Talk:Surround sound/Archive 1

Broken link
17# ^ Spatial Sound Encoding Including Near Field Effect: Introducing Distance Coding Filters and a Viable, New Ambisonic Format Link no longer works

speaker height
THX, dolby and most other authorities currently specify that surrounds speakers should be above ear height, preferably 2 feet or more. see: http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/side.html and http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/roomlayout.html

72.86.46.230 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What about LPCM?
This artcle is a bit half baked. It should have LPCM listed for all audio because LPCM can do 1.0 to at least 7.1. Also Dolby Digital supports 1 to 5.1 channles so it sould also be listed under 3.0 and 4.0.

TheDAus (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LRE?
It seem that there is some alphabet soup going on. It might be valuable to provide links or explanations (as is done above for 3.1) as to what some of these letters mean.

5.1 Speaker Placement
Surround Sound speaker placement is different for both music and movie content. For music speakers are placed in a circle around the listener. The center channel has 0º offset, left and right are offset ± 30º, and the left/right surrounds are offset by ±110º. Also all speakers should be, monopole, equidistant to the listener, and all delay (ms) calculations on the surround decoder should be turned off (0ms).

For movie surround, the front speakers should be placed at the edges of the screen, toed in to face the central listening location, and the tweeters should be ear hight. The center speaker should be placed behind the screen (when using projection) or over or under a tv, and as close to ear high as possible. Rear channel speakers should be placed high on side walls, slightly behind the listening position, and should have a di-pole construction.

For more information check out a great DVD on system calibration by the Imaging Science Foundation called Video Essentials. http://www.videoessentials.com/

AJS 16:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC) AJSchmidt Updated 13:12 (PST) 19 December 2005

Recomendations for five channel speaker systems (with or without LFE), specifically for broadcast with DTV, but which are generally adhered to by most movies are set out in the International Telecommunications Union ITU-R paper BS.775-2 (2006).

The ITU standard (all speakers equidistant, surrounds @ +/- 110 to 120 degrees) should be used for all home surround systems whether listening to music or movies (DVDs)! This is how they're mixed!NMoops (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Movies and music should both utilize speaker placement at ± 30º and ± 110º - 120º(talk)--Issueskid (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to further note. AJS, you havnt actually stated the different positions, so you must also agree that movies also use the same placement because all you've stated is where speakers should be placed in relation to a screen. As for the height issue, any spekers used for music or film etc... shoudl always remain at ear height where possible.--Issueskid (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate over "movie vs. music" notwithstanding, there were two identical copies of the "may be referred to as 3-2" and "placement" paragraphs. I deleted the second one, so that the material appears in the first 5.1 section, which seemed to be the pattern established for other sections. Jackrepenning (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of the Music Artists section
Is there any purpose for this section in the article? There's no explanation of how these artists relate to Surround Sound and at the moment the selection looks to be quite arbitrary. --HTGuru 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm about to remove it, and I think the entire article could use, one, cleanup, and two, major pruning. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the section -Orayzio 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hello! At my computer I have 4 normal speakers + 1 subwoofer, 2 of the speakers are to my front left and the other 2 are to my front right, the subwoofer is to my front center, there are no speakers behind or beside me. How is this system called? Is it 5.1, 4.1, 5.0 or 4.0? I have no idea. Sorry for my bad english but the article in my language is even less useful. Thanks. 172.174.154.39 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer: This system is a 2.1, as the source material is just 2.1 from the computer; as the material from the outputs are identical. In order to make this 4.1 you would need to have four differing speaker outputs and a subwoofer. If you could call your system 4.1, then the last front speakers at the last Madonna concert would be 112.56, but only running in 2.0 Stereo. This raises an interesting point though, for instance Volvo cars are sometimes described as 7.1 but in fact the only have a 5.1 amplifier, with the rear door and surround speakers hard-wired together. Not good.

Correct Answer: It depends on how you've got it connected to your computer... If you have just got it connected to a stereo jack, this is a 2.0 system as there is no 0.1 channel for LFE. If you have all channels connected discretely then it is (in theory, at least) a 4.1 or 5-channel system, depending on how pedantic you want to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Difference between 7.1 and 8-channel surround
Hi, I was wondering if there is a difference to true 7.1 surround sound encoding and 8-channel audio encoding? According to Surround_sound, "7.1 adds two additional side speakers or two addtional rear speakers to 5.1" and "Cinematic 8 channel audio is a commercial surround sound standard that adds two speakers to the more conventional, and consumer-oriented 6-channel (5.1) audio set-up." I understand those statements to mean that the 7.1 and 8-channel audio specifications both contain (or should) contain 8 discrete channels. Is there supposed to be a difference between the two specifications? Thanks.


 * I deleted the 8.0 section because, when you read it, it was the same as 7.1. Martin.leese 07:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer and more on theaters
I hope someone with better wiki skills can add links -thanks

Answer: Yes there is a difference in 7.1 and 8CH audio (see 8.0, 8.1, and SDDS below). These differences only appear in commercial theater playback systems. Most (more than 50% in San Francisco Bay Area as thats were i work and build systems) theaters use a 10.2 system for sound playback (although not 10.2 discreet). This consists of LR Center, LR Front, LR side (first third rows), LR Rear Side (second third rows) and, LR Back (rear wall); plus two large subs at the front LR (usually mono). This is done to accommodate the different systems of sound, and also maintain backward compatibility with optical stereo. A description of source adaptation is below.

