The furure of home theater? new products? or how far is too far?

[lne937s]

I just want to hear some creative ideas on the future of home theater. I hear a lot of criticism and applause for various current products- but what is possible?

How many surround channels? 4? 5? 23?

Monopole, dipole, quadrapole?

Ceiling channel?

Multiple subwoofer channels to envelope/ balance bass better?

Crossover points?

How about subwoofer couches? It could give you a place to put a huge cabinet, emulate those trendy platform beds, and give real kick-in-the-pants bass.

There is so much emphasis on surround channels, but what about the fronts? I've noticed that sound can seem misplaced by high-mounted center speakers if the action is not happening at that part of the screen. Afterall- the most important sound is that corresponding to what's on screen.

You could have one planar speaker radiating from the entirity of a front projection screen?

The diafragm is transparant, could you use this for rear projection?

Or even better- multiple front screen speakers to place the sound on screen? This would work well for front projection through an audio transparant screen, or on the edges of a rear projection/tube/lcd screen. It also would be compatible with movie theaters?

Or even better- there are planar speakers out now that radiate sound out across the diafram from a single point using a circuit to create a concentric pattern in the magnetic matrix. Could you use a processor on a powered planar to take an encoded signal and radiate sound out from the exact location that each individual, on-screen sound is coming from? Kind of like LCD computer screen circuitry?

Or even better- could you modify the concentric pattern on the the powered planar to create the characteristics of sound at vaious distances from the screen and sizes on it? True 3-D sound?

You would probably want to use something else for pure music- especially for all you horn lovers and big rooms.

Granted, you would need to get movies encoded, a huge amp, and a huge budget (Wilson Grand Slam?). However, the raw materials for planar speakers are relatively cheap (cheaper than video screen components), the magnetic matrix is pretty much already there, and the coding wouldn't be that hard to figure out (similar to fixed-pixel displays)- so, if something like this was mass produced, I'm sure the price could be made reasonable. There would have to be great engineering to make the imaging range usable- maybe multiple smaller panels instead of one big one. (i'm sure it's possible, but probably still going too far!)

We devote so many bytes to video, how about some more for audio?

Or even better- have the planar wrap completely around the audience - have multiple-projector wrap-around video (60's cinemascope-esque) and make the floor out of an array of subwoofers? (definitely going too far)

I'd like to hear some more crazy ideas, as well as some serious ideas about the future of realistic products.

just trying to get some discussion going and creativity brewing-

Larry

This message has been edited by lne937s on 05-31-2002 at 11:34 PM

[Kain]

Wow, those are some very interesting ideas.

I never thought of such things.

------------------

Coming soon...

Home Theater:

TV: Sony KV-ES38M91 (38" Direct View FD Triniton WEGA)

A/V Receiver: Marantz SR9200

DVD Player: Sony DVP-NS900V

Center: Klipsch RC-7

Mains: Klipsch RF-7s

Surrounds: Klipsch RS-7s

Subwoofer: SVS CS-Ultra w/Samson S1000 amplifier

[kev313]

Larry,

Good topic! Funny tho', I was just thinking about the possibilities of a ceiling channel the other day. That one sounds like it could be done AND could be put to good use (i.e., any sound over the viewer such as a helicopter coming down etc.). This could even be more functional and easier to appreciate than a 7.1 setup. The gaming applications alone make me giddy. Of course I guess the problem is once you have one nothing would stop the tide of multi-channel ceiling sound. Thats gonna take one big 'ol amp (in addition to all your other speakers).

------------------

Two Channel System:

Klipsch Fortes (1988)

Jolida 202a

Rega Planet

Denon DP 3000 tt (Stax tonearm; Grado Gold cart.)

[HornEd]

Check out the white papers of Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D., the foremost acoustics and psychoacoustics authority in most pros minds... his pet peeve, ceiling speakers, for he sees them as an acoustics graveyard.

You will also find some quality background info on some of your other "noodlings" as well. It is great to see more people approach sound with an investigative mind.

Check it out! -HornED

------------------

Photo update soon! -HornEd

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-01-2002 at 11:32 AM

[Mlstrass]

Larry "How about subwoofer couches? It could give you a place to put a huge cabinet, emulate those trendy platform beds, and give real kick-in-the-pants bass."

I'm actually considering something like this in my next dedicated HT room. Won't be another 2-3 years, so I'll have plenty of time to plan out something.

