Welp.... Stevo's at it again!!!!! This time Surround Sound is dead!!!!

[Worf101]

Steve Guttenberg my favorite proclaimer of the "obvious" when he's right and not much else when he's wrong has decided this month that Surround Sound is dead... at least for home audio (music) and maybe for HT as well.

Is surround sound for music and home theater on its way out? | The Audiophiliac - CNET News

For once he makes some valid points about SACD and alike but he's on shakier ground with HT audio... Still even I must admit that Sound Bars are selling like hotcakes and fewer people seem concerned with dedicated multi-speaker HT systems....

Give it a read lemme know what you think.

Worf

[Hyfi]

Never cared for surround music. I have never been to a concert where people played behind me except for a few rare occasions where they played wireless and entered from the rear or ran around the venue.

As for movies, the more people I talk to are not interested in multi channel setup due to placement, amount of room needed, WAF, and other factors including getting it setup properly and maintained. I would say mostly us gearheads are the ones still doing it. I even opted for a ZVOX unit for the bedroom instead of another 2ch or 5.1ch setup.

[recoveryone]

I'm glad he focused on surround music and not try to bring the whole surround market down.

IMHO surround music suffered mainly of not having a dominate source that raised from the battle field of format wars. We all have seen from Bata vs VHS, Divx vs DVD and so on. The recording industry shares in part of the blame as they have not supported any of the formats whole heartly and that in itself made it a niche market.

With the eye on the prize, your/our dollars the industry focused on easy access over real quality of sound. Not to say that surround sound music is better, but in all cases it was produced at higher fildelity. It was easier to reach the masses with heavy compressed audio and leave the quality behind. Even in 2ch, a SACD is 10x better any day of the week than a ACC file from Itunes, but if the public has no real reference point to judge by then its mute.

As for the avarage joe part in all this, I would say that many are still visually owwwed and ahhhed with a big pretty picture than the sound. When big screens first came out, it was all about the size and that factor is still priority one for many. How many of us have been to friends home and try to help them get the most out of that big picture using the right cables. Surround sound suffers the same fate as many want it but do not really know what it is and what it takes to have it right ( heard stories of people having all 5 speakers aligned across the front, thinking that was surround sound). The industry again is not slow on capitalizing on making a quick dollar, and we get the sound bar. The all in one HT speaker with no need for wires and extra speakers, but again where did the quality go? in the backseat.

[Mr Peabody]

I also wonder if it's an effect of so many B&M stores being lost that could effectively set up a surround sound for a demo. Let's face it, if you don't know what it is, or about, you aren't going to buy it. I personally never thought surround music got off the ground. There's some surround music things I've heard that were fun like Porcupine Tree, Flaming Lips or BT, but I still prefer 2-channel music for my main listening.

[StevenSurprenant]

Concerning music, I don't see the need for surround. A friend uses SACD and he restricts output to the 3 front speakers, which he claims to sound much better than 2 channel, at least with his system.

I'm not sure that I can explain this, but with my stereo system, I can hear a 3D soundstage behind the speakers, but at the same time, the room seems to be filled with ambient sound. In other words, it almost sounds like surround except that the images are always in front of you.

I've got speakers all over my living room and I don't like it and I'm an enthusiast too, go figure! It would be different if I had a room specifically for audio. Sometimes I think about getting rid of my surround system just to clean up the room. I don't use it very much.

In real life, at a venue where music is being played, many times you can hear the sound being reflected off the walls around you as distinct sources of sound. I could be wrong, but it seems that the only reason for music surround is to reproduce the venue's acoustic attributes, which may or may not be that important to many listeners.

So, I agree with Steve. Surround music is a bust.

Some of you may remember that I'm no fan of digital, at least not 16 bit. I've gotten it to sound decent in my system, but when compared to vinyl or hi-res digital, it's lacking.

The problem with Hi-Res formats is that few people have a system capable of appreciating it. Where I live, my county has a population of about 113,000 people and no audio stores. Even our local Best buy has only a few systems available and all of them are midfi, at best.

So, without the hardware and the interest, it stands to reason that anything beyond CD or mp3 is a waste of money for most people.