Default speaker panning of sound systems in adaptation of sound to 10.2:

Analog:

Optical 2 track - the left and right tracks are panned over the front 4 speakers with CLR getting 60% and FLR getting 40%, a low pass sends sound the the subs.

Mag 4 track - Track 1 dialog is sent to CLR, track 2 music to FL 100%, track 3 music to FR 100%, and track 4 SFX is sent 40% to FLR 30% to SLR and the rest to RSLR and BLR, a low pass sends sound the the subs.

70mm 6ch Mag - tracks 1 and 2 form CLR, 3 and 4 goto FLR, and 5 and 6 Go to the 6 surrounds, a low pass sends sound the the subs.

2ch Matrix (Dolby ProLogic) - Dolby steering logic is used to drive the front channels as groups (CL and FL equaly get CH1 and same with the R), out of phase sounds are sent as mono to the surrounds as 20% SLR, 40% RSLR, and 40% BLR.

Other formats like Quadraphonic are supported through logical distributions of sound.

Digital:

Digital signals with analog equivalents are the same as the analog distributions.

5.0 and 5.1 (Dolby Digital, DTS) - Center is feed to CLR at 80% and the remainder is mixed into FLR, Front Left Right goes to FLR at 90% and to SRL 10%, Surrounds go to the respective sides at 30% SLR, 60% RSLR, and 10% BLR, SUB is sent to the subs in mono.

6.0 and 6.1 (DD-EX, DTS-ES) - For C and FRL see 5.1. Surround LR is sent 40% to SLR and 60% to RSLR, Back is sent to BLR in mono.

7.1 (Versions of DD and DTS) - see 6.1. Back Surrounds are in stereo and are sent to the respective BLR speaker.

8ch, 8.0, and 8.1 (SDDS) - Note SDDS is a 12ch format, but only uses 8ch. Left and Right are at 100% to FLR speakers, Left Center and Right Center is mixed into the FLR and CLR speakers, Center is sent to CLR as mono, Surround Left and Right are mixed in the same fashion as 5.1 the sub is sent to the pair as mono, SDDS has 4 other backup channels that are Center Left Right Surround, but are only used if damage has occurred to the 8 tracks. There is no home version of SDDS. - AJS

Discrete analog?
My receiver has Dolby Pro Logic, but also separate audio inputs for each channel. Wouldn't the latter be discrete analog, which isn't mentioned here? Incidentally, it would be good to say how, with the same source, matrix analog I/O compares with discrete analog I/O compares with discrete digital I/O. I know much of what is said is "opinion" and/or difficult to source, but many people (myself included) who are wondering what the listening experience difference is in making purchase decisions. Calbaer 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer: My Sony receiver also has analog 5.1 inputs. The analog 5.1 inputs are actually receiving a signal decoded by the Dolby Digital processor in the DVD player. This mean the receiver is not doing the decoding, but it is left upto the source unit, in this case the DVD player. The signal is just converted to an analog signal between the DVD player and the amplifier, this the reason for having 6 cables in the hookup.

With digital inputs on a receiver, the DVD player is only sending the digital signal to the receiver where it is digitally decoded, amplified and sent as an analog signal to the appropriate speaker. In both cases, we are dealing with "Dolby Digital" not "Dolby Pro Logic." Pro Logic only supports matrixed encoding.

Both methods still use a Dolby Digital decoder somewhere in the mix, and both methods have a final result of an amplified signal sent as analog to the appropriate speaker, the conversion to analog just happens at a different point.

I now plan to add a section explaining this in the article, I feel it should appear under the Dolby Digital 5.1 section.

Merging from Multichannel audio
It was me who added to Surround sound, so I thought I had better start a Talk section on it. The idea is that the Multichannel audio page is redundant. In January 2006 it was suggested that it be deleted, but nothing was done. My suggestion, which is now formal, is that nothing be changed in Surround sound, and that Multichannel audio becomes a simple
 * 1) REDIRECT . Martin.leese 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Martin.leese 08:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bass management and LFE
I've adjusted the bass management discussion in the specification section, to deal with some common misconceptions. It is widely believed that the LFE is connected directly to a subwoofer (ie that the LFE is the "subwoofer channel") - so much so that some music engineers who should know better actually do this in the studio, with dreadful results.

Essentially, bass management routes bass on any incoming channel to speakers that can handle it. This may be the mains or subwoofer(s). All the current surround specifications given in the article equate LFE and subwoofer, which is not the case: you can have a 5.1 system, for example, with just five, full-range speakers in the replay system and no subwoofer at all, or you could have big speakers front left and right and small ones at the rear, and all the bass comes from the front L&R - and still no sub. Or you could have two subwoofers. All these are 5.1 systems, though, because the ".1" refers to the incoming Low Frequency Effects channel.

