5.1 or 7.1?

[DTRUTH]

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on buying a new speaker setup and I wanted to get some input from those that have gone from a 5.1 to a 7.1 setup. The cost for the extra two speakers and infrastructure isn't an issue. My second thoughts on going with a 7.1 revolve around losing the cabability to use my zone II setup with my receiver. Although I could manually switch between the speakers to get my zone II access back, it would be a pain to do so each time I wanted to listen to the remote speakers.

So, is the difference between 5.1 and 7.1 worth losing the zone II capability? I plan on going with Axiom Audio QS8s for all surrounds.

Thanks,
DTruth

 

[racquetman]

I say no. 5.1 was sufficient for me. I tried 7.1 and it didn't make a big enough difference for me to stick with it.

 

[j_garcia]

You shouldn't have to swap any wires. Most current 7.1 receivers will reassign the amps to zone2 and limit you to 5.1 in the main room - no wire swapping. If you want to do both 7.1 and zone 2, then you can pick up a 2ch amp for zone 2 and use the preamp outs for that zone from the receiver.

I went from 5.1 to 6.1 and back, and I don't miss it. While it is cool when you have 6.1 material, it isn't something that I'd say was a MUST have. 5.1 still sounds great to me. If you have a larger room and you are in the process of wiring, I'd wire for 7.1 minimum though, whether you do it now or not.

 

[DTRUTH]

You shouldn't have to swap any wires. Most current 7.1 receivers will reassign the amps to zone2 and limit you to 5.1 in the main room - no wire swapping. If you want to do both 7.1 and zone 2, then you can pick up a 2ch amp for zone 2 and use the preamp outs for that zone from the receiver.

I went from 5.1 to 6.1 and back, and I don't miss it. While it is cool when you have 6.1 material, it isn't something that I'd say was a MUST have. 5.1 still sounds great to me. If you have a larger room and you are in the process of wiring, I'd wire for 7.1 minimum though, whether you do it now or not.

So, just by switching the menu option from 7.1 to zone II will take care of it? Cool. I was already planning on using a pair of m-block amps for zone II with the receiver powering all surrounds. Prewiring for 7.1 is not a bad idea. I can always add them at a later date.

Thanks!

 

[j_garcia]

The receivers I've worked with do this automatically when you turn zone 2 on, if using the receiver to power zone 2. If you are using the pre-outs to external amplification for zone 2, your main room should be unaffected and zone 2 functions almost independent of the main system. Note also that zone 2 will almost certainly only be able to function with stereo analog sources - no digital connections with the typical receivers I've seen.

 

[DTRUTH]

The receivers I've worked with do this automatically when you turn zone 2 on, if using the receiver to power zone 2. If you are using the pre-outs to external amplification for zone 2, your main room should be unaffected and zone 2 functions almost independent of the main system. Note also that zone 2 will almost certainly only be able to function with stereo analog sources - no digital connections with the typical receivers I've seen.

I'm using an HK635 and zone 2 is for stereo only, so that works out fine.

 

[tejax]

Well, this 5.1 vs 7.1 certainly appears a lot and typically people that have 5.1 says 7.1 is worthless and people that have 7.1 -- like me -- says it is worth it.

Having said that... 7.1 is worth it. If you have the budget and the room configuration allows it, then it is a win. But don't believe in me, take a look of what experts say...
From Axiom Audio, the speaker makers:
http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/subsandsurrounds.html

...There is no question that 6.1-channel or 7.1 setups improve the sense of surround envelopment and also make for smoother and more convincing directional panning effects for side- and rear-mixed sounds

or http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/surroundsound.html

...If one, it's called a "6.1"-channel system; if two, a "7.1"-channel setup. The idea of this extra channel(s) is to provide a more immersive listening experience and greater realism with more convincing surround effects. While the extra channel is not a truly discrete digital
channel, it nonetheless will deliver a more seamless surround effect and better coverage, especially in larger rooms.

But if you prefer something more tecnhical, here's a paper from a Lexicon audio engineer, an expert on surround tecnhology: http://world.std.com/~griesngr/paris.pdf

Where do we put the speakers and how many do we need? I just gave a talk on this subject for an AES workshop ? the slides are on my web page. To answer ? five speakers are a lot better than two, and seven are better than five for many rooms. Both Tom Holman and I attempted to say what was the maximum number, the number above which there was little to be gained. We both came up with about 10 or 11."

