> Why is sound stuck so far behind?

I know people who have as their primary method of watching movies and TV is on an iPad.

Its not that the tech is stuck so far behind, its a matter of priorities. They just don't care to invest the time/space/effort/money into a fancy sound system. Not even always that they couldn't, just that they don't bother doing so. Sure, many could easily afford a fancy sound system. But they don't care enough to bother figuring out what to buy, figuring out how to connect it all together, going through the whole effort of making sure to use the right remote to get the sound working right, etc. They just want to press play on the one device when they feel like watching a movie, even if its not the best experience possible.

I know a few couples who do own a nice sound system. One partner never bothers to turn on the receiver or use any of the extra devices, they'll just use the built-in apps on the TV and turn the TV speakers up instead of bothering to turn on the fancy sound system already plugged in and otherwise ready to go. Its just not worth it to them to figure it out, so they don't bother using it.

Mine's on my laptop with headphones. I don't even have a TV, let alone a fancy sound system setup (and have no clue what those numbers everyone's throwing around even refer to).

X.Y (e.g. 5.1) means X wide range speakers and Y subwoofers. You also sometimes see it like S/T.Y where S+T = X, and it refers to front/surround speakers.

There are standard values and configurations, such as 2.0 (aka stereo) both at the front, 2.1, 3.1 adds a centre channel mostly for on-screen dialogue positioned close to screen, 5.1 (3/2.1) adds a second stereo pair behind you, 7.1 - adds an extra surround stereo pair between the others, etc.

For real enthusiasts, also X.Y.Z, adding ceiling/bounce speakers for vertical spatial audio.

The real "stuck so far behind" that I don't get is why we use speaker arrays at all -- instead of binaural stereo tech. That virtual haircut demo, apparently from the 90s,[0] sounds incredible on my cheap headphones, yet the technology seems to have gone nowhere since. Is there even spatial audio in VR setups?

If the difficulty is in simulating the head/ears, then existing spatial recordings can at least be converted using a binaural microphone in a surround sound setup, no? Though, I guess with headphones any visceral sensation of bass is still lost, so you'd need to keep the subwoofer or a seat shaker.

0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

I don't much about audio, but wouldn't binaural stereo only work if the two speakers are to the sides of you, like with headphones? Would this work from a TV that's an ambiguous distance in front of you?

As a side note, Windows (and Xbox) support Windows Sonic, Dolby Atmos for Headphones, and DTS:X, all of which simulate spatial audio for headphones. It'll simulate a 5.1 (and 7.1?) setup through the headphones. Some games have spatial audio simulation built-in as well, such as Elite Dangerous. I believe UE5 also has a spatial audio engine. Finally, I believe PlayStation emphasized spatial audio for the PS5, but I don't really know the details of that.

I think it only works/is a lot easier with head/earphones? Since you know exactly where the ears are w.r.t. the speakers in that case.

Not that that's really an explanation - if that was the best sound and it was available on Blu-rays and streaming platforms, and legacy 5.1 content upmixed nicely, then yeah why wouldn't I use headphones even at home in front of the television. Less obvious for joint/family viewing I suppose.

Binaural audio starts to really fall apart when you don't have the sound exactly as the microphone setup was. Moving the speakers even a couple of feet away, and then not having them exactly lines up with your ears, it ruins the effect.

Wondered this too. That video along with the millions of ASMR videos on YouTube have very nice binaural stereo sound, but I don't see this being done anywhere else.

And that's perfectly fine, don't get me wrong. If that gets you enjoyment from the media you watch, that's great. You definitely don't need a fancy theater room to be happy.

And honestly if it's a nice laptop and a good pair of headphones you're probably ahead of a lot of people watching on a cheap TV with built in speakers. Once again, not that it truly matters.

I upgraded my receiver and TV recently and it was a pleasant surprise that Apple TV remote now switches the receiver on and off automatically so the setup really requires no tech awareness to use.

I watch movies for the story. 480p and my laptop speakers are enough for that. I enjoyed movies just the same when they were 700mb DivX with 128kps mp3 sound.

It’s an audiovisual art, it’s way more than just the story.

Have you seen Barry Lyndon in a 4K OLED TV? You should.

Yep, same here. Most of the movies which depend on "immersion" are just horrible. It doesn't matter if the dinosaur in "Jurrasic World Dominion" sounds realistic if I already want to quit the movie after seeing the first 10 minutes.

Speaking as someone with a 5.1 system they haven't set up:

Getting the rear speakers' cables installed into your walls is expensive, and requires you own your home.

Getting a room large enough you can get several guests between the speakers without some of them ending up much closer to the speakers than others is even moreso.

One big downside of 5.1 is that you now have 6 speakers to place all around you. Depending on the room and layout, that can be hard to impossible to do without looking ugly, or even to do at all.

> and easy to setup.

We all know this isn’t gonna be true. Just another thing to faff about with that will stop working and have to be reset.

Even the effort of finding how to place it around my furniture doesn’t seem worth the effort to hear sound from different directions.

In my case I have a great receiver, but only 2 speakers. To get surround I'll need to put speakers in places that get in the way and run cables in place where I don't want to see them.

It's a pain though, you have to take the time to setup the extra speakers, cable them and etc and have the space to do this, and of course the extra expense.

Yes, it's cheap to some software developer on HN, but if you are on an average income it's harder to justify.

> What a shame though! A decent 5.1 setup should be cheap and easy to setup.

It takes up space that some of us honestly don't have, especially people living in city apartments (like I do).

And I used to have a separate sound system at a past place, some many years ago, I don't think I'd be able to set it up again, it felt like black magic to set it up back then, it will surely feel the same (and more) now.

Well for one I'm not going to run cables everywhere and the other solutions have their faults: wireless satellite lag sound, and still need a power cable; battery operated satellites require constant maintenance.

Yea, unfortunately, my old 5.1 surround system of my bachelor days fails the “wife test.” Currently, to get all the channels the sound mixers give you, you need 6 ugly black boxes with speakers in them spread around your living room and another big black box receiver. And all the speaker wire everywhere. Yuck! Even if you hide the wires in the wall and use ceiling mounted speakers it’s still intrusive and ugly.

I think our auditory system just isn't great. Compressed formats with bitrate of 320kbps is borderline indistinguishable from raw formats in audio, while it will be borderline unbearable in video.

That's a really insightful way of putting it. My first reaction was, 'well, duh...', but then I realized that I'd taken for granted the fact that digital video of (arbitrarily defined) adequate quality must have a much higher information rate than audio of the same. But surely there are animals for which the opposite is true!