I am loath to rewrite all these entries myself because of the time involved and the fact that this might be seen as contentious, so I'm putting it out there as a suggestion: if it meets with approval then either I or others can implement it. As it stands, I think the revised BM section tells the story correctly and hopefully people will read that before they plunge into the specs and can interpret the latter in terms of the former.


 * Interesting : I'm considering using one speaker that has good bass to carry both centre and LF output! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

7.1
Hi! My computer stereo speakers have broken, so I want to buy new speakers: 5.1, or 6.1, or 7.1. 7.1 is not more expensive then 5.1. BUT, is there any DVDs or computer videogames with 6.1 or 7.1 standart? Is it usefull to buy 6.1 or 7.1 instead 5.1 now? When 6.1 or 7.1 will become popular? Maybe in Blu-ray, HDDVD-movies and DirectX 10 videogames?.. Moscvitch 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, speaker configuration for music is unknown! Yeah right it is....

4.1 Wrong Diagram ?
"One channel for both surround speakers at the rear - mono surround channel" There are 2 rear speakers connected to the same channel. The diagram should be same as 5.1. Fourtildas 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Under Surround_sound it states

 A distinction is also made between the number of channels reproduced for playback and the number of speakers used to reproduce. The graphics to the right of each specification description represent the number of channels, not the number of speakers. 
 * So, no, the diagram is not wrong. Martin.leese 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible TOC confusion
Any good ways to alter the table of contents so that all the surround sound specifications aren't so confusing to the eye (e.g. "5.1 3.0 channel Surround" or "5.1 5.5 channel Surround")… Not sure if there's a standard for this—it's not a big deal, but it would've saved me about 1.5 seconds. — atchius (msg) 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

✅. Conveniently a new feature was just added to Common.css. cf. MediaWiki talk:Common.css. We lose the numbers for the other sections, but I think that's a reasonable price to pay. jhawkinson 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

6.1 has 8 speakers ??
The description for 6.1 only consist of 7 speakers, but at the speaker placements, it stated 8 spekaers for all 6.1 system ? What is the extra speaker ?

ThinkVISION —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.210.223.129 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Nope, 6.1 consists of 7 channels. The descriptions say "One channel for both surround speakers at the rear - mono surround channel (S)", so there is one channel driving two speakers. See also on this page. 216.123.197.30 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

construction
What's with all the "nomal high-quality monopolar construction" verbiage? Is "nomal" a typo for "normal"? Either way, it's not terribly understandable, and reads like it was quoted from some source. jhawkinson 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, "nomal" should be "normal". There used to be lots of "nomal"s; I guess I missed this one. It just means a normal speaker, one that is not dipolar. 216.123.197.30 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you don't like the "high-quality monopolar construction" verbiage then think of something better. 216.123.197.26 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, monopolar is not defined either in context or elsewhere on wikipedia. The only article that also uses the term is "audiophile", along with others that aren't defined either.


 * So having introduced the concept of bipolar (or dipolar, depending on which bit you read), how about an explanation of what is being talked about? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

8 channel audio
I've redirected 8 channel audio to here because I think it might be the same as 7.1 but I might be missing something... "Cinematic 8-channel audio is a commercial surround sound standard that adds two speakers to the more conventional, and consumer-oriented 6-channel (5.1) audio set-up. 8-channel positional audio utilizes the standard front, center, and LFE (bass) speaker configuration, but in addition, includes two speakers positioned by the side and two by the backside. Using such a sound configuration, almost every angle of sound can, theoretically, be captured for a completely immersive experience." -- Barrylb (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this was a mistake. The page you removed had additional information about 8-channel audio in the multichannel context, and references to 8-track tapes. That information has been lost by your redirect/merge. Part of the problem here is that the merge from Multichannel audio to this article in January 2007 was a mistake -- surround sound and multichannel audio are difference concepts (they are related) and they don't belong in a single article. But regardless, losing information is suboptimal. In my opinion you should revert your redirect, or at the least, integrate the lost content. Also, perhaps the redirect should go to a section.


 * In the context of theatrical sound, the only 8-channel system is SDDS-8, and it is just like 5.1 additional LC and RC speakers. That is not "two speakers positioned by the side and two by the backside," whatever that means. On the other hand, the existing 7.1 section claims to have speakers at the side, and that's certainly not true for SDDS-8 (it's kind of unfortunate there are no references to SDDS-8 in this article). I'm skeptical that the 7.1 section is correct, though. I added a but there's been no response. As I say in the comments:
 * This "" is because generally screen channels are designed L/C/R and surround speakers

are designated LS/RS. The above text designates screen channels LF/C/RF, and the side surrounds L/R, which I think is probably wrong.


