What exactly is the point of 6.1 & 7.1 systems other than Gouge Prices Up?

[Swish]

I've got a 7.2 setup and love it, the extra speakers on the side walls really give a great surround sound feel. The 2 rear speakers are of course not discrete, there is nothing available in 7 channel, so a rear centre or 6. system would be just as good.

and the effect is awesome, and I agree with your your initial comments. Not sure I do regard the rears since my Rotel does a nice job matrixing the sound to 7.1, even if it's not discrete. I can easily move from 7.1 to 5.1 and back for comparison since I have a separate 2 channel amp driving the sides while my 5 channel Adcom drives the others. I can tell you that my friends, many of whom have their own HTs, agree that the sides make a big difference in the overall sound for some of the source discs I use, especially music or movies in DTS.

Swish

[Quagmire]

Dont think that would effect that at all.

Sure it would; in the same way that adding a center channel speaker for the front soundstage achored dialogue to the center channel location. Prior to the addition of that center channel speaker, those sitting out of the sweet spot would have this information colapse to either the front left or right speaker -- depending on which speaker was closer to them. The only person or people who got good phantom center imaging were the ones sitting in the sweet spot.

The rear center speaker(s) is meant to accomplish the same thing in the rear soundstage.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Jeeze,
Everyone is making these claims of 5.1+1 superiority over 5.1, but nobody is adding the size and geometry of the room into the equation. I installed a 5.1+1 when they first came out. As a matter of fact, I moved the EX system around to several rooms in my old house. The width of the room greatly influenced the effectiveness of EX. In one of the more narrow rooms(14ft wide) it was pretty much a waste because my L/R surrounds were VERY effective in producing phantom images across the rear. It was like doubling an already successful effect.

However, the wider the room got(my largest room was my screening/mixing room at 22ft wide) it was stunningly effective at filling in the rear soundfield effectively. EX effect is directly determined by room geometry. If you watch movies alone, and your room is not particularly wide(or you are NOT using dipoles on the sides) then EX decoding and the extra speakers are just no necessary.

[Mansquito]

It's more about matching the speakers to the room, for most people, than it is about matching the room to the speakers. In an ideal world, we'd all have our own personal home theater rooms, acoustically optimized and component in its 'perfect' position. Basically, speakers work by moving air. You need to consider not only the distances for speaker placement within whatever room you are setting your system up in, but also the characteristics of the speakers...as a rule of thumb, the bigger the speaker, the bigger the room required to get the best effect.

[Quagmire]

Jeeze,
Everyone is making these claims of 5.1+1 superiority over 5.1, but nobody is adding the size and geometry of the room into the equation. I installed a 5.1+1 when they first came out. As a matter of fact, I moved the EX system around to several rooms in my old house. The width of the room greatly influenced the effectiveness of EX. In one of the more narrow rooms(14ft wide) it was pretty much a waste because my L/R surrounds were VERY effective in producing phantom images across the rear. It was like doubling an already successful effect.

However, the wider the room got(my largest room was my screening/mixing room at 22ft wide) it was stunningly effective at filling in the rear soundfield effectively. EX effect is directly determined by room geometry. If you watch movies alone, and your room is not particularly wide(or you are NOT using dipoles on the sides) then EX decoding and the extra speakers are just no necessary.

Just for the record; from my original reply to this thread...

"In the right room, with the proper setup, and with the right material, a 6.1 or 7.1 setup will sound better than a 5.1 system."

As I pointed out, the superiority of these systems is contingent upon a number of things, not the least of which is the room -- which incidentally, was the first item I mentioned.

And from my previous post...

"The rear center speaker(s) is meant to accomplish the same thing [as the front center speaker] in the rear soundstage."

The qualifying word here was "meant", which means that even though this is the intention it doesn't always work effectively -- sometimes it is successful, and sometimes it is not. I do realize that unlike the front center channel, which almost always has discrete information intended for the center channel speaker, there is only a limited number of titles where this is true for the rear center channel; although there may be information panned or steered through the surround speakers to create a phantom rear center sound.

Q

[shokhead]

Most dont have the right room and its hard enough to fit 5 plus a sub. Fit a wife in all of this and your riding the edge. LOL

[kexodusc]

Jeeze,
. In one of the more narrow rooms(14ft wide) it was pretty much a waste because my L/R surrounds were VERY effective in producing phantom images across the rear. It was like doubling an already successful effect.

