Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

13.1 Surround Sound Coming to a Home near you? 387

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i'll-believe-it-when-i-hear-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Need to see the anatomy of a codec? Dolby Digital plus is starting to make inroads in the audio world and this article gives you the technical insight into the Enhanced AC-3 codec. Will consumers soon be getting the full 13.1 audio system that we hear in movie theaters?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

13.1 Surround Sound Coming to a Home near you? More

13.1 Surround Sound Coming to a Home near you?

Comments Filter:

  • Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Theo de Raabt ( 893376 )
    I just can't imagine this. I've already got a mountain of wires, with my 7.1 home theater system. I've got about half of those speakers, biwired, with 25 foot length Monster Cables. That, in addition to the tangle of other wires needed to make this mess all work.

    I keep looking at my room, and thinking about what it would look like with almost twice the amount of wires I already have, and almost twice the number of speakers. Maybe I'll have to move some furniture out. Heh Heh. And my Denon 7.1 reciever w

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phosphor3k ( 542747 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:22AM (#12932472)
      "I guess if you spend money to buy all those speakers, it BETTER sound better, or at least you've going to tell yourself it does."
      "with 25 foot length Monster Cables."
      Right. Buying cables from the same company that sells a 50$ phone cord.

      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

        by TobyWong ( 168498 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:25AM (#12932514)
        lol I was thinking the same thing. I don't even want to know how much his cabling cost and the funny/sad part is you can get vastly superior cables for less $$$.
        • What brands? I've thought about that as well - do I really need to spend the money on Monster? I usually don't. My parents did for their DVD system.

        • Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:10PM (#12933046) Homepage Journal
          "lol I was thinking the same thing. I don't even want to know how much his cabling cost and the funny/sad part is you can get vastly superior cables for less $$$."

          Yup....I switched all my speaker wire to CAT5 plenum cable a couple of years ago...just opened up the wire ends...stripped the individual wires inside, and twisted all the stripped wires together for negative, and all the solid colored wires for positive.

          I did one speaker at a time...and could definitely tell the difference....but, get the plenum coated CAT5...something about the dielectric property or shielding? I did this a year or two ago...can't remember all I read about it...but, it works.

          • Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)

            by Voltara ( 6334 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @01:17PM (#12933751)
            The only difference between PVC and plenum-rated cable is with regard to electrical/fire code compliance. Use whatever is cheapest and meets code. The advantage of plenum-rated cable when making runs through vent ducts is when your house catches fire, the burning cable jacket won't flood your house with toxic fumes by way of your HVAC system.

        • Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)

          by Shawn Parr ( 712602 )
          Have you actually taken the time to dissect a good Monster Cable?

          Mind you the low end stuff (XP, 100 series, etc are all just normal cables), but the M-Series or 1000 series stuff.

          Those cables are intense. The dielectric locks the individual pairs in place so that crosstalk and inductance are constant even if the cable is moved around or bent (sure it will change some, but not nearly as much as a cheaper cable will).

          There is a lot of copper in those things, and everyone should agree that the more signal

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:25AM (#12932518) Homepage Journal
      I don't know what everyone else will think about 13.1, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. I already, at times, wonder if there is really that much advantage in a 6.1, or 7.1 system, over a 5.1 system.

      No kidding.

      You could overcome some of the wires with a wireless or IR set-up, but where and for what you need all these audio drivers is beyond me.

      • Center
      • Left-Front
      • Right-Front
      • Left-Rear
      • Right-Rear
      • Sub woofer
      • Subsonic house-shaker
      • Overhead driver
      • Chair shaker
      • Pacemaker, for when extreme percussion causes cardiac arrest
      • TV-shaker
      • Supercillious big speaker out in the lawn so everyone on the block knows you are just so incredibly cool with your 13.1
    • I use RG-58 coax (old ethernet cable) for my speaker wires. It works great.

      I had a bunch of old coax cable and patch panel stuff laying around. I needed a couple of speaker wires. A couple of crimps later I had audio, and that got me started.