 * This reference:

indicates the "traditional" layout of DTS 7.1 is L/C/R for screens, Lss/Rss for side surrounds, and Lsr/Rsr for rear surrounds. I don't know if that notation is sufficiently standard to be used (Does Dolby follow it?). Other layouts there use other notations for the extra surrounds, depending on exactly what is there, but notably they do not repurpose the L/C/R and Ls/Rs notation for anything other than screen channels and traditional split stereo surronuds. I guess we're probably justified in changing this to the L/C/R Lss/Rss Lsr/Rsr notation now, but I'll wait a bit before doing so. -- jhawkinson 18:52 30 June 2007


 * so there we are. jhawkinson (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I've reverted the redirect for now until we work out what it is all about... Barrylb (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The main question
Is there any real point in surround sound? We only got 2 ears. I dont see it addressed yet. Tabby (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Surround Sound Experience is to emulate what it feels (sounds) like to be at a certain location or event.  You are correct we only have two ears. However we hear in 3D, eg. someone walking up behind you is located in your mind based on the sounds you are hearing and are allocated by the amount of time it takes for that sound to travel form its point of origin to your ears. What I am trying to explain is that you are aware of the distance between you and the footsteps because you here it in the left ear and then your right ear. if there was no delay in sound you would have no way to isolate the sound it would seem liek it was coming from all around you. to relate this to a home theatre situation, speakers Front Left and Right, are spacial horizontally Left - right seperation and are general palced beside the television in front of the viewer. which means that sounds such as gun fire zipping through the screen or the cheering crowd at the superbowl which is behind camera perspective is now localized in front of the viewer. making it impossible for tehm to interpret where in the venue the sound is being localized from. by placing speakers behind the viewr and recording discrete sources for these speaker, at the event and played back the venue in view will have proper acoustic placement. eg. superbowl. in 5.1 The announcer speaks through the centre channel, the game action is distributed mostly through Front Left and Right speakers with additional game/crowd ambience directed toi the Rear Surround Speakers. thus giving the viewr at home the experience of being aubibly immersed within the environment they are watching.  Just as people/manufacturers onced switched from MONO to STEREO, SURROUND SOUND is simply just the next pinnacle in audio engineering. Hope this Helps Open your ears to the surround sound experience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanscott1980 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone else wondering the answer to the question can read Sound_localization and psychoacoustics to get more info on this topic. They should also start noticing that they can hear the difference between sound coming from behind them and from in front of them.  --PM - PhilyG talk 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The main gist still is, the most "well-known / popular / successful" implementations of the whole "multichannel audio" thing are intended NOT to be *realistic*, but just to look [irony]"cool"[/irony]. In the real world, the very-low-frequency sounds are not generated by a stupid standalone subwoofer. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.226.4.39 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And in the real world, high-frequency sounds aren't generated by a tweeter. But I don't see what that has to do with anything.  Powers T 11:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So 200.226.4.39, what the hell else do you suggest should generate low frequency sounds? Do you think that we should just have entertainment that magically has every real element present to generate the proper sound?  What was the point of your post anyway?  Do you have something against audio production in general? --PM - PhilyG talk 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant, the very-low frequencies should NOT be concentrated upon a single audio channel (the same applies to the midrange/high ones, of course). Multichannel sound should be Ambisonic or something even better. But the North-Americans keep being slow-minded, for a change. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 201.69.119.200 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"3-0" notation, etc. removed
I've reverted Issueskid's (talk) recent addition of "3-0 stereo" notation, because I find it confusing amidst the existing jumble of numbers, inconsistently applied, nonstandard in the industry, and not explained in the article. We had some discussion on our talk pages that I'll reproduce below. jhawkinson (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "3-0 Stereo" is nonstandard notation, and is very confusing. You do not define the notaiton. jhawkinson (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's ok to get rid of 3-0 but not the others (3-2 etc...). Issueskid (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has sided with you on this issue, so i've reverted your edits apart from 3-0, however 3-2 describes speaker locations, 3 at the front 2 at the rear. If you think this is confusing i suggest each section is updated to explain why this is the case, again i have references to the edits i make and untill somebody proves me wrong my edit stays. Believe it or not, my edits come with references where as you have provided me no references. My data is more reliable than yours and more helpful so unless you provide me and the page with a reference or if people agree with you rather than me then my edits stay.--Issueskid (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please respond to the points. I see no references in the text to "3-2" or similar -- what references are you talking about?. It's just a meaningless set of numbers. If the numbers are to stay, they need to be explained. And again, they are quite confusing when juxtaposed right up against the "5.1" notation. We should only use one style of notation in the headings, to reduce the ampant confusion. What "data" are you talking about? jhawkinson (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

what "data" am i talking about? I'll reference my data and i'll keep my edits on the page.--Issueskid (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to touch this change today because of WP:3RR, but you claimed "I have references to the edits" but you have not given any references for this "3-2 Stereo" terminology, and more importantly you have not explained what it means in the article. This makes no sense! Why are you adding words that don't make sense and not explaining them when asked to do so? jhawkinson (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see...you're in the midst of adding them. But why are you adding them to each section when there is a Surround sound section at the end of the article? I will withold judgement on whether this is too confusing until you're done. jhawkinson (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added back in 3.0 (FL,FR,FC). The first stereo recordings were originally recorded on 3-track systems, then mixed down to stereo. Many of these original 3-track recordings have since been released, see the "Living Stereo SACD's" as examples http://sa-cd.net/search/living+stereo. Many older movies also have 3.0 soundtracks. See the "Lady and the Tramp" as an example http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lady-and-the-Tramp-Blu-ray/32723/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.248.11 (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative LFE expansions
I've reverted Issueskid's (talk) recent addition of a "Low Frequency Enhancement" as a legitimate expansion for LFE ("Low Frequency Effect(s)"). "Low Frequency Enhancement" is not a common expansion, despite appearing in Tom Holman's book. I don't think it belongs in this encyclopedia, and not in an passing reference to LFE. If anything, it should go in the Low-frequency effect article, and I am skeptical of it even there. Is there anything definitive that standardized such an expansion? Again, we had some discussion on our talk pages, below. jhawkinson (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * LFE is not also known as "enhancement." jhawkinson (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually LFE is also known as Low Frequency Enhancement and you'll now find a reference on that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 February 2008


