Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1?? - Page 4 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:23 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look, I don't really have a dog in this fight so to speak, or, you could say that I actually have three of them in it covering all sides, as I have 5, 6, and 7 speaker surround systems.

7.1 is not night and day dramatically better than 6.1, and I damned for sure have never noticed the "reversal" theory.

Do you guys really think you will get that "reversal" from rear center speakers such as these for example:

http://www.revelspeakers.com/product...view.asp?ID=22

http://www.bostonacoustics.com/home_...product_id=182

The Revel actually has speaker wire input for both sides with a jumper (just like bi-ampable/bi-wireable towers) which can be removed, and a single rear S12 can actually be used as both rear speakers in a 7.1 set up.
mark russ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:25 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Many people. The kinds of people who are unknowing enough to go for a 6.1 array in the first place.

I guess that includes all (or at least most) of the engineers at companies like NAD, Cambridge Audio, Vincent Audio, etc. who make 6.1 AVRs, and companies like Boston Acoustics who made a speaker specifically for rear 6.1 systems.
mark russ is offline  
post #93 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:28 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Look in the owner's manuals of virtually ANY AVR/pre-pro and/or speaker, and you will find that virtually all of them recommend it, NAD, Cambridge Audio, NHT, Revel, Boston Acoustics, etc., etc., etc. In fact, I challenge you to find me even 5 companies that actually make components that advise against using it 6.1.

What do you think the brands who make 6 channel AVRs or power amps have to say about it, don't use and buy this product because you will experience a reversal phenomenon?

No they most certainly do not. The major pioneers of surround sound have never advocated for 6.1 speaker arrays.

This really is a quite pointless thread, we have like 2 or 3 naysayers with their hands clasped across their eyes and ears screaming "I don't believe the science of auditory localization" and "I don't hear the effect in my system therefore it can't happen." On the other side we have decades of history with surround sound systems and an even longer history of studies of human auditory localization. Sanjay deserves a great deal of credit for spending time actually bothering to discuss this issue.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #94 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:30 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

I guess that includes all (or at least most) of the engineers at companies like NAD, Cambridge Audio, Vincent Audio, etc. who make 6.1 AVRs, and companies like Boston Acoustics who made a speaker specifically for rear 6.1 systems.

NO, but they don't advocate actually using a 6.1 array. I've used 6.1 processors myself, but never with a 6.1 array of speakers. 7.1 array has ALWAYS been the recommendation, you will NEVER find a Dolby diagram or ITU diagram using a single rear speaker on-axis behind the listening position, because it is a notoriously difficult direction for our brain to localize properly. Instead, it is better to have a speaker slightly off-axis, but then you have an asymmetrical array, thus using two speakers to the rear.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #95 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:32 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Look, I don't really have a dog in this fight so to speak, or, you could say that I actually have three of them in it covering all sides, as I have 5, 6, and 7 speaker surround systems.

7.1 is not night and day dramatically better than 6.1, and I damned for sure have never noticed the "reversal" theory.

Do you guys really think you will get that "reversal" from rear center speakers such as these for example:

http://www.revelspeakers.com/product...view.asp?ID=22

http://www.bostonacoustics.com/home_...product_id=182

The Revel actually has speaker wire input for both sides with a jumper (just like bi-ampable/bi-wireable towers) which can be removed, and a single rear S12 can actually be used as both rear speakers in a 7.1 set up.

Those are bipole speakers which disperse sound out a great deal and whose purpose is to minimize localization and increase ambiance. As such, you don't have a point source on-axis behind your head. As such, you are likely able to localize that kind of speaker properly behhind you even if it were on-axis.

It seems that you are not listening or following this thread very closely, because those qualifiers have been stated repeatedly, and apparently ignored by yourself.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #96 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:34 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

THX's current Ultra2 spec contradicts their own recommendation from a couple of years ago.

The do you realize that you have just admitted that previous held stances, by the very same parties nonetheless, can and will change over time?
mark russ is offline  
post #97 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:38 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Those are bipole speakers which disperse sound out a great deal and whose purpose is to minimize localization and increase ambiance. As such, you don't have a point source on-axis behind your head. As such, you are likely able to localize that kind of speaker properly behhind you even if it were on-axis.

It seems that you are not listening or following this thread very closely, because those qualifiers have been stated repeatedly, and apparently ignored by yourself.

Funny, but I thought that was the whole main point of the argument against 6.1 layouts in the first place, but, in your very own words:

Quote:


It seems that you are not listening or following this thread very closely, because those qualifiers have been stated repeatedly, and apparently ignored by yourself.

