13.1 Surround Sound Coming to a Home near you?

An anonymous reader writes "Need to see the anatomy of a codec? Dolby Digital plus is starting to make inroads in the audio world and this article gives you the technical insight into the Enhanced AC-3 codec. Will consumers soon be getting the full 13.1 audio system that we hear in movie theaters?"

Comments

Wow

[Theo de Raabt]

I just can't imagine this. I've already got a mountain of wires, with my 7.1 home theater system. I've got about half of those speakers, biwired, with 25 foot length Monster Cables. That, in addition to the tangle of other wires needed to make this mess all work.

I keep looking at my room, and thinking about what it would look like with almost twice the amount of wires I already have, and almost twice the number of speakers. Maybe I'll have to move some furniture out. Heh Heh. And my Denon 7.1 reciever weighs in at around 62 lbs. Guess with a new 13.1 reciever, I might have to re-enforce the floor to hold the added weight. Heavy duty cabinet to. And with all the added heat this monster will put out, maybe some more air conditioning too.

I don't know what everyone else will think about 13.1, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. I already, at times, wonder if there is really that much advantage in a 6.1, or 7.1 system, over a 5.1 system.

I guess if you spend money to buy all those speakers, it BETTER sound better, or at least you've going to tell yourself it does. Heh Heh.

Re:Wow

[Phosphor3k]

"I guess if you spend money to buy all those speakers, it BETTER sound better, or at least you've going to tell yourself it does."

"with 25 foot length Monster Cables."

Right. Buying cables from the same company that sells a 50$ phone cord.

Re:Wow

[TobyWong]

lol I was thinking the same thing. I don't even want to know how much his cabling cost and the funny/sad part is you can get vastly superior cables for less $$$.

Re:Wow

[ackthpt]

I don't know what everyone else will think about 13.1, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. I already, at times, wonder if there is really that much advantage in a 6.1, or 7.1 system, over a 5.1 system.

No kidding.

You could overcome some of the wires with a wireless or IR set-up, but where and for what you need all these audio drivers is beyond me.

• Center
• Left-Front
• Right-Front
• Left-Rear
• Right-Rear
• Sub woofer
• Subsonic house-shaker
• Overhead driver
• Chair shaker
• Pacemaker, for when extreme percussion causes cardiac arrest
• TV-shaker
• Supercillious big speaker out in the lawn so everyone on the block knows you are just so incredibly cool with your 13.1

Re:Wow

[Robber Baron]

Agreed...I only got two ears. I'd just as soon have a decent pair of headphones.

Re:Wow

[rootofevil]

we already went over this

use lamp cord.

Re:Wow

[Koiu Lpoi]

Eh, the article wasn't duped enough. I missed it.

Re:Wow

[cayenne8]

"lol I was thinking the same thing. I don't even want to know how much his cabling cost and the funny/sad part is you can get vastly superior cables for less $$$."

Yup....I switched all my speaker wire to CAT5 plenum cable a couple of years ago...just opened up the wire ends...stripped the individual wires inside, and twisted all the stripped wires together for negative, and all the solid colored wires for positive.

I did one speaker at a time...and could definitely tell the difference....but, get the plenum coated CAT5...something about the dielectric property or shielding? I did this a year or two ago...can't remember all I read about it...but, it works.

Re:Wow

[cayenne8]

" It's not important for that wire to be made of virgin silver, rolled between the thighs of Venezuelan maidens."

No...but it IS fun to go visit the factory and take the tour...

:-)

Re:Wow

[Voltara]

The only difference between PVC and plenum-rated cable is with regard to electrical/fire code compliance. Use whatever is cheapest and meets code. The advantage of plenum-rated cable when making runs through vent ducts is when your house catches fire, the burning cable jacket won't flood your house with toxic fumes by way of your HVAC system.

Re:Wow

[Shawn Parr]

Have you actually taken the time to dissect a good Monster Cable?

Mind you the low end stuff (XP, 100 series, etc are all just normal cables), but the M-Series or 1000 series stuff.

Those cables are intense. The dielectric locks the individual pairs in place so that crosstalk and inductance are constant even if the cable is moved around or bent (sure it will change some, but not nearly as much as a cheaper cable will).

