AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Considering 5.1 is really the highest supported, and 7.1 right now is just 5 channel converted through prologic IIx.


Is 7.1 something that really isnt needed right now ? If I buy a reciever thats 7.1, right now will I be future proof or is real 7.1 going to require some kind of special DSP that my reciever I want to buy now won't be able too.


im also not super rich, just a college student with expensive taste
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sanborn
Considering 5.1 is really the highest supported, and 7.1 right now is just 5 channel converted through prologic IIx.


Is 7.1 something that really isnt needed right now ? If I buy a reciever thats 7.1, right now will I be future proof or is real 7.1 going to require some kind of special DSP that my reciever I want to buy now won't be able too.


im also not super rich, just a college student with expensive taste
First you can get DVD's with DD EX and DTS ES in matrix 6.1 and even a few DTS ES discrete 6.1. So DPL II (or other 7.1 matrix like Logic 7) is not the only way to go.


If you buy any receiver right now it will not be able to decode DD plus or DTS ++ (although the player could use analog outputs). These are the new standards for discrete lossless up to 7.1 audio for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sanborn
im also not super rich, just a college student with expensive taste
You should preferably get better quality 5.1 than lower quality 7.1. The extrachannels are really not absolutory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
I agree that a good 5.1 implementation is better than a bad 7.1 implementation... but Logic7 can make 2.0 mixes sound like discrete 7.1 mixes so I would not let the matrix issue bother you... and if PLIIx is anything like L7, it is definitely an improvement over regular 5.1.


My advice to you would be to buy a good 2.0 or 2.1 system now based on bookshelf speakers (budget heavily weighted to speakers) with the intention of moving the bookshelves to surround duty when you actually start getting an income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
I'm not sure which 7.1 receivers would qualify as being "bad" but based on my experience I would recommend it if you can afford the extra cost over a 5.1 of comparable quality AND you have a decent sized media room where it will make a difference. The two rear speakers need to be placed behind you so if your seating area is against or very close to the rear wall it's probably not going to be worth it. Of course you also need to take the cost of the two extra surround speakers into account - this could easily add as much to the total cost as the extra 2 channels in the receiver. Last point is that if you are buying it primarily for music, then it's not nearly as important - the added benefit will primarily show up for movie soundtracks.


Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,174 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sanborn
5.1 is really the highest supported
Highest supported what? Channels? Speakers? DTS has discrete 6.1-channel material. Sony, Denon, Sunfire and Yamaha support 9-speaker configurations on some of their receivers. Besides, the number of channels in the source material has never been important for 7-speaker playback. If you look at companies that specialized in creating leading edge surround processing (Fosgate, Meridian, Lexicon), you'll notice that their technologies were built around a 7-speaker configuration. This was way before there was any discrete multi-channel material available to consumers (e.g., Lexicon has had 7.1 processors since 1988, seven years before DD 5.1 debuted on laserdiscs in 1995).
Quote:
Is 7.1 something that really isnt needed right now ?
Well, nothing in home theatre is really "needed". But 7.1 systems are useful because they offer advantages over 5.1-speaker playback. Some surround content (ambient sounds like rain, wind, traffic) sound better coming from your sides while other surround effects (like front-to-back flyovers) appear more natural coming from behind you. The easiest and most effective way to get imaging at your sides and behind you is to simply have speakers at your sides and behind you. (This isn't rocket science.) It's certainly better than using 2 surround speakers to strike some sort of compromise between side and rear imaging. Having speakers placed at those locations also means greater stability in the surround field. No matter where you sit, sounds from behind you will be locked to that direction because they're coming from speakers physically located behind you. A side benefit of this is better wrap-around envelopment in the surround field because 4 speakers can 'surround' you better than 2 speakers can.
Quote:
im also not super rich, just a college student with expensive taste
This is usually the part where everyone advises you to spend whatever little money you have on a "good" 5.1 set-up rather than a "bad" 7.1 system. I'll be the audiopile heretic and give you the opposite advice. Priorities vary, and I can't tell you what should be important to you and what shouldn't. But personally I would rather buy 4 lesser model surround speakers than 2 better ones. The best surround speakers in the world can't be in two locations at once. For me, the improvements in localization and envelopment and stability are worth going with 4 surround speakers.


