Surround Sound - How many speakers needed? - Page 11

First of all.........I don't trust anyone from Oregon!

My point is...........most BD material comes in five discrete channels.......sure, you can EX back channels in other configurations........and like me, run another pair of surrounds by running them in parallel.........the real question is......when is this insanity going to stop????

When all is said and done, we all strive for "music/movie audio nirvana".........and that is why the market place keeps filling are need/desire to continue upgrading our cribs.............

We should all ponder what Sigmund Freud's diagnosis would be..........and am not taking about "Clinical Penis Envy" ........anyhow, can't take speakers to our graves............

Ah, doublewing, doublewing, noble doublewing11...(lemme pinch-hit for Roger until he gets around again):

You've got it BAD. Denial has no utility. Face it. Read your Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. You have terminal AVS multiple-channelosis. It's malignant. And, its growing. You may as well admit it. Insanity? Nope. Reality. And you'll secretly crave more More MORE MORE.

Until, inevitably, it kills you...




...and you are buried in the massive, phallic, left channel tower of your 20.4 channel array.



You'll take it with ya, alright...as best you can.

RIP, Ozymandias.

Um, not quite sure about that...
http://www.trendhunter.com/photos/70841#4

http://www.slipperybrick.com/2007/12/coffin-speakers/

Ghpr13

Ditto. I think it all has to do with your room configuration and size, but any more than this and it's just marketing mumbo-jumbo as pretty much any audio effects such as overhead simulations can be replicated with this many speakers. Extras beyond 7.1 become gimmicks, methinks.

You got it. But I have to admit, when I saw Mark's post, I was prepared for the opposite outcome.

P.S. My turn. Thanks Mark for taking the initiative to get Chris's reply. There beer aplenty for you, too.

Based on what I've seen I don't blame you one bit!


When it works right.

And BTW, if you are running the back pair of speakers either in EX mono or in parallel with the surrounds, I can easily see why you'd feel they are not towing the line as well as the main 5.1. Try PLIIx if you have not already done so. I'm not saying it is a must for everyone, but it does help mitigate the well known compromise that one pair of surrounds cannot be in two places at once--at the sides for best envelopment, and at the rear for best "flyover" directional effects. 7.1 covers both bases, and also makes a huge difference for any theaters running a second row of seats.

Well, OK, but I think 7.1 has been way oversold. There are so few BDs released with 7.1 sound that I feel cheated by the industry that sold the promise of it.

People in other forums criticize 3D home theater as hype because of the lack of content available. I see 7.1 sound as that way, but worse, as 7.1 hardware has been sold for a pretty long while now, and still virtually no 7.1 content.

Buyer Beware is an old song, but in the current home theater market, it rings true. I'm just sayin' that last decade's Dolby Digital 5.1 is still the cost/benefit champ.

My Pioneer receiver has a feature which seems aimed at those with this odd idea that the distinct sound sources in the listening room ought to correspond exactly with the distinct channels in the input signal. (If that is the idea I see expressed often above in this thread -- I don't really understand it.) The feature is that if you have both side surrounds and back surrounds set up, you can play 5.1 sources with only the "true" 5 sources, but the two surround channels will be played through both side and back surround speakers in such a fashion that the surround seems to come not from the sides (where you have placed your side surrounds), but from a direction somewhat behind that -- the place where you would ideally have put your "rears" in a 5.1 system.

It's not so much of the Buyer Beware case, but it's the matter of lack of understanding of what is home theatre in its very basic core... which is to mimic as closely as possible to the commercial theatre... and with commercial theatre, the only source available at the most is 5.1 discrete (or 6.1 matrixed).

It's not the industry's fault that buyers flock to the larger number. Bigger is better, more channels is better. Hence the 120 Hz, 240 Hz, and 600 Hz battle (although the 600 Hz has nothing to do with framerate) as opposed to dealing with proper framerates faithfully. Hence "brighter" equates to better by most people... including people in this "home theatre" forum. Let's buy 10.2 channels because it must be better than 5.1 although there is no source for it. Let's buy 1,000 W amp because it must be better than 100 W amp.
Let's buy 1080p TV because 720p is not good enough although most people watch their TVs from a distance too far to distinguish the difference between 720p and 1080p.

It's OUR fault for flocking to "bigger is better" mentality. The manufacturers are only feeding our flawed logic. They are just feeding the demand. If there is no demand, the technology will die by itself right? Remember miniDisc? Remember Betamax? Remember Quadraphonic QS and SQ? Remember the Elcaset? Remember DCC? the list goes on.

viewer perception is not advised though milking de public has been ripe for over the last 20 years and people and saps like us eat it up in droves, what is reference and what truly is reference is only a perception in what you hear, no diag tool you can use represent the same thing you hear at your home opposed to another venue with the same hardware or variations of different hardware.. 1-5" out of measurement within a room can lead to a different sound altogether...

using a guide as bible and verse layout guide maybe incorrect for your situation, you need to remember what is set in a lab environment may not replica-table within your own ht setup, guides are guides should be use as a baseplate only trying to follow it to the t&i setup may lead to the incorrect settings being used nothing will ever be 100% perfect within your minds eye..

using the various configuration wizards can even lead to more confusion in the process of setup..

IMO, this is more because the consumers didn't flock to BDs since the video improvement wasn't perceived as not being much better than up-conversion DVDs.



I had totally forgotten Elcaset!(I did have a Quad system.)
Ghpr13

Sadly I used to own almost all of them. The dead formats I used to own (partial list):

Betamax (including Beta HiFi, SuperBeta Hifi, ED Beta)
LaserDisc (including Discovision, 3D-VHD, LaserFilm)
MiniDisc, DCC, Elcaset, reel to reel (1/4", 1/2", 1", 2" -- the last two were for my recording studios), DAT (actually still have them -- my old 2-ch mix master tapes)
HD DVD, Super 8, Video8, Hi8, D8, miniDV, HDV, VHS, VHS-C, S-VHS.

Too bad I don't keep them all and make a museum of them.

If we believe stereo salesman Ken Kessler (Judge Reinhold) in ‘Ruthless People’, you can stop upgrading speakers when you purchase a pair of (fictional) Dominator X-10s (‘Thirty inches of thigh-slapping, blood-pumping, nuclear brain damage!’ And I believe that’s a 30” woofer! . . . in an 8' tall cabinet!) In a ‘hard sell’ to a teenage customer, Ken Kessler says “So what if it's as big as a Subaru and costs as much? You'll never have to trade this in! This is gonna be with you for the rest of your life! And when you die, they can BURY you in it!”

Some truths are eternal...

I switched to 7.1 in 2001 and like it much better than a 5.1 system. If I had the sapce I would consider a higher configuration. But I think 7.1 is the minimum.

I am among those guys who believe that more channels - put in a sophisticated and scientifically developed way in a Home Theater space - are necessary to offer a closer-to-reality sound.

Therefore, my vote goes to 11.1 setup.

As for myself, since I am the owner of the Onkyo PR-SC5507 AV preamplifier, I will try to implement a 12.1 system, which would of course come from an "expanded" 9.1 system, already offered by the Onkyo.

I explain:

A. Two Front Main Channels (L,R). Two floorstanding, full bandwidth bipolar speakers.

B. Two Front Center Channels. Two identical (bipolar, bookshelf) speakers, receiving the same signal from the Front Center Channel, but driven by two identical amplification channels, put side-by-side in front of the listener, in order to further expand the center sound "picture", making it more realistic.

C. Two Front Height Channels (LH, RH). Two identical (omnipolar, bookshelf) speakers set above and slightly narrower than the Main Front Speakers L-R.

D. Two Main Surround Channels (LS, RS). Two floorstanding, full bandwidth bipolar speakers, put at 130 degrees behind the listening position.