      I'm going to use the rest of it to wire the whole house (well, the deck, two bedrooms, and a bathroom) for sound.
    • My first thought was who can afford 14 GOOD speakers, if it's those crap speakers from whatever ~$400 package I don't see the usage for it.

      Heck, even regular STEREO setup with good speakers is probably better than 5 soda can speakers.
    • Yes, but there is a good reason for doing it. Monster makes $1 per foot of cable in profit, Bose makes $50 per speaker, and Denon makes $75 per reciever. If you buy 6 more, than Bose, Denon and Monster get richer! See, its a win win situation!
    • It will probably use digital speakers. Each speaker will have an amp built in and be on a Firewire, USB, or UWB bus.
      Actually using UWB would be would really cut down on the wires.
      Of course the first people that get this will use solid gold monster cables to hook up there stereo mounted on a slab of granite.

    • That, in addition to the tangle of other wires needed to make this mess all work.

      HDMI should reduce the amount of cabling needed for connections between components and your receiver, but you're right, for speakers there doesn't seem to be a clear solution.

    • I don't know what everyone else will think about 13.1, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. I already, at times, wonder if there is really that much advantage in a 6.1, or 7.1 system, over a 5.1 system.

      Think about all the movies that you really like and then imagine them without surround sound at all. Just simple stereo sound. Does it really diminish the movies? I mean I like surround sound but I've been unable to set it up for a while now and honestly, I don't miss it.

      It's a neat gadget, and sur

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daniil ( 775990 ) <evilbj8rn@hotmail.com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:17AM (#12932412) Journal
    Even though the consumers would have 14 speakers in their livingroom, they'd still only have two ears.

    ---
    The monk extolled. [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the_unknown_soldier ( 675161 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:21AM (#12932460)
      Because ears gain perception based on direction. The more directions a sound can come from, the more immersive the experience for the end user. Thats why when The latest action is at the cinema you **feel** it, yet when playing it on your PSP you watch it.

      that said, anything over 7.1 Is a bit of overkill

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by arose ( 644256 )
        All you need are two channels and headphones [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:13PM (#12933078)
        People living in this universe are, sadly, limited to 3 spatial dimensions. You can pinpoint any point in 3-space with 3 scalars. (And for that matter we only have 2 ears, perhaps because we live mostly on the surface of the earth)


        13.1 is just silly for a single listener. The speaker system in a theater is doing a different job - it can't be set up with just one sweet spot, because there are people spread out over a huge area in the room. In your living room, you only need the sound to be right in one place. It's entirely possible a 5.1 system does a better job for one listener than a 13.1 in a theater.

        • People living in this universe are, sadly, limited to 3 spatial dimensions. You can pinpoint any point in 3-space with 3 scalars. (And for that matter we only have 2 ears, perhaps because we live mostly on the surface of the earth)

          Three scalars give you triangulation, which will help you locate a specific location along TWO dimensions. This is how the "location" feature of digital cell phones works, how a surveyor's transit works, etc. For 3 dimensions, you add the "Z axis," which requires another se

        • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Shawn Parr ( 712602 )
          Actually your ears are quite capable of hearing and detecting location in full 3 dimensions with only 2 ears being present. This is because of the shape of your ears and head.

          Sound having to go around your head and ears is distorted frequency wise. Your brain detects the different frequency response, as well as the different timing between the sound heard by both ears (this is phase BTW), to figure out what direction a sound is coming from including any angle of front/back as well as height information.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by fritter ( 27792 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:07PM (#12933007)
      Even though the consumers would have 14 speakers in their livingroom, they'd still only have two ears.

      I used to wonder about why you couldn't just do surround with 2 speakers, too. There are a few reasons, but I believe the primary one is how you pinpoint where sound is coming from - as your head moves around, your brain keeps track of what sounds get louder and softer and paints an aural picture based on that. Technologies have come out that create a surround stage with headphones or stereo speakers, but the illusion is destroyed as soon as you move your head.

      That being said, I don't think this will catch on for a loooooong time. Even 7.1 sound, which came out a few years ago, isn't particularly widespead in home theater. The only people who will get this will be the easily suckered nutcases who blow their money on all kinds of HT gear for no reason. I absolutely cannot figure those people out. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go add three more neon lights to my case and immerse my CPU in liquid helium.