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,779 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by JBaumgart
I'm not sure which 7.1 receivers would qualify as being "bad" but based on my experience I would recommend it if you can afford the extra cost over a 5.1 of comparable quality AND you have a decent sized media room where it will make a difference. The two rear speakers need to be placed behind you so if your seating area is against or very close to the rear wall it's probably not going to be worth it. Of course you also need to take the cost of the two extra surround speakers into account - this could easily add as much to the total cost as the extra 2 channels in the receiver. Last point is that if you are buying it primarily for music, then it's not nearly as important - the added benefit will primarily show up for movie soundtracks.


Just my 2 cents.
On the Denon receiver I have, the manual shows how to configure it for use with just one surround back speaker. I haven't been able to find this answer through a forum search: is the surround back a mono or a stereo mix? Because of the size of my room, it would be easier to fit 1 rather than 2 speakers behind me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,299 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by petergaryr
On the Denon receiver I have, the manual shows how to configure it for use with just one surround back speaker. I haven't been able to find this answer through a forum search: is the surround back a mono or a stereo mix? Because of the size of my room, it would be easier to fit 1 rather than 2 speakers behind me.
Uh...1 back surround would be mono, 2 stereo (with PLIIx).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by William


If you buy any receiver right now it will not be able to decode DD plus or DTS ++ (although the player could use analog outputs). These are the new standards for discrete lossless up to 7.1 audio for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Agreed...and this is under-reported here.

Anyone about to buy a pre-pro or AV-rcvr should wait for this milestone.

I'm holding off on a Pio59TXi until it has HDMI, DD plus and DTS++.

12-18months? ++?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,779 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Marc Alexander
Uh...1 back surround would be mono, 2 stereo (with PLIIx).
Understood. Let me clarify the question: is the surround back signal a stereo or a mono signal? If I add 2 speakers instead of one, is there a true "surround back left" and "surround back right"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,466 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by petergaryr
Understood. Let me clarify the question: is the surround back signal a stereo or a mono signal? If I add 2 speakers instead of one, is there a true "surround back left" and "surround back right"?
With DPLIIx or Logic7, yes. DTS es discrete or DDEX matrix are 6.1 (mono back surround), but you still want the back channel duplicated in two speakers to avoid reversal problems (or place the back surround off axis from the center channel, which will eliminate reversal but have localization issues).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sanborn
Considering 5.1 is really the highest supported, and 7.1 right now is just 5 channel converted through prologic IIx.


Is 7.1 something that really isnt needed right now ? If I buy a reciever thats 7.1, right now will I be future proof or is real 7.1 going to require some kind of special DSP that my reciever I want to buy now won't be able too.


im also not super rich, just a college student with expensive taste
So you are young, dumb, and full of...


I welcome you to the 7.1 college club if you decide to go with it. I also work a full time job with classes which helps with my expensive taste and tuition (thank god for scholarships). 7.1 is not needed, but neither is 5.1. If its what you want, and its feasable, go for it. There is a definite difference with the added channels for stereo sources and dd, dts formats. JMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,402 Posts
The 7.1 receivers, that I have checked, allow for 6.1 operation. For the single rear (surround) speaker, you use the left rear output and set the receiver for 6.1 operation. This should be no problem. The trade off is getting a cheaper 6.1 receiver now and upgrading to 7.1 later or getting a 7.1 now and postponing the upgrade for a little longer.


cajunlab has a good point. With the HDMI, DD+ and DTS++ coming out "soon", it might make more sense for you to get a lower cost 6.1 (or even 5.1 - if you can get a better deal) unit now, and save your money for a better one after you graduate. That will allow you to put more money into better speakers, if your budget allows. The speakers will make a bigger difference in the quality of sound than the extra channel(s).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sanborn
Considering 5.1 is really the highest supported, and 7.1 right now is just 5 channel converted through prologic IIx.
With direct radiating or bipole surround speakers it gets you a quantum improvement in immersion over 5.1; although I wouldn't compromise on L/C/R or sub quality to get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
The more I think of it, the more I agree with Sanjay. I wrestled with this decision in my HT redesign. I actually used a 6.1 system (single back surround) and I didn't think much of it. I thought 5.1 was just as good, and perhaps better (it was hard to compare because I went from 5.1 in the old house to 6.1 in the new house). So I thought I might go back to a 5.1 setup when upgrading my speakers (Thiel Powerpoints).