[JohnMichael]

I heard a good music surround system once and it was not like the quad mess that did have speakers playing instruments behind you. The system made a wider, deeper and more solid soundstage with nothing odd going on behind your back.

My problem was with a fixed budget I always thought I could put together a better sounding two channel system. Two better quality speakers than five of lesser quality combined with a good two channel integrated amp along with your choice of sources. Not only is limited budget an issue along with a limited budget sometimes comes limited space.

[StevenSurprenant]

John, I'm with you on this. With a limited budget, money is better spent on a 2 channel system.

Besides, it's amazing what a good 2 channel system can do.

[Smokey]

I don't think lumping music and HT surround together and reaching the same conclusion by the author was the best approach.

First, surround sound for music never took off. So when the author conclude that suround for music is fading, it would not be correct.

He may have a point when concluding about HT surround. But then again you will always have dedicated videophiles that will have surround set up, and masses that will stick to HT-in-Box-and now to bar speakers. So the fading is from one mediocre system (HTIB) to another (bar sound).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Never cared for surround music. I have never been to a concert where people played behind me except for a few rare occasions where they played wireless and entered from the rear or ran around the venue.

Not only have you never cared about it, but it is patently obvious you have no experience with it either. There are so few recordings that have discrete instruments in the surrounds that it is not worth mentioning. I have nearly 800 multichannel recordings, and maybe 15 of them have discrete instruments placed in the surrounds.

Have you ever been to a concert where all of the information hitting your ears is coming from the front only? I highly doubt it. How about the crowd noises happening from behind a orchestra? Not in any concert hall or venue I have been in.

As for movies, the more people I talk to are not interested in multi channel setup due to placement, amount of room needed, WAF, and other factors including getting it setup properly and maintained. I would say mostly us gearheads are the ones still doing it. I even opted for a ZVOX unit for the bedroom instead of another 2ch or 5.1ch setup.

You must be talking to folks in a reverberation chamber, because multichannel system are outselling 2 channel system by at least 20-1 based on NDP recent survey.

Anecdotal stories are only valuable within your own world. Your opinions have always been based on myths, outdated, recycled anecdotal information, and talk from a single minded crowd.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I heard a good music surround system once and it was not like the quad mess that did have speakers playing instruments behind you. The system made a wider, deeper and more solid soundstage with nothing odd going on behind your back.

My problem was with a fixed budget I always thought I could put together a better sounding two channel system. Two better quality speakers than five of lesser quality combined with a good two channel integrated amp along with your choice of sources. Not only is limited budget an issue along with a limited budget sometimes comes limited space.

Two better speakers are better than 5 lesser quality speakers is a myth, and a matter of perspective. The problem here is not the speakers, it is the format. 2 channel from the onset is full of spatial distortions. 2 channel stereo does not have enough information to be perceived as real to the ears, no matter how good the speakers are.

As far as lack of space, that is a myth as well. Harbeth, NHT, ATC, PSB and several other speaker manufacturers offer mini-monitors that allow a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system to be fit in a small space. I have two 7.1 mini-monitors system using ATC, and custom mini-monitors in a 13x17x10' space. A friend of mine has a 5.1 system in a 12x15' room. All of these systems are properly set up for accurate reproduction of mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 channel sources. A two channel system does just two formats. Mono and stereo, and that is it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

John, I'm with you on this. With a limited budget, money is better spent on a 2 channel system.

Besides, it's amazing what a good 2 channel system can do.

Whats more amazing is what it cannot do.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't think lumping music and HT surround together and reaching the same conclusion by the author was the best approach.

Agreed.

First, surround sound for music never took off. So when the author conclude that suround for music is fading, it would not be correct.

He is not correct on so many fronts. Steve has openly admitted that he has never owned a quality surround system. So his perspective is rather limited in the first place. He also openly admitted that he lays down when he listens to music. That is not great for either 2 channel or multichannel. Steve is a casual music listener, and there are some of us who are active listeners who listen to music like we listen in a concert venue or hall.

