Thread: Why does anyone want 5.1, rather than 5.0, for music?

Posts: 52
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by Kal Rubinson July 18, 2014 (1 of 52)
With 5.1, the .1 content is redundant if the main channels are full-range, as they should be. One can always implement bass management to derive a sub channel if one's main speakers require it.

Having stated my position, I'd like to hear from those who take the opposite one.

Post by Disbeliever July 18, 2014 (2 of 52)
Kal Rubinson said:

With 5.1, the .1 content is redundant if the main channels are full-range, as they should be. One can always implement bass management to derive a sub channel if one's main speakers require it.

Having stated my position, I'd like to hear from those who take the opposite one.

I agree with you. I detest sub-woofers.

Post by sylvian July 18, 2014 (3 of 52)
Fully agreed - I am not using .1 (LFE channell) for over 5 years now.

5.0 recorded & authored SA-CDs sound great......by the way

Post by Yoropiko1 July 18, 2014 (4 of 52)
I agree, especially when in many cases there is often little or no real .1 content on the mix anyway despite being sold as a 5.1 mix. I think in all honesty its more to do with marketing than anything else, the average person buys a 5.1 sound system ( usually for movie playback ) and they would feel short changed having " just " a 5.0 mix not realising that Bass information can be extracted from the mix from the other speakers anyway. Ironically most systems are probably set up using bass management anyway given few posess a 5.1 system with anything more than relatively small surround speakers ( I'm talking Home Theatre in a box and budget systems mainly ). Technically there is no reason why DVD Audios had to be 5.1 either, the Bass mix could again just have been extracted from the other channels in the same way.
I also assume that the .1 was just a legacy aspect derived from the older DTS and Dolby Lossy surround soundtracks and also to take the " customer " out of the equation, after all how many would moan that there was no Bass going to the subwoofer but the reality was, that it was the customer who simply didn't set up the system correctly to route the Bass to the Subwoofer!. The average consumer simply wants to plug and play, if a seperate bass only channel is created at least you know its got a good chance of ending up reaching the subwoofer LMAO.

Interestingly I have my subwoofer connected via both high level and low level. There could potentially be instances where there is lower frequency bass information in the surround mix than being output to the dedicated .1 channel anyway. In this instance one would be better off drawing Bass from those channels as well/or instead of the seperate subwoofer output if they wanted to improve Bass response overall ^ _ ^

Do I want to ditch my subwoofer?...well no not really, truthfully I would need hugely expensive speakers ( which would be vastly out of my budget ) to purchase 5 identical full range speakers that could match the Bass response of my subwoofer ( not to mention 5 powerful amps to drive each speaker ). I think as it is, its about right, keep the titles 5.1 so everybody can enjoy the best they can produce with their set up. Sure those who have the money to purchase a mighty 5.0 system with no need for a subwoofer will be able to run their SACD full range and never use a subwoofer if thats what they want. But we still need to keep SACD consumer friendly, its having a difficult enough time attracting the man off the street without making the format even more exclusive and difficult to set up. In fact my feeling is that formats such as SACD and DVD Audio ( and the Newer Blu ray Pure Audio Discs ) do little to excite the general public not because they dont sound better but because people hear the formats through poorly set up systems that do not show the strengths of those formats fully

Post by Iain July 18, 2014 (5 of 52)
Kal Rubinson said:

With 5.1, the .1 content is redundant if the main channels are full-range, as they should be. One can always implement bass management to derive a sub channel if one's main speakers require it.

Having stated my position, I'd like to hear from those who take the opposite one.

Agreed and this is for the record.

I've tried it both ways and prefer to use bass management. After all, the LFE crossover point on a 5.1 title can be at any frequency. With localised bass management, this LFE crossover point is at a fixed frequency.

BTW, I use a quality sub-woofer specifically designed for music.

You will also notice significantly reduced intermodulation distortion when using a quality sub-woofer.

Post by nucaleena July 18, 2014 (6 of 52)
Kal Rubinson said:

Having stated my position, I'd like to hear from those who take the opposite one.

I agree. I turn my sub-w off for all classical music and acoustic pop, but use it for rock and movies. Not sure why I use it for rock, habit I guess.

Post by Disbeliever July 18, 2014 (7 of 52)
Iain said:

Agreed and this is for the record.

I've tried it both ways and prefer to use bass management. After all, the LFE crossover point on a 5.1 title can be at any frequency. With localised bass management, this LFE crossover point is at a fixed frequency.

BTW, I use a quality sub-woofer specifically designed for music.

You will also notice significantly reduced intermodulation distortion when using a quality sub-woofer.

I tried the latest B& W sub it actually degraded the sound at any crossover frequency.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 July 18, 2014 (8 of 52)
Kal Rubinson said:

With 5.1, the .1 content is redundant if the main channels are full-range, as they should be. One can always implement bass management to derive a sub channel if one's main speakers require it.

Having stated my position, I'd like to hear from those who take the opposite one.

Kal - I think many might misconstrue what you are saying, at least based on my reading of your prior positions. I do not think you are against the use of a subwoofer and bass management in playback. In fact, I think you prefer that, as do I, quite strongly. So, I think you are for 5.1 or 5.x playback, but against 5.1 recordings.

One or more subwoofers in the system can produce deep bass much more accurately with lower distortion and with full dynamics than all but the biggest and costliest full range speakers. Even there, the subwoofer can be placed in the room for best response while the main channels can independently be placed for best imaging.

So, my reading of the question is do we need the .1 channel on the recording side as opposed to just 5 full range recorded channels? I am in agreement that we do not need some of the deep bass moved into the .1 or LFE channel. It is not even necessary on Blu-ray movies for special bass effects, and it seems to be a vestigial holdover from earlier days before effective bass management came into being. However, with a properly set up playback system, I hear no sonic downside of 5.1 music recordings vs. 5.0. I hear no advantage either. But, the .1 channel, if used, potentially wastes unnecessary space and bandwidth in downloading the recording. Or, it might have been put to use for something else more meaningful, like a full range height channel. Too late for that now, unfortunately, with current standards.

Post by Iain July 18, 2014 (9 of 52)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Kal - I think many might misconstrue what you are saying, at least based on my reading of your prior positions. ...

His post is stated correctly, but the thread title seems to be the problem.

Post by Fugue July 18, 2014 (10 of 52)
For those of us with space/wife limitations, a sub-woofer is a necessary evil. My SVS SB 1000 blends very nicely with the rest of my system.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed