Why 7.1 Surround Sound is Overkill For Most Homes 408
RX8 writes "Home Theater expert Mark Fleischmann explains why you should not fall for the 7.1 hype and why 5.1 surround sound is adequate for most homes. From the article: '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.'"
2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course this is a good example of why multiple speakers is a GoodThing(tm). The human ear is pretty good at telling where a sound came from (based on echos, etc). Doing what they do in the demo above would be pretty tricky if your speakers weren't stuck to the side of your head.
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean it's useless, however it's still not as realistic as multiple speakers.
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2, Insightful)
When playing a video game, I move my head, and the games visual field stays completely still. It's not natural and I don't notice it.
The game's sound and visual field are not a real world one. Me moving my head should have no effect on the sound I hear. If it does, I've done something wrong, like waste money on four more speakers.
I don't know about you but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:3, Insightful)
Informal experiments with my neighbours would seem to suggest that when listening to music outdoors, THD is more noticeable than absolute volume: you can play it as loud as you like as long as it's coming through crystal clear, but the minute you introduce a little
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:3, Interesting)
After thirty years or so, we've got good enough at making op-amps with a decent gain-bandwidth product. Any amplifier you can buy will amplify, and will do so closely enough to ideally over a band easily broad enough for the human ear. That's not the real challenge anymore. The loudspeaker is important, but there have been improvements in both manufacturing precision and the understanding of the
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2, Funny)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2)
For you youngsters who didn't recon the quote from the Devo hit and modded down this parent...*sigh*
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:3, Interesting)
This is because price per channel - the more channels and various decoder electronics you put, the less buget you have for sound quality (cheaper tranistors, capacitors, poweer supply, etc.)
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:4, Interesting)
The argument was, if you pass on surround, you were giving up a tiny bit of ambiance imaging, but you had twice as much money to spend on good stereo speakers, and could buy a much better amp.
It's still true. For what I spent on my home theater's audio set-up, I could build a downright orgasmic stereo listening room... but my desire to watch movies in 5.1 trumps my craving for maximizing my hi-fi ! for $.
Besides, Hi-Fi ain't what it used to be... it's better and cheaper. Thanks to the computer revolution of the 80s and 90s pushing down the cost of transistors, I can buy a $100 stereo amplifier which kicks ass all over stereo amps which cost twenty times as much back in the 70s. My $500 5.1 amp does a fine job at faithfully reproducing music.
Quality speakers have come down, too. Again, thank computers. Home-brew acoustic design software de-mystified the art of building speakers a little bit, and launched a new wave of small-name designers.
My B&W speakers (Bowers & Wilkins, a British speaker-builder) sound downright glorious, and even with the center channel, they cost less than the kit my father once used to build his own I.M. Freed subwoofer/satelite combo. Plus, he had to deal with an expensive cross-over amp, while my powered sub enjoys the discrete 5.1 subwoofer signal with far less hassle.
Re:2 ears, 2 speakers (Score:2)
stereo anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
placing six or eight is often too much trouble.
Re:stereo anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Replace often with always. I can understand how some audiophile might appreciate the ability to fine tune dozens or hundreds of parameters such as speaker positions, direction, tilt, balance, cabling etc. With such people the quest for perfection is neverending and sometimes exceeds common sense. I suspect that most other people would be happ
Re:stereo anyone (Score:3, Funny)
Do you see what you are saying here? A $6000 system, do you want people to live like animals? You are what is wrong with the world today, denying the common folk the very basics of civilized living.
Re:stereo anyone (Score:2)
Re:stereo anyone (Score:2)
I spend some time listening same music on my friends cars sound system.
Now I just cant bear the sound of my speakers.
Probably getting 2 genelec speakers, for stereosystem as soon as I can really afford them.
Re:stereo anyone (Score:2)
Re:stereo anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Fletcher-Munson curve - music sounds better loud, assuming no distortion
2. Isolation - headphones block out external sounds, allowing the ear to pick up details. The louder it is, the better the isolation, so the better the sound.
Watch your hearing very carefully. Once you lose it, it ain't coming back. Pete Townshend has attributed his hearing loss n
Re:stereo anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
As to 2/2.1/5.1/7.1. My friend at one time bought "expensive" Altec Lancing 5.1 system (~$250). When we compared it to sound of my home stereo (~$1.5k), guess what my friend did? He sent the 5.1 back to shop. Next week-end he came over to me and said: "Lead me to a proper shop". He purchased on my recommendation Harman system (Harman/Kardon + JBL) and never looked back.
