Surround Sound - How many speakers needed? - Page 8

+1 Ditto

Could not have said it better myself. However, this doesn't help me decide what to vote for, lol. Currently I only have a living room with a 7.1 setup, one day I wish to have my dedicated theater room. That being said, the extra channels that are thought of being used in the 9.1/11.1 setups I have never heard (high front/wide front) so I am unsure what they would bring to the experience.

I would like to imagine my dedicated theater room being a long rectangle shape providing at least 2 rows of seats at different heights, which would lead me to believe that I would want a set of sides for each row of seats to provide the same experience to all viewers (which in turn would require 9 or 11 channels provided 2 or 3 rows of seats). So I guess I'm saying I like 7.1, but would desire 9.1/11.1 in the future if the extra 2/4 channels could have several setup options from said receiver.

-Sean

Yes.

And was further, practically, modified from "ideal" to accommodate the installed base of existing 5.X and 7.X Dolby-mandated surround speaker positioning arrays, which TH has always maintained is less than ideal in the home, or in any surround-sound space other than, perhaps, a large-venue theater, which the Dolby system, to its credit, exists to serve first.

Hi, Sean,

Will, here. I would recommend you try to separate "channels" from "speakers" in your mind. If you want separate L and R arrays of side-surround speakers for different rows in your ideal HT, these will be served by the same "origin" channel provided by the pre-pro's output. E.g. each left and right side surround will be playing the very same information--as in a movie theater--not different "channels" of information. So, 5.X is still 5.X, no matter how many arrays of speakers used on the sides to reproduce these two side channels. However, if you have only two or three rows of seats (or even four, or perhaps five, depending), you probably do not WANT more than one side surround per side to play these side channels, due to interference/combing effects that can introduce frequency response and other anomalies. A bipolar (NOT dipolar!) speaker, for example, on each side should suffice admirably, esp. with only two rows of seats.

Will

EDIT: P.S. So, logically, this issue is unrelated to other, 7.X, 9.X or 11.X options you also may be contemplating. Except, of course, when figuring "channels of amplification," as opposed to "source channels" of differing sound information. The lingo is less than precise, without such clarification, and can be confusing, I know.

I voted 9.1 because I have myn room setup for Yamaha Presence speakers and my HTR-6090 only does 7.1, either 5/2 or 3/4. I would love to have all 9.1, 5/4 in their glory.

That being said 5.1 sounds incredible if calibrated properly and after that it is just a bonus.

I see where you're going Will. At the end of my initial post, I was trying to clear up the "channels" and "speakers" issue with the idea of the several setup options for the extra channels. As in, the extra 2/4 channels could be used as a "front high", or a "front wide", or even the possibility of a matched "right or left side", etc. Meaning it having the ability to provide 2 or 4 new actual channels but also the ability to match an existing channel so the user could setup 2 or 3 sets of sides without doing something ridiculous like running 3 sets of speaker wire off of one channel output (which I can only assume would be a disaster with ohm and watt issues). Bipolar speakers would be an option yes, but it would still be nice to have the ability to match the channels. This way the sides can be mounted at the same height above the listener for each row, assuming the setup has different row heights.

-Sean

True matched channels would still have the interference problem Will points out. Matching channels/speakers might be better than nothing but, ideally, any extra channels or speakers would be decorrelated from the other channels (not reproducing identical signals).

Well, you know what that say: Everything's bigger in Texas.

Currently own a 6.1, but the only movie I ever owned in 6.1 was Pirate's of the Caribbean. Heard the rear center on select scenes and it was a great experience. The speaker fell of the the stand, behind the sofa, and broke one day. A few years later I discovered it wasn't working, when I attempted to demonstrate my 6.1 setup. 5.1 is enough for my ears any day, but my next system will be 7.1. What am I saying? If you can't purchase a 7.1 or 9.1 movie, you will never miss the difference.

I chose 7.1. Unlike some I have heard good 7.1 discrete mixes and even some 5.1 tracks that really did well processed with PL IIx 7.1 matrixing.

Real 7.1 discrete surround should be the norm, not the exception.

+1

Agreed, but you have to look at the cost vs. benefits to a studio of doing a remix from 5.1 to 7.1:

My optimistic(?) guess is that there are 1+ Million US households with 6.x/7.x(/9.x/11.x) speaker AV systems, and perhaps a total of 5 Million worldwide. [Are there any useful CE industry stats available?]