He may have a point when concluding about HT surround. But then again you will always have dedicated videophiles that will have surround set up, and masses that will stick to HT-in-Box-and now to bar speakers. So the fading is from one mediocre system (HTIB) to another (bar sound).

Agreed!

[Smokey]

Wow Sir TT, that was two "Agreed" in one post. I must have said something right

[JohnMichael]

Two better speakers are better than 5 lesser quality speakers is a myth, and a matter of perspective. The problem here is not the speakers, it is the format. 2 channel from the onset is full of spatial distortions. 2 channel stereo does not have enough information to be perceived as real to the ears, no matter how good the speakers are.

As far as lack of space, that is a myth as well. Harbeth, NHT, ATC, PSB and several other speaker manufacturers offer mini-monitors that allow a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system to be fit in a small space. I have two 7.1 mini-monitors system using ATC, and custom mini-monitors in a 13x17x10' space. A friend of mine has a 5.1 system in a 12x15' room. All of these systems are properly set up for accurate reproduction of mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 channel sources. A two channel system does just two formats. Mono and stereo, and that is it.

Sorry but as much as I love music I also like my décor. Regardless of what multiple speakers can do I would not like the look. As I mentioned I have heard a good surround system once so I know what is on offer with multiple speakers. I choose not to go that way. Some things are a choice.

[StevenSurprenant]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.

In my mind, it's all about information retrieval. As we improve our systems the images become more solid and separation of these images becomes more distinct. At some point, it seems that we are listening to a live event through a large doorway, figuratively speaking. Each instrument (voices too) are placed in the soundstage at distinct points in space. If we reduce our resolution by using lesser speakers, we begin to loose that imaging and soundstaging. We cannot get that information back using more lower quality speakers and surround decoding. At this point, it's up to the listener to decide what sound they like better.

Someday I would like to hear a surround system with what could be considered state of the art equipment for 2 channel. If the sound quality remains the same as a good 2 channel system, but the surround aspect of it is added, I would have a different opinion, for sure. Of course, this is what SACD and such is supposed to be about. In the past, I haven't given much thought about clapping during a performance, , which T mentioned, but he is right, it should be around you, not in front with the performers. Still, it's not that big of a deal, but if done right, it would be nice. The same applies to rain and thunderstorms.

While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry but as much as I love music I also like my décor. Regardless of what multiple speakers can do I would not like the look. As I mentioned I have heard a good surround system once so I know what is on offer with multiple speakers. I choose not to go that way. Some things are a choice.

Then you find speakers with a cabinet that matches your decor. When you walk into my music room, the last thing you notice is the speakers. That is what decor will do for you.

[JohnMichael]

Then you find speakers with a cabinet that matches your decor. When you walk into my music room, the last thing you notice is the speakers. That is what decor will do for you.

My listening room and living room are the same. If I had a dedicated room things might be different. As it is I only have room for two speakers both visually and décor. I do not even have a TV in my living room.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.

This statement is complete and total nonsense. Bell labs stated back in 1932 that it takes AT LEAST three speakers across the front to accurately map a frontal soundstage. 2 channels was a compromise(not ideal) based on the limitation of technology back in that day. Just listen to any of the Living presence 3 channel recordings, and compare them to the two channel recordings. It is also a known fact that three channels across the front IMPROVES sound-field depth, not degrade it.

In my mind, it's all about information retrieval. As we improve our systems the images become more solid and separation of these images becomes more distinct. At some point, it seems that we are listening to a live event through a large doorway, figuratively speaking. Each instrument (voices too) are placed in the soundstage at distinct points in space. If we reduce our resolution by using lesser speakers, we begin to loose that imaging and soundstaging. We cannot get that information back using more lower quality speakers and surround decoding. At this point, it's up to the listener to decide what sound they like better.

We don't listen to music through a large doorway, the music comes from the front, sides, and rear in a live venue. I don't care how much you spend on equipment, the room plays a far higher role in achieving solid imaging than just the speakers themselves. Put my SC-V's in a highly reflective room, and poof, gone is the great imaging these speakers are known for. This goes double for a two channel system that relies heavily on room reflections to achieve a decent sense of spatial space. This is why various speaker designs have been used for two channel - the reverberation time of most rooms is completely inadequate, so you increase reflection density with omnidirectional and bipolar speakers. The reality is, you don't need these designs, you need a correct spatial presentation - stereo cannot provide that PERIOD.

