is surround sound a gimmick?

[zerocool84]

Maybe...If you ever get out to Los Angeles head out the the arclight. You will hear sound as it was meant to be. During avatar I was blinking during the explosions and felt air hit my face hahahaha Thats fucking sick.

Yea the Arclight is awesome but I don't like driving that far for a movie when there's many 10min from me.

 

[Modelworks]

Depends on the movie. Some movies have sound mastered by engineers that know how to get the best out of surround. Remember that things like Dobly, DTS, are just labels for the format of the sound and do not hold the studio to any requirement for how good the sound experience is for the listener. If an engineer decides to mix the sound of rain through the rear channels at twice the volume of the center channel dialog then it doesn't matter what format the sound is in because viewers will still be overwhelmed by the background sound.

The evolution of surround sound is heading towards using only two speakers. Now that DSP are getting faster and how we hear is better understood we are learning how to re-create surround environments using just two speakers. SRS Labs is a big player in that market.

 

[JSt0rm]

The evolution of surround sound is heading towards using only two speakers. Now that DSP are getting faster and how we hear is better understood we are learning how to re-create surround environments using just two speakers. SRS Labs is a big player in that market.

Yeah thats stuff is great in a wow amazing kinda way but you still want to push lots of air sometimes and it doesn't allow it. Dolby just released 7.1 format. Yes we have been down that road before but just doing a software update in most theaters will get it installed. Those rows of jbl surrounds you see are all pushing the same signal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/05/22/bloomberg1376-L2SL460YHQ0X-1.DTL

So now we really have 2 7.1 formats the dolby one

L R C LFE LS RS LB RB

SDDS format...

L LC C RC R LFE LS RS

Both offer advantages over traditional 5.1.

But we might also push into 11.1 surround and I would want that to be something like


L LC C RC R LFE LS RS BL BR TOP <--- z-plane sound

 

[Modelworks]

But we might also push into 11.1 surround and I would want that to be something like


L LC C RC R LFE LS RS BL BR TOP <--- z-plane sound

Or 1 speaker switching channels on a ceiling fan spinning really really fast

 

[JSt0rm]

Or 1 speaker switching channels on a ceiling fan spinning really really fast

then we would get doppler. That would be cool as hell for the overhead helicopter shots though :twisted:

 

[ericlp]

sorry but there is NO way a 2 channel speaker system is gonna even come close to a 5 full range channels.

It's just not going to happen. SRS Labs has come a long way. Maybe in another few years they can make a speaker bar that will sound better then 5.1 then everyone can just have a speaker bar in front that can produce the sound stage.

Tho, this might work well for movies. DTS music on full range is a different story.

 

[JSt0rm]

when you start to play with phase you can do some amazing shit

 

[darkswordsman17]

sorry but there is NO way a 2 channel speaker system is gonna even come close to a 5 full range channels.

It's just not going to happen. SRS Labs has come a long way. Maybe in another few years they can make a speaker bar that will sound better then 5.1 then everyone can just have a speaker bar in front that can produce the sound stage.

Tho, this might work well for movies. DTS music on full range is a different story.

Check out binaural recordings and see why that's just plain wrong.

Not only that, but surround is not setup does not put equal emphasis on all channels (nor should it). Well it should for say gaming, but movies obviously don't and shouldn't.

Personally, a lot of surround effects actually ruin the immersion for me as its sorta breaking the 4th wall in a way. That and if you've heard speakers that excel at imaging they can put surround to shame. Plenty of times it sounds downright unnatural to go from hearing most from the front, and then hear little effects through the side/rear speakers.

In fact, instead of pushing a surround format, they should have pushed for certain quality standard of the speakers used. Imagine a theater where you line the walls with say magneplanars, such that you've got 2 channels, and then just place enough quality subs so that you get the needed output and frequency reach for the room size. That would have required no more effort in recording/mixing than the surround formats have, while offering plenty of advantages (namely playback would be better on say headphones, and consumers could then focus less on number of speakers and just put more money into higher quality speakers, and then if they want they could just matrix it so that they can add more speakers that play the same thing). It would also lower the needed bandwidth so then they could focus on pushing optimum quality across the board.

