Is 5.1 Really the Correct Format for Surround Music?

[salsdali]

I'll even go a step further.

I have different speaker manufactures for each speaker. I can't stand the "monotone" of all 5 speakers being from the same manufacture.

My center is a martin logan with a "folded motion tweeter" because that's where most of the vocals emanate from and this mimics the best recorded vocals to me because some of the best recording mic's are ribbon mics.

ribbon mic in --> folded tweeter out = minimal distortion

My other speakers have bigger woofers to reproduce the sound waves of the instruments better than the folded tweeter because those instruments produce different sound waves (lower freq's) than vocals.

That's why I prefer a dedicated center and larger woofers on my surrounds.

 

[salsdali]

I'm just waiting for some QQer to go FULL Dolby Atmos ........ like 62 channels and a bunch of subs......but of course....what would one play on it........Perhaps Steven Spielberg or George Lucas have access to those digital projectors and Dolby Atmos digital masters. Wouldn't surprise me.

they would just have to play any Dolby Atmos disc on their 62 speaker system because that's the point of atmos, it's 62 individual channels encoded that will essentially be down mixed to 7.1 if that's how your system is set up, or 9.1 or 9.2.4 or 62. whatever.

it's more like an algorithm than individually encoded channels. It fits whatever your speaker setup is, not the other way around (like traditional surround).

BTW I just saw this quote from George Lucas yesterday "Sound is 50% of a movie"

Finally someone gets it.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But you review a lot of very pricey, high-tech, multi-channel equipment. I am amazed that all you want in the rears is ambiance.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Better equipment serves equally my goals and your goals better.

 

[4-earredwonder]

they would just have to play any Dolby Atoms disc on their 62 speaker system because that's the point of atmos, it's 62 individual channels encoded that will essentially be down mixed to 7.1 if that's how your system is set up, or 9.1 or 9.2.4 or 62. whatever.

it's more like an algorithm than individually encoded speakers. It fit's whatever your speaker setup is, not the other way around (like traditional surround).

BTW I just saw this quote from George Lucas just yesterday "Sound is 50% of a movie"

Finally someone gets it.

It's good to know in case I go ATMOS.

Sound can be more than 50% of the movie because without dialogue, unless its a SIL:teleport:ENT movie, what's the point?

But then, what is ONE without the OTHER?

GL's 50/50 theory is SOUND.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Question: Is 5.1 Really the Correct Format for Surround Music?

Answer: Yes

 

[fredblue]

Just a quick thing to say vis a vis phantom centre imagining.. it is absolutely possible, in my experience, to get a beautifully centred image with Stereo (and front centre phantom image with discrete Quad) for records mixed that way (I mean if you get, say, two vocalists and one is hard panned left and the other to the extreme right, that's a different kettle of fish.. and there are even Quads and Stereo records where lead vocals are shifted over to one side of the room.. doesn't always sound that great but there it is!) but the point is many times I've come across mixes in both 2.0 and 4.0 with lead vox right up the middle so vivid and with such clarity so that you'd never miss a centre channel, imho..

For anyone who is having issues in this regard, I would say first of all maybe check the wiring of the front pair making sure pos is pos and neg is neg..?
also, careful positioning and toeing in the front pair can really snap things into focus, depending on all sorts of factors like the room, your listening position, how directional tweeters are in one's speakers (some have a really narrowed dispersion, some more diffuse.. I've found over the years all that and more can make a difference to how well speakers create phantom imaging, fwiw)..

That said (and not wanting to go off on a tangent but..) I have recently found some real problems with centre front imaging on decoded SQ records.. in Stereo things like lead vox are often dead centre on these SQ records when played back before decoding.. so I think it may be a phase thing or an SQ encode/decode problem, or when the rear channels are out of balance and don't cancel out the centre back properly your focus maybe gets skewed to one of the rear corners and then the imaging goes haywire.. even though I'm sure I remember reading one time SQ allowed for a position for "centre front" I don't know how or even if it was ever implemented, or if it even worked if it was ever used by any of the engineers back then at all.. just a curious (and annoying) thing when you have an alternative point of reference to a Quad in discrete Q8 form that has rock steady centre front lead vocals and then in SQ it can be way over left or right or just slightly to one side of the centre, or even sometimes louder in one of the rear channels! (a couple of Billy Joel SQ decoded tracks and Side 1/Track 1 on the SQ LP of Streisand's The Way We Were are particularly duff in this regard, I don't know if its the original SQ encode or the SQ vinyl Surround Master decode or some other factor but it really messes with my miiiiind! )

 

[4-earredwonder]

After 100's of 5.1 discs I've never heard a stereo phantom center sound as discrete as a proper 5.1 with center for vocals.

