Moving up from 5.1 to 7.1

[Geoffcin]

With 2 surround backs, I could angle the side surrounds differently, a bit more forward and to the side (much like a movie theater setup). The rear channels no longer became distracting, it was more ambient. Arrows in Gladiators DTS ES were transitioned alot better. The part where that guy swings his mace was awesome...it totally circles the room. There's no "quiet spot".

I'm going to go out on a limb here, because you're making me think about this. I've been fortunate, both in my old, and new house to have 2 large 400 sq ft + rooms. Since all the speakers are 8 ft or more away from me I wonder if my placement becomes far more forgiving than if I was in a smaller room (like my old apartment)? Perhaps I'm achieving the right amount of dispersion? Certainly a auto calibrating tool like my RX-V1400's YPAO helps (though I'm becoming less and less impressed with the Parametric EQ part for signals above 200 Hz...not noticing much audible differences).


Moral of the story...the less human error the better! No doubt 7.1 isn't for everyone.
Can't wait until 8.2 and 9.2 become the standards (don't get me started on my "stereo bass" experiment).

It was only a few weeks ago that I got, (what I feel) is close to optimum out of my 7.1 system. Actually it's 7.1+2 if you take into account that I'm running two sets of mains. It was only when I realized that I should set my CSW T500's to SMALL, and send all of the bass signal to my subs that things really came alive. When set to small there's no signal going to the T500 woofers, so the speakers are acting more like standmounts. The maggies blend well with the Velodyne subs, and OK with the rest of the dynamic speakers, but NOT with the woofers of the T500.

I agree, a big room helps alot. If you think you want to do 7.1 make sure you have about 4-5 ft behind your seats or it won't work correctly. When it does it really adds to effects. We watched X2 the other day and there's a lot of info going to the rear surrounds in that movie. Even little things; like when Striker blows up the wall of ice to get to Wolverine you can hear the ice falling BEHIND you! 5.1 just coudln't give you that effect, or if it could you'ld need to be sitting exactly in one spot. There's something very startling about hearing noises behind you, and 7.1 gives you that effect when it's called for.

[kexodusc]

It was only a few weeks ago that I got, (what I feel) is close to optimum out of my 7.1 system. Actually it's 7.1+2 if you take into account that I'm running two sets of mains. It was only when I realized that I should set my CSW T500's to SMALL, and send all of the bass signal to my subs that things really came alive. When set to small there's no signal going to the T500 woofers, so the speakers are acting more like standmounts. The maggies blend well with the Velodyne subs, and OK with the rest of the dynamic speakers, but NOT with the woofers of the T500.

I agree, a big room helps alot. If you think you want to do 7.1 make sure you have about 4-5 ft behind your seats or it won't work correctly. When it does it really adds to effects. We watched X2 the other day and there's a lot of info going to the rear surrounds in that movie. Even little things; like when Striker blows up the wall of ice to get to Wolverine you can hear the ice falling BEHIND you! 5.1 just coudln't give you that effect, or if it could you'ld need to be sitting exactly in one spot. There's something very startling about hearing noises behind you, and 7.1 gives you that effect when it's called for.

Sweet Jebus Geoffcin, you got 11 speaker boxes in that room??? Superbowl at Geoffcin's everyone!!! I agree totally with setting the mains to "small"...I tried this about 4 or 5 months ago

Even during a the average comedy/chick flick with limited it does seem to fill up the room behind you, really adding to the ambient effect.
I've heard several people swear that dipoles/bipoles are ideal for rears in the 7.1 setup, might have to test that out someday.

[Geoffcin]

Sweet Jebus Geoffcin, you got 11 speaker boxes in that room???

Then I invite them over for a movie, or concert DVD and they change their mind. I'm still trying to justify a front projector but the need for total light control has me a little spooked. (that and $1000+ for a good screen!)

[kexodusc]

You have to tell me how you get the significant other to agree to all this? My second sub lasted 2 days before I lost that battle.
I got 2 systems in 2 different rooms, but 11 boxes in one room...you got room for screen?

You weren't kidding when you said it's pain to get right...my simple little 7.1 seems primitive by comparison.

