AVS Forum banner

How many speakers do you think are needed for home surround sound?

  • 5.1 - L,C,R,LS,RS - SUB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7.1 - L,C,R,LS,RS,LR,RR - SUB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9.1 - L,C,R,LS1,RS1,LS2,RS2,LR,RR - SUB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11.1 - L,C,R,LW,RW,LH,RH,LS,RS,LR,RR - SUB

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Surround Sound - How many speakers needed?

98K views 514 replies 231 participants last post by  m. zillch 
#1 ·
POLL ON SURROUND SOUND FOR AVS FORUM MEMBERS....


In regards to surround sound, we have heard rumors that 11.1 seems to be the new number coming down the pipe by years end. As such we wanted to ask the AVS Forum members, how many speakers do you think really is needed in the home for surround sound?


As it is now, we have 7.1 that covers Left (L), Center (C), Right (R), Left Surround (LS), Right Surround (RS), Left Rear (LR) and Right Rear (RR), SUB. The 4 extra channels would add, from what we understand, Left Front Wide (LW), Right Front Wide (RW), Left Front Height (LH), and Right Front Height (RH).


Please be so kind to vote in the poll and feel free to leave your thoughts and comments on the topic of how many speakers you think are needed in home surround sound. (We know configurations can be differnt for differnt people. Thus is a general poll on set # of speakers/channels on how many YOU think are needed.)

.
 
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by spivonious /forum/post/18779470


If you can locate the bass frequencies, either they're too loud or the crossover is set too high.

I disagree. I have 5 channels, and no subwoofer. My Vandersteens go very low. When I play low frequency test signals, I have no trouble at all telling where they come from. It is midrange that I cannot localize. When the midrange goes from speaker to speaker with a test signal, I can never tell which speaker it is coming from. Being 61, and male, my high frequency hearing is pretty much gone. Low frequency, on the other hand, I can detect its direction, even if it is a whisper, and combined with other frequencies. I hate mono subwoofers. They should at least be stereo. I guess I want 7.2...
 
#104 ·
Until I get a new home with a room that has extra room behind the sofa, 5.1 or 6.1 will have to suffice.


At that point, 7.1 does quite nicely.


As big a WAF issue as all the speakers, however, is all the wiring. Wires everywhere! There really needs to be some sort of wireless distribution setup that actually does a good job of carrying lossless signal through the air. Or speaker cables that could be mistaken for monofilament fishing line...
 
#105 ·
I voted for 7.1 since that is what I think is the minimum needed for really good surround sound. However, a others have said, it really depends on the room size and shape and the source content. The other big drawback is the lack of 7.1 encoded audio on most BD discs. The added synthesized audio channels, for 7.1, is only a band-aid.


Personally, I think that a 9.2 system would be the minimum desired system (with 4 side surround speakers and 2 subs). The larger the room, the more channels would be desired (including subs). However, until full 7.1 channel source material becomes the norm, going beyond 7.1 seems to be a waste. Getting better quality speakers for each channel would be a better allocation of funds.
 
#107 ·
The 11.1 option should include the Yamaha solution with rear high/presence instead of front wide. I'm using all 11.1 channels in my Z11 with two subs, an additional center above the screen and another 4 speakers as additional rears high up on the side walls. 16 speakers and two subs make me very happy in the 'sound bubble' they create.


Cheers

Tom
 
#108 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGigaShadow /forum/post/18782267

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php


Choose the type of audio you are looking for and then click Filter.

Yep Super Kewl Thanks!


Yep we have seen about 25 of those.


What is so funny is that some of the worst movies in the world are on there; like "Witless Protection" and there are several good ones like "3:10 to Yuma"


Oh wow, just spent some time reading the "stats" at the bottom of the page..............only 165 BD Disc in 7.1 sound...........lots of information in the "stats" section. It would be nice if that went to thousands within a year?
 
#109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtvpioneer533H /forum/post/18782394


Er. I mis-typed. Sorry. I meant 7.1.

And actually I have a 7.4 with 4 subs in inner third, aligned at front and rear of room.


David

This would still be considered a 7.1 system since there is only 1 discrete LFE channel. I am also running 4 subs and dual buttkickers, but I dont call it a 7.6 system
 
#110 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe /forum/post/18783665


This would still be considered a 7.1 system since there is only 1 discrete LFE channel. I am also running 4 subs and dual buttkickers, but I dont call it a 7.6 system

Given an amplifiers sub output utilises a standard RCA/phono connection. It should be easy enough to split the output (via a little black box) and run as many subs as you want!
 
