The short of my question is: given two systems with the same total cost, will a 5.1 system outperform a 3.1 system in the vast majority of home theater listening presuming a discrete 5.1 sound track?
What are the major benefits of those extra two surround channels? Do they simply play ambient sounds for a more immersive environment + directional off-screen effects for stuff like helicopter flyovers that start off screen? After all, most of the action and nearly all of the dialogue occurs on screen, a 2D planer view with a fairly limited point of view angle, so not much happens off screen in most movies, especially dramas. Or can the rear surrounds also improve the sound staging of what happens in the front channels?
I will admit that I've never listened to a quality 5.1 system aside from the heavily skewed demos in-store, like those that fly cartoon bugs all around you and amaze you with how you can tell when they are behind you. I've listened to a crappy 5.1 system before, and a quality system back in the Pro Logic days, but nothing of quality under DD or DTS sound.
The benefits of the center speaker and subwoofer are clear and obvious to me, but it's not clear why, given a fixed budget, it's better to have 4 speakers that surround you with okay sound when you could, for the same cost, have two speakers in front of you with much higher clarity and quality. The math seems even more tilted toward 3.1 if you don't care about ambient forest sounds and fly-by directionality. The old quantity vs quality argument. Am I missing something important? Am I a crusty curmudgeon stuck in the past?
What are the major benefits of those extra two surround channels? Do they simply play ambient sounds for a more immersive environment + directional off-screen effects for stuff like helicopter flyovers that start off screen? After all, most of the action and nearly all of the dialogue occurs on screen, a 2D planer view with a fairly limited point of view angle, so not much happens off screen in most movies, especially dramas. Or can the rear surrounds also improve the sound staging of what happens in the front channels?
I will admit that I've never listened to a quality 5.1 system aside from the heavily skewed demos in-store, like those that fly cartoon bugs all around you and amaze you with how you can tell when they are behind you. I've listened to a crappy 5.1 system before, and a quality system back in the Pro Logic days, but nothing of quality under DD or DTS sound.
The benefits of the center speaker and subwoofer are clear and obvious to me, but it's not clear why, given a fixed budget, it's better to have 4 speakers that surround you with okay sound when you could, for the same cost, have two speakers in front of you with much higher clarity and quality. The math seems even more tilted toward 3.1 if you don't care about ambient forest sounds and fly-by directionality. The old quantity vs quality argument. Am I missing something important? Am I a crusty curmudgeon stuck in the past?















