or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1?? - Page 13

post #361 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Winders View Post

I'm thinking all speakers should be at the same height, but can't find a definite answer.

Typical advice about speaker placement is to have them at ear height, pointing at you. This works fine for the front soundstage, where articulation is more important than envelopment. But ear-height placement can be a problem with a 7.1 set-up that has the side speakers directly in line with a row of listeners. For example: if you're sitting in the middle of the couch, then the head of the listener on either side of you will block direct sound from the side speakers. Raising them up a couple of feet (the speakers, not the listeners) will allow everyone to be in clear line-of-sight of the speakers, especially the tweeters.

The height of the rear speakers is not as critical because our human hearing isn't very good behind us (the parts of the ear that help with height cues are pointing in the opposite direction). For the sake of consistency, you can place the rears at the same height as the sides. But if room logistics or some other reason force you to place the rear speakers higher or lower than the sides, don't sweat it: you won't notice the difference.

The other thing about placing the surrounds above ear level is that it adds a little height element, allowing for some phantom overhead imaging. Makes the surround field sound less like a two dimensional ring at the listener's plane and sound more like a three dimensional bubble around you.

Sanjay
post #362 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

You just *had* to re-open this old can o' worms again, eh?

The side and surround speakers can all be mounted above ear height, per the Dolby Website:


http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_e...oomlayout.html

Craig

Thank you for the reference, Craig. This is very helpful. Now I can mount my speakers and enjoy my HT while the rest of you argue.
post #363 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The other thing about placing the surrounds above ear level is that it adds a little height element, allowing for some phantom overhead imaging. Makes the surround field sound less like a two dimensional ring at the listener's plane and sound more like a three dimensional bubble around you.

Sanjay

Thanks to you as well, Sanjay. This makes complete sense. Mounting the speakers a bit higher works out much better with the room layout.

I'll play with a few temporary locations to see what sounds best before I do my permanent mounting, but, at least I have a better idea where to start!
post #364 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Winders View Post

I'll play with a few temporary locations to see what sounds best before I do my permanent mounting...

That's exactly what I did, using step-ladders and stacks of boxes as temporary speaker stands, living with each change for a few days. Completely forgot to suggest it in my post.

BTW, the added height made my monopole speakers sound a little more diffuse than I liked. Tilting all 4 surrounds down towards the listening area restored the balance more towards direct sound (my personal preference). Something else to consider experimenting with.

Sanjay
post #365 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That's exactly what I did, using step-ladders and stacks of boxes as temporary speaker stands, living with each change for a few days. Completely forgot to suggest it in my post.

BTW, the added height made my monopole speakers sound a little more diffuse than I liked. Tilting all 4 surrounds down towards the listening area restored the balance more towards direct sound (my personal preference). Something else to consider experimenting with.

Sanjay

Exactly my plan. Enjoy the show!
post #366 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanaka View Post

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

post #367 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

And what if the sound is someone's footsteps behind you?


Shoot first, then look around to see if there was a sound reversal!
post #368 of 385
I just got my first HT and I went with 7.1. Because next year I will get a 50" plasma and a blue-ray disc player. Thats what all movies will be in the future just as now they are 5.1. Plan ahead.

The satellites are placed on the ceiling aimed at the seating area.

Aperion Intimus 532 Cinema
Onkyo 605
post #369 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Shoot first, then look around to see if there was a sound reversal!

LOL! Very good
post #370 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The references cited so far in this thread by Craig and me apply to human hearing, which doesn't change upon stepping in or out of a home theatre. The phenomenon is caused by sound. It's not like the sound from loudspeakers is specifically immune. And like I told you, this is not a game, it's science. You can keep "playing" until you're tired, but it won't change how human hearing works. Who is asking anyone to care about it? I mentioned it as an established psychoacoustic phenomenon that occur when sounds come from directly behind the listener. The OP can use the information or dismiss it. Or he can understand the problem but feel that it's not enough of a detriment to warrant spending $1200 on another speaker. Notice that at no time did I tell him what to do, one way or the other, let alone how much to care about it.

Sanjay

So basically, you did all that typing just to say the same exact thing that the letters "n" and "o" put together would have accomplished to answer the question that was asked of you.

