Why do we need 7.1 or even 5.1

[twistedcrankcammer]

Hi,

I have been an audio aficianodo since the late 60's. I was around for Quadrophonic in vinyl and broadcast (WWWW in Detroit). I have set up my home with reasonable equipment but I have yet to see the use of all those speakers and amps.

Don't get me wrong,I'm not some old fuddy duddy. I don't think that Heritage and tubes sound any better than the true horn sound and analogue warmth of steel needles on shellac. But this B.S. of a centre channel and two subwoofers is driving me nuts.

Stereo was invented to give a 3 dimensional representation of a performance. The left and right channels combined in the centre to give a three dimensional effect with the mixing engineer setting the positions of the players. The lead vocal was mixed mono and appeared in the centre. Why do I need a centre channel to reproduce the same thing that stereo was invented to solve?

Subwoofers are another problem. The entire idea of a subwoofer was that the lower octaves were non directional. By building a single box that only reproduced the lower octaves then the rest of the system needed only to reproduce the upper octaves where all the seperation was perceived. Now I see specifications (7.2) calling for yet another subwoofer. Apparently non-direction frequencies still need a point source.The only reason for the subwoofer channel is to give those ersatz explosions and phoney gunshots. Real music sources very seldom get down near 20 Hz. For those members running Heritage speakers with "Heritage" equipment. The first thing that a recording engineer did before sending a master for pressing was chop off anything below 70 Hz. Digital fixed that but the only real activity below 35 Hz is just Hollywood nonsense.

My real point is that the 5.1 + specification is silly unless applied to truely subgrade equipment. Real speakers can give the whole effect with only 4.

Are there any real sound engineers out there that can explain why we need 6 speakers to do the job of 4?

Mightyrajh,

I know what you mean, I bought my Nakamichi TA-4A brand new and at the time, I could have purchased one of the first surround systems for the same money. I figgured surround sound would go the same way as quadraphonics, so I bought the best two channel I could afford at the time. I would prefer 2 channel over surround sound if I could only buy two great speakers vs 7 speakers of the same value, but when you get closer to the pinacle of sound and diminishing returns, why not have 7 great sounding speakers with the abillity to listen to stereo when you want????

If I can afford 7 Ferrari Enzos or two Bugatti Vehrons, I'll take the 7 Enzos, of course I would probably trade a couple of the Enzos on a McLarren F-1, we'll just call it an extra special center channel!! []

Roger

[russ69]

That is exactly why I now have 7 TSCM speakers. I also have 5 MWM doubles, and should have 4 MWM singles within a week or two. This will give me the equivelant of 7 MWM doubles.......

That a boy, jump in with both feet! I've got a Steve Evans digital recording of a Funny car, you might like. You certainly have the system for it, LOL!

[twistedcrankcammer]

That is exactly why I now have 7 TSCM speakers. I also have 5 MWM doubles, and should have 4 MWM singles within a week or two. This will give me the equivelant of 7 MWM doubles.......

That a boy, jump in with both feet! I've got a Steve Evans digital recording of a Funny car, you might like. You certainly have the system for it, LOL!

Russ,

I would love it if you would burn me a copy!

Roger

[JL Sargent]

Does anybody have a livingroom on this forum that can possibly stand 7 MCM doubles? I want to see pictures. Maybe a converted chicken house? Kinda like stacking 7 sets of large deep freezers around the room. Where does one sit?

[twistedcrankcammer]

Does anybody have a livingroom on this forum that can possibly stand 7 MCM doubles? I want to see pictures. Maybe a converted chicken house? Kinda like stacking 7 sets of large deep freezers around the room. Where does one sit?

MWMs make great seats!! []

Roger

[Audible Nectar]

I thought that HT was pretty much a "gimmick" when it first came on the consumer scene - with less than discrete/full range freq response, and those tiny "surround" speakers that were an absolute affront to what I thought this hobby was about.

