Talk:Surround sound

message: This artcle is a bit half baked.
It should have LPCM listed for all audio because LPCM can do 1.0 to at least 7.1. Also Dolby Digital supports 1 to 5.1 channles so it sould also be listed under 3.0 and 4.0.
TheDAus (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this even mean? Is this still even relevant?  Is there a specific table or section that this information should be added to?  Please detail it here or add it to the article. Arbalest Mike (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Surrons 92.40.205.153 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about LPCM? 

message: Is there a big difference between 5.1 and 7.1 (e.g. for gaming), or ist the step from 5.1 to 7.1, compared with the step from stereo to 5.1, rather negliglible?
Its easy to write a lot about technical stuff. But some practical guidelines, altough they are not 100 percent objectiv, are really missing in the article. Technically everything is makeable, you can construct a 80.8-system. But what is the real improvement, what is meaningful for at home? 
May be some notes about that in the article, altough not 100 percent objective, could enhance the practical value of the article.
Everything with senses and emotions is a bit subjectiv. But there are some general guidelines/perception/conception though. E.g. to hurt somebody and make somebody suffer is in generall felt as a bad thing - even when a masochist/sadist may feel it as a nice thing. Thats may be not the best example, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Anway, maybe its possible to enhance this article a bit in a practical way. There should be written what is senseful/meaningful, or better: what is the STANDARD: for HOME-CINEMA, for GAMING, for HOME-MUSIC. That helps to make some practical decisions, enhances the practical value of this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User1973 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the many meanings ;-) ---User1973 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are suggesting the article contain a section that explains the purpose/intent/motivation/reason for each surround-sound format/technology in practical layman's terms, even if subjective. I agree with you on the need for that additional information. Arbalest Mike (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.1 or 7.1? 

message: The section Types of Media and Technologies mention technologies with links to their respective pages but this article would be better (more comprehensive and consistent with other WP pages) if these were summarized in a table.  
Some obvious columns would be: 
# name
# company/inventor
# year introduced
# summary of a the main reason it was developed
The reason part being key, such as "added channel for this/that".
Other useful columns would be: 
# current status of the technology (dominant, obsolete, still in use but not the dominant format)
# media requirements (type of disc) required for support
# equipment required for playback/decoding, conversion options, etc
Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - addition of a table comparing technologies and formats 

message: This article definitely needs more information on 3D surround formats such as Auro, Atmos, and DTS:X.Saycheesepleasedear (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D audio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Surround sound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118231628/http://www.barco.com/en/Auro11-1/exhibitors-tab-1 to https://www.barco.com/en/Auro11-1/exhibitors-tab-1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Sound spatialization" is redirected here, but the article at least begins with a slant that excludes sound spatialization. For example,"Its first application was in movie theaters" is  false concerning sound spatialization, which was used by composers such as Berlioz before cinema even existed (and in non-Western cultures much earlier). Even concerning recorded music used in performance, spatialization was used by composers before 1940 in various avantgarde contexts. If the article incorporates spatialization, then it should it have an introduction that specifically excludes spatialization as used by composers and other sound artists?
Isn't "surround sound" actually simply a subcategory of sound spatialization? Would an article about the Presidents of the United States be entitled "Donald J Trump"?
Shouldn't there actually be two articles that cross-reference one another, rather than trying to awkwardly reconcile the irreconcilable?
42.76.160.73 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound spatialization 

message: since when did the ☺ emoji represent the center channel in the diagram under  :Surround sound§ Channel notation: ?
Slender (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emoji on diagram? 

message: I have added information about Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 and 5.1.4 overhead surround speakers.  This adds a third number to the surround numbering scheme.  This numbering has become standard in the audio visual industry. Robert.Harker (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added n.n.4 overhead surround channels 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Surround (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress