Rear speakers - what do they add?

[Blueprint]

I have had surround speakers before but didn’t enjoy it and found it distracting. It’s possible that my small room was a problem in that. I run 2.2 now and I feel like the envelopment is far more natural.

I also don’t think it makes much sense to have discrete sound coming from behind you when your eyes are affixed to a 2D screen set out in front of you. Really in any real-life environment, a concert hall is a perfect example, the sound is out in front of you and only surrounds you because of reflections, not discrete sound. Clearly people enjoy surround sound immensely, but for me stereo played loud in a nicely reflective room provides more natural envelopment.

 

[sergeauckland]

I don't have a TV in my music room, so sound only. I do use surround 'speakers when playing my Quadrophonic LPs and have used it in 2-4 mode when playing stereo material. It obviously works with Quadrophonic material, inasmuch as any old-school Quad ever worked, less sure about synthesised surround from stereo. Some does work quite well to provide a sense of ambiance, others it's distracting, not to say irritating.

Unfortunately, my room doesn't allow the surround 'speakers to be properly located as rear loudspeakers, they're at the sides, so surround rather than rear.

Having had Quadraphonics for a good few years now, I can understand why they failed in the market, just part of my trying to relive my lost youth.

S.

 

[Eric Natural]

So if I add the rears what would be the equivalent description?

space - more reverb ambience - more of the room in the recording

That's what I notice with my 5.2 living room using(SonyES Dolby decoding of) various music sources. The Netflix or what-have-you streaming TV goes without mention. Fantastic.

The question is - when playing a 7.1 mix through a 5.1 system, what does the AVR do?
There are 3 possibilities that I see: drop the rears, drop the surrounds, or mix rears and surrounds in some way.

I don't use rear channel but the atmos heights are mixed in the surrounds after calibration and(in my small space) not missed.
Best of Luck

 

[Artsfols]

Ok cool.

I’m curious: how do you have your L/C/R speakers set up?

I ask because very often when there is a centre channel involved, it’s often also doing Home theatre duty for watching movies.

And very often people are dealing with some compromises in terms of where the centre channel goes, which means that coherence isn’t optimum.

Is yours strictly music based?

And if so how was your centre channel oriented between your left and right speakers. Is it the same height? Along the same plane as the L/R speakers or recessed?

As I mentioned before, it can be difficult to set up a surround system with as much flexibility as one might have for a pair of stereo speakers. Therefore, it’s not always an apples to apples comparison. I can pull out my two channel floor standing speakers well into the room, and close to my listening position just as I prefer, and which really optimize the sense of immersion and imaging precision and dimensionality (and even tonality) for two channel listening.

To give you an idea of the type of set up, I was describing: I have my L/C/R speakers flanking my home theatre projection screen.
They put out a very big sound! They are pulled out as far as I can get them from the wall behind them. And they are wrapped in black velvet so that they disappear from view against the black velvet screen wall.

Here’s a photo taken in bright daylight so you can see the speakers:

https://i.postimg.cc/QN72C4tw/IMG-3844.webp

And in these photos, you can get an idea of how far my two channel floor standing speakers are pulled out into the room towards the listening sofa:

https://i.postimg.cc/1zYknbDh/IMG-3847.webp

https://i.postimg.cc/HnBN1TFF/IMG-3862.webp

The photos might help explain why I get less off a “wow” from surround sound immersion versus my two channel system than perhaps some other people. It’s very common to have surround L/C/R speakers involved with video playback as well, and so it would be very unusual to have those speakers pulled out into the room near the listening position like I have for my two channel speakers.

So I find the surround system certainly does create its own sense of immersion: I get a very great cohesive bubble of sound because all my speakers blend really well.

But with my two channel speakers pulled out so far and close to my listening position, it’s also extremely immersive, but the tonal coherency and spatial/imaging qualities are superior. The room just seems to melt away into the recording. So the two channel system still remains my favourite for listening to stereo recordings. (though I also enjoy up mixing stereo surround for my surround system sometimes).