You have some pretty interesting ideas and definitely aren't afraid to step outside the envelope...we need more of that in here. Take care...Mike

[TheEAR]

HornED,

"Check out the white papers of Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D., the foremost acoustics and psychoacoustics authority in most pros minds... his pet peeve, ceiling speakers, for he sees them as an acoustics graveyard."

LOL

Talking about an acoustic graveyard,do you remember the coffin subwoofer one Klipsch BB member has.

Creepy,imagine a SVS Coffin series sub with a GHOST amp,the BASH amp having no scare factor.

Now back to the more serious audio question

lne937s,

For me quality dipole would be ideal,imagine a la Mirage built by Dynaudio(Contour series quality and drivers).

Next all five or seven or more speakers would be identical full range(down to 40Hz).For the most balanced sound possible.Using dynamic cone drivers.As panel speakers are nor always practical and need great amounts of space to work well.

After the subwoofer issue,I would go with two potent subwoofers capable of true 16Hz output at at least 115dB(not an easy feat).The subs should use active EQ's with built in mics to properly auto tune to the room acoustics.Often subwoofer output is wasted and the tuning is not done properly.

Same with the pre/pro,the units should all have some sort of electronic auto calibration(as each room behaves in a way),again using a mic the user can really eliminate some of the room nasty effects with the integrated DSP.

As its proven Z Systems and Accuphase have such units(not cheap)and these work like a charm,proven but expensive.

I think 4-5 sourround channels(not counting the two mains and center would be great),I would even say get two mains,one center,two effect channels(a la Yamaha) and five sourrounds channels(two-four side channels) and a rear center.

One or two subwoofer channels,since true sub freq.are non directional one channel is plenty as long as you can connect 2-4 subwoofers and adjust its outputs to further fine tune.

The standard subwoofer cut points should be variable or inlesser gear set to a selectable 80Hz,70Hz,60Hz,50Hz and a low 40Hz.With steep and mild slopes(both 6dB per octave and 24dB per octave).

Celling speakers,I dont belive in this.Its nonsense good for background music,dentist office and supermarkets.No serious system will use celling speakers,I dont care how well made and by who.

Subwoofer couch huh! LOL Well if its made by HSU or SVS then yes(hey its covered with "stylish" car grade tissue)LOL.If its made by Krell it would probably weigh in at 1500lbs and be milled from one solid billet of aluminium and sport four 18" super long throw woofers and a MRSA 10KW RMS amp.And cost $150000 LOL Not very practical, a serious booty shaker deluxe.

Yes audio quality could be better,say 8.1 SACD quality with HDTV for the image part.All nice on paper but the players would cost a fortune in the first years of production.Too exotic for the near future

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[lne937s]

I just wanted to reiterate that I started this line so I could hear some of your ideas- not just critiques of my own. Any body have anything really creative- going beyond the confines of current audio technology.

I was doing some more thinking about the things I thought up while writing my original post and had some more ideas.

First of all- rather than concentrating on the multitude of speakers that are representing what's on screen, more attention should be paid to what's on screen. I keep hearing misplaced sound by the center channel- eg. dialog from an image at bottom left on screen coming from top and center. Much of the time, I think that stereo speakers placed close to the screen(dialog moves across it) sound better than the high center. I think that multichannel audio for on screen- replacing the center channel- should be the top priority. The emphasis on sound that we can't see is overdone.

Secondly, I have a hard time believing that any encoding for audio is really all that complex/expensive when video takes up so many bytes and is relatively inexpensive- I guess it all breaks down to marketing and standardization.

The more I think about, the more I like my planar screen idea. Exciting planars from multiple magnetic points intrigues me. Could this creat a speaker that excites specific areas for the high imaging frequencies moving to the whole diafragm for bass. Although, you wouldn't need as "audio pixels" as you would video, if you went high res, you could recreate the actual size and shape of the audio on the screen. Using the lcd video circuitry, consider a 100-1000 point screenwith a high refresh rate- you would also only need one signal carrying high frequency or digital wire. The compression should be easier than video. The higher frequency of the signal to the screen might allow switching amps and other aplifier types that are used for radio broadcast and are much more efficient than the standard class A.- just thinking

Secondly- What about video. When I was working for an OOH media firm I saw something that made me think. Remember those sitckers with little ridges of prisms on them that made the picture shift when you moved it (lenticular). Well, the make ads with them now so tiny that when you look at them, one eye sees a diferent image than the other- making a 3-D image without those annoying glasses. How about making a true 3-D television?

