Instead of Surround, Why Not Top, Medium, & Bottom Heights?

[Bad213Boy]

This is something I've been thinking about awhile now. One thing I never understood was the idea behind audio surround for a computer. I have 7 speakers in surround but there's no way I'll be able to position the rear speakers in back of me. When you're at a computer, you need room and to move around in the chair. If you place speakers in the corners of the room you'll need to crank up the volume and chances are you're wife, mom, dad, or kids are going to be hearing you're gaming session. When I think of surround, I think of the theaters and basements with big screen TVs. This really isn't needed for the basic computer user.

Has anyone thought about making sound in levels, from ground level, desk level, and to above desk level? This IMO would be great for computer games. This is actually how I have it. I have my rear speakers positioned on the ground with sub-woofer, my side speakers are on both sides of the monitor, my center speaker on a small shelf above the monitor (could be positioned behind the monitor if you didn't have a shelf), my front speakers are up high with another sub-woofer. That was the only way I was able to distinguish the sounds, without going all out theater setup.

Foot steps could be heard down below, talking desk level, environment (wind, rain, and what ever above character's head) on the top level. Wouldn't this be a more realistic way of using sound for PCs?

[zanzabar]

that is what 10.2 is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Sound-10_2.svg

[Bad213Boy]

Any way to get that working on a PC for around $200-$300? I would imagine you'd need a special audio card to be able to process sound like that. That's something I would definitely want for a PC. I'm assuming the 10.2 stands for the amount of speakers. Someone needs to make a smaller version for something with 7.2 or even 5.2.

[zanzabar]

Any way to get that working on a PC for around $200-$300? I would imagine you'd need a special audio card to be able to process sound like that. That's something I would definitely want for a PC. I'm assuming the 10.2 stands for the amount of speakers. Someone needs to make a smaller version for something with 7.2 or even 5.2.

it would not really do any good for home use since u need alot of space to give it range. the best sound stage is still headphones on the computer/home theater then 5.1

[MattiasNYC]

Any way to get that working on a PC for around $200-$300? I would imagine you'd need a special audio card to be able to process sound like that. That's something I would definitely want for a PC. I'm assuming the 10.2 stands for the amount of speakers. Someone needs to make a smaller version for something with 7.2 or even 5.2.

I work with mixing for non-games (radio, film, tv etc) and there are a couple of things I could add maybe.

In terms of nomenclature the X in X.Y is the amount of "satellites", and the Y is the amount of LFE channels (Low Frequency Extension channels that go to the subwoofers). So in a regular stereo system you essentially have 2.0, in a "regular and common" surround 5.1 you have 5 satellites (3 front 2 surround) and one subwoofer.....

So here's the thing:

Whenever we engineers mix for people we have to consider the various situations people will listen in. So for every film you'll have a stereo mix, and for a large amount you'll have a 5.1 too. Sometimes the 5.1 is automatically generated using the stereo mix, sometimes it's the opposite.

Now imagine the cost of throwing in more layouts. Because as soon as you want a reliable predictable result as an engineer (and director/producer) you have to produce for exactly those formats. Very costly. And now we're up to 7.1 on several movies/theaters, particularly for 3D films... So now you have 7.1, 5.1 and stereo.

And then the last thing is that we (engineers etc) are already struggling with the artistic decisions made, and in conjunction to that the fact that not even movie theaters do things correctly many times despite standards existing... and you surely understand that some are reluctant to add more options for things to "go wrong" when consumers place their speakers. You already put your surrounds front and below where they're not meant to be, so that's sort of a "waste of money" to the producers. Add in people buying 10.2 systems and placing twice as many speakers wrong is probably low on the to-do list I think....

[M.Beier]

Any way to get that working on a PC for around $200-$300? I would imagine you'd need a special audio card to be able to process sound like that. That's something I would definitely want for a PC. I'm assuming the 10.2 stands for the amount of speakers. Someone needs to make a smaller version for something with 7.2 or even 5.2.

While the x.2 is a complete waste.... Since human cannot locate low frequency tones, there is no point in multiple subwoofers.