But then it "grew up". Full range discrete channels which are true high fidelity, with mixes available to take advantage of the full setup. Sub bass to the depths of the bottom, truly capable of theater quality if you have good mixes and equipment.

Why do we do this? To recreate the full scale theater experience in our own homes.

The biggest problem with HT isn't the format....it's the VENDORS and manufacturers who will not sell this the way it should be done. Case in point: The center channel should be sold as a third equal main as an "ideal", not this dinky shoebox.....especially with flat on-the-wall mounted screens of today. I agree in principle with the original poster, too - we can do this with four main speakers, which would be set up on a typical pre/pro or receiver's bass management as 5.1 with "phantom center" where the center is blended into the two front main speakers - or phantom center with NO sub. The subwoofer (a GOOD sub, of course) adds depth and scale that makes the soundspace seem bigger than the room, and when used properly is an absolute benefit. So I use a sub, and consider it a requirement for best results on DVD and Blu-Ray mixes.

I think one reason there are imaging complaints in many HT setups is that the smaller center speakers people use aren't positionally "tweaked" for best results, or cannot be tweaked to sound right in that room. A third identical main usually solves this (but again will require positional tweaking, which can be an experiment). Barring that, using no center between a large set of mains can actually work better with the center audio mixed into them, because the positional issue is solved once the imaging of that stereo pair is established.

A secondary problem with HT is the studios and engineers not taking full advantage of the capabilities of the formats for HT. There's some really good stuff out there, and a lot of mediocre stuff. But that's no different from current 2 channel releases (like how the CD format was effectively wasted, then we were sold the idea of "SACD" when music companies hadn't even maximized CD yet, at least for broad release). But then too, there is the really GOOD stuff: Witness "Talking Heads: Stop Making Sense", a theatrical release of a live Talking Heads concert from the mid 1980's. Or the special edition release of "The Last Waltz" (Last concert by The Band). Or "The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over". If these don't make you understand, it's a poorly conceived/assembled/installed system, or multichannel HT is just not your thing. On a truly good system, you will be wishing you brought spare underwear. The most common reaction I get from first timers goes something like "HooooooooLeeeeeeeee sh........".

Doing 5/6/7 channels properly isn't for everyone - it is a considerable investment to do all the channels the right way (and if you're hooked on Big Klipsch the smaller stuff seems "wanting"). And I would say that it's better to get 2 GOOD channels than to do 5/6/7 half baked. But if you watch a good deal of movies and multichannel music mixes, and have the room and budget to make it work, it can be well worth doing. I have two systems - a 2 channel vintage tube system, and a combo 2 channel tube/multichannel HT system with 6 Cornwalls and 2 JBL professional theater woofer cabs (and lemme tell ya - with 10 15" woofers smilin' at ya, and minimal cone excursion to produce that oh-so-effortless full scale bass that punches you in da chest before you realized just what in the hello just happened).....that's when you realize that it was all worth doing. It's like Muhammad Ali - "floats like a butterfly, and stings like a bee." And SIX identical main speakers bring a synchronicity that is just sublime. The timbre matching really matters. Once I did that, I was HOOKED. The smaller "mini/wide dispersion" stuff doesn't work for me.

But I would say to most: Get two GOOD channels first, then proceed further if you can do those rear channels right. I was extremely fortunate to obtain some key pieces of my HT at almost silly prices (like my JBL cabs from the "tent sale" about 7 or 8 years ago), and if not for those "breaks" I may well have given up on HT altogether. My multichannel use comprises about 15-20% of my system uses.....2 channel consumes the rest. Had I not built the HT system first, I might not have done it at all, and I was very lucky to have some things go very well and made some very good choices that worked well. I didn't have to waste too much money on repeat purchases, once I realized what I needed to do the job to MY standards.

So I am happy as hello I did my HT, but certainly understand why it's not for everyone. I like expensive sports cars, too, but would likely never own one. And much like a sports car, my HT is a luxury.....even in the realm of a Klipschead. I emphasize and use my 2 channel rigs more.

