The .1 or .2 determines the number of subwoofer channels, which is separate ultra low frequency sound (<80hz) Subwoofer sound hardly has any directionality as the wall reflections make it impossible to tell where it's coming from. (The sound waves are 8 meters long at 20hz) Plus you feel it more rather then hear it. Multiple subwoofer channels only make sense when you go up to concert hall sizes.

As far as I know it has nothing to do with USB, but x.2 is pointless at home. x.1 is pointless too unless you have a decent subwoofer. (Not the ones that come with pc speakers which are not much more then regular bass extension) Multiple subwoofers can be useful to help negate dead spots from interference patterns with the walls, but giving them seperate audio tracks won't be noticeable in a home environment.

22.2, yup still not enough for Dolby Atmos. However the max for home theater receivers is 11.2 atm with Cinema DSP 3D digital audio processing. I used to have a 10.1 amplifier, never used more then 5 speakers with it though, not enough room! And I rather spend more on the quality of the speakers than quantity.

Thanks.

I have Surround Sound headphones that are 7.1 speaker sound (seems to use lasers to do surround sound).

Does this make use of .1 sound?

I primarily use one on my Nintendo 3DS earphone jack which Nintendo 3DS earphone jack does native 6 speaker sound I believe.

I use:

Plantronics Gamecom 777

for my gaming. So how well of use do you think I have been getting out of this for my Nintendo 3DS gaming?

I notice that makes up directly behind me with a combination of slightly to the right & left directly behind me. And there are 2 complete dead spots; one directly above me and another directly beneath me, but when there's sound from one of these 2 directions, it creates sound all around the dead spot. (my experience)

I hope we someday get Surround Sound Headphones that fill in those 2 complete dead spots.

7.1 surround headphones simply mix the subwoofer sound over the main channels. The bass from headphones is completely different from subwoofer bass. Here is an explanation: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20052790-47.html

I've never heard of lasers to do surround sound. There are 2 types of surround sound headphones, both with pros and cons, both not as good as using speakers. (Althought the neighbours will disagree on that point)
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2010/08/02/surround-sound-headphones-explained

The 3DS only supports virtual surround over a standard headphone jack, maybe your headphones can enhance that a bit, but there is no native 6 channel surround sound coming from a 3DS. What I can find on the subject is that it is for use with the built in speakers:
the surround sound is actually virtualized by the built-in speakers if you hold the 3DS at the proper distance and angle. I checked it out, and it basically makes it sound like there’s another two speakers right next to your ears.

The Plantronics Gamecom 777 is of the virtual surround variety through dolby audio processing. You get a lot more out of those using the USB connector with a PC. The headphone jack in the 3DS is only a stereo connection.
It is still vastly preferable to the standard shitty PC speakers. No matter how I set it up, the so called 'subwoofer' that came with them always starts resonating horibly at certain frequencies.

Thanks for the info.

The 3DS in System Settings has a setting for Surround Sound, and so did certain DS games from such years as 2005, like Mario Kart DS. The Wii U GamePad controller is describe to do 6.0 speaker sound, so I had assume the 3DS was the same way. The Music Player App pre-install on the 3DS also has Surround Sound option, which is default setting in both System Settings & Music Player App.

Well, the Surround Sound does sound really great in my experience, but I have never tried multi-speaker headphones. Some of my favorite Surround Sounds come from Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D & Thor (3DS) & Dillon's Rolling Western. The Headphones most likely convert, but why is there a setting in both System Settings & Music Player for Surround Sound & Stereo & Mono, if there's no multi-speaker sound thru earphone jack?

Anyways, my headphones does say it converts 5.1 & up into 7.1 and that it converts stereo into 7.1 speaker sound, and the full frontal sounds work like 100% perfection, like you are actually there.

I just know the Surround Sound sounds great, except in a few games were they play in 2 speaker only, even though I got the headphones on. (specifically New Super Mario Bros. 2 & Shinobi 3DS & Mighty Switch Force 1 & 2. But Mutant Mudds has Surround Sound type of audio)

It's virtual surround. Over stereo jacks you can do pro-logic or pro-logic II, but as far as I know 3DS titles don't use it. I assume the virtualized surround sound is also send over the earphone jack. Music however can have pro-logic encoding mixed in already.
Virtual surround sound can be convincing at times. You can read about it here: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/virtual-surround-sound.htm It works best with headphones as your ears are always at a known distance from the speakers, but it depends on the source audio how well the conversion works, just as with 2D to 3D video conversion.

