# 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1?



## supersport6 (May 3, 2010)

I have a 600 sqft HT with a 13ft diag screen, sound comes through JBL speakers set up as a normal 5.1 system. I am thinking of going to 6.1 or 7.1 set up with speaker(s) either in the wall behind the sitting area or surface mounted behind which is how I have the other speakers set up. The sound is awesome, we just watched Avatar last night and the sound blew us all away, awesome movie by the way and I didn't think I would like it. I was wondering if it's worth the extra expense to upgrade or not. My Denon receiver is already capable of 6.1 or 7.1 if I decide to. Rod...:dontknow:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

If you have more than one row of seating then 7.1 is a must have otherwise its not really any better however that said it wont hurt and if you have the room for the rear speakers its not a bad idea.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

Alot of folks think that 5.1 is more then adequite but there are situations where 6.1 or 7.1 would be of benefit, such as room size, seating and personnel preferance as you may know most movies only put out 5.1 sound anyhow but 7.1 is becoming more and more available, on top of that your AVR should decode it and send the sound to the correct speakers anyhow. So i say go for it!:T


----------



## Lucky7! (Jan 7, 2008)

If your room can handle the speaker positions without too much compromise, go for it. I'd also suggest getting rears as capable as your sides, and if possible the same model. Makes pans seem more cohesive to my ears.

I've never bothered with 6.1 speaker set up and went straight to 7.1


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

You need at least 3 feet between the backwall and your seating area. 

If you have that much space extra surrounds can enhance the surround sound field effect. Especially if you have some bookshelves in the back corners to diffuse.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

I have Axiom QS4 as my 7.1 rears. They are mounted on top of my DVD cabinets on either side of my equipment rack in the back of the room. I mounted them sitting on their end so that one of the radiators points down at an angle, the other straight and the third reflects off the ceiling. I know they are working sometimes you hear information coming form them but I find it very minimal. 

That said what I hear could be a combination of open V seating postions, and an old Yamaha AVR. 

I say try it out and let your ears make the decision


----------



## gfrancis0 (Nov 16, 2009)

How much actual 7.1 material exists? I understand it is part of the highest BluRay sound codecs, but how many movies have actually been released to date with 7.1 channels? I understand that the receiver/preamp/whatever will turn 5.1 material into 7.1, but that is not what I am talking about here. Anyone know?


----------



## myoda (Jul 17, 2009)

gfrancis0 said:


> How much actual 7.1 material exists? I understand it is part of the highest BluRay sound codecs, but how many movies have actually been released to date with 7.1 channels? I understand that the receiver/preamp/whatever will turn 5.1 material into 7.1, but that is not what I am talking about here. Anyone know?


Did a quick search on 7.1 movies - not too much now, but there are quite a few flix that use Dolby Digital EX, and DTS-ES. 
The added rear channels are either matrixed or are discrete.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

gfrancis0 said:


> How much actual 7.1 material exists? I understand it is part of the highest BluRay sound codecs, but how many movies have actually been released to date with 7.1 channels? I understand that the receiver/preamp/whatever will turn 5.1 material into 7.1, but that is not what I am talking about here. Anyone know?


I was reading in one of my mags that there are at least 100 titles out there now with 7.1.:dontknow:


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

bambino said:


> I was reading in one of my mags that there are at least 100 titles out there now with 7.1.:dontknow:


War I think is 7.1 and quite a great one at that. Incredible action sound track. Still I don't see 7.1 as a wise investment given that most sound still comes from the front anyway.


----------



## gfrancis0 (Nov 16, 2009)

I subscribe to most of the home theater magazines, it would be helpful to know the specific issue that you read that, provided that they list examples and do not just throw out a number. It would also be very useful to find a web site with a listing all of the 7.1 discs. I found a search tool on the DTS web site, did a search for DTS 7.1 discs and here is a sample of the movies with 7.1 DTS HD Master audio:

Air America
Arrival, The
Bangkok Dangerous
Bank Job, The
Battle of Wits, A
Be Kind Rewind
Bird with the Crystal Plumage, The
Black Mask
Blood: The Last Vampire
Cabin Fever
Chaos

there were also a number of music titles. They were only displayed a few at a time with extra columns for country and type of disc and such, so I did not go through the time to extract, copy and paste the complete list. I did not find a search tool on the Dolby web site for Dolby TrueHD titles. If anyone has a suggestion for a definitive list of 7.1 material, I am all ears (get it?)


