Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1?? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 05:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NoNic2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I already bought speakers in 6.1 setup as package was on good discount. I dident install speakers yet and now I wonder should I go on buying another one to complete setup for 7.1 or should I put money toward better projector? Speaker is around 1200$. How much would I miss not having two rear speakers, they are rarely used anyway.
NoNic2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 06:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mazersteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Seems to me more people go 5.1 or 7.1.
mazersteven is offline  
post #3 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 06:27 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NoNic2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yes ,thats the problem, I am kinda in the middle, I can invest toward one more speaker but that would mean lower quality projector or delay till I save money.
NoNic2 is offline  
post #4 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mazersteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Delay JMO

Projector, Television tech comes and goes so fast.
mazersteven is offline  
post #5 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Senior Member
 
tanaka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dover, PA.
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anything over 5.1 seems like a waist to me...
tanaka is offline  
post #6 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
mconno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNic2 View Post

Yes ,thats the problem, I am kinda in the middle, I can invest toward one more speaker but that would mean lower quality projector or delay till I save money.

Why? A suggestion in the past when this question arose before and was answered this way.....why go without anything ? A cheapo surround to complete the set up, may do the trick temporarily, as they are not as critical as the mains. Borrow something, anything to see if you could live with a mismatch....if that's the case. Remember that, with most speaker environments that may differ on either side of the room...your speakers are essentially "mismatched" to some degree anyway...IMHO.
mconno is offline  
post #7 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 08:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I went from 7.1 (actually .2) down to 6.2, and am very satisfied, and actually like the single rear speaker better than the two that 7.1 provide. I found that the single speaker gives a more direct sound than the 2 did, making the rear information much more directional and enjoyable for me.
Either 6.1, or 7.1 will be a huge improvement over the 5.1 though.
davidpa is offline  
post #8 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 08:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
mconno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

I went from 7.1 (actually .2) down to 6.2, and am very satisfied, and actually like the single rear speaker better than the two that 7.1 provide. I found that the single speaker gives a more direct sound than the 2 did, making the rear information much more directional and enjoyable for me.
Either 6.1, or 7.1 will be a huge improvement over the 5.1 though.

Agree....Was running 5.1 and didn't find a huge diff. with most music (except big band) when I went to 7.1(actually 7.3, can't have too many subs), but huge on some movie tracks. Wouldn't go without....never compared to 6.1, interesting thought though. Can't wait for 9.1...11.1 etc.
mconno is offline  
post #9 of 385 Old 06-19-2007, 09:00 PM
Newbie
 
hilscher11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i would say stay at 6.1 as youll be very hapy with it and would get mroe enjoyment out of a larger or better projector
hilscher11 is offline  
post #10 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 12:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazersteven View Post

Seems to me more people go 5.1 or 7.1.

Sure, because 6.1 set-ups are psychoacoustically flawed. A single rear speaker along the listener's centre line can create back-to-front imaging reversals. Plus, the surround-back information on 6.1-channel soundtracks was intended to be heard from behind you in general, not specifically from the middle of the back wall.

This is why Dolby and DTS and THX all recommend using 2 rear speakers, even when playing back the mono surround-back channel of EX/ES soundtracks. Same reasons why companies historically at the leading edge of surround sound (Fosgate, Meridian, Lexicon) have designed their surround processing technologies around a 7-speaker layout, never 6 speakers. Lexicon processors, for example, deliberately have no provision for a single rear speaker; only 5.1 or 7.1.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #11 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 07:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Havent we had this same thing come up before?

To the OP, MOST people do NOT have the single rear channel directly opposite of the CC in the rear of the room, so the problems that Sanjay mentions dont become a problem if setup wisely, just like everything else in your system. I will say that I have NEVER had a back to front reversal of imaging by using just one rear channel speaker, and I still to this day like the more direct sound from just the one speaker.

This could turn into a thread about how I'm wrong, and am doing it wrong, etc. etc.
So, I will leave with this. My personal "downgrade" from 2 rears to just one, was a HUGE IMPROVEMENT in my overall performance, and there is no reason for me to state otherwise.
I guess I just live on the edge, and ignore recommendations as if they were law, because as with everthing else, there are exceptions to the rule.
davidpa is offline  
post #12 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Newbie
 
arrow61095's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Any is a good choice. However, there just doesn't seem to be much media out that offers 6.1. Most things seem to offer 5.1, or 7.1 I have also read that if you get 6.1 and decide to update later, it is more difficult.
arrow61095 is offline  
post #13 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Well, to add to the confusion....I went from 5.2 to 7.2, back to 5.2, up to 6.2 and finally to 7.1 (current setup).

