Where's 9.1, actually where's 11.1

[mr. budget]

I like these programs yamaha has to put prescence on front and split the thing up a few ways, that way I'd have two big fronts, a center, and I could throw two bookshelves on either side of the tv, what a soundfield! also I'd like four(or six)nice speakers on rear to get a solid rear field, and to top it off two (or four) nice mid surrounds to get a mid prescence, like get a soundsphere really going. They have the programs to seperate these channels so why's the industry lagging behind on 5.1 and 6.1, I need 9.1 but I can't afford that beast (yamaha rxz9), hurry up yamaha or pioneer or whoever.

[Wireworm5]

My room prevents me from placing speakers behind me. So I'v placed two to the side of listening position, two in front the front corners and two in front field and a center. I got the idea from an article I read somewhere (don't remember where) where they had placed the woofers to the side with the tweeters in the front. So I basicly tried that setup though modified. I am imersed in the sound with this configuration and to my ears it sounds awesome. When I first tried this setup I had the problem of a gap in the center between the left and right. Placing 2 speakers and the center in the center field solved this problem. However I was worried that there being closer to the listening position would mask the other speakers. But this isn't the case, they instead make the whole soundstage seemless. Anyways if you have the space and are able to set your system up width wise then I highly recommend giving it a try. :)

[Woochifer]

Like I pointed out before, there's NO SUCH THING AS 9.1! Just because a receiver has nine speaker outputs does not make it a true 9.1 configuration. At the moment, the only true 7.1 format is SDDS, which is not available for home use. This 7.1 format uses five screen speakers, along with the split surround and subwoofer channels. Very few movie theaters are configured for this format, and nowadays maybe one or two movies a year at the most make it out in this format.

Those presence speakers that Yamaha uses might well provide some benefit, or they might even make the sound worse if not set up properly. But, those extra speakers are outputs extracted from an original 5.1 or 6.1 soundtrack. For the very same reason that we don't refer to Dolby Pro Logic/Surround as a 4.0 or 5.0 format, the usage of "7.1" or "9.1" is a misleading misnomer. Nothing more than a marketing creation.

The industry is not lagging behind with 5.1 and 6.1 -- those are the standards! That's what professionals use for mixing purposes, that's the configuration of the studio/soundstage encoders and decoders, that's what has been set forth in the various reference guidelines for studio configurations. The 5.1 guidelines are the most frequently ones used in professional settings, and sound engineers have only begun to touch on the full potential of what that configuration is capable of. You don't need more speakers if the 5.1 configuration is done properly.

Sounds like you're into a "more is better" mindset, and in my experience more does not always mean better. And in plenty of cases, more sounds much worse. For most typical homes, it's already enough of a challenge just to properly fit five speakers into a room. And you have to properly timbre match the speakers, and place them in the correct alignment -- not easy with five speakers.

Going further up the chain, pretty much any room with a sofa pushed against the backwall is not suitable for a "7.1" or 6.1 setup, which further reduces the audience that would benefit from additional speakers. With these real world limitations, I just find it very hard to believe that a lot of people will actually get better sound quality by jamming more speakers into their system.

The "9.1" functionality that you're describing with the RX-Z9 is basically a DSP mode. It might make an improvement to your listening, but you need the right room, matching speakers all the way around, and proper calibration and placement. Also keep in mind that more and more DVD and multichannel music soundtracks optimize their imaging cues around the 5.1 configuration. Tinkering with that by splitting and spreading the sound across 9+ speakers will destroy that precise and direction imaging created by those soundtracks. Compared to most home theater setups, a properly configured and matched 5.1 setup will sound better simply because it is properly setup (most home theaters I've heard are not setup right) and appropriately matched to the source (most DVDs and future HDTV broadcasts use 5.1). Before you go adding speakers, I suggest that you get your 5.1 setup right.

[paul_pci]

I like these programs yamaha has to put prescence on front and split the thing up a few ways, that way I'd have two big fronts, a center, and I could throw two bookshelves on either side of the tv, what a soundfield! also I'd like four(or six)nice speakers on rear to get a solid rear field, and to top it off two (or four) nice mid surrounds to get a mid prescence, like get a soundsphere really going. They have the programs to seperate these channels so why's the industry lagging behind on 5.1 and 6.1, I need 9.1 but I can't afford that beast (yamaha rxz9), hurry up yamaha or pioneer or whoever.

Can I ask you a personal question? Did you have too much coffee this morning?

[ericl]

Geez, I think 5 speakers and a sub is already too many to deal with in one room. You want to double that number?!

Holy Crap!

[mr. budget]

Maybe I just need a dose of reality. I think I'm just obsessed with building my own type of monster system and am not even thinking about movies or music anymore. If that's a proven industry standard, then I should be happy and 5.1 does get me immersed in the movie quite well and can be a releif from a sometimes confusing to the ear 6.1/7.1 set-up. By the way does anybody know what the movie theatre uses?

[cam]

Maybe I just need a dose of reality. I think I'm just obsessed with building my own type of monster system and am not even thinking about movies or music anymore. If that's a proven industry standard, then I should be happy and 5.1 does get me immersed in the movie quite well and can be a releif from a sometimes confusing to the ear 6.1/7.1 set-up. By the way does anybody know what the movie theatre uses?
I at one time was not all that pleased with my surround sound effect from my surround channels in my HT set up. I was wanting to stuff more side and surround channels into my system as possible. I had a 5.1 amp so upgraded to an amp that could produce 6.1. My next step was I hooked up two di-poles to my side surrounds with no center rear. What a vast improvement. I still had a 5.1 set up but it seemed like 10.1. My surround sound was now spacious just like at the theater. I started to get giddy thinking I could improve yet again by adding a center rear. I tried one center and then two center rears. I did not like the narrowing soundfield effect I was getting running center rears, and I have 11 feet behind my couch. I came to the conclusion that more is not always better. I am sticking with 5.1 with my di-poles. For me there is no need to stuff extra speakers just for the sake of stuffing extra speakers.

[eisforelectronic]

I read that Thomas Holman does a 24 channel surround demo at his seminars

[paul_pci]

One thing I like about a 5.1 system is placement of sound effects: for instance, the opening of a door on the left or right side of the sound field or a helicopter flying across the sound field. It seems to me that adding excessive channels, say over 7 for a largish room would potentially overwhelm the soundfield and negate such effects.

[Woochifer]

Maybe I just need a dose of reality. I think I'm just obsessed with building my own type of monster system and am not even thinking about movies or music anymore. If that's a proven industry standard, then I should be happy and 5.1 does get me immersed in the movie quite well and can be a releif from a sometimes confusing to the ear 6.1/7.1 set-up.

If a 6.1/"7.1" setup is confusing to the ears, then it's either setup wrong or the room is not appropriate for that kind of setup. If more sounds worse, then it's better to stick with a "less is more" approach.



By the way does anybody know what the movie theatre uses?

I thought I'd already answered that, but here's a short summary of the theatrical formats in use.

1.0 (optical analog: optical mono)
2.0+ (optical analog: Dolby Stereo, misc. matrixed optical stereo formats)
5.1 (digital: Dolby Digital, SDDS, DTS; analog: 70mm magnetic)
5.1+ (Dolby Surround EX)
6.1 (DTS ES)
7.1 (SDDS-8, DTS special format)

[IRG]

I like these programs yamaha has to put prescence on front and split the thing up a few ways, that way I'd have two big fronts, a center, and I could throw two bookshelves on either side of the tv, what a soundfield! also I'd like four(or six)nice speakers on rear to get a solid rear field, and to top it off two (or four) nice mid surrounds to get a mid prescence, like get a soundsphere really going. They have the programs to seperate these channels so why's the industry lagging behind on 5.1 and 6.1, I need 9.1 but I can't afford that beast (yamaha rxz9), hurry up yamaha or pioneer or whoever.

If you really want to be immersed with sound, go to http://www.ambiophonics.org and learn about how some people feel about "true" surround sound. I got to hear this system in the founders own home, and it was truly awesome. Since you like the more is better approach, this would be for you. The first room I listened to was huge, and was the equivalent of about a 24.2 sound system. Yes, somewhere between 18-24 separate speakers were used, (each with separate amps and preamps) and 2 subwoofers. And we aren't talking the little bookshelf speakers most of us have, I'm talking about the large horizontally placed planar speakers.

Anyway, ambiophonics is a different technology altogether than the typical surround system we usually discuss here. I thought it sounded pretty cool. Very realisic, which is the whole point. What is odd though, is seeing the front 2 channel speakers (and the back to channels) placed very closely together, and angled out. Seems counterintuitive until you hear it. What is neat though, is that this system takes advantage of regular cd recordings in 2 channel. But as some recordings can be made in multichannel, it would be even better.

