# 5.1 to 7.1 is it worth it? If so how critical is matching?



## steiny93 (Jan 8, 2009)

Have 5.1 in a dedicated theater room; 18 x 26 feet in dimension.
Current setup being JBL Northridge series for all 5 channels.

Rears being the E30's with the following specs

Maximum Recommended Amplifier Power: 125 Watts 
Power Handling (Continuous/Peak): 70 Watts/280 Watts 
Impedance: 8 Ohms nominal 
Sensitivity (2.83V/1m): 88dB 
Frequency Response (–3dB): 50Hz – 20kHz 
Crossover Frequency: 4000Hz 
High-Frequency Transducer: 3/4" (19mm) Titanium-laminate dome, shielded 
Low-Frequency Transducer: 6" (170mm) PolyPlas, shielded 
Dimensions (H x W x D): 15" x 8-3/8" x 12" (381mm x 213mm x 305mm) 
Weight Per Speaker: 16.3 lb (7.4kg)

Processing handled by an Emotiva UMC-1
2 questions

In a room of that size will I notice an improvement going to 7.1; my guess is yes
For the rear side speakers; is it critical to go with ones matching the rears?

Asking about the rears and sides matching as in this room going to an in-wall set for the sides would be much more visually appealing. Thinking of going with these
Niles HD 8:
• Recommended amplifier power: 10W to 150W
• Frequency response: 50Hz-21kHz +/-3dB
• Sensitivity: 89dB for 2.83V pink noise
• 6-ohm impedance
• Frame dimensions: 10-3/16 x 14-1/4 inches
• Hole cutout dimensions: 9-1/8 x 13-1/8 inches
• Anti-resonant wave- bracing technology
• Infinite baffle design
• Depth behind ceiling: 3-5/8 inches (based on 1/2 inch drywall)
• Shipping weight: 12 lbs. 3 oz.


Since the HD 8's are built in's I would rather not get them installed then decide they don't cut it. So any feedback would be appreciated.
thanks


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I would say if you have two rows of seating in that size room there would be an advantage to having a 7.1 speaker setup. Matching surrounds is not as crucial as the fronts.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I believe 7.1 can be adventageous in any size room, no matter how small. 7.1 sound is a process that can help to envelope the listener and to give more front to back symetry/effects. How well it works for you depends on the equipment/room layout and how the sound engineer designed the sound track.

If I had a very long room, I would probably use 2 sets of side surrounds, and then still have the set of rear surrounds in the back.

I switched from 5.1 to 7.1 last year. Can I tell the difference? I don't know, I didn't do any critical evalution between the 2 setups. But I'm glad I did it.

The only critical evaluation I did was finding out which of the matrixed processes sounded best in my room for when it has a 5.1 source. I'm at work now and can't remember specifically which process I went with (I know it's not THX) but it is a 6.1 matrix (yes, 6.1, even though the speakers are setup as 7.1).


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

Yes, it will be worth it.

Matching isn't as critical, but your current speakers are misplaced. In a 5.1 setup, the surround speakers should be to the side, not the rear. So, take this opportunity to move your current speakers to the side and add the mismatched speakers in the rear.


----------



## Tufelhundin (Jan 25, 2010)

I went to the SVS HQ in Ohio last spring and they have a 7.1 system set up, we listened to the M Series speakers and a single PCU. The side surrounds were actually the SBS they had the SSS but unfortunatley they were brand new and just sitting on their box and not set up, anyway we demoed Master & Commander DTS for I feel this is one movie that has the best surround sound of any movie and listening to it in 7.1 "to me" was jaw dropping for it sounded amazing compared to my 5.1 setup.

having said the above many things could have come into play, but it wasn't the room for its just a room and nothing fancy about it "at all". The avr was what seemed a very old pioneer...probably a model that one of the first able to play 7.1, lol! I'm thinking it might have just been a much better speakers and location. But as mentioned it sounded much better than my 5.1, the room was not very big either.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

gdstupak said:


> I believe 7.1 can be adventageous in any size room, no matter how small. 7.1 sound is a process that can help to envelope the listener and to give more front to back symetry/effects. How well it works for you depends on the equipment/room layout and how the sound engineer designed the sound track.
> 
> If I had a very long room, I would probably use 2 sets of side surrounds, and then still have the set of rear surrounds in the back.
> 
> ...