----------



## antr (Jun 10, 2010)

Hi..
the most importent is to put your effort and money on audio calibration. Room correction. that will definitly give you more than only more channels.


----------



## soundoff (Oct 3, 2007)

Experimentation ! try it you might like it. Then you could try a build out to a 9.1 or 10.2 (when equipment and source material eventually becomes available)

You say it rocks as is so be wary they say don't fix what isn't broken.


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

Here is a good link to search for 7.1 Blu-Ray titles (thanks to another forum poster):
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

There are more 7.1 titles than, say 3D ones, but still there are not enough to justify buying a 7.1 receiver in my opinion. If one already has a 7.1 receiver, then adding the rear speakers is just a matter of time. The bigger the room the bigger the benefit.

I think 7.1 sound is the biggest scam foisted on the HT community since HDMI. I fell for it because I value sound highly, so now I know how little benefit there is in 7.1 over 5.1.


----------



## soundoff (Oct 3, 2007)

The supply chain takes time to fill in to get titles of multi channel audio (7.1, 9.1, 10.2).
1st the technology needs to be invented.
2nd hardware needs to be developed and built for the studios and mixing houses
3rd Audio tech's need to learn how to mix more multi channel audio tracks
4th Directors and/or producers would have to choose to use such audio in the first place
Once all this is done then titles could be made which we in the home could listen to so long as we had the replay equipment 

Or some kind of new technology can just steal from existing 5.1 channels and make fake channel sound, oh wait thats what they do now for 6.1 and 7.1 isn't it ?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Trick McKaha said:


> I think 7.1 sound is the biggest scam foisted on the HT community since HDMI. I fell for it because I value sound highly, so now I know how little benefit there is in 7.1 over 5.1.


Thats a bit harsh, 7.1 is a real benefit to those who have two or more rows of seating like myself or the room is longer than 15ft and you have at least 3 ft of space behind the seating. 7.1 sounds much better than 5.1 as it envelops the listeners from all sides.


----------



## blackfox (Jul 14, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Thats a bit harsh, 7.1 is a real benefit to those who have two or more rows of seating like myself or the room is longer than 15ft and you have at least 3 ft of space behind the seating. 7.1 sounds much better than 5.1 as it envelops the listeners from all sides.



I completely agree, I run di-pole surrounds and rear, produces a beautiful rear envelope of sound, seamlessly pans across the rear, When i turn off the rears I definitely hear a big difference, I would recommend putting in the exact same speakers for the rears as your surrounds so that it pans across without any speaker signature difference.
If your receiver is already capable of doing 7.1 I would go for it, but I can't say I would recommend someone to upgrade if they have to purchase a new avr.
If there is a way u can test and audition your setup I would,
Never the less audio calibration would be my top priority


----------



## KYWalker (Mar 28, 2010)

I agree that the difference is noticable. It may not be a huge diff like going to 5.1 for the first time, but you know it's missing when it's not there. Even without software that is encoded in 7.1, you will notice those speakers being used as the Denon will matrix the side-surround info into the rears. It is sometimes a bit odd, like with sit-com laugh tracks, but is generally pretty good.


----------



## 240V (Apr 21, 2008)

Started out with 5.1, spent several years with 7.1 and now switching back to 5.1. 
5.1 is Set It and Forget It!.
With 7.1 if the track is in 5.1 then the "rears" come out the side speakers. Yes you can click the remote and change the settings but afters years of hassling with the remote I've had it.
5.1 is Set It and Forget It.


----------



## Spuddy (Jan 2, 2010)

Trick McKaha said:


> Here is a good link to search for 7.1 Blu-Ray titles (thanks to another forum poster):
> http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php
> 
> There are more 7.1 titles than, say 3D ones, but still there are not enough to justify buying a 7.1 receiver in my opinion. If one already has a 7.1 receiver, then adding the rear speakers is just a matter of time. The bigger the room the bigger the benefit.
> ...


Why would it be a scam if the overall power output is the same, and the receiver has no problem playing 5.1 when 7.1 isn't in the movie? I got a 7.1 receiver even though I don't even have enough drivers to use it that way, because it still has more than enough power to get the job done right, and when I finally am able to build my theater up to the level I dream it to be in the future, I won't have to get a whole new receiver.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

Trick McKaha said:


> There are more 7.1 titles than, say 3D ones, but still there are not enough to justify buying a 7.1 receiver in my opinion. If one already has a 7.1 receiver, then adding the rear speakers is just a matter of time. The bigger the room the bigger the benefit.
> 
> I think 7.1 sound is the biggest scam foisted on the HT community since HDMI. I fell for it because I value sound highly, so now I know how little benefit there is in 7.1 over 5.1.


I would love to see a list of the latest 5.1 AVR's on the market, (almost impossible). 7.1 and 9.1 is what is.
And there are about 60 times the amount of 7.1 blu-rays as there are 3-D titles (i'm sure that will change soon though):T


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

Well, sure, if one needs a new receiver anyway, then 7.1 is a feature you're going to get. And you'll add the rear speakers in the course of time. But I made the switch to lossless 7.1, and it is hard for me to detect a significant improvement in lossless sound over DD or DTS, despite having a decent system and a desire to find improvement.


----------



## gsmollin (Apr 25, 2006)

I tried 7.1 briefly in my HT, and found it to be pretty minimal. I expect the lack of good 7.1 material was important, but I finally decided that my room didn't need it. I have a room with about 12 feet behind the last seat, and that reverberant space provides back reflections. If one builds a real HT with sound absorbant material on all walls, then the sound from behind will be lacking, anf the back surround channels will become audible. I simply couldn't hear them, even with 7.1 source and a calibrated speaker system. I think the reverberant sound from the front speakers reflecting from the back of the room was masking the back surround speakers.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

I haven't found 7.1 to be a huge improvement for music, but I run it for what it's worth since I have all of the necessary equipment anyway. 
Blu-ray soundtracks with discreet 7.1 do seem to benifit some.


----------



## CT_Wiebe (Jul 5, 2009)

supersport6 -- I'm assuming that your 600 ft^2 room is more than 25' deep. In that case, you could benefit from a 7.1 channel system. However, the rear channel speakers need to be about the same quality as your side surrounds. Also, your surround speakers have to be mounted correctly, at least 2' above the listeners heads, and higher is better (surround sound channels are supposed to provide the ambiance information).

I don't have a large Blu-Ray library yet, but I do have an extensive SD-DVD collection. I don't have a single disc that has a 7.1 sound track (at least not labeled as such). However, most 7.1 channel AVRs do provide some type of matrix generated rear surround mode(s) from the 5.1 channel mix on the disc. What you are doing is to, basically, spread the surround sound field over a larger area. This, in general, improves the auditory illusion of the sound field experienced in a very good movie theater.

Whether you duplicate the side (bipole or dipole) surround speakers for the rears, or get a pair of bookshelf type speakers, is a matter of much debate. Either will work, and what you chose is a matter of personal preference.


----------



## soundoff (Oct 3, 2007)

gsmollin said:


> I tried 7.1 briefly in my HT, and found it to be pretty minimal. I expect the lack of good 7.1 material was important, but I finally decided that my room didn't need it. I have a room with about 12 feet behind the last seat, and that reverberant space provides back reflections. If one builds a real HT with sound absorbant material on all walls, then the sound from behind will be lacking, anf the back surround channels will become audible. I simply couldn't hear them, even with 7.1 source and a calibrated speaker system. I think the reverberant sound from the front speakers reflecting from the back of the room was masking the back surround speakers.


"and a calibrated speaker system" is this using the AVR's mic system or was this a professional calibration ? Sure the room's sonic signature could "mask" the rear surround, however, there is probably a more optimal solution. (room materials, size, speaker location)

From some responses it seems the additional speakers are used to simply "fill-in" sound for a larger room. It seems that a 9.1 system is designed to provide a more detailed soundfield, but again there are limited source material to listen


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

There is no 9.1 encoded dvds or bluray and there will most likely be none for a very long time as 7.1 encoded movies still has not caught on. 9.1 is simply matrixed just as 7.1 is from a 5.1 mix. 
That said as I said earlier, 7.1 is very advantages if the room is large and the seating is far enough away from the rear wall particularly if you have two rows of seating. This gives you much more enveloping surround sound.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

I am surprised many here think that room size is a driving point for 7.1. I have two 7.1 theaters sitting in 12x15x10 ft rooms, and it sounds fantastic in those little rooms. Nearfield listening through small mini monitors delivers a lot of low level detail that could otherwise be swamped by large room acoustics. I can only accommodate two people in those rooms, but I have a much larger theater that can accommodate more if needed. I used these rooms to jump into 3D, because there were no 3D projectors when I wanted to invest in 3D, and because a television would be a lot cheaper than a 3D projector at the time. Using a 55" television viewed from 6ft away makes the screen look huge, and increases the depth of the 3D effect when watching 3D movies. 