I've also had speaker arrangements where the center wasn't actually in the center, but was off to the side and closer to me so that when I listened to those 5.1 discs I could hear the vocals (center) completely discrete from the rest of the music.

Ingredients of a song:

1. Music
2. Words

I like to hear both, independently.

Then come over to my dungeon and you will hear a proper phantom center DONE RIGHT. DEAD center and every vowel is articulated perfectly.

My fronts are huge [6'2" tall] flanked by two huge subs [also 6'2"tall and 2000watts] and there's a 102" Stewart Filmscreen smack dab in the middle so there's NO room for a credible center that would match those huge l/r fronts. Even the speaker manufacturer told my audio salon that NO center channel would do my speakers justice. And you know what....it sounds simply astounding...without the center channel.

 

[keenly]

Although it is the most common surround mixing technique today, my contention is that 5.1 for music is simply not correct. If you want the music to surround you then why would you want the forward part of the field to be better represented than the rear portion. Somehow 5.1, which works for movies, became the de facto choice for music as well. Where movies have sounds near and far, music should be consistent so that all the speakers come together to present a single surround field. All parts of the musical spectrum that is being reproduced are equally important and equally necessary to realize the desired outcome. So give each speaker an equal role to play.

I feel that multi-channel systems for music should always be of an even number: 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, etc. so that equilibrium can be maintained.

Furthermore, I feel the the subwoofer has no place in a multi-channel music system. The speakers should be full range in order to produce the lower end of the audio spectrum of music. With that, no sub is necessary. The point is to give full control of the signal to the speakers without introducing a totally different animal (the subwoofer) to complicate the reproduction of the surround field.

YES. End thread.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

YES. End thread.

NO. End thread.

 

[seilerbird]

Furthermore, I feel the the subwoofer has no place in a multi-channel music system. The speakers should be full range in order to produce the lower end of the audio spectrum of music. With that, no sub is necessary. The point is to give full control of the signal to the speakers without introducing a totally different animal (the subwoofer) to complicate the reproduction of the surround field.

Speak for yourself Kemosabe. I am retired and living on a fixed income. Expensive full range speakers are not in my budget. But I have an even bigger problem. I live full time in a 32 foot class A motorhome. Most people have larger bathrooms than my whole house. Squeezing a 7.1 system in here was a huge challenge. If I would have eliminated the sub woofer I would have no bass at all.

Here is a panoramic photo. The speaker at the very left hand side of the image is my left rear speaker which is located at my 9 o'clock. There is also a speaker on the top right of the photo and that is the right rear speaker at my 3 o'clock. The two surround speakers are located at 10 and 2 o'clock. Left and right are at 11 and 1 and the center is at 12 o'clock. There is a sub woofer located just to the left of the TV. Next month I am getting another sub woofer to put just to the left of the TV. All speakers are made by Polk and I am thrilled with the way they sound. I can't imagine not using a center channel or a sub woofer.

http://i466.photobucket.com/albums/rr26/seilerbird/Living room.jpg

 

[fredblue]

NO. End thread.

Oh I do love a good discussion forum..

 

[wavelength]

In the end, it's really what you're comfortable with and what space limitations and budget allow.

Of course, that is the cold, hard, reality of it all. But the question in this thread is "what should it be". What people have and/or what they can afford would be a topic of another thread.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Just a quick thing to say vis a vis phantom centre imagining.. it is absolutely possible, in my experience, to get a beautifully centred image with Stereo (and front centre phantom image with discrete Quad) for records mixed that way (I mean if you get, say, two vocalists and one is hard panned left and the other to the extreme right, that's a different kettle of fish.. and there are even Quads and Stereo records where lead vocals are shifted over to one side of the room.. doesn't always sound that great but there it is!) but the point is many times I've come across mixes in both 2.0 and 4.0 with lead vox right up the middle so vivid and with such clarity so that you'd never miss a centre channel, imho..

For anyone who is having issues in this regard, I would say first of all maybe check the wiring of the front pair making sure pos is pos and neg is neg..?
also, careful positioning and toeing in the front pair can really snap things into focus, depending on all sorts of factors like the room, your listening position, how directional tweeters are in one's speakers (some have a really narrowed dispersion, some more diffuse.. I've found over the years all that and more can make a difference to how well speakers create phantom imaging, fwiw)..

That said (and not wanting to go off on a tangent but..) I have recently found some real problems with centre front imaging on decoded SQ records.. in Stereo things like lead vox are often dead centre on these SQ records when played back before decoding.. so I think it may be a phase thing or an SQ encode/decode problem, or when the rear channels are out of balance and don't cancel out the centre back properly your focus maybe gets skewed to one of the rear corners and then the imaging goes haywire.. even though I'm sure I remember reading one time SQ allowed for a position for "centre front" I don't know how or even if it was ever implemented, or if it even worked if it was ever used by any of the engineers back then at all.. just a curious (and annoying) thing when you have an alternative point of reference to a Quad in discrete Q8 form that has rock steady centre front lead vocals and then in SQ it can be way over left or right or just slightly to one side of the centre, or even sometimes louder in one of the rear channels! (a couple of Billy Joel SQ decoded tracks and Side 1/Track 1 on the SQ LP of Streisand's The Way We Were are particularly duff in this regard, I don't know if its the original SQ encode or the SQ vinyl Surround Master decode or some other factor but it really messes with my miiiiind! )

Yeah, man...yeah...
What he said!!!

Totally agree--it's up to your perception.

Had 4 full range speakers for 5+ years and then I got a center speaker...MOST OF THE TIME , it sounds the same , but I'd Highly recommend a center/centre speaker.

 

[ar surround]

Then come over to my dungeon and you will hear a proper phantom center DONE RIGHT. DEAD center and every vowel is articulated perfectly.

My fronts are huge [6'2" tall] flanked by two huge subs [also 6'2"tall and 2000watts] and there's a 102" Stewart Filmscreen smack dab in the middle so there's NO room for a credible center that would match those huge l/r fronts. Even the speaker manufacturer told my audio salon that NO center channel would do my speakers justice. And you know what....it sounds simply astounding...without the center channel.

Yes, I too have never had a problem with my tower speakers presenting a perfect center phantom image. But I still use a relatively smaller center speaker for movie dialogue as my TV is only 50" and also to help out with recessed vocals such on the Door's Perception 5.1. Is your Stewart Filmscreen somewhat sound transparent? If so, perhaps you could special order a single one of those 6'2" speakers for the center channel.

 

[skherbeck]

I have 4 large full range speakers (not "high end", just big!). So far, I generally prefer the sound of good Quad mixes to good 5.1 mixes. With a good quad mix, I often have to put my ear to the center channel to double check that nothing's coming out!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Then come over to my dungeon and you will hear a proper phantom center DONE RIGHT. DEAD center and every vowel is articulated perfectly.

My fronts are huge [6'2" tall] flanked by two huge subs [also 6'2"tall and 2000watts] and there's a 102" Stewart Filmscreen smack dab in the middle so there's NO room for a credible center that would match those huge l/r fronts. Even the speaker manufacturer told my audio salon that NO center channel would do my speakers justice. And you know what....it sounds simply astounding...without the center channel.

I have no doubt you get great imaging with stereo and quad sources. A good loudspeaker pair can produce an astonishingly good phantom center when properly aligned. But once you go to 5.0 or 5.1 source material, the disk player or preamp/processor takes on the job of dividing the center channel up into a stereo signal pair and mixes it into the front L/R signals in equal quantities. So how do you know the processing portion of it isn't presenting a compromise? From disk to disk the type of center channel information that is present varies drastically. Sometimes dry vocals, sometimes partial vocals with ambiance, sometimes instrumentation with ambiance, (fill in blank here), and all of it with applied EQ, reverb, etc. There is a good possibility that there are small phase differences that will affect front channel playback much more so than if the center channel were reproduced discretely because the process of electronic phase cancellation (as would be done by combining a split center to the front L/R and then routing to the loudspeaker) is a much more severe cancelation than is the acoustic cancelation (that would occur when the fronts and center are reproduced discretely). Since the discrete presentation is what the mixing engineer is listening to when he makes his decisions, I don't see how a center-less system can be as accurate as a system with a center channel, assuming all three front speakers are matched and the goal is to reproduce as best as possible what the mixing engineer intended.

I can understand your difficulty in adding a center channel that would do justice to your L/R pair. You would need to use three matched towers and its not like you can easily hide a speaker of that size. And even then, if you cant orient it the same as the L/R pair, you might be better off with a phantom center anyway. But I suspect that with a good portion of modern 5.1 recordings you would notice a significant improvement if you did go to a matched trio of loudspeakers up front.