    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)

      by frankvl ( 817911 )
      When they move their head during the movie, they will hear the difference

      And it will be a unique experience for their neighbours as well

  • 14 speakers? (Score:4, Funny)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:18AM (#12932426)
    13 discrete speakers and a subwoofer?

    Coming to a home near me?

    Rrrriiiiight.

    See, I have what we call "2.0 surround sound". It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.
    • 13 discrete speakers and a subwoofer?

      Coming to a home near me?
      Sounds like a scheme to enrich the lawyers by having neighbours suing each other for disturbing the peace.

      Before I'd spend money on 13.1, I'd put a fridge in the room - and I ain't gonna do that.

    • Re:14 speakers? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.

      Your living room only has two corners? This I gotta see! I can only imagine a normal, rectanglular shaped room where one end contains your two corners and the other end continues out to infinity.

      You should go on mTV cribs.
      • I imaging a room that looks like this: ()
        The TV and Couch are on the curved walls and the corners are to the right and left. Maybe a Frank Lloyd Wright design or something.
    • Your living room only has two corners? :)

      Seriously though, even a center channel makes a good difference, though I can't imagine that anything much over 5.1 really sounds drastically better. CDs are still just stereo anyway.

      -Jesse
    • See, I have what we call "2.0 surround sound". It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.

      Ooh, Mr Smartey Technology Man - you've got some highly advanced equipment there!

      My telly's got, erm, 1.0 non-surround sound. It hasn't even moved into the stereo age yet...

      (As for the millions of independent speakers used in cinemas - does anyone else think most film audio uses them terribly badly? I think it was some Lord of the Rings film where at one point there was a horn sounding at the back of the
    • I don't think I have 14 speakers in my entire house, and I'm counting both alarm clocks.
      • Three beepers on computers
        Three speakers for ThinkPad
        A 2.1 system (three speakers)
        A 2.0 system (two speakers)
        Three alarm clock speakers
        Three cell phone speakers
        GB speaker
        Speaker on microwave
        Speaker on range
        Two TVs, each with one speaker
        Two speakers on radio

        24 speakers. And I could find more if I was trying...
    • 13 discrete speakers and a subwoofer?

      No, 14 discrete speakers and a sub-woofer.

      In any of these things, x.y surround has x speakers, and y subwoofers.
      Coming to a home near me?

      Rrrriiiiight.

      Well, that may be a different issue. :-P

      Personally, unless your living room is as large as a commercial movie theatre, you probbaly don't have the room or get much benefit.
      • No, 14 discrete speakers and a sub-woofer.

        Ignore that posting, for some reason I was thiking 14.1 surround -- you are correct and I'm an idiot. :-P

  • yeah.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mindwar ( 708277 )
    .. but whats the deal with that huge ass banner on the link?

  • Will consumers soon be getting the full 13.1 audio system that we hear in movie theaters?"

    After all, the theatres will then comne out with 16.2 audio or some other such.

    Hey, I've only got 2 frigging ears. Wanna make the movie experience more interesting? Drop the prices, the over-priced talent, the anti-piracy stuff, the adverts for glossettes raisins, and maybe you'll find that people will watch. 13.1 sound doesn't make a turkey less of a turkey.

    The MPAA doesn't
    treat him right
    but if they'd
    shave

    • Is Burma-Shave going to be the new "In Soviet Russia..."? Just thought I'd check before I cancelled my DSL subscription...
    • I don't know why so many people are complaining. 13.1 should be a dream come true. You can utilize your old speakers AND listen in the bathroom. Now that's luxury.