A man after my own heart:T

Before I went 7.1, I compared at least three of my systems in a 5.1 and 7.1 shootout using my twin son's ears and opinion(both audio mixing guys). We determined that no matter what the size of the room, 7.1 was a very palpable enhancement to 5.1, and every soundtrack we heard benefited greatly from being upmixed to 7.1 via DPLIIx. After this test, I upgraded all of my hometheaters, mixing rooms, and screening rooms to 7.1. 

Unlike some, I believe that all 7 speakers should be identical, especially since we are slowly but surely moving to 7.1 soundtracks. At the very minimum, at least all of the surround speakers should be alike if you are going for large fronts, and small rears.


----------



## steiny93 (Jan 8, 2009)

Sir Terrence,
Thats exactly the input I was looking for; a head to head comparison between a 5.1 to a 7.1 in the same room. I've seen quite a few "so so" reports when someone has transitioned from 5.1 to 7.1. The more I learn the more I believe that is due to either subpar content or a mis configured / accoustically painful environment.

I'm going to start with the HD8's in the walls for the sides and if I don't get the semetry and smooth transition to the rears I'll swap out the E30's for HD8's at a later point.

thanks for the input


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

steiny93 said:


> Sir Terrence,
> Thats exactly the input I was looking for; a head to head comparison between a 5.1 to a 7.1 in the same room. I've seen quite a few "so so" reports when someone has transitioned from 5.1 to 7.1. The more I learn the more I believe that is due to either subpar content or a mis configured / accoustically painful environment.
> 
> I'm going to start with the HD8's in the walls for the sides and if I don't get the semetry and smooth transition to the rears I'll swap out the E30's for HD8's at a later point.
> ...


No problem. I just want to add something if you have not cut out the holes for the in walls. Try to mimick this setup as close as you can

http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electronics/Home_Theater/~/media/E339FF665AD1400E8FC33E581EB6F952.ashx

This way you will be sticking closer to the setup that 7.1 soundtracks are mixed on. The more you adhere to studio standards, the more accurate you will have in reproduction of those soundtracks. Also, if you are going to have more than one row of seats, I would recommend another pair of side surrounds so you have even surround coverage for each row of seats.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

I have to completely disagree with anyone suggesting 7.1 is for all size rooms. I had a sub/sat 7.1 system in a 12ft by 13ft room and I could hardly tell the difference between the 2 setups.

It is a combination of seating position and room size, in that room my couch was in the only feasible position, right near the back wall so I had to place the sats up high pointing down at me, there was only 1 occasion I noticed any benefit and that was when I moved the couch into the middle of the room, it did sound great.

Putting a couch in the middle of a room leaves you with the smooth bass dilema, the best seating position for good quality bass is somewhere within the back 3rd of the room.

For your size room I would definately go for 7.1 providing your listening position is flexible enough to be able to give enough distance from side to rear surrounds but still keeping the couch no further in than the back 3rd.

Just to add another though, in a shootout of surround speakers which compared dipoles and monopoles in a 7.1and 6.1 setup, this used joe public in the test and they had no idea which speakers were operating, they just had to say which sound they preffered, 4 dipole surround won the overall test!!

Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Marty raises some good issues, but there are a lot of variables, and tools to deal with each of the issues he raises. 


marty1 said:


> I have to completely disagree with anyone suggesting 7.1 is for all size rooms. I had a sub/sat 7.1 system in a 12ft by 13ft room and I could hardly tell the difference between the 2 setups.