Anyway, I refuse to believe that the beginning and end of audio is 3 front channels of cone-box-spring-electromagnet (dynamic) speakers and x amount of surrounds. How about horns with planar/ribbon drivers? -the virtually perpindicualr projection of sound amkes for some interesting physics.

But enough of that, I want to hear your ideas. Please don't be afraid of not being absolutely right, stating something that already exists, or offending someone's tastes in audio correctness.

Jump outside the box- let's start thinking about the future instead or reiterating the past.

Larry

[Cory]

Has anyone heard of those new yet primitive thingies that you can put on any surface like glass, etc and it will use it as a sounding board?

How about a home theater with technically no speakers. How about the walls being used as sounding boards by reverse innerwall mounted sound producers, like a large scale version of these thingies. Sounding ceiling tiles would be the equivelent of your ceiling accoustics =]

Perhaps tile flooring that acts as subwoofer output?

[lne937s]

I'm not sure how well that would sound, but for surrounds, the diffuse sound would be great- if they sounded OK.

I remember seeing early developements of what you are talking from Ames labs, funded by GM back in the 80's. I remember thinking it was neat, but don't recall it sounding very HiFi. You would probably have to have some type of standard size and composition of the wall to make repeatable results. I am not even sure how those devises work- are they just suped-up Bass Shakers?

Maybe- you could use that for a separate channel that uses frequencies that are suitable to the application.

Overall, I would say that surround channels are guessing at what is going on off screen instead of recording on-screen action with the exception of creating noises that are entering and leaving the view of the audience. So as far as future developements are concerned, does anything go?

I want too hear more ideas!!

Larry

[WMcD]

This may all be well and good for discussion.

But let me point out that for all the sophistication of the speakers, you'll not have a source which is mixed for it.

Tomlinson Hulsman (sp?) the THX guy has a book called "5.1 Channel, Up and Running." He advocates that there should be some standardization. Yeah I know, THX is under attack, but consider.

He is saying that there is a problem with mixing in the studio and playback in the living room if the mixing engineer is working with a system which is not very much like the one in the living room. This makes sense.

Grant you, if there is to be some standardization, it may well gravitate toward the mediocre, because the masses can't affort the most sophisticated.

On the other hand, if there is some agreed on basic set up, it can be optimized. Maybe that is better.

Gil

[kenratboy]

SIMPLE SOLUTION:

We will all convert back to high-quality stereo in the future. No more hassels.

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

[lne937s]

I think that the standards issue is critical.

I also think that in many ways a smooth transition from left to right in stereo is superior to a single high and center source for all dialog- especially if the sound is coming from the lower corner of the screen.

How's this for a new idea of encoding- to have one type of signal. In that signal, each track of multitrack sound would be encoded for a particular tangent from the listening area and overall size of soundfield. That way, each individual system could split the signal into it's respective number of channels- and complexity would be limited by budget.

Also, (i hate to think that I might be recommending something Bose is doing) it might be beneficial to create matching amp/speaker packages that compliment each other- conforming to each system.

I also think that surround speaker type should be determined by room size. In a movie theater monopole speakers are necessary to project far enough to reach people at the front rows and the combination of multiple speakers and significant distance from the audience creates spaciousness. However, I do think that monopoles are too forward for surrounds in small rooms and that bipoles or multiple speakers per channel need to be used to create the same spaciousness.

I want more ideas-

Let's get an intellectually stimulating discussion going rather than just a rant about one thing or the other.

Larry

[HornEd]

Standards are indeed important, Larry and they should take into account the points Gil raised. The "standard" should allow for both a good affordable system and a great upscale system. Currently, a 6.1 system gets my vote. Putting three speakers in the front array and three speakers in the rear array provides a basic hub from which additional speaker locations such as Front Effects or additional Side Effects channels may be matrixed.

Taken to its logical conclusion 6.1 frees the mixer up from the localized sounds up front and dump all the ambient stuff into downsized side-surround sound sprayers. With six full-range channels and an LFE channel, mixers can mix a system-wide array of background and localized sounds... and have the localized sounds timbre matched, for all intents and purposes, to achieve a superior level of HT realism and concert hall authenticity... including correct apparent placements of musical instruments.

TheEar(s) was right on with Floyd E. Toole's comments about ceiling speakers... he even refuses to go into homes that have them! Then again, maybe he didn't think of the helicopter-landing-on-your-head effect... hmmm, and we can't forget localizing "Moby Dick" as he surfaces from our subterranean floor speakers!

