Is 5.1 Really the Correct Format for Surround Music?

[4-earredwonder]

Mandatory chez moi :beer2

You got to open your eyes in the morning
Nine o'clock comin' 'out any warnin'
Gotta get ready to go
You say you went out late last evenin'
Did a lot of drinkin'
Come home stinkin'
And you went and fell asleep on the floor
And then your lady comes and finds you asleepin'
Starts in to weepin' 'bout the hours you been keepin'
And you better get your ass out the door

Ain't no crime
Yeah, it's good to get it on to get a load off your mind
It ain't no crime
Well, everybody gets that way some time
It ain't no crime...

Billy Joel (c) 1974​

That's the spirit, Adam. SCREW the SWEET SPOT but just make sure you TIP the bartender.:beer2

 

[wavelength]

As I listen to my latest setup - 4.0 - the significance of identical speakers becomes, well, more significant. I really think that it can't be overstated. To my ears, the down-sampling problem that arises when turning the center channel off pales in comparison of the issue of non-uniform timbre that results from using non-identical speakers.

I wish I had 5 identical speakers so I could try a 5.0 setup, eliminating the down-sampling issue. On the other hand, 4 speakers work so well together. I still have doubts that the 5th center speaker would further enhance the surround field as opposed to "breaking the spell" because it is the only speaker aimed directly at the listener.

 

[himey]

As I listen to my latest setup - 4.0 - the significance of identical speakers becomes, well, more significant. I really think that it can't be overstated. To my ears, the down-sampling problem that arises when turning the center channel off pales in comparison of the issue of non-uniform timbre that results from using non-identical speakers.

I wish I had 5 identical speakers so I could try a 5.0 setup, eliminating the down-sampling issue. On the other hand, 4 speakers work so well together. I still have doubts that the 5th center speaker would further enhance the surround field as opposed to "breaking the spell" because it is the only speaker aimed directly at the listener.

Timbre matching highs I can buy a bit (and I do) but try this, listen to a high quality mono track in each of your matching speakers one at a time. You will soon realize how different each speaker sounds, mostly the low end, because of the room characteristics. Windows, halls, ect will make drastic effects on sound.

 

[wavelength]

Timbre matching highs I can buy a bit (and I do) but try this, listen to a high quality mono track in each of your matching speakers one at a time. You will soon realize how different each speaker sounds, mostly the low end, because of the room characteristics. Windows, halls, ect will make drastic effects on sound.

I agree with you and I try to correct the room as much as I can by treating the walls. My point about identical speakers really is an evolution of stereo. And we are talking music here, not movies. I don't think anybody would argue that in a stereo setup you would always use identical speakers for L & R. So as I add more channels logic tells me that I want all speakers to be identical.

 

[himey]

I agree with you and I try to correct the room as much as I can by treating the walls. My point about identical speakers really is an evolution of stereo. And we are talking music here, not movies. I don't think anybody would argue that in a stereo setup you would always use identical speakers for L & R. So as I add more channels logic tells me that I want all speakers to be identical.

Get back to me when you do my little test. It opened my eyes wide...and ears.

Think about the conversations people have here about moving speakers and subs just a few inches in either direction. Tough to explain in words but bass is very "fragile" for lack of a better term. Sending the exact same mono recording will change your perspective on just how fragile it is and how different identical speakers sound in four different corners of a listening room, treatments and all. It was a learning experience that everyone should try. It changed a lot of my preconceived beliefs.

 

[colman]

Problem with no center and inviting friends over is the sweet spot is much more narrow.

Also, 5.1 with a center speaker allows the option of mixing the center content higher or lower depending on personal preference. Some listeners like a lead vocal (usually in the center speaker) to be a lot louder in the mix than other listeners, and having a center speaker allows 5.1 listeners to adjust the level of the lead vocal according their personal tastes... just my two cents.

 

[wavelength]

Think about the conversations people have here about moving speakers and subs just a few inches in either direction. Tough to explain in words but bass is very "fragile" for lack of a better term. Sending the exact same mono recording will change your perspective on just how fragile it is and how different identical speakers sound in four different corners of a listening room, treatments and all. It was a learning experience that everyone should try. It changed a lot of my preconceived beliefs.