 

[0roo0roo]

sometime local theaters are just shitty
I refuse to go to the one here, so I drive 45 mins to one

yea the dome shaped theaters that are far rarer here are so much better sounding than the regular ones.

 

[JSt0rm]

In fact, instead of pushing a surround format, they should have pushed for certain quality standard of the speakers used. Imagine a theater where you line the walls with say magneplanars, such that you've got 2 channels, and then just place enough quality subs so that you get the needed output and frequency reach for the room size. That would have required no more effort in recording/mixing than the surround formats have, while offering plenty of advantages (namely playback would be better on say headphones, and consumers could then focus less on number of speakers and just put more money into higher quality speakers, and then if they want they could just matrix it so that they can add more speakers that play the same thing). It would also lower the needed bandwidth so then they could focus on pushing optimum quality across the board.

When mixing the more speakers you use the more intelligible things are as each speaker is given the ability to reproduce certain sounds. You can also push a lot of air when needed for fast attack sounds like under 1 second explosion attacks diverged to the front 3 speakers with a push of air that then rushes across to the rears and pebbles dirt moving around in everything around you. Sound needs to follow the perspective of the picture. The 4th wall will be broken if its not.

 

[Modelworks]

sorry but there is NO way a 2 channel speaker system is gonna even come close to a 5 full range channels.

SRS labs has already done it. If you tour their labs they have a room where only 2 channels are used to produce sound that rivals any of the multichannel setups. The limitation is that it requires a room similar to a sound studio that controls reflected sounds and the listener has to sit in a very limited area. It just isn't practical for theaters and home use, not yet anyway.

Humans only have two ears so the goal to reproduce sounds with just the right timing and frequency to reach the ears to simulate a real world environment is possible.

 

[Modelworks]

then we would get doppler. That would be cool as hell for the overhead helicopter shots though :twisted:

Your thinking way too low in rpm. Something around 10K rpm with one speaker timed just right would avoid a doppler effect.

 

[JSt0rm]

Your thinking way too low in rpm. Something around 10K rpm with one speaker timed just right would avoid a doppler effect.

your right

10k rpm

 

[darkswordsman17]

When mixing the more speakers you use the more intelligible things are as each speaker is given the ability to reproduce certain sounds. You can also push a lot of air when needed for fast attack sounds like under 1 second explosion attacks diverged to the front 3 speakers with a push of air that then rushes across to the rears and pebbles dirt moving around in everything around you. Sound needs to follow the perspective of the picture. The 4th wall will be broken if its not.

A technically capable speaker will have no problem accomplishing this, and you won't have the break in sound as it moves to the various speakers. Less channels makes for a more coherent sound field and less work in figuring out which speaker and when to get it to do the sound. You also don't have to worry about matching as many speakers and properly integrating them into the setup. It would be even better in a theater as there would be less spots where some people are in optimal position and others that aren't. Less physical equipment to have to worry about, and not any more work in sound mixing and processing.

 

[Gibson486]

surround sound is definitely not a gimmick (when done right). I dont go to the theater often, but recently saw Iron Man 2 in IMAX (fake non-curved screen IMAX) at a AMC Lowes theater. I was blown away by the audio quality of this theater.

FYI....

Speakers are IMAX are Bose :sneaky:

 

[JSt0rm]

A technically capable speaker will have no problem accomplishing this, and you won't have the break in sound as it moves to the various speakers. Less channels makes for a more coherent sound field and less work in figuring out which speaker and when to get it to do the sound. You also don't have to worry about matching as many speakers and properly integrating them into the setup. It would be even better in a theater as there would be less spots where some people are in optimal position and others that aren't. Less physical equipment to have to worry about, and not any more work in sound mixing and processing.

