2.1, 4.1, or 5.1?

[mrm081561]

I listen only to music. I have two Onix Rocket RS 750 Signature Edition speakers and an HSU VTF3 subwoofer. I'm wondering if I should purchase two surround speakers and a center channel speaker.

The room is 20 X 21, with hardwood floors. There is one opening and the ceiling is 12 feet high.

Any comments/suggestions will be appreciate.


-Marc

 

[SilverMK3]

Do you listen to multichannel SACDs or DVD-Audio discs? If not, there's no point in going to 5.1. Having a 4.1 setup might add a little bit of presence but is probably not necessary.

 

[s2pdname]

I guess that would depend a lot on your plans (needs/wants) regarding surround/multi-channel music. Personally, I really enjoy SACD/DVD-Audio and (some) DTS music, but the selection right now is rather limited. Who knows what the future holds.

Good Luck!

 

[s2pdname]

SilverMK3 beat me to it!

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I listen only to music. I have two Onix Rocket RS 750 Signature Edition speakers and an HSU VTF3 subwoofer. I'm wondering if I should purchase two surround speakers and a center channel speaker.

The room is 20 X 21, with hardwood floors. There is one opening and the ceiling is 12 feet high.

Any comments/suggestions will be appreciate.


-Marc

Which receiver or amp do you have?

 

[mrm081561]

Re: 2.1,4.1, or 5.1?

Thank you for your replies. I have a Yamaha HTR 5740 receiver but will probably be purchasing a Yamaha HTR 5860 some time in the future.

My question really focuses on whether or not purchase a center channel speaker, because I'm pretty sure I'll be getting surround lefts/rights.

I've read that the center speaker is typically used for dialogue on movies and television. But, as I say, I listen to almost only music.

So, a more specific question of mine is, would I "need" a center channel speaker if I only listen to music? Would it add anything?

Thanks again,

Marc

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

If you get the surrounds, absolutely get the center. Your receiver is built to play in either 2.0; 2.1; or 5.0; 5.1 and up. Not 4.0 or 4.1. If you play music using Yamaha's dsp modes, it matrixes sounds to all 5 speakers. It will not overload your center and ruin the soundfield. IMO music sounds best in 2.1 mode. When you add the center and surrounds, it taxes the receiver. Very few audio engineers create cd's to take advantage of all 5 channels. If you listen to your music at moderate to loud volumes, keep it in 2.1 mode. I'm consistantly going back to 2 channel stereo from DTS Neo 6 music mode - it just sounds better to me. Hope we thoroughly confused you

 

[shokhead]

If you get the surrounds, absolutely get the center. Your receiver is built to play in either 2.0; 2.1; or 5.0; 5.1 and up. Not 4.0 or 4.1. If you play music using Yamaha's dsp modes, it matrixes sounds to all 5 speakers. It will not overload your center and ruin the soundfield. IMO music sounds best in 2.1 mode. When you add the center and surrounds, it taxes the receiver. Very few audio engineers create cd's to take advantage of all 5 channels. If you listen to your music at moderate to loud volumes, keep it in 2.1 mode. I'm consistantly going back to 2 channel stereo from DTS Neo 6 music mode - it just sounds better to me. Hope we thoroughly confused you

I hear zero difference between Neo 6 and Pllx. Why do you use the 6?

 

[Leprkon]

My opinion (for whatever it's worth) is that the more sources of sound arround you, the more realistic will be the sense of being in the middle. I realize this sounds like something the Sphinx from Mystery Men would say, but it seems to fit the situation.

In your case, I don't recommend you buy a "true" center and "surround" speakers. For the best pure music experience, each speaker in the system would be exactly the same model number.

You would want at least want a larger surround than would be normal for a movie. The drivers should be the same size as your front drivers and have similar frequency response, even if you go with bookshelves in the back. In the case of the 750's they use a 5 1/4 driver, so you could use probably use a pair of 150's as surrounds, but I wouldn't go with the RSS 300's (they just don't reach very low at all)

In an HT surround system, you are mainly looking to provide higher frequencies from your surrounds, as those frequencies are the ones humans best use to detect movement. In the end, for HT, you are actually better off with smaller speakers (like the RSS 300's)

In a "music" system, however, the different INSTRUMENTS are on different channels, so you never really know if you will be reproducing an oboe or bass sax from one of the surrounds. It just depends on what the mixing guy was feeling like that day. If you go with smaller surrounds, you risk not being able to faithfully reproduce all the possibilities that might be coming out.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I hear zero difference between Neo 6 and Pllx. Why do you use the 6?