Of those 5 Million households with 6.x/7.x systems at most 2 Million will buy the English language 5.1 or 7.1 BD of a Harry Potter and Twilight crossover movie. What would be the difference in the sales to that 2 Million buyers if the BD is 7.1 vs. 5.1? perhaps an extra 100,000 units...? So maybe US$100,000 extra gross revenue for the studio. But the soundtrack remix to 7.1 probably costs US$50,000+, so if those extra 100,000 units of sales fail to materialize, doing the remix was a financial mistake.

As some movies do get remixed into 7.1, the situation is obviously more complex: For example, a 7.1 BD carries a certain cachet that a 5.1 BD does not, and there is also the likelihood of more sales, later, as the percentage of households with 6.x/7.x systems increases...

Aaah! But at least someone at Lucasfilm's Skywalker Ranch is thinking ahead for commercial venues, which in turn could place more value on 7.1 mixing at the start.

Toy Story 3 was mixed in 7.1 (with the home layout of L/C/R/SL/SR/RL/RR/LFE) for theatrical distribution, not just the eventual Blu-ray release. I can only surmise that Gary Rydstrom was behind this idea, ever the audio pioneer.

Dolby and THX are touting this as the next "proprietary advancement" for DLP or D-ILA cinemas, though practically any digital cinema or up-to-date IMAX processing system worth its salt has the capability of 8 channel, uncompressed PCM storage and output. It need not be proprietary through Dolby only.

The theater chain looking to upgrade has to make the effort to re-jigger the back surround speaker arrays into a rear left array and a rear right array. Then they would have the correct 7.1 channel layout with discrete stereo side surrounds and stereo back surrounds. This gives you a more 360 degree experience, and is far, far better than Dolby EX (5.1 + matrixed mono back) ever was.

Given all the issues surrounding 3D, I'd much rather have a top-notch, fully-immersive 7.1 audio mix and great 2D cinematography than gimmick prone 3D that has never had any real staying power with the audience.

One Blu-ray soundtrack in particular that showed the potential of 7.1 audio was Hell Boy II. Unlike many 7.1 re-mixes that have to contend with re-purposing 5.1 channel stems, this soundtrack was originally conceived for 7.1 surround by the director and the audio engineers.

I guess anyone who wants to hear the music, a completely trivial aspect of a movie's overall sound, as closely as possible to the way the original recording engineers did, using the same number of channels (and in this case speakers too, as I show in my post's photo) as they used in their room (which I might add much more closely resembles a typical living-room's reverberance and use of "near field" monitors than that of a massive theater), has no right to. Thanks, Mr. surround police.


Where did I say any commercial theaters use only two surround speakers? Again, even after I specifically reiterated in my second post that my original post's use of "ch" meant channels, not speakers, you fail to understand that I'm merely suggesting that I prefer listening to movies and music in their native number of channels, without any electrically manipulated extra "guestimated/interpolated" channels [never used in an actual movie theater either, I might add, those additional surround speakers across the side walls they use are playing the exact same surround signal and are necessary only to diffuse the sound across the large theater so people sitting in close proximity to a singular speaker aren't overwhelmed by it, a problem I personally don't have in my living room set up.]

Two surround channels.

If you want to doctor the sound of a native 5.1 channel soundtrack and add additional, electrically manipulated channels that don't exist either in the original movie nor were generated in any actual movie theater, that's fine, but don't claim the sound reproduction needs of a giant reverberant theatre where the vast majority of listeners sit grossly off axis and too close to a particular speaker are identical to that of a typical living room, a fraction of the size.

People have a right to listen any way they want. I never said otherwise. Just pointing out that your claim of original intent has zero basis for support.

The control room you linked to is where they lay down the 5.1 music stem. It is then sent to editorial (to conform to the film) and then final mix on a movie mixing stage. So if you want to hear the soundtrack (including the music) as "closely as possible to the way the original recording engineers did", it certainly won't be on any system that uses only 2 surround speakers.

By your tortured logic (above), soundtracks should be heard in mono, since that's how most sound effects and dialogue was recorded. Whether the composer laid down the score in stereo or 5.1 in the control room isn't as important (since it was an interim step) as how it was finally mixed on a movie mixing stage (since that's what the filmmakers signed off on). No movie mixing stage uses only 2 surrounds.
I have no problem with what you prefer. I was specifically addressing your claim that your personal preference (2 surround speakers) is how the filmmakers "originally intended" their soundtrack to be heard. Since soundtracks are never mixed using only 2 surround speakers AND never released to theatres using only 2 surround speakers, where do you get the idea that 2 surround speakers was the orignal intent?
Didn't claim any of the above. It's a fact that movies are mixed on stages with arrays of surround speakers and then released to movie theatres with arrays of surround speakers. So 2 surround speakers aren't original intent.