I appreciate your desire for high end speaker systems and I to share your excitement for them. It's just that we are getting to a place in the industry where we are creating an experience more then a film. It's more a roller coaster ride then anything. I think we are moving towards intelligent speaker systems that can tune themselves in a way. On the high end of this technology we have this...

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/en/optimization/products/optimizer-mc

on the lower end we have something like the jbl 4328p that self optimize altering a notch filter, amplitude and a simple eq. It does this by reading a sine wave sweep they produce and then "listen to" from a mic. I think these things will converge at some point and theaters will have some kind of Dolby automatic tuning thing that happens.

As for mixing sound in 2 channel it will be a different experience then 5.1 or 7.1 or 11.1.. The reason is you have more room in the freq spectrum to place sounds when you have different speakers producing the sounds. Having multiple sounds at 1khz for instance would mask each other but coming through different speakers we can achieve a larger mix. Or at least this is the goal.

We are good at localizing sounds and while I agree amazing things can be done with psycho acoustics I am not sold on its ability to push massive air and have a wide sound field.

I'm not against this kind of technology. This company mixed one of their demos at my studio. Which reminds me I can get a beta version to work with now...

http://genaudioinc.com/technology.php

I've witnessed this and it is amazing. The thing is its compatible with a multichannel environment. And can be used as "that effect" for wows and also to do a "upmix".

Also you wont find a break in sound when panning is correct. The amplitude and pan laws are all figured out by the software to make it a seamless transition from one speaker to the next based on your automation of the pan.

FYI....

Speakers are IMAX are Bose :sneaky:

Bose professional isn't actually that bad. Surprising I know.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I appreciate your desire for high end speaker systems and I to share your excitement for them. It's just that we are getting to a place in the industry where we are creating an experience more then a film. It's more a roller coaster ride then anything. I think we are moving towards intelligent speaker systems that can tune themselves in a way. On the high end of this technology we have this...

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/en/optimization/products/optimizer-mc

on the lower end we have something like the jbl 4328p that self optimize altering a notch filter, amplitude and a simple eq. It does this by reading a sine wave sweep they produce and then "listen to" from a mic. I think these things will converge at some point and theaters will have some kind of Dolby automatic tuning thing that happens.

As for mixing sound in 2 channel it will be a different experience then 5.1 or 7.1 or 11.1.. The reason is you have more room in the freq spectrum to place sounds when you have different speakers producing the sounds. Having multiple sounds at 1khz for instance would mask each other but coming through different speakers we can achieve a larger mix. Or at least this is the goal.

We are good at localizing sounds and while I agree amazing things can be done with psycho acoustics I am not sold on its ability to push massive air and have a wide sound field.

I'm not against this kind of technology. This company mixed one of their demos at my studio. Which reminds me I can get a beta version to work with now...

http://genaudioinc.com/technology.php

I've witnessed this and it is amazing. The thing is its compatible with a multichannel environment. And can be used as "that effect" for wows and also to do a "upmix".

Also you wont find a break in sound when panning is correct. The amplitude and pan laws are all figured out by the software to make it a seamless transition from one speaker to the next based on your automation of the pan.



Bose professional isn't actually that bad. Surprising I know.

I fully understand that, but I don't feel that typical home theater surround properly does that, and think focusing on fewer channels and absolute sound quality would suit a theater better even.

Air wouldn't be an issue because you could always improve this via using more speakers (that are outputting the same thing). This makes matching speakers much easier (and something that most people don't even do properly).

I'm not arguing that current technology makes a lot of the issues moot, the thing is they are priced out of most people's ability to have them. I feel that if they had pushed fewer channels but more quality you'd end up with better quality speakers and likely more money to get a lot of the things (such as good EQ, processing would be somewhat simpler as well) to make things better.

