Are EX and ES that much better? (1 Viewer)

[Jerome Grate]

I agree. If you have a satisfactory phantom rear center and no seating to the extreme off center an EX/ES
speaker configuration is not really necessary.

Before I ventured into EX/ES and I changed my speakers from Sony speakers to the Platinum Audios and the imaging incredible, especially when software created the phantom center. I do agree with the right speakers, the center channel (phantom) can be just as effective. In fact it really says a lot about your set up if your speakers can achieve and create a phantom channel through it's imaging.
------------------
If loving Home Theater is
wrong, I don't want to be
right!!!

 

[John-D]

A simple test would be the dog growl at the end of Monster's Inc. trailer in TS2.
It's all in the recording. 5.1 is more than enough to envelop you if you have good source material... sometimes i can get excellent imaging from just 2 channel on well recorded source material. Subtle surround effects are much better than In your face (or should it be in the BACK OF YOUR HEAD) sounds.
------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[David Judah]

I have heard both kinds of installations sound very good and very bad. Proper set-up is crucial in either case.
quote: The phantom in the back is used because the human ear can not hear as well behind as it can from the front and sides. This is a biological fact, not an opinion.[/quote]
The only problem with this biological "fact" is that it is greatly exaggerated and frequency dependant. Thanks to the wide frequency range found on DVDs, we will generally have no problem placing the sounds behind us.
You don't have to take my word for it or spend years studying evolutionary biology. Set-up your surrounds behind you and start fiddling with the channel levels and delay and hear how sensitive you are to the changes.
The reason a phantom rear center has been used in the past has far more to do with ease of set-up and use as dictated by the consumer electronics industry than a human biological weakness.
DJ
[Edited last by David Judah on August 08, 2001 at 10:24 AM]

 

[Lewis Besze]

Good points David!
------------------
"You Hungarians always disagree"

 

[Joseph Anlacan]

--------------------------------------------------------
So what you are clearly saying here is that you have noticed that you can localize the rear soundfield better without the center speaker by using a phantom center. Yet you still say that the center channel is worth it. Care to explain some more? I am confused.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that having a rear center speaker is different from what is achieved with a phantom rear center because they localize at different areas (at least, in my room & set-up). Unlike with front speakers where the center is between the FR and FL, this is not the case with the surround speakers. My L & R surround speakers are to my sides, not to my back. If I try to have a phantom rear center, it does not appear to come from the back. I believe the rear center channel is worth it because it provides a more enveloping sound.
I think the "worthiness" of an ex/es set-up really depends on personal taste and room acoustics.

 

[James Q Jenkins]

Sorry, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that having a rear center speaker is different from what is achieved with a phantom rear center because they localize at different areas (at least, in my room & set-up). Unlike with front speakers where the center is between the FR and FL, this is not the case with the surround speakers. My L & R surround speakers are to my sides, not to my back. If I try to have a phantom rear center, it does not appear to come from the back. I believe the rear center channel is worth it because it provides a more enveloping sound.

Aaaahhhh!! That explains it!!! However, in Wendy Carlos' very detailed and well researched paper (wish I still had the URL) she demonstrated that having the rears more to the sides, and not as far behind, the listener is the ideal setup for 5.1 audio. I agree a phantom center that's in the center of your head like headphones can get distracting and EX/ES is a solution for this problem..
------------------
-JQJ

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I have a "homebrew" 6.1 setup with a Sony TA-E9000ES up front, and then a Shure HTS-5300 Dolby Pro Logic processor to extract the center rear channel.
The Shure is kind of interesting in that for genuine THX EX/DTS-ES material, straight DPL (actually, Acra Vector) processing in the back sounds the best.
The Shure also has a 5 channel stereo mode- but I'm only using the front 3 channels (as the back 3 channels!)- which works really well on straight DD/DTS discs.
For a lot of the newer 6.1 receivers and processors, I don't know if they give you an option of what kind of processing to use on the back 3 channels. In other words, using straight DPL processing can, and usually does make straight DD/DTS discs sound worse, because of collapsing the soundstage from the L + R rears into the rear center.
You know what actually would be cool? To use DPL II to extract the rear center. Would, I think, maintain a lot of the soundstage in the L + R rears that goes away with std DPL. But you can't buy stand-alone DPL II processors (as far as I know) like when DPL processors 1st came out in the late 80's, early 90's.
After having enjoyed 6.1 this way for a few months, I know I couldn't go back.
------------------

 

[Rob Roth]

Here is the Wendy carlos link that is discussed above- note that it is a link to Part III of her lengthy exposition: http://www.wendycarlos.com/surround/surround3.html#top
Personally, I use all direct radiators including two rear surrounds. These latter are 14 feet from listening position and fill a gap that the side surrounds (8 feet behind) did not. My experience is that 5.1 material is significantly enhanced- but that may be a function of the relatively large space I use.