[Bytor123]

Probably a stupid question - but why not 6.1? Or 5.2? Etc.?

 

[bigshot]

A lot of the stuff discussed on audiophile forums is imaginary!

 

[bigshot]

5.1 is two fronts left and right, a center, two rears left and right and the point one is the subwoofer. The other standard is 7.1 which adds side channels. You can have more than one sub, so 5.2 is a real thing. But the base configuration is an odd number because of the center channel. Atmos is an additional dot number. That indicates the number of overhead speakers. (An even number for however many overhead stereo pairs you have.)

 

[Bytor123]

5.1 is two fronts left and right, a center, two rears left and right and the point one is the subwoofer. The other standard is 7.1 which adds side channels. You can have more than one sub, so 5.2 is a real thing. But the base configuration is an odd number because of the center channel. Atmos is an additional dot number. That indicates the number of overhead speakers. (An even number for however many overhead stereo pairs you have.)

I see, thanks. So is 7.1 'better' than 5.1?

 

[bfreedma]

I see, thanks. So is 7.1 'better' than 5.1?

If you have the room to properly place the speakers, 7.1 will usually be an improvement. Since speakers 6/7 are rears, if your searing position is against or very close to the rear wall, they won’t add much value.

In most rooms, I’d add a second sub before going from 5 to 7 speakers (If anyone was asking...).

 

[bigshot]

And better quality speakers are better than more speakers too. I read something somewhere that said the orders of magnitude of improvement in multichannel is a matter of doubling. Two channels are better than one. Four are better than two, and so on. Since a lot of recorded music is designed for a front weighted soundstage the three front speakers are very important. I cheaped out and got a mediocre center channel when I first started out. It didn’t cut it and it was the first thing I replaced.

 

[Bytor123]

If you have the room to properly place the speakers, 7.1 will usually be an improvement. Since speakers 6/7 are rears, if your searing position is against or very close to the rear wall, they won’t add much value.

In most rooms, I’d add a second sub before going from 5 to 7 speakers (If anyone was asking...).

Thank you. I'm trying to understand this - so on a recording there could be several (five, seven...) distinct 'sounds' that could emanate from a discreet speaker in such a system? I get the 'size of the room' limitations as to where one could place speakers. But in theory, is there a limit to the number of speakers that would 'make a difference'?

 

[bigshot]

Most mixes now are 5.1 or 7.1. The amp will fold down the mix to 5.1 if you don’t have 7.1. The number of speakers isn’t as important as how all the speakers mesh and fill the space. A bigger room needs more speakers. But more speakers isn’t necessarily better if the room doesn’t require more.

Atmos systems for movie theaters can have dozens of channels. Atmos isn’t as common in the home yet though.

 

[Bytor123]

Most mixes now are 5.1 or 7.1. The amp will fold down the mix to 5.1 if you don’t have 7.1. The number of speakers isn’t as important as how all the speakers mesh and fill the space. A bigger room needs more speakers. But more speakers isn’t necessarily better if the room doesn’t require more.

Thanks for your reply. I may sound daft with this, but - if a recording is of a single voice (or instrument), does it come come from all the speakers? So - Rush three instruments and a voice...what's coming from where?!

 

[sonitus mirus]

Thanks for your reply. I may sound daft with this, but - if a recording is of a single voice (or instrument), does it come come from all the speakers? So - Rush three instruments and a voice...what's coming from where?!

That is actually a great question. I always assumed a multi-channel recording of music was still focused on the main front speakers (left front, right front, and center channels) along with a subwoofer, with additional speakers acting as "active" reflections from the recording room. Most of the multi-speaker setups I have seen and heard have back speakers or side speakers that are not the same size and power of the two left/right front speakers. So, any idea about being equally surrounded by music in the same sense that stereo offers seems a bit odd.

 

[bigshot]

There are several different approaches to mixing music for multichannel. Some create a realistic front stage and use the rears for ambience. Classical music is usually mixed that way. Others put the listener in the center of the band, with instruments all around you. Likewise, some mixes put a single instrument in a single channel. Singers are often in the center channel. Others create stereo pairs between the various five speakers to place the sonic image halfway between the two. By doing this, a sound can travel diagonally across the room from front to rear. Still others use phase differences to create an immersive sound field pulsing around you. Different songs might have several of these approaches in a single song. In order to reproduce the more sophisticated effects, it takes careful balances and high quality speakers all around. Done right, it’s three dimensional.

I don’t have the multichannel Rush box, so I can’t comment on that. But I will say it is kind of hit and miss. There are good mixes and bad ones. It’s good to read reviews before dropping the money on an expensive box set.

 

[Bytor123]

There are several different approaches to mixing music for multichannel. Some create a realistic front stage and use the rears for ambience. Classical music is usually mixed that way. Others put the listener in the center of the band, with instruments all around you. Likewise, some mixes put a single instrument in a single channel. Singers are often in the center channel. Others create stereo pairs between the various five speakers to place the sonic image halfway between the two. By doing this, a sound can travel diagonally across the room from front to rear. Still others use phase differences to create an immersive sound field pulsing around you. Different songs might have several of these approaches in a single song. It’s three dimensional.

Thanks. I think I'd need to hear such a system to fully understand what's going on. Well, appreciate it rather than understand!

 

[bigshot]

If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I’ll audition my system for you.

 

[Bytor123]

If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I’ll audition my system for you.

Ha, cheers, you're on !

 

[sander99]

@PhonoPhi:
To be fair, it could be that with binaural recordings and simulated binaural signals IEMs do have an (extra, if you prefer) advantage over normal headphones. Because the IEMs don't interact with the outer ear there is less need for "headphone" compensation. For example the Smyth Realiser A16 requires an extra measurement (HPEQ) of the headphones that it uses to compensate for the frequency response of those headphones on your head (again different per individual). It is also possible to use IEMs with the A16 and do a manual HPEQ. Coincidently I have spoken with Mike Smyth about that when I had a demo of the A16 in May 2017. If I remember correctly he said that creating a HPEQ for IEMs is mainly about compensating for one ear canal resonance.