While its possible to calculate the speed and things like that, its not absolute, and tonality is still an issue, because using different speakers at different points offers different specifications. Its certainly a very minor issue and would be unnoticable to probably all but the best ears if not wholly by measuring tools, but fewer speakers that are better matched would offer better coherency. Believe me, I used to think there wasn't that major of a difference in technical ability between speakers, but after hearing it first hand I'm convinced that focusing on that aspect would be more fruitful than just upping the number of speakers. Certainly, you'd need to figure out how many speakers you'd need to give you adequate volume/air movement, but you could then just buy multiples instead of getting center/left/right/surround/sub/etc.

The reason I'm so pro-2 channel is that I'm a big headphone fan, and so it would improve that greatly. I harp on binaural recordings a lot, and its also for these that I point to the technical ability of the speakers, as the differences in various headphones' abilities at imaging/spatial representation do matter in how adeptly they present binaural recordings. The better headphones tended to not only excel at that, but general sound quality aspects such that you end up with a wholly better experience (for instance better quality headphones lose the congestion that happens to lesser ones in very complex situations, which is why I think pushing a standard for the technical ability would make focusing on less channels a non-issue).

So, I'm just saying that I think it would (have, as well we're far down the path of multichannel surround) simplify things, and for headphones it would lead to big improvements (most people that don't like headphones have one major complaint and that being the extreme channel separation, which can be rectified).

Check out the Smyth SVS Realizer, its a headphone surround processor that supposed to be absolutely incredible (does more than just the down-processing that say Dolby Headphone does, and even does that with much better quality). The problem is its expensive (I think $2500 or so), although Smyth was working on getting it license into say receivers (Yamaha had actually announced a product utilizing it, but they canceled it). I know there are other surround technologies (Dolby Headphone, there's others I can't recall, I know SRS has one), so its something that can be overcome, but it could have been a non-issue in my opinion.

I'm not sure how well my reply actually responded specifically to what you posted, and I don't mean to sound like I'm really arguing, its more I'm just presenting an alternative option. Considering the processing capabilities now, it would actually make sense to drop the channel encoding, and instead give data which a processor could then figure out how to properly convey into the number of channels that you have configured, so that if you have one, two, or 50 channels you'd get proper placement (and the processor could take into account any EQ that your system is setup for).

One little extra tidbit about headphones is that, due to the closeness and isolation, its often easier to pick out little details in the audio, which does a lot more for immersion for me personally (and again, the better the headphone, the better its been at both just allowing you to hear it and presenting it properly). Personally, the effects in the surround speakers often causes me to lose immersion in the film. In much the same way that the pop-out of 3-D does visually (but I will absolutely concede that its not so much an issue with surround as it is with how the audio was processed/mixed/etc). I think this definitely varies from person to person (as does the channel separation in headphones, which is something that doesn't bother me).

 

[JSt0rm]

I fully understand that, but I don't feel that typical home theater surround properly does that, and think focusing on fewer channels and absolute sound quality would suit a theater better even.

Air wouldn't be an issue because you could always improve this via using more speakers (that are outputting the same thing). This makes matching speakers much easier (and something that most people don't even do properly).

If you start stacking speakers pushing the exact same content you are asking for phase issues unless you devote dsp to fixing this problem. The system would need to be calibrated. Much easier to use those added speakers as the director intended

I'm not arguing that current technology makes a lot of the issues moot, the thing is they are priced out of most people's ability to have them. I feel that if they had pushed fewer channels but more quality you'd end up with better quality speakers and likely more money to get a lot of the things (such as good EQ, processing would be somewhat simpler as well) to make things better.

EQ should only be used to overcome problems in the room. If you want to get really crazy with eq look up XCURVE this is the response you should be going for in your room. If you are using eq to make things go boom better you are missing the point. Another use for eq is the "night mode" (on some receivers) this pulls out a lot of the low end so as not to wake people sleeping.

While its possible to calculate the speed and things like that, its not absolute, and tonality is still an issue, because using different speakers at different points offers different specifications. Its certainly a very minor issue and would be unnoticable to probably all but the best ears if not wholly by measuring tools, but fewer speakers that are better matched would offer better coherency.

what speed are you referring to? If you started stacking speakers pushing the same content you will have issues with phase if you arent sure the material isnt hitting them at the exact same time. Comb filtering would be evident. A matched 5.1 set would be more expensive then a 2.0 set but they wouldnt be out of balance with each other unless the end user doesnt know what they are doing.

