Is 5.1 Really the Correct Format for Surround Music?

[wavelength]

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

Actually Holman agrees with the OP that 5.1 is not the ideal format for music. I found this comment in a 1997 interview with Holman:

Bill Whittington: "Could you talk about your work with the Motorola Corporation and multichannel audio for music on DVD? Will this format include images as well as music?"

Tomlinson Holman: "Well, it might have some images. There are ways to put still images in there, but it is not for full-motion video. If you went to full-motion video for music videos, you'd be on DVD video standard. The question is what constitutes a high quality audio standard. There is a headlong rush toward higher sample rates and longer word lengths—these are givens—but what is the utility of more channels? I feel responsible in a way for 5.1, but I feel it's inadequate to fully represent the dimensionality of music fields. It works fine with motion pictures, but it was done under limitations. Let's take away limitations. They're taking away sampling rates, so let's talk about taking away limitations on the number of channels."

source: page 116 of the pdf... http://cinema.usc.edu/assets/099/15962.pdf

 

[ssully]

Actually Holman agrees with the OP that 5.1 is not the ideal format for music.

I'm well aware of that, thanks. I didn't say he thought 5.1 was ideal.

You for some reason believe the ideal channel configuration is even numbered -- "2.0, 4.0, 6.0", and that a subwoofer 'has no place' in a mch music system. That is the point I was addressing.

Holman favors 10.2. (and that's not for some belief in even numbers per se..he'd likely say 7.1 is better than 5.1 and both are better than 4.0 or 6.0)

 

[wavelength]

I'm well aware of that, thanks. I didn't say he thought 5.1 was ideal.

You for some reason believe the ideal channel configuration is even numbered -- "2.0, 4.0, 6.0", and that a subwoofer 'has no place' in a mch music system. That is the point I was addressing.

Holman favors 10.2. (and that's not for some belief in even numbers per se..he'd likely say 7.1 is better than 5.1 and both are better than 4.0 or 6.0)

Ok. Sure...thanks for clarifying.

 

[wavelength]

As I mentioned in the other thread on basically the same topic, some processors/players will downsample because of the extra workload going from 5.1 to 4.0. Someone mentioned that the Oppo players do this...

That one really had me concerned as any down-sampling would definitely be a bad thing imo. I sent the question to Oppo and got this reply:

"Changing the Down-mix will not affect the quality of the audio as the player does not lose resolution as it enables or disables speakers. The only thing that affects the quality of the DAC is the DTS NEO6 option under Audio Processing. You should leave this to off, otherwise, the audio will be decoded and processed at a maximum of 48kHz.

"Otherwise, the player is bit and sampling rate perfect to the source."

 

[Guy Robinson]

I'm well aware of that, thanks. I didn't say he thought 5.1 was ideal.

You for some reason believe the ideal channel configuration is even numbered -- "2.0, 4.0, 6.0", and that a subwoofer 'has no place' in a mch music system. That is the point I was addressing.

Holman favors 10.2. (and that's not for some belief in even numbers per se..he'd likely say 7.1 is better than 5.1 and both are better than 4.0 or 6.0)

If you really want realistic smooth bass down to 20 hz then multiple subs is the way to go. Even with music. .0 doesn't cut it even utilizing large towers.

 

[himey]

If you really want realistic smooth bass down to 20 hz then multiple subs is the way to go. Even with music. .0 doesn't cut it even utilizing large towers.

How so? What is the feature in a sub that a full range monitor doesn't acomplish?

Cabinet, subwoofer driver, amplifier? What feature is the magical component in a sub? All these are in a full range speakers too. Passive crossover vs active crossover. Biamp the full range. I don't get it.

 

[kap'n krunch]

How so? What is the feature in a sub that a full range monitor doesn't acomplish?