Sir T:
I see what you're saying here and partially agree, but it would seem to me that especially in a narrow room (and I don't consider 14 ft THAT narrow) rear stereo imaging would really suck once you move out of the sweet spot, so the phantom image wouldn't be as good. The people on the outside cushions of the couch wouldn't enjoy as good a rear phantom image, right? Of course, for the whole 3 minutes of a movie that a 6th channel might be adequately used it's much easier to argue the value of 6.1 and 7.1 than the performance.

Just curious, does that system have 2 front main speakers that produce a good center image as well? If so, why a center channel?

[godfatherofsoul]

"The rear center speaker(s) is meant to accomplish the same thing [as the front center speaker] in the rear soundstage."



Q[/QUOTE]

Actually, the rear center channel does not produce dialog the way a front center channel does. If it did, this would throw everything off and what would be the point of a front center channel?
in 6.1, the rear center is mono (as I have been taught) and is there to shorten the distance between the rears. I could be way off but I know the rear center does not produce the same info as the front center.
Cheers

[Quagmire]

"The rear center speaker(s) is meant to accomplish the same thing [as the front center speaker] in the rear soundstage."



Q

Actually, the rear center channel does not produce dialog the way a front center channel does. If it did, this would throw everything off and what would be the point of a front center channel?
in 6.1, the rear center is mono (as I have been taught) and is there to shorten the distance between the rears. I could be way off but I know the rear center does not produce the same info as the front center.
Cheers[/QUOTE]


NO, NO, NO!!!!
My point wasn't that the rear center is devoted to dialog. My point was that just as the front center speaker produces an ACTUAL CENTER IMAGE so that the audience is not dependent on sitting in the "sweet spot" in order to obtain a stable PHANTOM CENTER IMAGE (produced by the front left and right speakers and highly dependent on the seating position) so the rear center speaker fills between the rear surrounds to create an ACTUAL REAR CENTER IMAGE as opposed to a PHANTOM REAR CENTER IMAGE (also highly dependent on the seating position). For those sitting outside of the "sweet spot", when there is not a front center speaker in the system, the information intended to come from the center between the front speakers will (from those listener's perceptions) collapse to whichever front speaker they are seated nearest -- be that information dialog or whatever else. The same is true of the imaging between the rear surround speakers. The dedicated rear center speaker eliminates the need to create a phantom rear center image because a speaker is there creating an actual rear center image instead.

You've gotten tangled up in the dialog thing and have missed my point entirely. Also, for what it's worth, the front center speaker reproduces much more that dialog and you may be surprised to find that at times the rear center speaker may be called upon to reproduce dialog. Hope this clears things up.

Q

[godfatherofsoul]

Actually, the rear center channel does not produce dialog the way a front center channel does. If it did, this would throw everything off and what would be the point of a front center channel?
in 6.1, the rear center is mono (as I have been taught) and is there to shorten the distance between the rears. I could be way off but I know the rear center does not produce the same info as the front center.
Cheers

NO, NO, NO!!!!
My point wasn't that the rear center is devoted to dialog. My point was that just as the front center speaker produces an ACTUAL CENTER IMAGE so that the audience is not dependent on sitting in the "sweet spot" in order to obtain a stable PHANTOM CENTER IMAGE (produced by the front left and right speakers and highly dependent on the seating position) so the rear center speaker fills between the rear surrounds to create an ACTUAL REAR CENTER IMAGE as opposed to a PHANTOM REAR CENTER IMAGE (also highly dependent on the seating position). For those sitting outside of the "sweet spot", when there is not a front center speaker in the system, the information intended to come from the center between the front speakers will (from those listener's perceptions) collapse to whichever front speaker they are seated nearest -- be that information dialog or whatever else. The same is true of the imaging between the rear surround speakers. The dedicated rear center speaker eliminates the need to create a phantom rear center image because a speaker is there creating an actual rear center image instead.

You've gotten tangled up in the dialog thing and have missed my point entirely. Also, for what it's worth, the front center speaker reproduces much more that dialog and you may be surprised to find that at times the rear center speaker may be called upon to reproduce dialog. Hope this clears things up.