I have two rooms in the same house that have mini sized(except the subwoofer)sub/sat speaker systems in very small spaces. Both rooms are pretty close in size to yours(12x15x10), and both have a 7.1 speaker package in them. Both main 7.1 speakers are of similar size, but quite driver different technology. Both used the same 5.1 and 7.1 setup as illustrated here;

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/setup/speaker-setup-guide/index.html

and here;

http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electronics/Home_Theater/~/media/E339FF665AD1400E8FC33E581EB6F952.ashx

Both were set up so that at the central listening position, each speakers drivers were exactly 5'4" to the ears. 

One speaker package consisted of custom mini-monitors designed with a 5.75" carbon fibre/kevlar mid/woofer, and a 1.1/2 beryllium tweeter in a inert aluminum cabinet with a matrix bracing system, paired with a single subwoofer outlined in my signature crossed over at 80hz. The other system consisted of 7 CRM-2, paired with a the same subwoofer in my signature. 

http://www.sunfire.com/productdetail.asp?id=24

One room had a 60" plasma monitor, the other a 64" 3D plasma monitor both placed above the subwoofer which was placed on a low stand to decouple the sub from the floor, and to place the bottom of the screen at eye level. 

In other words, both systems in both rooms were optimized for both the best video, and 5.1 and 7.1 audio. 



> It is a combination of seating position and room size, in that room my couch was in the only feasible position, right near the back wall so I had to place the sats up high pointing down at me, there was only 1 occasion I noticed any benefit and that was when I moved the couch into the middle of the room, it did sound great.


In both of my rooms, my ears(in the central listening seat) were 4'7" or so away from any wall, the rooms were hometheater dedicated rooms. I had no other use for these rooms other than that. My listening seat is between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way back in the room, centrally located between each 5.1 or 7.1 speaker(the monitors took up some space into the room). 



> Putting a couch in the middle of a room leaves you with the smooth bass dilema, the best seating position for good quality bass is in the back 3rd of the room.


This all depends on the location of the subwoofer. In my size room, between the center and back 3rd of the room yielded the flattest frequency response in the two seats in that room. 



> For your size room I would definately go for 7.1 providing your listening position is flexible enough to be able to give enough distance from side to rear surrounds but still keeping the couch no further in than the back 3rd.


In his size room, he does not have to be hard locked into the back 3rd of the room to get good bass. His size room is pretty identical to the room the sound system in my signature is in. In that room, the bass response is flattest in between 1/2 and 2/3rds parts of the room which widens your optimum seating placements. The 4 subwoofers in that room are clustered in pairs between the center and left/right mains, and with equalization they achieve a smooth Audyssey corrected response of -+1.0 from 20-80hz in those positions. There are tools to erase the back 3rd limitation in seating placement. 



> Just to add another though, in a shootout of surround speakers which compared dipoles and monopoles in a 7.1and 6.1 setup, this used joe public in the test and they had no idea which speakers were operating, they just had to say which sound they preffered, 4 dipole surround won the overall test!!
> 
> Marty


Is this test valid for the OP's size room, or another size room? Did they include a speaker array of more than 4 speakers in their test? Probably not, but Floyd Toole recommends this setup, and based on my experience with both a dipole setup, and an array of surround speakers in a room the same size as the OP's, the array setup was far better. It more emulated the setup of both a professional theater, and a dubbing stage. 

This is not to dismiss your opinion Marty, but to strictly present solutions and experience that address your opinions.


----------



## steiny93 (Jan 8, 2009)

awesome feedback,
I haven't cut the holes yet; but i will be able to exactly abide by the dobly 7.1 placement recommendations.

once i land the upgrade; i have a business trip pulling me out of the country for bit; i'll post my thoughts / results

thanks
jeff


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Points well and truly taken on board :T

The sound test used several different combinations of dipoles and direct firers, they only had 4, 2 sides and 2 rears, they tried dipole sides with direct rears, then direct sides with dipole rears, then all directs and then all dipoles and they all basically agreed that 4 dipoles sounded the best.