#112 ·
I chose 11.1. I live in an apartment and have managed to go 7.1 and that's my limit but whenever I get a house I would like to build a dedicated theater room large enough for 11.1 And by 11.1 I'm assuming a max discrete 7.1 audio stream being matrixed to 11.1.
 
#113 ·
I don't understand why we don't have what seems to be obvious. It would cover all the bases. Completely define the sound space. Pretty much.


I'm thinking a 9.x system to define the brick-shaped volume of the normal TV room. Eight speakers for the eight corners that define the volume, a center channel at the screen for dialog, and at least one LFE channel. Two LFEs might be better than one -- so a system like Audyssey could equalized the bottom end better.


So my vote is for a 9.2 system. Yeah, right. I know, I know. Once again I'm making the mistake of applying too much logic to an illogical situation. When will I ever learn? Sigh...
 
#114 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Watson /forum/post/18783787


Eight speakers for the eight corners that define the volume, a center channel at the screen for dialog, and at least one LFE channel.

"Eight speakers for the eight corners" would rely on phantom imaging for an ear-level soundstage, making it less stable than current L/C/R set-ups. You'd have no speakers at your sides, so it would end up less spacious sounding than current 7.1 set-ups. Corner placement is generally a bad idea for the front speakers, since it would reduce articulation compared to current layouts.


The whole reason for adding more speakers is to improve things like imaging stability, envelopment and clarity. Your suggestion would do the opposite, relying more on phantom imaging and shrinking the listening area to a small sweet spot (a la quad from the 1970s).
 
#116 ·
3D-TV requires special glasses so why not extent this concept to an integrated AV helmet for each viewer. It would contain the special lenses for 3D viewing plus strategically placed speakers. Severn might be the right number.


Each listener would have their own volume control eliminating those "please turn it down" comments. Of course an external sub or pair of subs would also be required to compliment the personal audio space, but that its volume could not be individually controlled.
 
#117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital /forum/post/18781330


Jeez...


I'm trying to imagine the physical size a 22 channel amplifier would have to be. But I haven't got there yet

I guess a 22 channel amp plus 22 speakers (and two subs!) would mean having to rename Home Theater in a Box . . . to Home Theater in an Cargo Container...?!
 
#119 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPlayer /forum/post/18784419


3D-TV requires special glasses so why not extent this concept to an integrated AV helmet for each viewer. It would contain the special lenses for 3D viewing plus strategically placed speakers. Seven might be the right number.


Each listener would have their own volume control eliminating those "please turn it down" comments. Of course an external sub or pair of subs would also be required to compliment the personal audio space, but that its volume could not be individually controlled.
Tech-On! article (Apr 22, 2009): "NHK Develops Headphone Processor for 22.2 Multichannel Sound" .
 
#120 ·
for the most part 5.1 and 7.1 uses a delayed response to add illusion of a rear audio listening experience which is nothing but a time delay to simulate human deafed hearing


if you go by the text books of the new wiz-bang 11.2-11.3 to simulate what you actually hear and put the effects channel to the front you're not really going to get the effect that we hear natively..


to be honest looking at the z11 concept of from Yamaha basically yamaha has created higher sub channel to give the impression that the presence channel the downside to that was the listening plain didn't work in the way it was intended..


so anyone listening to a demo of the z11 could really never really detect the presence the way it was designed to be heard, combined by the fact that you're listening 7 100+ watt main channels, secondary 50watt sub encoded channels aren't going to be heard..


my opinion what the lit states on suggested lay out of these auxiliary channels might be a folly if you want to hear the effect in the way it is supposed to be reproduced you may have to leave the suggested dimension..


as for 9.1 in reality they have been matrixing this in the analog world in commercial cinemas for years, pro performance has taken a long time to trickle down to the home market to where it can be a affordable solution that everyone can buy....


I think in most spaces we incorporate ht into in most cases 5.1 is the best solution though I see alot of people go to the whole hog and deploy 7.1 to 11.2 within the same space confines that it wasn't really designed to be put in..


to the future and beyond 22.1-22.6, it doesn't take much to build a processor to handle this format though I suspect having the other components to support this hardware, with dvd or blue ray i doubt you could reproduce this sound field format off a a disc of that size..


