always has to be justified (just like any other business) and currently would not be worth the money to upgrade to the new HD radio. However, I think at first when drive-ins do start to "go digital" it could very well start out as a very nice stereo digital audio. In this case, I would hope that the car receivers would be built to decode Dolby Prologic II encoded audio for a very nice surround sound experience to be decoded in the car since it's already encoded into the movie soundtrack.

Sure, I would like the drive-ins to be able to deliver DD 5.1 digital audio and have the car receivers set up to play those audio signals correctly, however I strongly believe it's going to be many years before something like that becomes a reality.

I've got my fingers crossed though!!!

In any larger market, you'd be hard-pressed to find a vacant channel, much less a space with enough BW to put up a multi-channel digital signal.

When I went to drive-ins back in the 80's (I think the last movie I saw in a drive-in was "Red Dawn"), they just had a speaker in a metal box that you hung on your door window! But every theater in town still had just one monophonic speaker behind the screen playing the optical soundtrack. Movie sound wasn't a quite a big deal yet.

Last drive-in i went to had 5 screens, and FM ProLogic transmitters. Pretty slick... Thing that sucks now with drive ins is cars that have daytime running lights... Can't sit in the A/C anymore unless you pull a fuse, or cover the headlights with some sort of blanket.

or put your parking brake on... I'm sure that doesn't work for all makes though...

In any larger market, you'd be hard-pressed to find a vacant channel, much less a space with enough BW to put up a multi-channel digital signal.

I was not suggesting using more bandwidth than what's needed for the current space used for one channel. I was suggesting that there may be a way to broadcast a 5.1 signal in the space that's used for one channel on the FM dial.

Such a system is currently being used by Sirius.

http://investor.sirius.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=152532&cat=&newsroom=

Surrounded By Satellites: SIRIUS Introduces Satellite Radio's First Surround Sound Capabilities

New Feature Won't Require Any Additional Hardware for Consumers


A surround sound system is also being used by XM on 3 of their channels...

http://www.neuralsurround.com/
http://www.neuralaudio.com/041006_Neural_NeuStar4.html


Maybe one of us should contact the company that makes FM audio equipment for drive-ins and see if they can add such a feature....

I think, considering the number of people who attend drive in theaters, the economics don't make sense.

Bob Smith

I think, considering the number of people who attend drive in theaters, the economics don't make sense.

Bob Smith

I dont know how many drive-in theatres are left, but they certianly arnt anywhere near as common as walk-in theatres. The one I go to on occasions, they project some of the image off of the screen and onto the trees near the screen, and leave their large stadium style lights on, and announce at least a good hundred times that the snack bar will be closing in 5 minutes. Not to mention the people who keep their foot on the car brakes, and people like me who keep bumping into the 4-way flasher switch while moving around in the car.

The cheapest solution would be to use the same idea of hanging speaker boxes in your window, but rather have posts that you could drive up to and connect a coaxial/optical audio cable to. Though again, how many people actually have 5.1 in their cars?

With the number of stations in most markets, and the BW given over to HD Radio on them, I still don't think there would be room for anything else. If your theatre radio transmitter interfered with anyone in the neighborhood's reception of a licensed broadcaster, you'd have to shut it down.

Plus, if you found a vacant channel, some out-of-state broadcaster would file to build a station on it. They are called "rim shots", and they build in a small market and then use "boosters" and translators to put a signal in to the bigger city. Then, with 99 watts of power, they can claim the city on their ID. Sort of like the "Wizard of Oz".

With the number of stations in most markets, and the BW given over to HD Radio on them, I still don't think there would be room for anything else. If your theatre radio transmitter interfered with anyone in the neighborhood's reception of a licensed broadcaster, you'd have to shut it down.[/I]

I don't see that broadcasting over the radio as a digital signal would be a problem with any drive-in that currently uses the radio to broadcast the movie audio. The digital signal is broadcast in the same space (on top of) the anlage signal. The broadcast signal is so weak, that it does not interfere with the station that's using it.