No argument here. So what do you do about it?

 

[himey]

Also, 5.1 with a center speaker allows the option of mixing the center content higher or lower depending on personal preference. Some listeners like a lead vocal (usually in the center speaker) to be a lot louder in the mix than other listeners, and having a center speaker allows 5.1 listeners to adjust the level of the lead vocal according their personal tastes... just my two cents.

I rarely mess with my center level, or any levels once I have them set, for music releases. But having that option for other stuff, like sports, comes in handy. Some events have the announcers only in center and you can turn them off, or down low for the game only sounds.

For totally screwed up music releases, I will remix levels, or in some cases channels, and use that. Doesn't happen very often however.

...sporting events sound leaps and bounds better than when I first got into surround. The NHL and NBA finals sounded crazy good last month.

 

[himey]

No argument here. So what do you do about it?

Five full range speakers/array all around. Sub only for dot one releases/no bass management. Matching tweeters. Matching mids mostly. Blame the mixes and recordings/remasters when they don't blow me away

 

[rtbluray]

Some clarification is needed in this thread, in case anyone had some different thoughts about how things really are.

First off, an unprocessed ('natural') sound will sound different emanating out of two speakers than when it is emanating out of one. That's because what you're actually hearing with a phantom center is the combination of signal from two speakers that are reaching each ear at different times. This crosstalk between the two speakers is actually causing some frequency dips, particularly in the upper frequency registers. So if you really want to hear what a mono mix should sound like, play it out of one speaker. (Centered in front of you, of course)

Also, our perception of sound changes when something is in front of us as opposed to when something is behind us. It's how our heads and ears are designed, so even with matched speakers in front and behind us, simply panning something from front to back or back to front will alter its sound to a certain extent.
That's one of the main reasons why I'm opposed to panning something right in the middle of the two speaker sets when mixing in surround. The sound spectrally tears apart, and the image shifts with even the slightest movement we make.

 

[fredblue]

That's one of the main reasons why I'm opposed to panning something right in the middle of the two speaker sets when mixing in surround. The sound spectrally tears apart, and the image shifts with even the slightest movement we make.

Just wanted to focus on this bit of your post, Ryan.. when you say "in the middle of the two speaker sets" do you mean;
1.) equidistant from the 2 sets (i.e. in the middle of the room where there's a pair of speakers in front and a pair behind)?
or 2.) centre front or centre back positions?
or 3.) either of the two "sides" (that is to say, the two positions between Front Left/Rear Left and Front Right/Rear Right)?

I ask chiefly for clarification because I thought that in a modern 5.1 mixing setup one could pan with no problems to just about any position nowadays, incl. CF/CB (one couldn't do to CB with SQ afaik, it would just cancel out whatever was positioned back there with that old system and that's why quite a lot of old Sony Quads, even when presented in discrete form, have rear channels quite distinct from one another as opposed to having a stereo phantom image in rear as anything in the centre back disappears?) and panning to the two sides (as well as any combination of phantom pans to those diagonal positions between FL & CF/FR & CF/RL & CB/RR & CB).. so it is only the very centre of the soundfield you don't recommend mixing anything to?

 

[rtbluray]

Just wanted to focus on this bit of your post, Ryan.. when you say "in the middle of the two speaker sets" do you mean;
1.) equidistant from the 2 sets (i.e. in the middle of the room where there's a pair of speakers in front and a pair behind)?
or 2.) centre front or centre back positions?
or 3.) either of the two "sides" (that is to say, the two positions between Front Left/Rear Left and Front Right/Rear Right)?

I ask chiefly for clarification because I thought that in a modern 5.1 mixing setup one could pan with no problems to just about any position nowadays, incl. CF/CB (one couldn't do to CB with SQ afaik, it would just cancel out whatever was positioned back there with that old system?) and panning to the two sides (as well as any combination of phantom pans to those diagonal positions between FL & CF/FR & CF/RL & CB/RR & CB).. so it is only the very centre of the soundfield you don't recommend mixing anything to?