Believe me, I used to think there wasn't that major of a difference in technical ability between speakers, but after hearing it first hand I'm convinced that focusing on that aspect would be more fruitful than just upping the number of speakers. Certainly, you'd need to figure out how many speakers you'd need to give you adequate volume/air movement, but you could then just buy multiples instead of getting center/left/right/surround/sub/etc.

The argument that its cheaper to have 2.0 really nice speakers vs 5.1 really nice speakers is of course a reality but its based on economy and opinion as to what is "better". But if you are buying multiple speakers to push more air but they are moving the same content you are doing it wrong. Really wrong.

The reason I'm so pro-2 channel is that I'm a big headphone fan, and so it would improve that greatly. I harp on binaural recordings a lot, and its also for these that I point to the technical ability of the speakers, as the differences in various headphones' abilities at imaging/spatial representation do matter in how adeptly they present binaural recordings. The better headphones tended to not only excel at that, but general sound quality aspects such that you end up with a wholly better experience (for instance better quality headphones lose the congestion that happens to lesser ones in very complex situations, which is why I think pushing a standard for the technical ability would make focusing on less channels a non-issue).

binaural recordings are great in their narrow subtext of the entire audio experience. I wouldn't spend my time and money tailoring my system to play those perfect at the expense of other recordings. Its fine that you are a headphone enthusiast... This is a relatively cheap way to get into audiophile listening but in a movie watching environment the fam sitting around with headphones on isn't a reality.

So, I'm just saying that I think it would (have, as well we're far down the path of multichannel surround) simplify things, and for headphones it would lead to big improvements (most people that don't like headphones have one major complaint and that being the extreme channel separation, which can be rectified).

Check out the Smyth SVS Realizer, its a headphone surround processor that supposed to be absolutely incredible (does more than just the down-processing that say Dolby Headphone does, and even does that with much better quality). The problem is its expensive (I think $2500 or so), although Smyth was working on getting it license into say receivers (Yamaha had actually announced a product utilizing it, but they canceled it). I know there are other surround technologies (Dolby Headphone, there's others I can't recall, I know SRS has one), so its something that can be overcome, but it could have been a non-issue in my opinion.

headphones will never be mainstream listening in the home. On the street, bus, subway and gym? Ear buds all the way. And recording engineers play back their music on apple earbuds to make sure it sound "correct" on that type of system because that is the majority in the headphone world.

Considering the processing capabilities now, it would actually make sense to drop the channel encoding, and instead give data which a processor could then figure out how to properly convey into the number of channels that you have configured, so that if you have one, two, or 50 channels you'd get proper placement (and the processor could take into account any EQ that your system is setup for).

I dont understand what you are saying here. There is no automated mixing that happens. Every sound is painstakingly placed in the field.

One little extra tidbit about headphones is that, due to the closeness and isolation, its often easier to pick out little details in the audio, which does a lot more for immersion for me personally (and again, the better the headphone, the better its been at both just allowing you to hear it and presenting it properly). Personally, the effects in the surround speakers often causes me to lose immersion in the film. In much the same way that the pop-out of 3-D does visually (but I will absolutely concede that its not so much an issue with surround as it is with how the audio was processed/mixed/etc). I think this definitely varies from person to person (as does the channel separation in headphones, which is something that doesn't bother me).

You can achieve that same level of detail on a 5.1 speaker system and again it comes down to cost. Headphones will be cheaper but if I want to play back some bombastic film with my friends then I want 5.1 and some beer.

 

[0roo0roo]

It all depends on the setup and the mix.
Some of the best soundn experiences i've had were in larger dome type theaters, not sure if that makes a difference.

 

[mikeford]

Surround has very practical reasons.

Center is for dialog, it locates speech at the screen, and makes a huge difference in intelligibility. Stereo is almost never used in a real theater, mono center, or L, R, and center.