 * [...] I suggest you check out the reference i have now included which is a book written by Tomlinson Holman. [...] he is an expert on the subject. Go check out page 11 where he clearly calls the LFE "Low frequency enhancment". So don't try and revert my edit and in future i'd prefer it if you ask where my reference is, not state that im wrong, when it turns out, you are wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [...] I don't have his book in front of me, but merely because he expands LFE differently from the industry standard in his book does not mean that that variant expansion is sufficiently notable to merit appearing in this Wikipedia article. Such a non-standard variant (even if used by one of the luminaries of the field) might work better in Low-frequency effect (though even there I'd be skeptical), but I don't think it is appropriate here, where it distracts from the clarity of article and does not assist the reader. jhawkinson (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [...] it is relevant to have "enhancement" in the section because if people are reading up on the subject and come across low frequency enhancement they may wonder what the hell it means when they have only heard of effects, therefore enhancement should remain in the section. --Issueskid (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, i have reverted your revision. I don't see what gives you the right to change my edits. I believe them to be useful and you don't, thereofre what gives you the right to get the final say? My edits stay because i have provided references and i'm sick of this rubbish you spout about being non-standard, the fact is these terms are used, no matter how often. The idea of Wiki is for people to read up on subjects and i for one know that if i'd read LFE somewhere as having a certain meaning then this website didnt mention it, i'd be clueless. My edit states it is sometimes known as enhancement and it is. Your the one in the wrong, im the one with the reference so my edit stays unless enough people agree with you or you show me a reference to the contrary. Again you ahve no right to be all powerful over this situation because i have references and you can't seem to ever justify your actions with reliable date just this rubbish of "Non-standard" or "I think it's confusing". Notice the "I think" is subjective, which is exactly what your being.--Issueskid (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone has the right to change everyone's edits to make Wikipedia a better. That's part of Being Bold. As for reversions, please see WP:BRD. Placing an alternative expansion of LFE in the midst of the first gloss about what is LFE is just confusing. Alternative expansions should come at the end, or at least after the introductory text. In this case, there are two questions I raise: 1) Is the alternative expansion sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia at all? 2) What is the right place for it?


 * It seems pretty clear to me that if the LFE page doesn't even mention this expansion, this page is not the page to introduce it. So if you really absolutely necessarily think that this page must have that information (I do not), then you should go make sure that it is in the LFE page first. Everyone is subjective in their edits, that's why we have conversations about them. Please be responsive. jhawkinson (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, you said it yourself... "Everyone has the right to change everyone's edits to make Wikipedia a better". This is exactly what I’m doing and I have the right to edit LFE and I say an alternative name needs to be mentioned. If you’re so adamant that it needs to first be mentioned on the LFE page, then I’ll mention it there and THEN keep it in the surround sound section.--Issueskid (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Try to take a little more care with your edits. You appear to have removed the wikilink to Low-frequency effect in your last edit. jhawkinson (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Try to give me a little time, as you may now see i spotted the link problem before you told me about it. I hadn't finished fully editing and i missed it the first time around.--Issueskid (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, ok. I'm happy with that edit so I’m willing to compromise.--Issueskid (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to find a reference for this but there is, in fact, a difference between "Low Frequency Effect" and "Low Frequency Enhancement". One of my professors, who is a credited Hollywood Sound Designer, explained to me the difference.  "Low Frequency Effect" is the proper decipher of the LFE acronym if you are referring to the LFE channel that is used in a theatrical film mix, where all of the other channels (L, C, R, Ls, Rs, etc...) are full range speakers and the subwoofer is simply being used at key moments in the film to rumble the seats, for lack of a better explanation.  "Low Frequency Enhancement" describes the LFE channel in a Home Theater film mix, where the subwoofer is being used for bass management of the other speakers in addition to the LFE information used in the theatrical mix, even if the receiver's speaker configuration has all the speakers set to Large.  This is done when a film is remixed for DVD release or in the DVD authoring stage, as it can be safely assumed that less than 1% of the consumers of the DVD are going to have a system anywhere near the power or quality of a theater surround sound system.  Take a listen to your favorite DVD surround mix sometime and listen to how much is going on in the LFE (Low Frequency Enhancement in this case) channel with your receiver's speaker config set to all speakers Large.  There is pretty much constant low end coming from the sub during the big moments, clearly signals that are crossed over from other channels in the mix.  If you were to mimic a theater surround system, assuming your front speakers are large full range cabinets, your surround and center speakers should be close to the same speaker as your front left and right speakers.  Having 7 little cubes and a subwoofer is NOT what I'm referring to here.  I'll look around for a reference on this before I add it to the article but I hope this clears up a little for anyone coming across this section of the discussion.  --PM - PhilyG talk 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 7.1 content
This information featured under the 7.1 section has no references and most of it seems a little irrelevant to the article. If anybody can confirm that 3:10 to Yuma features 7.1 then we need a reference. As for the second paragraph, it's mainly talk about whether or not The Lord of the Rings will be released on one format or another and doesn’t really have a place in this section. I'll leave it in for now but if nobody states otherwise I’ll remove some of it. Here is the text I’m talking about just to recap:


 * 7.1 surround is featured on the Blu-ray Disc of the film 3:10 to Yuma.


