Floorstanders as Surrounds ?
- Thread starter Tuhin Lavania
- Start date
Ok so here’s a correction, as well as few imp points to consider among 5.1 vs 7.1 vs atoms config:
1. Elangoas was correct in saying 7.1 isn’t exactly “extrapolated” version of 5.1, which I said it was. 7.1 is indeed diff config. This means surrounds & back surrounds will carry diff sound patches (as against SAME I said before). Stands corrected.
2. That said, as mentioned before, most recordings would be in 5.1, with very few exceptions in 7.1
3. Further, new recording are more likely to be titled towards 5.1 + Atmos, than 7.1. Reason: Studios will like to give enhanced immersive experience to audience by activating additional sound pieces in different dimension/plane, than to add more in sane horizontal plane.
In practical terms, new movies etc will be recorded in say 5.1.2 than in 7.1. That is, 2 additional speakers in configuration will be in vertical plane (atmos), than in sane dimension (surround back).
Therefore, if one is planning new system or enhancing existing setup, Atmos enablement will make more prudence than to invest in surround back. There are few titles tha’ll do justice to 7.1 & going forward even less sense. Those with “extra” space/cash though may go for say 7.1.2 over 5.1.2. But between 7.1 & 5.1.2, latter is clearly the winning config.
Thanks
1. Elangoas was correct in saying 7.1 isn’t exactly “extrapolated” version of 5.1, which I said it was. 7.1 is indeed diff config. This means surrounds & back surrounds will carry diff sound patches (as against SAME I said before). Stands corrected.
2. That said, as mentioned before, most recordings would be in 5.1, with very few exceptions in 7.1
3. Further, new recording are more likely to be titled towards 5.1 + Atmos, than 7.1. Reason: Studios will like to give enhanced immersive experience to audience by activating additional sound pieces in different dimension/plane, than to add more in sane horizontal plane.
In practical terms, new movies etc will be recorded in say 5.1.2 than in 7.1. That is, 2 additional speakers in configuration will be in vertical plane (atmos), than in sane dimension (surround back).
Therefore, if one is planning new system or enhancing existing setup, Atmos enablement will make more prudence than to invest in surround back. There are few titles tha’ll do justice to 7.1 & going forward even less sense. Those with “extra” space/cash though may go for say 7.1.2 over 5.1.2. But between 7.1 & 5.1.2, latter is clearly the winning config.
Thanks
ALL Atmos soundtracks are 7.1 channels + objects. The core of a home Atmos soundtrack is 7.1, not 5.1.
Not sure why it’d be mandatory for a sound piece to be 7.1 recorded, if it were to be atmos enabled. But since you’re confident ALL (atmos) are essentially 7.1, will cross-check.
ONEMANARMY
Active Member
If budget and space are not a constraint then go with floor-standing speakers for surrounds. There certainly is a performance difference.Hello all..
Some time back, i bought the Marantz SR 6013 and Q Acoustics 3050i and a center speaker 3090c.
Im yet to add a subwoofer, surrounds, surround back and height speakers.
The question here i have is, is there any performance difference in using Floorstanders as surrounds ? I was thinking of adding another pair of 3050i's for surrounds.
The Room size is 18*12 if that can be helpful.
Thank you
The ambience created by full range speakers is much better than satellites.
For Atmos, do go with in-ceiling rather than up-firing. And 4 is always better than 2
elangoas
Well-Known Member
It's only mandatory because that is the home Atmos spec: 7.1 channels + up to 16 objects. Atmos was designed to build upon current technology (7.1 is current, 5.1 is older).
Indeed. But that poses couple of questions on 7.1 vs 5.1.2.
1. Firstly, they authenticity of 7.1, as most tracks get up-mixed by AVR, thereby very signals back surrounds carry are a) not part of recordings (5.1), and b) will that be discreet signal from surrounds?
2. Secondly, shouldn’t there by minimum distance between surrounds & back surrounds? Logically, a sound piece is recorded keeping some threshold distance in mind. Some say 15x20 feet room layout is minimum for 7.1. In small room layouts, close proximity might override each surrounds pairs output, or, overwhelms audience. In nutshell, over a wider choice of titles 7.1 will create distortion than add value in avg home layout.
4. A title is made for specific layout range. Dolby Atmos has 128 tracks (if am not wrong), so there can be overwhelming large no of speaker config. A typical movie theatre would be extremely diff to be had in home layout environment.