[Mightyrajh]

"You can see clearly that CDs contain nothing above 20KHz, while LPs may
have content to 60KHz and beyond."

Yes, I know that CDs cut off at just over 20khz and pretty darn sharply. That is because the sampling rate was chosen specifically to get to 20 khz which , at the time, was at the top of a standard frequency range ie. 20-20,000 hz.

I did some re investigating and when mastering for vinyl the bass was mixed to mono and often but not always run through a high pass filter set between 50 and 70 hz (even more for KTel). I suppose the Deutch Gramophone recordings or other high end pressings were special but really low bass seems to be difficult to cut and play back. Those ultra low notes (sub 20 hz) absolutely have to be filtered out because the resonant frequency of the tonearm was between 15 and 20 hz.

My mention of the vinyl was just so that I didn't get accused of being "Back in the good ole days" when I queried the necessity of the growing number of speakers and amplifiers required to playback a movie.

My real reason for starting this thread was to question the need for a centre channel when you already have 4 discrete channels which would give you the same information. I also wondered why I am supposed to have a subwoofer which for the THX spec runs between 20 and 80 hz. My other drivers will do all but the very last octave which appears to be used soley for effects.

It just seems that someone thought that what was necessary to run PA to a 500 seat cinema was the same system needed to give the same effect in a regular sized room.

[Islander]

I did some re investigating and when mastering for vinyl the bass was mixed to mono and often but not always run through a high pass filter set between 50 and 70 hz (even more for KTel). I suppose the Deutch Gramophone recordings or other high end pressings were special but really low bass seems to be difficult to cut and play back. Those ultra low notes (sub 20 hz) absolutely have to be filtered out because the resonant frequency of the tonearm was between 15 and 20 hz.

It just seems that someone thought that what was necessary to run PA to a 500 seat cinema was the same system needed to give the same effect in a regular sized room.

Sorry to be so nit-picky, but most tonearm resonance numbers are in the 10-14Hz range, at least that's the ideal, according to this article:
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/tonearmcartridge.html

This article says 8 to 12Hz: http://www.theanalogdept.com/cartridge___arm_matching.htm

That second article also includes a resonant frequency calculator.

Here's another calculator: http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html

Accordingly, music can be recorded onto vinyl even in its lowest octave, although the engineer really would have to draw the line at 20Hz, as you mentioned.

As for your second quote, there are a number of lucky forum members who have home systems that would not be out of place in an auditorium or theatre. We just don't turn them up all the way. That's one of the great things about Klipsch speakers: even the high-end gear is affordable, especially if found on the used market.

[winchester21]

A pair of large Heritage for 2 chanel listening- K horn-Lascala -Belle- or CW makes the perfect pair of front speakers for HT and a great starting point for a killer Ht system-(Thanks Audible Nectar for suggesting this to me early on). my recently modded K horns- 2" wood horns- Universal crossovers-crites tweeters- are even better- However now - I need to change out my Lascala center to 2" horns with similar stuff.

I have had both Heritage 5.1 and 7.1- The 7.1 gets my vote for my room and DVD choices. I have been through 5 different HT receivers and a ton of klipsch speakers- too many to remember. The HT equipment started out as a silly gimmick by todays standards and has evolved into a wonderful entertaining media that is worth the investment and the trouble- particulary using older / refirbushed/ upgraded heritage speakers.

My worst complaint is and has been the horrible 'CD" mode for 2 channel listening. You have to have separate HT/2 ch power systems. I denied this for years and finally gave in and established 2 systems The only thing that I share is front speakers.

[Don Richard]

Your remark about recording engineers chopping off everything below 70Hz is something I've never heard before. If that were true, why would vintage pre-amps have a rumble filter? Even old LPs can carry fairly low-frequency information. That information could be bass guitars, which can go to 40Hz with a 4-string model and 30Hz with a 5-string instrument, while synthesizers and pipe organs can go as low as 16Hz.

