Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype? (Read 35064 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

To the best of my knowledge, a small percentage of conmmercially released Bluray movies [I assume under 10%] are encoded with "discrete" 7.1 sound. Why did I use quotes? Because I find it hard to believe that most of those had anything above and beyond the processing many of us already have in our receivers which cleverly generates new synthesized channels out of the existing 5.1 mix, for 7.1 speaker distribution.

Can anyone even cite a movie where the recording engineer has gone on record to declare that it was tailored, the sound, such that the extra 6th and 7th speakers are actually used in a truly discrete manner for added effect that isn't simply, um, "up-scaling" of a 5.1 soundtrack?

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #1 –
I'm asking in this forum, instead of others, because I consider sighted, anecdotal evaluations of "Oh believe me, I hear a big difference with 7.1 movies and I know it isn't due to up-scaling", worthless. People hear whatever they want to believe they should.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #2 –
Going on what you're saying there's no use having a centre speaker because it can be produced by the front stereo pair. Taking it to extremes what's the point in having any more than stereo when we can create the illusion of surround from 2 speakers these days?

It's better for locating sounds if the speaker is where you want it. If you mix it between two speakers the sound can float between the two and not come from exactly where it should. I don't really understand what your issue is? 7.1 has been around for many years in the home and longer in theatres.

Maybe look up Dolby Atmos and then see if you can argue that none of that is real and can be made from 5.1 with some processing.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #3 –
Not since the old Dolby Pro Logic days has the center channel been an always, 100% synthesized, derived channel electrically concocted from the front L and R; since the introduction of AC3 (Dolby Digital) it is now a true discrete channel (not derived) which can theoretically be entirely different in makeup from the front L and R should the recording engineer want it to be [not that I'm claiming it always is]. In 7.1 Blurays the 6th and 7th ch. also can be entirely discrete, not derived, but my simple question is are they ever?

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #4 –
Proper 7.1 home video releases have been out for a while now going back longer than 4 years ago with Blu-ray.  Dolby Surround 7.1 was introduced in 2010 but other titles were released on Blu-ray dating back to 2007 using some form of 7.1 (either DTS or LPCM).  In thinking about my Blu-ray library (over 350 movies), I would say that at least 30% of them have a lossless 7.1 Dolby TruHD, 7.1 LPCM, or lossless 7.1 DTS-HD MA mix.

I currently don't have a 7.1 system.  Instead, my receiver (which is 7.1 capable working with all modern lossless formats along with LPCM) down-mixes it to 5.1 as I don't have the additional two speakers plugged in.  However, I don't really understand what you are trying to ask.  Are you asking if movies with a 7.1 mix are better than feeding a receiver a 5.1 mix and having it output to 7.1 (with some mixing, similar to Dolby Pro Logic)?  If that's the case, I don't think anyone has tested it.  Traditionally though, having a proper surround sound system (i.e. at least 5.1 dedicated speakers) feeding it a proper surround sound mix (again, at least 5.1) produces better results than either trying to trick ears into thinking they are hearing surround sound or having a proper surround sound system and applying something like Dolby Pro Logic to a stereo source into making it 5.1.

I had a Sony 2.1 (physical) sound bar in my living room at one point.  It worked with up to 7.1 lossless/uncompressed audio and even had 3 HDMI inputs.  The subwoofer was fine and front audio seemed fine too.  However, it could never really work out the rear channels all that much.  It had a virtual surround sound mode that I had to calibrate it for.  Even then, audio that was supposed to come from behind my left ear would normally sound like it was coming from far off to my left side half-way between myself and the TV.  The same with right rear audio.  I upgraded to a bare basic 5.1 Onkyo system and have had much better results from the rear channels.

I'm not sure if the same would apply for the "mid" channels in a 7.1 setup though.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: mzil on
Can anyone even cite a movie where the recording engineer has gone on record to declare that it was tailored, the sound, such that the extra 6th and 7th speakers are actually used in a truly discrete manner for added effect that isn't simply, um, "up-scaling" of a 5.1 soundtrack?


Newer films are more likely to be recorded/mastered in discrete 7.1.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) is one such film. Several promotional videos of featurettes talk about the mixing and audio engeering to use 7.1 for the final mix.

You can check out videos from the "SoundWorks Collection". They feature a number of videos that will talk explicitly about 7.1 audio.
http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/dol...1-cinema-beyond

Older films, I would lack faith in the "newly remastered" audio being authentic 7.1 surround sound mixing.
For old films, I would say it's just hype for people who bought 7.1 surround sound systems and complain there isn't enough diversity in films with 7.1 audio.

It's more practical for theater experience.
It can be practical for home consumers with the technology, but I've never met anyone, personally, who has a 7.1 surround system.

For most people I know, they're happy with either 5.1 or simple stereo.

