Talk:22.2 surround sound

Professional sound production Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sampling Rate

Is there any known information about the Sampling Rate for 22.2? (Current example: CD-44,100 hertz or 44.1 khz)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.7.12 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling rate is not directly related to the number of speakers. A 2 speaker system can play the same sampling rates as a 5.1 or 7.1 or 22.2 speaker system. Because the information required for UHD is immense anyhow, the highest quality available today (192 kHz, 24 bit) may as well be used, especially given that when 22.2 audio and UHD video will be available, storage and compression technology will have advanced far enough that lossless 22.2 192kHz 24 bit audio can be stored. 24 channels of audio at 192000 Hz and 24 bit would have a bitrate of 110592 kbps! With current lossless compression codecs (Meridian_Lossless_Packing/Dolby_TrueHD or flac), a CD could fit 103 seconds of audio, 664 seconds on a DVD5, or a dual-layer Bluray could fit close to 2 hours. These are only my speculation, and there is no solid source to back this up. Conquerist 08:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, man. :) That at least gives me a perspective. Do you think they'll release specific frequency rate/bit rate info anytime relatively soon? (Within a year or two.) If you don't know, I understand. This is obviously not readily available (if available at all) information. 67.161.208.225 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many hours can you fit on a ...?

so then you could fit about 40 hours on a 1tb hard drive? and you can fit 12 hours of 128 kbit mp3s on a cd. i wonder how they would record that? with 24 microphones? thats just insane to have 24 speakers.Amddude (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't need microphones to record audio. Not if the audio comes from a computer simulation. With todays 3d sound, calculating from 22 sources at the same time in real time isn't hard at all. And crazy... Well, sure, you might not want a 22.2 system in every room of the house, but having it in one room isn't that impossible. Just make sure to make the room after the speakers, not the other way around. There is still another ~7-10 years left before we'll all be watching UHVD. Ran4 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

illustration

I think the speaker setup section should include an illustration to give an idea as to what all 24 of these speaker's set up would look like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.124.118 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why the code contains the following (invisible) comment:

<!-----------------------------------------------------
  Section could be replaced by a single diagram.  
  The figure "(5)Audio system configuration" on the 
  NHK Web page referenced above would be excellent.  
  I e-mailed NHK to ask permission to use it, 
  but they said no.  Have included <ref> to figure 
  instead.
------------------------------------------------------->

Feel free to create a public domain illustration. HairyWombat (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here...

...but why isn't it 24.2 if it uses 24 speakers? 71.233.250.241 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the ".2" are two sub-woofers. The system has 22 main speakers plus two sub-woofer speakers, and that equals 24 speakers. HairyWombat (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DIAGRAM actually shows 24 discrete speakers and 2 LFE speakers. Eleven in front, five on each side, one in the ceiling ("top"), and two on the back wall. 11 + 5 + 5 + 1 + 2 = 24 So... either the nomenclature (22.2) is incorrect, or the diagram is incorrect. Gil gosseyn (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Diagram is incorrect. The Bottom layer does not have side speakers but only 3 front speakers(L, C & R). Also, Dolby 5.1 layout is not correct because the rear speakers should be placed on +-60 degree from the back, not on sides. I will recreate the figures later. 松浦知也 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Order and Labels

Where did the current channel table come from? According to this link the channel names, abbreviations, and order are completely different. The same types of channels are there, but with different names and orders. Please email me at cvanwink [a t ] adobe.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.135.193 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current channel table was added by User:Youhd on 9 June 2011. You have a <ref> so, unless User:Youhd chips in, you win. Wait a week then change the table to match your excellent reference; don't forget to add your <ref>. HairyWombat 04:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HairyWombat , I see now that there's actually a reference to SMPTE ST 2036-2:2008. I checked that document and the table on the wiki is correct according to the SMPTE standard. I'll leave it as that as that is a more authoritative (and newer) reference source (--cvanwink). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.201 (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

External link to NHK source paper is broken. Has the document moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.5.235 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram doesn't match description of channels

The article describes the speaker layout as having 10 listener plane channels, 9 overhead channels, 3 bottom channels and 2 LFE channels. However, the diagram shows 26 speakers: it seems it has added two extra bottom plane channels on the sides. Perhaps this should be fixed? --James (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LFE-2

what is it used for? It is not mentioned in the article. :-( --RokerHRO (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the 10.2 Wiki - "The ".2" in 10.2 refers to the fact that an additional Low Frequency Effects channel is added, not just a second subwoofer, to enhance the sense of envelopment. All bass from the left channels are directed to a left LFE channel while right channel bass is directed to the right LFE channel."

Which seems kind of obvious - except that not all 2 subwoofer set-ups are used in stereo. So instead of a mono subwoofer signal being split into dual-mono signals for left and right, there are 2 distinct LF effect channels- one for left and one for right. I am unclear if this is advantageous or not, as I understand bass below approx. 80Hz to be omni-directional, with only the upper-harmonics being directional (in theory being covered by the non LFE channels). Hopefully someone with a better understanding can follow up. Skeen267 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is false, you will feel where is below 80 Hz if it is a big explosion. Ha. 2A00:1370:8184:6AD9:3081:77AC:6E15:EECB (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above and Below?

There does seem to be some confusion here about placement and type. I had understood that this format had both top and separately bottom sound distribution, and that these could be but were not necessarily multiple speaker units for above (and below). Though admittedly this would affect the numbers given, which I had also thought was the original point of this nomenclature. Can we get some authority on this? Wikispherion (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top speackers in Atmos is common now, but bellow speackers is a really niche case, I only once heard about it. 2A00:1370:8184:6AD9:3081:77AC:6E15:EECB (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]