7.1 speakers question.

[UFObuster]

I just upgraded my HT and music system with Klipsch RF-5 mains (reference towers), RC35 center, and RSW-10 sub. I put my old DefTech BP-6 towers in the surround positions. They are bi-polars and work nice in a 5.1 config. Power is from a new yammi rx-v2600. I do music about 70% and movies about 30%. I really like the 5.1 sound that I have now. My room is a little long and narrow with HT in 2/3 of the space and a raised dinning area back of it.

Questions:

1) is it worth it to employ the 7.1 back channels from the 2600? Will I notice enough real sound improvement or am I just getting better bangs, pops, and crashes in movies?

2) I have a pair of left over DefTech bi-polar surrounds from the old Pro-logic days (before DD and DTS). They are rather small and not "full spectrum" sound speakers. Do I need to get full range speakers for the 7.1 backs?

3) option: I also have a left-over DefTech center channel, full range speaker (matches the old BP-6 towers). Would I be better off using it in a 6.1 configuration in the back (mono back) instead of #2 above?

4) I know...spending some more is the real answer but not for now...

Comments? suggestions?

thanks

Roger

 

[Johnd]

1) is it worth it to employ the 7.1 back channels from the 2600? Will I notice enough real sound improvement or am I just getting better bangs, pops, and crashes in movies?
2) I have a pair of left over DefTech bi-polar surrounds from the old Pro-logic days (before DD and DTS). They are rather small and not "full spectrum" sound speakers. Do I need to get full range speakers for the 7.1 backs?
3) option: I also have a left-over DefTech center channel, full range speaker (matches the old BP-6 towers). Would I be better off using it in a 6.1 configuration in the back (mono back) instead of #2 above?
4) I know...spending some more is the real answer but not for now...
Comments? suggestions?

thanks

Roger

1) Yes, and yes. The 6th (or 7th) channels are for effects "better bangs, pops, and crashes" etc. There are only 100-150 good 5.1+ dvds out there, and how many are you going to own? I find it most evident in Pearl Harbor when the planes are 500' behind you, then the sides move them screaming right past you. Or similarly, in Gladiator when the catapult is engaging, then soaring behind you, until the side channels pass the ball. You get the gist. The 6th (or 7th) channels add more spaciality to the effects, making you feel more like in the ring (Pearl Harbor), on the front (Gladiator), or standing in the middle of the pod race (Star Wars).

2) No. The fuller spectrum the better, but low extension down to 60hz (or even 80hz depending on the quality of your system), is acceptable. Again, the back channels only play effects, and a good sub carries the bass.

3) Trial and error. Sound is funny. Your personal tastes in your setting with your equipment will tell you what sounds best. Noone here can tell you what sounds best in your theater from their keyboard.

Trial and error, and then testing with some good 6.1 or 7.1 soundtracks (Pearl Harbor, Gladiator, Star Wars, Titanic, etc), for proper placement and tweaking. Enjoy!

 

[Josuah]

A rear channel might help you, as you have an open wall behind you and aren't getting the existing surround sounds reflected around to give you an enveloping sound. That's why 5.1 makes sense in smaller areas while 7.1 makes sense in larger ones.

Regardless, many movies don't make use of the rear channel. But some receivers will allow you to matrix the surrounds into the rear as if the movie was mixed using the rear channel. This may or may not sound better to you. It does help me when I have guests in my second row.

 

[Josuah]

Forgot the rest of your questions. Two speakers behind you instead of one will be better, otherwise you can't tell if the sound is behind you or in front of you. They do not need to be full-range.

 

[UFObuster]

using 7.1

thanks Josuah and JohnD for the replys...
I'll certainly be trying this out.

