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....

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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....

[STEvil]

Ah, more people subscribing to the "cant hear below 30hz-ish" myth. There's no doubt that the perception changes to one of feeling when tones of 30hz and under are used with any kind of authoritative ouput, but to say you cannot "hear" below a certain frequency is just as bad as the people who subscribe to the 30fps/60fps myth.

The real issue though is that so many people down the lack of output capabilities of the "subsonic" range. Subsonics can be extremely important to creating ambient audio atmospheres.

An overtone coming from a speaker driver, is a quality of that specific driver. Even when you play a perfectly generated tone of say 16 Hz, you will get overtones. This does not mean you can magically hear the 16 Hz, it means that your subwoofer is very poor at generating that low frequency

No, it means your enclosure or room has a square (more correct terminology but lesser recognized would be refractory) wave issue... or you bought a really, really crappy sub..

Complementary frequencies of noticeable effect are a fact of enclosures and room layout most of the time. Coloration of the output waveform happens from any raw driver and is why some are known to be "brighter" than others. This is somewhat an attribute of harmonics of the soft parts of the driver but is more so the motor and soft part characteristics leading to cone control as resonant frequencies in the main diaphragm are mostly engineered out from decent drivers.

[MattiasNYC]

Ah, more people subscribing to the "cant hear below 30hz-ish" myth.

I think he was making a different point though and he was right in what that was.

No, it means your enclosure or room has a square (more correct terminology but lesser recognized would be refractory) wave issue... or you bought a really, really crappy sub..

Again, he is correct. I think he meant that if you create a perfect sine-wave at 16 Herz the playback system will generate overtones because the system is imperfect. This is correct and really doesn't have anything to do with square waves specifically. All playback systems have this problem and it's not limited to low frequencies in subwoofers. The only issue of importance is to what degree it needs to be dealt with before it becomes a problem.

Complementary frequencies of noticeable effect are a fact of enclosures and room layout most of the time. Coloration of the output waveform happens from any raw driver and is why some are known to be "brighter" than others. This is somewhat an attribute of harmonics of the soft parts of the driver but is more so the motor and soft part characteristics leading to cone control as resonant frequencies in the main diaphragm are mostly engineered out from decent drivers.

I believe the above is more or less what he was trying to get across.

[PaganII]

This is technically true. However, a good surround mixer will have to address the issue of systems where a sub does not exist. So there are several examples of mixes where there is plenty of low end in the main (and surround channels). This is an aesthetic choice that can be made by the mix-engineer.

This is why I don't buy music anymore. It is mixed to sound good on earbuds for the Apple zombies. And you consistently downplay the role of the sub.
The thread was started about Gaming surround sound which you admitted is not your specialty. Positional sound is very important to a gamer because it is a matter of life and death. Sounds that emanate from above or below the gamer would be very important for a gamer especially when in a dark building or outside in the night.
It would be great if someone with your education could figure out a way to use the rear speakers of a 7.1 rig to be used as top and bottom positional speakers after relocating them of course. You would need to brush up on Gaming sound mixing though.

Edit: Up until the Great HDMI Scam gamers used 5.1 or 7.1 analog sound cards with receivers that had analog direct inputs for each channel (I still do) but is getting harder to find an AVR with that feature now. There would be no special software or hardware to create, just coded into the game with a check box in the audio portion of in-game options for 7.1 T&B. Not much marketability in this nowdays but as a gamer I like it. Probably more of a project for a Game Modder or other "out of the box" thinker.

[MattiasNYC]

This is technically true. However, a good surround mixer will have to address the issue of systems where a sub does not exist. So there are several examples of mixes where there is plenty of low end in the main (and surround channels). This is an aesthetic choice that can be made by the mix-engineer.

This is why I don't buy music anymore. It is mixed to sound good on earbuds for the Apple zombies.

Yeah, sad but true. But don't blame the engineers, blame people for being cheap. People simply don't care about great sounding music. Speaking of music by the way, it wasn't what I was speaking of at the time I said the above. I was thinking mainly of film etc.

And you consistently downplay the role of the sub.
The thread was started about Gaming surround sound which you admitted is not your specialty.

Let me just point out here then that in your last post you told me that I don't understand "LFE". Now you're talking about me downplaying the role of the subwoofer. The subwoofer and the LFE are two different things.

Positional sound is very important to a gamer because it is a matter of life and death. Sounds that emanate from above or below the gamer would be very important for a gamer especially when in a dark building or outside in the night.
It would be great if someone with your education could figure out a way to use the rear speakers of a 7.1 rig to be used as top and bottom positional speakers after relocating them of course. You would need to brush up on Gaming sound mixing though.

There's no magic to it really. The only thing is to make the decision on where to relocate the speakers. But again, consider the following:

1) a 7.1 specification already exists. A gamer that buys a 7.1 system and sets it up appropriately will hear any game mixed for such a 7.1 system correctly AND will likewise hear any other material mixed for 7.1, i.e film for example. If you now create a new setup, using existing speakers but relocating them you are dividing the market further. Instead of the mix now working for everyone with a 7.1 system set up conventionally you have a mix that works for a subset. Do you really think it's worth the expense to develop that?

2) The op already sets up his system in a non-standard way. Add more setups like the one you are talking about and there are bound to be even more non-standard deviations (or errors) of setups. The reason I mentioned mixing for the "lowest common denominator" is because from a business standpoint you want to hit the sweet spot where most people can buy the product.

3) I would argue that it's just as important to hear sounds from behind you as it is above/below. But of course some will have a different opinion about that.

4) If positional sound is very important then localization is extremely important. The subwoofer does little to help position sound around your head horizontally. It's mostly higher frequencies that help you with that. So again; if this is important then I argue that it's better to spend money on treating your room to get better localization than it is to buy a second subwoofer.

[Nanometer]

Well said, I agree!

Btw, no music is designed with a subwoofer channel. It is full range only, mono, stereo, quadraphonic. Us poor people use subwoofers because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to get a crappy subwoofer than it is to get a full range studio monitor.

[Nanometer]

This is technically true. However, a good surround mixer will have to address the issue of systems where a sub does not exist. So there are several examples of mixes where there is plenty of low end in the main (and surround channels). This is an aesthetic choice that can be made by the mix-engineer.

This is why I don't buy music anymore. It is mixed to sound good on earbuds for the Apple zombies. And you consistently downplay the role of the sub.
The thread was started about Gaming surround sound which you admitted is not your specialty. Positional sound is very important to a gamer because it is a matter of life and death. Sounds that emanate from above or below the gamer would be very important for a gamer especially when in a dark building or outside in the night.
It would be great if someone with your education could figure out a way to use the rear speakers of a 7.1 rig to be used as top and bottom positional speakers after relocating them of course. You would need to brush up on Gaming sound mixing though.

Edit: Up until the Great HDMI Scam gamers used 5.1 or 7.1 analog sound cards with receivers that had analog direct inputs for each channel (I still do) but is getting harder to find an AVR with that feature now. There would be no special software or hardware to create, just coded into the game with a check box in the audio portion of in-game options for 7.1 T&B. Not much marketability in this nowdays but as a gamer I like it. Probably more of a project for a Game Modder or other "out of the box" thinker.

First, there is no re organization of the sound if you do not have a subwoofer. Should you not have a subwoofer, then you will either set a vacant crossover(without a sub), or run your speakers on full range. There is no sending of the LFE to your front speakers because it just doesn't make sense to. Neither full range speakers nor towers can be used as a subwoofer channel in addition to being used a speaker channel. And if you could it would sound god awful.

No professional studio uses headphones as their primary choice of listening to a sound track especially when it comes down to final edits, and again, a music studio does not have a "subwoofer."

Sound above and below a gamer would be very useful, but as of now, I know of no system, software, or game that currently utilizes that functionality. It is possible with the current hardware to turn 7.1 surround sound into 5.1 with an above and below speaker. You just have to find someone to Re-encode every game you would like this functionality. I would imagine that unless you find a very experienced programmer, this would be excruciatingly difficult. For now however, there are alternatives, such as Front High Right and Front High Left which are often referred to as "presence speakers". There are Rear High speakers as well which are there for a similar effect, however there is no "under" channel speaker to simulate something on the ground. And you would have to imagine that this would be difficult. Imagine having a speaker just sitting on the floor, not exactly the mot convenient thing in the world. Most importantly, in order to get all of these channels you would need 11.2 surround sound or higher, it just adds up unfortunately. What makes things worse is that you would need a complete redesign of the HDMI capability because it is currently limited to 8 independent channels which is essentially 7.1. 12.2 is an upmix which is created using lower speaker channels such as 5.1 and 7.1 surround sound, so that means you would need a complete redesign of your external receiver/processor. Maybe some day we will get there, but without the consumer demand and without the hardware capability, we are not even slightly close to getting there. So this leads us back to using just 7.1 to make a 5.1 surround sound with an above speaker mounted somewhere floating in your room, and a speaker for people to trip over somewhere on the floor. But still, we will need that very experienced programmer to take flight.

Nobody has this because its quite simple, most people don't care, want, or need it. I suspect that this may be because, if a company cannot benefit from having an extensive feature such as this, then I fear they will not do it. I can understand the frustration with the given capability, but this wouldn't be the first time that programming companies haven't listened to the wants of only select few of their vast gamer following.

The reason you don't see receiver with 5.1 analog inputs is because 5.1 analog sucks from a soundcard. And why would you be using a receiver anyways? You can use your preouts in your sound card attached to an external amp anyways... so really your complaint of having HDMI only is sort of unjust. You are using the receiver for the wrong thing with the wrong expectations. Your sound card serves as the decoder, but if you are using the analog outputs then there is NOTHING to encode. Analog means exactly that, it is analog. Analog is the exact signal source that you can hear if you hook up your headphones such as your two channel green headphone jack. HDMI is much better because it is digital. The majority of sound card DACS, including motherboards, are complete garbage anyways, which is why most people who are concerned with quality have either moved on to external DACS or to digital interlinks such as hdmi.