The digital signal is broadcast in the same space (on top of) the anlage signal.

And how is this accomplished?...you've just solved all the bandwidth problems in the world.

;)

You can get a part 15 transmitter.... Ramsey electronics would be an example... 1w TPO is the fcc limit. so if you can get that 1w up about 100ft, you could potentially cover a fair distance.[QUOTE]

Um, no 1w is not legal and no Ramsey is not a decent brand. better brands include Panaxis, Broadcast Wherehouse and my personal favorite NRG.

1 watt will give you 1-mile radius with a decent J-Pole antenna or 1/4 wave stacked vertical antenna.

also if you want decent audio fidelity you will NOT want the Ramsey FM1 or FM25 models (and I think the fcc raided there offices last year and removed those models anyway), they use the BA1404 integrated FM transmitter on IC chip = cheap sound quality and horrd harmonic interference to nieghbors.

if you are going to use 1w and thus brake the law - you can do alot better that Ramsey, and offer a signal with little to no interference via anyone other than Ramsey.

Legal FM (if this is important to you - to some it is not, esp. with media consolidation ruining variety on the dial - but that subject is off topic and probably oen that will get me censored) via the FCC requirments is actually a field strength measurement of the signal 3-meter from the antenna. I forget the number, but in the real world this equates to less than the I-Pods you may have by a factor of 4 or so. Somewhere around 10-micro watts (1/100th of a watt) = such power will get you no more than 100 ft radius of decent strength signal.

If you live in a big city scan the dail, you may end up finding something low power and interesting programing you will never hear on a conglomate like CC/Sinclear/Citidel.

or better yet - tune out of/turn off crappy radio totally.

good luck with your drive-in.

if you like movies check into OTR.

And how is this accomplished?...you've just solved all the bandwidth problems in the world.

;)

I think there must be a mis-communication here. I'm talking about HD-Radio. The digital signal is carried on the analog signal. The FM signal sounds much like the quality of a CD and AM sounds a lot like FM.

The Drive-ins that currently broadcast over FM, might be able to upgrade their transmitter so that they could broadcast HD-Radio signals on the same station they currently use.

From http://www.avrev.com/news/1203/29.hdradio.html

Digital's HD Radio technology transmits digital audio and data alongside existing AM and FM analog signals, allowing listeners to enjoy “CD-quality” sound and virtually eliminating the static, hiss, and pops associated with today's terrestrial radio. The technology also provides a platform for integrated wireless data services that, combined with display screens on HD Radio-enabled receivers, will deliver listeners a variety of additional information such as song titles, artist names, traffic updates, weather forecasts, sports scores, and more.

Any car with a surround sound processer would be able to decode the surround sound encoded audio that's in the movie soundtrack. With a little bit more work, they might be able to set it up to deliver an encoded 5.1 signal from the projection booth.

I dont know how many drive-in theatres are left, but they certianly arnt anywhere near as common as walk-in theatres. The one I go to on occasions, they project some of the image off of the screen and onto the trees near the screen, and leave their large stadium style lights on, and announce at least a good hundred times that the snack bar will be closing in 5 minutes. Not to mention the people who keep their foot on the car brakes, and people like me who keep bumping into the 4-way flasher switch while moving around in the car.

The cheapest solution would be to use the same idea of hanging speaker boxes in your window, but rather have posts that you could drive up to and connect a coaxial/optical audio cable to. Though again, how many people actually have 5.1 in their cars?


What Drive-in are you talking about?

Here is a drive-in that is using digital sound. They are very proud of it.

http://www.boulevarddrivein.com/

This drive-in could take it to the extrem by taking the digital audio and broadcast it over HD-Radio.

Someone posed the question "how many people would have HD Radio?".
I pose the question "how many people have a 5.1 system in their car?". We're not all wealthy enough to own a BMW 5-series with the Harman speaker system.