4. Still if one wants 7.1, a bipole surround will “simulate” it as well.
Atmos is altogether different sonic plans, with clean distance for speakers to breathe. Purely from practicality viewpoint, 5.1.2 is way better than 7.1 or 7.1.2 layout. Just my view though
What do you mean by "not part of the recording"? Where do you think the sound for the rear speakers comes from if not the recording? Is there a library of sound effects and music cues built into every receiver?
Angular separation, not distance. Sides around 80-90 degrees from centre, Rears at roughly 150 degrees from centre. Physical distance will depend on room size and listener location.
What distortions? Movie sound mixing went 7.1 almost 20 years ago. You are not required to do so. But let's not pretend that adding a mere 2 channels and/or speakers will "create distortion".
People routinely listen to Atmos soundtracks using the 2 speakers built into their TV without problems. Video scales to the display: a 1080p hi-def source scales to 480i standard-def displays and 4K UHD displays. Likewise, the number of channels in a soundtrack can be upmixed or downmixed to the number of speaker in a layout. One has nothing to do with the other.
No, Atmos is not "altogether different", it simply adds objects to current 7.1-channel audio. Nothing more complicated than that. No audio format is designed "for speakers to breathe" (whatever that means).
1. 7.1 first discrete channel recording was in 1950-52, not 20 years back. Notwithstanding that, diid not get into mainstream.
2. Atmos are different “spatial” configuration, that is in different plane.
3. By up-mixing/down-mixing, “guess” Original Content gets coloured.
Lastly, there’s immense scope of no of loudspeakers can be had in composing a piece & render. But for practical reasons (space being one parameter), imprudent to have 58 speakers in home environment,
If one has liberty of space,/wealth, and inkling to why not!! 5.1.2 is any day worthier than 7.1. Just my viewpoint though!
2. Atmos are different “spatial” configuration, that is in different plane.
3. By up-mixing/down-mixing, “guess” Original Content gets coloured.
Lastly, there’s immense scope of no of loudspeakers can be had in composing a piece & render. But for practical reasons (space being one parameter), imprudent to have 58 speakers in home environment,
If one has liberty of space,/wealth, and inkling to why not!! 5.1.2 is any day worthier than 7.1. Just my viewpoint though!
Per recommendation, got my surrounds go close to front speakers & hooked at precise degrees - distance between front & surrounds is now 1.5 feet. Somehow doesn’t sound good. Not sure why?
Maybe speakers needs some “space to breathe”. Just a “figure” of speech, and this figure can’t be measured in degrees/inches.
Maybe speakers needs some “space to breathe”. Just a “figure” of speech, and this figure can’t be measured in degrees/inches.
What was the discrete 7.1 movie soundtrack that was recorded in 1950-52? Which movie title?
Atmos adds a height layer, but the base layer is the same as before.
No guessing involved, simply following instructions based on phase and level (that's how upmixing works). When 2 channels are upmixed to 3 speakers, the only sounds extracted to the centre speaker are sounds that would have phantom imaged at the centre of the soundstage anyway. Same location. Upmixer is extracting dual-mono in-phase sounds, not guessing.
No one is mixing movie soundtracks based on number of speakers because they don't know how many speakers will be used for playback. Like I said, movies with Atmos soundtracks are routinely played back using the 2 speakers built into a TV (not everyone has a home theatre). Movie mixers don't know how you're going to play back their mixes at home.
Hello all..
Some time back, i bought the Marantz SR 6013 and Q Acoustics 3050i and a center speaker 3090c.
Im yet to add a subwoofer, surrounds, surround back and height speakers.
The question here i have is, is there any performance difference in using Floorstanders as surrounds ? I was thinking of adding another pair of 3050i's for surrounds.
The Room size is 18*12 if that can be helpful.
Thank you
So what did you get in the end? Bookshelves or towers? Sorry I did not see or maybe missed a post from you about your decision amongst the other discussion on this thread.
MaSh
Tuhin Lavania
Active Member
Nothing as of yet. My room will be completed in about a month so that time.
Still really inclined to buy 3050i's as they are amazing speakers but also can buy the other and save some money on a subwoofer lol
Its a almost 30k difference between bookshelves and towers.
Still really inclined to buy 3050i's as they are amazing speakers but also can buy the other and save some money on a subwoofer lol
Its a almost 30k difference between bookshelves and towers.
First discreet 7 channel surround was done in “This is Cinerama” in 1952, while first surround sound was “Fantasia” - I GUESS. Lol
Upmixing: Obviously no “pseudo signals” gets added, but it’s not native reproduction either. It’s an approximation by algorithms used by Dolby, DTS, Auro etc (GUESS that’s why they sound different & preferred over one another by diff audience). Within given brand of upmixer, there are versions. Further, when a native Dolby recorded is played in DTS, theres always a change in how it was recorded v/s how it got reproduced. Had any Upmixer been 100% accurate, there wouldn’t been a need for other. Algorithms are approximation, not exact. Besides, GUESS even speakers ain’t true to source, they do add color - degree may vary. Dolby has recently announced no other upmixer can overlay its native content - GUESS that’s both aimed at better reproduction as also kill the competition.