Very nice setup. My room has an entirely different look to yours, but is similar in size. I think the best would be to post some pictures as well, and I'll try to do that in the next few days. Where is your AVR, turntable, CD player, computer, Bluray/ SACD player, et cetera?

 

[MattHooper]

Very nice setup. My room has an entirely different look to yours, but is similar in size. I think the best would be to post some pictures as well, and I'll try to do that in the next few days.

Great! I love seeing pictures of other people’s listening rooms.

Where is your AVR, turntable, CD player, computer, Bluray/ SACD player, et cetera?

I had the task of requiring a lot of technology packed into the home theatre/music, listening room, while simultaneously wanting a clean uncluttered room. (my projector is hidden behind the sofa on a projecting lift when I’m not watching a movie).

I put all my amplification and source equipment in a separate room down the hall:

Everything aside from turning on the two channel amplification is operated via remote. (my AV receiver, Blu-ray player, HD DVD player, Apple TV and cable box as well as other home theatre gear is on the right rack).

The one thing that I thought would be compromised was placing my turntable in that separate room. However, it hasn’t turned out to be an issue at all. When I lower the needle on a track, the tone arm cueing mechanism lowers the arm slowly, and by the time the music is playing I’m usually at my listening seat.

 

[Artsfols]

Not all 2 channel music is mixed the same way, and that goes for multichannel music also.
You have producers who prefer to preserve the instruments spatial and tonal properties, while others mix everything up, trying to create some new experience, different from live. It is exactly the same in multichannel realm: While some use surround, rear and height channel to preserve reverb, atmoshpere of the musical event, others use those channel for effects.
A good example is how most Classical multixhannel mixes are done, preserving the atmosohere and then you have Pink Floyd multichannel mixes that have variuos effects and that creates another kind of experience, almost surreal.
Now, I wouldn't judge and I enjoy both approaches. But I have to admit, there are some gimmicky MC mixes out there...

As for the question of what you get from going from 3.0 to 5.1 or even better 7.4.2? Well, I have a setup that allows me to hear pure 2 channel and multichannel, and when I go from multichannel to pure stereo, I immediately feel deprived of content. It's as if someone turned off half the lights in the room, or something similar.
Upimixing is very complicated subject that has several threads on ASR.

Very interesting observations.

The first stereo recordings I heard were remixes of the Beatles recordings, originally made for mono release, and still available that way for the purists. I distinctly remember as a teen going into the local Radio Shack, putting on a set of headphones, and you heard bass and rhythm in the left ear, and lead guitar in the right. It sounded cool, but you'd never hear that mix in live performance, and further, a little less separation than that did sound more pleasing and became standard practice.

I noted in your post that you make this distinction between recreating an actual acoustic experience versus inventing an aural atmosphere. Other posters have noted their attraction to the aural intensity possible with 5.1, and there's a bit of jibing at ASR's unremitting focus on the neutrality of reproductive equipment.
Nevertheless, in some ways, the medium often becomes part of the instrument package and how sound is created. The first significant heavy riff songs of the 60s were the Kinks' You Really Got Me and also, All of the Day and all of the night. Davies has explained (to the best of my memory) that they obtained that sound from overloading a green 8 watt amplifier presumable made by the POS company.
One of my brothers purchased a 5.1 system perhaps 20 or more years ago, and the demo consisted of race cars rushing from the back of the room to the front, and him pushing various buttons to create everything from cathedral to outhouse sounds. None of that a priority for me.
I would surely enjoy listening to Meddle in 5.1 sound and see what has been created, but for my classical recordings, recreating the balance of the best acoustics in a concert hall experience is paramount. I think of it this way: orchestral instruments have evolved over hundreds of years to produce sound, and more importantly, to interact in producing sound, within a concert hall setting.
That's the number 1 thing I want in terms of 5.1 sound, and I believe that from everyone's feedback 5.1 sound will do little on that score. After all, in the concert hall most of the sound is in front of you with some reverb ... not terribly unlike the sound from a 3.1 or 2.1 system.
However, I do listen to other kinds of sound sources, like Pink Floyd and a great deal of indie rock, and older prog rock, so rear speakers may have merit just for that purpose.
Finally, for movies, I occasionally foreground the movie score when it's especially enticing, say, in the first two seasons of the Mandalorian, but generally I don't care that much. I did purchase a centre channel speaker just for the sake of hearing dialogue.
I do appreciate all the comments and recommendations.