I think there must be a mis-communication here. I'm talking about HD-Radio. The digital signal is carried on the analog signal.
You originally said it's "broadcast in the same space (on top of) the anlage[sic] signal." That's not true.

Digital's HD Radio technology transmits digital audio and data alongside existing AM and FM analog signals, allowing listeners to enjoy “CD-quality” sound and virtually eliminating the static, hiss, and pops associated with today's terrestrial radio.
Now "alongside" is more accurate. HD-radio uses significant bandwidth above and below the station's original analog bandwidth, potentially causing more interference to adjacent stations. That's why you can't put an HD-radio station on any empty space on the dial.

I wounder if the company that makes the radio equipment for the drive-ins if they could make HD-Radio audio for movie audio for the drive-ins?

Just think, movie soundtracks with digital stereo audio in your car!

The few remaining drive-ins are barely able to keep the lights on. 5.1 ain't gonna' be a priority, especially since there is NO gear available for it on the transmission or reception side of the equation.

The few remaining drive-ins are barely able to keep the lights on. 5.1 ain't gonna' be a priority, especially since there is NO gear available for it on the transmission or reception side of the equation.

Was I asking about 5.1 digital audio?

Stereo FM audio is already available for the drive-in, I don't think it would be too hard to set up HD-radio for the drive-in for simple stereo digital audio sound. For those who have a HD-radio receiver would simply get digital stereo movie sound in the car.

Since all if not most of the movie soundtracks have a matrix audio mix for surround sound, (in the stereo soundtrack) that info would be sent via the FM transmission. That goes for analog too. Thing is, not too many people have a surround sound processor in the car.

Still, digital audio stereo would be sweet at the drive-in and I don't think it would be too hard for the companies that sell the FM transmitters for the drive-ins to add HDradio audio.

FM has not "always meant just two channels". Of course for a long time it meant "just one". But in the 70s, many stations experimented with surround using the CBS SQ matrix (which led to Dolby Surround...a method of encoding four channels...left front, right front, center front, and surround for Dolby Surround, or with Quadraphonic music in SQ left front, right front, left rear, right rear). Matrix surround systems allow four or more channels to be encoded (in essense "shrunk") to fit onto a two channel medium like a phonograph record, fm stereo broadcast, or stereo optical soundtrack on movie film, then decoded back to the original four (or more) channels.

Neural Surround used on XM Satellite Radio (on a couple of channels) and used experimentally on HD Radio is also a matrix scheme that allows four or more channels to "pass through" two channel stereo gear (like audio consoles, compressors/limiters, transmitters, etc.) and then be decoded back into surround. This WOULD WORK with existing stereo transmitters, even Part 15 ones. The problem is there's no installed base of receivers, so why bother?

So then the questions being:

1. If it is possible to braodcast 5.1 surround on HD Radio. I have talked with iBiquity and Dolby Labs, and they are supposedly working on it. Using Pro Logic II you can get surround on HD Radio. . . but that, from what I am told, is not "True" surround sound.

2. If the drive-in's and consumers would be willing to upgrade. I can name 5 different models of auto amplifiers with built in Dolby and DTS decoders and 5.1 sound processing, then the customer need only add a center channel speaker to their dash. But drive-in's, with the cost of HD transmission gear in the $100K range I doubt that they would jump at the opportunity.

I also would like to see the drive-in's upgrade but would not be able to enjoy it as I don't know of any drive-in theaters in the area.

Matrix Dolby Surround is not discrete, but it certainly is "true" surround sound. Four (or five) channels in, matrixed to two, decoded back to four or five. Is there crosstalk between channels? You betcha. Just like phono cartridges. Are THEY "true" stereo? ;)

The problem with matrix surround systems like Dolby PLII is that you don't really get a true stereo image in the rear speakers (much worse than a phono cartridge!). For example there's no way to pan a sound between the rear speakers and have it convincingly move from one speaker to the other. It's still effective for creating ambient sounds that have no distinct source.

The Ibiquity document repeatedly suggests that all the extra channels you get in full digital mode should be used to enhance the main audio channels, so at least they have long-term plans for HD Radio broadcasting discrete channel surround.