BTW, I found this on the AVS forum site. It produced an interesting thread:

http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback103.html

Roger

 

[Johnd]

UFObuster: I've already read that paper, and I think it's a bunch of poppycock. It is really directed at those with small budgets, small rooms, and those that will never buy (and appreciate) 5.1+ movies. I'll be the first to admit there aren't many good ones...I have ten or twelve so far. But I do appreciate the extra dimension and depth afforded by that extra 6th (or 7th) channel, as in Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Titanic, etc. He clearly wrote the article to simplify things for the masses...not those who already enjoy 5.1 soundtracks, and have the space, budget, ears, and interest in seeking out good movies with extra sound separation. So for the masses (probably in excess of 95%), who have or are getting a ht, I think this article serves its' purpose; simplify receiver and speaker selection for those who are daunted by the "complexity" of 5.1. Just my $0.02.

 

[Josuah]

Yeah, I read that also. For a smaller room the rear channel doesn't make as much sense because of the reflections. Especially so when you consider the vast, vast majority of home theaters are HTiB or low-end and don't have any acoustical treatments (i.e. lots of reflections). So two surrounds can easily produce a wide soundstage around you, although you could argue whether or not it's a _good_ soundstage.

One example I appreciated of the rear channels was in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers when the worg swallows the head of one of the soldiers. With the rear channel, you can the experience of the mouth closing on you and going into the throat, as the sound pans from the front to sides to rear.

 

[Sheep]

UFO: I buried my answer inside your post. If you "read between the lines" you'll be able to detect it.

Why don't you just edit it..... ?

SheepStar

 

[Johnd]

One example I appreciated of the rear channels was in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers when the worg swallows the head of one of the soldiers. With the rear channel, you can the experience of the mouth closing on you and going into the throat, as the sound pans from the front to sides to rear.

And doesn't that make it worth it? Not just that one scene, but that and others like it. For $200.00 or $300.00 you can get a good pair of surround backs (assuming you already have the 7.1 receiver), and then experience "the mouth closing on you and going into the throat, as the sound pans from the front to sides to rear."

 

[Johnd]

Why don't you just edit it..... ?

SheepStar

Will do. Forgive me.

 

[UFObuster]

5.1 vs 7.1

UFObuster: I've already read that paper, and I think it's a bunch of poppycock. It is really directed at those with small budgets, small rooms, and those that will never buy (and appreciate) 5.1+ movies. I'll be the first to admit there aren't many good ones...I have ten or twelve so far. But I do appreciate the extra dimension and depth afforded by that extra 6th (or 7th) channel, as in Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Titanic, etc. He clearly wrote the article to simplify things for the masses...not those who already enjoy 5.1 soundtracks, and have the space, budget, ears, and interest in seeking out good movies with extra sound separation. So for the masses (probably in excess of 95%), who have or are getting a ht, I think this article serves its' purpose; simplify receiver and speaker selection for those who are daunted by the "complexity" of 5.1. Just my $0.02.

Just so. The AVS forum thread treated the article pretty much as you did. And I agree. I would not dismiss 7.1 at all.....I was just measuring my commitment to adding in some more expense.

Some interesting opinions that I read used the analogy of 5.1 developing from 2 channel stereo. There is a qualitative and sometimes improved difference in playing back 2 channel content on 5 channels. This largely drove the industry until discreet 5 channel stuff came out. I also agree that 7.1 currently remains the domain of the discriminating buyer of hi-fi. For most people, 5.1 "out of the box" is fantastic...considering how much value you can get these days.

 

[Josuah]

13.3! Woo! Next: 360.18 or something crazy like that.

 

[Jack Hammer]

My $0.02

I have a small room without a back wall. The 7.1 setup sounds much better on some movies and on others I honestly can't tell any difference. I don't regret my setup because I moved my front speakers to the back when I upgraded, so there was no additional cost for me. With the exception of the few movies mentioned and maybe a couple others, the overall result wouldn't have justified the cost for me. So far it is better, but not hundreds of dollars better.

When I eventually move into a larger, less awkward place I'll see how much of a difference it really makes.