5.1 vs 2.1 Theater

[Steve81]

Good morning folks,

Here's a question I find that I ask myself every so often, and wondered if anybody else felt the same way.

As it stands, I'd daresay I've got a reasonably competent 5.1 system: Klipsch RF-5 mains, RC-35 center, and RF-15 surrounds anchored by an SVS PB13U and driven by an Onkyo TX-SR707. While the surrounds add a sense of envelopment (ships creaking, background music, etc) and the occasional effect, I can't claim it really does all that much for me (my wife on the other hand does prefer surround). Perhaps it's a product of living with 2.1 for a while, or perhaps I'm too focused on what's in front of me to be paying that much attention to the sounds coming from behind me, but I do find myself questioning the usefulness of surround sound.

Personally, in 2.1 mode I happen to think that my RF-5s created a fairly enveloping experience. Bullets wouldn't whiz by my head like they can now, but at the same time the RF-5s coupled with a subwoofer can easily energize the entire room and make you feel enveloped by sound in a different way.

Suffice it to say, in the future, I could easily see myself reverting back to 2.1, especially since it would allow me to keep my funds (and amplifier power) concentrated into two higher quality speakers.

Am I the only heretic on this board?

 

[bikemig]

I've been running 2.1 for a long time. It makes my wife happy and it sounds good.

 

[slipperybidness]

I did 3.1 for quite a while and it wasn't bad. With my Triton 2s, I would still be fooled into thinking I heard sounds behind me every now and then.

But, IMO 5.1 is better and worth it to me. One of the key factors is that I play a lot of first person shooters. Having 5.1 gives me a distinct advantage for online play. I can hear someone trying to sneak up on me or stomping around a corner. I know several times I have come around a corner with guns blazing or avoided a sneak attack and I'll bet the opponent didn't even realize how I knew he was there.

 

[TheWarrior]

As the guy with 5 LCR's who upgraded from an old Denon receiver to just 2 mono block amps, I can say that running quality 2 channel sound it does prove its superiority. For music I think there is no other way, unless its SACD or a mix that was intended for surround (Flaming Lips comes to mind).

But I will also say that modern movies on DVD etc. are so well mastered that surround is worth the extra money. I will be adding an additional amp and processor so that I can return to surround sound, but I do agree it is not an essential part of life when 2 channel done right is pretty epic!

The luxury in all of it is the ability to switch. I think we'd do some of the audiophytes a service by recommending better front speakers with subs only to start, and then if the bug hits them they can add on from there. The point is to stop listening with their TVs speakers!

 

[Steve81]

But I will also say that modern movies on DVD etc. are so well mastered that surround is worth the extra money.

For me, it isn't really a question of extra money. No matter where I (realistically) set my budget, I can get five competent channels of sound or two better channels. As a simple example, I can get a pair of Ascend CMT-340s for $568 a pair or five HTM-200s for $658. The 340s are more sensitive and capable of greater output with less distortion than the 200s. Couple the fact that amplifier power will be split only two ways instead of five, and I think things become a lot less straight forward.

 

[Steve81]

One of the key factors is that I play a lot of first person shooters. Having 5.1 gives me a distinct advantage for online play. I can hear someone trying to sneak up on me or stomping around a corner. I know several times I have come around a corner with guns blazing or avoided a sneak attack and I'll bet the opponent didn't even realize how I knew he was there.

I can certainly see how surround would make sense for this kind of usage.

 

[j_garcia]

I am a big fan of 5.1, but had been running 3.1 for nearly 6 months and had zero complaints about the sound even with movies. For multichannel music, I missed it, but I don't have complaints about listening in stereo at all. I just recently put my surrounds back up.

You can't factor 2 vs 5 for power. Just because you are using 2 does not mean all of the power is going to those two in the case of a receiver and it is extremely rare that all will be drawing massive amounts from the power supply simultaneously. If that's a concern, an amp will address that.

 

[Steve81]

Just because you are using 2 does not mean all of the power is going to those two in the case of a receiver

Depends largely on the receiver. The Harman Kardon in my bedroom is rated to deliver on the order of 5-10WPC extra into 2 channels driven versus 5, clearly not a significant difference. On the other hand, I'd suspect the Onkyo in my basement is a tad different. S&V measured a TX-SR706, which is a reasonable analogue to my current receiver (the 707), and the output at clipping 2 ch driven into a 4 ohm load was 178wpc. Secrets also tested the 706, and in addition to the usual 1kHz sweep, they gave this little test which I believe is also two channels driven which indicates quite respectable performance into a 4 ohm load:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/2009/march-2009/onkyo-tx-sr706-receiver-thd-n-vs-fr-4-ohms-large.gif

Certainly I wouldn't expect these kinds of figures (or anywhere close) into 5 channels. I'd need to step up to a pretty hefty separate amplifier if I wanted that kind of performance, which is of course, more $$$.

and it is extremely rare that all will be drawing massive amounts from the power supply simultaneously. If that's a concern, an amp will address that.