    • Re:Of course not (Score:4, Informative)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:52AM (#12932824)
      This article is of course missing that no cinemas (other than IMAX which I don't know about) have 13.1 surround sound setups! Cinema formats are roughly as follows Dolby A & Dolby B - Mono, Analog, drawn on the side of the film Dolby Surround - Stereo, Analog, made to seem surround with some clever electronics. Dolby Digital - 5.1 Surround, digital data printed between the sprocket holes on the film Dolby Digital EX - 6.1 surround, same system as DD DTS - 5.1 timing signature printed on film, syncs it up with a CD or two. DTS ES - 6.1, same system SDDS - 8.1, data is on a magnetic strip on the side of the film. The vast bulk of cinemas you go to (even THX approved ones) have DD and DTS, some have SDDS and a very few have the EX and ES variants of DD. All cinemas support Dolby A, B and Surround. Bob
  • I can't wait to hear the rationalization given for this by some clueless people out there: "But it sounds more than 2.5x better than 5.1!"

  • As Seen on MTV Cribs (Score:5, Funny)

    by OctoberSky ( 888619 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:22AM (#12932461)
    If you sell it, some rapper/actor/athlete will buy it.

  • Room size + encoding. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mapnjd ( 92353 ) *
    13.1 is probably only going to be for the seriously wealthy. Here in the UK, houses are generally pretty small and 7.1 is difficult to incorporate and offers no advantage over 6.1 (as your rear surround speakers are only about 4 metres apart - the rear centres of 7.1 are only going to be a metre or two apart - plus the rear centres in so-called 7.1 actually carry identical sound from the 6.1 mix).

    So firstly, where does the encoding of these extra channels come from? Secondly, only a few elite people will e

  • Doubtful... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Adapt or Die ( 697102 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:22AM (#12932470)
    At least, not if my wife has anything to say about it.
  • This was a good article, not too techie and not too high-level.

    There was a lot of firmware/software discussion. It would be interesting to hear if the hardware (speakers) have evolved to push the technology any, or if it's just the software that is the driving force in the industry. Seems like I remember directional speakers? Wave guides? I would imagine this all plays into "room correction", but I could imagine a situation where a speaker channel could broadcast holographic-type sound waves. Seems like th
  • I want to see something like 4.10. Gimme more subwoof. The scripts are all so crappy who cares about the dialog. Just let us FEEL the action. When Samuel L blows somebody up I want my head to explode, too.

    • Re:13.1? (Score:3, Funny)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 )

      When Samuel L blows somebody up I want my head to explode, too.

      You can do that without 13.1 speakers. Its called "eating your gun."

      Don't lose
      your head
      to gain a minute
      you need your head
      your brains are in it

      NOTE: Eating your gun is a one-time-only offer. Void where prohibited by law. Your mileage may vary. Do not operate heavy machinery after eating your gun. Side-effects may include headache, runny nose, drooling, etc., in which case consult the zombie dog doctors from yesterday's slashdot.

    • I want to see something like 4.10. Gimme more subwoof. The scripts are all so crappy who cares about the dialog. Just let us FEEL the action. When Samuel L blows somebody up I want my head to explode, too.

      Maybe you just need a small upgrade [ebay.com]

  • Channel 11, crying baby, forward of left ear (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vile Slime ( 638816 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:23AM (#12932492)
    I,

    Can hear it now. Channel 11 has the whiny kid positioned about five feet ahead of me to the left and channel 8 has the mumbling of the jerks who refuse to stop talking to my direct rear.

    Perhaps we can get some 13.1 sensurround where a Dolby foot in tune with nothing constantly kicks the back of your recliner as well.

  • We don't need more speakers. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reverend528 ( 585549 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:24AM (#12932499) Homepage
    More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.

    • Re:We don't need more speakers. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.

      Well, it depends. In a professional setting, 13 speakers would be hard to tune in a lot of settings. You need a sound engineer that knows what s/he's doing. (Hence many theaters that sound terrible, possibly because the

    • Re:We don't need more speakers. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:52AM (#12932827) Homepage Journal
      That's not true and any audio engineer knows it.

      Accurate 360 degree reproduction of sound requires at least 5 or 6 speakers at semi-equal dispertions around you, with one centered directly in front and preferably one directly behind, at equal distances from the listener.

      Its been tested over and over.

      That doesn't account for overhead or under-foot sound either, or the fact that seperate sub-woofers should be used for low-frequencies.