 

[Artsfols]

I don't have a TV in my music room, so sound only. I do use surround 'speakers when playing my Quadrophonic LPs and have used it in 2-4 mode when playing stereo material. It obviously works with Quadrophonic material, inasmuch as any old-school Quad ever worked, less sure about synthesised surround from stereo. Some does work quite well to provide a sense of ambiance, others it's distracting, not to say irritating.

Unfortunately, my room doesn't allow the surround 'speakers to be properly located as rear loudspeakers, they're at the sides, so surround rather than rear.

Having had Quadraphonics for a good few years now, I can understand why they failed in the market, just part of my trying to relive my lost youth.

S.

I had a close friend at that time whose collection consisted almost entirely of electronic and other experimental music mixed in quadrophonic. It was great fun to go over and listen. The only artist I remember at this moment is Harry Partch. I haven't looked into this in 50+ years. Those were very cool records!!

 

[MattHooper]

When it comes to either up mixing stereo to a surround system or discrete surround mixes, for my money most of the gains I like actually happen across the L/C/R channels.

I really like the scale and heft my big center channel speaker adds to the sound. Discrete surround mixes sound the most coherent across the LCR verses up mixing.

But I like to play with different matrixes/upmixing modes. Some really thicken up the sound, some sound more lush and mapped on to the image better especially for live performances, and also sound great for classical music in terms of the added scale. Again, I’m talking mostly about what’s happening in front of me - what’s happening in the surround speakers is often less compelling.

(with the exception of certain modes that extract instruments to the surround speakers as well, and that can be fun with things like pop and electronic music)

 

[Robin L]

Very interesting observations.

The first stereo recordings I heard were remixes of the Beatles recordings, originally made for mono release, and still available that way for the purists. I distinctly remember as a teen going into the local Radio Shack, putting on a set of headphones, and you heard bass and rhythm in the left ear, and lead guitar in the right. It sounded cool, but you'd never hear that mix in live performance, and further, a little less separation than that did sound more pleasing and became standard practice.

The first Beatles album was "Please Please Me" on Parlophone:

" . . . Please Please Me, Parlophone, PMC 1202, 03.22.63, mono. The Beatles FIRST official L.P. release. For the ONLY time, the mono version was issued 6 weeks BEFORE the stereo version. . . "

. . . that is to say, you didn't hear a "remix". That voices in one channel and instruments on the other side "mix" you heard was the original stereo mix. Essentially taking the two tracks recorded to facilitate the voice/instrument balance of the recording and presenting it "raw". Not in any way realistic, but some prefer a mix where one can sort out parts thanks to positioning in the soundfield.

The new AI assisted remixing of these very early tracks goes a lot further in creating stereo positions for the instruments. You even get some stereo spread on the drumkit, something that didn't happen before Glyn Johns had a happy accident while recording Led Zepplin:

There are ATMOS remixes of later Beatles tracks that go much further in sorting out the various parts.

I would surely enjoy listening to Meddle in 5.1 sound and see what has been created, but for my classical recordings, recreating the balance of the best acoustics in a concert hall experience is paramount. I think of it this way: orchestral instruments have evolved over hundreds of years to produce sound, and more importantly, to interact in producing sound, within a concert hall setting.
That's the number 1 thing I want in terms of 5.1 sound, and I believe that from everyone's feedback 5.1 sound will do little on that score. After all, in the concert hall most of the sound is in front of you with some reverb ... not terribly unlike the sound from a 3.1 or 2.1 system.

I still have a fair amount of SACDs and most of them are classical. The one that struck me as being most improved in 5.1 has the Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7, Carlos Kleiber/VPO on DGG. The original LP was a lot more realistic sounding than most DGG productions of the 1970s, the original CD sounded a little thin, as I recall. The 5.1 remix fleshes out the sound and the ambient capture is well above average.