There is a lot of copper in those things, and everyone should agree that the more signal flow the better, especially with high power cables (i.e. speaker cables).

They also have a lifetime guarantee with no questions asked. Yes, if you read the warranty information there are caveats, but as someone who knows some pro-line Monster reps, any retailer is told by Monster to not ask any questions unless it is extremely obvious that they did something amazing stupid with the cables. A cable doesn't work, even if visibly damaged, and the retailers are supposed to grab it and pull one off the rack for you. Yes, honest retailers (hard to find nowadays I know) will do this.

Re:Wow

[fanblade]

"Stereo should be good enough for anybody."

Why?

[daniil]

Even though the consumers would have 14 speakers in their livingroom, they'd still only have two ears.

---
The monk extolled.

Re:Why?

[the_unknown_soldier]

Because ears gain perception based on direction. The more directions a sound can come from, the more immersive the experience for the end user. Thats why when The latest action is at the cinema you **feel** it, yet when playing it on your PSP you watch it.

that said, anything over 7.1 Is a bit of overkill

Re:Why?

[arose]

All you need are two channels and headphones.

Re:Why?

[Tiroth]

Try Googling "head related transfer function" for the difference.

Re:Why?

[poopdeville]

Note that you linked to "Binaural." There's a difference between that and "stereo."

Re:Why?

[fritter]

Even though the consumers would have 14 speakers in their livingroom, they'd still only have two ears.

I used to wonder about why you couldn't just do surround with 2 speakers, too. There are a few reasons, but I believe the primary one is how you pinpoint where sound is coming from - as your head moves around, your brain keeps track of what sounds get louder and softer and paints an aural picture based on that. Technologies have come out that create a surround stage with headphones or stereo speakers, but the illusion is destroyed as soon as you move your head.

That being said, I don't think this will catch on for a loooooong time. Even 7.1 sound, which came out a few years ago, isn't particularly widespead in home theater. The only people who will get this will be the easily suckered nutcases who blow their money on all kinds of HT gear for no reason. I absolutely cannot figure those people out. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go add three more neon lights to my case and immerse my CPU in liquid helium.

Re:Why?

[timeOday]

People living in this universe are, sadly, limited to 3 spatial dimensions. You can pinpoint any point in 3-space with 3 scalars. (And for that matter we only have 2 ears, perhaps because we live mostly on the surface of the earth)

13.1 is just silly for a single listener. The speaker system in a theater is doing a different job - it can't be set up with just one sweet spot, because there are people spread out over a huge area in the room. In your living room, you only need the sound to be right in one place. It's entirely possible a 5.1 system does a better job for one listener than a 13.1 in a theater.

Re:Why?

[frankvl]

When they move their head during the movie, they will hear the difference

And it will be a unique experience for their neighbours as well

Re:Why?

[Shawn Parr]

Actually your ears are quite capable of hearing and detecting location in full 3 dimensions with only 2 ears being present. This is because of the shape of your ears and head.

Sound having to go around your head and ears is distorted frequency wise. Your brain detects the different frequency response, as well as the different timing between the sound heard by both ears (this is phase BTW), to figure out what direction a sound is coming from including any angle of front/back as well as height information.

The brain can also distinguish very well the difference between the original sound, and reflected sounds to help determine area size and original sound source distance.

Since recorded sound does not hit you from different directions as diverse as those in nature sound from speakers will always sound different than a live experience. This is why things like fan and machine noise are ignored by most people when they are in the room, but record it and it sticks out like a sore thumb. That stuff typically is reflected willy-nilly and hits you from all angles. Since this is just background noise most people have trained themselves to tune it out unless it is really abundant. Make all that sound come from headphones, or a set of speakers that can be pinpointed by the ears and suddenly the noise is much more directional and your ears won't tune it out.

As far as 13.1 goes, there has been a 10.2 movement going on for almost a freaking decade now, lead most of that time by Tomlinson Holman. 10.2 still has such small penetration, even in actual Movie Theaters that I highly doubt 13.1 will get any penetration into the home except for those people into conspicuous consumption (look its my 3rd hummer, I park it next to my schooner), and they don't really appreciate it, they only hope others notice it.