However, the human ear can only hear so much at one time. 24 speakers aimed at you will cause an overload of sound. What I noticed about this system though, is not that every speaker is blaring out sound. For example, on one recording that featured a marching band, you can hear (and feel) the steps of the marching band moving distinctly around you, from left to right, just like a real marching band. You close your eyes, and you can hear every nuance, and the change is subtle, as the band moves closer to you, and then further away. So the use of multiple speakers here as a direct purpose. And the effects work well. You simply cannot achieve this level of realism with 2 channel, or even 5.1. The same for some orchestral music. The sound from a symphony doesn't just come straight at you, it is reflected all over. Above, to the sides etc. And there are some works too, that actually feature separate musicians in the rear. Heck, rock bands playing in an arena have speakers placed all over too.

I was also given a demonstration with a real world system, using a Yamaha receiver and 6 bose cubes, which normally I hate, but when set up properly using this ambiophonics method (the heart of it all is a computer controlled sound card) the sound was pretty convincing.

My point though, is that a 9.1 system won't necessarily sound better - and will probably sound worse, is because these type of systems aren't really being used to produce music in a believable manner. The method of ambiophonics that I mention is a different method altogether, and whether if you use 4 speakers, or 24, the sound is much more real, and will therefore give you a more realistic sound stage. This might be your cup of tea!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you really want to be immersed with sound, go to http://www.ambiophonics.org and learn about how some people feel about "true" surround sound. I got to hear this system in the founders own home, and it was truly awesome. Since you like the more is better approach, this would be for you. The first room I listened to was huge, and was the equivalent of about a 24.2 sound system. Yes, somewhere between 18-24 separate speakers were used, (each with separate amps and preamps) and 2 subwoofers. And we aren't talking the little bookshelf speakers most of us have, I'm talking about the large horizontally placed planar speakers.

I wouldn't consider this surround sound any more "true" than 5.1. While it is probably more emmersive than 5.1, true is defined by how it is mixed, and the accuracy of its playback.


Anyway, ambiophonics is a different technology altogether than the typical surround system we usually discuss here. I thought it sounded pretty cool. Very realisic, which is the whole point. What is odd though, is seeing the front 2 channel speakers (and the back to channels) placed very closely together, and angled out. Seems counterintuitive until you hear it. What is neat though, is that this system takes advantage of regular cd recordings in 2 channel. But as some recordings can be made in multichannel, it would be even better.

Actually this system is VERY simular to Tomlinson Holmann's 10.2 system. All of these system seek to put speakers at every vector imagineable to simulate the natural reflections we hear in, and outdoors. This concept is not new, as Bell labs has done experiments with as many as 30 loudspeakers back in 1932. Also Disney used about 20-25 speakers when presenting Fantasia in Fantasound, though these were not all discrete, they used perspectasound which used cues embedded into the soundtrack that instructed the system as to which speakers played at certain times.


However, the human ear can only hear so much at one time. 24 speakers aimed at you will cause an overload of sound.

Not necessarily. Remember, we hear sounds coming from every direction imageable with just two ears. All of these sounds arrive from different directions(including directly overhead) with different intensities, so the ear and brain can process a staggering amount of audio information.



What I noticed about this system though, is not that every speaker is blaring out sound. For example, on one recording that featured a marching band, you can hear (and feel) the steps of the marching band moving distinctly around you, from left to right, just like a real marching band. You close your eyes, and you can hear every nuance, and the change is subtle, as the band moves closer to you, and then further away. So the use of multiple speakers here as a direct purpose. And the effects work well. You simply cannot achieve this level of realism with 2 channel, or even 5.1. The same for some orchestral music. The sound from a symphony doesn't just come straight at you, it is reflected all over. Above, to the sides etc. And there are some works too, that actually feature separate musicians in the rear. Heck, rock bands playing in an arena have speakers placed all over too.

This system just like others before it(10.2 system) is very effective a mimicking what, and how we hear things naturally. Things would sound pretty fake to us if sound came at us from all directions with equal intensity. Our ears would have a pretty tough time distinguishing which direction was which!



My point though, is that a 9.1 system won't necessarily sound better - and will probably sound worse, is because these type of systems aren't really being used to produce music in a believable manner. The method of ambiophonics that I mention is a different method altogether, and whether if you use 4 speakers, or 24, the sound is much more real, and will therefore give you a more realistic sound stage. This might be your cup of tea!