I like it, as a technology. And I do find it greatly enhances theater-viewing experiences.
Before seeing a movie in theaters, I do look up any information I can to find out if it's meant to be 7.1 or if it's an after-thought/post-production tactic (in the same manner as converting 2D to 3D instead of filming in 3D).

Just for practical home purposes, I have no need for it in the foreseeable (poor) future (of mine).

Some director's are just very traditional, even though the technology is readily available.
Christopher Nolan is very practical. He rarely uses CG for effects. All his films available on blu-ray are (at most) 5.1 mixes. He doesn't use 3D, High Frame Rate, or even 6.1/7.1.

Michael Bay, on the other hand, the technical enthusiast he is, is likely to use 7.1 for future projects.
For Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), he executed everything so distinctly well.
His utilization of 3D was done with actual 3D footage and the 2D-converted-3D shots turned out nicely and not so jarring as much earlier films that tried 2D-to-3D (Clash of the Titans), and the 7.1 mixing for the film was extremely phenomenal to hear in theaters in full force.
The film is very resolute in technical appreciation. He didn't try to exploit every facet of new-age technology like some other film makers would do.

Peter Jackson is advancing. He's switching to 7.1 audio and exceeding very well (as apposed to his 6.1 fiasco with the LOTR trilogy). He's adapting 3D very well, as with other high-profile directors. And the use of 48fps really enhances the 3D viewing experience to uncanny levels that watching any of the Hobbit films in 24fps/3D just pales in comparison.

It's only hype, or a gimmick, when it's manufactured for purely selfish or marketing reasons (or just to be "hip" with times).
Taking an old film available in mono or even 4.1 and then matrixing it to 7.1 for a "remastered" release is pure hype and gimmick.

I believe Tron: Legacy (2010) was authentically 7.1. I think I read somewhere that Disney will be using 7.1 for 3D feature films.
I like to use "HD audio" in PaulStretch. "HD audio", lol.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: mzil on
Not since the old Dolby Pro Logic days has the center channel been an always, 100% synthesized, derived channel electrically concocted from the front L and R; since the introduction of AC3 (Dolby Digital) it is now a true discrete channel (not derived) which can theoretically be entirely different in makeup from the front L and R should the recording engineer want it to be [not that I'm claiming it always is]. In 7.1 Blurays the 6th and 7th ch. also can be entirely discrete, not derived, but my simple question is are they ever?


But my point is that center channel can still be derived from the left and right and if you're sitting dead center you wouldn't know the difference. However it locks dialogue to the screen.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure this is the best place for an answer to your question. Unless there are actual sound engineers that work on movies then people are guessing at best, based on what they've read on the net or read in books.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: probedb on
But my point is that center channel can still be derived from the left and right and if you're sitting dead center you wouldn't know the difference. However it locks dialogue to the screen.

"Can be", but in most modern movies, isn't. The dialog is deliberately crafted, dedicated to the center, and is not derived from the L and R. In fact if you disconnect the center when watching a modern Dolby Digital 5.1 movie the dialog is completely gone.

Sparktank, thanks for the great post. You seem to get what I'm looking for. I don't have time right now to examine the link, but will later.

I suspect for much 7.1 material, such as the TV show "Weeds" (which of course was never transmitted in 7.1 because ATSC simply can't do that), a tech guy doing the transfer, who had no connection to the making of the original, simply pressed a button which turned the 5.1 into 7.1, just like many can do a version of at home, themselves. Big deal. I look forward to trying one of the real deal movies you mentioned, such as Transformers: Dark of the Moon, some day.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #8 –
~6.66% BDs are 7.1.  You'd be correct in most of those being remixes though if given good source material the engineers probably did a better job than what ProLogic could achieve and AFAIK no algorithm can turn mono into 7.1.  Dolby has a list of real Dolby 7.1 movies, and while these mixes will probably never see the light of day again since it uses a different speaker setup here's a list of 7.1 SDDS films (couldn't find any list for DTS).

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #9 –
The basic reasoning behind 7.1 is if you have a large room and you want a larger soundstage behind you, having the extra surrounds prevents sonic holes when panning sound effects since you now get speakers to the sides AND behind you. Same as having a center speaker allows you to spread your mains further apart.

Is 7.1 (over 5.1) mostly just hype?

Reply #10 –
The point of 7:1 as opposed to 5:1 is to cover the hole in the middle in theaters with a long throw. One wouldn't need a center channel if the mains were only 8 feet apart. The phantom center would work fine. But the farther the spread, the more chance of dropouts in the middle. In a normal sized room, 7:1 isn't really needed. In a screening room sized room that seats 20 people it starts being necessary.

Atmos is entirely different, because the point of Atmos is to provide a vertical axis to the sound, not fill the gap between existing speakers.