5.1 -vs- 6.1 -vs- 7.1

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Looking for the best bang for my buck I have opened the doors beyond the Yamaha RXV-2400. All opinions are welcome but I don't really want to get into brands versus brands because it gets so personal.

However one brand in consideration is NAD. I was looking at a NAD T763 today at the dealer and it is 6.1. Their next step up to 7.1 is the T773 (which has more power too, etc..) but an extra $400 over the 763. I have 7 speakers so I want to utilize them all. The 2400 has 7 channel so a place for all of my speakers but the dealer said for the 6.1 I could add both my rear surrounds to 6th channel so I'd have 2 speakers on it.

I just wonder in all this mess what I am really benefiting or possibly losing with a 7 channel versus 6 channel. Realizing in all of this that not only is the NAD T763 more pricy than the Yamaha 2400 but the step up to the 7.1 T773 is TWICE the price of the 2400. I can swing the extra few hundred but for 2x I need to know I need it.

I just want some insight to what is really valuable in all of this to consider. I think maybe some manufacturers are fooling us as to what's really important, feeding off our frenzy to have the latest and greatest, and I want to spend what I need to so I won't regret it but not more than I have to. Make sense?

Any insight??</font>

 

[goodman]

<font color='#000000'>After reading the opinions of people smarter and more knowledgeable than I, I am led to the conclusion that anything more than five channels is a waste. &nbsp;In fact, for a couple of weeks, I have been running with the center channel off and the center information feeding into the left and right channels. &nbsp;Without the center, the depth improves. &nbsp;I think I like it better. &nbsp;In conclusion, your suspicions are correct. &nbsp;Go by the sound quality and don't take additional channels in to consideration.</font>

 

[EdR]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

buckeyeshine : <font color='#000000'>Looking for the best bang for my buck I have opened the doors beyond the Yamaha RXV-2400. All opinions are welcome but I don't really want to get into brands versus brands because it gets so personal.</font>

<font color='#000000'>For what it's worth, here's my current short list. &nbsp;What you're going to listen to is quite important. &nbsp;In my case, music is as important as movies, but the movies are as important as music also. &nbsp;As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'll be driving CSW Towers which are Henry Kloss designed bi-polars with his classic 'New England' smooth sound. &nbsp;I have a smallish room, so power isn't a concern. &nbsp;My budget limit is about $2,000 (though I'd be happy to pay less

My current short list is, in current ranking (subject to change)

Arcam AVR-300
NAD T773
Yamaha RXV-2400
OutLaw Audio 950/7100 (separates)

My 'B' list is the Onkyo TX-NR 801 and the forthcoming Denon AVR 3805, though it could rise when I can actually see one.</font>

 

[zumbo]

<font color='#000000'>The 2400 is 7.1,6.1, or 5.1. Am I missing something here, or did I read this wrong? I have the 1400 and I love it. I may add more speakers later, but 5.1 is working for me at the moment. I would go with the 2400!</font>

 

[Shinerman]

<font color='#000000'>I wouldn’t say more than 5 channels is a waste. &nbsp;I think it really depends on your room. &nbsp; My set up is a 5.1 with the Yamaha 1400 and Boston Acoustic speakers. &nbsp;The way my room is laid out, I really can't go with 6.1 or 7.1. &nbsp; Some larger rooms could really benefit from 6.1 and 7.1. &nbsp;My buddy has a 7.1 set up and it is awesome. &nbsp; Much more enveloping sound. &nbsp;But he has a large dedicated HT room.

Also, remember there are only a handful of 6.1 DVD releases and no 7.1 releases that I know of. &nbsp;7.1 does not exist other than in terms of speakers. &nbsp;Your receiver &quot;simply&quot; processes the sound to the extra channels (that's a whole other discussion) when in 6.1 or 7.1.

I say, if you have the room and budget, go for 7.1 or at least 6.1. &nbsp; 5.1 is great but 6.1 and 7.1 do add to the experience. &nbsp;If nothing else, you can get the 6.1 or 7.1 receiver so you will always have that option. &nbsp;

Bye the way, &nbsp;I love my RX-X1400. &nbsp;Yamaha makes a fine receiver.

Just my .02 cents,

Shinerman</font>

 

[hopjohn]

<font color='#000000'>I think the most important thing to consider is where your preference lies: movies or music. I enjoy a 7.1 setup. Even in a small room it can noticeably enrich the movie watching experience. If I were to put a dollar amount on the increased enjoyability I'd say it would be 1/6th better than 5.1. Use that as a gauge in determining how much more you'd spend for 6.1 or 7.1 over 5.1. Increase that factor to 1/5th if you are in a larger room where the additional channel/s becomes more prevelant. I think this is a fair way to look at it.

This forum seems to highly recommend the VX-2400, I have no personal experience with this product, but I can say that a friend of mine recently purchased the Pioneer Elite 53TX for around $680 shipped, which lists for 1500, though is more often sold for 1000 at retail. It's worth a look if you're in the market for a reciever. The exterior build quality is certainly superior to the VX-2400, but otherwise I couldn't say.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>I'd say stick with 5.1 until this multi-channel stuff becomes mastered and standardized. They can't even agree on 5.1 yet, much less 6.1 and 7.1.</font>

 

[av_phile]

<font color='#000000'>Quality over Quantity??

A good 2-channel set-up is basic for stereo music listening and for some purists can be too good to go any further. &nbsp;

But I must say going multi-channel can also be a lot of fun as it gives a totally new listening experience. &nbsp;I know some audiophiles who just go for 4.1 with the center being phantomed as it gives better imaging in a small room especially if it's only you and the spouse at most who are listening. &nbsp;A center channel can be necessary if you have a lot of people scattered throughout &nbsp;a large room where localizing the voice versus the monitor cannot be achieved with just 2 fronts.

For me 4.1 would be the ninimum for surround experience and lavishing that set-up with the best gears ou can afford can provide a better investment that going 6.1 or 7.1 with less quality.

However I will not go so far as to call the 6.1 and 7.1 as just pure marketing hype. &nbsp;There are researches being made by respectable manufacturers who sincerely believe that more channels are necessary to provide a truly realistic listening experience. &nbsp;Afterall, the pioneers in the audio reproduction industry actually started with multi-channel sound as a preference. &nbsp;Stereo just became the standard becasue it was easier and cheaper to mass-produce. (They really had 3-channels in mind) Consider also that a recording studio often records using mutli-track multi-channel open reels, 16 channels which they later downmix to stereo in cutting an LP or CD. &nbsp; And the first cineramas with multi-channel capabilities provided the best movie sound duing the 50s and 60s.

Today, there are already &quot;height&quot; chanels being studied that would utilize 2 additional chanels to give a more spatial sonic imagery. &nbsp;There's even talk about the Columbia/Tristar SDDS format being introduced for home use and the format requries a center, 4 front channels and 2 surrounds. &nbsp;Add the 2 height channels and you have 9 discreet chanels. &nbsp;I think there's a pre-amp or receiver out there with 9 or 10 discreet channels.</font>