 * The HD DVD version of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (not yet released) was set to be one of the first films released in the 7.1 surround format. Currently it is not known if this will release at all on HD DVD, as all of the Time Warner studios (Warner Bros., HBO and New Line Cinema—the films creator) have recently announced a pullout from the HD DVD format and will exclusively release titles on the competing Blu-ray Disc format from March 2008.

--Issueskid (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i'm gonna go ahead and delete that text as there are no references. --Issueskid (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=617 for 3:10 to Yuma reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.115.210 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Too wordy
Latest copyediting by anon IP added an unwished-for wordiness to the article. I say less is more. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

5.2 Surround Sound?
While I was away at University, my dad set up what he calls 5.2 surround sound system (Front Left, Front Right, Centre, Rear Left, Rear Right and two Subwoofers). Is this a proper 5.2 system, and if so, should there be an addition to the article in regards to it? I'm not an audiophile myself, but if someone can explain this to me, it'd be great, because I really haven't been able to find an explanation for it! Mgraham1985 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Critical to answering your question is knowledge about how your dad derives the signals feeding each of the six speakers. Seems like no matter what film he plays, there will be some degree of mismatch with the recorded material. My take on his system is that it is 5-channel, assuming that the two subs were fed low-frequency stereo sound taken straight from Front Left and Front Right, respectively. Hey, whatever works... Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All I know is it's got one hell of a rumble to it, lol. It's great for DVD's and DVD audio, and sounds crystal clear. They're PSB speakers and Marantz everything else. But thanks for even the attempt of an explanation! It's greatly appreciated. Mgraham1985 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The notation 5.2 refers to the number of channels, not the number of speakers. There aren't any readily available sources with two subwoofer feeds so, unless your dad recorded stuff himself, his system is not 5.2. (Note that the 10.2 system, used in cinemas, has two separate subwoofer feeds.) HairyWombat (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the original poster is still curious, I would assume that your dad has a 5.1 system with the .1 LFE feed going to two subwoofers. This is actually how theaters have their 5.1 or 7.1 system set up.  The low end will be more even with two subwoofers placed underneath each front speaker.  Be sure that he has the input of his subwoofers coming from the pre amp subwoofer output of your receiver, or else he is running a 5.0 system with subwoofers spitting out any frequencies in the front speakers below the crossover point (probably 80 - 120Hz) into the subwoofers.  The film mixers are specifically sending signal to the subwoofer at certain times, which is the reason for a discreet output.  I'm sure it sounds good to you guys either way, just letting you in on a little info about how the subwoofer is supposed to be used in a 5.1 set up.  Enjoy! --PM - PhilyG talk 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys, that helped explain it! I appreciate taking the time to do all that. Mgraham1985 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Baby Boom was really 4.2
When Dolby revived the use of 70mm in the late 1970s, the LC and RC channels were replaced with low frequency "boom" channels, because they felt that: a) 5 screen channels were not really necessary, especially on smaller screens, and b) an increase in low frequency capability would really improve the theatrical sound experience. Having the boom channels separate from the others allowed the theaters that installed the extra amplifiers and subwoofers to vastly improve their sound, and other cinemas could safely ignore those 2 channels, and not overload their main speakers with more bass than they could handle. (In general, the left, center & right channels in cinemas are capable of reproducing the full range of sound, bass to treble.) Long story short, Dolby Stereo Baby Boom was a 4.2 channel system (really 4.1 since I believe channels 2 & 4 carried identical low frequency signals).

However, some filmmakers did try to "split" the surround channel into LS and RS, but the number of theaters equipped for 5.1 playback at the time is unknown. Some 70mm split surround titles are: Superman (1978), Apocalypse Now (1979), Pink Floyd The Wall (1982), Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984). Use of the Split Surround format was rather limited, until digital sound came around, killed the 70mm format, and standardized 5.1 surround sound. (Title info is from the website in70mm.com)

Str8bourbon (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

5.1 or 7.1?
Is there a big difference between 5.1 and 7.1 (e.g. for gaming), or ist the step from 5.1 to 7.1, compared with the step from stereo to 5.1, rather negliglible?

Its easy to write a lot about technical stuff. But some practical guidelines, altough they are not 100 percent objectiv, are really missing in the article. Technically everything is makeable, you can construct a 80.8-system. But what is the real improvement, what is meaningful for at home?

May be some notes about that in the article, altough not 100 percent objective, could enhance the practical value of the article.