I would suspect a 6-8 laser array would be needed using the the older lp style video disc format to base the info on I doubt the standard size dvd/blue ray could store enough info for 22.x soundtrack not to mention, the dvd/br player supporting 22 analog or 22 digital connections to support teh 22.x format..


and as it pains me to say this, a 22.x system has no practical value with in the realms of home theatre given the space requirement 22+ speakers..



sadly I don't think hdmi would be a great for a 22+ channel system..


my personal opinion I think avr's should be left to the 7.1 format, it's great seeing avr's in the 9-11.x market..


though my opinion is 9-11.x and above should be left in the realm of pre-pro only waste of time and space as 90% of people will just pre-amp it, given most avr builders use small chassis it wouldn't applicable 9.x+ channels on an avr that can barely support power to a 7.1 system..
 
#121 ·
There are actually two questions:

1. What is needed?

2. What would you like to have?


The answer to "2" might be very different than "1".


But remember also that in the U.S., the majority of the population lives in major cities. And in most large cities, most people live in either small houses or in apartments. And in an apartment, unless you have a 3000 sq ft loft, almost no one is going to put in more than 5.1, if that.


I've noticed that at J&R, the largest independent electronics store in NYC, the best selling TV is only 32", followed by five 40" models, followed by a 22" model and then strangely followed by a 60" model in position #8. IMO, people who buy TVs below 46" are very unlikely to have any additional sound system. The sound system they have is probably one of those tabletop iPod amp/speaker systems.
 
#122 ·
My vote is 9.2...two subs, left, center, right, left side, right side, left over head, right over head, rear left, rear right. I have 7.2 in my theater, at some point I am going to add the two overhead speakers. In my master bedroom I have 5.1 with the two rear speakers being over heads. It sounds damn good to my ears. The over heads add a height factor that could be beneficial in the right room. Imagine a plane flies from center over head then behind you. I can't wait to add them to our HT.
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic_sniper28 /forum/post/18784627


for the most part 5.1 and 7.1 uses a delayed response to add illusion of a rear audio listening experience which is nothing but a time delay to simulate human deafed hearing

What "delayed response"? 5.1 and 7.1 send unique content to each channel. Besides normal time alignment, no delays are used.
 
#124 ·
How about each person has a round like a cue ball chair with speakers covering the entire inside...viola...perfect sound!
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic_sniper28 /forum/post/18784627


to the future and beyond 22.1-22.6, it doesn't take much to build a processor to handle this format though I suspect having the other components to support this hardware, with dvd or blue ray i doubt you could reproduce this sound field format off a a disc of that size..


I would suspect a 6-8 laser array would be needed using the the older lp style video disc format to base the info on I doubt the standard size dvd/blue ray could store enough info for 22.x soundtrack not to mention, the dvd/br player supporting 22 analog or 22 digital connections to support the 22.x format.

The issue with storage of SHV recording is not a 3x increase in audio content over BD, but rather a 16x increase in [precompression] video content [as SHV is intended to be HDTV4 resolution, although some (esp. European?) studies have suggested HDTV2 resolution might be more practical]. Fortunately, 4th Gen optical drives for use as business data storage (in about 2020) are starting to appear, and they should work out just fine for SHV recording ( NHK Develops New Optical Storage Systems For Super Hi-vision Video Signals ).


Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic_sniper28 /forum/post/18784627


and as it pains me to say this, a 22.x system has no practical value with in the realms of home theater given the space requirement 22+ speakers.

From the NHK STRL ANNUAL REPORT 2008 , page 8:

"Research on spatial acoustic signal processing

Super Hi-Vision receivers in homes of the future should have signal processing to reproduce 22.2 channel audio on fewer speakers, while preserving the sense of presence. In FY 2008, we developed the basic signal processing methods and performed subjective evaluations confirming that as long as the time-averaged acoustic intensity (average acoustic power passing through a unit area over one cycle) is kept the same at the sound reception point, the spatial impression of sound stays within an acceptable range, even when the number of channels is reduced from 22 to 10."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic_sniper28 /forum/post/18784627


sadly I don't think hdmi would be a great for a 22+ channel system.

Again, the 3x increase in audio content is not the primary issue with transmission of SHV over HDMI (although I do not know if the audio bitstream encapsulation would need to be revised), rather the SHV/HDTV2 frame size (3840x2048) is within the HDMI 1.4 spec, however the SHV/HDTV4 frame size (7680x4096) is not.
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb /forum/post/18784777


There are actually two questions:

1. What is needed?

2. What would you like to have?


The answer to "2" might be very different than "1".

Bullseye. I have 5.1 but my receiver will do 7.1. I'd love to go to 7.1 but my room is 21x11 with no options for mounting "in-wall" so thats two more hanging speakers. Room aesthetics aside, I seriously doubt upgrading to 7.1 would be a noticable addition in sound in a room that size.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top