What they might be able to consider is that there be a true broadcaster that they piggyback a multi-channel off of, and using conditional access would be able to limit who can listen.

This would make it feasable and not cost the equipment. Plus with broadcasting in HD at least you can get close to CD quality audio while they figure out how to broadcast full 5.1 digital using that medium.

Actually you CAN have surround between rear speakers, IF you give up a center channel. SQ matrix, a "quadraphonic system", could certainly allow pans between any pair of speakers. But again...you have to give up the front center.

I thought you can fake the center channel by just extracting whatever is in phase between the left and right channels (i.e. what's in the center of the stereo image).

You're always going to have compromises with matrix systems. I find it amazing they work at all!

I can't see it being worth it (surround broadcasting). So much non-car HD listening isn't even done on speakers. It's on headphones. Or if speakers are used, it's on the tiny speakers in table radios and shelf systems...usually just one or two (speakers). What percentage of listening is really on a high-end stereo?

Then consider the fact that 95 percent (being generous) of all recorded music is either mono or stereo. Surround mixes, when they exist, are often gimmicky "ping-pong" affairs. I don't know about you, but I don't want instruments whizzing around behind me. Forget real. That doesn't represent anything that even sounds plausible to me. Now the occasional effect from the rear, fine. But MUSIC belongs up front. When I hear instruments in the rear, it's startling (and I've been listening to surround for 35+ years). If they're well placed, I often involuntarily turn around to see why there's a cymbal or guitar back there. Would you really EVER sit at a live performance and turn your back on some of the performers? This type of panning was tried in the early days of quad (the 70s), and quickly rejected for what it is. JUST A GIMMICK. So remove, say 80 percent of surround recordings from consideration because they just sound gimmicky, and DO NOT serve the music. What's left? Not enough for a radio format (IMHO).

The occasional live concert in surround? Now that's something different! Band up front, audience and reverb/ambience all around.

I can't see it being worth it (surround broadcasting). So much non-car HD listening isn't even done on speakers. It's on headphones. Or if speakers are used, it's on the tiny speakers in table radios and shelf systems...usually just one or two (speakers). What percentage of listening is really on a high-end stereo?

Then consider the fact that 95 percent (being generous) of all recorded music is either mono or stereo. Surround mixes, when they exist, are often gimmicky "ping-pong" affairs. I don't know about you, but I don't want instruments whizzing around behind me. Forget real. That doesn't represent anything that even sounds plausible to me. Now the occasional effect from the rear, fine. But MUSIC belongs up front. When I hear instruments in the rear, it's startling (and I've been listening to surround for 35+ years). If they're well placed, I often involuntarily turn around to see why there's a cymbal or guitar back there. Would you really EVER sit at a live performance and turn your back on some of the performers? This type of panning was tried in the early days of quad (the 70s), and quickly rejected for what it is. JUST A GIMMICK. So remove, say 80 percent of surround recordings from consideration because they just sound gimmicky, and DO NOT serve the music. What's left? Not enough for a radio format (IMHO).

The occasional live concert in surround? Now that's something different! Band up front, audience and reverb/ambience all around.

Well, I don't believe that we are discussing this for Music, but for Movie Audio. I agree, when I listen on my surround system I don't want surround effect, I want all speakers to puch same audio. . .

But for movies. . . Surround sound is imparative! I remember watching We Were Soldiers in surround properly set, and MAN did it bring back some feelings I havn't felt in a while!

You're right Master, I got off topic (talking music, not movies). Shame on me! BAD Mikey!

I can't see it being worth it (surround broadcasting). So much non-car HD listening isn't even done on speakers. It's on headphones. Or if speakers are used, it's on the tiny speakers in table radios and shelf systems...usually just one or two (speakers). What percentage of listening is really on a high-end stereo?
Maybe we should start a HD surround sound topic.