      Personally speaking, I wish I had the additional center-stereo channels to bring dialog closer to the screen as done in some theatre recordings instead of my 5.1 system since my front stereos are quite far apart (to allow for proper seperation for all in the room). The center is useful here, but the additional inside-stereo speakers would help.
    • To have (exactly) 99% of homes with 13 speakers placed incorrectly, you'd first need 100 homes with 13.1 surround sound. An unlikely possibility to be sure.
    • Sound can be easily preojected with as little as three speakers using methods such as VBAP, but the less speakers you have, the narrower the sweet spot is. With four speakers, the sweet spot is very small. With 13 speakers, the sweet spot is considerably larger. As you may have noticed, there isn't significant variation in the sound positioning in a movie theater depending on which seat you sit on.
  • 17.1?!? Bah.

    Who has the googlephonic hifi stero with the record player and the moon rock needle?

  • Acoustics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:24AM (#12932506) Journal
    While 13.1 may be appealing to people who need to have the next greatest thing, this will be useless for any significant market. How many home theaters have the correct shape, paneling, furniture placement, and size to take advantage of the acoustical advantages of so many channels? Even at 5.1 channels, I can tell that the acoustic signature in the seat next to me is different -- and less perfect. How will this change with 13.1?

  • Overkill? (Score:4, Funny)

    by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:24AM (#12932507)
    The only reason you really have that many speakers in a movie theater is because, well...it's big! I think 10 speakers is really the max for a home theater, and even that for the people who can devote a room to just a theater. My perfect sound setup would be a center, 2 front, 2 mid, 2 back, 1 directly behind, and 1 pointing down from the cieling. So that gives you pretty much full surround sound, as not much tends to happen below people in movies.

    For the average joe though I think 7.1 is pretty good, considering most people tend to get the cheapest speakers they can get, usually those ones that come with the theater packages, $199 for 7 speakers. I think the amount of speakers is less important than quality. I would rather be stuck in stereo with two very high quality speakers, than surround sound with 7 crappy ones.
    • I have a 5.1 Bose setup right now off of my Denon reciever. It sounds great. Didn't have the room for any more speakers at my old place but now that I'm moving, I'm going to upgrade to 6.1. I thought about 7.1 as my receiver supports it, and I may do it later, but it seems like a waste of money since both channels carry the same audio. Where are we going to get 13 channel sources? Most stuff I watch now doesn't have real great separation to the channels I already have. There are exceptions of course, but t
    • Most people do not have enough room in their homes for 7.1, let alone anything more.

      For example, I know someone with a 7.1 setup in a room that is way too small for it. The "sweet spot" is only big enough to hold one person. Yet she invites 5-10 friends over at a time and shows movies using the full 7.1 engaged (the fact that we are watching DVDs which aren't encoded as 7.1 nothwithstanding), and refuses to do anything to prevent people getting headaches because they are sitting too close to the side spea

    • I would rather be stuck in stereo with two very high quality speakers, than surround sound with 7 crappy ones.

      that is exactly what i have and most people who come over (except for the audiophile who helped me pick out and set up my equipment) say that dvd's and music sound better on my system than anywhere else they've been. multiple people have said that dvd's sound like the theatre (even though they are listening in stereo, not surround!), and that they would rather watch a movie at my place any day.
  • At the moment I have ye olde stereo. Not even a subwoofer to be seen. I'd like to move to 5.1 but can't - reason? Wires.

    My front room already has enough wires in it stuffed behind the TV. The thought of spreading more of them out for my kids, one three and one two, to destroy really does not appeal. It wouldn't even appeal if there were no kids there to damage them; my front room is for relaxing in, not for turning into a server room-alike.

    I'm aware that wireless speakers already exist, but last I look

  • Just think of the dumb people that will get talked into this by salesmen. "Oh yeah, you NEED 14 speakers to really hear the movie like it was meant to be"
  • I'm sure speaker manufacturers would LOVE for this to become the next big thing in home theaters. I'm sure it will cost more to the end consumer, however I don't think it's as overblown as some might be making it out to be.