With central seating I can only go by my own experiences and I have found that central seating placement has never been practical in any of the gaffs I have lived in, I would love to have a dedicated home cinema room but it has always been lounge/cinema everytime.

I personally found that no matter where the sub went the centre of the room was rather lifeless, but I have only ever had 1 sub so I would imagine more subs could balance this out.

I have now downgraded from 7.1 sub/sats to 5.1 full range, my surrounds are bipole side surrounds and to be honest the room is filled to the brim with sounds, the idea of having 2 speakers mimicking several speakers is quite appealing and I can't imagine more speakers adding much more involvement, if anything overkill comes to mind. I also found the full range 5.1 setup devastates the sub/sat 7.1 setup I had.

The other thing with 6.1/7.1 is there is bugger all out there, my best surround sound blurays are all 5.1, being a bit of a purist I do not like to use enhancments that spread the sound over the 4 rears, it says 5.1 for a reason and that is there is only 5 discrete channels to hear.

Marty


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

I see no need to go to 7.1 but it can be helpful in any room. Dipoles are too costly IMO to be worth the hassle. Matching
Surrounds to fronts is not necessary or preffered IMO save the extra cash for the fronts and subs. Theaters have different speakers for surrounds and mains too


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

marty1 said:


> The other thing with 6.1/7.1 is there is bugger all out there, my best surround sound blurays are all 5.1, being a bit of a purist I do not like to use enhancments that spread the sound over the 4 rears, it says 5.1 for a reason and that is there is only 5 discrete channels to hear.
> 
> Marty


Maybe so but your forgetting thet in the theaters they have been matrixing the sound for longer then there has been home theater so thats really a mute point as they all use far more than 5.1 channels, If set up corectly 7.1 or even 9.2 will sound better than any 5.1 system. I have 7.1 and would never go back to 5.1


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I don't see why matching speakers wouldn't be preferred.
The reasons for matching surrounds to the front is the same as matching the front L/C/R. But I would agree it's probably not as noticeable.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> Maybe so but your forgetting thet in the theaters they have been matrixing the sound for longer then there has been home theater so thats really a mute point as they all use far more than 5.1 channels, If set up corectly 7.1 or even 9.2 will sound better than any 5.1 system. I have 7.1 and would never go back to 5.1


I know what you are saying but to be honest I have always found the sound at home much more enjoyable than that of a cinema, you get to hear much more detail and clarity than your average cinema. The only cinema experience I have had with noticeably impressive sound was in the bfi imax, it was incredible, but the only reason for me it beats my home setup is the bottomless bass that energizes the room, if I was looking at sound quality from speakers alone then only the power it delivers impresses me at the imax, not the detail. 

The size of the cinema means it has no choice but to have speakers all around as you would have huge gaps in the soundfield, the average home cinema does not really need that much space to be filled. Also if I was really impressed by the power of the imax and wanted to equal it at home I would then have to be thinking about spending more money on amps as adding 2 more speakers to an av amp will actually decrease the overall power is the amp is going to have to drive 2 more speakers, so again without spending yet more money you are defeating the object.



gdstupak said:


> I don't see why matching speakers wouldn't be preferred.
> The reasons for matching surrounds to the front is the same as matching the front L/C/R. But I would agree it's probably not as noticeable.


I would have to agree with that, it would have to be a very close match for sound delivery if they weren't so I would say it is always better to go with matching surrounds, the difference probably wouldn't be too noticable but it's better to be safe than sorry, if only for peace of mind knowing you will get an even soundstage.

Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

marty1 said:


> Points well and truly taken on board :T
> 
> The sound test used several different combinations of dipoles and direct firers, they only had 4, 2 sides and 2 rears, they tried dipole sides with direct rears, then direct sides with dipole rears, then all directs and then all dipoles and they all basically agreed that 4 dipoles sounded the best.


Was this test outlined in Sound and Vision a few years ago? I thought I read about it in that magazine. 



> With central seating I can only go by my own experiences and I have found that central seating placement has never been practical in any of the gaffs I have lived in, I would love to have a dedicated home cinema room but it has always been lounge/cinema everytime.