DPL IIx "Music Mode" - Has a fuller sound than stereo 2.1 at the expense of a little clarity. But stereo imaging was weakened due to too much sound going to the center speaker... I can't understand why this is the case, since I would think "Music Mode" would de-emphasize the center for exactly this reason. Overall, I would rather have plain stereo than DPL IIx for music.

DTS Neo:6 "Music": Like DPL IIx, there was a slight loss of clarity with all of the speakers going... Even with careful system setup, you just cant play the same signal out of 5 or 7 different speakers (center, front, and rear for each side) without some sound waves interfereing with eachother. However, Neo:6 Music is much better than DPL IIx. The center channel is de-emphasized wile the left and right left mostly intact. The sub takes some of the load off of the main speakers enabling them to play stronger on the remaining frequencies. I also noticed that the sound remained pretty good when I walked out of the "sweet spot."

I have a dead room. Seems like the walls are carpeted. You can really tell a difference with the clarity in DTS Neo 6 over PLIIx in a dead room. PLIIx may work better in a "live" or "bright" room though. Pg 95 in the manual on DTS Neo 6: Music: "Changes in the sound quality are reduced by decoding with emphasis on the front channel signals, and a natural sense of expansion is given to the sound field by the effect of the surround signals output from the center and surround channels." Now my understanding is that PLIIx may benefit those with 7.1 systems by being able to split up the rear centers, while Neo 6 does not.

Here's part of an article that may describe the differences better than I can:

http://www.iar-80.com/page132.html

This is also very good if you get bored today - read about digital playback and system wars:

http://www.iar-80.com/

 

[Nomo]

I, on the other hand, have a fairly lively room with 7.1. I very much prefer DPLIIx to Neo6. I find that because DPLIIx has more flexibilty it allows me to defer more sound away from the center channel and into the fronts. As well as control the amount of sound coming from the surrounds better than Neo 6 allows.
I think I am in the minority with my opinion. Maybe it is because of the size and shape of my living room. My primary disadvantage is a vaulted ceiling which seems at times to make the music seem lopsided to the "low" side of the room. The ability to control, at least as my Yamaha calls it, the dimension is critical depending on what I'm listening to.

 

[shokhead]

DPLllx has a center width control that spreads it from the center to the mains,at least on my Denon it does.

 

[Nomo]

DPLllx has a center width control that spreads it from the center to the mains,at least on my Denon it does.

On Yamaha as well. Neo 6 also has a similar control. To me it just isn't enough control.
I would think the controls/adjustments are dictated more by the processor's manufacturer than the reciever's. So I would imagine the Yamaha and Denon to be the same in that respect.

 

[cornelius]

If music is your interest, instead of film, I'd suggest investing in a two channel-only integrated amplifier instead of more speakers.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I, on the other hand, have a fairly lively room with 7.1. I very much prefer DPLIIx to Neo6. I find that because DPLIIx has more flexibilty it allows me to defer more sound away from the center channel and into the fronts. As well as control the amount of sound coming from the surrounds better than Neo 6 allows.
I think I am in the minority with my opinion. Maybe it is because of the size and shape of my living room. My primary disadvantage is a vaulted ceiling which seems at times to make the music seem lopsided to the "low" side of the room. The ability to control, at least as my Yamaha calls it, the dimension is critical depending on what I'm listening to.

Don't forget, DTS compresses at a significantly lower ratio than Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital uses a 12:1 ratio vs 3:1 for DTS. This is true with Neo 6 vs PLIIx also.

 

[Nomo]

Don't forget, DTS compresses at a significantly lower ratio than Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital uses a 12:1 ratio vs 3:1 for DTS. This is true with Neo 6 vs PLIIx also.

I can't argue with that point. There is alot of music which benefits more from Neo 6 than it does from Pro Logic. It seems the more bass heavy stuff is true to that. In those cases however I many times just go with 2.1 or 2.0. All depends on the music and to a lesser extent my mood at the time. Maybe this proves that room acoustics are more of a factor than we like to believe. As I said; mine are less than perfect. Maybe so are my 42 year old ears.