The surround backs went from 1 to 2, back to 1 and now back to 2.

Experimentation is the name of the game in this hobby. I believed in trying setups, listening them for a while, then making ONE change at a time to see if it results in an improvement or degradation, then moving on to the next change.

For me, 1 sub worked better than 2, and 2 surround backs worked better than 1.
petergaryr is offline  
post #14 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 08:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well said Petergaryr.
I didnt go into such detail with my setup, but I have done very similar swap outs like yourself, and it looks like we came up with different results! Each room has its own personality, and some setups dont work as well in one room as they do in another.
We've done pretty much the same changes, and ended up with almost opposite results, so it just goes to show, there is no such thing as a cookie cutter setup.
davidpa is offline  
post #15 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 09:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

Havent we had this same thing come up before?

We have. In the previous thread I listed the research (dating back to the 1970s) that documented the reversal problem. All you could do was keep repeating that you don't hear it.
Quote:


the problems that Sanjay mentions dont become a problem if setup wisely

That's not true. The reversal phenomenon exists for any sound source within 30 degrees of the listener's centre line. Whether you personally hear it or not doesn't change the fact that it exists. And there isn't a way to set it up "wisely" that defies psychoacoustics. The wisest thing to do is simply avoid the problem, especially when the solution is so easy.

If this weren't a problem, then why would Dolby and DTS and THX want you to reproduce a mono signal through 2 speakers? And why would the surround-back channel be the only one that they recommend 2 speakers for playback? Why not any of the other channels? Did all three companies randomly pick a channel and it just coincidentally happen to be the one behind you?

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #16 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

Well said Petergaryr.
I didnt go into such detail with my setup, but I have done very similar swap outs like yourself, and it looks like we came up with different results! Each room has its own personality, and some setups dont work as well in one room as they do in another.
We've done pretty much the same changes, and ended up with almost opposite results, so it just goes to show, there is no such thing as a cookie cutter setup.

Agreed.

I think that's why people shouldn't be afraid to experiment. As you correctly point out, each room has a particular sonic signature that has to be factored into everything that is placed into that room.
petergaryr is offline  
post #17 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sanjay, let it go. You have proven that there has been scientific tests done concerning the human ear, and hearing. I, once again, am fine with that research, but for whatever reason YOU choose not to budge at all on your stance without regard to whats happening IN MY ROOM, and others on the same thread before.
The way I have my rear speaker set up DOES NOT apply to your tests as it is NOT, I repeat IS NOT on the same center line, and there is NO reverse affect, AT ALL, yet you continue to say that it just cant be, and what I hear is wrong. You are more than welcome, as I have mentioned before, to stop by at any time to be proven wrong, IN MY ROOM, not where these tests are done, or in another room where it may occur, which by the way, I do believe can happen.
And to say that a "wisely" placed rear channel wont solve the problem, you are incorrect. Works well in my room, and others too, which you also ignored based on science, in a controlled environment, looking for the phenomena, but why not also give the science behind the ways this phenomena DOES NOT occur?
There are always two, at the least, sides to a story, but you choose to focus on just one to suit your belief. Whatever. I've given my experience, it works whether or not you want to see it, or for that matter, even understand it.
'
davidpa is offline  
post #18 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
jaseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNic2 View Post

I already bought speakers in 6.1 setup as package was on good discount. I dident install speakers yet and now I wonder should I go on buying another one to complete setup for 7.1 or should I put money toward better projector? Speaker is around 1200$. How much would I miss not having two rear speakers, they are rarely used anyway.

I just want to know what single rear surround speaker costs $1200.00

Better to want what you don't have, than to have what you don't want!

jaseman is offline  
post #19 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:36 AM
 
gts007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
you should go 9.1.
gts007 is offline  
post #20 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:38 AM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanaka View Post

Anything over 5.1 seems like a waist to me...

That would be wrong.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #21 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

Sanjay, let it go.

Let what go? Facts?

I posted information (and not the anecdotal kind) about specific problems with 6.1 set-ups. The OP is free to use it or ignore it as he wishes.

What is it about well supported information that bothers you so much?
Quote:


for whatever reason YOU choose not to budge at all on your stance without regard to whats happening IN MY ROOM

The reason is simple: this thread, and the information I posted, is about 6.1 speaker layouts, not about your room. Not everything is about you.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #22 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 11:52 AM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:


There are always two, at the least, sides to a story

That's a fallacy. There are not two sides to every story, that is the point of science.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #23 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 12:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with David. In all my years, I've never heard a "Front/back reversal". 7.1 as a processing algorithm is more flawed, IMO, than 6.1 processing and I'd rather have ideally setup 6.1 than an ideally setup 7.1.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #24 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 01:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PLincoln's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr View Post

Well, to add to the confusion....I went from 5.2 to 7.2, back to 5.2, up to 6.2 and finally to 7.1 (current setup).

The surround backs went from 1 to 2, back to 1 and now back to 2.

Experimentation is the name of the game in this hobby. I believed in trying setups, listening them for a while, then making ONE change at a time to see if it results in an improvement or degradation, then moving on to the next change.

For me, 1 sub worked better than 2, and 2 surround backs worked better than 1.

The real confusion is how people through terms like 5.2, 7.2, 6.2 and finally 7.1 around...these numbers stand for discrete channels, not the number of speakers used to reproduce that channel.

5.1 is 5.1 regardless of how many subs you are using on the LFE channel...I have an IB sub in my theater along with 7 channel surround..does that imply I have 7.4? no...it's still only 7.1
PLincoln is offline  
post #25 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 02:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NoNic2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaseman View Post

I just want to know what single rear surround speaker costs $1200.00

It is Jamo D7 THX ultra 2 speaker, same speaker are used as fronts also. In USA they are probably cheaper but that price is converted in dollars how much I have to pay there I live. I will make up my mind in two months.

Keep the comments comming, so far I am leaning toward buying the speaker and delaying projector.
NoNic2 is offline  
post #26 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 02:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLincoln View Post

The real confusion is how people through terms like 5.2, 7.2, 6.2 and finally 7.1 around...these numbers stand for discrete channels, not the number of speakers used to reproduce that channel.

It depends on the context.

When describing source material, you are correct: the convention is to use the X.x nomenclature to refer to the number of discrete channels. So soundtracks with a matrixed surround-back channel are still refered to as 5.1 EX, not 6.1.

However, when discussing speaker layouts, X.x refers to the number of speakers/subs in the set-up.

As long as those numbers are put in context, there should be no confusion. For example, when someone says they listen to 5.1 music on their 7.3 set-up, it's pretty clear what they mean.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #27 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 04:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
davidpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Audio Nirvana
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sanjay, you are right, this isnt about my room, BUT IT JUST MIGHT APPLY TO HIS AS WELL, and work JUST FINE.

I love it how you guys try to convince people what they "are supposed" to be hearing, and then twist and turn statements to suit your argument.

I'll state one more time.

I HAVE NO FRONT/BACK REVERSAL WHATSOEVER, NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER, REGARDLESS of what SCIENCE tells Sanjay should be happening in MY ROOM, so that just might apply to OTHER PEOPLES ROOMS, and not just in a controlled environment.
davidpa is offline  
post #28 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 06:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpa View Post

I love it how you guys try to convince people what they "are supposed" to be hearing, and then twist and turn statements to suit your argument.

No one has tried to convince you what you're supposed to be hearing.

I've simply repeated well researched and documented facts. These facts exist independent of what you hear (or don't hear). I've alreadly listed six companies that base their surround technologies on these facts. And since I'm not relaying anecdotal experience, there's no need to "twist and turn" anything.

As I said before, the OP (or anyone else reading my posts) can decide to use or dismiss the information I've posted.

Finally, shouting in CAPS doesn't make your statements any more compelling.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #29 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mazersteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No one has tried to convince you what you're supposed to be hearing.

I've simply repeated well researched and documented facts. These facts exist independent of what you hear (or don't hear).

Sanjay

He seems to hear a lot of things other don't. Maybe he has superpowers we don't know about.

mazersteven is offline  
post #30 of 385 Old 06-20-2007, 07:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLincoln View Post

The real confusion is how people through terms like 5.2, 7.2, 6.2 and finally 7.1 around...these numbers stand for discrete channels, not the number of speakers used to reproduce that channel.

5.1 is 5.1 regardless of how many subs you are using on the LFE channel...I have an IB sub in my theater along with 7 channel surround..does that imply I have 7.4? no...it's still only 7.1

Of course....but it is a convenient abbreviation, and if people understand what is meant....what's the harm?
petergaryr is offline  
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off