I'm primarily speaking about Option 1 (Equidistant from the 2 sets, i.e. in the middle of the room where there's a pair of speakers in front and a pair behind), but it can also involve Option 3 too (either of the two "sides" that is to say, the two positions between Front Left/Rear Left and Front Right/Rear Right)

 

[fredblue]

I'm primarily speaking about Option 1 (Equidistant from the 2 sets, i.e. in the middle of the room where there's a pair of speakers in front and a pair behind), but it can also involve Option 3 too (either of the two "sides" that is to say, the two positions between Front Left/Rear Left and Front Right/Rear Right)

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting about the sides being problematic too because I have some test material somewhere (on an early demo SACD I think) that I seem to recall panning to the two sides somewhat creating the illusion that something is emanating between FL & RL/FR & RR, though I do remember it as being kinda more diffuse than straight FL/FR/C/RL/RR.. I will double check which disc it is and double check how it pans out to be sure though (remembering the future days of future passed ain't what it used to be! )

 

[himey]

Some clarification is needed in this thread, in case anyone had some different thoughts about how things really are.

First off, an unprocessed ('natural') sound will sound different emanating out of two speakers than when it is emanating out of one. That's because what you're actually hearing with a phantom center is the combination of signal from two speakers that are reaching each ear at different times. This crosstalk between the two speakers is actually causing some frequency dips, particularly in the upper frequency registers. So if you really want to hear what a mono mix should sound like, play it out of one speaker. (Centered in front of you, of course)

Also, our perception of sound changes when something is in front of us as opposed to when something is behind us. It's how our heads and ears are designed, so even with matched speakers in front and behind us, simply panning something from front to back or back to front will alter its sound to a certain extent.
That's one of the main reasons why I'm opposed to panning something right in the middle of the two speaker sets when mixing in surround. The sound spectrally tears apart, and the image shifts with even the slightest movement we make.

What if the speaker has multiple drivers?

When I sit down to listen to mono mixes, I prefer multiple speakers, not necessarily behind me, but the more the merrier. Trick is to make sure they all are level matched to your ears. Taking the time to match up multiple speakers and get the levels perfect, can be very rewarding when listening to mono. This approach sounds much better to me, however I have never listened to a quality speaker with a single driver.

 

[Guy Robinson]

The more channels and subwoofers the better. Right now in my house it's 7.2. I even listen to stereo in 7.2

 

[ssully]

Tomlinson Holman, who knows a thing or two about psychoacoustics, disagrees with the OP.

 

[ssully]

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.

@:



Good luck with timbral matching then. Some serious 'speaker correction' DSP might be in order.

Then again, I think the goal (never reached yet) for loudspeakers should be neutrality, not personality.

 

[keenly]

5.1 is the daddy. END OF.

 

[fredblue]

To my shame I dismissed and disparaged Quad at one time..

"How can 4 speakers be as good for surround as 5.1..? More speakers, more surround-y!"

"Quad's that old stuff, this new 5.1 must be better surround!"

You get the picture..

Well, all I can say is, the most 'knock you over the head' active and discrete surround music I've ever heard has been from old Quads.. that may not be everybody's cup of tea and they may prefer a more subtle form of surround sound more akin (but not exclusive to) the modern day 5.1 music mixing approach (not always but many times = lead vocals and rhythm section upfront, accents and ambience in the rear) .. anyway in the last few years I've come to love 4-channel music just as much as 6-channel music..

Now you must excuse me but the Doobies are kicking it on my old but new/new but old CD-4 demogitated setup... and its rather distracting me from the chat!

"woaaaaaah rockin' down the highwaaaay..!" :banana:

 

[rtbluray]

Tomlinson Holman, who knows a thing or two about psychoacoustics, disagrees with the OP.

And I agree with Tomlinson Holman!
BTW, this book should be required reading for anyone wanting to further explore the technicalities of surround sound:
https://www.amazon.com/Surround-Sound-running-Tomlinson-Holman/dp/0240808290/