Having a dedicated room is great, you don't need to make a whole lot of audio and video compromises to accommodate other activities done in the room. 



> I personally found that no matter where the sub went the centre of the room was rather lifeless, but I have only ever had 1 sub so I would imagine more subs could balance this out.


Rooms are a funny thing. In my small rooms, putting the sub in a corner just does not work out well IMO. The center front wall measured better than the corner placement in my two small rooms. When I put the sub on a 10" isolation platform, it measured even better. 



> I have now downgraded from 7.1 sub/sats to 5.1 full range, my surrounds are bipole side surrounds and to be honest the room is filled to the brim with sounds, the idea of having 2 speakers mimicking several speakers is quite appealing and I can't imagine more speakers adding much more involvement, if anything overkill comes to mind. I also found the full range 5.1 setup devastates the sub/sat 7.1 setup I had.


As a sound designer, bipolar speakers are a problem for me. Bipolar speakers spread the sound, and that is an advantage in one respect. But that spreading makes them only good for one surround environment. If I wanted to create a small tight environment using the surrounds, the bipolar speaker will spread it out instead. This is why I like an array of direct radiators. The translate exactly the surround environment I want, any size I want, and still cover the room. 



> The other thing with 6.1/7.1 is there is bugger all out there, my best surround sound blurays are all 5.1, being a bit of a purist I do not like to use enhancments that spread the sound over the 4 rears, it says 5.1 for a reason and that is there is only 5 discrete channels to hear.
> 
> Marty


Actually DPLIIx does not spread the sound over 4 speakers, it only spreads it into the 2 back wall speakers. The effect is subtle but immersive, and it effectively fills in the gap that is behind our heads. Plus, there are some 7.1 movie soundtracks trickling out, and ton's of 7.1 music tracks already out, so you are set up and ready to play these. I like the flexibility of being able to play tracks that go from 2.0 to 7.1. If I only had a 5.1 setup, I would feel like I was missing something when a 7.1 soundtrack was there to play. Those two extra channels really do make a difference even when they are matrixed.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

gdstupak said:


> I don't see why matching speakers wouldn't be preferred.
> The reasons for matching surrounds to the front is the same as matching the front L/C/R. But I would agree it's probably not as noticeable.


It is quite noticeable when the surrounds do not timbre match the fronts. There is a noticeable lack of smoothness with front to rear, and rear to front pans. Effects tend to jump from the front to the rear. The timbre of the effects will change when speakers are mismatched. You do not get the acoustic "bubble" when your speakers are not timbre and tonally matched. The 360 degree sound field is not coherent. Once you have experienced the acoustical "bubble" that timbre and tonally match speakers can give you, you can no longer go back to a mismatch front/surround setup.

While the front speakers in a theater are larger than the rear, they are usually timbre matched to ensure uniformity throughout the entire theater.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

marty1 said:


> The size of the cinema means it has no choice but to have speakers all around as you would have huge gaps in the soundfield, the average home cinema does not really need that much space to be filled. Also if I was really impressed by the power of the imax and wanted to equal it at home I would then have to be thinking about spending more money on amps as adding 2 more speakers to an av amp will actually decrease the overall power is the amp is going to have to drive 2 more speakers, so again without spending yet more money you are defeating the object.


Something tells me you have not heard a properly set up 7.1 system as I am positive you would change you tune. I also think it depends on the speakers you are using for your surround channels. If they are the size of pop bottles dont expect much from them. I use speakers that can go down to 40hz without breaking a sweat and that allows them to reproduce what the studio intended them to do. It is also very important that your seating is at least 3 ft from the rear wall as reflection off the back wall will cause undesirable results.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

lsiberian said:


> I see no need to go to 7.1 but it can be helpful in any room. Dipoles are too costly IMO to be worth the hassle. Matching
> Surrounds to fronts is not necessary or preffered IMO save the extra cash for the fronts and subs. Theaters have different speakers for surrounds and mains too


The theaters surrounds are smaller, but they are voiced to match the fronts and that is VERY important if you want uniformity throughout the room. The theater surrounds can be smaller, they only handle signals from 80hz and up, and with the coupling of several of them along one wall, their power handling with that bandwidth is equal to one front speaker. 