That is: up to 10 or 11 speakers you notice the gain. Also in the same article, he explains why 5.1 is faulty: to get a true "from behind" feeling you must have the source coming from at least 150º (where 0º is the line listener-central speaker). The 5.1 place the surrounds at 120º while the 7.1 place them at 90º and 150º.

But, and as we are on audioholics, why not take a look at their recommended systems? All of them are 7.1
5K http://www.audioholics.com/showcase/systemguide/5KRecommendedhometheater.php
12K http://www.audioholics.com/showcase/systemguide/12KRecommended-HTSystem.html
25K http://www.audioholics.com/showcase/systemguide/25KRecommendedhometheater.php
Only the 3K is not, due to the lack of budget. The 1K don't even include the speakers.

Common myths against 7.1 include:

* There are no 7.1 sources.
True, there aren't. As there aren't either much HD video content, and you don't see anyone recommending against HD plasmas, LCDs, dvd players, scalers and so on. Further more, almost any not so recent AVR makes a good job spreading fewer channels to many speakers. The truth is that a channel is a channel and a speaker is a speaker. If you have a 1:1 mapping, great. If not, you can still benefit from the extra speakers.

* Must have a big room.
No, the room dictates more the size/power handling of the speakers, than its *number*. On the paper from the lexicon expert I mentioned earlier, he refers that the guys were placing at the time 7.1 systems on *cars*.

I hope I have convinced you guys on that

 

[jcPanny]

QS8 Surrounds

I think the dispersion provide by your QS8s will allow you a wider rear sound field even with a 5.1 setup. If you were using direct radiating speakers or have a particularly large room, then there might be more benefit to the extra two rear surround channels in 7.1.

I might also be a good idea to wire for 7.1 channels so that you can upgrade when 7 channel material and formats become available.

 

[cam]

I've done 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1, and I'm sticking with 5.1. All speakers matched and were bought and paid for. 11 feet behind my couch, width of my room is almost 14 feet. 6.1 and 7.1 should have sounded awesome. Nope. My sound field went from very wide with 5.1 to a narrow sound with alot of sound collapsing to the center rears. My side surrounds are Paradigm ADP370's which are di-poles. The di-poles alone (in a 5.1 setup) give you the illusion of a bank of speakers to both sides and behind. Having the di-poles in my 5.1 setup is truely amazing.

There are two reasons why maybe 6.1 and 7.1 didn't work for me, 1: My denon 1804 might be lacking in the processing needed for 6 or 7 speakers, 2: my di-poles for my side surrounds interacted poorly with the center rear speakers.

I had all timbre matched speakers, plenty of room behind my listening position, and a sound pressure meter.

If maybe I chose not to get di-poles for my side surrounds and got instead direct radiating speakers for the sides and rear, maybe everything would have been awesome, I'll never know now.

 

[lubmar]

What speaker did You use for the raer center ?

 

[cam]

When I went to 6.1 I used a Paradigm cc370 which is a center channel speaker (horizontal design). I gave that up quick and replaced the cc370 for a pair of Paradigm mini monitors.

 

[lubmar]

The Paradigm "advice" is to use a ADP for sides and the back (all surrounds), maybe mixing is not a good idea.

 

[j_garcia]

My setup was Monitor 5s + CC370 up front and Titans + CC170 out back, running off a Marantz 6200, in a 25 x 14 x 10 room, with the rears about 5' behind the couch. The speakers were properly calibrated and positioned and the rear stage blended seemlesly. I liked the effect. I moved and my new room, which is a bit larger, doesn't have a good spot for a rear center, so I left it out. I haven't missed it yet.

Of course that's Paradigm's advice, the ADPs cost twice as much. I prefer monopoles for the most part. I have heard one properly setup M&K system in which the tripole surrounds sounded very good.

 

[DTRUTH]

Well, I pulled the trigger. I ordered Axiom's Epic 80/500 5.1 setup and five Outlaw Audio m-block amps. I'll try this setup for a while and add two more QS8s at a later date.

Now the hard part. Waiting. (insert pacing smilie here)