I doubt that the recording engineer would cut @ 70 Hz, but the mastering engineers these days, with the mandate to make the CDs as loud as possible, use spectral shaping and roll off below 50 Hz and above 15 kHz as part of their arsenal of loudness maximizing tricks. They don't use brick wall filters but rolloffs.

Rumble filters were for reducing noise generated by the TT ( ie. bearings) and warped records.

[4tay]

Seems only a few TT's could play the Telarc 1812 overture LP without the needle jumping out of the groove. These were all very expensive rigs. I have yet to meet a cd player that won't play the Telarc CD of the 1812.

[edwinr]

Audible Nectar makes a good point about HT. Lots of current HT hardware doesn't scratch the surface of what HT is really capable of (think of the home-theatre-in-a-box products that are so popular at the moment). And it's not just the hardware. How many movie makers properly exploit the medium?

But let me talk about 2 channel. It is unfair to make judgements on this format by merely switching back and forth between the surround and 2 channel options on a HT receiver. Most HT receivers suck on 2 channel. They are not optimized for this format. Why would they be? It would defeat the purpose of paying for those extra channels and processing. Also we should consider whether the software used in any evaluation has been mixed to exploit the advantages of 2 channel listening. How was it recorded? Are the reverberations in the 2 channel mix natural or added later via electronic wizardary?

Properly recorded 2 channel music has the most amazing ability to surround the listener with all kinds of sound localization information. I have some recordings that have been made with just 2 microphones. Listening to these recordings makes me feel as though I am actually at the concert. I know good 5.1 can do that too. But I don't have the money to spend on several sub-standard speakers and amplification. I have spent all my money on the best stereo speakers and I can afford. []

[gnatnoop]

Hi,

I have been an audio aficianodo since the late 60's. I was around for Quadrophonic in vinyl and broadcast (WWWW in Detroit). I have set up my home with reasonable equipment but I have yet to see the use of all those speakers and amps.

Don't get me wrong,I'm not some old fuddy duddy. I don't think that Heritage and tubes sound any better than the true horn sound and analogue warmth of steel needles on shellac. But this B.S. of a centre channel and two subwoofers is driving me nuts.

Stereo was invented to give a 3 dimensional representation of a performance. The left and right channels combined in the centre to give a three dimensional effect with the mixing engineer setting the positions of the players. The lead vocal was mixed mono and appeared in the centre. Why do I need a centre channel to reproduce the same thing that stereo was invented to solve?

Subwoofers are another problem. The entire idea of a subwoofer was that the lower octaves were non directional. By building a single box that only reproduced the lower octaves then the rest of the system needed only to reproduce the upper octaves where all the seperation was perceived. Now I see specifications (7.2) calling for yet another subwoofer. Apparently non-direction frequencies still need a point source.The only reason for the subwoofer channel is to give those ersatz explosions and phoney gunshots. Real music sources very seldom get down near 20 Hz. For those members running Heritage speakers with "Heritage" equipment. The first thing that a recording engineer did before sending a master for pressing was chop off anything below 70 Hz. Digital fixed that but the only real activity below 35 Hz is just Hollywood nonsense.

My real point is that the 5.1 + specification is silly unless applied to truely subgrade equipment. Real speakers can give the whole effect with only 4.

Are there any real sound engineers out there that can explain why we need 6 speakers to do the job of 4?

i'm pretty sure your limitation of "real sound engineers" was ignored.

[twistedcrankcammer]

Audible Nectar makes a good point about HT. Lots of current HT hardware doesn't scratch the surface of what HT is really capable of (think of the home-theatre-in-a-box products that are so popular at the moment). And it's not just the hardware. How many movie makers properly exploit the medium?

But let me talk about 2 channel. It is unfair to make judgements on this format by merely switching back and forth between the surround and 2 channel options on a HT receiver. Most HT receivers suck on 2 channel. They are not optimized for this format. Why would they be? It would defeat the purpose of paying for those extra channels and processing. Also we should consider whether the software used in any evaluation has been mixed to exploit the advantages of 2 channel listening. How was it recorded? Are the reverberations in the 2 channel mix natural or added later via electronic wizardary?