And just because a theater has lots of speakers does not mean that they are discreet. All of the left side speakers utilize the same playback channel, the right side of course is the same. This way no matter where you sit between the front and back of the 'house' the side surround information will be the same. There are a few discreet front speakers (between 3 and 7 depending on the system) and usually 1 back channel.

14 speakers?

[daveschroeder]

13 discrete speakers and a subwoofer?

Coming to a home near me?

Rrrriiiiight.

See, I have what we call "2.0 surround sound". It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.

Re:14 speakers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.

Your living room only has two corners? This I gotta see! I can only imagine a normal, rectanglular shaped room where one end contains your two corners and the other end continues out to infinity.

You should go on mTV cribs.

Re:14 speakers?

[Mignon]

Your living room only has two corners? :)

He lives in a Klein bottle, you insensitive clod!

yeah..

[mindwar]

.. but whats the deal with that huge ass banner on the link?

As Seen on MTV Cribs

[OctoberSky]

If you sell it, some rapper/actor/athlete will buy it.

Re:As Seen on MTV Cribs

[jeblucas]

Actually, I think only Shaquille O'Neal can buy it. Luckily, he meets all said criteria.

Re:As Seen on MTV Cribs

[Starbucker79]

Nothing so mundane for that set. If you sell it, some rapper/actor/athlete will buy it for his car.

Room size + encoding.

[mapnjd]

13.1 is probably only going to be for the seriously wealthy. Here in the UK, houses are generally pretty small and 7.1 is difficult to incorporate and offers no advantage over 6.1 (as your rear surround speakers are only about 4 metres apart - the rear centres of 7.1 are only going to be a metre or two apart - plus the rear centres in so-called 7.1 actually carry identical sound from the 6.1 mix).

So firstly, where does the encoding of these extra channels come from? Secondly, only a few elite people will ever need/be able to afford/be able to accomodate this.

Doubtful...

[Adapt or Die]

At least, not if my wife has anything to say about it.

Channel 11, crying baby, forward of left ear

[Vile Slime]

I,

Can hear it now. Channel 11 has the whiny kid positioned about five feet ahead of me to the left and channel 8 has the mumbling of the jerks who refuse to stop talking to my direct rear.

Perhaps we can get some 13.1 sensurround where a Dolby foot in tune with nothing constantly kicks the back of your recliner as well.

We don't need more speakers.

[Reverend528]

More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.

Re:We don't need more speakers.

[Anonymous Coward]

More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.

Well, it depends. In a professional setting, 13 speakers would be hard to tune in a lot of settings. You need a sound engineer that knows what s/he's doing. (Hence many theaters that sound terrible, possibly because the engineer DIDN'T know what they were doing.) HOWEVER, to the lay man, 13 speakers will out do 4. Seriously. Even if it's not 13 unique channels.

The sheer fact that most 4 speakers AREN'T tuned properly is the reason though. With 13 speakers but only 4 channels, things would certainly sound more "surroundish" simply because thre's more sound from more directions.

To the layman, this will do, since they most likely won't be using a reference point for any comparison.

An added bonus of 13 speakers, however, is the fact that you can effectively turn the volume down while still hearing perfectly fine sound.

Simply put, most houses already suck with 4 speakers, but even badly placed 13 speakers will sound better than 4 badly placed speakers. I do sound engineering, and I can guarantee this.

Re:We don't need more speakers.

[MikeBabcock]

That's not true and any audio engineer knows it.

Accurate 360 degree reproduction of sound requires at least 5 or 6 speakers at semi-equal dispertions around you, with one centered directly in front and preferably one directly behind, at equal distances from the listener.

Its been tested over and over.

That doesn't account for overhead or under-foot sound either, or the fact that seperate sub-woofers should be used for low-frequencies.

Personally speaking, I wish I had the additional center-stereo channels to bring dialog closer to the screen as done in some theatre recordings instead of my 5.1 system since my front stereos are quite far apart (to allow for proper seperation for all in the room). The center is useful here, but the additional inside-stereo speakers would help.

Re:We don't need more speakers.

[klmth]

Sound can be easily preojected with as little as three speakers using methods such as VBAP, but the less speakers you have, the narrower the sweet spot is. With four speakers, the sweet spot is very small. With 13 speakers, the sweet spot is considerably larger. As you may have noticed, there isn't significant variation in the sound positioning in a movie theater depending on which seat you sit on.