Q[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to argue the point, but the front center produces 70% of information when watching a movie in 5.1. this being said, I gathered that you were trying to say the rear center produced the same thing. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say and we agree on the major point that 6.1 and 7.1 are only useful when the room is large enough to accomodate such things.
I have selective memory - I don't select what is remembered, but I remember what is selected...
Cheers.

[shokhead]

For me,could care less how it sounds anywhere else but right where i'm sitting as its set up for me and not for othere' s. Hell yes,i'm right in the sweet spot,just the way i have it set up.

[Quagmire]

"I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say and we agree on the major point that 6.1 and 7.1 are only useful when the room is large enough to accomodate such things."

Per my earlier replies, yes the room is a factor in the development of the so called "sweet spot" and the creation of a stable phantom rear center image for those sitting in that zone. 6.1 and 7.1 systems eliminate the need for a phantom rear center image and thus, effectively eliminate or drastically reduce the need for a sweet spot. I don't necessarily agree that the room has to be large for a 6.1 or 7.1 system to be effective, but the room will play a substantial role in how effective or ineffective such a system will be.

"I have selective memory - I don't select what is remembered, but I remember what is selected..."

Then reading comprehension should be a real priority for you.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's more about matching the speakers to the room, for most people, than it is about matching the room to the speakers. In an ideal world, we'd all have our own personal home theater rooms, acoustically optimized and component in its 'perfect' position. Basically, speakers work by moving air. You need to consider not only the distances for speaker placement within whatever room you are setting your system up in, but also the characteristics of the speakers...as a rule of thumb, the bigger the speaker, the bigger the room required to get the best effect.

You really cannot match speakers to the room, because you don't really know how a speaker will interact with the room until you get it there. Some speakers couple with the room profoundly, and others minimally interact with the room boundaries. There are so many unknowns that everything becomes impossible to calculate.

The reality is we match the room with the speakers. That is why we acoustically and electronically treat the room after the speakers are installed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T:
I see what you're saying here and partially agree, but it would seem to me that especially in a narrow room (and I don't consider 14 ft THAT narrow) rear stereo imaging would really suck once you move out of the sweet spot, so the phantom image wouldn't be as good. The people on the outside cushions of the couch wouldn't enjoy as good a rear phantom image, right? Of course, for the whole 3 minutes of a movie that a 6th channel might be adequately used it's much easier to argue the value of 6.1 and 7.1 than the performance.

Just curious, does that system have 2 front main speakers that produce a good center image as well? If so, why a center channel?

Kex,
It really depends on the dispersion pattern of the rear speakers. I use two bipoles in the rear, and I have no problem whatsoever in hearing a phantom image anyplace on my couch. That is largely because the of the combination of height and design of the speaker itself. If you sit on the extreme left of the couch, the right surround is heard louder than the left. And visa versa if you sit on the extreme right. That is the very effect the speaker designer was looking for, and acheived. This makes the sweet spot alot larger in the surrounds than most conventional speaker systems.

I am just estimating, and it really depends on the room and speakers used. 14ft appears to me to be the point where some surround speakers begin to breakdown in surroundfield continuety. This is the point where EX might be a big help. If you usually watch movies with more than one person, then EX is probably a pretty good bet for you. There are however more caveates to the advantages of 5.1+1 than just wanted it because it is the latest and last enhancement(which is why 95% of folks jumped on the bandwagon)

[kexodusc]

I am just estimating, and it really depends on the room and speakers used. 14ft appears to me to be the point where some surround speakers begin to breakdown in surroundfield continuety. This is the point where EX might be a big help. If you usually watch movies with more than one person, then EX is probably a pretty good bet for you. There are however more caveates to the advantages of 5.1+1 than just wanted it because it is the latest and last enhancement(which is why 95% of folks jumped on the bandwagon)

I think you really nailed it with that last sentence...I was dead set against the idea of adding more speakers until a few months after I actually had a receiver with the extra speaker capabilities...then I was the "let's see how it sounds" mode. But I've seen many people that buy speakers with the idea of filling up the "holes" on the back of the receiver. Hey, if my amp's got it, I need it.
Then of course there's the THX certifications, and marketing "push" efforts.
To my knowledge, every 6.1/7.1 capable receiver gives the consumer the option of adding to 5.1. To me this really makes the whole debate moot, let those who are inclined enjoy whichever version of the presentation they prefer.