However, I do listen to other kinds of sound sources, like Pink Floyd and a great deal of indie rock, and older prog rock, so rear speakers may have merit just for that purpose.

5.1 mixes of rock are fun for those that like to analyze audio tracks, it usually doesn't come out as "real" sounding, but it tends to get auditor closer to the music. I was a recording "engineer" once upon a time. Nothing quite like being in the middle of a group of musicians while they're playing.

 

[Artsfols]

The first Beatles album was "Please Please Me" on Parlophone:

" . . . Please Please Me, Parlophone, PMC 1202, 03.22.63, mono. The Beatles FIRST official L.P. release. For the ONLY time, the mono version was issued 6 weeks BEFORE the stereo version. . . "

. . . that is to say, you didn't hear a "remix". That voices in one channel and instruments on the other side "mix" you heard was the original stereo mix. Essentially taking the two tracks recorded to facilitate the voice/instrument balance of the recording and presenting it "raw". Not in any way realistic, but some prefer a mix where one can sort out parts thanks to positioning in the soundfield.

The new AI assisted remixing of these very early tracks goes a lot further in creating stereo positions for the instruments. You even get a little stereo spread on the drumkit, something that didn't happen before Glyn Johns had a happy accident while recording Led Zepplin:

There are ATMOS remixes of later Beatles tracks that go much further in sorting out the various parts.

I still have a fair amount of SACDs and most of them are classical. The one that struck me as being most improved in 5.1 has the Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7, Carlos Kleiber/VPO on DGG. The original LP was a lot more realistic sounding than most DGG productions of the 1970s, the original CD sounded a little thin, as I recall. The 5.1 remix fleshes out the sound and the ambient capture is well above average.

5.1 mixes of rock are fun for those that like to analyze audio tracks, it usually doesn't come out as "real" sounding, but it tends to get auditor closer to the music. I was a recording "engineer" once upon a time. Nothing quite like being in the middle of a group of musicians while they're playing.

I meant that the stereo releases are 'remixes' of the original tapes. To my understanding, the stereo releases of the early albums were purely an afterthought. The intention was to mix them to mono, thus I use the term 'remix'.

 

[Artsfols]

Here's a picture of my rig.
From left to right, Totem Arro speakers, Denon 3700 amp, ELAC DCR52 center channel, computer, turntable, subwoofer amp, Totem Tribe sub (on floor).

 

[Audionaut]

My question is this. What does going to 5.1 from 3.1 add? How would you describe the difference between a 3.1 and a 5.1 system in acoustic terms?

In a nutshell: The difference between 2D and 3D sound through the completion of acoustic spatial Information.

The prerequisite is, of course, that the complete data for 5.1 is available and not just the stereo sound is virtually blown up.

 

[Artsfols]

In a nutshell: The difference between 2D and 3D sound through the completion of acoustic spatial Information.

The prerequisite is, of course, that the complete data for 5.1 is available and not just the stereo sound is virtually blown up.

"The completion of acoustic spatial Information." That is the most desireable benefit to me. But how many high quality 5.1+ recordings are mixed toward this specific goal?

Some of my Berlin Philharmonic concerts are now streamed in Dolby Atmos, and they sound great on my 3.1 system. For that alone I would get the rear speakers.
However, and this is strange, the BPO is about a year behind in converting and posting up performances in Dolby Atmos, at least for my Apple video streamer. The more recent performances are in some kind of stereo mix that is unlistenable.

 

[Dumu]

I've been disappointed with most of the Dolby Atmos content. I've only heard few music tracks where the height channels are used so that they really impact the experience.
Most movies and TV shows are nowadays streamed in Atmos, but it still feels like older 5.1 tracks had much more content in the surround channels. I wonder if it's just laziness and/or money saving, or if the mixes are designed to be played in stereo and the Atmos format is only used for marketing purposes.