[zanzabar]

While the x.2 is a complete waste.... Since human cannot locate low frequency tones, there is no point in multiple subwoofers.

i thought that the dual woofers were for better range.

[PaganII]

Multiple subs have been proven to help even out room nulls and boosts that make certain frequencies in the LFE range appear absent or boomy. Ideally 4 identical subs place at the center of each wall is best but 2 subs between the front speakers is a good compromise. This is ancient history.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...ndRoomsPt3.pdf

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...s/multsubs.pdf

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...itePapers.aspx

[Bad213Boy]

While the x.2 is a complete waste.... Since human cannot locate low frequency tones, there is no point in multiple subwoofers.

It really depends on your speaker setup. I've collected my share of computer speakers over the years from garage sales. I'm sure there are a large amount of gamers out there that have done the same. Usually when it comes to buying something for your computer, speakers usually always get trumped by something else first. I see a lot of people have multiple 2.1 speakers configured for 5.1 and 7.1. Example, I have 2.1 front speakers, 2.0 center & sub speakers (2 speakers without sub), 2.0 side speakers, and 2.1 rear speakers. When I have one sub up high and one down below, I can feel where the vibration is combing from during explosions or whatever. I use to have one on the left and one on the right on the floor, I really didn't help distinguish where the sound was coming from.

I work with mixing for non-games (radio, film, tv etc) and there are a couple of things I could add maybe.

In terms of nomenclature the X in X.Y is the amount of "satellites", and the Y is the amount of LFE channels (Low Frequency Extension channels that go to the subwoofers). So in a regular stereo system you essentially have 2.0, in a "regular and common" surround 5.1 you have 5 satellites (3 front 2 surround) and one subwoofer.....

So here's the thing:

Whenever we engineers mix for people we have to consider the various situations people will listen in. So for every film you'll have a stereo mix, and for a large amount you'll have a 5.1 too. Sometimes the 5.1 is automatically generated using the stereo mix, sometimes it's the opposite.

Now imagine the cost of throwing in more layouts. Because as soon as you want a reliable predictable result as an engineer (and director/producer) you have to produce for exactly those formats. Very costly. And now we're up to 7.1 on several movies/theaters, particularly for 3D films... So now you have 7.1, 5.1 and stereo.

And then the last thing is that we (engineers etc) are already struggling with the artistic decisions made, and in conjunction to that the fact that not even movie theaters do things correctly many times despite standards existing... and you surely understand that some are reluctant to add more options for things to "go wrong" when consumers place their speakers. You already put your surrounds front and below where they're not meant to be, so that's sort of a "waste of money" to the producers. Add in people buying 10.2 systems and placing twice as many speakers wrong is probably low on the to-do list I think....

Ya I know, but I still think there would be a market for 5.1 and 7.1 top and bottom surround. If people were buying ambient lighting, like amBX, for PC gaming, I would have though there would be a market for it. I think of all the crap we have on the market today and would have thought someone would have tried manufacturing something like this for smaller spaces. Most people use high quality headphones for surround sound and sometimes you're able to distinguish rear sound with them. The idea behind top and bottom sound is more for a 3D effect. To be able to feel a games avatar walking or running from bottom part of your desk, hearing swords clash above your head, and hearing thunder above your head. Throw on some 3D glasses and amBX lighting and have something really cool IMO.

[SexyMF]

Digital signal processing is capable of giving you x.y surround sound via headphones. You only have two ears. Two speakers either side of you can 'fool' you as well.

Sadly the sound from most computer games at the moment is very poor. Not in terms of actual sound samples, but the positional engine.

Software can correct (within reason) for speaker placement.

[MattiasNYC]

It really depends on your speaker setup. I've collected my share of computer speakers over the years from garage sales. I'm sure there are a large amount of gamers out there that have done the same. Usually when it comes to buying something for your computer, speakers usually always get trumped by something else first. I see a lot of people have multiple 2.1 speakers configured for 5.1 and 7.1. Example, I have 2.1 front speakers, 2.0 center & sub speakers (2 speakers without sub), 2.0 side speakers, and 2.1 rear speakers. When I have one sub up high and one down below, I can feel where the vibration is combing from during explosions or whatever. I use to have one on the left and one on the right on the floor, I really didn't help distinguish where the sound was coming from.