Actually, with some tweaking with the system, and good control on room acoustics, yamaha could do a pretty credible job simulating the acoustic of whatever DSP it has. Unfortunately at the factory setting there is just too much reverb and echo to sound natural.

[IRG]

I wouldn't consider this surround sound any more "true" than 5.1. While it is probably more emmersive than 5.1, true is defined by how it is mixed, and the accuracy of its playback.



Actually this system is VERY simular to Tomlinson Holmann's 10.2 system. All of these system seek to put speakers at every vector imagineable to simulate the natural reflections we hear in, and outdoors. This concept is not new, as Bell labs has done experiments with as many as 30 loudspeakers back in 1932. Also Disney used about 20-25 speakers when presenting Fantasia in Fantasound, though these were not all discrete, they used perspectasound which used cues embedded into the soundtrack that instructed the system as to which speakers played at certain times.

I don't know about Homann's system, so I can't really comment on this comparison at all.

Not necessarily. Remember, we hear sounds coming from every direction imageable with just two ears. All of these sounds arrive from different directions(including directly overhead) with different intensities, so the ear and brain can process a staggering amount of audio information.

Yes, I agree in part with this. But set up 11.1 speakers as the original poster has suggested, and it could easily be overpowering. Or maybe cluttered is a better word. It's comparable in a way when my 2 kids are both talking (re shouting) to me at once. I can't process what either is saying very well. When one stops and the other is allowed to talk, my brain can process this much better. Yes, I can "hear" both speaking to me, but I can't understand what they are saying. If 11 channels are playing at once, it will be tough to really listen well to the music/video. Whereas my experience with the ambiophonics demo was not like that at all. Much more discrete. Would like to try it out at home sometime to see how I like it. But the setup it requires is not all that condusive in my home.



This system just like others before it(10.2 system) is very effective a mimicking what, and how we hear things naturally. Things would sound pretty fake to us if sound came at us from all directions with equal intensity. Our ears would have a pretty tough time distinguishing which direction was which!

Right. This is the whole point of ambiophonics, to make the listening experience as realistic and "you are there" as possible. What it didn't sound like is fake. Whereas a 9.1 system with stereo everywhere feature basically makes sound come from everywhere, which is obviously not very realistic. Could be great for parties, but not for music. I do like it though for some TV settings (sports).



Actually, with some tweaking with the system, and good control on room acoustics, yamaha could do a pretty credible job simulating the acoustic of whatever DSP it has. Unfortunately at the factory setting there is just too much reverb and echo to sound natural.

I don't think ambiophonics uses a similar process to what Yamaha does. Apples to oranges. Or at least a different variety of apple :)

Also, one difference (and a big one) is that ambiophonics doesn't have to have a lot of speakers to sound full. The example with the Yamaha/bose cubes was that there were only 4 or 6 speakers - can't remember now. But it wasn't like his previous demonstration.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't think ambiophonics uses a similar process to what Yamaha does. Apples to oranges. Or at least a different variety of apple :)


I don't think I made that comparison at all.


Also, one difference (and a big one) is that ambiophonics doesn't have to have a lot of speakers to sound full. The example with the Yamaha/bose cubes was that there were only 4 or 6 speakers - can't remember now. But it wasn't like his previous demonstration.

5.1 can sound just as full as any other format. IMO its not always how many speakers, its how the mix uses the speakers. I have heard great 5.1 mixes that sounded like there were 8 speakers in the room. Good sound designers(engineers) can do that now days.

[kexodusc]

I thought I'd already answered that, but here's a short summary of the theatrical formats in use.

1.0 (optical analog: optical mono)
2.0+ (optical analog: Dolby Stereo, misc. matrixed optical stereo formats)
5.1 (digital: Dolby Digital, SDDS, DTS; analog: 70mm magnetic)
5.1+ (Dolby Surround EX)
6.1 (DTS ES)
7.1 (SDDS-8, DTS special format)

Hmmm, ya know, Mr. Budget asks a good question here (at least I think he's trying to)...I've never bothered to learn how a movie theater's layout works all that much. Even the small ones at my local theater have 16 surround speakers and I imagine a bunch up front on either side or behind the screen...Are these systems just set to deliver multiple signals simultaneously of the same discrete channel (as in 4 right surround speakers receiving the right surround channel info all at once)? Or is there a more complex matrixing/blending of channels going on here (as in DSP's in the movie theaters)?