    Consider that if you have 13 speakers instead of a measly 4, that you might not need to go all out and have 13 floor-standing gut-punchers in order to achieve a proper effect. I'm betting a much smaller speaker will be more balanced, and cheaper.

  • I'll wait for home IMAX, thanks (Score:5, Funny)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:30AM (#12932576) Homepage Journal
    If I'm going to go for overkill, I'm going all the way.
  • I think what we need to realize here is that just because the technology will be available to place in our home, doesn't mean we can reproduce the same or even a similar effect in our home. The acoustics of a standard living room are dramatically different than that of a movie theater.
  • ...all the speakers were equipped with Bluetooth or some other wireless connectivity for the audio signal...and it were hi-enough-fi to satisfy anyone that wanted 13.1 speakers... ...how are you ever going to plug them in? Wiremold around your living room with continously outlets, one every foot?

    Well, then, EVEN IF all but the subwoofer were battery-powered... would you like to go around replacing 52 AA batteries every time you wanted to sit down for a nice listening session?

    Well, then, EVEN IF all the ba

  • yes, but can you do an Omnitheater sound check? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:35AM (#12932622)

    Sound tech 1:"Okay everyone, sound check!"

    Sound tech 2:"Cue Leonard Nimoy"

    Sound tech 3(quietly):"Leonard Nimoy!? Why?"

    (LN):"Because he grew up a few blocks from here!"

    It's small part of the Boston Museum of Science's Omnitheater sound check, and they even put lights on each channel's speakers behind the screen so you can see them as each channel is "checked". Then they do a driver through Boston traffic with an omnimax camera on the bumper of a car. And speed it up at least 2x. Even the most die-hard Boston taxi driver will grip his seat :-) Oh, and yes, Nimoy narrates the whole intro.

    Then you do a helicopter trip over parts of New England, coming into a harbor in Maine...then on the docks. Ahhh, peaceful, quiet, much better you think.

    "Hey CHaaaalie. They folks whanaaah seeah lobstah!" And then you get presented with a live lobster...full screen width, up close and personal, an inch or two from the lens, complete with squishy/squeeky noises :-)

  • Not 13.1 but 5.1 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zacha ( 581899 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:36AM (#12932639)
    I don't think the 13.1 in this story is 13.1. I think it reflects the theatres' 13.1 speaker implementation of 5.1 channel sound.

    SPEAKERS:
    3 across the front
    4 down each side
    2 at the back

    CHANNELS:
    #s 1-5 played back over speakers like this:

    ...1...2...3...
    4.............5
    4.............5
    4.............5
    4.............5
    ....4.....5....

  • Stereo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pivot ( 4465 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:37AM (#12932645)
    I always find that pure stereo sounds better than most setups. This is probably because a multichannel setup cost 2.5 times the amount to set up with the same quality speakers, amps etc., and most people don't have the money to do that, so they just use cheaper components to get more channels for the same investment.
    • Interesting comment, despite being somewhat silly.

      If I took your good stereo hookup and added the 3.1 required to make it 5.1 and matched your existing stereo configuration, would it sound better?

      Yes.

      If you're accustomed to the sound of stereo, 5.1 or 7.1 or 9.2 will sound "different" to you. If you're under 30 and haven't been HiFi'ing it with stereo for the last 20+ years, you'll probably enjoy a good 5.1 system much better than a good stereo system.

      Center channel for better sound stage, rears and si

  • New Infiniti M (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rubenmiranda ( 680189 )
    The new Infiniti M already has 14 speakers:

    http://www.infiniti.com/content/0,,cid-123089_scti d-32005,00.html [infiniti.com]

    You'd probably be able to add the receiver using the optional towing package.

  • I'm going out (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nybler ( 830853 )
    Why bother with any of this home theatre crap? It costs a lot of money and the standards are always changing, so there's always going to be something new/better on the horizon. Thank goodness I have decent theatres near where I live - I'm simply going to ignore home theatres and continue to enjoy taking my wife out on movie dates.
  • I'm so tired of audio gimmicks involving surround sound. The *reason* they have 13.1 surround in theatres is because they're HUGE. This would be ridiculous to install in a home system.

    Even worse, if 13.1 came to the home market I bet you'd see the already depressing trend of shoddily made, terrible sounding, cheap (or expensive if you count bose) surround systems turn into even more terrible sounding surround systems because the materials cost-cutting has to accomodate more speakers and the toaster-grade

  • Fuck Everything, We're Doing 14 speakers (Score:5, Funny)

    by 0kComputer ( 872064 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:44AM (#12932730)
    Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of audio in this country. Stereo was the system to own. Then the other guy came out with an 6 speaker system. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called 5.1 surround. That's five speakers and a subwoofer. For Bass. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened - the bastards went to 8 speakers. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling five speakers and a subwoofer. Surround sound or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to 14 speakers.

    James M. Kilts CEO and President, The Dolby Corporation

    http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~arobic/funny/Gille tte.html

  • Irrelevant (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ithrax ( 837113 )
    I worked as a projectionist and projectionist manager in a movie theater for about 5 years. I can honestly say that while the notion of 13.1 surround sound is all well and full of prospects, the economic figures do not support it. How many theaters have you seen with 13.1? Also, the space in a theater is scores more than that of the average living room. Isn't 13.1 going a bit overboard for home systems. Uber- rich afficinados go to hell thanks. :) Most movie houses I have been to on the east coast don't h
  • Nah... I'll get on of those in my car! That's what I call pimp my ride!!!

  • You people are all nuts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rpresser ( 610529 ) <rpresser@ g m a i l . com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:49AM (#12932793)
    I still don't see how more "realistic" sound improves ANYTHING. I don't particularly want to be scared by the sound of a cow fifty meters offscreen when I'm trying to listen to dialogue. Plenty of the worlds BEST films were filmed with NO sound.
  • Home theatre systems are nearly impossible for the average person to set up properly now -- and we are "only" 9.1 systems. Today, we have more wires behind our receivers than the Pentagon network operations center, and balancing all of the speakers can be a frustrating experience to say the least.

    The best part of all of that effort is this: we do it so we can let our wives watch Trading Spaces in high definition / surround! Or better, watch Lifetime Channel for three or four hours straight -- which has
  • The requirements of a movie theater are a little different to those of a home theater. In a movie theater, everyone has to perceive the same sound level: the average theater is a big space and you can't deafen the people in the corners to give the people in the center the correct sound level. So you want more speakers along the sides to create a more even sound field. But then you have to make sure you're not distorting the sound stage, so the number of real or apparent channels go up.

    This is a complete gue

  • 7 or 8 years ago, I bought a Yamaha surround processor, a 2 + 2 system. As I was contemplating the purchase of the rear speakers, my friend explained that a 5+1 system would have been much better. And in fact, I realized that there was precious little I could do with my Yamaha.

    I managed to sell it (with a substantial discount) to a guy whom I did explain the situation.

    Since then, I never bought any surround system. I have my two speakers, and enjoy full immersive whatever when I go to the cinema. I imagin
  • I just don't understand this whole need for such detail in Surround Sound. 7.1 is more than enough to fool the human ear into comprehending the perceived location of an audio source, at least on a two-dimensional level.

    Objective: Have the sound come from what appears to be speakers 4 and 5.

    Common Sense solution: Equalize the specific sound between speakers four and five to simulate its location between those two speakers.

    13.1 solution (or so it would seem): Come up with a new set of codecs, equipment, and speakers to actually have the sound come out of another speaker!

    By the way, the Common Sense solution is free to existing 7.1 and to a lesser extent 5.1 owners.

    Personally, I want an additional sound channel to get a 5.1.1/7.1.1 solution where the added .1 is an overhead speaker to truly add a third dimension to sound. I can only imagine what it would sound like to have a jet in Top Gun or similar movie go from left front to top channel to rear right! That type of 3D audio would be far more impressive than using six more 2D speakers that can just as easily be replicated by positional audio between two existing speakers. The recent technological advances in flat speaker and wireless technologies would make a "ceiling speaker" easier to implement than many people would think.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close