5.1 v 7.1 & 9.1
markdirect -- Thu, 08/04/2005 - 18:10
I am confused by the notion that we should now replace our 5.1 AVRs with 7.1 or even 9.1. I don't know about anyone else out there, but I don't have enough room in my house for 9 speakers. My wife already complains that 5 is over the top
I agree with you that 5.1 is plenty. I have a moderate 5.1 system in the family room for the wife and kids (Onkyo/Infinity). In fact I chose the Infinity speakers because they were the least intrusive looking speakers with decent sound and a moderate price. I suppose the 7.1 receivers give better flexibility when combining your HT and music in one system.
I chose to have my two channel music system in my den since that's where I spend most evenings working or relaxing. The multi-channel music seems largely gimmicky to me although I like the better mastering of DVD-Audio discs ( I am not a classical music buff so I cannot speak for the multi-channel effect on that genre).
Bryston 2BLP Parasound Halo p-3
Infinity Kappa 400 M&K MX-70
NAD T-533 Yamaha MCX-1000
Thorens TD-185 Monarchy 33
I agree that 5.1 is plenty, especially since there is very little content encoded with more channels than that. The extra channels in 7.1 and 9.1 are synthesized by the controller or AVR. If and when there is a significant amount of content mixed in 7.1 or 9.1 (or 10.2 as Tomlinson Holman advocates), that will be the time to install more speakers.
Judging from the sounds coming out of car stereos around here, I would think a 1.5 system (5 SVS subs and one tower speaker) would appeal to the youngerset more. :lol:
Bryston 2BLP Parasound Halo p-3
Infinity Kappa 400 M&K MX-70
NAD T-533 Yamaha MCX-1000
Thorens TD-185 Monarchy 33
I'll also weigh-in on the argument that 5.1 channels is enough. I have a 6.1-channel set-up with two surround back speakers (upgraded from a 5.1-channel system) and don't think it's much of an improvement. On a few effects-driven titles mixed in Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES Discrete, the additional surround speakers are effective in positioning sounds directly behind the listener and in creating a greater sense of envelopment, but the cost-to-reward ratio is very high, in my view.
Robert Harley
Editor-in-Chief
The Perfect Vision
The Absolute Sound
My 7 speaker system works through the Lexicon L7 system and produces an enveloping surround. The previous 5 channel always seemed to have a "hole" somewhere. While 7 speakers is expensive, I have built my system using sucessive generations of the same manufacturers speakers. Don
For what it's worth I'd like to see less emphasis on the rear channels and a new standard created whereby two new discrete channels are added to the front-a right-center and left-center channel. This would take a lot of the pressure off the single center channel and permit at least in larger installations much more specificity, dynamics and panning precision across the screen, irrespective of seating position. It would be a huge improvement over the current LCR format. Any thoughts?
Neil Gader
Associate Editor, TAS-TPV
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I've also noticed a trend for receiver manufacturers to allow some of the 7 channels in a 7.1 setup to be used for bi-amping L/R speakers in a 5.1 setup. This way you don't "waste" amps you paid for.
tmartin wrote:I've also noticed a trend for receiver manufacturers to allow some of the 7 channels in a 7.1 setup to be used for bi-amping L/R speakers in a 5.1 setup. This way you don't "waste" amps you paid for.
True-Systems I've auditioned have benefitted from this option. Going forward I think flexible "assignability" will be the key. In a large listening room with a considerable throw distance from the screen to the viewer, having five across the front would be a major contribution is creating a continuous "curtain of sound". Personally I have been disappointed with the traditional L/C/R solution.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Is the problem you describe due to speaker limitations or the way soundtracks are mixed? I don't notice this as much with music, for example.
discman wrote:Is the problem you describe due to speaker limitations or the way soundtracks are mixed? I don't notice this as much with music, for example.