 

[Andysu]

I've been disappointed with most of the Dolby Atmos content. I've only heard few music tracks where the height channels are used so that they really impact the experience.
Most movies and TV shows are nowadays streamed in Atmos, but it still feels like older 5.1 tracks had much more content in the surround channels. I wonder if it's just laziness and/or money saving, or if the mixes are designed to be played in stereo and the Atmos format is only used for marketing purposes.

you should watch my videos , as ex projectionist retired very retired , deep THX listener i mean deep listener , i am so disappointed in some of the lazy atmos re-recoding mixers or the poor excuses its the director/produces intent , very few out of 14 years , yes 14 years of some trashy atmos mixes that seriously belong in the cat litter tray

it takes me less than 1 min to spot fake atmos mixes or a decent one which are very few and far between out of the lousy 14 years

i know what to look for , listen for and feel for and no we don't or shouln't feel the soundtrack against our bodies only certain things or certain psychoacoustics would allow for that , most movies atmos are worthless the channel/speaker or those lazy smpte cas people are old they need to retire as they are boring with their set of standards around presently are junk garbage trash and seriously a waste of my listening , the general speaker layout hasn't much changed since 1941 fantasound , just going from optical to mag tracks to digital and digital doesn't mean its great sound , the uk cinemas now with atos sound trash ! its like the 1970's all over again and reason i couldn't care less about going to a british cinema ever again , i don't care if they showed 35 or regular 70 , those days of 35/70 and THX sound system program ended nearly 26 years ago , THX today is like cheap thx of kfc brand that tastes disgustingly boiled in water rather than the way it was in 1970's , THX 8n0/90's those days are long gone ,, cinemas now are trash woke i couldn't care less about this anymore

dts es 6.1 when first came around it was sound effects in the mono discrete rear channel , then a little while later EM effects music , then dolby labs with their cheap like 7.1 a sort of knock off from sony SDDS 8ch expect for using Lc Rc since dolby labs axed 70mm Lc Rc in the 1970's , yes most here been sleeping , oh strange now dolby labs recommends Lc Rc for atmos , which is it dolby labs make up your lazy minds ?

dolby 7.1 at first used sound effects in the stereo rear surrounds , then later came effects music and a bit further on , atmos oh directional dialog moving around in , gravity if most can understand the mix or well its radio transmissions as voice sound can't travel in vacuum so radio voice communications , but i guess most that seen the movie didn't grasp that ? and the foley sounds heard , anyway hardly bother playing that movie now . watched it close to under 100 times ( but not a million , under 100 times )

dolby atmos a trash sound format that doesn't use any discrete below or floor surround arrays plus a lot more besides

so i took it upon myself to putting below matrix surround in the room , try doing that instead of the lousy boring atmos speaker layout , waiting for a discrete mark 2 atmos , i doubt it happen anytime soon , its been around for 14 years and they and insiders that creep around this site claim its 3d sound , lol yeah sure what ever you say

 

[Artsfols]

"so i took it upon myself to putting below matrix surround in the room , try doing that instead of the lousy boring atmos speaker layout"

I don't know what this term means. Could you elaborate, in terms of speaker configuration and media used? Thanks.

 

[Andysu]

"so i took it upon myself to putting below matrix surround in the room , try doing that instead of the lousy boring atmos speaker layout"

I don't know what this term means. Could you elaborate, in terms of speaker configuration and media used? Thanks.

go to my thread read in the signature link below surround

 

[Artsfols]

go to my thread read in the signature link below surround

And here I am, thinking about adding 2 speakers to my 3.1 system. How many speakers are in your listening room?

 

[Westsounds]

They add speakers at the rear

 

[JRR]

I think you might actually be asking about surrounds and not rear speakers. Rears exist in 7.1 and upwards. The “rears” in 5.1 system are actually closer to the sides of the listener. The effects depends on the format and material. On dark side if the moon in 5.1 there are alot of effects and music emanating from the surrounds and demands can be high, Carmen Mcrae Live SACD has alot of vocals in the surround, Defrancesco/Jimmy Smith SACD has an entire Hammond organ in the Right surround (good luck if yours are puny), and most classical has venue acoustics in the rear. Same goes for the other formats. It can be alot of programme material or not. Depends case by case. Is it worth it? Heck yeah!