Someday I would like to hear a surround system with what could be considered state of the art equipment for 2 channel. If the sound quality remains the same as a good 2 channel system, but the surround aspect of it is added, I would have a different opinion, for sure. Of course, this is what SACD and such is supposed to be about. In the past, I haven't given much thought about clapping during a performance, , which T mentioned, but he is right, it should be around you, not in front with the performers. Still, it's not that big of a deal, but if done right, it would be nice. The same applies to rain and thunderstorms.

I would say before you come to any conclusions about surround, you need to live with it(not listen for two hours on your friends system). You will discover just like I have that you are missing so much of the recording by trying to cram all of that spatial information in to just two channels. Test have shown that stereo is more difficult to listen to(it requires more brain power to fool the brain), and that you cannot have recording ambiance(recording room reverberation) coming from the same source and direction as the instruments and voice without degrading some, or all of the information. We have not even gotten into HRT effects between 2-4khz that dulls the sound, or that imaging breaks down if you move off access of the center line between the speakers.

While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

And I had to get trashed by you so you could figure this out.

[StevenSurprenant]

I would say before you come to any conclusions about surround, you need to live with it(not listen for two hours on your friends system). You will discover just like I have that you are missing so much of the recording by trying to cram all of that spatial information in to just two channels. Test have shown that stereo is more difficult to listen to(it requires more brain power to fool the brain), and that you cannot have recording ambiance(recording room reverberation) coming from the same source and direction as the instruments and voice without degrading some, or all of the information. We have not even gotten into HRT effects between 2-4khz that dulls the sound, or that imaging breaks down if you move off access of the center line between the speakers.

I have lived with surround for about 10 years. I am also fully aware of how the brain works in this instance, and that it can fill in the holes, so to speak. I've also discovered that the better a system is, the less the brain has to process the sound.

The only downside to stereo is that the image shifts when a person moves out of the center. This shift can be minimized with proper speaker setup. In addition, depending on the degree of speaker dispersion, the tonal qualities also change when off center. Then there are HRT effects, as you mentioned, which can be reduced with a center speaker, but it isn't completely eliminated.
Quite frankly, I don't think it's that big of a deal. My own experiments in this shows that a small degree of improvement can be had when taking this into account, but it's hardly note worthy. Speaker and room setup is vastly more important than anything that HRT can do to degrade the image.

We've spoken about these things before and technically you are correct, but I don't think you put things in perspective. Every room sounds different, every speaker sounds different, so do you really think that these minor problems with 2 channel are even worth spending a second of brain power on. Why would a person waste a single second on something that improves the audio minimally when there are so many things that do matter.

And I had to get trashed by you so you could figure this out.

You don't understand, I was speaking about music. I haven't changed my mind about movie audio. Why do you think I rarely use my surround system. You may think that audio engineers and techs like yourself are producing a quality product, but not from my perspective. While surround movies can be entertaining, it's not worth the effort to have to keep turning the volume up and down throughout the movie, or to have dialog buried so deep in the noise (booms and bangs) that no one can understand what is being said. I cringe every time an action scene comes along. This isn't a problem with the hardware, if you get my drift. Occasionally, there are movies that sound pretty good in surround.

We don't listen to music through a large doorway, the music comes from the front, sides, and rear in a live venue. I don't care how much you spend on equipment, the room plays a far higher role in achieving solid imaging than just the speakers themselves. Put my SC-V's in a highly reflective room, and poof, gone is the great imaging these speakers are known for. This goes double for a two channel system that relies heavily on room reflections to achieve a decent sense of spatial space. This is why various speaker designs have been used for two channel - the reverberation time of most rooms is completely inadequate, so you increase reflection density with omnidirectional and bipolar speakers. The reality is, you don't need these designs, you need a correct spatial presentation - stereo cannot provide that PERIOD.

