Moving up from 5.1 to 7.1

[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?

[cam]

I know I am going to sound like a broken record but here goes anyways. Every 5.1 dvd I played with my ex decoder on sounded worse. Very collapsed and narrow. With ex and es discreet dvd's, it sounded better but it still did not sound anywhere as good as when that ex or es information was played back in 5.1 with my side di-poles. Very spacious with ex or es played back in 5.1 with di-poles. I am all for better sound. If 12 speakers sounded better I would do it, but so far 5.1 is still king for me. Actually, I previously had a 5.1 with mono-pole surrounds and while it sounded good, it is no where as good as my updated 5.1 with di-poles. My order best to worst, 5.1 with di-poles (if your room accomodates), 5.1 with direct facing surrounds, a distant 3rd 7.1, and a very distant 4th 6.1. And Waldo, get lost you lo$er. I'm sorry to Sir Double T for my direct attack and I know it is not tolerated but Aldo is nothing more then a big time NOBODY.

[kexodusc]

Interesting rankings, Cam. My own personal preference, having only recently switched from dipoles is:
1) 7.1 with direct radiating speakers
2) 7.1 with 2 dipoles in the rear
3) 6.1 with all direct radiating speakers
4) 5.1 with all direct radiating speakers
5) 5.1 with dipoles.

Not that any sounded bad, but I'm finding more and more directionally sensitive cues in soundtracks that dipoles screw up...and for multi-channel audio, they're not ideal.

In a very small room though, dipoles can have the effect of creating "spaciousness"...once I bought a house and had a huge room, they lost their appeal to me, but in my old apartment they were great, especially at moderate volumes.
To each their own...

[cam]

Hey Kex, when you were using di-poles, were they the v2's that were shaped like a box with the forward and rearward facing speakers exactly 180 degrees from each other. If they were, I heard them before and you are right, with alot more directional cues in soundtracks they sound a little to distant, if you know what I mean. But on their v3's they changed the shape of their box where the speakers are now aiming in approx. 15-20 degrees each. To me you now get some directional cues and that vast spaciousness that di-poles give you. Without the big improvement that the v3's had over the v2's, I would have stuck with direct facing speakers and then maybe would have tried 5.1+1 with all direct facing speakers and maybe had a better result with 1 or 2 center rears.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Who's your daddy?

I am my daddy, and these are the forum rules. If you cannot follow them, you'll be Aldo dismissed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

How can YOU be your own daddy? It's not genetically possible, unless, of course, you are a clone of yourself, in which case, you'd also be your own brother too. Alas, without insemenation of a female, the male cannot reproduce, and a child cannot be conceived.

Thank your for your lesson about the human reproduction process. I however cannot see the relevance of this information on a board where the main topic is hometheater. Is there a connection I don't know about?

[

But, I am assuming you are a human being, and therefore, at some point in time, you were born. Having been born, you are the end result of the 9 month process which began with the insemenation of a woman BY a man. Thus, the man in question cannot possibly be YOU.

Your assumption is correct, but I fail to see how this relates to hometheater.

This all leaves us with the original question not truthfully answered, so I shall ask again, WHO's YOUR DADDY???!!!!!!??????
Maybe we can have an honest reply this time???

I am my daddy, and that is as honest a reply as your are going to get. Now, let us steer this conversation back to hometheater, shall we.

Don't forum rules include "honesty"? If so, will you please give yourself the same public warning that you gave me regarding following rules.

Is Aldo Wingate your real name? If not, then you are not being totally honest. There are no forum rules regarding honesty, or we would require your real name instead of a moniker. Honesty is a personal responsibility, not something enforced through this forum. How can Audioreview verify half the information you guys(or gals) state on the board. How do we know your really are a audio engineer(like myself), or a electrical engineer(like many state they are here) . We don't, so we rely on personal resposibility in terms of honesty.

You must also publicly threaten to dimiss yourself from the for

um, as it is only fair. At least I have been honest.

If you REAL name is not Aldo Wingate, then you are not being honest really.

The reality is, this is not about honesty, it is about you personally attacking someone. So I will repeat, no personal attacks of any kind on this board, or you will not be able to participate. Cool?

[kexodusc]

Uh, Sir T, if I may...
Waldo's not new here by any means, he shows up every few weeks or so to start some jive like this whenever his parents ground him. Best bet is just to ignore him and banish him when he inevitably says something incredibly stupid and offensive. No point adding fuel to his fire.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Uh, Sir T, if I may...
Waldo's not new here by any means, he shows up every few weeks or so to start some jive like this whenever his parents ground him. Best bet is just to ignore him and banish him when he inevitably says something incredibly stupid and offensive. No point adding fuel to his fire.

Thanks for the info. I have seen his name every now and then, but I never read his posts, so I didn't know this.