5.1 vs. 'poor' 7.1

[BrianPatch]

I'm in the process of completely updating my HT system. I'm was planning a 7.1 system. However, due to several constaints I cannot place the [side] surrounds in the proper place relative to the viewer. Attached is a layout of the living room and speaker placement. The speakers will be in/on-wall speakers (Axiom w-series).

I guess the question I have is would a 7.1 system with badly placed surrounds be worse than a 5.1 system? In other words should I save some money and stick with a 5.1 system if I can't place the side surrounds in the correct place.
Thanks.
Brian

 

[jcPanny]

Surround speakers

I see the speaker locations, but I am not sure about the furniture. Is there a sectional couch in the back corner or is that a bar or something? If you are directly against the back wall, then it will sound "bad" regardless of whether you have a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker setup.

The Axiom inwalls should work great for the front and center channels. I would use the inwall version of the M22tis for the fronts. For the surround and sur backs, the QS8s would perform much better. The wide dispersion of this speaker makes it much more forgiving for speaker placement and listening position.

You should also enquire with Axiom for their recommendations.

 

[BrianPatch]

Yeah... that's a sectional against the wall. Unfortunately, this is our only living room so I'm going to have to do the best I can.

 

[j_garcia]

I'd say 5.1 would be better if you don't plan on moving the couch. I would advise against in wall speakers for the mains. Were you going to mount or do inwalls? They just don't sound as good as free standing speakers (though I have not heard the new Axioms) and leave you basically no flexibility once installed.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

The "side" surrounds are the 4th & 5th channel on 5.1

The "back" surrounds are the 6th and 7th channel on 7.1

So either way you're already stepping into a suboptimal layout. I blame house builders who have some unhealthy obsession with putting windows in every room.

 

[BrianPatch]

Oh crud....I misunderstood the speaker position for 5.1 verses 7.1. So it looks like in either the 5.1 or 7.1 case I'll have to some how figure out how to move the "side" surrounds back closer to the back wall. Ugh...

Thanks...

 

[MDS]

Oh crud....I misunderstood the speaker position for 5.1 verses 7.1. So it looks like in either the 5.1 or 7.1 case I'll have to some how figure out how to move the "side" surrounds back closer to the back wall. Ugh...

Thanks...

Based on your picture, I'd say you did NOT misunderstand - they are labeled correctly.

The way I see it, you have two choices:
1. Stick with 5.1 and use only the 'side' surrounds. Ideally side surrounds should be between 90 degrees and 110 degrees from your listening position and slightly (2-3 feet) above your head. That would be tough to do with that room layout, but hey compromise is sometimes necessary when the room isn't ideal. It looks like a nice room, just not so ideal for perfect placement of speakers.

You CAN put the single set of surrounds behind you (not ideal but workable) but the problem is that they will be right behind you and thus fire over your head. One potential solution to that problem is to use dipole or bipole speakers there. The null of a di/bipole would be directly over your head and the speakers will fire to your left and right. That will produce better surround than monopoles firing towards the front.

2. Go ahead and go with 7.1, but again use di/bipoles for both the side and rear surrounds. The side surrounds will fire toward you sitting on the couch and away from you toward the tv. The rear surrounds will fire left and right behind you as in option 1. I don't think you want monopole speakers on the sides in the position you have shown because the sound will seem to be in front of you instead of around you.

In case you aren't familiar with dipole and bipole, bipole speakers have drivers on opposite sides but each driver is in phase with the other (think 'buy-in' to remember it); ie both drivers move in and out at the same time. Dipoles also fire in opposite directions but are out of phase; ie when one driver is moving in, the other is moving out. My opinion is that bipole for the rear surrounds and dipole for the side surrounds will work well.

Polk and others make speakers that have a switch on them so you can easily change them from bipole to dipole simply by flipping the switch.

 

[brian32672]

I may be seeing this wrong??? But it looks very easy to work with.
I made a very crude drawing of the drawing. I think I would use the back surrounds either at a 5* angle or on the 2 side walls (yes in the back). Then the side surrounds I would put at a 10* angle, and or even better I would use Di/Bi poles for the sides. Mount them flush on the sides (most of these will already be at least 10* angle on both sides). I would use the sub closer to the rear (next to main seating). And put the center on a stand, and bring the fronts flush across the front of the TV (or whatever is being viewed, Plasma, CRT, PJ Screen, etc..)