Agreed, you don't get surround sound from 2 channel. Even if you add more speakers, each room adds it's own flavor to the sound. Besides, for music, hearing room ambiance to the sides and rear is minimally important and adds very little to the event. If a room is set up properly, there are enough subtle reflections to give the illusion of being in a bigger room.

This statement is complete and total nonsense. Bell labs stated back in 1932 that it takes AT LEAST three speakers across the front to accurately map a frontal soundstage. 2 channels was a compromise(not ideal) based on the limitation of technology back in that day. Just listen to any of the Living presence 3 channel recordings, and compare them to the two channel recordings. It is also a known fact that three channels across the front IMPROVES sound-field depth, not degrade it.

I've been to many movie theaters and listened to some higher end surround systems and in all cases, the depth of the soundstage is reduced compared to 2 channel. Perhaps this is a software problem? Besides, a good 2 channel system already produces a depth that is seemingly without limit. The problem I have with a center speaker is that it seems to layer the sound, voices in the front, noise to the back. In 2 channel the performers are in the room, in surround, the performer is in front of the room. Software problem again? Anyway, it's not always bad. Surround can be fun, but realistic, it is not.

We spoke of how the brain effects a persons perception and I think “you” hear what you want, or what “you” expect to hear. This is reminiscent of the many times Bose owners think their speakers sound as good as a highend system. I don't hear what you do nor do I want to. I think you are deceiving yourself into believing that surround is as good as you think it is. Perhaps it has the potential of being the latest and greatest, but I haven't had that experience yet. As a matter of fact, adding more speakers creates problems of it's own. Many of us spend countless hours positioning our speakers and treating the room just to get 2 channel to sound as good as possible.

Beside, you saying that multiple lower quality speakers are better than two really good speakers is ludicrous.

I wish you had all the answers, that way all we would have to do ask you, but you don't and you seem to get hung up on issues that are of the least importance. You spend your time defending surround as if it's the pinnacle of audio reproduction. At best, it's just different and has it's own limitations and positive attributes, just as stereo does.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have lived with surround for about 10 years. I am also fully aware of how the brain works in this instance, and that it can fill in the holes, so to speak. I've also discovered that the better a system is, the less the brain has to process the sound.

And just what listening tests(as opposed to your highly biased listening experience), and how many listeners can confirm your findings?

Neither the Canadian Radio Society, nor Dr. Peter Toole's listening test confirm this. This is not to mention testing done at THX, and DTS.

I am calling your statement BS, because no matter the quality of the system, it is the format that is the issue. The brain cannot fill in what is not there, it does not just make things up from thin air.

If you are so aware of how the brain works, then how come you don't seem to understand that in order for the brain to fill in the holes, it has to work extremely hard to do so?

The only downside to stereo is that the image shifts when a person moves out of the center. This shift can be minimized with proper speaker setup.

You don't seem to have a clue about how the ear/brain mechanism works

No it cannot, and science does not support this. This is an issue of timing and phase, and it cannot be avoided by any speaker placement. Anytime you are out of the center, the timing of the arrival of the signals will shift to the speaker closest to you. This is why a solid center speaker is so vital if you sit off axis. No matter how you shift the speakers, the timing error will still exist.

In addition, depending on the degree of speaker dispersion, the tonal qualities also change when off center. Then there are HRT effects, as you mentioned, which can be reduced with a center speaker, but it isn't completely eliminated.

Wrong again. A center channel carrying it own discrete information is not subject to timing errors the same way as two speakers with blended output(vocals in the center).

Quite frankly, I don't think it's that big of a deal. My own experiments in this shows that a small degree of improvement can be had when taking this into account, but it's hardly note worthy. Speaker and room setup is vastly more important than anything that HRT can do to degrade the image.

Your listening tests are unscientific, biased, and allow you to hear exactly what you want to hear(subjective hearing). And again, you are dead wrong. No matter the quality of the speaker, or the acoustics of the room, HRTE are going to occur with two channel, because it is a head size related effect, not a speaker or room related effect.

Do you want to spew more nonsense?