Likewise, in Video format - 2K, 4K, 8K are only approximations. GUESS human eyes can’t differentiate after certain point, but reality doesn’t exist in pixels - it’s a continuum. Video reproduction may only appear as continuum due to limitation of faculty of perception.
That said, the moot point of discussion (as it started) was - whether to go for 5 FS in 5.1 over conventional 5.1 with surrounds.
Basically, OP was asking if he can have 5.1 in 5/L config v/s 3/2L config. Theorists would argue for 5/L for consistency (citing 101 concepts of physics), but for sheer practicality it’s of lil worth. Cost/Space will outweigh value-add by considerable margin enough not to consider 5/L config.
As for 7.1, again given large amount of content is in 5.1, it doesn’t make much sense. Besides, space availability in usual Indian homes (barring exceptions ofc) is a kill point in itself for additional pair generating upmixed sound (not native, but extrapolated).
Besides Audio Video etc, even concept of God isn’t fully actualised to point of finalisation - no wonder many formats exist. Amidst this, I won’t be fretting over Audio reproduction.
Upmixing: Obviously no “pseudo signals” gets added, but it’s not native reproduction either. It’s an approximation by algorithms used by Dolby, DTS, Auro etc (GUESS that’s why they sound different & preferred over one another by diff audience). Within given brand of upmixer, there are versions. Further, when a native Dolby recorded is played in DTS, theres always a change in how it was recorded v/s how it got reproduced. Had any Upmixer been 100% accurate, there wouldn’t been a need for other. Algorithms are approximation, not exact. Besides, GUESS even speakers ain’t true to source, they do add color - degree may vary. Dolby has recently announced no other upmixer can overlay its native content - GUESS that’s both aimed at better reproduction as also kill the competition.
Likewise, in Video format - 2K, 4K, 8K are only approximations. GUESS human eyes can’t differentiate after certain point, but reality doesn’t exist in pixels - it’s a continuum. Video reproduction may only appear as continuum due to limitation of faculty of perception.
That said, the moot point of discussion (as it started) was - whether to go for 5 FS in 5.1 over conventional 5.1 with surrounds.
Basically, OP was asking if he can have 5.1 in 5/L config v/s 3/2L config. Theorists would argue for 5/L for consistency (citing 101 concepts of physics), but for sheer practicality it’s of lil worth. Cost/Space will outweigh value-add by considerable margin enough not to consider 5/L config.
As for 7.1, again given large amount of content is in 5.1, it doesn’t make much sense. Besides, space availability in usual Indian homes (barring exceptions ofc) is a kill point in itself for additional pair generating upmixed sound (not native, but extrapolated).
Besides Audio Video etc, even concept of God isn’t fully actualised to point of finalisation - no wonder many formats exist. Amidst this, I won’t be fretting over Audio reproduction.
alphacentury100
Well-Known Member
Identical speakers for all the channel will improve the quality of the sound. Then what prevents us from having such setup is, Money and Space constrain. My advice will be, Instead of spending too much for the surround speakers, why not get a pair of great subwoofers from the savings you get from buying a small surround speaker instead of floorstands for the surround.
I must admit that I haven't read the replies completely. So here goes my stream of thought.
Ideally surround speakers need to be one foot above listening position. Not at ear level..So that rules out floor standers in my opinion. Thought one could theoretically use stands to elivate the floor standers.
If one goes for atmos, then all 5 or 7 speakers as per ones configuration need to be at ear level, so that over head atmos effects are more pronounced. Floor standers as surrounds work best here.
In my room with a 5.1.4 atmos setup, I would anyway prefer floor standers as surrounds if i had the room. Only because they are almost always more effecient than book shelf speakers.
Ideally surround speakers need to be one foot above listening position. Not at ear level..So that rules out floor standers in my opinion. Thought one could theoretically use stands to elivate the floor standers.
If one goes for atmos, then all 5 or 7 speakers as per ones configuration need to be at ear level, so that over head atmos effects are more pronounced. Floor standers as surrounds work best here.
In my room with a 5.1.4 atmos setup, I would anyway prefer floor standers as surrounds if i had the room. Only because they are almost always more effecient than book shelf speakers.
Get the Wharfedale EVO 4.2 3-Way Standmount Speakers at a Special Offer Price.