Properly recorded 2 channel music has the most amazing ability to surround the listener with all kinds of sound localization information. I have some recordings that have been made with just 2 microphones. Listening to these recordings makes me feel as though I am actually at the concert. I know good 5.1 can do that too. But I don't have the money to spend on several sub-standard speakers and amplification. I have spent all my money on the best stereo speakers and I can afford.

It's pretty simple really,

Get away from the crapin receivers!!! If you can't afford the latest, greatest, buy good used gear, just like you did with your speakers. You can buy the latest, greatest, at a massive price, and it will be eclipsed in 6 months. I don't even like multi channel amplifiers. Instead of a 5 or 7 channel amplifier, I use very high quality used 2 channel amps times 4 amplifiers. You don't need all of the pushy buttons and gizmos on the latest receiver, get a good used pre surround sound processor with stereo capability and run a 2 channel CD player into it, hook up the best Klipsch speakers you can afford and your set....

Roger

[dtel]

It just seems that someone thought that what was necessary to run PA to a 500 seat cinema was the same system needed to give the same effect in a regular sized room.

Because it works, if done right.

I have read this thread but may have missed this answer, I am NOT trying to be smat@ss. It just seems that if the average person heard the results with and without it would be easy to hear the difference.

To me if your speakers are close, why bother with a center channel, you see pic's of main speakers 6'-7' apart and they sit 12' back, just use phantom on the receiver and save the money for better mains because you probably can't hear the center anyway.

And actually none of it is "needed" in the big picture of things.

Have you heard a well set up Ht with matching center channel in even 5.1?

Have you heard a well set up Ht with and without a capable sub ?

I am only asking these questions because when you hear it you know why.

Since questions about center channel's and subs seem not really needed, let's go off the deep end....... []

Since you were talking about cinema's, have you heard PRO cinema speakers with different drivers in a home ?

[edwinr]

I guess the question is; "Which is better? Stereo or multichannel?"

And the answer is; "Done right, they both are..." []

[dtel]

I guess the question is; "Which is better? Stereo or multichannel?"

And the answer is; "Done right, they both are..."

I think your right, but I would never give up 2 CH, I don't care how good multichannel gets. []

[twistedcrankcammer]

It just seems that someone thought that what was necessary to run PA to a 500 seat cinema was the same system needed to give the same effect in a regular sized room.

Because it works, if done right.

I have read this thread but may have missed this answer, I am NOT trying to be smat@ss. It just seems that if the average person heard the results with and without it would be easy to hear the difference.

To me if your speakers are close, why bother with a center channel, you see pic's of main speakers 6'-7' apart and they sit 12' back, just use phantom on the receiver and save the money for better mains because you probably can't hear the center anyway.

And actually none of it is "needed" in the big picture of things.

Have you heard a well set up Ht with matching center channel in even 5.1?

Have you heard a well set up Ht with and without a capable sub ?

I am only asking these questions because when you hear it you know why.

Since questions about center channel's and subs seem not really needed, let's go off the deep end.......

Since you were talking about cinema's, have you heard PRO cinema speakers with different drivers in a home ?

DTEL brings up an excellent point hear, I've said it before, and will say it again, if you have not heard Klipschorns at least 20 feet apart, then you have not heard Klipschorns. I will also say that Jubilees at 20 feet with the K-69 / 402 and good source material truely seem to have a center in place. Forget about tubes vs: solid state, or receiver vs: pre - pro, nothing worse than excellent speakers in an accoustical nightmare. []

Roger

[Chris A]

Are there any real sound engineers out there that can explain why we need 6 speakers to do the job of 4?

i'm pretty sure your limitation of "real sound engineers" was ignored.

I think that this article will address that request. There are two other pdf files that address related issues that are very good. You can find them here. Floyd Toole is a"real sound engineer". His book, available here is an excellent read. I recommend it highly. I believe that it will answer many of your questions.

Chris