We've spoken about these things before and technically you are correct, but I don't think you put things in perspective. Every room sounds different, every speaker sounds different, so do you really think that these minor problems with 2 channel are even worth spending a second of brain power on.

I don't think(and never have) that you quite understand what you are talking about, and I have told you this before. Two channel from the very beginning was a compromise. In spite of Bell Labs extensive listening tests on 2 channel and 3 channels setups, vinyl could only handle mono at first, and later stereo. Vinyl cannot handle anymore channels than that without some sort of matrixing, or dual carrier scheme(quadraphonics).

Why would a person waste a single second on something that improves the audio minimally when there are so many things that do matter.

They do when they understand how the ear/brain mechanism works. You have a tendency to dismiss or minimalize what you cannot get your head around, and that leads to ignorant, unscientific, and biased statements over and over again.

You don't understand, I was speaking about music. I haven't changed my mind about movie audio. Why do you think I rarely use my surround system.

Probably because it is a poorly setup piece of crap. Signals are signals, whether they are music, or soundtracks. A well setup and calibrated system sitting in a room who's acoustical issues are addressed does not know the difference.

You may think that audio engineers and techs like yourself are producing a quality product, but not from my perspective.

Who gives a damn about your perspective? Your system is poorly set up, so from what perspective can you challenge an audio engineer who system is well setup, constantly calibrated(before each session) and sits in a room the was built from the ground up to get excellent acoustics and sound isolation? You have a penchant for over valueing you own opinions and perspectives - it is purely subjective, not objective.

While surround movies can be entertaining, it's not worth the effort to have to keep turning the volume up and down throughout the movie, or to have dialog buried so deep in the noise (booms and bangs) that no one can understand what is being said.

Funny, this does not occur on the dubbing stage, not in the theater, and not on a system that is well designed and sitting in a room who acoustics are addressed. This only happens when the center channel is poorly calibrated, sitting in a room node, and of a different design than the L/R speakers. We have standards(that your room and system apparently does not follow). Dialog has a priority over any and everything in the mix. Dubbing stages and professional theaters(not to mention any good multichannel music system) use three identical speakers across the front. If you center speaker differs in any way from the L/R speakers, or if the acoustics of the room is reflection heavy, then dialog intelligibility issues will occur. Don't blame the mix, blame your system that you know is not perfect(or even close to it).

How do you square this contradictory statement with this one?

While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

Sounds to me like you don't know your bum from a hole in the ground.

I cringe every time an action scene comes along.

That is because your system is incapable of reproducing it accurately.

This isn't a problem with the hardware, if you get my drift. Occasionally, there are movies that sound pretty good in surround.

Yes it is a problem with hardware. It is a problem with acoustics as well.

Agreed, you don't get surround sound from 2 channel. Even if you add more speakers, each room adds it's own flavor to the sound.

Wrong again. The more speakers you add to a room, the less you hear that room. You obviously have never heard of the "presence effect" or the rule of intensity dominance.

Besides, for music, hearing room ambiance to the sides and rear is minimally important and adds very little to the event.

Ignorant BS! Once again, and uneducated opinion can never be confused with facts. Sean Olive, Dr. Floyd Toole, Paul Barton have all done reflection testing, and their results disagree with your uneducated opinion. Read;

http://audioroundtable.com/misc/Loud..._and_Rooms.pdf

Notice these words;

A review of the scientific literature reveals that natural reflections in ...... lateral reflection caused a perceptible change in the size or location ...

Dr. Toole came to this conclusion with a highly optimized system(with adjustable acoustics), and 2,000 listeners. You came to your conclusions is a poorly set up system, with just your old ears.

read this;

Loudspeaker Placement in Small Rooms | Richard's Stuff

Notice this statement.

Ideally we need to delay the arrival of lateral reflections at the listening position by (at least) about 6ms relative to the direct sound

You cannot do this with 2 channel, because you have no control of the arrival time of lateral reflections(you can control the amplitude by adding or taking away sound absorbing panels). You can do this with surround by just adding 6ms of delay to the side speakers which carry the natural reflections recorded in the hall.

