• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

5 point 1 or 5 dot 1

5 period 1...that's how I say it 😉

I guess technically, 5 decimal point 1 would be correct.
 
5.1 is Five point one. It is a decimal point not a dot. Dot is for a dot product in mathematics.

5.1 represents 5 full range channels with an additional channel that only contains roughly 1/10 of the full frequency spectrum. This channel is the Low Frequency Effects of LFE channel (3-120hz). This is different from the subwoofer output. The subwoofer output is technically derived from the other main channels and is a part of the 5.0 when the speakers are small. The subwoofer can also receive the LFE channel which will cause it to have a double duty - the low passed portion of the 5.0 in addition to the 0.1 channel. Many modern receivers sum these signals up automatically when you select your speakers as "small".

This is why the nomenclature "2.1" is almost entirely incorrect. Stereo almost never contains LFE information especially in the situations where the 2.1 term is used. Stereo is always 2.0 whether or not there is a subwoofer since the subwoofer is only taking information that was low passed from the main speakers. The subwoofer does not accept any additional channels of information.

 
Originally posted by: Tiamat
5.1 is Five point one. It is a decimal point not a dot. Dot is for a dot product in mathematics.

5.1 represents 5 full range channels with an additional channel that only contains roughly 1/10 of the full frequency spectrum. This channel is the Low Frequency Effects of LFE channel (3-120hz). This is different from the subwoofer output. The subwoofer output is technically derived from the other main channels and is a part of the 5.0 when the speakers are small. The subwoofer can also receive the LFE channel which will cause it to have a double duty - the low passed portion of the 5.0 in addition to the 0.1 channel. Many modern receivers sum these signals up automatically when you select your speakers as "small".

This is why the nomenclature "2.1" is almost entirely incorrect. Stereo almost never contains LFE information especially in the situations where the 2.1 term is used. Stereo is always 2.0 whether or not there is a subwoofer since the subwoofer is only taking information that was low passed from the main speakers. The subwoofer does not accept any additional channels of information.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 2.1 is incorrect. If you feed a receiver a 5.1 stream and you have the center and surrounds disabled then it will mix those together with the front left and right and keep the LFE. Therefore the resulting stream is 2(mixed).1.
 
One two three four five and SIX.

We never use left and right or front and back or sub in the field. Then again they had "digital ready" speakers in the 80's. Yet even today speakers have a hard time reproducing square waves. For those of you old enough to remember when data was stored on cassette - it was said that a good speaker could "transmit" to a microphone at 100 meters, 150 baud. :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: Tiamat
5.1 is Five point one. It is a decimal point not a dot. Dot is for a dot product in mathematics.

5.1 represents 5 full range channels with an additional channel that only contains roughly 1/10 of the full frequency spectrum. This channel is the Low Frequency Effects of LFE channel (3-120hz). This is different from the subwoofer output. The subwoofer output is technically derived from the other main channels and is a part of the 5.0 when the speakers are small. The subwoofer can also receive the LFE channel which will cause it to have a double duty - the low passed portion of the 5.0 in addition to the 0.1 channel. Many modern receivers sum these signals up automatically when you select your speakers as "small".

This is why the nomenclature "2.1" is almost entirely incorrect. Stereo almost never contains LFE information especially in the situations where the 2.1 term is used. Stereo is always 2.0 whether or not there is a subwoofer since the subwoofer is only taking information that was low passed from the main speakers. The subwoofer does not accept any additional channels of information.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 2.1 is incorrect. If you feed a receiver a 5.1 stream and you have the center and surrounds disabled then it will mix those together with the front left and right and keep the LFE. Therefore the resulting stream is 2(mixed).1.
Click to expand...

What you say is true, and that was one of the exceptions I was referring to when I said "almost entirely incorrect". However, the usage of 2.1 in the general market is mostly incorrect; computer speakers that do not have full range main speakers and the computer sends out a 2.0 signal to the subwoofer's amplifier, people considering a stereo setup (int. amp or separates, or otherwise) as 2.1 if they have a low-passed subwoofer, etc.

One major example of the contrary is multichannel material downmixed within the receiver as you just brought up. This, however, is in the minority in the grand scheme of things.
 