Cabinet, subwoofer driver, amplifier? What feature is the magical component in a sub? All these are in a full range speakers too. Passive crossover vs active crossover. Biamp the full range. I don't get it.

it's all so complicated..
If you are happy with the bass that you are getting; GREAT! ...kinda like me...
(also have to take into consideration the kind of house you live in; if it's either a detached house in which you can go all the way down to 20; or, if you live in a flat/apartment like me ....where going down to 20Hz will create an instant animosity towards you from your close neighbors...and probably with the local police too)

Now OTOH, it is true that you might need a sub or two to go down to 20Hz.
The same way you might need at least 2 midrange cones per speaker (which is the frequency we are most "tuned" to, as humans..you know, speech and all of that.)

Of course YMMV but I'm a firm believer in having a separate speaker that is self powered cause it takes a lot of juice to move all that air, to get REAL DEEP BASS; and, consequently, what the mixing engineer had in the studio when (s)he mixed it....

 

[LuvMyQuad]

How so? What is the feature in a sub that a full range monitor doesn't acomplish?

Cabinet, subwoofer driver, amplifier? What feature is the magical component in a sub? All these are in a full range speakers too. Passive crossover vs active crossover. Biamp the full range. I don't get it.

I'm not taking a side on the absolute need for a subwoofer to get to audio heaven, But I believe the biggest differences come from:

1. Being able to locate the sub in an optimal spot for bass reproduction. This often is not the same place where a full range speaker is at its best.
2. Being able to adjust the sub level and crossover attributes (ie: xover frequency, slope, phase, etc). Most full range speakers do not provide this level of flexibility.

Also, there actually are differences in the areas you mentioned. Namely cabinet (no sharing the cabinet with other drivers with a sub), driver (which is optimized for only low bass in a sub, as opposed to low bass to mid bass in a full range speaker) , amplifier (again optimized for bass. No need for high frequency extension. High power is much more important).

Two subs probably is better than one, and four is probably better than two. With multiples, each sub operates at a lower output level and in a different location tending to even out response irregularities, nodes and standing waves.

 

[fredblue]

it's all so complicated..
If you are happy with the bass that you are getting; GREAT! ...kinda like me...
(also have to take into consideration the kind of house you live in; if it's either a detached house in which you can go all the way down to 20; or, if you live in a flat/apartment like me ....where going down to 20Hz will create an instant animosity towards you from your close neighbors...and probably with the local police too)

Now OTOH, it is true that you might need a sub or two to go down to 20Hz.
The same way you might need at least 2 midrange cones per speaker (which is the frequency we are most "tuned" to, as humans..you know, speech and all of that.)

Of course YMMV but I'm a firm believer in having a separate speaker that is self powered cause it takes a lot of juice to move all that air, to get REAL DEEP BASS; and, consequently, what the mixing engineer had in the studio when (s)he mixed it....

Oh I'm in the same boat as you, kap!
(Glug glug glug... Ship Ahoy! )

Well, its a flat (an apartment, of sorts) a shoebox.. on dry land.. rather than a boat.. you get the picture!

Oh you will see for yourself soon actually now I think of it, not long to go now til you come!

 

[himey]

Adding a .1 sub to recordings that don't have a .1 channel seems counterproductive. Of course if your room is larger than your speakers can handle then maybe you can "fix" that with a sub. But that is not the speaker's fault. Upgrade your speakers. I like my bass coming from the same direction as the corresponding channel. Bass management in conjunction with subs is a fix for a deficiency in a setup, 90% of the time.

 

[seilerbird]

How so? What is the feature in a sub that a full range monitor doesn't acomplish?

Cabinet, subwoofer driver, amplifier? What feature is the magical component in a sub? All these are in a full range speakers too. Passive crossover vs active crossover. Biamp the full range. I don't get it.

The fact is with a subwoofer there is greater separation between the bass drum and the bass guitar. On 2.0 systems they are almost impossible to hear separately. As a bass player I worship my subwoofer.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If you really want realistic smooth bass down to 20 hz then multiple subs is the way to go. Even with music. .0 doesn't cut it even utilizing large towers.