If a room is set up properly, there are enough subtle reflections to give the illusion of being in a bigger room.

This shows you do not understand the concept of reverberation time and reflection density in small rooms. To give the illusion of a larger room, the reverberation time has to be longer. Most casual listening rooms rely on reflection density(diffusion), which can degrade imaging at certain frequencies.

I've been to many movie theaters and listened to some higher end surround systems and in all cases, the depth of the soundstage is reduced compared to 2 channel.

That is because you are used to hearing artificial depth via room reflections that are not in the recording. They are room borne. In movie theaters and well set up surround systems, the frontal reflections are eliminated either by absorption panels, or by a baffle wall. So what you are hearing is exactly what is on the recording, untouched by front wall reflections. The depth of the sound field is in the mix, not in the room. Any depth added by the room reflections is a distortion of the recording itself. It may be pleasing to the ear with just two speakers, but it is a distortion of the room acoustical laid over the original output from the speakers

Perhaps this is a software problem? Besides, a good 2 channel system already produces a depth that is seemingly without limit.

Based solely on room reflections that are not on the recording. We call this spatial distortion, and you have obviously gotten used to listening to various types of room distortions.

The problem I have with a center speaker is that it seems to layer the sound, voices in the front, noise to the back.

That is what the center channel is supposed to do dummy! Dialog is given priority over other sounds in the center channel mix.

In 2 channel the performers are in the room, in surround, the performer is in front of the room.

This is the mother of all stupid statements. In 2 channel, the performers are in the front of the room just like surround. No different. If you have two speakers in the front of the room(stereo) then voices can only come from where the speakers are.

Please think about what you are saying before you post.

Software problem again? Anyway, it's not always bad. Surround can be fun, but realistic, it is not.

If it is a software problem, it is a problem of both stereo and surround. Voices come from the same direction on both.

We spoke of how the brain effects a persons perception and I think “you” hear what you want, or what “you” expect to hear.

You don't know what I hear, you don't have my ears. This comment applies to you as well.

This is reminiscent of the many times Bose owners think their speakers sound as good as a highend system.

Have you asked ALL Bose owners if they think their system is as good as a high end system, or are you talking out of you bum AGAIN!!!

I'll take the latter.

I don't hear what you do nor do I want to.

Yeah, you like coloration, degradation, and distortions, I don't.

I think you are deceiving yourself into believing that surround is as good as you think it is.

I think you are deceiving yourself into believing stereo is as good as you think it is. Science and listening tests from MANY do not support this.

Perhaps it has the potential of being the latest and greatest, but I haven't had that experience yet.

Then perhaps you need to shut up until you do.

As a matter of fact, adding more speakers creates problems of it's own. Many of us spend countless hours positioning our speakers and treating the room just to get 2 channel to sound as good as possible.

The reason you have to go through all this trouble with two channel is because you hear FAR, FAR, more room with just two speakers than you would hear with 6 or 8 speakers. Yes adding speakers does create some problems - you have to have the room to properly place them. This is a problem that can easily be handled by scaling the system properly to the room. Since speaker manufacturers have no come up with high quality mini-monitors(see Harbeth, PSB, ATC and several others) designed for smaller room, that problem has been minimized greatly.

Beside, you saying that multiple lower quality speakers are better than two really good speakers is ludicrous.

Lower quality is a matter of perspective. What you consider as lower quality is based on price and size, not actual measurements and listening. What your air head does not seem to grasp is that the burden of quality in two channels rests on just TWO SPEAKERS. Two speakers that have to reproduce vocals, instruments, and the ambiance of the recording. In order for all of that to be clearly heard, you need high quality speakers. With surround, I can assigned a subwoofer to handle the bass frequencies(takes the burden off the main speakers and amps), one dedicated(and similar) speaker for vocals, two dedicated speakers for instruments in the frontal soundstage, and 2-4 speakers to handle recorded ambience. The burden of quality is spread over 6-8 speakers, not just two - so it does not require very large or overly expensive speakers to do a good job. 8 people can build a better house quicker than two people.

I wish you had all the answers, that way all we would have to do ask you, but you don't and you seem to get hung up on issues that are of the least importance.

