Originally Posted by ChopShop1
Wow, haven't had my AVS fix in almost 24hrs
All good points above guys, thank you all for your thoughts. I tend to agree with most everything. I believe a well set up 5.1 is a better options than poorly donw 7.1 or beyond. I sort of feel like, after watching the link Klipsch provided (thank you btw, it was very infomative for me), that splitting the signal, rather than providing individual channels, fits the mold. The concern that I have is that while my room is big by average home theater standards, but small in the grand scheme, am I in some in between place where it's too big for one row of sides, but small enough that multiple will "muddy the waters". It would also suggest that the "wide" channels are pretty important for the transition between the front and side walls. I also feel like (I haven't heard yet over course) the over heads could really add to the ATMOSphere (no pun
in the room. to further complicate things, with the new formats, now the intent is in fact for each speaker to get it's own discrete signal and sound placed appropriately. I think this is what keeps tripping me up, thinking that each should have it's own discrete signal
I agree. You are making progress, I can see it
Sometimes it does not feel like it because every answer leads you to ask 5 more questions but I think your dedication and effort will pay huge dividends when your monster theater is up and running.
On the scale thing, you theater will be larger than most but it's still very much small room acoustics. I agree there too.
On the 5.1 thing, it's complicated when you really peel back the layers. When you watch a movie that is originally made or mixed in 5.1 with an appropriate 5.1 or 6.1/7.1 system the results are quite awesome. And certainly the top and very well executed 5.1 and 7.1 systems can top a mediocre executed ATMOS or 11.2 system in terms of experience. NO DOUBT. But I think where the 5.1 vs 7.6.4 system comparison is most valid is on the most modern material and mixes.
Movies that were originally mixed and made for 5.1 won't show the benefits of a 3D sound technology layout because it's still channel based audio. You can not create new discrete channels, so you are stuck with the original. And it was mixed with those discrete channels in a mixing house with that set up- so moving away from that won't yield huge benefits. 5.1 movies (which is most) sound great on 5.1 systems. If you have a proper 5.1 system you'll get what the mixers intended when they made the movie sound track.
But channel based audio has it's limitations. You are stuck with speaker locations and sounds at those locations. As long as it was mixed that way, you should be ok, but you are at the mercy of the mix. With object based audio and 3D sound you can place discrete audio objects in 3D sound field. That's a big advantage that I don't think a lot of the 5.1 traditionalists realize fully. So if you do a comparision of a very modern 3D sound mixed movie on a 3D sound system like ATMOS and then run the same movie on 5.1 I think the difference would be a lot bigger and more easily distinguished. The part the worries me most with trying to remain a 5.1 traditionalist is that the speaker locations and how the speakers work with each other has evolved since the days 5.1. With 7.1 discrete and ATMOS/DTS-X there is more dependency on the discrete channels and if you don't have them, or they are in the wrong place you will get an odd effect. Example- I have experienced a couple movies in discrete 7.1 where there is a sound coming directly behind you, and this is clearly intended. What if you had only a 5.1 system with side speakers ? Then the sound is coming from the side, not the back. Little stuff like that... those are the problems. The problems will become bigger as more and more new sound tracks come out in 3D audio formats, and discrete 7.1 mixes. Luckily the technology is backwards compatible so 5.1 users won't be left out- but if you want it all you really want to upgrade and maintain the newest tech.
Have you been to an ATMOS theater? Anyone else heard Auro3D or the other 3D technologies?
I know Scott has.. but still a lot of guys surprisingly have not experienced the new formats. There is probably always going to be some difference in opinion from the ones that have and have not, my first reaction to the tech was "meh" it's ok. It seemed like all it was adding was some speakers overhead. That's not really a big deal. But there is a little more to the technology. Previously cinema sound designers had to mix indpendent sounds together into channels. There is a limit with what you can do with channels, and differences in layout or room acoustics can really effect your end results as compared to what the mixers did. Object based audio allows independent sounds to exist in 3D space, and get placed in 3D sound fields. So you can get one sound discretely one place and another sound at another place- not necessarily all mixed in a track. You can get independent sounds totally free of channel restrictions, and sound can be moved anywhere including move above you. I would imagine that on the newest and best mixes the 3D audio version will be superior to the 5.1 version.
It's a case where any movie made last year and earlier the 5.1 system can hold it's own; but what about all the movies that will be made next year and the year after ? I'm just thinking out loud. Sorry for the mini derailing. I was the one who originally brought up the idea not to discount a great 5.1 execution, but while that is important the point I was making certainly was not that 5.1 is enough anymore or that you don't need more. It was more about how a really good execution of something more simple could beat out something that was not as well executed and more complicated. You don't want to over-complicate things with too many rear, side, or overhead speakers if it comes with a cost or penalty on performance at the money seat. You might want to discuss or ask about this with Shawn. If additional side speakers or overheads might cloud the money seat experience ? I doubt it, but that is stuff to ask a professional about. I'd be more willing to sacrifice say the 3rd row performance, if it came with a trade off of a better money row experience. You won't have that third row filled all the time, and when you do it's not likely as critical viewing or listening.