It sounds to me like you have just ran up the white flag without even realizing it.
mark russ is offline  
post #98 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:43 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey John, what do you think these boys would say about a 6.2 (or even better yet, a 6.6) surround system with Xds?
mark russ is offline  
post #99 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:55 PM
 
nerdyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look, I think we can all agree that this guy has it right:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=796992

;-)
nerdyone is offline  
post #100 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Hey John, what do you think these boys would say about a 6.2 (or even better yet, a 6.6) surround system with Xds?

I guess, contrary to my auditioning, that it sucks

BTW, I'm not a proponent of 6.1 OVER 7.1 as much as pointing out that there's nothing wrong with it.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #101 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:58 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

NO, but they don't advocate actually using a 6.1 array.

I almost missed these.

So you are you saying that, with the CA Azur 540R AVR,

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets...sersManual.pdf

for example, they are actually advocating to NOT use the 6th amplifier channel and 6.1 processing modes they put in it, and only to stick with 5.1?
mark russ is offline  
post #102 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 12:58 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I'm glad to see this thread has grown so childish. Exactly what I would expect to see from audio professionals: uninformed and immature conjecture to the contrary of basic established auditory science.

edit: I also see that a certain user has some serious problems with english comprehension. How many more times do I have to distinguish the difference between processing capabilities and the playback array?
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #103 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 01:04 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I guess, contrary to my auditioning, that it sucks

BTW, I'm not a proponent of 6.1 OVER 7.1 as much as pointing out that there's nothing wrong with it.

Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

6.1 has more precise steering. You should know that already. It mimics how we perceive sound, just like the PL circuit does for the center. 7.1 is doing something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I've found such arrays to be less distinct, less precise, less involving. My point with 7.1 is that it is improperly derived. Sides should be derived, not the backs. You don't properly derive two extra channels from two existing ones. You derive them from four. Otherwise, you're just throwing stuff around for the most part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Sanjay, do you understand why 6.1 processing is more accurate and precise than 7.1? That, to me, overrides concerns about the theoretical reversals I've never experienced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

7.1 as a processing algorithm is more flawed, IMO, than 6.1 processing and I'd rather have ideally setup 6.1 than an ideally setup 7.1.

ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #104 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 01:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,245
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1707 Post(s)
Liked: 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

So, if I have this correct Sanjay, you have only "read" about it.

You don't have it correct. I have experienced it, and not just with surround set-ups. Science backs up what I've heard and explains why I heard it. Your experience has to be accepted on faith, since you have zero (absolutely nothing) to support your claims.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #105 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 01:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,245
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1707 Post(s)
Liked: 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

The do you realize that you have just admitted that previous held stances, by the very same parties nonetheless, can and will change over time?

Of course. Why, do you have anything to show that research on the reversal phenomenon has been overturned? If so, point it out. If not, what's your point?

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #106 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 01:11 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I'm glad to see this thread has grown so childish. Exactly what I would expect to see from audio professionals: uninformed and immature conjecture to the contrary of basic established auditory science.

edit: I also see that a certain user has some serious problems with english comprehension. How many more times do I have to distinguish the difference between processing capabilities and the playback array?

And I see that one has some serious trouble comprehending that the processing capability IS the playback array on that specific AVR which was used as an example for the question (a question which, BTW, was very conveniently avoided entirely).
mark russ is offline  
post #107 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 01:15 PM
 
mark russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Of course. Why, do you have anything to show that research on the reversal phenomenon has been overturned? If so, point it out. If not, what's your point?

Sanjay

And do you have any to show that bigfoot and/or Nessy don't actually exist? If so, point it out. If not, what's your point?

See, we are right back to square one once again.
mark russ is offline  
post #108 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 02:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

And do you have any to show that bigfoot and/or Nessy don't actually exist? If so, point it out. If not, what's your point?

See, we are right back to square one once again.

So lets get this straight, you are equating the studies and experiences on the reversal issue to studies done on the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, and that is your claim as to why it doesn't exist?

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #109 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,245
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1707 Post(s)
Liked: 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Much like the "evidence" which you have produced has under actual listener experiences?

No. Those "actual listener experiences" are nothing more than you saying that you didn't hear it; completely anecdotal. The references I posted are well researched, peer reviewed, published for scrutiny and repeated by other scientists for verification.

Your whole argument hinges on the belief that reversals can't exist if you haven't heard them. Reality doesn't need validation from your senses in order to exist.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #110 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Really?

7.1 is more surrounding and more spacious. However, if I were going for precise, accurate performance, especially for a couple of people, I'd do 6.1. And there are rooms where 6.1 will work better than 7.1 and vice versa.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #111 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 02:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Your whole argument hinges on the belief that reversals can't exist if you haven't heard them. Reality doesn't need validation from your senses in order to exist.

Under what exact conditions were they created? With speakers? What speakers? Human voice? Random sounds? Anechoic chamber? What acoustics?

I can't repeat a front/rear reversal. How do I do it?

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #112 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Many people. The kinds of people who are unknowing enough to go for a 6.1 array in the first place.

I'm talking specifically a narrow dispersion speaker. It would have to be pretty narrow, however, to create this reversal, IMO.
Quote:



REGARDLESS of whether or not there is 7.1 processing, EVEN in a 6.1 only system, a 7.1 array is preferred for the reasons Sanjay has already explained quite well, and is covered in the literature.

I disagree. It's better to have 6.1 played on 6.1 speakers, properly setup (which most people don't do). If you can't, well, maybe 7.1. But if you setup 6.1 on 7.1 speakers, then you wouldn't necessarily want to put the surround speakers beside you either.
Quote:



You think you could, but you can't. They have never advocated using a 6.1 array. It's always been a 7.1 array, even in a 6.1 environment, and it's to prevent the reversal effect from becoming a concern.

You seem to think everyone believed in front/rear reversals from the beginning. Revisionist history. Lexicon pushed it when just about everyone else was, in fact, recommending 6.1 speakers.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #113 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 03:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,432
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Under what exact conditions were they created? With speakers? What speakers? Human voice? Random sounds? Anechoic chamber? What acoustics?

I can't repeat a front/rear reversal. How do I do it?

Perceptual recalibration in human sound localization: Learning to remediate front-back reversals
It's not the entire article; just the abstract, but you can get the idea. Also, it's recent, July 2006.

Here is an interesting discussion with Tomlinson Holman about multi-channel speaker placement. The subject of front-back reversal is discussed.

ADSP is a company used by NASA to evaluate "spatial auditory displays for high-stress human interfaces". They are trying to reduce front-back reversal and other spatial errors in these interfaces.

In his book, "3-D Audio Using Loudespeakers", William Gardner documents the front-back, (and back-front) reversal phenomenon using human subjects with headphones and loudspeakers.

I found all these by doing a Google search. My point is that front-back reversal is a well-known and well-documented phenomenon. However, it's actual impact in a Home Theater environment is less well understood.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #114 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 05:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So, it sounds like it happens to people who aren't very good processors of audio data, aka poor listeners! And to people who are listening in anechoic chambers and don't ever move their head. Oh well....

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #115 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 05:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Personal experience doesn't back up claims? The invitation to come prove me wrong isnt good enough?
Now, not only am I superhuman, I also must have beamed to a different planet than you Sanjay, because on my planet, what I see, and what I hear, is what I believe to be true. And I think also that the sky is blue, but that could only be because I was told it was blue at an early age, who knows? There must be science that proves that wrong as well somewhere, that it really isnt blue, but that is how we percieve it to be, which is just fine with me, because you wont change my mind on that either.
davidpa is offline  
post #116 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 05:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Audio miscues happen all the time in stereo and surround systems, but only front/back reversals seem to cause any alarm for some reason. For instance, I hear a guy playing two triangles on a customer's speakers. One comes from 15 degrees to the left of center. The other sounds like it's coming almost from the left of me. That is a miscue. People just need to pay attention to their *actual* room and *actual* setup and stop worrying about theory and what "might" happen under "some" conditions "sometime".

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #117 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 08:25 PM
Member
 
jayjonbeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Here is an interesting discussion with Tomlinson Holman about multi-channel speaker placement. The subject of front-back reversal is discussed.

Craig

Quoted from article above " Reversal issues are a major reason why home 7.1 speaker setups recommended by THX, Dolby, and DTS all utilize dual rear speakers for their matrix-extracted mono rear channel. (Manufacturers of surround processors with proprietary decoding such as Lexicon and Meridian also utilize 7.1 speaker setups ".

Seems to me someone said something very close to this on page 1 or 2, .....and 3.....and 4......

Thanks Craig, now we can all go back to actually watching movies It was fun and interesting while it lasted though....

Tosh 62hm196-1080P

62" 1080P = Just like being there - Now experiencing TV for the first time
jayjonbeach is offline  
post #118 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 08:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't recall DTS ever recommending 7.1 for 6.1 material, or even Dolby, at least in the beginning.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #119 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 09:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,245
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1707 Post(s)
Liked: 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

Personal experience doesn't back up claims?

If it did, there would be no need for things like blind testing, third-party verification, controlled experiments, peer review, independent repeatability, etc. We'd simply be accepting what people said on faith. Can't hear a 20kHz tone? Then personal experience backs up the claim that sound must not exist at that frequency.
Quote:
...you wont change my mind on that either.

Who's trying to change your mind? About anything. Again, it's not all about you.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #120 of 385 Old 06-22-2007, 10:06 PM
Senior Member
 
tanaka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dover, PA.
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
See I told you, a complete waiste...
tanaka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off