And even now, my cheap mini system from Yamaha (PianoCraft 400, upgraded cables and bit tuned speakers, $400 + upgrades $150) outperforms 5.1 system of any of my friends. At least that what _they_ say
I can say that definitely there is progress in quality of 5.1 systems. But at the same time stereo goes on too. The main problem of most 5.1 systems (even if you managed to position it well) is poor stereo quality. Music is still stereo and music is what most often played on any system
Sidenote. Many DVDs come with crapy stereo sound track. Most of my friends with stereos bought some kind of 5.1 systems just for sake of watching DVDs. IOW, popularity of 5.1 can be bit inflated.
Re:stereo anyone (Score:2)
Unless you're a real videophile (Score:3, Insightful)
My god. (Score:2)
The terrorists have already won.
Re:Unless you're a real videophile (Score:2)
Persona
Re:Unless you're a real videophile (Score:2)
This is really akin to saying "unless you're a real videophile, you're probably better off buying a 13" CRT than a 47" widescreen plasma set."
Sure, there are applications where a 13" TV and/or 2 speakers work fine. But if your goal is to watch even non-HD DVD's and you want to see them the way they were intended to be seen, then a) you need a decent TV, and b) you need a surround soun
Re:Unless you're a real videophile (Score:2)
Huh? If I'd said '...you're better off buying a pair of shitty Radio Shack speakers', you'd have a point, but I said 'really nice speakers'. For $300, I could get a fantastic pair of speakers (which I would be using all the time - most people I know who aren't videophiles maybe watch one movie a week, but listen to maybe a dozen CDs a week) which work great for the mu
Re:Unless you're a real videophile (Score:2)
Beep! Please read your own sentence. If you don't see how implausible and out of touch that sentence is, you need to delete your slashdot account and never ever reply to comments any more.
Re:Unless you're a real videophile (Score:2)
I agree. Of all the components that contribute to a sound system, the speakers are the most important. Recievers typicaly are flat within a db or less from 20HZ to 20KHZ. Speakers are not nearly as flat. Good speakers do make a differance.
My speakers are now over 20 years old. I bought good ones. They are still the most valuable part of my stereo.
3D positional audio (Score:2)
Re:3D positional audio (Score:3, Interesting)
the movie is mixed, or else you'd have to include all the seperate audio tracks.
Such effects are difficult to pull off in a large area like a movie theatre, and would be
very dependent on the speaker configuration, which is probably why you don't see a lot of this.
Re:3D positional audio (Score:2)
Re:3D positional audio (Score:2)
Re:3D positional audio (Score:2)
3D positional audio is just fine for
Why 5.1 and not 2? (Score:5, Funny)
Friend's tale. He's the 1337, I'm just a n00b so it doesn't matter in my case. UT deathmatch. He bought his new 5.1 and configured it correctly. Some tunnel deep underground. And then he hears, left-behind, the sound of a Ripper, that deadly spinning disk that upon hitting your neck cuts your head off, granting the opponent an instant frag and counting as headshot. "Duck" and the ripper zooms over his head. Fast turn and a rocket into the enemy's face. One frag less for the opponent, one more for him, one 1337 tale more to tell, one more deathmatch won in total... Thanks to 5.1.
Re:Why 5.1 and not 2? (Score:2)
Properly mixed stereo is all you need, including games. Badly mixed stereo, I'll grant you, is not much use.
TWW
Re:Why 5.1 and not 2? (Score:2)
go Low Budget (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:go Low Budget (Score:4, Interesting)
If you like that, and have more money, you might want to check out a Prologic II decoder, which most surround recievers are these days. It's a more advanced system and does a better job at upmixing to 6 channels.
I don't get it (Score:2)
Hmm I can't see how you would even get a signal through the rear set of speakers, (let alone any of them?) if they're only reaciving the positive from the amp. In affect all you're doing is shorting the positive of the left and right channels.
Now if you
Re:go Low Budget (Score:2)
Re:go Low Budget (Score:2)
The Roger Waters album mentioned by the parent post here, "Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking" was recorded with holophonics, a variant of the binaural techni
Re:go Low Budget--schematic and warning (Score:2)
Amount of content = very little (Score:3, Interesting)
I did like one point: why would you want more rear speakers than front? The center speaker produces the majority of dialogue in a movie, not the rear channels.
I have a 6.1 system, yes. I didn't intentionally do this. I watch non-digital TV with PLIIx decoding, and watch my movies with Dolby Digital EX. Frankly, I can't tell the difference. That "center surround" speaker is more for bragging rights than anything else.