Yes, right now most listening is done on crummy equipment, but HDTV has really kicked the "home theater" market into high gear. More and more people are filling their living rooms with speakers and expecting to hear some kind of surround sound all the time -- two channel stereo sounds terrible. It's not hard for me to imagine that in the near future a lot of people will turn on the radio and hear surround-sound songs that jump right out of their speakers while the boring stereo songs sound old and tired. All recent concert DVDs I've seen have had 5.1 sound. Why would they bother if stereo is good enough?

Remember: consumer electronics is about developing new stuff that's better than the stuff we have now so people will want to buy the new stuff.

It's just that this home theater revolution has kicked in after BOTH surround formats have tried, and failed in the marketplace, without making a tiny dent. People just don't care about surround music. Not only that, most people I know with HDTVs don't even have a setup with good stereo speakers, let alone surround.

At my house it's the opposite. I have a great sound system (surround, but I seldom listen that way, because that's not how most music is recorded), but an analog tv. My wife won't let me buy an HDTV until one of our old sets dies. Any advice on how to speed up their demise? ;)

It's just that this home theater revolution has kicked in after BOTH surround formats have tried, and failed in the marketplace, without making a tiny dent. People just don't care about surround music.
They didn't want to invest into all that equipment just for music. Now it's a side benefit of having a good home theater system so there will be more interest.

Not only that, most people I know with HDTVs don't even have a setup with good stereo speakers, let alone surround.
Everyone I know who has upgraded to HDTV has a very elaborate sound system (who really needs 7.1 sound?) so I don't know what our anecdotal experiences can say. After a year or two hearing awesome systems at other people's houses, I had to get a subwoofer and now I finally feel like I have a half-decent system. I'm still using a pair of speakers I made in junior high but with brand new drivers (the old ones were literally crumbling).

At my house it's the opposite. I have a great sound system (surround, but I seldom listen that way, because that's not how most music is recorded), but an analog tv. My wife won't let me buy an HDTV until one of our old sets dies. Any advice on how to speed up their demise? ;)
I can tell you exactly what to do cuz it worked for me: get a cat. Cats like to sleep on top of warm things like TV sets. Eventually they'll barf and *poof* it's time for a new TV set. I didn't even know HDTV existed until I started shopping for a new TV set.

He's now sleeping on top of my ten year old 19" computer monitor so I think the clock is running out on that thing too.

LOL, thanks for the advice.

The people I'm talking about with HDTVs are non videophiles. Two of my brothers-in-law. Both have BIG freakin' rear projection DLP sets (60" Zenith models). Neither bothered to do anthing about SOUND. Both also have the aspect ratio screwed up so everything is stretched to look like a fun-house mirror. ARRRGH! I'm tired of having to say "sure, it looks great" when people ask me what I think of their new widescreen HDTV, rather than "SUPERMODELS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE TEN FEET WIDE, that's a funhouse mirror, not a tv! Set it up right, then we'll talk". But that's another problem.

Unfortunately my cat is almost 21 years old (no kidding). If I sat her on the tv, she'd fall off and break something. Time to head to the humane society's animal shelter! ;)

Mike- what the... that's 21 in human years, right? (soo 80's :) )

[As a baby, I puked all over the back of our old TV and it worked just fine when we sold it 10 years later.]

Get a Nintendo Wii. Wing the controller around wildly for hours each day. Sooner or later, the wrist strap should break and the controller will slip out of your hand and into the TV. The process of wearing down the wrist strap may be accelerated by the use of: A) a utility knife. B) Not wearing it)

Note: wearing full eye and face protection and a bullet proof vest or a pair of Carharts is advisable in the event that your TV actually does implode. (This might give away your intentions to your wife)

(there were actually some defective straps that broke and people who accidentally threw the controller into their TV)

All the people I know who have HDTV are geeks (which make up a large percentage of the population around these parts). They all have elaborate sound systems. Many of them did before they got HDTV. They spend lots of money on this stuff. Obviously complicated 5.1 sound systems aren't being made for for non videophiles but then they don't make motorcycles for people who drive cars, do they?