They are least important to YOU, which is why you have so many complaints about recordings.

You spend your time defending surround as if it's the pinnacle of audio reproduction. At best, it's just different and has it's own limitations and positive attributes, just as stereo does.

Actually, I am not defending surround at all. I just pointing out all of the BS inexperienced and uneducated comments you seem to make all of the time.

You spend an awful amount of time trying to disparage surround, and you don't even have a decent surround system to support what you say. This is why I dismiss you as just another person who talks alot, but does not seem to know very much.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My listening room and living room are the same. If I had a dedicated room things might be different. As it is I only have room for two speakers both visually and décor. I do not even have a TV in my living room.

JM, this is your choice, not some limitation of surround. If you really wanted a surround system, you could easily figure out how to make it work with your room size and decor. I did when I had a surround system in my living room.

[Feanor]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.
...

I listen to stereo and surround sound on a daily basis. My stereo system is the best I can afford and I couldn't duplicate in surround. For music listening I prefer my stereo -- not to mention that there is far, far more recorded music in stereo.

Yet I wouldn't never argue the stereo is "better" than surround in any way. The best stereo can do is give you a small window into the listening venue. At best it's like standing in the doorway to the concert hall; surround, OTOH, is like being IN the concert hall, at least when listening to decent recordings.

[JohnMichael]

JM, this is your choice, not some limitation of surround. If you really wanted a surround system, you could easily figure out how to make it work with your room size and decor. I did when I had a surround system in my living room.

Yes it is my choice and I choose not to have a surround system. If I really wanted one which I do not. I know you are passionate about it but I am not. This is like one member who told me I was wrong for not having tubes and another member who thought I should have a single driver speaker.

[Hyfi]

Yes it is my choice and I choose not to have a surround system. If I really wanted one which I do not. I know you are passionate about it but I am not. This is like one member who told me I was wrong for not having tubes and another member who thought I should have a single driver speaker.

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

[StevenSurprenant]

I've been giving a lot of thought about surround sound and I've decided it's just not worth the extra equipment or the loss of real estate in my living room.

I was really excited when I first got my surround system but after living with it for a long time, I find myself less and less interested in it.


I also gave some thought to my analogy that stereo is like listening through a doorway, but that is inaccurate. At night when I turn the lights down/off, it's like sitting in front of the performers and the sound fills the entire room which is unlike listening through that doorway I mentioned. The smallness of my room disappears and I find myself completely engulfed in the performance.


It's my opinion, but I think surround for movies is a bust too. It's not a total bust but for what it costs, the money would be better spent on better speakers and equipment for 2 channel. Of course, if money or room isn't an issue then why not.


What I like about 2 channel (with music) is that it sounds real. It has depth and the images are placed in a 3D soundstage.


What I like about surround ( with movies) is that the back channels add information that a 2 channel cannot duplicate. 2 channel can give the impression of surround and even produce images behind the listener, but not to the extent of surround. So for that aspect of it I give it a thumbs up.


I think the biggest drawback of surround is the software. I have heard some pretty good sound from movies, but most of the time, it sounds way over done and less real than music on a 2 channel system. There is nothing more exciting than a low rumble permeating the room during a scary scene in a movie. It really hits to the heart of a persons emotional state. However, it seems that those that make these movies have the mindset that it takes an extended amount of time of loud crash bangs and such to achieve this effect. It has the opposite effect, it's fun when first experienced, but after many movies of the same thing, all it does is give me a headache. It's the sudden increase in sound that startles, but a constant drone at loud volumes is irritating. Thankfully, there are some audio engineers that know what they're doing and every so often a truly enjoyable movie (sound wise) comes along.


At this point I don't know what to think. I quit listening to surround (for the most part) because of the software, but with a good recording, it's very entertaining. Is it worth keeping for those times when a good recording comes along? Perhaps since it's already paid for, but if I had it to do over again, I don't think I would buy another surround system.


A funny thing... rarely do I hear anyone comment about the sound of a movie. As important as sound is to a movie, it's the plot and acting that people comment about. I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack. I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?