Surround Sound - How many speakers needed? - Page 4

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

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

11.1, though I confess I haven't heard it yet, since the best I can manage with my equipment is 5.1 plus two front height speakers. My ideal AVR would be some sort of affordable 7.1 system with 11.1 pre-outs, leaving me free to add auxiliary amplifiers and speakers as I wish. Or, better, 11.3 pre-outs.

So I guess we're once again into the mode of "Let's see what's new at CEDIA this year!" But at least 2010 might be better than 2009, as we're starting(?) to get over the recession . . . and just possibly the CEMs will bring out some of the 'new tricks' they held back last year (as 'wasted on Christmas 2009') in order to generate better sales numbers this Christmas season...?!

I voted 71. That's the current configuration of my 8 seat Theater. I'm not sure with my current CH masking screen that I would have the ability to add the additional fronts.

What I would possibly like to see is assignable/software driven solution for multiple side surrounds, staggered according to the seating layout, and keeping with each location having seperate EQ control.

Just my 2 cents worth.

David

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

I believe that 7.1 or .2 is the most that is needed for today's content. Like others have said, most movies don't go beyond 5.1 now and I do not know of any the go beyond 6.1 or higher then that.

Ghpr13 said "I use to tell people that one day our sound systems will have a small speaker for every instrument and everything will sound "live"". I couldn't help but think if the "fantasound" process that Disney created when they released the original Fantasia in theaters that was supposed to do just that. Seemed like a good idea at the time then too. The question I suppose we are all trying to figure out is when does the rule of diminishing returns really apply? My answer is "when you stop having fun" So far I am still having fun. I hope the rest of us are as well.

There is just not enough material to put in a 7.1 system. Most movies are going to be shot in 5.1. Not worth the expense for me.

7.1 is what creates a better surround effect, especially in larger rooms where you can adequately apply the two back surround speakers. I have tried only 5.1 in a room before 7.1 was done and there seemed to be a "hole" in the surround effects before it was done, as if something was missing and the surround effects were too localized with 5.1.
Recently, I did a setup using the 9.1 configuration using the Denon 4810CI - it is good, but its not as effective as the 7.1 in creating a fuller surround field, it seemed as though nothing was added (much) to the audio effects with DPLIIz processing as DPLIIx does, IMO.

As others have said, yes the source material is almost always 5.1. But PLXII (and other) processors put this out into 7.1 speakers, giving a much better surround experience (provided your sitting positions have some space behind them).

I'm starting to like this guy. I have a Yamaha RX-Z11 that has the rear height speakers. Just finished watching The Book of Eli and its mix contains sound effects that crawled up my back wall !

With DSX processing 11.1 is the way to go.
The whole idea of have more of the sound field in front really does make a big difference over conventional 5.1 -7.1 setups.

Can I have 2.0 as a choice? I would actually say 4.1 is probably my preference for surround, as I've seen some troubles with centers.

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...

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...

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.

11.2 or 11.3 please!

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

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?

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!

7.1, just because the Blu-ray specification supports a maximum of 8 audio channels.

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.

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...

"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).

Sure are. It's a cool site. I find it to be very useful.

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.

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...?!

I voted for 7.1, but there should be an option for 2 subs

so 7.2 is my real vote

Tech-On! article (Apr 22, 2009): "NHK Develops Headphone Processor for 22.2 Multichannel Sound".

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..