Everything with senses and emotions is a bit subjectiv. But there are some general guidelines/perception/conception though. E.g. to hurt somebody and make somebody suffer is in generall felt as a bad thing - even when a masochist/sadist may feel it as a nice thing. Thats may be not the best example, but I hope you understand what I mean.

Anway, maybe its possible to enhance this article a bit in a practical way. There should be written what is senseful/meaningful, or better: what is the STANDARD: for HOME-CINEMA, for GAMING, for HOME-MUSIC. That helps to make some practical decisions, enhances the practical value of this article. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by User1973 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the many meanings ;-) ---User1973 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new lead
The opening paragraphs lack clarity and precision of language.

I use these guidelines as a reference for its revision: Lead_section

I would encourage the use of the word "immersive" to describe the goal of surround sound implementation. "Sound reproduction quality" is not a guaranteed byproduct of the addition of channels or speakers. Sound in three dimensional space is mentioned, followed by "to that end" which introduces the use of sound reproduction in a single plane (two dimensional space). This feels like a non sequitur.

In the second paragraph, videocassettes and DVDs are listed as surround sound formats. These are media formats that may or may not act as carriers of surround sound content. They should not be equated with other list items such as Dolby Digital or DTS which are formats for the delivery of surround sound within a particular type of media. This information should be moved down in the article and expanded upon in it own section, perhaps titled "Surround sound delivery formats."

The mention of films and video games in the same sentence with consumer camcorders risks confusion about content providers and delivery systems (which involve a mixed, finished product) and acquisition (ie: recording) which is at the extreme other end of the production chain. "Either in-built or discreet" is unclear as to meaning. Throughout the article, there needs to be clear distinction between mixing/post production and recording/acquisition. The two by no means have a 1:1 relationship in terms of channels and many other aspects. This information should be contained in an appropriate section within the article, not as part of the initial introduction of the subject at the head of the article.

It is my opinion the re-working of the lead could be the beginning of the re-organization and rewrite of this article for clarity and consistency.

I'm offering a proposed new lead on my User;Talk page here: MRJayMach

MRJayMach (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Trinnov Optimizer
Hello everyone,

in the same line as the Iosono link, I would like to add a link to the Trinnov Optimizer, which i think is a product that will be of interest for many readers.

Piano non troppo seams to disagree with me. My question would be: why add Iosono and not Trinnov to the links?

Best regards, Felipe Avila-Reyes (Trinnov Audio) Avilarey (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Iosono link has already been removed and I have just removed another link to a store. Per WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to put links to their products from pages describing what their products do.  The external links section is for links to other sites primarily providing more information on the topic, not to sites selling products that include a little explanation on what they are selling.  Check out the Manual of Style for more information on writing Wikipedia articles and What Wikipedia is not for more info on what typically goes into a Wikipedia article. --PM - PhilyG talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add a sentence about 2.0 and 2.1?
To the gatekeeper(s):

I landed here while surfing the Web for a long time for an explanation of "2.0" and "2.1". Now I get it -- indirectly -- thanks to this article and one of the discussions above. Channels. 2 regular stereo channels and an LFE channel.

Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be anywhere in WP describing them, just an unexplained diagram of 2.0 in the Stereophonic_sound article.

For completeness, I'm thinking of adding a 1-sentence mention of 2.0 and 2.1 here in the Notation section (with a cross-ref to the stereo article). Maybe then the next person surfing like I was will get an answer faster. Does anyone mind?

Kkken (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would lean towards adding an explanation of 2.1 in the Stereophonic_sound article, as 2.1 is not surround sound. 2.1 is really a format to begin with, it simply implies that the frequency content of a stereo mix below a given crossover point is being sent to a subwoofer.  I have never heard of someone mixing anything in stereo with separate, discreet send to a subwoofer.  Have any other audio pros heard of this being done?  I do agree that there should be an explanation somewhere on Wikipedia about this though.  --PM - PhilyG talk 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the article Bass management which is relevant, I think. HairyWombat (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Replaced the long list of speaker configurations with a simple and objective table based on actual technical implementation, and added a line on most 2.1 speaker sets using only 2 data channels in reality. Kaetemi (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

YAMAHA Consumer 8.2 Amps
Some models (e.g., RX-V3000) of YAMAHA home-use surround sound amplifiers support multiple formats up to, and including, an 8.2 audio format. (The 8.2 format is 5.1 with the addition of two front effect/height speakers, a rear center speaker and a second subwoofer.) Is this format proprietary to YAMAHA (i.e. are they manipulating 5.1 tracks via DSP and synthesizing the additional tracks) or are those additional tracks really encoded on some DVDs? Why doesn't a Google search turn-up anything on 8.2?


