Typical 5.1 surround sound requires 6 speakers. Most non-audio/video-phile friends I talk with think that having 6 speakers in the typical family room is quite a stretch, and some are resistant to even having that many speakers. I have a very large room (18 ft by 18 ft with 9 ft ceiling) and the 6 speaker setup fills it out just fine - with plenty of good sound localization.

Do the manufacturers pushing more speaker formats have an idea of what (small?) portion of the public wlll buy these 7- and 8-speaker formats? what's next -- a speaker in the center of the room on the ceiling? 2 speakers in the ceiling? a speaker under the chair for that rumble below? a speaker every 6 inches?

Enough already -- this is way, way, way past the point of diminishing marginal improvement.

Actually, in the case of PLIIx, it's the other way 'round. Dolby came out with a 7-channel version of PLII because they noticed that the public was already trending towards 7.1 systems, enough to make PLIIx commercially viable. One can hope. We've got all 4 walls covered (front & back, left & right), so the only place left to go is up: ceiling mounted height channels.

BTW, "a speaker under the chair for that rumble below" (i.e., bass shakers) have been around for some time from companies like Clarke Synthesis and ButtKicker. Why "enough"? You want them to stop innovating and exploring new formats because you can't accomodate more speakers? That wouldn't be fair to those consumers that can. Besides, it's not something you have to buy into.

Best,
Sanjay

I'm afraid I agree. I think Hollywood should concentrate more on making good movies, rather than ones with a zillion channels. If done right, the current system conveys more than enough information for immersion in the action on the screen. Mixing engineers have complained for years about the ever increasing loudness of movies. The current issue of "Surround Professional" has an editorial from an engineer I've worked with frequenty on this very issue.

Do you think they would use additional channels to capture the subtle sound of leaves falling??

I very rarely (actually never) have heard a system in a consumer's home that was even close to fully realizing the full impact of what was mixed into existing 6.1 tracks. Most people have other considerations, for instance wives who don't appreciate the beauty of speakers all around her living room.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited September 06, 2003).]

Snippets from MIX mag, in a Q & A article with producers:

Rich Tozzoli (David Bowie, AWB, +over 20 more)
Jimmy Douglass (Foreigner, Misssy, Elliot, Marvin Gaye, etc.)
Ken Gaillat (Since '97 has mixed over 200 surround mix songs. Beach Boys, Fleetwood Mac, etc.)

Q: Can you talk about your approach to signal processing of individual tracks or special tricks when mixing surround?

Douglass: You don't have to squash everything into the same small area as in stereo. There is no fighting for space in surround, so I end up using less EQ and compression on individual tracks.

Tozzoli: I use a lot less compression and EQ, but reverb takes on a whole new life.

Caillat: I use less processing in surround. You don't have a choice in stereo. You force everything into that L/R soundfield by selectively boosting or attenuating certain frequencies to enhance those instruments.
It is almost opposite when working within the surround soundfield. For Ex: Acoustic guitars in stereo usually require rolling off bottom end and adding high end, then compressing; in effect, making the guitar smaller. But, in surround, I'll make it bigger to cover the huge space i have now.

BoB: You simply cannot acheive the same results afforded by 5.1 discrete formats by matrixing a stereo mix. The damage is done and cannot be undone.

I agree wholeheartedly with SH.

Let's stop rehashing those 30 year old master tapes into surround discs and matrixing those woefully compressed stereo CDs and start writing and producing for discrete MC audio formats.

What would Lennon, McCartney and George Martin have done with 5.1 discrete?

[This message has been edited by bossobass (edited September 06, 2003).]

Why would the two be mutually exclusive? If film makers don't have access to additional channels, are they're going to compensate by re-writing the script or coaching the actors better? Hollywood should concentrate on making good movies, but I doubt that a "zillion" channels of sound are what's keeping them from doing that.

Sanjay

You missed the whole point I was trying to make - please re-read and digest. Thank You.

I understood what you were trying to say, I simply didn't agree with it. Good movies "rather than" additional channels? It's not either/or.

Best,
Sanjay

I'm afraid you still don't get it. If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand anyway. Sorry...

Don't be sorry, just explain what you meant by "rather than". That can't be too hard, can it?

Sanjay

Like I said, if I have to explain, you wouldn't get it. Simply reflect, read between the lines, and as Steve Jobs says in his fractured grammar: "think different"