I understand that little if any content will stress 5 channels simultaneously; however, I believe in being prepared

 

[j_garcia]

Depends largely on the receiver. The Harman Kardon in my bedroom is rated to deliver on the order of 5-10WPC extra into 2 channels driven versus 5, clearly not a significant difference. On the other hand, I'd suspect the Onkyo in my basement is a tad different. S&V measured a TX-SR706, which is a reasonable analogue to my current receiver (the 707), and the output at clipping 2 ch driven into a 4 ohm load was 178wpc. Secrets also tested the 706, and in addition to the usual 1kHz sweep, they gave this little test which I believe is also two channels driven which indicates quite respectable performance into a 4 ohm load:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/2009/march-2009/onkyo-tx-sr706-receiver-thd-n-vs-fr-4-ohms-large.gif

Certainly I wouldn't expect these kinds of figures (or anywhere close) into 5 channels. I'd need to step up to a pretty hefty separate amplifier if I wanted that kind of performance, which is of course, more $$$.

What I meant was, it isn't like you are getting "free" power from somewhere when running only the two speakers. Those two don't have to deal with the additional draw from the other speakers, but they will still only get as much power as the channels are capable of. When I see power ratings for a receiver, unless it says ACD, I assume it is the 2ch rating and that any additional channels utilized would lower that slightly.

I enjoy my 5.1 music a lot, but the vast majority of my music listening is still 2ch. I initially built my system around 2ch music; the rest is gravy

 

[Steve81]

I initially built my system around 2ch; the rest is gravy

I'm there with you. I picked up the RF-5s and the Onkyo (because of its 2 ch 4 ohm performance as the RF-5s dip down to 4 ohms per an e-mail I got from Klipsch once upon a time), and cruised for a while with just 2ch. It's only been much more recent that I bothered adding more channels. Fortunately for me, I don't listen a inordinately high volumes and all the speakers I've got are fairly sensitive, so I didn't need to upgrade on the amplification side. I actually tested out the addition of an amplifier (actually a HK stereo receiver) I had laying around to drive the front speakers and didn't notice much difference, so I haven't worried about it all that much since.

 

[markw]

This changes the whole question.

For me, it isn't really a question of extra money. No matter where I (realistically) set my budget, I can get five competent channels of sound or two better channels. As a simple example, I can get a pair of Ascend CMT-340s for $568 a pair or five HTM-200s for $658. The 340s are more sensitive and capable of greater output with less distortion than the 200s. Couple the fact that amplifier power will be split only two ways instead of five, and I think things become a lot less straight forward.

If it comes down to purely money, it's a no brainer that for the same amount of dollars you can get two "better" speakers then you could five. Two channels wins.

But, that assumes you don't want or care about the aidio effects that come as part and parcel of a true multi-channel system. If you can live without them, fine, then go for it.

We have both. We have a 5.1 in the living room and a 2.1 in the bedroom, both of a fairly high quality. Both are quite nice but, when we want to enjoy a movie with all the bells and whistles that a true home theater can deliver, it's the 5.1 without a doubt.

 

[j_garcia]

I'm there with you. I picked up the RF-5s and the Onkyo (because of its 2 ch 4 ohm performance as the RF-5s dip down to 4 ohms per an e-mail I got from Klipsch once upon a time), and cruised for a while with just 2ch. It's only been much more recent that I bothered adding more channels. Fortunately for me, I don't listen a inordinately high volumes and all the speakers I've got are fairly sensitive, so I didn't need to upgrade on the amplification side. I actually tested out the addition of an amplifier (actually a HK stereo receiver) I had laying around to drive the front speakers and didn't notice much difference, so I haven't worried about it all that much since.

I have the amp because my speakers are 4 Ohm nominal and drop to 2.6 Ohms and all of the rooms where I've had them are large. My receiver was enough when I had my Paradigms, but these need quite a bit more power for the levels I like, and there are times when I DO listen loud.

I first added Marantz monoblocks for the front stage and I was happy with the improvement because each had its own dedicated power supply so the speakers were happy, but like an Audioholic, I wanted more Went from the 180W the monos were giving me to 240W of two Audiosource Amp300s and noticed only an incremental improvement. Then the XPA-3 went on sale... That was a pretty noticeable step up at 300W @ 4Ohms. With your speakers, more power likely isn't a necessity.

 

[Steve81]

Thanks for your input Mark.

If it comes down to purely money, it's a no brainer that for the same amount of dollars you can get two "better" speakers then you could five. Two channels wins.

To a point. Diminishing returns will eventually play a role as well.

But, that assumes you don't want or care about the aidio effects that come as part and parcel of a true multi-channel system. If you can live without them, fine, then go for it.

To me, it's not a matter of not caring (though I don't), but a matter of making a trade off; for the hypothetical Ascend systems, what you gain and give up for either system is pretty obvious, and given the existence of this thread, it's clear what I'd trade away.

 

[Steve81]

With your speakers, more power likely isn't a necessity.