You are smart enough to know (as both Craig John and John have repeatedly directly or indirectly stated) that the conclusion of any scientific test or experiment conducted is only truly valid within the specific conditions under which it was carried out, which may or may not still be the same under any other set of circumstances or conditions (as John has already alluded to, which you seem to be ignoring by not responding for whatever reason BTW). As I'm sure you are well aware of, sound can vary not only between different surround speaker types (bi-pole/di-pole and monopole), but from room to room as well.

You have been asked on more than one occasion now whether or not you can produce anything objective about reversals in a 6.1 surround system, and clearly the answer is no, or else you would have long ago. Either that, or if you do in fact know of anything, you just don't want to to use it because it doesn't support you.

I asked you for just one reference scene, and you named three, one of which I had instant access to (MTM). I tried it not just once, but twice, both before and after I knew which specific part of the chapter the alleged reversal occurred at, and I clearly heard the voice originating from the mid-rear on my Revel S12 surrounds when it should have, so I am now satisfied that this is a non-issue to me.
post #371 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Shoot first, then look around to see if there was a sound reversal!

Try that one in court when you are going through the trial! Think it would be considered "reasonable doubt"?
post #372 of 385
say what?
post #373 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

I'm sure you are well aware of, sound can vary not only between different surround speaker types (bi-pole/di-pole and monopole), but from room to room as well.

You keep attempting to move this towards specific hardware and away from the actual problem: human hearing, the limitations of which don't suddenly vanish upon entering a home theatre.

Psychoacoustic research demonstrates that humans are less sensitive to low frequencies. Upon reading the research, Craig could again point out that this limitation might not apply to subwoofers because the researchers didn't specifically mention a home theatre environment. That's his prerogative and you can cling to it if you don't want to believe that your subwoofer sounds quieter at the same SPLs as your speakers.

But the problem isn't the sub itself, any more than it is the single rear speaker. The problem is human hearing. If you want to believe that your speaker set-up is immune to psychoacoustics, be my guest. What difference does it make? It's not like your "I don't hear it" will undo decades of established science.

Sanjay
post #374 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin View Post

For a number of years in a previous living room setup I made distinct use of front / rear reversal to watch movies late at night.

How is that possible when reversals supposedly don't exist?

Sanjay
post #375 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

But the problem isn't the sub itself, any more than it is the single rear speaker. The problem is human hearing. If you want to believe that your speaker set-up is immune to psychoacoustics, be my guest. What difference does it make? It's not like your "I don't hear it" will undo decades of established science.

Hardly seems very well established at all outside of an anechoic chamber with who knows what as a sound source and/or companies that sell 7.1 as being "better".
post #376 of 385
I just finished reading this thread...why? I have no idea. It reminded me of the "do speaker cables make a difference" type threads on many sites. I suspect that the "scientists" on this thread don't believe that speaker cables make a difference because of the "literature" out there on the subject using abx testing yada yada yada. Educated people have written about the fallacies of abx testing but just like religion, you'll never convince people holding the opposite viewpoint that they are wrong. Published studies may tell you a lot about human hearing and perception but it doesn't mean that the data are universally applicable to every situation.

Does this reversal effect apply to DISCRETE 6.x recordings such as LOTR EE trilogy or The Haunted?

I'm going to do a 6.1 setup just because it will suit my room better. I'll use the centre rear when there is a discrete sixth channel or perhaps with the DTS-ES matrixed channel too. For 5.1 I'll stick with 5.1. Of course, I'll experiment with different combos too. I was considering the 7.x setup but now that I've seen that very few blu-ray or hddvds have 7 discrete channels I'll just abandon it. That may change in the future.

I'm sure there are talented people at Dolby and DTS but I prefer the approach taken by Gary Reber at Widescreen Review. Unless things have changed, he advocates 6 channel surround - check out their website for interesting non-hostile reading!

A therapist would make a killing by meeting with many of the members of this forum.
post #377 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You keep attempting to move this towards specific hardware and away from the actual problem: human hearing, the limitations of which don't suddenly vanish upon entering a home theatre.

Psychoacoustic research demonstrates that humans are less sensitive to low frequencies. Upon reading the research, Craig could again point out that this limitation might not apply to subwoofers because the researchers didn't specifically mention a home theatre environment. That's his prerogative and you can cling to it if you don't want to believe that your subwoofer sounds quieter at the same SPLs as your speakers.

But the problem isn't the sub itself, any more than it is the single rear speaker. The problem is human hearing. If you want to believe that your speaker set-up is immune to psychoacoustics, be my guest. What difference does it make? It's not like your "I don't hear it" will undo decades of established science.

Sanjay

Well since we are in fact discussing human hearing as it relates to HT, in particular a 6.1 speaker array, any hardware involved designed specifically for that application which solves this so called problem is in fact relevant to the discussion, the same of which can not necessarily be said about the "established science" you keep clinging too and repeating like a broken record. Even you realize this whether you want to admit it or not.
post #378 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bogg View Post

A therapist would make a killing by meeting with many of the members of this forum.

No kidding!

Basically, the main combatants here simply love to fight and not give an inch. They talk past each other, exaggerate the position their "opponent" is taking and argue against that, and doggedly carry on to "win" some imagined prize that is theirs if they can somehow outlast their wrongheaded counterpart.

The donkey-like stubbornness of some of these guys is amazing and can be amusing for a while, but by the time they've argued the same points for about the 6th or 7th time in a row it grows a little dull

Bill
post #379 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Well since we are in fact discussing human hearing as it relates to HT, in particular a 6.1 speaker array, any hardware involved designed specifically for that application which solves this so called problem is in fact relevant to the discussion, the same of which can not necessarily be said about the "established science" you keep clinging too and repeating like a broken record.

Since you don't believe in reversals, what hardware "solves" this non-existant problem? As for repeating the established science, it's not like it changed during the course of this thread, so there's nothing new or different to point to about the reversal phenomenon (certainly nothing out there that disputes it).

Sanjay
post #380 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Since you don't believe in reversals, what hardware "solves" this non-existant problem? As for repeating the established science, it's not like it changed during the course of this thread, so there's nothing new or different to point to about the reversal phenomenon (certainly nothing out there that disputes it).

Sanjay

The exact same hardware you just accused me of "attempting to move this towards" (as quoted in bold in my last post).
post #381 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

The exact same hardware you just accused me of "attempting to move this towards" (as quoted in bold in my last post).

What does it do to solve the reversal problem?

Sanjay
post #382 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What does it do to solve the reversal problem?

Sanjay

It has already been covered. If you missed it the first 6 or 7 times, go back and re-read the thread.

In fact, allow me to use your very own words here that sort of relates to it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

BTW, the added height made my monopole speakers sound a little more diffuse than I liked. Tilting all 4 surrounds down towards the listening area restored the balance more towards direct sound (my personal preference). Something else to consider experimenting with.

Sanjay

But I have a feeling you will miss the point once again, intentionally or not.
post #383 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

How is that possible when reversals supposedly don't exist?

Sanjay

I believe it is because unfortunately I only have human hearing
Wait, I have it...yes the crux of the biscuit, the room was also more of a LR or Media room NOT a HT !
post #384 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

In fact, allow me to use your very own words here that sort of relates to it

I posted about making my 4 surround speakers less diffuse. What does that have to do with your speaker set-up solving the reversal problem? You could simply answer in a straightforward manner instead of being cryptic.

Sanjay
post #385 of 385
Anyone able to answer my previous question about whether this reversal "problem" will "theoretically" affect discrete 6.1?

I was just thinking about the research articles quoted which are 15 to 20 years old. Not that there's anything wrong with "old" research (the wheel has been around for a while!), but what type of signal was used? (obviously dd, dts et al were not around in their current form). Was it a mono signal in 6.x that caused the "problem"?

Not that I give a hoot about what the theoretical problem is. Most home theaters I've seen (including expensive ones) have mediocre acoustics and average speakers which limit the fidelity more than "reversal".

I've spent a bit of time designing my room with the help of Chris Huston from Rives Audio and he didn't have any issues with my using a centre rear speaker.

Hopefully the OP learned something useful from this thread which has deteriorated into a pathetic "dorks vs jocks" argument.

I'm off to another thread........
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1??