Moving up from 5.1 to 7.1

[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]

Nice and smooth comeback.

Mr. Wingate, I would like to remind you, or inform you if you didn't know, no personal attacks are tolerated on this forum. Keep it civil and attack the subject at hand, not the person. Thanks

[nick4433]

Wooch: 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.

Sorry Sir TT but I was also a part of some of those earlier timbre matching discussions before you stripped me off everything. (LOL). I still maintain that timbre matching the front three is more important than breaking the bank to timbre match all the speakers. The price to value is not substantial enough. Wooch seems to see the light so why not you?

[Aldo WIngate]

Mr. Wingate, I would like to remind you, or inform you if you didn't know, no personal attacks are tolerated on this forum. Keep it civil and attack the subject at hand, not the person. Thanks

Who's your daddy?

[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?

[nightflier]

I noticed that this thread has been very active. Here is what I ended up doing in my TV room, and what I discovered. I have two receivers: an Onkyo TX-SR601 that can handle 6.1 speakers and a HK DPR1001 that can handle 7.1 but not 6.1. I also did not have the funds to purchase a new set of speakers (I have Axiom QS4's bipolars for the surrounds) and so I added two older KLH direct-radiating speakers for the rear surrounds that I still had. So I wasn't comparing apples to apples, but since receivers handle the surround modes differently, I thought it would be interesting to see what they could do:

- SACD will only play in 5.1 mode from either receiver. The back surrounds are shut off.

- 6.1 really was not as impressive. Like one of the posters said, the center placement causes the sound to be very localised, although that could be mitigated by using a bipolar speaker, I suppose.

- With 7.1 (DD &DTS), the sound coming out of the surround back channels appears to be just the 6th channel split between the two speakers. I presume this is mono sound out of each speaker.

- The Lord-of-the-Rings soundtracks really shine on 7.1. Not only do arrows fly by, they also appear to be flying on further behind me.

- 5.1 soundtracks on 7.1 are also more spacious. The seem more envelopping than when I turn off the back surrounds.

- Mono or Stereo DVD's (I have older movies too, mostly spaghetti westerns) don't sound any better in any of the matrixed modes that try to make use of the 6.1 or 7.1 channels. But they sounded bad in 5.1 too, so I just turn any surround processing off when I watch them.

So is it worth it to move up to 7.1? Definitely if you watch a lot of movies, but it's a waste if you only listen to SACD (don't know about DVD-A). If only they made more movies that take advantage of the extra speakers. I haven't heard Hidalgo, but I was impressed with Artificial Intelligence and the Matrix movies, all 5.1, but better sound with 7.1 speakers.

I should re-iterate that after doing some head-to-head comparisons on both receivers in 5.1 only, I noticed definite differences that may have colored my comments. The Onkyo's other receiver-specific sound modes where more dynamic, or rather noticeably different from each other, than they were on the HK. That said, I still prefer the HK receiver for music as well as HT, the bang-for-the-buck factor makes it worth it (I actally paid less for the HK than I did for the Onkyo, both bought new).

IMHO.