The surrounds should never be treated as a lesser component of a surround system. Tonal uniformity throughout the entire 360 degree sound field is a highly desirable thing in a multichannel sound system.


----------



## steiny93 (Jan 8, 2009)

Is there a way via speaker specifications or something to ensure that speakers are matched or tonally uniform? IE, besides buying all the same model of speaker?

I guess I'm driving at; besides 'trusting' a speaker manufacturers judgement is there a way to measure the amount of matching between speakers?


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

The best way is to get all of the exact same speakers.
Even if they have most of the same specs, different speakers will sound different. 2 speakers can use the exact same drivers, the exact same driver layout, the exact same crossovers, but if the speaker boxes are different in any way (size, shape...), they will sound different.
Listen to the pink noise sent out from your AVR used to set levels. Does that pink noise change from speaker to speaker? The same signal is sent to each speaker.

Of course, room placement will also have an affect on the sound characteristics.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Sir Terrence said:


> As a sound designer, bipolar speakers are a problem for me. Bipolar speakers spread the sound, and that is an advantage in one respect. But that spreading makes them only good for one surround environment. If I wanted to create a small tight environment using the surrounds, the bipolar speaker will spread it out instead. This is why I like an array of direct radiators. The translate exactly the surround environment I want, any size I want, and still cover the room.
> 
> What kind of enviroment are bipolars good for?
> 
> Actually DPLIIx does not spread the sound over 4 speakers, it only spreads it into the 2 back wall speakers. The effect is subtle but immersive, and it effectively fills in the gap that is behind our heads. Plus, there are some 7.1 movie soundtracks trickling out, and ton's of 7.1 music tracks already out, so you are set up and ready to play these. I like the flexibility of being able to play tracks that go from 2.0 to 7.1. If I only had a 5.1 setup, I would feel like I was missing something when a 7.1 soundtrack was there to play. Those two extra channels really do make a difference even when they are matrixed.


I also feel a bit like I am missing out as I have a 7.1 amp but with the bipolars being on the side wall, I have tweeters firing at me and the other tweeters firing at the rear wall behind my head, to my ears would that not have the same effect? 

I actually used to have the bipoles placed in the same position as rear surrounds would be in a 7.1 setup, this meant there was 1 behind my wife's head and 1 behind my head when seated on the couch, I could only notice any sounds when there were loud effects, most of the time they were lifeless :huh:



tonyvdb said:


> Something tells me you have not heard a properly set up 7.1 system as I am positive you would change you tune. I also think it depends on the speakers you are using for your surround channels. If they are the size of pop bottles dont expect much from them. I use speakers that can go down to 40hz without breaking a sweat and that allows them to reproduce what the studio intended them to do. It is also very important that your seating is at least 3 ft from the rear wall as reflection off the back wall will cause undesirable results.


It might have had something to do with it, they were mordaunt short genie sats. So it probably wasn't the best setup to judge with. My bipoles are good down to around 50hz, my seating position is 4 feet from rear wall I can't move any further forward as my pj screen is too close. So 7.1 would not work in my room as there not much distance between the side and rears, plus I cannot place side surrounds directly to the side as there are doors either side of me, my bipoles are at about 110 degrees.

As I said I really feel you have to have an ideal room to warrant 7.1.

Marty


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

I'm late to chime in here, but chime I will. I'm with Marty. 

7.1 did not bring me nearly as much improvement over 5.1 as I had hoped. Probably mainly because my surrounds and rears were inferior to my mains and center.