Acoustics

[Red Flayer]

While 13.1 may be appealing to people who need to have the next greatest thing, this will be useless for any significant market. How many home theaters have the correct shape, paneling, furniture placement, and size to take advantage of the acoustical advantages of so many channels? Even at 5.1 channels, I can tell that the acoustic signature in the seat next to me is different -- and less perfect. How will this change with 13.1?

Overkill?

[NightWulf]

The only reason you really have that many speakers in a movie theater is because, well...it's big! I think 10 speakers is really the max for a home theater, and even that for the people who can devote a room to just a theater. My perfect sound setup would be a center, 2 front, 2 mid, 2 back, 1 directly behind, and 1 pointing down from the cieling. So that gives you pretty much full surround sound, as not much tends to happen below people in movies.

For the average joe though I think 7.1 is pretty good, considering most people tend to get the cheapest speakers they can get, usually those ones that come with the theater packages, $199 for 7 speakers. I think the amount of speakers is less important than quality. I would rather be stuck in stereo with two very high quality speakers, than surround sound with 7 crappy ones.

Speaker manufacturers should be happy

[PantyChewer]

Just think of the dumb people that will get talked into this by salesmen. "Oh yeah, you NEED 14 speakers to really hear the movie like it was meant to be"

I'll wait for home IMAX, thanks

[winkydink]

If I'm going to go for overkill, I'm going all the way.

Re:Of course not

[superpulpsicle]

I don't know why so many people are complaining. 13.1 should be a dream come true. You can utilize your old speakers AND listen in the bathroom. Now that's luxury.

The technology is only half of it

[stelmach]

I think what we need to realize here is that just because the technology will be available to place in our home, doesn't mean we can reproduce the same or even a similar effect in our home. The acoustics of a standard living room are dramatically different than that of a movie theater.

Re:13.1?

[tomhudson]

When Samuel L blows somebody up I want my head to explode, too.

You can do that without 13.1 speakers. Its called "eating your gun."

Don't lose
your head
to gain a minute
you need your head
your brains are in it

NOTE: Eating your gun is a one-time-only offer. Void where prohibited by law. Your mileage may vary. Do not operate heavy machinery after eating your gun. Side-effects may include headache, runny nose, drooling, etc., in which case consult the zombie dog doctors from yesterday's slashdot.

yes, but can you do an Omnitheater sound check?

[SuperBanana]

Sound tech 1:"Okay everyone, sound check!"

Sound tech 2:"Cue Leonard Nimoy"

Sound tech 3(quietly):"Leonard Nimoy!? Why?"

(LN):"Because he grew up a few blocks from here!"

It's small part of the Boston Museum of Science's Omnitheater sound check, and they even put lights on each channel's speakers behind the screen so you can see them as each channel is "checked". Then they do a driver through Boston traffic with an omnimax camera on the bumper of a car. And speed it up at least 2x. Even the most die-hard Boston taxi driver will grip his seat :-) Oh, and yes, Nimoy narrates the whole intro.

Then you do a helicopter trip over parts of New England, coming into a harbor in Maine...then on the docks. Ahhh, peaceful, quiet, much better you think.

"Hey CHaaaalie. They folks whanaaah seeah lobstah!" And then you get presented with a live lobster...full screen width, up close and personal, an inch or two from the lens, complete with squishy/squeeky noises :-)

Not 13.1 but 5.1

[Zacha]

I don't think the 13.1 in this story is 13.1. I think it reflects the theatres' 13.1 speaker implementation of 5.1 channel sound.

SPEAKERS:
3 across the front
4 down each side
2 at the back

CHANNELS:
#s 1-5 played back over speakers like this:

...1...2...3...
4.............5
4.............5
4.............5
4.............5
....4.....5....

Stereo

[Pivot]

I always find that pure stereo sounds better than most setups. This is probably because a multichannel setup cost 2.5 times the amount to set up with the same quality speakers, amps etc., and most people don't have the money to do that, so they just use cheaper components to get more channels for the same investment.