It's a bit hard for me to figure out exactly what you're doing, but intuitively it sounds as if you're creating problems the way you're setting up your speakers. Granted, if it sounds better to you then it IS better for you. It's all about your experience. But there's a reason for why there are standards on how to place different speaker configurations. One think you could consider if you are really into this is what else you have in your room that is currently affecting the sound. There are a lot of things that affect how your systems sound in your room besides the speakers, from windows to bookshelves to leather couches.....

Ya I know, but I still think there would be a market for 5.1 and 7.1 top and bottom surround. If people were buying ambient lighting, like amBX, for PC gaming, I would have though there would be a market for it. I think of all the crap we have on the market today and would have thought someone would have tried manufacturing something like this for smaller spaces. Most people use high quality headphones for surround sound and sometimes you're able to distinguish rear sound with them. The idea behind top and bottom sound is more for a 3D effect. To be able to feel a games avatar walking or running from bottom part of your desk, hearing swords clash above your head, and hearing thunder above your head. Throw on some 3D glasses and amBX lighting and have something really cool IMO.

I totally get what you're saying. I agree that more speakers spread out in the room will allow for better pinpointing of sources in the sound field. It's just my hunch though that the market isn't as big as you think it is. Again, the problem is the investment in both the technology; from writing the audio engine (gaming) or hard-wiring etc for film/music, to R&D of speaker systems; and the investment in the individual titles and films, which means the creative team that does the audio......

I'm just not sure we'll see it anytime soon....

[Nanometer]

While the x.2 is a complete waste.... Since human cannot locate low frequency tones, there is no point in multiple subwoofers.

Two subwoofers have nothing to do with being able to locate the sound.. The actual purpose of multiple subs is to even the room response at multiple position as well as for a singular position. Professional theaters use several subs as well, and I can assure to you that they did not do it just because, they did it for getting the proper sound. In a nice home theater, or professional theater it is very common to find 2 subwoofers, and sometimes 4 depending on the requirements and on the types of speakers being used. Do a simple google and you will find the benefits of multiple subwoofers. There are many reputable sites that have nice comparisons of the benefits of multiple speaker arrays.

Klipsch and JBL which are used almost exclusively in major retail theater companies like MANN, AMC, Muvico, etc, all use a 2 or 4 subwoofer arrays in their large theaters.

There is 2.0 sound systems all the way to 12.2 and getting processors to control this kind of sound arrays gets exponentially expensive as well. for 300 dollars you can barely get a decent 5.1 processor/receiver. Theater equipment gets expensive when you want expensive features like 10.2 surround!

I gotta say though, if your full range speakers are that good, and plenty are, the need for normal sub starts to dwindle. But nothing can replace the power of a good sub that can hit in the 30-16 hz range. Towers that reach that low are few and far between, and quite often obscenely expensive. Check out Definitive's flagship Bipolar speakers to get an idea of what "crazy" full range speakers can do.

[Bad213Boy]

I work with mixing for non-games (radio, film, tv etc) and there are a couple of things I could add maybe.

In terms of nomenclature the X in X.Y is the amount of "satellites", and the Y is the amount of LFE channels (Low Frequency Extension channels that go to the subwoofers). So in a regular stereo system you essentially have 2.0, in a "regular and common" surround 5.1 you have 5 satellites (3 front 2 surround) and one subwoofer.....

So here's the thing:

Whenever we engineers mix for people we have to consider the various situations people will listen in. So for every film you'll have a stereo mix, and for a large amount you'll have a 5.1 too. Sometimes the 5.1 is automatically generated using the stereo mix, sometimes it's the opposite.

Now imagine the cost of throwing in more layouts. Because as soon as you want a reliable predictable result as an engineer (and director/producer) you have to produce for exactly those formats. Very costly. And now we're up to 7.1 on several movies/theaters, particularly for 3D films... So now you have 7.1, 5.1 and stereo.

And then the last thing is that we (engineers etc) are already struggling with the artistic decisions made, and in conjunction to that the fact that not even movie theaters do things correctly many times despite standards existing... and you surely understand that some are reluctant to add more options for things to "go wrong" when consumers place their speakers. You already put your surrounds front and below where they're not meant to be, so that's sort of a "waste of money" to the producers. Add in people buying 10.2 systems and placing twice as many speakers wrong is probably low on the to-do list I think....

This is what I have. I have two of these hooked up:
Philips amBX Premium Kit

Uses same technology as these:
Mad Catz Cyborg amBX Gaming Lights

Each kit has small 2 fans to simulate movement, 2 speakers with ambient lighting on them (lights change with the games mood. If lightning, your room lights up like a freaking thunder storm. Really cool stuff), a sub-woofer, and a keyboard rumble pad. They don't support the fans or rumble pack anymore. Why they can't come up with simple drivers to emulate game controllers rumble effect is another store. Having 2 kits is really awesome when gaming. Doesn't interfere with NVIDIA's 3D Vision glasses.

Anyhow, I use one set for my front speakers, and the other for my rear. I have them layered, bottom for my rears, way up high for my fronts. The sub-woofers are positioned exactly the same. One sits on a shelf above my desk, the other right below on the floor. The rest of my speakers are basically tweeters for my 7.1 setup. I can adjust their sound level easily with my ASUS HDAV Deluxe audio card. Ya ideally you want all your speakers from the same brand and you want your center channel with sub-woofer, but that's just not how I have it. I paid like $400 for the both for both kits. I'm gonna use them regardless of how the traditional setup is or not. Besides, these speakers are bad a@@. I barely go above 10 on Windows 7 volume level. But I would imagine having $200 audio card helps in that department.

Speakers are connected using a standard VGA plug to the amBX lighting base. Simple VGA extensions work so speaker placement isn't a problem. The sub-woofer needs to be connected to the amBX lighting base light like everything else first, then you can connect to the audio card from the base. So I can't just connect my sub-woofer to the audio card's center/sub jack. Which is why I have 2.1 on my fronts, and 2.1 on my rears. The rest of my speakers sets are all 2.0. The way I have it setup is the most efficient way I can with what I have, besides placing the rear speakers right behind. But that's not gonna work in my room. I need room to move and I can ill afford two 25ft high quality VGA cables right now. Plus I'd have to figure out the extension type for my sub-woofer, it looks like a PS/2 cord but it's not. I've tried looking. It'd be more trouble than it's worth.

amBX Speaker Specs:
2.1 system , 160 W music power , 2 x 40W speakers 80W subwoofer , Frequency 35 Hz ~ 20 kHz

There is 2.0 sound systems all the way to 12.2 and getting processors to control this kind of sound arrays gets exponentially expensive as well. for 300 dollars you can barely get a decent 5.1 processor/receiver. Theater equipment gets expensive when you want expensive features like 10.2 surround!

I gotta say though, if your full range speakers are that good, and plenty are, the need for normal sub starts to dwindle. But nothing can replace the power of a good sub that can hit in the 30-16 hz range. Towers that reach that low are few and far between, and quite often obscenely expensive. Check out Boston Acoustics flagship Bipolar speakers to get an idea of what "crazy" full range speakers can do.[/COLOR][/B]

Ya that's what I figured. I'd have to get some kind of receiver if I wanted this 10.2 stuff. I guess this is the future of audio then? How long before you think it might take to get in to consumers hands for around $300?

[Nanometer]

No time soon in the near future. For several reasons, but It might make more sense if you read an article about instead of me trying to explain the economics and viability of it . Majority of movies are in 5.1 sound, with a select few that have 6.1 or 7.1 surround sound. Anything other than that is an emulation to get the higher number of speakers. The best systems are 10s of thousands of dollars, and that is just for the processing unit. There is a very poor market for 7.1 + surround systems which is one reason why there is no foreseeable future for the consumer. Majority of people don't want 7, 9 or 10 speakers in their living room. In addition from a professional theater point of view, huge arrays such as 10.2 and 12.2 don't much of anything to the experience for one simple reason; There are no movies or recordings made in native 10.2/12.2 surround sound, and the few that do exist were custom made specifically for the bragging rights to give the wow factor.