Unfortunately I only have one surround sound CD (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jjftxqe0ldhe) but it sounds great. It's a total "in the audience" experience, far better than regular two channel stereo. I don't think it would make any difference for the wall-of-guitars punk that I listen to but I think it would add some punch and novelty to a lot of popular music.

"add some punch and novelty to a lot of popular music"

Everybody I know who is even remotely into music has an iPod (or other PMP), a pair of crappy ear buds and a boombox. (with the exception of one guy who snagged an old RCA HTB and rigged it up in his room. Even so, it's either connected to his iPod or FM radio.).

Of all the people I know who have an HT system, NONE (zero, zilch) have DVD-A or SACD playback capability. (much less a turntable or EVEN a tape deck).

Other than DualDisc, surround sound audio formats will be reserved for audiophiles. Period.

"add some punch and novelty to a lot of popular music"

Everybody I know who is even remotely into music has an iPod (or other PMP), a pair of crappy ear buds and a boombox. (with the exception of one guy who snagged an old RCA HTB and rigged it up in his room. Even so, it's either connected to his iPod or FM radio.).
Yeah, I have those things too along with my good equipment. Well, not an iPod but a nice MP3 player.

Of all the people I know who have an HT system, NONE (zero, zilch) have DVD-A or SACD playback capability. (much less a turntable or EVEN a tape deck).
I might. How do I check? I've never bought any music that's in those formats as far as I know. From what I've heard, it's damn hard to tell the difference between these and regular CDs. It's trivial to tell the difference between a stereo recording and a 5.1 channel recording.

I have a turntable that I haven't used in ten years and a tape deck that broke about seven years ago (no need to replace it).

Other than DualDisc, surround sound audio formats will be reserved for audiophiles. Period.
Yeah, what's wrong with that? They can still make money off of it since audiophiles are more than willing to spend extra bucks for extra sound. Remember the expensive half-speed mastered LPs (http://home.netcom.com/~zmoq/pages/halfsped.htm) back in the 70's and 80's? Mobile Fidelity did a lot of business filling a small percentage of the market who wanted maximum sound quality from their favorite records. I don't think those people are gone; it's just that difference between a Mobile Fidelity record and a store-bought record back then was very apparent. The difference between a CD and the super formats isn't as obvious, at least from what I've read.

I won't buy a DVD player unless it has optical, and component connections. . . I won't buy a computer mother board or sound card unless it has digital outputs. Even my computer is hooked up to 5.1 surround sound speakers!! Nothing like a 7 year old girl crying behind me while playing F.E.A.R., or the sound of an M16A4 Rifle during BF2. (Computer games).

Problem. . . 9 of 10 people I know use their TV sound while watching a DVD. And the one that does have a system agrees that my Yamaha and speaker set sounds better than his Harmon Kardon system and speakers. . . People don't know. . .they guess.

I remember one time I hooked up 2 speakers inside the headrest of my couches to provide surround sound. . . I have been hooked since. I like to feel the sound in my head.

A better way to look at this: more people are using properly configured surround systems than ever before and the cost of these systems has dropped a lot over the past few years. I don't see any reason why more people won't be getting them.

Back in college I was the terror of the dorm because I had a system that put out a little over 100 watts per channel. One piece of expensive equipment back then! For couple hundred year-2005 dollars, I bought a 5.1 system that puts out a hundred watts per channel.

Thanks for the tip Matt. I'd forgotten about people smashing their tvs with those controllers ;)

Yes, my cat is 21 in "human years" ;)

I've enjoyed reading the comments about HD Drive-in radio audio. I think the most relevant post was the fact that to add HD audio to the existing FM signal (at the drive-in) would cost $100,000.

I agree that most (99.9%) drive-ins would not spend that much for upgraded audio.

Even if someone did not have a surround sound processor in the car, just the fact that they would be able to receive almost CD quality type stereo audio for the movie soundtrack at a drive-in would be a HUGE impact of the over all movie experience at the drive-in.