So just to reiterate, I won't call 6.1 and 7.1 totally worthless, but yes, it is overkill. Movie experiences at home won't suddenly be way better. And the complete lack of 6.1 & 7.1 content makes the format rather pointless.
So many ways to be wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is that for most people, setting up two good speakers, or maybe two speakers and a subwoofer in the center, is going to give them the best sound. Add various little satellite speakers and stuff that is really dependent on the room layout, the prescence of sound reflecting and absorbing materials (table surfaces, soft couches etc.), the unpredictability of where people are sitting and chances are they will end up with a soundscape that sounds decidedly worse than they had with a simple 2 speaker or 2+1 speaker setup.
It's like having high-end Öhlins shock absorbers on your bike. For the riders that _are_ (not just think they are) knowledgeable, interested, and ready to spend a week tinkering, they will give superior performance to the factory default shocks. For the rest of us, they're just an expensive invitation to utterly screw up the bike handling beyond all help.
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
Except that DVD's and HDTV are recorded in six discreet channels!
I'm having trouble figuring out why so many people in this thread seem to fail to understand this. Two speakers is not going to give you the best sound from six separate channels. It just isn't. Five full-range speakers or five satellites and a sub is going to give you the best sound fr
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
It still amazes you? Technical knowledge at Slashdot has dropped over the years. That's just a fact. People want to post despite their lack of knowledge, another fact. If they really know nothing on the topic, they say something political (and inco
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
You misunderstand my post a bit.
What I'm saying is that taking those 5+1 speakers and placing them badly, not connecting all speakers the same way, not mixing
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
Willie "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond Of Each Other" Nelson may disagree with you there.
Re:So many ways to be wrong (Score:2)
I have a theory about it as well as the following typical people:
"I don't watch TV"
"MP3 sounds like crap"
"Modern medicine is stopping alternative medecine as it is afraid of it"
"Govt is run by multinational corporations/secret society/aliens"
Essentially these are people who are trying to buck the trend in a nonconformist way as it makes them feel that they are different (thus better) than anyone else or that they know something special that the teemin
When more is better. (Score:2)
Each of the speakers taken separately is pretty weak, and emits sound in one direction. 6 met
Re:When more is better. (Score:2)
There is no "sound barrier" no one sweet spot and no cancelling out everything else. If you think headphones are tiring you haven't spent enough on them. A few hundred dollars will get you the equivalent in headphones as $10k worth of speakers (and that's ignoring powering them). Spend a grand on headphones and you start getting up into the golden ear brigade in terms of sound quality.
Of course, for most of the slashdot crowd who would order their headphones from headphones.com you will a
It's all canned sound (Score:3, Interesting)
You can listen to any recording of say the Kronos Quartet [kronosquartet.org], but no matter how well the recording tech is matched to the medium the sound is flat compared to hearing the quartet play live.
I sometimes prefer listening to something from a seminal jazz album like Bitches Brew [miles-davis.com] on a turn table because the vynil has a warmer sound to my ears.
You can add all the speakers and present day tech you want it's still pancaked sound.
Re:It's all canned sound (Score:2)
Sure you don't HEAR the extra frequencies below or above the standard spectrum. But you FEEL them. Ultrasound adds the "piercing" impression, "music reaching to your inner depths". Subsonic makes you uncalm, feels like fear, danger. It's what makes animals flee from incoming hurricane, it's what makes your skin crawl. And harmonics, acords with th
Re:It's all canned sound (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
until I realized.... (Score:2)
I had the same problem and then I figured out the solution... don't realize you're annoying the neighbors. Problem solved ;)
For me, 1 is fine... (Score:2)
Summarized for Your Convenience (Score:2, Funny)
Equipment vs. Media (Score:4, Interesting)
From the variety of movies that I've watched on it, my big complaint lies with the audio encoding of the movies themselves rather than with the equipment it's playing on. I have a few hundred DVDs, and there's only a handful of them where it seems that any real effort was put into the channeling of the audio. The Superbit version of the Fifth Element comes to mind as a movie that simply sounds incredible with the surround. Most of the rest of them fall short, even ones with dts.
I have a suspicion that the dts tracks on some of them were just copies of the Dolby (or even Stereo) tracks that had just been resampled at a higher bitrate. It would be like using a casette to record a song from a radio broadcast and then encoding it into a 128kHz mp3. It's still not going to sound as good as the original (The original CD... not the radio recording).
Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong but, it seems like the shortcomings in my sound system (and many others as well) is not so much the equipment, but the quality of the media being played. Anyone else seen a difference between DVD distributions of movies? Or perhaps have a preferrence in the companies you buy your DVDs from?