Further thought: Another solution would be to purchase another pair of loudspeakers identical to your existing front pair and set them up as a second L/R pair. Add another 2 channels of amplification and produce a phantom center from the discreet center signal. I'll bet you are salivating at the thought of all that additional equipment and spending all the required cash. That would be crazy talk for most people, but ill bet its been done.

 

[fredblue]

I have no doubt you get great imaging with stereo and quad sources. A good loudspeaker pair can produce an astonishingly good phantom center when properly aligned. But once you go to 5.0 or 5.1 source material, the disk player or preamp/processor takes on the job of dividing the center channel up into a stereo signal pair and mixes it into the front L/R signals in equal quantities. So how do you know the processing portion of it isn't presenting a compromise? From disk to disk the type of center channel information that is present varies drastically. Sometimes dry vocals, sometimes partial vocals with ambiance, sometimes instrumentation with ambiance, (fill in blank here), and all of it with applied EQ, reverb, etc. There is a good possibility that there are small phase differences that will affect front channel playback much more so than if the center channel were reproduced discretely because the process of electronic phase cancellation (as would be done by combining a split center to the front L/R and then routing to the loudspeaker) is a much more severe cancelation than is the acoustic cancelation (that would occur when the fronts and center are reproduced discretely). Since the discrete presentation is what the mixing engineer is listening to when he makes his decisions, I don't see how a center-less system can be as accurate as a system with a center channel, assuming all three front speakers are matched and the goal is to reproduce as best as possible what the mixing engineer intended.

I can understand your difficulty in adding a center channel that would do justice to your L/R pair. You would need to use three matched towers and its not like you can easily hide a speaker of that size. And even then, if you cant orient it the same as the L/R pair, you might be better off with a phantom center anyway. But I suspect that with a good portion of modern 5.1 recordings you would notice a significant improvement if you did go to a matched trio of loudspeakers up front.

Further thought: Another solution would be to purchase another pair of loudspeakers identical to your existing front pair and set them up as a second L/R pair. Add another 2 channels of amplification and produce a phantom center from the discreet center signal. I'll bet you are salivating at the thought of all that additional equipment and spending all the required cash. That would be crazy talk for most people, but ill bet its been done.

Very good point about downmixing 5.1 music to 4.0.. have you tried it recently? I haven't for a while but on my old Yamaha Receiver (R.I.P ) it was sometimes quite interesting.. some instances (Michael McDonald's "Motown" was one off the top of my head I distinctly remember) the vocals were louder when redirected thru Front L&R than when they were in the Centre as originally mixed/intended.. no idea what the Receiver was doing to process it or why that would be happening (may as much have been user error or speakers etc badly setup IDK).. just an observation.. I'll try some similar experiments with the Denon AVR presently and pop back with findings.

 

[ar surround]

Very good point about downmixing 5.1 music to 4.0.. have you tried it recently? I haven't for a while but on my old Yamaha Receiver (R.I.P ) it was sometimes quite interesting.. some instances (Michael McDonald's "Motown" was one off the top of my head I distinctly remember) the vocals were louder when redirected thru Front L&R than when they were in the Centre as originally mixed/intended.. no idea what the Receiver was doing to process it or why that would be happening (may as much have been user error or speakers etc badly setup IDK).. just an observation.. I'll try some similar experiments with the Denon AVR presently and pop back with findings.

Many times when I've set my system to "no center speaker," I've gotten the same result; specifically anything present in the center channel comes through louder with the 4.1 setup than with the 5.1 setup.

 

[DuncanS]

I've 4 full range speakers too with a matching centre, and I've often stuck my head by the centre speaker just to prove to myself nothings coming out! and on the rears with a typical Silverline 5.1 disc for the same reason!

I have 4 large full range speakers (not "high end", just big!). So far, I generally prefer the sound of good Quad mixes to good 5.1 mixes. With a good quad mix, I often have to put my ear to the center channel to double check that nothing's coming out!

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...5-Lou-Dorren-A-new-CD-4-Demodulator!!!/page10

See post #242, post #247 and post #277

From #277:
Best speaker location and pattern were part of the Acoustic double blind study that we conducted at the NQRC (National Quadraphonic Radio Committee). The ideal polar pattern for accurate 2 dimensional Quadraphonic sound reproduction is Cardioid synchronized wavefront generation.

...the speakers are placed in a square configuration with each at a 45 degree angle pointed at the diagonal speaker. The key is symmetry.

-------

IIRC, Audio magazine (USA) published a summary of the NQRC tests,
but I haven't found that article online (yet)

Kirk Bayne