I do disagree with one aspect you have brought forth, Larry, and that is I believe a stimulating conversation must include the downsides of critique in order to foster more plausible brain storming. I suspect Dr. Toole would also put down floor speakers as well, probably calling them a social disease as well.

Probably the most important speaker to develop for HT is a center channel that radiates sound from the center of the picture and is closely timbre matched with the rest of the speakers. I have not been satisfied with planar, perforated screen solutions for this vital hub around which all HT performances depend for upwards of 75% of the total sound available on a DVD.

[michael hurd]

I believe the future of home theater to be one of optimizing the currently used setups, a move to more simpler systems and the increased usage of acoustical control products to improve on an alredy good format. Like it has been said before, there is much merit to a simple setup. This is not to suggest that we should go backwards to like the original dolby surround with limited band mono rear channels. I personally like the idea of implementing couches/chairs that have subwoofers and/or tactitle sound transducers attatched. I have owned a set of the aura pro bass shakers for 2 years now. When I first put them in my car and demoed them for people, the effect blew them away. " Two ten inch subs do that ?!" Of course, you don't tell them about the tranducers ! When properly set ( level ), this brings about much more than a sub alone. You can actually feel the low notes moving and modulating everything, without such a high spl.

[lne937s]

Hi everyone

I would like to reiterate the idea of tangental coding for tracks as a way to accomadate systems of various complexities and prices. You could have this work with as few or as many channels as you want and have a coding system that supports minimalists as well as extreemists in channel complexity.

I also have to say that I encourage CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. My fear is not that people will disagree with the ideas on this topic, but that ideas will be written off without being analyzed or ommitted because posters are reluctant to go out on a limb for fear of negative people who are out to slam them- we know they are out there.

I just want to hear some new/creative ideas. Who would of predicted the current technology 25 years ago? I want to look to the future.

I have enjoyed all the ideas so far and hope they keep coming-

Larry

[Cory]

How about this idea

Thousands of electrostatic grids that act as a 2nd layer that goes over a bigscreen.

Then where the people's mouths are, or where sound is coming from on screen like verbally, that section of electrostatic layer is power and vibrates causing sound to literally come from the screen.

Oh boy, im getting chills

[glennbarn]

How about some audio transmitter that can be directed just like a laser beam carrying frequency, volume and XY coordinates data aimed at the appropriate embedded device within the room to reproduce the sound ?

The XY coordinates data is relative to the position of the viewer to create a 3D audio positioning. Hence when someone in the movie shoots from a crawling position from the leftmost side of the screen or eyelevel directly in from, the sound is emitted by the appropriate device at the appropriate level and angle from the viewer.

There is nothing in this home theater room that resembles a conventional speaker nor amplifiers of some sort.

The video project hangs by the ceiling and transmits video throughtout the room whose walls are actually part of the projection screen, thereby creating a more realistic feeling of being in the movie.

I don't believe that we will be crowding our home theater rooms in the future with 20 speakers and subwoofers just to recreate a more realistic audio experience.

Just a thought !

[edwardre]

I think it would be cool if the future of video lies in holographic imaging. Like in Vanilla Sky where they're at this party and a holographic guy is blowing out a trumpet jam (Louie A.?). If a whole movie was like that, played out in front of you complete with holo-sets....now THAT would be slick.

------------------

Ed

[lne937s]

Hi everyone,

I pulled an all nighter @ work last night and am somewhat delerious- the joys of advertising.

Anyway, Its great to hear some more ideas.

Cory- like the electrostatic idea- very similar to my planar idea, since they use similar technology. I do like the idea of making the transducer to fit over any screen that size!

Glennbarn- I think the idea of reducing clutter is very relevant, but I think your proposed system might be a little too futuristic and would need so many inventions and advancements to come in the forseeable future. However, I do think it could be a valid concept to model future innovations to.

Ed- I don't know much about holographs. Does anyone out there know how they work/ the physics/ practical applications.

Lets keep the ideas flowing- I hope everyone enjoys this topic as much as I do

Larry

[boa12]

edward, that halogram in VS is John Coltrane. i've become a big VS junky now since that movie baffled the he%% out of me.

see VS movie thread under dvd section. warning for those who have not seen it though - it contains spoilers. great soundtrack btw.

------------------

My Home Systems Page