Originally posted by: Tiamat


What you say is true, and that was one of the exceptions I was referring to when I said "almost entirely incorrect". However, the usage of 2.1 in the general market is mostly incorrect; computer speakers that do not have full range main speakers and the computer sends out a 2.0 signal to the subwoofer's amplifier, people considering a stereo setup (int. amp or separates, or otherwise) as 2.1 if they have a low-passed subwoofer, etc.

One major example of the contrary is multichannel material downmixed within the receiver as you just brought up. This, however, is in the minority in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

The spec 2.1 should be abolished as it's nonsense! A final stereo downmix is just that - two channels. In a typical scenario ch1 and ch2 go through a management system and it's up to the engineer to decide based on the capabilities of the speakers for frequency dividers. You can HPF a speaker at 100Hz with a butterworth 24 filter and send the rest to a subwoofer amp. But the thing to remember is the source (say a CD) is just two channels. Most "stereo systems" will play it full range to a pair of speakers with passive crossovers, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: Tiamat


What you say is true, and that was one of the exceptions I was referring to when I said "almost entirely incorrect". However, the usage of 2.1 in the general market is mostly incorrect; computer speakers that do not have full range main speakers and the computer sends out a 2.0 signal to the subwoofer's amplifier, people considering a stereo setup (int. amp or separates, or otherwise) as 2.1 if they have a low-passed subwoofer, etc.

One major example of the contrary is multichannel material downmixed within the receiver as you just brought up. This, however, is in the minority in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

The spec 2.1 should be abolished as it's nonsense! A final stereo downmix is just that - two channels. In a typical scenario ch1 and ch2 go through a management system and it's up to the engineer to decide based on the capabilities of the speakers for frequency dividers. You can HPF a speaker at 100Hz with a butterworth 24 filter and send the rest to a subwoofer amp. But the thing to remember is the source (say a CD) is just two channels. Most "stereo systems" will play it full range to a pair of speakers with passive crossovers, etc.
Click to expand...
So, if I understand you correctly, if given a 5.1 stereo mix, 2 speakers, and a subwoofer, my receiver will downconvert the 6-channel mix to 2 channels, and _then_ make a decision about where to push the low-hz stuff using the crossover settings?
 
Originally posted by: erwos

So, if I understand you correctly, if given a 5.1 stereo mix, 2 speakers, and a subwoofer, my receiver will downconvert the 6-channel mix to 2 channels, and _then_ make a decision about where to push the low-hz stuff using the crossover settings?
Click to expand...

That only happens (in your receiver) if you're using PCM.

The content producer is what decides what material goes where in 5.1 including the LFE channel. Receiver settings such as speaker size determine the high pass filter rolloff (HPF) for each section.
 
Try telling someone it supports Dolby 3-2-1 and they'll be like "what's that?" but that's what my receiver says.. 3/2/1
 
Back in the old early PC days (think original IBM PC), everyone referred to the various DOS versions as 3 dot 3 (3.3).

Perhaps that is why he does it.
 
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Try telling someone it supports Dolby 3-2-1 and they'll be like "what's that?" but that's what my receiver says.. 3/2/1
Click to expand...

....blast off 🙂

(Must be a Sony)


I am one of those old enough to remember buying a cassette player that could handle the expensive metallic cassette tapes 🙂 I've still got a dual cassette 'boom box' in my garage for music (via radio) when I'm out there. -- the old school kind with a 'Bass Boost' button 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: erwos

So, if I understand you correctly, if given a 5.1 stereo mix, 2 speakers, and a subwoofer, my receiver will downconvert the 6-channel mix to 2 channels, and _then_ make a decision about where to push the low-hz stuff using the crossover settings?
Click to expand...

That only happens (in your receiver) if you're using PCM.

The content producer is what decides what material goes where in 5.1 including the LFE channel. Receiver settings such as speaker size determine the high pass filter rolloff (HPF) for each section.
Click to expand...

I don't see why, if using 6CH or more PCM, that the receiver would dump the LFE channel and combine it into a 2.0 signal like you describe. My understanding is it would be the same way as described before. The receiver would combine the channels it does not have a speaker assigned to it and then output a mixed combo to the front left and right and a direct unaltered LFE line(unless the front speakers are set to small in which case they will have the unaltered LFE+some main content).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top