5 matching full range speakers would make a far better surround system than 7.1 using some mix of satellite speakers, I think. Actually, everyone here seems to agree that matching speakers - at least matching in timbre - is key for a surround sound system to work very well - be it 5.1 or 7.1. Adding two more speakers and some processing does not do much for you unless the other things are also done.

Now, if you have the pretty high quality surround system Terrence has, and you have his ears, then you would hear significant difference from 5.1 to 7.1.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Thanks :bigsmile:


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

I've been running a 7.1 set-up for several years now, but still do most of my listening in 5.1. I've got a reasonable music library, but haven't foun much in it that soiunds better in 7.1. Movies are a different matter. Most are only available in native 5.1(if that) to begin with, but a few benifit from DTS neo:6 or Dolby PLIIX processing. 
When I first went to 7.1, I must have watched Godzilla 20 times. It's still one of the best for conversion to 7.1.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Trick McKaha said:


> I'm late to chime in here, but chime I will. I'm with Marty.
> 
> 7.1 did not bring me nearly as much improvement over 5.1 as I had hoped. Probably mainly because my surrounds and rears were inferior to my mains and center.
> 
> ...


I would like to hear what top dogs like Sir Terence and others on here think about this, would a 5.1 full range setup sound better (more dynamic) than a 7.1 sub/sat setup as I have full range 5.1 and can only fit 7.1 in my room if I downgrade to sub/sat system?

Penny for your thoughts 

Marty


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

marty1 said:


> I would like to hear what top dogs like Sir Terence and others on here think about this, would a 5.1 full range setup sound better (more dynamic) than a 7.1 sub/sat setup as I have full range 5.1 and can only fit 7.1 in my room if I downgrade to sub/sat system?
> 
> Penny for your thoughts
> 
> Marty


This is a difficult question to answer. A 5.1 full range system built around mediocre speakers will not sound as good as a high quality 7.1 sub/sat system. It really depends on the quality of each system. 

I prefer 7.1 sound systems over 5.1 systems because I like to play back everything as it was recorded. I don't like limitations(or as few as possible) in my systems, so by going 7.1 I can playback anything from 2.0 to 7.1. 

I see no benefit of having full range towers all around. There is not enough movies with deep bass in the surrounds to justify the cost. Plus having bass coming from different points in the room leads to an acoustical mess.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

marty1 said:


> would a 5.1 full range setup sound better (more dynamic) than a 7.1 sub/sat setup as I have full range 5.1 and can only fit 7.1 in my room if I downgrade to sub/sat system?
> 
> Marty


It depends on the size of the so called sat speakers, They need to go down to 60Hz clean or you start to send information to the sub that is above 80Hz that you will be able to localize where the sound is coming form. I use speakers that play down to 30Hz without an issue but still leave the crossover on the surrounds at 60 just because.


----------



## marty1 (Jun 29, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> It depends on the size of the so called sat speakers, They need to go down to 60Hz clean or you start to send information to the sub that is above 80Hz that you will be able to localize where the sound is coming form. I use speakers that play down to 30Hz without an issue but still leave the crossover on the surrounds at 60 just because.


Well I always picture sats being like for example, B&W MT30's, how big do sats get?

I can understand sats are probably better and more accurate but I have been told by nearly every single home cinema store that a sub/sat system will never produce the dynamic sound that a large speaker set would, even though they could have sold me a more expensive sab/sat system they always said they are just not physically capable of competing.

If you were to compare 2 top range systems (5 star reviews) of equal value would the sats have as much oomph as the full range system? Surely it couldn't produce as bigger sound, the bigger the box the bigger the sound right?

When I say full range system I didn't mean towers all around, I meant when you see a 5.1 package that has 2 towers, large centre speaker and 2 bookshelf rears in a particular range, compared to sub/sats say around MT30 size?

Marty


----------



## gsmollin (Apr 25, 2006)

steiny93 said:


> Have 5.1 in a dedicated theater room; 18 x 26 feet in dimension.
> Current setup being JBL Northridge series for all 5 channels.
> 
> ...
> ...