That and my proximity to them helps too. A simple calculation reckons that I need 27 watts on my front and surround channels to reproduce a 105dB peak, and a whopping 47 watts on my center speaker. Given that -5dB from reference is as high as I push things (to be conservative on my receiver, and frankly because I just don't need to listen any louder), combined with my aforementioned experiment, power isn't that high on my priority list at the moment.

 

[3db]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh You shall burn for uttering these word!!

I'm with MarkW on this one Steve. You will get better speakers and for 2.1 you hear better performance for 2.1 only. However despite what the audiophile crowd says (who have convinced themselves that a good 2.1 system will smoke even a medioce 5.1 system in total sound immersion), you can't argue with physics. Play U571 where the sub is diving passed its designed depth and the rivots start popping or in Master & Commander in the ship's hold before the attack by the French using just your mains and switch back and forth to 5.1 . You will soon gain an appreciation about how valuable surround speakers are in providing ambient nuances for that location.

Its analogous to only being able to see with one eye...throws off the whole depth perception thing.

 

[Steve81]

you can't argue with physics.

Definitely not. One of the first flicks I watched when I moved to surround was the Bourne Supremacy, and the scene where Kirill puts a bullet into Marie's head really showcased what surround could bring to the table. My wife likes to watch Pirates of the Caribbean, and surround definitely adds ambiance to the show. I guess I'm just an odd duck (luddite) that isn't as concerned about those things.

Heck, the main reason I moved to surround was that (AFAIK) Dolby Digital will engage DRC in varying degrees for anything less than 5 channels (don't know how true that is for the newer formats), not because I really cared about surround.

On the up side, I'm better than my poor old dad who was quite confused as to why the heck sound was coming from all around him when I demoed my system

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh You shall burn for uttering these word!!

Would a praying a couple rosaries in front of my surround system help?

 

[j_garcia]

Would a praying a couple rosaries in front of my surround system help?

I think you'll need an exorcist

There are some movies where it really doesn't matter. And then there are those that are an entirely different experience with surround.

Sometimes that will show up where you didn't expect it. I was watching Twin Peaks in DTS a while back and the surround was impressive on those discs. On more than one episode, I actually turned around to see what that noise was in the back of the room

 

[Steve81]

There are some movies where it really doesn't matter.

I can only imagine Citizen Kane in full 5.1 surround

 

[FirstReflection]

Well, if we look at this a little differently - if you had unlimited money, you wouldn't stop at 2.1, right?

So this isn't about the experience of the sound all by itself. It's a value proposition. Better to get 5 affordable speakers and a sub, or two, more expensive speakers and a sub for the same total price?

And to me, that all depends on what sort of price point we're talking about. Better to get a 5.1 package that includes $2000/Pair tower fronts, a $1000 Center, $1000/Pair surrounds and a $2000 subwoofer; or, $4000/Pair fronts and a $2000 sub? Not such an easy decision given how many really good $2000/Pair tower fronts are out there right now!

But if we're talking about a $250/Pair set of tower fronts and a $350 sub vs. an all-in-one $600 5.1 package, now we've got a completely different story! I'd be telling anyone in that situation to get the $250/Pair towers and the $350 sub, then save up for the matching $125 center and $125/Pair surrounds!

But I think you're asking if you should just stop at the 2.1 system and not even bother with the idea of saving up for the center and surrounds. For me, I could never do that. Although I would sooner go without a center speaker than I would without surround speakers. Great front Left & Right speakers can create a very convincing "phantom" center. But if I had a large, wide seating area, I'd want that center back in a jiffy

I'm ALL for starting with a 2.1 system and saving up to buy the surrounds and center later. But I can't say I'm for stopping at the 2.1 setup and never giving the other three speakers a second thought. I do NOT believe it's necessary to go nuts on the surround speakers though. Like you say, they're really just about ambience, envelopment and the occassional sound effect. If you're going to skimp anywhere, skimp on the surround speakers! But I wouldn't excise them entirely. I'd just be willing to spend a lot less on them than the Front three

 

[Steve81]

Thanks much for the input FR! Very well thought out (as your posts usually are) and addresses my line of thinking quite well.

Well, if we look at this a little differently - if you had unlimited money, you wouldn't stop at 2.1, right?

Well if nothing else, I'd at least bump it up to 2.2

Realistically for me though, it's one of those take it or leave it things. If I had unlimited money, yeah I could buy a hundred Honda Accords, but I wouldn't feel any pressing need to. I kind of feel that way about surround. Better get the stake ready for a burning.

In the end, I'd probably do (did) it for the sake of having it; I mean, it doesn't hurt anything.

Of course, following through with your thought, if you had unlimited money, how far would you go? 5.1? 5.2? 11.2? etc. There's always a point when a person is satisfied, and I guess for me, it's a bit earlier than most Audioholics.

It's a value proposition. Better to get 5 affordable speakers and a sub, or two, more expensive speakers and a sub for the same total price? And to me, that all depends on what sort of price point we're talking about...

Fully agree with this sentiment. As I mentioned in a prior post, diminishing returns will always come into play.