Re:Equipment vs. Media (Score:2)
Re:Equipment vs. Media (Score:2)
I doubt the DTS t
2d video = stereo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2d video = stereo (Score:2)
Re:2d video = stereo (Score:2)
I think I understand what the original poster is referring to. I don't have my own surround sound system, but sometimes when I'm in a cinema and they have a particularly loud noise "behind" the audience, I find myself looking around at it instinctively, only to see a dark room full of people. What should have been an unconcious thing has now become a concious issue, which acts as a distraction. For a short period you are "disconnected" from the movie world and thrust back into the real world.
It might make
wutchyou talking about Toby? (Score:2)
I don't know, I'd be hard pressed to give up the sound of bullet ricochets being me during the Matrix lobby scene.
Andrew
What you really need is... (Score:2)
Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BSing (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that recievers are all transistor amps, and clipping is really noticable on transistors. Transistors are essentally completely linear up to a point, then they just stop hard and don't put out any more power. It isn't quite as harsh as digital clipping, but close. It's not smooth like tube clipping where the tube slowly enters a non-linear zone.
Also, more channels wouldn't give a reciever any more reason to clip. Each channel is a seperate amp. What matters in regards to clipping is the amount of power going in to a single channel. If it's more than the channel can handle, you clip, if not, you don't. What's happening on the other channels isn't relivant.
He's also wrong that there's no reason to want more speakers just because there's no seperate encoding for them. If that were the case, why the hell do theatres have more than 5 speakers? Well, because the sound would suck. You have people all spread out, you need surround speakers all along the walls to get a good, diffuse surround field that's pleasant for all of them.
It's actually the same reason behind a centre channel. In theory on a good setup, such a thing sould be unnecessary. Indeed you find this is the case, if you have two quality speakers that are focused on a listener, they can generate a perfectly centred sound by playing in unison. No need for a speaker there. However, that relies on a very small sweet spot. If people are spread out, the illusion breaks. So, we just put a speaker in the dead centre, and send the sound there. It makes the sound seem to come from the middle of the screen, regardless of your angle to it.
The real reason not to get 7.1 in most cases is you are wasting money because your listening area is too small to really benefit from more speakers. However, it's not going to make your reciever clip or anything, unless you've got a seriously screwed up reciever.
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:2, Informative)
A receiver's amplified channels still share a single power supply. This is kind of the defining trait of a receiver, actually (and, along with pre-amp stage purity, the source of all the receiver vs. separates debates of the ages). If the power supply (with support from capacitors) cannot maintain rail voltage for the load across the channels at a given instant, all channels are generally going to clip,
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:2)
More likely, if you are getting distortion, it's from your speakers. Speaker distortion increa
Center Channel (Score:3, Informative)
If you have ever played a surround sound DVD on a stereo setup, you would know what I am talking about almost immediate
Re:Center Channel (Score:2)
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:2)
That's not completely true. TFA doesn't really explain the point he's trying to make in this area. Your typical home theater receiver has a power rating for each channel that's usually based on the transistors used. There's also a maximum power rating that comes from how much current the power supply can produce. If you have something with multiple channels being driven at once, there are plenty of recei
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:2)
It totally matters if you're using a cheap amp that uses a single power supply for all channels. Your typical cheap amp will claim 100W per channel but the supply can't actually deliver enough ju
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually cheap receivers have very cheap and limited power supplies. The more channels you drive the less power that is available to all of them. As such if you hit a loud passage with sound
Re:Ok this guy is doing more than just a little BS (Score:2)
Um, yeah, that's what I said three sentences later. The point I was making is that more speakers allow for better sound for a spread out group of listeners.
I bought 7.1 (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a TV with built in 5.1 surround (including some lousy satellite speakers but no sub), but it didn't support DTS, and without a receiver of some sort I couldn't add additional inputs.
So I decided to buy a 5.1 receiver and speakers.
At the store, they had a 7.1 receiver which I'd read reviews of, and they said sounds like it cost well over £1000 but was only £300. They had it reduced to £250.
So I bought it. And a set of 7.1 speakers (the same price as an inferior 5.1 set) in which the rear 4 can be spliced together as pairs - reducing it to 5.1).
Since I have a small room, and no 7.1 source, I've left it as a 5.1 system, but it's nice to know if I ever get a larger room I can split up the rear speakers and properly fill in the rear channels.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that I'd not swap a 5.1 for a 7.1 system, if it cost more. I went from a sort of 5.1 to a real 5.1 for a sum I was happy to pay - and can now upgrade to 7.1 should it prove useful for the cost of two speaker stands.