As for me scaling all my audio to my speaker layout and video to my display, I don't conflate my personal preference with original intent.

Even during the initial development of SMPTE 428-3-2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master Audio Channel Mapping and Channel Labeling, during the 1990s, it must have been obvious to its framers that a sensible approach to movie audio was the creation of stems that could be combined (or recombined with minimal effort) to accommodate several of the alternative speaker layouts that SMPTE 428-3 'suggested' for future theater (and later home) use, including, but not limited to, 5.1 and 7.1 Standard. At that time, the changeover costs to that approach would have been high, and the likely benefits of doing so small. Evidently the economics of doing so appear different today!

I like 7.0 but aggree with the thought that manufactuers want us to think more is better. You just have to have more speakers so Spend more cash. I personaly use no sub and use strictly stereo for all my music which like the above poster is mostly classical. I to like all music but classical is my love. Anyway I use Klipsh RF7's and do not allow my Marrantz sr8002 to do any processing when listening to music. I do allow processing of the discreet movies audio tracts. My Klipsh have plenty of bass to overcome the need for any sub as I use to have the Klipsh 15" sub that was built for use with RF7's , RC7, RS7's X 2 rear surround and side surround back. I am totoly satisfied and see no need for any more. I am alreaddy at over 6,000 in my set up and couldn't imaging needing to spend more. I know the big wigs out there can have in excess of 20,000 to 50,000 gran in there set-ups but I forone probaly wouldn't do that even if I could afford it. (Well Maybe) LOL. Just my thoughts,

1'stsamdude

That would be my guess as well. Rydstrom was behind Surround EX. Guess he can't get enough surround channels.
Theatres equipped to play back Surround EX soundtracks are already configured the way you describe. When playing back regular (non-EX) 5.1 movies, the surround-back array has to be split into left and right halves, so each can be part of their respective side speaker array. Since EX-capable theatres already have their surrounds split into four arrays, with each set able to receive independent content, they're a natural for 7.1-channel mixes.

My copy of EPICS, on Telarc, performed by Eric Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra 'says' it was recorded 'live' on three dates (days), for both CD and SACD, using eight different models of microphone (but without any indication of how many of each model were used). Absent the ability to 'lay out' speakers to match the original microphone positions, my next preference would be to hear (watch) the album as a BD authored and played back in the 7.1 Front Wide (discrete channel and speaker) layout that was 'pushed' by DTS for DTS-HDMA, but which never found favor with the CEMs [NO artificial sound processes required!]



Eventually, I would hope that some more general acceptance of the DSX and Pioneer 'extracted' Front Wide channels (post processing technologies) might lead to (appropriate) soundtracks being authored as discrete 7.1 Front Wide.

I voted for 7.1.
Even though, my home setup is the same as 5.1

I really hope Toy Story 3 pushes more theatres to install 7.1 as the new standard, so eventually, we can get more original discrete 7.1 mixes for home.

Huh? Speakers? False. I never said that at all. You don't seem to understand the difference between channels and speakers so I give up at this point. I'm tired of having to write it now for a third time that the quantity of channels does not necessarily equal the number of speakers. I said I like listening to 5.1 CHANNELS natively without generating faux interpolated channels, I never said how many speakers I like to utilize to do that, however, which is dependent on room size, acoustics, and importantly audience placement for me.


again, I never said that, but since every time I write channels you incorrectly read it as "speakers", despite three posts now of trying to explain to you otherwise, I give up at this point and won't be responding to your posts, so don't bother asking any questions of me; they'll go unanswered.
---

For the general audience, here's a slightly dated piece from 2006, but still most of it rings true to this day:

"Don’t Get Stampeded By The 7.1 Parade

I love surround sound, but don't get caught up in the 7.1 hype, for your home 5.1 is enough.

As a home theater tech critic, I spend much of my time evangelizing for surround sound. I do it unashamedly and with all my heart. I love surround sound and I want everyone else to get as much pleasure from it as I do. But I worry that a lot of people still waiting to dip a toe in the sound-field are turned off by a bunch of seemingly conflicting numbers: 5.1 and 6.1 and 7.1...

The expansion of the 5.1-channel standard was born in the movie house, where it’s easier to cover a large space with surround effects if you add a back channel served by speakers in the back of the house. [emphasis m. zillch]

In film exhibition, 6.1- and 7.1-channel systems make sense. At home, however, 5.1 channels are quite enough. It’s easy to generate a solid sound field in a small space with three speakers in front and two on the rear of the side walls. To me it’s self-evidently nonsensical to have four surround speakers outnumbering the three in front...

