SWT's diagram is my speaker layout as well About 100 degrees for the rears.
This is the way that my 7.1 system is set up. The surrounds are beside where I am sitting up the wall and the rears are behind me to the side. When I play 5.1 the surrounds are duplicated into the rear speakers making everything sound great when the mix is correct. The 5.1 is enveloping and the 7.1 from ATMOS also sounds great. I'm generally a happy camper.But also a lot of this comes from cinema use, and there in 5.1 the surrounds really are along the sides of the room.
Same here, about 100 degrees too.SWT's diagram is my speaker layout as well About 100 degrees for the rears.
This is the way that my 7.1 system is set up. The surrounds are beside where I am sitting up the wall and the rears are behind me to the side. When I play 5.1 the surrounds are duplicated into the rear speakers making everything sound great when the mix is correct. The 5.1 is enveloping and the 7.1 from ATMOS also sounds great. I'm generally a happy camper.
Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.The original 5.1 speaker layout from the early 2000's placed the rear speakers a lot further behind the listeners head...
Four corner 5.1 placement worked great for movies of the day that were in pro logic. Not so much for music unless it's old school quad.Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.
Yes you've stated that many times. We can't all do that. But my mlp is one spot only so there's that.Equal distant speakers is still quite important in a listening space. You can use delays to dial in the timing for a sweet spot. It's a crafty trick. The problem is that doing that reduces the listening to only the sweet spot! Any other location in the room will be time smeared. When you walk up to a speaker in a equal distance setup, you hear delay from distance to the other channels just like real life perspective of proximity. Do that with a time skewed system dialed in for a single sweet spot and things get weird.
Just another example where using passive techniques instead of relying on some DSP heavy lifting can go a long way.
If you are only ever in a sweet spot in a small listening space... carry on!
110 deg rears for me too. All equal distant to the listening position including the heights. By the book with that.
I would definitely say that. No change to the sound being muddier at all. I actually had a a' WOW' moment when I hooked up my new AVR and found the surrounds being duplicated into the rears automatically for 5.1 mixes. Before this, I was actually creating my own files that duplicated the surrounds into the rears creating a 7.1 mix from a 5.1 mix. Now I no longer have to do that. All my speakers are approximately the same distance from my main listening position.So would you say that having the surrounds content duplicated into the rear speakers makes the overall 5.1 mix sound even better? I always have the impression that it would sound somewhat muddier, and that getting the sound only from a single pair of speakers (whether it's the surrounds or the rears) would make it sound cleaner.
The "carry on, then" part was for you then.Yes you've stated that many times. We can't all do that. But my mlp is one spot only so there's that.
I had a 5.1 system like that back in the mid 80s. I used three Paradigm Titans across the front and 2 of their dipole/bipoles? mounted high on the side walls a few feet behind the MLP (which was mid room). I was never too happy with that system for doing surround, the rears just didn't seem to put together a proper image either with music or movies. Here's my ebay sales photo.Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.
That's a reasonable assumption, but very much depending on what the setup was at the mixing console and the how production image was voiced.I always felt that the only way to be surrounded is to have speakers in front and behind you. The idea of having the “rears” only being “sides” was never in the equations I used.
Of course, the ideal reproduction system mimics the mixing room’s setup. Clearly, if there are more than one seat in the listening room, that won’t happen.That's a reasonable assumption, but very much depending on what the setup was at the mixing console and the how production image was voiced.
But still many of us just have to deal with our listening room and the positioning options allowed.
There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!
5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.
I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.Why can't we? If the recording exist, the system should handle them.
They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.
Eventually the parts in those old decoders (QS, SQ, and DS) age and quit working, and many of them can't be had now.There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!
No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just common sense. Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?
Enter your email address to join: