Do you think the march to more channels in surround sound is slowing down?

[3dbinCanada]

Is there going to be a point where the number of audio channels being made available will no longer enhance the surround sound experience and be just plain over kill? Will marketing hype prevail over science in this regard?

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I think they could keep adding channels in an effort to make the surround more seamless between speakers, but then again, they can use various technologies (maybe something like phase shifting) to fill the gap distances between speakers, too. The question might be how far someone is willing to go with it... do you want to keep adding speakers and amp channels, and then who is going to produce the processing.

 

[Aburguy]

I wonder about this as well. I currently and running surrounds and have thought have adding rears, but I’m pretty satisfied with the current sound, and if I add rears I may have to move everything around. Not that I don’t want to do the work but if I only get incremental gain, I don’t think it’s worth the effort or cost.

 

[JStewart]

Unless it’s proven otherwise since, a 2007 study cited on and around page 350 of Dr. Toole’s book “Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, 3rd Edition” , clearly shows no statistical preference for 12 speakers vs 5 speakers in the current Dolby 5.1 recommended locations.

To be fair, it does not study speaker locations that are not in the horizontal plane.

Also, I think you make a fair point too, @Sonnie , that more speakers could be filling in gaps in the sound field. However some of that could be to make up for less than ideal speaker placement or room acoustics. Regardless, if it’s a solution to a problem then that’s fine, so long as wall call it what it is without a blanket statement of more is better.

From my own situation, I noticed very little difference in going from 5.1 to 7.1. And TBH, there’s not a ton of difference in the sound field with or without atmos. It’s impossible for enthusiasts to make valid comparisons though as the mix and/or streaming compression can be different and our auditory memory short and unreliable.

So, for me personally, unless there is some kind of actual evidence provided from a respected source and not from a company with financial gain on the line, my funds are staying put, march or no march.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I bucked the system (so to speak) for many years, refusing to budge from a 5 channel surround. I finally did go to 7 channels and eventually 9 channels, but I can't say I have noticed a great difference... maybe some difference. Now that I'm at 9.6.4 with Atmos, I have yet to be blown away by any Atmos movie or music. It all just seems very subtle, but nothing startling or overwhelming, which maybe that is how it should be. Nonetheless... I could probably be just as happy with the 5-channel surround as I am with Atmos, yet I plan to go to 9.6.6 as soon as my other JTR speakers arrive.

 

[Mike Schramm]

Doesn't it come down to trying to accommodate more and more people in your theater? If it's just one person sitting in the sweet spot between two speakers (and a sub) in a properly treated room isn't it possible to have a surround sound experience? I've never experienced this myself but I have heard others say that it can be done.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

That's a good point, Mike. I suppose if you have several rows of seats, more speakers might make sense and help appropriate the surround better.

 

[Peter Loeser]

IMO the availability of consumer 32-channel home theater processors brings us to the point of diminishing returns. Large scale cinemas demand more as stated, but more so to provide a consistent experience to all seat locations.

As Mike mentioned, achieving the sweet spot in a stereo setup can produce a shockingly immense sound stage, but isn’t practical for most people.

Going forward I’d say the most bang for buck will be continued advancement of digital picture quality. I believe that will be more perceptible to enthusiast and even average viewers. Video will reach the point of diminishing returns eventually too. Then… I don’t know, maybe holographs?

 

[Travis Ballstadt]

Seems like the whole controversy a couple years ago where studios/dolby were preventing any processing from upmixing beyond 7.1.4 really cooled demand from the consumers.

I think logically the push should be more towards more use of objects and more object capability in the home setting and allowing processing to generate as many channels as the user wants to pay for would be the best use of resources. Objects being so much more scalable than channels makes it as future-proof as it could theoretically be, and something that could maximize every home theater regardless of size, shape, configuration or budget.