[Aldo WIngate]

7.1 is just a marketing ploy to get people to spend more money. 5.1 sounds the same.

[KRiTiKaL]

7.1 is just a marketing ploy to get people to spend more money. 5.1 sounds the same.

Aldo, to each his own.

[Aldo WIngate]

Aldo, to each his own.

Nice and smooth comeback.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with you to a point. With most movie soundtracks, the front and back sound elements are kept sufficiently separate such that timbre matching between the front and surround speakers is not as critical.

Wooch, I cannot remember the last time we disagreed about anything regarding hometheater. The most important element to creating a cohesive sonic bubble is the matching of timbre within the frequencies that are most sensitive to our ears. If there is any mismatch, there is a discontinuety to the ear, and a collaspe of the bubble at that position. The way soundtracks are created today every channel is treated equally, but with the emphasis on the center channel. Sounds are panned from channel to channel MUCH more frequently than they used to be(Directors love this). If a signal is panned from the center to the rears, and the rears have a dissimular timbre from the fronts, the ear will notice the change in timbre, and the panned signal will either jump to the rear, or momentarily "disappear" as it transitions from the front to the rear. With a matched system, the signal will move smoothly, with no dropout during transition.

That's just it though, wooch...it doesn't seem to do that with 7 speakers. It did do that with 6. Instead it extends the rear further back from left to right, not focusing on a rear center. It's hard to explain...I assume this has to do with the processing, maybe it has to do with the fact my rears are about 6-8 feet apart as well. Believe me though...there's a center image when there should be (a few scenes in U-571), but with the more subtle sounds (ie: being in a jungle) it seems to have the effect of making the room sound a bit bigger and deeper.

Regardless whether you use six, or seven speaker, the collaspe to the rear will happen unexpectly on non EX encoded soundtracks. With seven speakers(epecially if they are spread far apart) the collasping will be much less localized, and therefore not readily noticed. Regardless, that is not what the re-recording engineers desired. The way the matrix works for EX signals makes this unavoidable. That is why EX signals have to mixed a certain way, and monitored during mastering. This prevent signals from jumping or moving in unpredictable ways.

Using a EX decoder on unecoded signals is a hit and miss thing. There is always a chance for signals to pop out in unexpected directions, or just collaspe the soundfield rearward.

Using a circlesurround decoder desolves all the problems associated with using a EX decoder. Since it processes the center fill totally differently, it can be used on even non EX encoded signals, and retain spatial accuracy.

[kexodusc]

Regardless whether you use six, or seven speaker, the collaspe to the rear will happen unexpectly on non EX encoded soundtracks. With seven speakers(epecially if they are spread far apart) the collasping will be much less localized, and therefore not readily noticed. Regardless, that is not what the re-recording engineers desired. The way the matrix works for EX signals makes this unavoidable. That is why EX signals have to mixed a certain way, and monitored during mastering. This prevent signals from jumping or moving in unpredictable ways.

Using a EX decoder on unecoded signals is a hit and miss thing. There is always a chance for signals to pop out in unexpected directions, or just collaspe the soundfield rearward.

Using a circlesurround decoder desolves all the problems associated with using a EX decoder. Since it processes the center fill totally differently, it can be used on even non EX encoded signals, and retain spatial accuracy.

Intersting input, Sir Terrence...I can't think of any particlur 5.1 encoded scenes that force a collapse to the rear as you suggest. But this would describe adequately that which I found a bit annoying for the few weeks I tried 6.1. I had to lower the level to the rear a bit to compensate to my liking.

In my "7.1" setup, my rear speakers are placed almost perfectly opposite the front mains, toed in. When appropriate I get a decent rear center image, but mostly just ambience...I'm guessing their about 10 feet apart, and 8 feet from the side surrounds.
No localization occuring. Most of the time I find it "delocalizes" the side surrounds if I switch back and forth creating a more ambient side rear field...hard to describe.

I would be interested to know of some specific scenes from movies where there is a noticeable detriment to the surround field in a non-Ex encoded soundtrack. Are you (or anyone else) aware of any?