Moving up from 5.1 to 7.1

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Woochifer]

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?

At the risk of waffling during an election year, here's my take.

It all depends on the source. In general, you'll improve your sound by going with timbre matched speakers, no matter the multichannel source. But, the degree of improvement varies a LOT. And that's where that value that you cite is measured.

With multichannel music, having timbre matched surrounds is a lot more important because most of those soundtracks get mixed with the lead instruments and vocals steered into the surround channels at levels equal to the main channels. When this is done (especially if the same sound elements are mixed into the main and surround channels simultaneously), timbre mismatches are very noticeable and distracting.

With most movies, I would say that it's not as crucial. This is simply because most of the movie soundtracks that I've heard don't do the equal level mixing into all channels that you hear more of in 5.1 music mixes. Quick fire directional effects don't highlight timbre mismatches the way that a guitar and vocals steered into the main and surround channels at equal levels will. Ambient cues don't either.

I would add though that more of the newer movie soundtracks I've heard are aggressively steering more of the sound elements into the surrounds and doing more simultaneous mixing into the main and surround channels. In movies like "Master and Commander" where this occurs, the effect with timbre matched speakers can be quite stunning. And mismatched speakers simply can't do that.

When I replaced those old Bose 301s with timbre matched Studio 20s as my surround speakers, all of my multichannel soundtracks sound noticeably better. The overall soundfield felt more cohesive in general. But, with those soundtracks where you have that aggressive steering of sounds from the mains into the surrounds, THAT'S where you really notice the difference with timbre matching. With a good soundtrack along those lines, the stability of the side imaging is rock solid, and you can now perceive depth and scale in the sound. Not all soundtracks (including most movie soundtracks) will get the maximum benefit from timbre matching, but it seems that an increasing number of soundtracks out there can.

[nick4433]

Wooch, nice recovery what with the waffling and all but you do make some excellent points. I always felt that the front three channels were very important to timbre match if not all for movies but music is another beast.
If you plan to listen to a lot of DVD-A and SACD then panning all around becomes very important and puts more emphasis on timbre matching.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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?

I guess I don't because I have always had a matched system(except for a VERY brief time) and have always loved the eveness, and fluidity of listening to sound effects move smoothly from channel to channel. I love the sound of the acoustical bubble soundfield you get with a matched system. To these ears, non timbre matched surrounds produce jumpy pans, or pans that have holes in them as the effects move from channel to channel. It is very disconcerning to the ears listening to voices that sound dissimular when they are present in both the surrounds, and mains. When listening to Dts disc's with instruments and voices all around you(I hate this, but some of the music is pretty good) it sounds like they are in two different spaces with non timbre matched surround speakers.

Nick, I guess it just boils down to what compromises one is willing to make. Non timbre matched surrounds just do not sound as good as timbre matched ones, so I am not willing to make that compromise. I would rather get a lesser priced timbre matched system, than a more expensive non timbre matched one. I do not personally think you have to break the bank to get a timbre matched system.

[nick4433]

I do not personally think you have to break the bank to get a timbre matched system.

In that case I want my RS3s back!

[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]

In that case I want my RS3s back!

Sorry Nickster, but the box may be a RS3 , but the drivers are now TADS like my center and front main drivers are. The crossovers, and drivers have all been swapped out so I could timbre match them to my fronts. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. :>)

[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.

[Aldo WIngate]

WHERE's MY POST?

[nick4433]

WHERE's MY POST?

Maybe lost in cyberspace? Aldo, this is a forum wher we come together and exchange information on HT and maybe other off topics but everyone generally conducts themselves fairly well.
I have been a member of the forum for at least 5 years now and have known how trolls have been dealt with on this board. Asking "who's your daddy" is not exactly contributing to anything here. You must have a good ability to talk about gear and give opinions and if you can refrain yourself from making yourself someone's daddy then that would be tasteless.
Just come clean and start over again and you should be OK.

[Geoffcin]

WHERE's MY POST?

It was way off topic, and as such the moderator has every right to delete it. Fairness is always on my mind when editing posts, but there are some things that cannot be allowed to continue. If you would like to continue a discussion off topic please use the Off Topic Forum. Please be advised that the Forum rules still apply there, so no personal attacks will be allowed.

[Aldo WIngate]

Maybe lost in cyberspace? Aldo, this is a forum wher we come together and exchange information on HT and maybe other off topics but everyone generally conducts themselves fairly well.
I have been a member of the forum for at least 5 years now and have known how trolls have been dealt with on this board. Asking "who's your daddy" is not exactly contributing to anything here. You must have a good ability to talk about gear and give opinions and if you can refrain yourself from making yourself someone's daddy then that would be tasteless.
Just come clean and start over again and you should be OK.

The topic went off couse because some guy didn't like my 7.1 surround rationale/explanation. While I may have gone astray, it is due to being led astray. I see nothing wrong with pointing out things - even if off course. Are you going to stand there and tell me once a topic and thread begins it NEVER WAVERS FROM TOPIC?
I haven't attacked anyone.


Bottom line is that 7.1 is a complete waste of money when compared to 5.1; a scam by the industry to ultimately steal from you. I guess the proverb should read "blindness is bliss".

[nick4433]

Bottom line is that 7.1 is a complete waste of money when compared to 5.1; a scam by the industry to ultimately steal from you. I guess the proverb should read "blindness is bliss".

Aldo, I agree with your above statement. 6.1/7.1 is very space sensitive and will add nothing spectacular to your listening enjoyment if you cannot place the speakers behind you and not above you. Many here are gullible to switch to 6.1/7.1 and buy more speakers and upgrade receivers.