Then I decided that the surround information accounts for 10% of all of the audio content. And I realized that it wasn't audio quality that mattered (for movies, for me) it was the feeling of envelopment in the sound field that really mattered. So I decided to spend $200 to add a 7th surround (the missing rear surround) rather than $2000 to add two matching rear speakers. This also helped justify the expense of the front speakers.


Though, the one thing I would say to a college student is that you should start small and mangeable. Play with 5.1 for a while. Get to know it. Then try 7.1 (borrow someone's speakers). See if it makes a difference. If so, then upgrade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
well to me going to 7.1 was well worth it ;)

but I also have a room where my back speaks can be back a bit

if I was in a room with a couch backed up to a wall I would say 5.1


but if you have the room and want to swing it you are only young once ;) so go for it ;)


to me I am so happy I went with 7.1



as far as the future of surround goes you could wait ;) then the next thing around the corner wait again ;) better yet wait once again

if I know something is coming out that will for sure be way better then I might wait a bit

as far as BR etc.. there was another thread but my feelings are all my DVDs all my friends I borrow and a ton that I rent wont all of a sudden turn into BR discs with new 7.1 sound so I dont mind having it now to enjoy what is out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,779 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ferrisg
With DPLIIx or Logic7, yes. DTS es discrete or DDEX matrix are 6.1 (mono back surround), but you still want the back channel duplicated in two speakers to avoid reversal problems (or place the back surround off axis from the center channel, which will eliminate reversal but have localization issues).
Thank you. Just the answer I needed. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,319 Posts
An easy way to think about it. Count the amount of titles you have (or will buy soon) that are true or matrix 6.1 (ES/EX) and think about how many times you might play these titles in the coming year(s). The LOTR extended cuts are a good example (DTS/ES) Divide the extra amount you might spend on the RS by the play number. If it fits for you - go for it!


Of course, many do not care about the origin of the audio mix, and love the RS on with any 2 or 5.1 title. In this case, ignore the formula.


You can always process 5.1 to play in the RS. The question is - Do you want to.


I could use the Veg Food mantra - `Did It Grow That Way' (was it mixed that way)


Good Luck with your decision


E
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
from my experience, I own the Denon 3805, while watching Bad Boys II the other night, I tried a few things, first I canceled out my 7.1 chanel sound and made it 5.1, by choosing no SB- speakers through the receiver, by doing that the movie was playing only using standart Dolby Pro Logic 5.1, which sounded good, but once I chose 7.1 through the receiver by changing SB to small, it gave me 7.1 support with Dolby Pro Logic IIx, even though I did not have the additional 2 extra speakers the sound was more detailed and more engaging, in other words= FULLER, for some reason PL IIx gave the sound track more umpf, to my ears Dolby PL IIx 7.1 sounds better than Dolby PL 5.1, not saying that 5.1 sounds bad because that's not the case, it's that 7.1 just sounds better,and for beign the next generation of PL it should, take care.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,713 Posts
Definitely go with a 7.1 receiver. Sanjay offers the best advice, despite those that say a "good" 5.1 system is better than a "bad" 7.1 system.


If you want to wait 12-18+ months, go ahead and wait, but I'd be willing to wager that the next greatest innovation will be 12-18 months after that.


There is no such thing as "future proofing" if you want to stay on the leading edge. If that's not important, any decent 7.1 receiver these days will serve you well for many years. Besides, upgrading every 3 or 4 years is the American way. :)
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top