Dolby Digital and DTS are the surround formats used on DVDs; Dolby Digital also plays a role in DTV broadcasting. They originated as 5.1-channel formats. Their expanded cousins are Dolby Digital EX, also known as THX Surround EX, since the two companies co-developed it; and DTS-ES. In Dolby Digital EX, the side-surround channels are discretely encoded, while the back-surround channel (singular, though it may be served by two speakers) is derived from the side-surrounds by a technique called matrixing. Or as I prefer to call it, fakery. DTS-ES comes in two forms, Matrix (with the back-channel information faked) and the all-too-rare Discrete (with the back-channel information encoded in its own discrete channel)...

If you’re worried about missing out on back-channel information in surround soundtracks, I’d advise you not to fret over it. Most DVD soundtracks are either Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1. The high-res music formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, are strictly 5.1-channel affairs with no 6.1 or 7.1 equivalents. If you feed a 7.1-channel receiver with a 5.1-channel signal, it will usually fake something for the back-surrounds using Dolby Pro Logic IIx processing. For my own part, I’d rather listen to five (.1) honest channels and dispense with the sonic smoke and mirrors. [Exactly my point all along. A movie theater sized room and its needs is not equivalent to a living room. - m. zillch]

With the marketing of 6.1 and 7.1 surround, the industry has decisively outwitted itself. It has convinced many consumers to buy new receivers and more speakers. But it has also undermined the 5.1-channel standard, which is more appropriate for the home, slowing the acceptance of surround sound in general.

All right people, fess up. How many speakers are you using: five, six, or seven? And those of you who “upgraded” from 5.1, do you really feel your system has started sounding significantly better?"

-Mark Fleischmann is the audio editor of Home Theater and the author of Practical Home Theater

Source.

I strongly disagree about Dolby Pro Logic IIx being "fakery." Having had it on a 7.1 system for almost two years now, I would highly recommend it to anyone for use on 5.1 material. It is very intelligent about seperating directionalized sounds in a way that you will only hear sounds meant to be placed near the rears, in the rears, and same with the side speakers. It's all very natural and immerse sounding. Take a recent film like Book of Eli and play the "assault on the house" scene and experience fully 360 degree directional sound. It's amazing.

Speakers are expensive and they clutter up a room (WAF problems). Rather than buy a bunch of small or cheap speakers, better to buy a few of the best speakers possible and the best supporting system that will fit within the budget AND that will look good within the room. For that matter, a 4.1 system works very well if your system is calibrated with emphasis on speaker distance and individual speaker levels (tell your system that you have no center speaker and the system will provide a phantom center speaker with all center information included).

One other point, from someone who has experimented with and lived with multi-channel sound systems for a couple of decades (4.1 on up to 7.1), after a while you discover that you hardly notice the movie surround effects at all (unless they're badly done and gimmicky - then you definitely notice them). BUT .. For music that uses the surround speakers for hall ambience, the effect is, for many of us, dramatic and never tiring, and always noticeable if it isn't there.

I have 7.1 in my TV room and I enjoy it, but I really think like HDTV, it comes down to the quality of media. I have heard excellent sound from DVDs like The Dark Knight, not just surround effects, but clear, precise, all encompassing sound that pulls you right into the movie.
Ghpr13

movies are originally mixed in 5.1, anything beyond 5.1 is like colouring a black-and-white movies.

also in most cases, 4.1 is more than enough unless you use front projection with very wide screen (8ft or so).

+1

And, tellingly (because Audyssey doesn't try to recreate the wheel, but only builds upon PLIIx's 7.X rear channels as part of it's 11.X processing, with 5.1 source materials), Audyssey 11.X is even more stunning. Indeed, I'd rather have Wides, for example, than Rear Surrounds if I had to choose (although I'm in a relatively long and narrow space). But there's no denying that the rear fill, even in mono, does have its place in the whole. Glad I don't have to choose!

40.



Anything less is for wimps.

-1

I have 7.1, and most 5.1 movies sound much better with PLIIx matrix in my environment. The sound field is fantastic, especially if recording is top notch. I think 9.1 or .2 would be cool, but I would matrix the R and L into a right and left front surround, not high and low.
While most films now directionally mixed on the horizontal rather than the vertical plane, more could be gained from a set up like that with existing 5.1 tracks.