He's not only posting a four month old article, he's posting it only because he doesn't understand why people would say Nintendo are in trouble because of a stock drop and not make a big deal about Imax's stock. Probably, buddy, because you don't hang out in Cinema Business web forums.

I'm posting this because a lot of theaters have their own version of IMAX, but with 4K projectors, which is better then 2K projectors that are still use in a lot of IMAX screenings.

Plus I always see people paying to see 2D & 3D, but IMAX seems to not have that many people care, especially 2D IMAX. It just seems like IMAX screenings always make the least percentage of paid screenings for a movie, at least for 2D movies anyways.

3D manages to get over 30% to over 80% of the paid screenings in America of each 3D Movie, but IMAX has been around with pure praise and can't even hope for those numbers. To add insult to injury, the international market seems to get 88% of its Box Office revenue from pure 3D screenings, even though there are much more 2D only movies.

You got to admit, sells wise, IMAX never seems to catch on. I mean people still have to pay extra for 3D at certain American theaters like AMC ($4 extra for 3D). And international theaters all still charge extra as far as I know.

I'm curious how much better 3D will do in theaters now that a lot of theaters charge the same for both 2D & 3D in America since somewhere from August to December 2013 (can't pinpoint exactly when it took into effect). I wonder if those theaters will even have the cashiers mention that the 3D screenings now cost the same as 2D screenings.

Not sure why you would expect IMAX to be able to outgross traditional theaters.  As of 2009 there were almost 39k screens at 5.6k theaters in the US alone.  In comparison there are only 767 IMAX theaters worldwide, and I'd imagine they don't average ~7 screens per theater.  Probably closer to 1.  A lot of them are at museums as well so they are rarely if ever showing normal commercial films.

As for why there are so few, the cost to make a theater 3D capable is pretty insiginificant compared to building a proper IMAX theater.

Not sure what theaters have actually gone through with making 2D and 3D the same price, but it doesn't seem to be any near me.  AMC, Regal, Cinemark, and Alamo Drafthouse all charge more for 3D.

I'm also still not sure how any of that is a reason to post a three and a half month old article about IMAX's stock price though.

Good point.

There are a lot of theaters with their own version of IMAX (like Rave XTREME & Cinemark XD), but I'm not sure if those sells get counted seperately from normal size cinema screenings without advance sound nor seating.

Rave Theaters seems to charge the same, and I even ask the people who work their if they reduced the price of 3D screenings to match 2D screenings and they said yes (I asked 3 employees). I was surprise when I was paying less to see The Hobbit 2 in 3D, then I did the year before for The Hobbit 1 in 3D (before 6pm for each of them).

Anyways all American cinemas were suppose to do it in 2013, but this seems like one of those things that they say they will do at this date, but don't do it until 1 year after they said they would. (like Los Angeles Subways locking the gates to enter the Subway for a ride. It was suppose to be August 2012, but didn't happen til August 2013)

So Cinemark is also still charging more for 3D too?

Do you have any sources to back up your numbers?
88% of foreign box office revenues from 3D seems highly unlikely. Maybe 88% of 3D movies as there usually isn't a choice, just as with Gravity which had about 90% of it's screenings in 3D, with 2D only being shown at akward times, and IMAX 2D was not even an option. Actually before Gravity 3D revenue hit an all time low: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/09/3d-movies-box-office/

Plus Gravity's success did not carry over to other movies, which are back down to the usual 30% to 40% 3D revenue share
http://www.thewrap.com/thor-the-dark-world-3d-gravity-marvel-disney

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/can-gravity-save-3d-20131012
Gravity actually had the biggest effect for IMAX with 21% of it's revenue coming from the very low number of IMAX screens.

The 80% of Gravity doesn't mean much unless you actually have a choice at the 8pm and 10pm screenings to also see the 4K 2D version. It's like saying home 3D is doing great since most tv's sold nowadays include some form of 3D capability. Then look at the 3D blu-ray percentage share and it drops down to a niche market. At best a highly anticipated 3D blu-ray movie can get 20% unit share of blu-ray sales, usually it's down into the single digits, and that's a percentage of the on average 40% to 50% blu-ray sales as opposed to total physical movie sales. So in the very best case you're looking at 10% of physical movie buyers opting for the 3D version.

Amazon having sales on 3D movies as low as $14.99 is also a sign that sales are not meeting their projections.
I have a couple 3D blu-ray movies as well, simply because the price was the same for 2D or 3D. Can't hurt to have the extra disc in case I end up with a 3D capable tv. I have the 2D version of Gravity pre-ordered though, not worth the extra $5. But it will be interesting to see how that 80% of Gravity in the cinema translates to 3D blu-ray sales.