I guess most here are looking at sound coverage for 7.1, and I as a sound designer listen for the effect of having that many channels to listen to. As far as 7.1 discrete soundtracks on Bluray, that means nothing to me, because I have not found one 5.1 soundtrack that has not been enhanced by PL IIx decoding.


----------



## 707kevin (Nov 5, 2010)

I bought a 7.1 avr because the rear surrounds can be used as a B output (tv in living room, radio in kitchen, etc...)


----------



## HTLuver (Feb 20, 2010)

I have found only a few movies that really benefit from the 7.1 rears. I have found using the DSX wide channels to be way more benefitial than the rears.


----------



## hopper810 (Nov 8, 2010)

For myself,I enjoy 7.1 more than 5.1.But to each their own.:T


----------



## class a (Oct 22, 2010)

5.1 is fine as long as you have the rears properly placed to give you a holistic soundfield. What would give you more impact would spend the money on a second sub. I'd rather have a 5.2 system than a 7.1 better and smoother dynamics.:sn:


----------



## duxfan (Nov 11, 2010)

I ran 7.1 for a few years with a Parasound 7100. Recently upgraded to a Marantz av7005 with front height capability (PLIIz).

The Marantz will not run front height (FH) AND rear back (RB) simultaneously. I now have the FH engaged (PLIIz) and split the side surround with a Y cable and 4 channel amp and have the side surround and RB running the same information out of the identical dipole speakers.

With a tall (10') room, the new configuration is MUCH better!!! I like the fuller front stage and the rear integrates seamlessly (side to back)! I can detect right and left but the rear side and backs work together and it is nearly impossible to locate them!

My room is large, 17' wide by 30' deep, perfect for surround back, but I like the front height much better and I'm still using the rear back speakers, albeit with side surround information.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

240V said:


> Started out with 5.1, spent several years with 7.1 and now switching back to 5.1.
> With 7.1 if the track is in 5.1 then the "rears" come out the side speakers. Yes you can click the remote and change the settings but afters years of hassling with the remote I've had it.
> 5.1 is Set It and Forget It.


When I switched from 5.x to 7.x, my "side" speakers stayed pretty much where they were (to the side of the listening area). The "rear" speakers were added slightly behind the listening area and they are slightly closer together than the "side" speakers.
For 5.1 source material the AVR is set for the "DTS NEO:6" setting. This makes my newer "rear" speakers act like a rear center speaker. The discrete L/R surround info is sent to the "side" speakers (just like they did with the 5.1 speaker set-up) and info shared between the L/R tracks get sent to the "rear" speakers. This gives my listening environment a much greater sense of surround cohesion.
For 7.1 source material, the AVR sends the discrete info to their respective speakers.
My AVR does all this automatically and in a year with this set-up I have never wanted to change anything.
This set-up is Set It and Forget It.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I agree that 7.1 has nothing to do with size of the room.
It is a format which promotes surround sound cohesion.
No matter how small your room, do you still want a front center speaker?


----------



## nholmes1 (Oct 7, 2010)

I would say it is a bit of both size and cohesion, in larger rooms I say its necessary to complete the cohesion. In smaller rooms it can increase or decrease cohesion depending on what sacrifices are made to fit a 7.x setup into the smaller room. 

I currently have a 5.1 setup but will move to 7.2/9.2 setup in the near future.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

tonyvdb said:


> Thats a bit harsh, 7.1 is a real benefit to those who have two or more rows of seating like myself or the room is longer than 15ft and you have at least 3 ft of space behind the seating. 7.1 sounds much better than 5.1 as it envelops the listeners from all sides.


I think it's much more important to have the speakers properly placed and calibrated first before going 7.1. I made the plunge last year and don't find it too much different. I wouldn't say it's a must have over 5.1. What I do notice was that when I placed two speakers at 90 degrees to my listening position that the surround was much better. My rears which are at 135 degree used to be the surround L and R and that was a bad place for them. 

