Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Al) Prat  First, I want to know what Al means by "genuine", and what kind of 5.1 stuff he's been listening that he doesn't like.
"Genuine" for me means, genuine I guess. And it's not that I don't like 5.1, the fact is I'm trying to learn as much about it as I can, because I'm having to bring my ranching up to date, yippee yi yo ky yay, which is why this esteemed remotester is poking around these forums. I think I could honestly say that I haven't been overwhelmed by the 5.1 productions I've heard, like I was the first time I heard a good audiophile system. I haven't had the luxury of engineering 5.1 in a optimum listening area either, which I hope to do shortly. And I am also curious about the height, both front and rear, does that mean that 7.1 is more kickass (kickassier?) than 5.1? Is that a valid consideration or is 7.1 redundant? Would you say the audiophile crowd supports surround since the market has had time to mature? |
I think that it is fair to say 7.1 is generally more about coverage than the experience. My personal experience with 5.1 is that it gives much more of the "immersion experience" than a stereo recording. As for the production of "height" from a 5.1 or 7.1 recording, personally I'm skeptical. As John Willets was mentioning above, we have a mutual friend, Mike Skeet, who at the moment has been experimenting with periophony (in his case eight speakers). He reckons that the results are wonderful, however the implimentation of such systems is tricky and there are many practical problems.
Regards
Roland