I had a 7.1 channel system installed in my HT, which is close to your dimensions, and at that time had JBL Northbridge speakers (now B&W). My seating is in the center of the room, 12 feet from the screen. I carefully set up the levels, and they were within 1 dB at the center seating position.

I could barely hear anything coming from the back surrounds. They were certainly being driven, I could sure hear them standing next to them, but the integrated effect was nil. This was likely due to the sources being really 5.1, with a matrixed rear. There isn't anything new to hear, and if your side surrounds are placed optimally, then the matrixed rear surrounds have little to add. Maybe now, a few years later, with true 7.1 surround soundtracks, 7.1 is worth the effort, but I can't vouch for it.

I'm sure you don't want to hear this message; you are all fired up to go do 7.1. So go do it, it's a great hobby, and 7.1 isn't worse than 5.1, so no damage can be done. Just don't set your hopes too high to avoid disappointment. The 5.1-to-7.1 channels adds less to the movie soundtrack than 720p-to-1080p on the video. However, if you want to be state-of-the-art, you are going 7.1. Have fun.


----------



## steiny93 (Jan 8, 2009)

gsmollin,
thanks for the input

Question regarding the 5.1 content driven into the 7.1 solution; what decoder where you using to go from 5.1 content to 7.1 hardware? Was it dolby pro logic IIx?


----------



## gsmollin (Apr 25, 2006)

steiny93 said:


> gsmollin,
> thanks for the input
> 
> Question regarding the 5.1 content driven into the 7.1 solution; what decoder where you using to go from 5.1 content to 7.1 hardware? Was it dolby pro logic IIx?


Yes, that decoder was automatically invoked for a 5.1 soundtrack. However, even the 7.1 masters sounded the same. Maybe that was because they were only derived from 5.1 using Dolby as well. 

There could be another reason. My HT has a diffuse rear, and an absorptive front. A real theater has an absorptive rear. The rear surrounds have a big job filling in the rear soundfield. In a small listening room this is not as important, as rear reflected sound will mask the rear surrounds except for a few sound effects, such as off-camera gunfire, car horns, and the like. That is why I speculate the new discrete 7.1 soundtrack may make it worthwhile to add rear surrounds.


----------



## artinaz (Jul 31, 2008)

I have the Emotiva UMC-1 too and I almost always use the PLIIx mode which processes the 5.1 to 7.1. I used the scene from Incredibles where the kid is pursued by the saucers and goes running through the trees and then on water. With 7.1 on the localized sounds were much better. 

I have the Vandersteens VSM-1 and I spoke to Richard Vandersteen- his opinion was that having 7.1 would help especially on the scenes where you have localized sound at the back.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Just my $0.02 worth. I think matching back surrounds to the side surrounds is as important as having a matched centre to the front left and right. I have 3 identical LCRs and 4 identical surrounds. All use the same drivers.


----------



## RayJr (Jan 14, 2007)

steiny93 said:


> Have 5.1 in a dedicated theater room; 18 x 26 feet in dimension.
> Current setup being JBL Northridge series for all 5 channels.
> 
> 2 questions
> ...


Back to the original question.

In a room of your size, if the seats are a far distance from the back wall......YES 7 channel surround would benefit you. If not...there is nothing wrong with a properly setup 5 channel surround system.

As for the speaker issue.....I personally feel that having all matched speakers is a large plus....but not a real deal breaker if you can not. I think if I were in your position....i would just get 4 matching surrounds that would work for this setup....even if they are all inwall units.

Now my $.02 on 7 channel surround.
I have been listening to 7.1 for 10+ years and personally feel that 5.1 leaves a bit of a void in full surround envelopement.

RayJr


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

RayJr said:


> Now my $.02 on 7 channel surround.
> I have been listening to 7.1 for 10+ years and personally feel that 5.1 leaves a bit of a void in full surround envelopement.
> 
> RayJr


I agree. 7.1 allows sounds to be heard from their location Vs a back phantom that may be heard behind, above or even below the listening position.


----------