New Infiniti M

[rubenmiranda]

The new Infiniti M already has 14 speakers:

http://www.infiniti.com/content/0,,cid-123089_scti d-32005,00.html

You'd probably be able to add the receiver using the optional towing package.

Re:Finally!

[WebHostingGuy]

Is just 5$!

But I bet you will charge $37.50 for a microwave bag of popcorn and a can of soda...

I'm going out

[Nybler]

Why bother with any of this home theatre crap? It costs a lot of money and the standards are always changing, so there's always going to be something new/better on the horizon. Thank goodness I have decent theatres near where I live - I'm simply going to ignore home theatres and continue to enjoy taking my wife out on movie dates.

Fuck Everything, We're Doing 14 speakers

[0kComputer]

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of audio in this country. Stereo was the system to own. Then the other guy came out with an 6 speaker system. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called 5.1 surround. That's five speakers and a subwoofer. For Bass. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened - the bastards went to 8 speakers. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling five speakers and a subwoofer. Surround sound or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to 14 speakers.

James M. Kilts CEO and President, The Dolby Corporation

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~arobic/funny/Gille tte.html

Irrelevant

[ithrax]

I worked as a projectionist and projectionist manager in a movie theater for about 5 years. I can honestly say that while the notion of 13.1 surround sound is all well and full of prospects, the economic figures do not support it. How many theaters have you seen with 13.1? Also, the space in a theater is scores more than that of the average living room. Isn't 13.1 going a bit overboard for home systems. Uber- rich afficinados go to hell thanks. :) Most movie houses I have been to on the east coast don't have the "full 13.1 audio system that we hear in movie theaters". Best I have experienced is 7.1 and that is plenty enough IMHO. Also, the exhibition part of the food chain (the theaters) is strained enough as it is. Most chains and not to mention independent houses can't afford to constantly upgrade the technology upstair in the booth. A lot of DTS or Dolby Digital theaters actually only have 2 or 3 units that they wheel between screens. Analog is still prevalent. Lastly, there is limited physical space on the film. The inner track is mono, then stereo, Dolby Digital is speckled on the film track. DTS is on a disc that is sync'd using a timecode marker on the outer edges of the film. Im still uncertain where they fit a 13.1 signal on the film surface? (Obviously this doesnt affect a HD-DVD at all.) So I again ask: Why?

You people are all nuts

[rpresser]

I still don't see how more "realistic" sound improves ANYTHING. I don't particularly want to be scared by the sound of a cow fifty meters offscreen when I'm trying to listen to dialogue. Plenty of the worlds BEST films were filmed with NO sound.

Re:You people are all nuts

[Tim Browse]

I assume your TV is still black and white then?

Re:Of course not

[beelsebob]

This article is of course missing that no cinemas (other than IMAX which I don't know about) have 13.1 surround sound setups! Cinema formats are roughly as follows Dolby A & Dolby B - Mono, Analog, drawn on the side of the film Dolby Surround - Stereo, Analog, made to seem surround with some clever electronics. Dolby Digital - 5.1 Surround, digital data printed between the sprocket holes on the film Dolby Digital EX - 6.1 surround, same system as DD DTS - 5.1 timing signature printed on film, syncs it up with a CD or two. DTS ES - 6.1, same system SDDS - 8.1, data is on a magnetic strip on the side of the film. The vast bulk of cinemas you go to (even THX approved ones) have DD and DTS, some have SDDS and a very few have the EX and ES variants of DD. All cinemas support Dolby A, B and Surround. Bob

Re:Quality in theatres

[B5_geek]

This thread got me searching;

you can find the cow one (and others) here: http://www.thx.com/trailers/

Surround sound and good movies

[sterno]

I don't know what everyone else will think about 13.1, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. I already, at times, wonder if there is really that much advantage in a 6.1, or 7.1 system, over a 5.1 system.

Think about all the movies that you really like and then imagine them without surround sound at all. Just simple stereo sound. Does it really diminish the movies? I mean I like surround sound but I've been unable to set it up for a while now and honestly, I don't miss it.

It's a neat gadget, and sure, if I have the equipment and room for it, why the heck not. But frankly good movies don't need surround sound. For example, I have Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon on DVD. It's a fantastic movie, and I've hooked up the surround sound to it. It is cool when a spear breaks and I hear the shards land behind my head. But if I didn't hear that, would it really make a difference to the movie? No.