The only places you will find 9.X surround sound(or similar array) realistically is in a movie theater. With so many people in one room it's pretty much the only way you can give 90% of all the people in the room the same surround sound effect. And even then, the original recording was still done in 5.1 surround sound. I would be curious to know however, that for any movies if they could be re-engineered or tailored to a big movie theater?

Anyways, I went off topic, my bad. The answer is no, it is highly unlikely we will ever see 9.2 surround sound receivers or processors cost 300 dollars.. at least no time soon anyways.

[MattiasNYC]

The only places you will find 9.X surround sound(or similar array) realistically is in a movie theater. With so many people in one room it's pretty much the only way you can give 90% of all the people in the room the same surround sound effect. And even then, the original recording was still done in 5.1 surround sound. I would be curious to know however, that for any movies if they could be re-engineered or tailored to a big movie theater?

By "original recording" you mean the actual "re-recording" done on the mix stage, right? The "mix" of the film, not the actual recording of location sound etc...?

I'm betting that with at least 7.1 we'll be able to in the future find processes to "extract" location in a virtual 3D environment and then "reroute" it to a different setup, such as 12.x or whatever. I don't think 5.1 is sufficient really, but 7.1 could be. Would be interesting.

Anyways, I went off topic, my bad. The answer is no, it is highly unlikely we will ever see 9.2 surround sound receivers or processors cost 300 dollars.. at least no time soon anyways.[/B]

I think we'll get there, it's just a matter of time. But I'm sure it'll take a while....

[Nanometer]

By "original recording" you mean the actual "re-recording" done on the mix stage, right? The "mix" of the film, not the actual recording of location sound etc...?

I'm betting that with at least 7.1 we'll be able to in the future find processes to "extract" location in a virtual 3D environment and then "reroute" it to a different setup, such as 12.x or whatever. I don't think 5.1 is sufficient really, but 7.1 could be. Would be interesting.

That is correct, by original recording I mean the recording they do when the "sound people" are engineering the sound track in a studio room. There are many many microphones on a movie set, and definitely not organized like a 5.1 theater. The effects we get later are of course extracted by the means of a studio for audio processing. The way 9.2 surround sound is created is an emulation of 5.1. They basically use a complex series of algorithms to make 9.2 sound from 5.1 sound. Of course, the more speakers the original recording creates, for instance, if they used 7.1 in the studio, it would make emulating those tracks to 9.2 and higher much easier and much more believable as a surround sound experience.

The sad fact, or maybe not, is that most recordings are done in 5.1. I wouldn't mind seeing higher arrays so we could create a more in depth experience such as Front High and Rear High speakers, which give the incredible effect of making an object sound as if it were coming from above.

The reason most people say that they don't see the point in 9.2 surround systems is because they don't believe it adds to the experience. And they are kind of are right. With so little content developed for that kind of sound system, we are left using are processors and receivers to translate a 5.1/7.1 track to much higher levels of surround sound. Basically, it just means that no mater how good their system is it will never be perfectly done and it is as simple as that. It's just like Shakespeare being performed in Mandarin. Sure you will receive and understand the story, but suddenly the musical and beautiful quality that was once there is now gone.

[MattiasNYC]

That is correct, by original recording I mean the recording they do when the "sound people" are engineering the sound track in a studio room. There are many many microphones on a movie set, and definitely not organized like a 5.1 theater. The effects we get later are of course extracted by the means of a studio for audio processing. The way 9.2 surround sound is created is an emulation of 5.1. They basically use a complex series of algorithms to make 9.2 sound from 5.1 sound. Of course, the more speakers the original recording creates, for instance, if they used 7.1 in the studio, it would make emulating those tracks to 9.2 and higher much easier and much more believable as a surround sound experience.

I still recommend you call it either "re-recording" or "mixing" rather than "recording". You'll likely confuse people by using the term that way.

Ultimately the biggest problem is time/money at the mix stage. The only way to know if the film sounds corretly for any given format is to mix it for and listen to that setup. Extremely expensive.

The sad fact, or maybe not, is that most recordings are done in 5.1. I wouldn't mind seeing higher arrays so we could create a more in depth experience such as Front High and Rear High speakers, which give the incredible effect of making an object sound as if it were coming from above.

Well, I'm fairly certain the industry will move from mixing to 5.1 to 7.1 instead. I think a higher channel count basic re-recording will be the default in the future with a down-mix to other formats.

As for height I sort of agree. But I think instead of a high rear a ceiling speaker might be an alternative. That way any sound could be either positioned solely in that speaker (array) or between it and any of the surrounds....

[MattiasNYC]

Unbelievable!!!

After having had this conversation I thought to myself: Why not try to patent a cinema/film process where sound is located using meta-data in files, and then have an engine as a standard and let that engine portion out the individual sounds/channels to whatever setup is available... This was yesterday I thought this....

Well here it is, JUST announced: Dolby Atmos!...

LoL....

[Donnie27]

Just like everything else, some sound folks are better than others. Sound in movies used to mean something and money was put into it. Then the awards started going to those who kissed the most butt and campaigned the hardest. I think around the time of Indepenance day loosing out to the English Patient made many throw up their hands and say screw it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/awards
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116209/awards
One of the biggest rip offs of all time.

Sub placement. Mine is near the corner on the right side. Placed in the right position it can do a good delay and give great inter polation effects.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ail&FORM=VIRE1

The Bass playing Robot is on the left. Everyone who's heard it at my place thinks there is a secrete Sub on the left since that's where the Bass Seems to be coming from. The surprise and amazed look on their faces when I switch off the Sub is "Holy Crap", how'd you do that? Crossover set at 70Hz, there isn't a lot of bass coming out of that speaker, boom-a bam-boom boom seems to be coming from the left side of the room. (That's 70Hz on the Receiver and Computer.)

[MattiasNYC]

Just like everything else, some sound folks are better than others. Sound in movies used to mean something and money was put into it. Then the awards started going to those who kissed the most butt and campaigned the hardest. I think around the time of Indepenance day loosing out to the English Patient made many throw up their hands and say screw it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/awards
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116209/awards
One of the biggest rip offs of all time.

Uh, what?

First of all there are two categories:

"Best Achievement in Sound Mixing", previously "Best Sound" and
"Best Achievement in Sound Editing", previously "Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing"

The fact that it wasn't nominated in both categories despite being a sci-fi flick - a sound designers dream gig - is interesting to say the least.

Secondly, you could easily compare this to music by posing a question:

Which genre should automatically yield higher praise for the mixing engineer?

If the answer is "none", then you're on the right track. Obviously a straight up recording of a solo violin in a church requires very little "mixing" if any at all, but the point is that one can't simply argue that mixing a full orchestra is harder than mixing SoundGarden or Britney Spears. It simply depends.

So, thirdly, since it actually does depend, I'd argue that perhaps the English Patient was simply better mixed than ID4. There are a ton of sounds that go into a film and its mix, and the more balanced a film is the harder it is to hide deficiencies. In a film like ID4 you can actually get away with a lot because you have a bunch of things blowing up and Will Smith. There's dialog, ADR, Foley, Backgrounds, Ambient Sound Design, Specific Sound Design, Music etc.... That's not to say I didn't like the sound (though I loathed the film), just that it's not a clear cut case of Sci-Fi blockbuster must be better than a drama (for example).

So my guess is that ID4 simply wasn't that great in terms of sound design and simply good enough for a nomination for sound mixing, which explains why it didn't win.

Sub placement. Mine is near the corner on the right side. Placed in the right position it can do a good delay and give great inter polation effects.

Of course whatever makes you like the sound of your system is what's best for you. The sub shouldn't contribute a "delay" though. If it does the setup is incorrect.

The Bass playing Robot is on the left. Everyone who's heard it at my place thinks there is a secrete Sub on the left since that's where the Bass Seems to be coming from. The surprise and amazed look on their faces when I switch off the Sub is "Holy Crap", how'd you do that? Crossover set at 70Hz, there isn't a lot of bass coming out of that speaker, boom-a bam-boom boom seems to be coming from the left side of the room. (That's 70Hz on the Receiver and Computer.)

