• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Picking Nits

  • Thread starter Deleted member 133
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 133

Guest
I may be picking nits, but I need to issue a bit of an apology / clarification regarding my use of the phrase "2.1 system" here, and elsewhere.

I do recognize that I have used the term "2.1" very very loosely. Strictly speaking, the addition of a sub to a 2.0 (ie. stereo) system only yields a... 2.0 system. To earn 2.1 status, a system really should have a separate ".1" source channel (and corresponding source material) - something that's very rare, or perhaps even non-existent.

For example Outlaw Audio bills their new RR 2160 as a "stereo receiver" even though it has internal bass management and a dedicated subwoofer output.

All this to say sorry to anyone who picked up on this in any of my posts and whose spidey senses started tingling at the mention of 2.1.

I find myself taking issue with those who incorporate multiple subs into 5.1 or 7.1 systems and then refer to them as 5.2 or 7.4 systems or some other thing when they are still 5.1 and 7.1 systems. I should be more careful and less cavalier (and more technically accurate) myself.

So all of my "2.1" postings should really say something like "2.0 system with sub-based bass management" (since I am using the subs' internal crossovers in all such cases). If I had an RR 2160 to which were connected a pair of speakers and a sub (or even two subs) I might, perhaps, properly refer to it as a "2.0 system with receiver-based bass management."

Nits to be sure. But, barring unintended gaffes, I've always tried to be technically-accurate in my posts.

Thoughts?

Jeff
 
I know what “x.1” means but I don’t have a problem when people misuse it. It’s far easier than saying “I have a 7.1 system with two subwoofers.”

In the event that clarifications are needed though, I’ll ask.
 
JeffMackwood said:
To earn 2.1 status, a system really should have a separate ".1" source channel (and corresponding source material) - something that's very rare, or perhaps even non-existent.
Click to expand...

Well, if that ".1 channel" is created by an external crossover of some sort, it really is "separate" from that point on. Shit, movie dubbing stages many times create the LFE channel by simply running the movie's bass through a sub octave synthesizer. You're doing essentially the same thing by the sub crossover. Therefore 2.1 really is accurate.
 
rammisframmis said:
Well, if that ".1 channel" is created by an external crossover of some sort, it really is "separate" from that point on. Shit, movie dubbing stages many times create the LFE channel by simply running the movie's bass through a sub octave synthesizer. You're doing essentially the same thing by the sub crossover. Therefore 2.1 really is accurate.
Click to expand...
Very interesting (said in my best Arte Johnson voice.)

I guess I was (and probably still am) trying to be a purist's purist, but by the sounds of it I'm trying to put the champagne cork back in the bottle. (I had another analogy, but we live in interesting times!)

Thanks.

Jeff
 
My den system has 2 speakers and 1 subwoofer.

My HT system is a little more complicated these days.......

5 Speakers for LF, CF, RF, LS, RS
2 Woofers for LF and RF
2 Subs

Should this be still a 5.2. ?
 
The last .x is for the number of subwoofers, so I would imagine that .2 would be accurate. Regular woofers are considered part of the speakers with which they are associated. Dolby Atmos has that x.x.x thing where the middle is the height speakers.

Then again, you could also say that there needs to be two subwoofer channels in order to be ".2".

Take your pick.

My own situation is a bit weird in that I have stereo subs, but two subs per side so it would probably still be 2.2 in spite of the fact that there are actually two subs per side. I have stereo side and stereo rear surround speakers which don't get much use, but no center speaker. So I guess if anybody cared I could say that the system is 6.2.
 
Last edited:
To continue Keith's potential train of thought... In my main HT I use Koss CM/1030s. They each have a woofer, two mids, a treble tweeter and a tweeter. The signal in each is split four ways after the crossover. I use ten of them. I also use four subs. If you add the Paradigm Titans (which each have a woofer and a tweeter) in the rear surround position then by my count that's a 44.4 system!

:bouncygrin:

ps. I'd still call my system 7.1 (there are only a maximum of 8 distinct "source" channels - even though the signal is split seven ways to Sunday - not counting the speakers' internal crossovers which I was of course kidding about), and Keith's a 5.1. I see the .x as channel, not subwoofer, count. (Even processors etc. with dual subwoofer connections are almost always presenting the same mono channel at each output.) But that's perhaps just me.
 
I'll have you know that it was a very fine Brench Fordeaux this evening...
 
My comments about my system were just to stir the pot...............

:nyah::nyah:
 
Last edited:
rammisframmis said:
........My own situation is a bit weird in that I have stereo subs, but two subs per side so it would probably still be 2.2 in spite of the fact that there are actually two subs per side..................
Click to expand...


I think in your situation it isn't 2.2 or even 2.1 for that matter. My guess is "full bandwidth stereo".


Plus, it sounds cooler.
 
Hi Rammis. I sent a message via conversations. Please look. Sorry for the hijack. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top