Subwoofer takes a LOT of power, using a separate channel allows a driving the amp to full power without the resulting harmonic distortion coming out the other speakers, and by removing the demands of bass from the main channels smaller drivers can be used and great clarity results.

 

[Aikouka]

Surround sound is definitely not a gimmick. Simulated surround sound is.

I think I somewhat disagree with this. While I'm certainly no subject matter expert, my Logitech system (designed for a PC, no less), actually seemed to always produce very good simulated surround sound using only 2.0/2.1 audio. While it may not have been as good as the original surround, and it did an awful job if you had a very poor sound source (i.e. you're an illegal movie downloader acquiring cams of movies ), it usually worked quite well.

I was actually quite impressed with how well it handled sound quite a few times. Of course, if the source was 5.1, it handled it normally.

 

[Patranus]

I can't watch TV or movies without surround sound. It just sounds too "fake" to watch.

If you have 5.1 or better try switching between a show that is in SD and HD (something in prime time -not unconverted SD reruns). Make sure to turn off all simulated SS. You will notice a huge difference.

Picture is only 1/2 the story.

People think they don't need SS but once they have it, it is like HD, they can never go back.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think I somewhat disagree with this. While I'm certainly no subject matter expert, my Logitech system (designed for a PC, no less), actually seemed to always produce very good simulated surround sound using only 2.0/2.1 audio. While it may not have been as good as the original surround, and it did an awful job if you had a very poor sound source (i.e. you're an illegal movie downloader acquiring cams of movies ), it usually worked quite well.

I was actually quite impressed with how well it handled sound quite a few times. Of course, if the source was 5.1, it handled it normally.

simulated surround sound involves this:

1. Mid side conversion to pull mono information from the stereo file.

Put that in the center channel +3 dbu

2. play left right -3dbu

3. Surrounds have information above 10khz or so pushed into a little reverb

4. Anything below 80 to 150hz is pushed to the sub.

So you like what you hear (I like to play music like this myself) but its not surround sound.

 

[Koing]

It sounds great.

The sound setup I have at home is better then the cinemas I go to. They sound good in the cinema but I don't always sit squarely...man I want a 70" plasma

Koing

 

[darkswordsman17]

If you start stacking speakers pushing the exact same content you are asking for phase issues unless you devote dsp to fixing this problem. The system would need to be calibrated. Much easier to use those added speakers as the director intended

Yeah, but that's a simple fix and since they should be calibrated anyways isn't even something extra.

EQ should only be used to overcome problems in the room. If you want to get really crazy with eq look up XCURVE this is the response you should be going for in your room. If you are using eq to make things go boom better you are missing the point. Another use for eq is the "night mode" (on some receivers) this pulls out a lot of the low end so as not to wake people sleeping.

I'm fully aware of all of this, and in fact my point about aiming to push a higher quality level in the speakers is along the same lines. Many surround sound systems just do not have very good quality speakers. My whole point is you end up with better quality with less hassle (matching centers with fronts, etc).

what speed are you referring to? If you started stacking speakers pushing the same content you will have issues with phase if you arent sure the material isnt hitting them at the exact same time. Comb filtering would be evident. A matched 5.1 set would be more expensive then a 2.0 set but they wouldnt be out of balance with each other unless the end user doesnt know what they are doing.

Most end users don't know what they're doing. Most people would be able to buy just two speakers so that's a moot point and is actually why less speakers would be better as it's simpler for people to manage. So in say theaters where you'd have to do that regardless of it being the way I was suggesting and a real surround encode, there's not really any difference in setting it up, whereas it would simplify things for most people, and with just two speakers you'd end up with better coherency (as they'd offer the same tonality, freq response, etc). The speed I was referring to is that of the sound as its passed from which speaker is handling it, and thus a sound panning across one speaker versus 2 or 3 should offer slightly better coherency as there's no break at all (although I'll freely concede this isn't a major issue).

The argument that its cheaper to have 2.0 really nice speakers vs 5.1 really nice speakers is of course a reality but its based on economy and opinion as to what is "better". But if you are buying multiple speakers to push more air but they are moving the same content you are doing it wrong. Really wrong.

Sorry, I seem to have confused you. That would be in say a large room like an actual theater where they basically already do this (use more speakers to push enough air). For most users (at home for example) they won't need to be stacking speakers, they can just buy speakers with higher output. With the extra simplicity, it allows people to improve quality (of the speakers, the amp, the EQ, the processing, whatever).

binaural recordings are great in their narrow subtext of the entire audio experience. I wouldn't spend my time and money tailoring my system to play those perfect at the expense of other recordings. Its fine that you are a headphone enthusiast... This is a relatively cheap way to get into audiophile listening but in a movie watching environment the fam sitting around with headphones on isn't a reality.

That's the thing, you wouldn't need to tailoring things. You wouldn't need to tailor a surround sound system that's different from a music listening system (most home theaters that are setup for surround are not that great for music, in large part because the speakers are generally not as proficient technically). The best part is that if you're watching a movie using headphones, you would get the same quality of surround immersion from the recording as you would otherwise, so that the only thing's really dictating quality would be your equipment (and the bitrate/depth of the recording). You can just focus on quality.

headphones will never be mainstream listening in the home. On the street, bus, subway and gym? Ear buds all the way. And recording engineers play back their music on apple earbuds to make sure it sound "correct" on that type of system because that is the majority in the headphone world.

That's a moot point and not what I'm pushing for at all. They play it back on a variety of output devices, unfortunately that too is a moot point since they make it sound like garbage on everything. I've seen that (iPod/iPod earbud popularity) pushed as reasoning for recordings going to crap, but fact is a garbage recording will sound like garbage on everything while a good recording will sound like garbage on garbage equipment but get better as the equipment does. This is why I think it would have been better to push for a reference quality level instead of surround encoding, as it should have hopefully prevented what we're seeing in audio today (because people would be pissed that it sounds like crap on their good quality equipment, whereas now, people don't know because it sounds like crap on everything).

I dont understand what you are saying here. There is no automated mixing that happens. Every sound is painstakingly placed in the field.

Again, that's my point. If instead they just gave things a general placement (for instance saying where the sound is in a 360 degree field, and then let the processor figure out which speaker to put that sound on, versus making sure you encoded it how you wanted it). Then you would end up with the same placement regardless of how many speakers you played it back on, and you'd only need more speakers for very large rooms (like theaters). Then you don't have to worry about encoding formats and crap like DD 5.1 versus 7.1. The only difference between recordings would be the quality (bitrate/depth, etc), and you wouldn't get no voices because something is decoding 5.1 and playing it back on stereo speakers (or have to rely on downmixing which generally doesn't sound as good, with it sounding squished together and not natural as it would sound if it had been properly recorded).

Your processor could then take into account other factors like any EQ and you should end up with a better audio experience. That's what I was meaning when I was citing EQ. It would also be easier for the end user (getting to be a moot point anymore but still not there), as they could let their receiver/processor handle automatically configuring itself. This way it can do as much in the digital realm as possible.

Roughly this is what gaming audio does, the sound card figures out how many speakers and then automatically figures out where to place the sounds.

You can achieve that same level of detail on a 5.1 speaker system and again it comes down to cost. Headphones will be cheaper but if I want to play back some bombastic film with my friends then I want 5.1 and some beer.

That's the whole point though, it would scale. You would get the same recording be it on a headphone or say $100,000 speakers, so if you wanted better output you'd just buy better speakers. Only now, instead of spending $1,000 on 5 speakers you can spend it on 2, which should net you speakers with better technical capability. As long as your recording isn't holding you back (again, I'll point out that binaural recordings can give you every bit as good of a surround experience as a surround format), you'll end up with better overall quality (which will also benefit you when you're listening to say stereo recordings from the past 40-50 years).