You guys are mixing up the recorded format and the playback system. There is no reason why a competent x.0 recording cannot be played back with bass management if required.

Adding a .1 sub to recordings that don't have a .1 channel seems counterproductive.

I agree but adding bass management to add the .1 can be very useful.

Of course if your room is larger than your speakers can handle then maybe you can "fix" that with a sub. But that is not the speaker's fault. Upgrade your speakers. I like my bass coming from the same direction as the corresponding channel. Bass management in conjunction with subs is a fix for a deficiency in a setup, 90% of the time.

I strongly disagree. In fact, it is often advantageous to be able to place and EQ the subs optimally in a position different from that of the main speakers, especially if the main ones are placed for optimal imaging.

The fact is with a subwoofer there is greater separation between the bass drum and the bass guitar. On 2.0 systems they are almost impossible to hear separately.

Then those 2.0 systems are significantly impotent or limited. The problem is not a limitation of 2.0 but of the particular setup.

As a bass player I worship my subwoofer.

As you should.

While you may think that I am taking both sides of the argument, I am not. Bass management and subwoofers are useful solutions in many cases but there are no universal solutions. x.0 recordings easily accommodate both.

 

[milt]

You guys are mixing up the recorded format and the playback system.

This and especially this plus everything else in Kal's post.
+ 1,000

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Kal, I love your responses. You are a great asset to this board. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The fact is with a subwoofer there is greater separation between the bass drum and the bass guitar. On 2.0 systems they are almost impossible to hear separately. As a bass player I worship my subwoofer.

View attachment 26970

OK so is that really you and Sir Paul back in the day or is that photo shopped? It looks like you. If its for real, can you tell us the story?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Adding a .1 sub to recordings that don't have a .1 channel seems counterproductive. Of course if your room is larger than your speakers can handle then maybe you can "fix" that with a sub. But that is not the speaker's fault. Upgrade your speakers. I like my bass coming from the same direction as the corresponding channel. Bass management in conjunction with subs is a fix for a deficiency in a setup, 90% of the time.

In my situation there is no way I could work 5 full range speakers into my room layout. My listening room is also my video room, my family room, and my man cave. Its made to allow for a small group to gather, so there is plenty of furniture. Trying to shoehorn in five full range (and I mean truly full range) floor standers would be out of the question and small to medium sized monitors are the only solution. Don't get me wrong, it provides for a great surround layout with each driver about 8 ft from my sweetspot, but it is definitely a near field system. In a near field layout like that, a sub is a necessity. I never sense a discontinuance between the monitors and the sub with respect to directionality. And in comparison to the large stereo floor standers I've had in the past, ill gladly take the enhanced extension and control that my bass managed, subwoofer equipped system provides me without hesitation.

 

[proufo]

x.0 recordings easily accommodate both.

 

[seilerbird]

OK so is that really you and Sir Paul back in the day or is that photo shopped? It looks like you. If its for real, can you tell us the story?

Totally Photoshop.

 

[himey]

You guys are mixing up the recorded format and the playback system. There is no reason why a competent x.0 recording cannot be played back with bass management if required.

I agree but adding bass management to add the .1 can be very useful.

I strongly disagree. In fact, it is often advantageous to be able to place and EQ the subs optimally in a position different from that of the main speakers, especially if the main ones are placed for optimal imaging.

Then those 2.0 systems are significantly impotent or limited. The problem is not a limitation of 2.0 but of the particular setup.

As you should.

While you may think that I am taking both sides of the argument, I am not. Bass management and subwoofers are useful solutions in many cases but there are no universal solutions. x.0 recordings easily accommodate both.

Thanks for posting. A .1 sub can be useful for many setups but many times is used as a fix for a problem rather than being optimal. You obviously don't have any problems with bass management like I do. Some processors are more flexible than others, I prefer not to use it. Thanks again for contributing here!

 

[wavelength]

Totally Photoshop.

Nice job!!