Well, localization of sound is found in higher frequencies so it's not strange at all that they hear the bass from the left, as that information is found above the xo frequency.

[M.Beier]

Two subwoofers have nothing to do with being able to locate the sound.. The actual purpose of multiple subs is to even the room response at multiple position as well as for a singular position. Professional theaters use several subs as well, and I can assure to you that they did not do it just because, they did it for getting the proper sound. In a nice home theater, or professional theater it is very common to find 2 subwoofers, and sometimes 4 depending on the requirements and on the types of speakers being used. Do a simple google and you will find the benefits of multiple subwoofers. There are many reputable sites that have nice comparisons of the benefits of multiple speaker arrays.

Klipsch and JBL which are used almost exclusively in major retail theater companies like MANN, AMC, Muvico, etc, all use a 2 or 4 subwoofer arrays in their large theaters.

There is 2.0 sound systems all the way to 12.2 and getting processors to control this kind of sound arrays gets exponentially expensive as well. for 300 dollars you can barely get a decent 5.1 processor/receiver. Theater equipment gets expensive when you want expensive features like 10.2 surround!

I gotta say though, if your full range speakers are that good, and plenty are, the need for normal sub starts to dwindle. But nothing can replace the power of a good sub that can hit in the 30-16 hz range. Towers that reach that low are few and far between, and quite often obscenely expensive. Check out Definitive's flagship Bipolar speakers to get an idea of what "crazy" full range speakers can do.

30-160Hz or 16-30Hz range?

Anyhow, using a 10" with crossover at 520Hz, to handle in each speaker, not considering a woofer... But, I still dont get the purpose of multiple woofers

[Nanometer]

30-160Hz or 16-30Hz range?

Anyhow, using a 10" with crossover at 520Hz, to handle in each speaker, not considering a woofer... But, I still dont get the purpose of multiple woofers

A good subwoofer is one that can extend below 30 Hz. Some Behemoths can extend to 16Hz. It isn't audible period. But you can hear the over tones, other vibrating items in the room, but most importantly you can feel the sound pressure waves hitting your body.

The deliberate purpose of multiple subwoofers is to even the room response. This is done to give the best sound effects to the majority of the people in the room. Because of how sound waves propagate in a room, you will get natural dips and peaks just based on where you are standing. You can effectively cancel most of the sound, or you can pick a stop that sounds so powerful and boom that it is painful, distracting, and effectively ruining the theater experience. This can be easily tested by playing a consistent tone in a room, preferable sub 200 Hz, and then walking around the room. Based on the design of the room you will hear vast differences in the sound pressure. Adding a second subwoofer can greatly improve this effect.

[PaganII]

But, I still dont get the purpose of multiple woofers

Read the Harman White Papers - http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...itePapers.aspx
Specifically the one on Subs, How many?
It takes 5000 subs to even out room modal variations. Since most rooms can't handle 50 subs a good compromise is 4 (or 2).

[MattiasNYC]

[B][COLOR="#000080"]A good subwoofer is one that can extend below 30 Hz. Some Behemoths can extend to 16Hz. It isn't audible period. But you can hear the over tones, other vibrating items in the room, but most importantly you can feel the sound pressure waves hitting your body.

Sorry to be nit-picking here, but if you can hear overtones then it's audible. Overtones in fact are part of the sound in question. It doesn't even make sense to talk about a subwoofer and its overtones, because it's "just one sound".

Also, it's not correct to call low frequencies "inaudible", it's more accurate to call them "undefinable". The meaning of which is that once the frequency is too low we can't identify which frequency it is. We can still hear it though. Unless of course the question becomes what the definition of "hear" is....

Other than that I agree with you I think...

[MattiasNYC]

Since most rooms can't handle 50 subs a good compromise is 4 (or 2).

Well, I think it depends on the situation. For many people there are bigger benefits to be had by spending the money that one would have spent on even a second sub on other components of the system. Larger satellites for example will make it easier to achieve a (lower) crossover point that makes the sub harder to localize which helps imaging.... or room treatment to even out the response curve in the midrange, something most people don't even worry about, but which arguably makes a much bigger qualitative difference than adding a sub.....

But having said that I understand what you're getting at though...