As for being more enveloping for a second row of seating...they are not really meant for that on a 7.1 soundtrack. It does give the effect of more surround in the rear, but the information is different on a discrete 7.1 disc. On a 5.1 soundtrack you could use the rears to mirror the side surrounds (with a few ms of delay) and that would be a more ideal situation for the second row of seats.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

7.1 was never meant as a coverage format. It was designed to give more directional cues within the (home) theater environment. It was also designed to extend the rear hemisphere further back than could be achieved with a 5.1 system built on the ITU-775 placement standards. 

If coverage is an issue, you add more speakers to the existing 5.1 setup just like they do in movie theaters.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

My understanding as well is that 7.1 channels does not exist in theaters only 5.1 (with the exception of IMAX) with extra speakers added to "fill" the void. 7.1 was designed for home use and is better suited for larger rooms where the listener still sits close enough to the speakers to "hear" the channel separation more distinctly than in a large theater.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> My understanding as well is that 7.1 channels does not exist in theaters only 5.1 (with the exception of IMAX) with extra speakers added to "fill" the void. 7.1 was designed for home use and is better suited for larger rooms where the listener still sits close enough to the speakers to "hear" the channel separation more distinctly than in a large theater.


7.1 channels does exist in the theater realm - it is known as Dolby 7.1. Toy story 3 was the first film to use 7.1 in the theater. 

7.1 was not introduced just for larger rooms, that is a myth. 7.1 is for any room that can accommodate it. If this was all about hearing the channel separation, then large rooms would not be ideal for that purpose, a small to medium size room would be because you are sitting closer to the speakers. I have two 7.1 setups in identically sized 12x15x10ft rooms, so room size is not a factor. When I have done 7.1 mixes for Bluray, I did them in a medium size room, not a large room. As a matter of fact, all home theater mixes are done in medium sized rooms.


----------



## akeoo7 (Feb 11, 2010)

Hi
I think that since very few movies are mixed with 7.1 channels the improvement will not be so important. And one more thing I'd like to emphazise on, is that if you have a 7.1 capable receiver and you hook it to 7 speakers, it will most likely suffer a lot in keeping up with 7 channels of amplification unless it is a Hi End Amp with quite a beefy transformer.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

akeoo7 said:


> Hi
> I think that since very few movies are mixed with 7.1 channels the improvement will not be so important.


I have not come across one movie yet that did not benefit from 5.1 plus the DPLIIx processing. A lot of 7.1 mixes from Lions Gate films are done that way. They just run the L/R surrounds through a matrix encoder to create the back two channels. When you play it back, it sounds the same as engaging the PL IIx processing on your receiver. 



> And one more thing I'd like to emphazise on, is that if you have a 7.1 capable receiver and you hook it to 7 speakers, it will most likely suffer a lot in keeping up with 7 channels of amplification unless it is a Hi End Amp with quite a beefy transformer.


This really is a non issue. I have one 7.1 system built around a receiver, and have never had it shut down or degrade in performance even with the most demanding of soundtracks.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

Sir Terrence said:


> ...so room size is not a factor.


True, for us with theater or medium to large living rooms it isn't a factor. 7.1 is suitable if you can maintain the proper speaker layout. That is the side surrounds are at or around 90° and rears at or around 150°. You would also not want to be sitting really close to the back wall.

So room size is a factor when it prohibits proper speaker placement. An example would be a typical living room where the sofa is right up against a wall. The sofa would have to be moved out a few feet to accommodate the rear surrounds which is not always an option.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

MatrixDweller said:


> True, for us with theater or medium to large living rooms it isn't a factor. 7.1 is suitable if you can maintain the proper speaker layout. That is the side surrounds are at or around 90° and rears at or around 150°. You would also not want to be sitting really close to the back wall.
> 
> So room size is a factor when it prohibits proper speaker placement. An example would be a typical living room where the sofa is right up against a wall. The sofa would have to be moved out a few feet to accommodate the rear surrounds which is not always an option.


I put two 7.1 systems in two identically sized 12x15x10ft room, with no sofa against the wall, and the sub properly placed for the most even frequency response(before equalization) with no problem whatsoever. I didn't need any delay to align my speakers, the prime listening seat is exactly 5'4" from each speaker. 

The point I was making is that 7.1 is not for coverage, it is for increased spatiality. The room size is really just a minor issue - an issue that can be the same for a 5.1 system as well.


----------