I think it's a variety of factors-1) cost: how many speakers do people want to buy and to what extent do you want to mess with your room? five is the limit for most. 2) mixdown: soundtracks could be mixed for L/Lc/C/Rc/R presentations. DSP could even create a new matrix to steer info to the Lc/Rc channels. It's basically a question of will and interest on the part of the consumer. Except for the largest systems it probably isn't tenable. I've heard a demo with more than 200 discrete channels in a 360 degree config. It was simply incredible but basically absurd for home use.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Certainly more and more speakers is an issue for most folks. But I don't notice the problem you speak of. I wonder if that is because I use identical L/C/R speakers or is it that I'm not paying attention? I guess another way of saying it: is your point that 5 front speakers correct for bad setups/speakers or that no 3 speaker setup can deliver a seamless soundstage?
discman wrote:Certainly more and more speakers is an issue for most folks. But I don't notice the problem you speak of. I wonder if that is because I use identical L/C/R speakers or is it that I'm not paying attention? I guess another way of saying it: is your point that 5 front speakers correct for bad setups/speakers or that no 3 speaker setup can deliver a seamless soundstage?
Identical LCRs is certainly helpful but off-axis listening and arrival time disparities remain key issues in stereo and multichannel. More discrete channels may not be whole answer but I think it could add immeasurably to the realism of the experience for more people in the room sitting outside of the precious sweetspot. BTW, I'm sure your system sounds terrific. I just think the current state of the art lacks the flexibility multichannel requires for it to be acceptable for more than one or two listeners.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I thought some of the new DSP systems corrected for this? For example:
Every seat is now the best seat in the house
Until now, world class sound was limited to the best theaters. Now, with Audyssey MultEQ you can hear accurate, enveloping, and distortion-free sound everywhere in your listening room. MultEQ was developed over five years with $6 million of University-based research to discover how to build an advanced automatic system that can measure the acoustics of the room and correct audible sound distortion throughout the entire listening area, not just in one spot.
I don't see how more speakers help with different listening positions, but then again I don't really understand how DSP helps either!
An unusual listening demo I attended might shed some light on this question. At a CES about ten years ago, Tomlinson Holman set up a secret system inside a room that could seat about 50 people. The system was secret because listeners were led into the completely dark room by an usher with a small flashlight. This prevented anyone from seeing the loudspeaker array. After everyone was seated, the music began. The piece was primarily performed on synthesizers, with many layers of complex parts. The sound came from all around the room; it was impossible to point to where the speakers were or even to identify how many channels there were. Every element in this multi-layered mix was vividly clear and articulate.
When the lights came up we saw a 10.4-channel playback system, and learned that we had listened to a piece of music composed and performed by Herbie Hancock specifically for 10.4-channel playback.
I went through the demo a second time in a much different seat and found the sound to be virtually identical to what I heard in the first seat. Presumably, the experience was the same for all listeners in all parts of the room.
If you take Robert Harley's post and extrapolate it out to attending a live orchestral concert the essence is the same. Seated in the audience we perceive each instrument as a discrete radiator, our ear/brain connection perceiving location by the instruments output, arrival time, the direct and reflected sound info. Therefore the more discrete recorded channels and loudspeakers to implement them, the more the reproduced sounds emulates the live experience. a seventy speaker system to reproduce a seventy instrument orchestra? I'm sure there is a diminishing returns principle here which is what Mr THX demonstrates. However it does reinforce the compromises of conventional stereo. It's actuall amazing stereo sounds as good as it does!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I guess I'll get back to selecting that mono cartridge.
discman wrote:I guess I'll get back to selecting that mono cartridge.
And what a terrific selection you have too!! Interesting how naysayers predicted the end of stereo and analog in the face of the multichannel surge. the reality is that we have more options available to us than ever.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
With such a dreary view of multichannel sound, its no wonder.
discman wrote:With such a dreary view of multichannel sound, its no wonder.
Perhaps-but I'm hopeful that the new hi-rez surround formats might be a harbinger of better days. But first, the film & music company bean-counters must be shown that there's some real money to be made.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Post new comment