Mark
Why even 5.1? Try 2.0 (Score:2)
If like me, and most other people in the world you listen to more of music than movies, then the entire "x.1" debate is, imho, DOA. Simply because a good stereo amp and quality stereo speakers blow the hell out of any(equally priced) "x.
Some of the posters here frighten me... (Score:2)
That means that in some movies you hear things all around you.
You only need to pop in LOTR, Matrix or Saving Private Ryan to see the difference.
What IS dopey is to buy a 5.1 cheap nasty 300$ system, if you can't afford something half decent don't buy a cheap version.
Start with a good basic receiver (400$ US for a DD receiver with some half decent power and 5.1 support) - then use your crappy spare speakers and slowly build
My stereo goes up to 11 (Score:2)
Even 7.1 may have some passing benefit. But my case in point is power leads [hifichoice.co.uk], being rated by What HiFi as 5 stars. These are £50 per cord. I don't have a link to their magazine, but the blurb says about these Kords"you will notice more melliflous treble and more composure in the bass"
To my mind if your stereo receiver needs a special cord to improve its bass
Re:My stereo goes up to 11 (Score:2)
- they always chuck in cheap ones to cut costs
- the sound is only as good as the weakest link in the system
- good sound from good amp -> shit cables -> crap sound out of good speakers
I don't know if higher-end stereos have better cables these days - I bought a Denon Hifi back in 1996 (the only good bit of kit I have, stereo-wise) after getting a building society windfall (
Why 4 surround channels instead of 5 front channel (Score:2)
I have a 6.1 system right now, and AFAICT the difference between 5.1 and 6.1 is quite small. However, I started with 4 speakers, then added a center, and loved the difference that the center made. Maybe that's just because my current screen is so small. My problem is: when I buy a projector and use a 2.4m (8ft) wide screen, I fear that
Re:OUTGOING (Score:2)
> 29340 29340
The rotors in your enigma got stuck, n00b.
Re:7.1! Pah! (Score:2)
Re:7.1! Pah! (Score:2)
All we had was an onboard pc speaker with three base frequencies and a white noise generator. If we wanted sound we had to program the fourier components ourselves! And we liked it!!
Re:Of course it is better (Score:2)
Re:An experiment (Score:2)
Huh. Doesn't that need a laser to work properly?
Re:An experiment (Score:2, Interesting)
However you analogy in this case is correct, but not your conclusion.
Soundwaves can also can be compared with ripples and waves on a liquid surface. If you throw a few small stones and big rocks into a swinning pool, the waves and ripples from the impacts will interfere with each
Re:An experiment (Score:2, Insightful)
> None of what you say make any sense
Do you know who you are replying to?
BadAnalogyGuy is not just a name, it's a way of life.
Re:The Real Sound (Score:2)
It's purely superflous, just like 5.1. It doesn't really make a blind bit of difference to all but the most anal of people. The extra blades/speakers are there to stroke your ego, not for quality purposes.
I avoid the hassle by not shaving, trimming with an electric hair cutter, and listening to my movie
Re:The Real Sound (Score:3, Funny)
Thread over.
Re:The Real Sound (Score:2)
Re:Watch LOTR ROTK (Score:2, Informative)
But then, I've got my 5.1 set up correctly and I sit in the right place. In the same way, if you're in the sweet spot, then the centre speaker isn't needed either.
6.1/7.1 is a really useful invention for cinemas in particular, as it allows you a much larger range to sit in where the surround still 'works' correctly. Which is the whole article condensed, really. If you've got your speakers set up right, then adding an extra one or two directly behind you doesn't really add anythin
Re:Watch LOTR ROTK (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that anything setup badly will not make any difference and in the case of 7.1 it would be a mess. But if you have gone 7.1 then I assume they have paid good money for something to drive it and some good kit to host it. If you have paid less than 5k for your setup then it's probably pointless to go 7.1.
Just because your average Jo doesn't need 7.1 tho do
Re:Watch LOTR ROTK (Score:2)
As I tried (and probably failed) to explain before, there are many and varied ways in which a centre-rear channel is useful in the home, so we're agreeing there. It's just that I'm fortunate enough that it doesn't help here, because the enlarged sweetspot isn't required.
As for the quest
Re:Watch LOTR ROTK (Score:2)
I hope you realise that any difference between a 5.1 and a 7.1 surround setup can be thrown by simply sitting in a different position in the room, or buying sound absorbant furniture, or having the cat sit on your lap.
7.1 provides only one thing. A pair of extra speakers. The only difference is in your head!