So if you're talking 5.1 vs. 7.1 vs. 13.1, who really cares after a point. If it was easy to set up and I had the space for it, sure, that'd be neat, but in reality, it doesn't much matter.

You are wrong - it's more than triangulation

[csoto]

People living in this universe are, sadly, limited to 3 spatial dimensions. You can pinpoint any point in 3-space with 3 scalars. (And for that matter we only have 2 ears, perhaps because we live mostly on the surface of the earth)

Three scalars give you triangulation, which will help you locate a specific location along TWO dimensions. This is how the "location" feature of digital cell phones works, how a surveyor's transit works, etc. For 3 dimensions, you add the "Z axis," which requires another set of points against which to triangulate. This is the point of 10.1 (which I have experienced personally) and 13.1. Current 5/7.1 systems leave the Z axis entirely out.

For that matter, why is 7.1 "better" than 5.1? Easy. Audio perception is far more directional than 5.1 can accommodate. The "mid-left" and "mid-rear" channels fill in the gaps that 5.1 leaves.

With that said, I'm quite happy to listen to South Park in 5.1 in my living room. Theatrical presentations will benefit from 7.1, and to the extent that presenters hope to achieve accurate reproduction of the original environment (so called "room shaping"), 10.1 and 13.1 are an absolute requirement. You can't reproduce the reverberations from a particular concert hall without accommodating the Z axis...

.1

[pintomp3]

it's funny how no matter how many speakers, they love to only have one subwoofer. 100.1? yeah, yeah, i know low frequencies are omnidirectional. but the "subwoofers" that most htib systems come with are just woofers. they have to go pretty high up in the freq range to compensate for the tiny, cheap satillites. that kinda kills the "omnidirectionalness". with most cheaper systems i've heard it's pretty easy to "hear" where the subwoofer is placed. maybe the next wave will be walls and ceilings that are just a matrix of tiny speakers. they could be controlled like an lcd panel. you could have almost infinite flexability in created real life sound. or you could just go outside..

Re:.1

[NerveGas]

yeah, i know low frequencies are omnidirectional.

The funny thing is that they're not really omnidirectional, at least not until you get to *really* low frequencies.

I have a pair of very nice 18" subwoofers in my home entertainment system. I've occasionally covered the eyes of a test subject, spun them around, played low frequencies through the subs, and asked them to point to where the sound is coming from.

Above about 25-30 Hz, every single person was able to point exactly to the subwoofers. Below about 20-22 Hz, then they can't - but at that point, you're not really hearing it, just feeling it, which is a lot less precise.

The good bit here is that precious few subwoofers are able to even go down to 25 Hz with any reasonableness, and quite a few never even make it down to 30 Hz.

steve

Why not OVERHEAD audio, like 7.1.1 or something?

[WidescreenFreak]

I just don't understand this whole need for such detail in Surround Sound. 7.1 is more than enough to fool the human ear into comprehending the perceived location of an audio source, at least on a two-dimensional level.

Objective: Have the sound come from what appears to be speakers 4 and 5.

Common Sense solution: Equalize the specific sound between speakers four and five to simulate its location between those two speakers.

13.1 solution (or so it would seem): Come up with a new set of codecs, equipment, and speakers to actually have the sound come out of another speaker!

By the way, the Common Sense solution is free to existing 7.1 and to a lesser extent 5.1 owners.

Personally, I want an additional sound channel to get a 5.1.1/7.1.1 solution where the added .1 is an overhead speaker to truly add a third dimension to sound. I can only imagine what it would sound like to have a jet in Top Gun or similar movie go from left front to top channel to rear right! That type of 3D audio would be far more impressive than using six more 2D speakers that can just as easily be replicated by positional audio between two existing speakers. The recent technological advances in flat speaker and wireless technologies would make a "ceiling speaker" easier to implement than many people would think.

Bose to the rescue!

[ShamanDave]

You won't really need 14 speakers for it. I'm sure Bose will be quick off the mark with a system that emulates 14 speakers using two tiny boxes and a subwoofer. And it will sound just as crappy as everything else they make.