 * "8.2" would refer to the channels, not the speakers. So, from the information you have presented, 8.2 is just 5.1. HairyWombat (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I follow your point about differentiating between the number of actual discrete audio-data channels and the number of speakers. However, I'm still a little lost on the additional 3.1 speakers in terms of (a) where they're getting their audio and (b) if that audio is being processed by these YAMAHA AVRs in a way that's intended or unintended by the film's director. I understand that the difference on the .2 part is that there are two crossover points that are user-settable and the idea is that one functions as for LFE while the other is supposed to be more of a subwoofer, handling all of the bass that would otherwise go to the 8 primary speakers (and that this .2 option is only to be used if the main speakers are small, as if they were large, they would handle the bass). So I think where I'm confused is on the rear center speaker (is that just an identical copy of the content on the front center speaker, is it a time delayed copy of the front center speaker, or is it something different?) and on the front L/R effect/height speakers...where is that content coming from? ...how is it different from what's coming out of the front L/R main speakers and the front center speaker? If you can answer these questions, I'll be most grateful!!! Thanks! 71.194.222.230 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the products on the Yamaha page and found an "11.2" channel receiver listed as their top product. It seems that Yamaha is using this numbering system as a marketing scheme, as the receiver does not handle any 11.2 formats, it simply has 11 channels plus two subwoofer outputs on the receiver.  As far as I can tell from the pictures and the description, they are just including the two extra stereo zones and an additional subwoofer out to the 7.1 output for the main listening space.  I'm assuming the additional sub out is for one of the 2 extra zones.  This is probably the same situation as your receiver.  Perhaps your receiver does 6.1 channel surround sound plus an additional 2.1 zone for another room?  As you spoke of a rear center output, that would be my guess.  The rear center channel is a discreet channel in a 6.1 surround mix and is not derived from the front center channel.  Check out the Dolby website for where to place this channel in relation to your surround left and right channels.  If the manual is actually talking about effect/height speakers than these are certainly synthesized channels that the Yamaha DSP is performing, certainly not what the director and the supervising sound editor of the films you are watching intended for.  To my knowledge, DVD's have only been released in 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 channel formats.  Since you can't find any info on 8.2 on the internet, this practically proves that it is not an existing format.  Hope that helps!  --PM - PhilyG talk 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth there are no DVD's with 7.1, only 6.1 and lossy. For 7.1 you need Blu-ray, which is not DVD.Dobyblue (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
I tagged the "Surround sound specifications" section for cleanup. While not an audiophile per se, I thought I was reasonably familiar with speaker setups, yet I still found this section to be very confusing. Specialized terms are used without being defined, distinctions are made without explaining what the distinguishing factor is, and the prose is sometimes unclear. I wish I could fix it myself, but I don't have the knowledge required. Powers T 11:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disasgree with this, I dont concider myself to be especially familiar with speaker setup, yet I found this article relativly easy to understand. For those few things which I did not understand, I found other wikipedia articles explaining them briefly. This is the way that wikipedia is used. The use of technical jargon is advantageous moreover, especially when it is explained in the section, because it gives you a greater vocabulary with which to discuss the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.116.142 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except that much of the jargon is not explained in the section. Powers T 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no problem with any part of the article, or the way it works with other articles to describe the process and setups of surround sound, and I do wonder if the cleanup tags are now necessary at this point in the article's evolution. User LtPowers, could you give me an example of the jargon you're struggling with, which you feel is not fully explained in the article? I will attempt to clarify it here and possibly in the article too. Caspar (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC).
 * The three tags are not necessary any more, but the top one about improving references should be added to the several sections which have no references at all. Better yet, refs should be found and added. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Consider it done. I may also be able to cite references using my Emagic Logic Pro software manual and a third party Logic 6 Apple certified training manual which I have in published paper form. Both, I recall, go into some detail on surround sound channel allocation and mixing (and why). I'll do this by cross referencing the tomes with the Wikipedia article's description, when I get some time soon. Also, in the bass management section (where I put one of the no refs tags), there is a bass management link that links to a page dedicated to the subject. And that does have a reference in it. Therefore, is the no refs tag justified in this section then? What's the Wiki policy in this scenario? (The same would apply to the history section too). For example, should the references from the other linked pages be duplicated to this page? Caspar (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that most of this section was very repetitive and written in a very messy way, and cleaned it up. Replaced most of the text with a simple table based on actual technical implementation. Kaetemi (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone found the lists of equipment per channel configuration useful for some reason, in my opinion that should be better placed into an article about the manufacturer or product series, or alternatively a page specifically for listing the channel support of all sorts of equipment. It seemed a bit too specific to have every single device listed on a generic page about surround sound, since you don't have every single version of windows on the generic page about operating systems either. Kaetemi (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Added Dolby 3 stereo
Long overdue; i have a tv with it. left right and center; it's a nice little wide stereo image with no gap format. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why 10.2 has 14 discrete channels ?
I don't understand why the description of 10.2 reports to have 14 discrete channels.

What's for those extra channels ?

Thank you Iw2mln (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting I had the same question. I think they just called it that to go along with the slogan "twice as good as 5.1". That or maybe two channels are matrixed; I'll bet the heights are matrixed like they are with prologic IIz. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I think that somebody confused 10.2 with Dolby TrueHD that supports till 14 channels even if BlueRay accepts only 8 channels. But TrueHD ( 14 audio channels ) is not 10.2 at all ...Iw2mln (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an error. You don't label a channel separately if it's not got a separate channel. The description of 10.2 does NOT match the picture.Dobyblue (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Surround Sound Codecs
There should be mention of the codecs used for surround sound, like Windows Media Audio Lossless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsofphotos (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)