Video Asylum

Posted by David Aiken (A) on February 06, 2008 at 13:02:49

In Reply to: RE: Do you really need more than 2.1 channels for HT??? posted by krugorg on February 05, 2008 at 19:21:50

On the disc, the .1 channel is a low frequency effects channel. If you get your player to output a 2 channel signal, it folds the surrounds into the 2 channels and throws the .1 channel away so you don't get that info. Provided your mains can handle low frequency info reasonably well, you will not miss the sub in movies. If your mains don't handle low frequency info and you're using the sub to augment their low frequency response, you're still really only hearing a 2.0 channel mix.

I started out with a 2.0 channel system for HT (separate system to my audio system) some years ago and I was quite happy with it until I started experimenting with adding channels. As three sox said, if you don't have it you don't miss it. Once you start adding channels, however, the channels you add become addictive. I've gone from 2.0 to 6.1 in a series of steps and I've enjoyed every addition. I was also living happily without every addition until the time I decided to see what adding the next step was.

Also, as jazz inmate said, the movies you watch make a difference. If there isn't a lot of directional stuff and low frequency effects, you lose less though there are still gains from extra channels due to the more immersive nature of the sound field.

I think matching the tonality of the channels is important and if you can't do that, I'd tend to stay with 2.0. The match that I think is most important is the match between centre speaker and L and R fronts. If you can't get a good match there, forget the centre since the tonal changes in voices as them move from centre to one of the front speakers or back in the other direction is something I find particularly jarring.



David Aiken