Anyhow, my sig below says it all. So pay no attention to me....

 

[j_garcia]

I like Brian's idea, but I would start with the sub in the front corner of the room. The problem with sitting too close to the wall remains though. This is never going to give you the best sound.

 

[nova]

Have you thought about some Axiom QS series speakers for the sides? I'd also look at speading your Front L and Front R a little further apart.
Personally with what you are looking at I'd go with 3 W-100 for the front soundstage, 2 QS8 for the sides and round it out with an EP500

 

[BrianPatch]

I was planning on 2 W22 for the Front R/L and W150 for the Center. I was going to use W3 for all the surrounds but based on the comments here it looks like I'll have to consider the QS8 for the surrounds (either 2 or 4). My main reason for using the W-series was the stealth factor and to appease the boss.

 

[nova]

Any particular reason you want a W150 rather than a third W22 for the center?
As for the QS8 and stealth, I think it will still be pretty stealthy. They are smaller than the W3 you planned to use (just 2" more depth). Plus you would have only two rather than four.

 

[Shadowx28]

i would say the best thing you could do w/ either 5.1 or 7.1 is to buy some nice big comfy chairs, and put them right in front of your tv, so that ur surrounds actually surround you

 

[BrianPatch]

Shadow, I think that that option is only available if I get a divorce

Nova, wrt the W150 I just assumed that that would be the correct choice for the center. What am I missing?

I just spoke to someone from Axiom (Brent) and he suggested what the other Brian suggested except he suggested QS4s for all the surrounds.

Brian

 

[jcPanny]

QS4 vs. QS8

The QS8's have the same driver as the M22tis and VP150 (and their inwall versions) so they will be a better tonal match to the fronts. They are also capable of playing louder. Unless the cost difference is an issue, I would recommend the QS8s, especially for 5.1

 

[nova]

Brian,....
I don't think you're missing anything. That's just what "I" would do,.... don't let me spend your money. I would prefer 3 identical speakers for the front soundstage and the QS8 uses the same drivers as the W22. I just think that is where you would get the best tonal / sonic / timbre match. (or whatever you want to call it)

 

[j_garcia]

All of the bookshelf speakers and centers are so close in timbre that there would be no reason to choose one vs the other by driver size. The material of the drivers and the crossover are more responsible for timbre match than the driver size.

 

[mulester7]

.....I believe bookshelves and center speakers should render the best mids to be had, and that is the resolvement their enclosure is usually tuned to, the mids....floorstanders stand a chance to resolve the highs....listen to what you've got and see what you think are your speakers' strong points of resolvement....if your floorstanders give different highs than your bookshelf surrounds, and it is obviously better highs in the bells and twinklers, the last thing you want is three of your floorstanders for the soundstage....that center position should be for clarity in the mids....food for thought.....

 

[nova]

I don't have an argument for you other than why do you think the QS8 would have better highs than the W22? As for the driver size, I assume all these speakers are already timbre matched, it is just my personal preference/opinion that three identical speakers (same cabinet, x-over, drivers, etc) for the front soundstage is best. I also have a preference for bi/di/quad for surrounds, and as long as I'm getting the I'd just as soon they had the same drivers as the mains.

 

[mulester7]

I don't have an argument for you other than why do you think the QS8 would have better highs than the W22? As for the driver size, I assume all these speakers are already timbre matched, it is just my personal preference/opinion that three identical speakers (same cabinet, x-over, drivers, etc) for the front soundstage is best. I also have a preference for bi/di/quad for surrounds, and as long as I'm getting the I'd just as soon they had the same drivers as the mains.

.....Nova, you're good as gold, and I wouldn't have a clue between a QS8 and a W22....I'm just saying a "line" of speakers will, or should, have matching timbres....I would then listen to perspective fronts and surrounds from that line, seeking a combination that compliments each other by resolvement of both the highs and mids....then you would have some "strong" mains via surrounds....all factors lead to the front soundstage....and, whether or not to use a center speaker geared toward mids, or three mains across the front, would depend on each particular situation, I guess......