The ".1" thing comes from the fact that it isn't full bandwidth and on most systems can't be full bandwidth. Thus if someone wanted to use a 5.1 system to say do a special mix in Todd-AO format, it couldn't do it. So how could one equate a 70mm 6-track film (or mag masters for dubbers) where there is the possibility of 6 full-range channels with a crippled 5.1 system? Heck, for the bulk of DTS systems, they cheat it even more...there are only 5-channels on the disc.

5.1 is mostly a consumer term anyway. Most people I deal with in the industry never refer to any of the digitals as "5-1" as many, many consumer people do. What I like about the whole 5.1 thing is it immediately identifies the morons out there just trying to use buzzwords.

Steve

But, Steve, I think that's a bit harsh. I often use ".1" when referring to these audio systems and I know I am not a moron who's just using buzzwords. A decade ago, the ".1" thing may have been a buzzword but I think that it has gradually "taken hold" and become bona fide terminology. The phrase may not be the most accurate form of reference but that does not mean than only morons use it.

~Manny.

"In space, no-one can hear you scream."
Tagline for Alien

Seriously...the only people that have referred to the film digitals as "5-1" (they don't say the "point") are the morons that come from the consumer side. If you are talking about Dolby Digital, say so. If it is DTS, say so...if it is SDDS call it that. If you need to append EX, then do so. If you just talking about channel configuration, then I suppose 5.1 is a good descriptor. It just doesn't come up for me. But when some bozo claims to "have 5-1" they are almost always a moron just trying to use buzzwords.

Steve

My Sony DVD player uses progressive scan (sometimes referred to as "liberal scan") with 3:2 Pullup (pronounced "Thirty-Two Pullup"). The salesman said that means it doubles the number of pixels in each frame and doubles the number of frames. Based on that, you'd think it would be "Four Pullup" (the original frame data x 2 x 2) but since a DVD spins 8 times faster than a VCR, it's technically accurate to say DVDs are 4 x 8 = 32 times better than "videos". Obviously "thirty-two" has more marketing sizzle than "four". But then the lawyers made them stick a ":" in the middle in case anyone questions the 32-times-better claim. The bottom line is, all of this techno-wizardry means DVDs look as good as HDTV (Hi-Digital Tele-Vision) or even IMAX (Image MAXimus).

Anyway that's what the salesman at Circuit City told me. Also I read some of it on the Internet.

Anyway, I am right in saying a lot of misuse has been made of the "6.1" term for audio tracks that are essentially 5.1. Dolby Labs has made it clear in their advertising rules that Dolby Digital Surround EX is a 5.1 format and should never be described in product literature as "6.1".

quote:

---

I am right in saying a lot of misuse has been made of the "6.1" term for audio tracks that are essentially 5.1.

---

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Actually, Mr Stambaugh, dts ("dits") stands for Digital Theater Systems, not Stereo

---

Michael, Hopefully you spotted a few other technical errors in my earlier post. It was meant as a joke. Although some salesmen and consumers really are almost that misinformed or ignorant.

 |  IP: Logged

My friend has his "5.1" system set up in his living room. Lo and behold, each and every speaker is always on at the same level. The bass is turned up so high, that when someone closes a door on-screen the shelves rattle. And he's proud of it. I can explain to him what it's supposed to sound like until I'm blue in the face, and he'll just look dumbfounded, smile, and nod. Then again, he also thinks he's getting a Digital picture from his Digital cable on his Analog TV.

Salesmen are just repeating what they are fed in a 30 minute training seminar: That the more expensive one is better. Sometimes while browsing, I overhear salesmen talking to a clueless customer about DVD players and "S-video gives you a much better DIGITAL picture..." and how "5.1 Digital Sound is included in this model..." --- to someone who probably has a 25" mono TV with only a coax input who will probably come back and complain that the black bars are cutting off the picture.

All thanks to mindless consumerism.