Here's a fact just in case no one knows, many of the drive-ins that have FM audio is only broadcast in mono. Not only that, the noise level of most drive-in FM audio is much louder then say a high powered near by or distant radio station.

The FCC approved broadcast of FM movie sound for the drive-in some time ago, however it's at a much lower power, so the audio signal will not travel much past the drive-in itself. I think this is why the FM audio is kind of noisy.

A digital transmission would clean that right up! It would also be in stereo and for those who have a surround sound processor in their car would benefit via the surround sound audio track that's built into the stereo soundtracks of most movies today.

From what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some newer cars will have radios with HD reception equipment built right in. So it's just a matter of the equipment makers of HD radio equipment to get their prices down to a point where it can be a real option for drive-in movie theaters.

For the person who mentioned they did not have a drive-in near by, I'm very sorry to hear that. Living in Scottsdale, I have one near by with 6 screens. There's another a bit further away with 9 screens.

Pop your zip code here http://www.drive-ins.com/ and you might find one close to you. If not, you might find an image and or info about a drive-in you used to visit.

YYeah, what's wrong with that? They can still make money off of it since audiophiles are more than willing to spend extra bucks for extra sound. Remember the expensive half-speed mastered LPs (http://home.netcom.com/~zmoq/pages/halfsped.htm) back in the 70's and 80's? Mobile Fidelity did a lot of business filling a small percentage of the market who wanted maximum sound quality from their favorite records. I don't think those people are gone; it's just that difference between a Mobile Fidelity record and a store-bought record back then was very apparent. The difference between a CD and the super formats isn't as obvious, at least from what I've read.
Of course they (we) are not gone (http://www.musicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=LDP82136)…

Scowl says more people are using properly configured surround systems than ever before. And he's properly right. Before there were eleven (people on Earth with properly configured systems). Now there are at least twelve.

I've played with surround for more than 35 years, and I find that as time goes on I become less and less enthralled by it's charms. But as for "properly configured", the surround sound systems that acrually ARE "properly configured" must be about one out of a thousand. More often the surrounds are 20db louder than the front, the speakers are mis-matched, and one or more (speakers) rests behind a sofa, or under a coffee table. This is (sadly) the real world.

IMHO, the most realistic technology for music reproduction is BINAURAL...two microphones in a dummy head, spaced the same as human ears. It actually creates a realistc soundfield, including HEIGHT, unlike the limited, "grounded" soundfield of speaker surround. There are even computer programs that can "binauralize" instruments recorded on individual (mono) tracks during mixdown, as with most rock recordings. If we're going to have two mixes of music, how about a stereo (for speakers) mix, and a binaural (for headphones) mix?

Binaural not only sounds more realistic than surround, IT REQUIRES NO NEW EQUIPMENT (beyond a good set of headphones), and is completely portable. You can take your "3D" music with you, while your surround rig remains at home in the tv room.

My 2 cents worth, yours for free.

It's true. Few people actually know how to set up the darn things.

Most people put the left, center and right close together, then throw the surrounds where ever seems convenient, and tend to put them in the back somewhere (their supposed to go on the sides to mid-back). Then the surrounds are too loud, most people have no clue about matrix decoding (and thus don't use it), and the speakers in most systems just suck.

But, yea... it still beats TV speakers, and that's all that matters to Joe Sixpack.

Scowl says more people are using properly configured surround systems than ever before. And he's properly right. Before there were eleven (people on Earth with properly configured systems). Now there are at least twelve.
Not around here. I have more geek friends with surround sound systems than HDTVs (since they watch DVDs and want 5.1 sound). I'm a loser because I'm still using a 5.1 system instead of a 7.1 system!

But as for "properly configured", the surround sound systems that acrually ARE "properly configured" must be about one out of a thousand. More often the surrounds are 20db louder than the front, the speakers are mis-matched, and one or more (speakers) rests behind a sofa, or under a coffee table. This is (sadly) the real world.
So? They were set up wrong. What does that prove? That some people can't read a manual?

This is actually one of the few things my receiver manual explained properly. It had a good section on speaker placement and how to adjust the levels (it has a white noise test mode for this). And I can't get the surrounds 20db louder. The receiver will only let you increase them by 12db. The manual simply says if that isn't loud enough, your speaker placement needs to be adjusted.

IMHO, the most realistic technology for music reproduction is BINAURAL...two microphones in a dummy head, spaced the same as human ears.
Great if you're one person sitting in the "sweet spot" between the speakers and expect all sound to come directly in front of you. If you have a dozen people over to watch a concert, most people will be hearing near mono sound.

Also 5.1 receivers allow you to adjust your system to the room it's in and where you place the speakers and what kind of speakers you have. I've heard remarkably small 5.1 systems sound incredible.

Binaural not only sounds more realistic than surround, IT REQUIRES NO NEW EQUIPMENT (beyond a good set of headphones), and is completely portable.
Or a good set of headphones for every person in the room. We don't all listen to music by ourselves.

What it proves (if most people have equipment that's configured improperly) is that most people have no idea what good surround sounds like.

You ask "what about other people in the room"? I never suggested mixing only in binaural. Note I suggested TWO mixes...one for binaural, and one for two channel stereo. That should satisfy the needs of everyone but your geek friends (and mine). They're such a small minority that frankly it doesn't matter. Have them choose something like "Dolby Pro Logic II", and most of 'em will never be able to tell the difference anyway.

"Surround music" is a solution in search of a problem. That's MY opinion. Your mileage may vary. I have just tired of surround. It CAN sound "spectacular", but I'll be damned if it ever (or very often) sounds REAL, or even plausible TO ME, for MUSIC. Binaural does. Besides, as the Ipod has demonstrated, these days listening to music is mostly a solitary activity. Which is why binaural makes more sense than ever!

What it proves (if most people have equipment that's configured improperly) is that most people have no idea what good surround sounds like.
It also proves that once people hear good surround, they'll know how to set it up properly. I heard good surround sound and I wanted it. My two speakers suddenly sounded like, well, two speakers.

You ask "what about other people in the room"? I never suggested mixing only in binaural. Note I suggested TWO mixes...one for binaural, and one for two channel stereo. That should satisfy the needs of everyone but your geek friends (and mine).
Stereo sounds terrible if you're sitting too close to a speaker. It sounds good if you sit exactly here. And keep your head perfectly rigid too.

They're such a small minority that frankly it doesn't matter. Have them choose something like "Dolby Pro Logic II", and most of 'em will never be able to tell the difference anyway.
Look, if we always designed things for the common denominator in society, we'd still be listening to AM radio which people were perfectly happy with for decades while that confusing FM radio was dying. Eventually people figured out how this new "stereo" thing worked and now it's standard.

The bottom line is that more people have proper surround sound systems than ever before, maybe not in your circles but absolutely certainly in mine (the people who buy this stuff). This trend will continue. It's foolish to pretend everyone is too stupid to read a manual on where to put their speakers.

"Surround music" is a solution in search of a problem. That's MY opinion.
FM radio was also a solution in search of a problem (as is HD Radio). No one needed personal computers yet now almost everyone has one, even dumb people. Color television took twenty years before half the people to get one.

The list goes on and on and on. Never assume things will always be the way they are now.

I have just tired of surround. It CAN sound "spectacular", but I'll be damned if it ever (or very often) sounds REAL, or even plausible TO ME, for MUSIC.
That's just a problem they have to solve. As the owner of exactly one surround sound CD, I can't generalize over every surround sound recording ever made, but damn if they could make them sound like this one, I'd be totally hooked.

Besides, as the Ipod has demonstrated, these days listening to music is mostly a solitary activity. Which is why binaural makes more sense than ever!
Again, you're making a generalization based on the lowest common denominator. Did you know that there are more car stereos than iPods?