E. Two Additional Surround Channels (LS, RS). Two identical wall mounted, dipole speakers, put at the sides and at a point higher than the listening position.

Both sets of the Surround Speakers (LS, RS), will be receiving the same signal, but shall be driven by separate amplification pairs.

F. Two Back (or Rear) Surround Channels. Two identical (omnipolar, bookshelf) speakers, put behind the head of the listener, at a high position in the middle of the room, receiving the Rear Surround signal(s) and driven of course, by two identical amplification channels.

G. One subwoofer. In the future, depending on the room behavior, I may add one more sub, but this needs to be studied.
-

My .2 cent:

I went from the Denon 4810 with 9.2 channels, height and wides with conventional 5.1 and now have gone to the 10.2 with the Pio SC 09 and 5.1 with 2 extra surround and rears- it is to me a little better right now than what the 9.2 otherwise had!!!

I do like the difference quite a bit... could be those Ice Amps!!!

The ICEpower amps make quite a lot of difference in sound quality. The soundfield is more open yet localization is more accurate, IMO. I'm already on my 2nd ICEpower receiver at home. Will never go back to my MOSFET amps .

You should have had a 1.0 option so my wife would feel like there was an option she wanted.

This from the woman who owns 10 pairs of black shoes, because either the heel is slightly different, or the toe, or ...

I prefer 9.2 with Height speakers...

I think a 9.4 would be perfect for me,if I had the right size room, but I only use a 6.2 setup due to the size of my room. Though, having two 18" subs running 5 kw is hard to keep up with at reference levels. I'm going to a 7.2 as soon as I fix my Denon AVR-2805, though.

Many movies still only support 5.1 or 6.1 at this point though, and as soon as they are released in 7.1, 9.1 or 11.1 formats, they will be obsolete, it's a never ending game.

I know I will be labeled a heretic but I think 5.1 is enough for most people, I have a 5.1 setup in my home and I don't plan on upgrading my system. If I had a dedicated HT room in my house I would use a 7.1 setup. As for 9.1 and 11.1 I think that should be used in a movie theater with 3D, it's overkill in the home. It's like if Gillette came out with an 11 blade razor, at some point it doesn't make a difference.

What I think the studios should do is include a 5.1 and 7.1 track on BD, that way you don't get artificial matrixing.

even with 7.1 discrete BD mix, it's still artificial since the original soundtrack is only 5.1

True but the studio sound mixers can usually do a better job than home AVR's. It's similar to early DVD's that included a 2.0 and 5.1 track, the player or AVR didn't have to downmix the 5.1 track to use on a 2.0 system. Another example is an old movie(such as The Wizard of Oz) which was recorded in mono but the studio sound mixers added a 5.1 track, do you want your AVR to make a 5.1 mix from a mono track?

I don't suppose it's merely coincidence that the poll in this thread terminates on Tuesday 6/29/2010 . . . and that Thursday 7/1/2010 is [yet another!] "DTS 7.1 DAY"...?!

True... true! (although I'm somewhat of a purist, so I'd listen to the mono track whenever possible if the original mono soundtrack is available)

As I see it, this poll can be interpreted as follows:
-1690 responders or 57.4% of the poll prefers a 7.1-11.1 or more system.
-1253 responders or 42.6% of the poll prefers a 5.1 system or less.

Bottom line is most people seem to want more because they can hear more detail within a more immersive presentation/experience. The ultimate bottom line however is; to each his own happiness, which thankfully we can still pursue in this great country.

Ps: As I said in an earlier post, I voted 11.1 (or more) because I think the more the merrier based on your room size and configuration (plus WAF).

I have both 5.1 and 7.1 home theaters both properly calibrated. I don't see any significant improvement in 7.1 over 5.1

I've seen many poorly setup 5.1 arrangements..... i.e. already perplexing for your average consumer. 7.1 and beyond will not improve this reality.

Voted 7.1. Maybe HD Master Audio will follow suit.

you forgot to put " I hate surrond " option

Oh, man, now that is just MEAN.