I said I wouldn't do it...

Early B.

...but I did it anyway -- I went from 7.1 to 5.1.

My room is 13' x 20' with an 8' ceiling. My sitting position is on the back wall. I had a pair of Fxi30's mounted on the back wall on each side of the seating position. Certainly not ideal, but it did make a difference. The queston, though, was whether the surrounds made my system sound "better" or just "different." So to test it out, I unplugged them, put on a few of my favorite DVDs, and listened. The 5.1 sounded a bit cleaner; there wasn't as much "noise" in the rear. And since I wasn't able to use surrounds optimally, I decided to go back to 5.1.

scottvamp

My sitting position is on the back wall.

This is your problem - 7 channel is not ideal at all seating on the back wall. Which is scary enough, very common.
Middle to two thirds of the room - getting a full 360 sound field - I went with a properly setup 7 channel setup in two different rooms but ideal dedicated HT rooms and I will never go back.

It is going to be a pain in the A$$ but I will retain my 7 channel setup in my new home if it kills me. Stands, rug runners and lots of extra speaker wire will follow...............

PolkThug

Ditto everything Scott said.



Polk(7.2)Thug

GregBe

Early B.

I did the same thing for the same reasons. I like my system much better as 5.1 than I did with 7.1. I am sure that in a more optimal room I would like 7.1 better.

Greg

Early B.

I suppose the moral of the story is that more speakers are not always better. In fact, a couple of fellas on this forum have even decided to go back to 2.1 or 3.1. Hey, whatever floats your boat...

scottvamp

Originally posted by Early B.
I suppose the moral of the story is that more speakers are not always better. In fact, a couple of fellas on this forum have even decided to go back to 2.1 or 3.1. Hey, whatever floats your boat...

The moral of the story is - if you have a hobbie do it right. Have a room that is optimal for Home Theater sound, which usually consist of a room with 4 wall and little open spaces a possible in turn elimimating sound traps.

I have gone from 5 to 6/7 channel and in 5 channel your missing an entire deminsion of sound. A classic Polk 5 channel setup you have di-pole speakers to the sides and above ear level leaving the entire back stage open when compared to 6/7 channel.

To many setups around here have a couch all the way against a rear wall with a speaker balancing on each side of the couch. That is not a HT, it is a crappy pair of rear surround headphones.

If surround speakers did not make a difference we would ALL be just using 2 channel home theater rigs and that will never do for me. Maybe I can post some diagrams or REAL home theaters to maybe get the point across.

Notice how the couch is not up against the back wall for example.
With a good reciever it will MATRIX the rear channel full time and creat a virtual rear channel and a full 360 sound.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by Early B.
...but I did it anyway -- I went from 7.1 to 5.1.

My room is 13' x 20' with an 8' ceiling. My sitting position is on the back wall. I had a pair of Fxi30's mounted on the back wall on each side of the seating position. Certainly not ideal, but it did make a difference. The queston, though, was whether the surrounds made my system sound "better" or just "different." So to test it out, I unplugged them, put on a few of my favorite DVDs, and listened. The 5.1 sounded a bit cleaner; there wasn't as much "noise" in the rear. And since I wasn't able to use surrounds optimally, I decided to go back to 5.1.

Hi Early,

Since it seems you are locked into your current arrangement I can appreciate why you turned off your surround back speakers. However, even a 5.1 configuration is going to suffer with the seating up against the back wall.

It's really a shame. Doesn't your receiver have LOGIC7 surround processing? It's one of the best processes out there especially for 7.1. A number of so-called 7.1 surround processes don't really have stereo surround back channels, but LOGIC7 is like magic when it's properly setup.

I know it may be a lot of work for you, but if at all possible you should seriously consider rearranging your seating.

Larry

Early B.

The moral of the story is - if you have a hobbie do it right. Have a room that is optimal for Home Theater sound, which usually consist of a room with 4 wall and little open spaces a possible in turn elimimating sound traps.

You're preaching to the choir, scott. The reality is that most people do not have a room in their home that can be optimally set up for home theater sound. Instead, we improvise, experiment, and do the best we can with whatever space we have.

scottvamp

I know where your coming from but do not say the 5 channel rig is superior or sound no different to a 6/7 channel HT setup just because your room does not accomidate it......
Know what I mean.....

On the same note if I HAD to go to 5 channel again I could still pull off some good sound......

Early B.

I know where your coming from but do not say the 5 channel rig is superior or sound no different to a 6/7 channel HT setup just because your room does not accomidate it......

You misunderstood. I never said that. Re-read my thread.

scottvamp

Originally posted by Early B.
...but I did it anyway -- I went from 7.1 to 5.1.

The 5.1 sounded a bit cleaner; there wasn't as much "noise" in the rear. And since I wasn't able to use surrounds optimally, I decided to go back to 5.1.

I get what your saying - i was just explaining proper 7 channel config. 7 channel does not just make an HT more noisy.....
LOL:)

Early B.

I'd love to set up 7.1 properly if I could. Scott, can you loan me $12,000 so I can renovate my basement and put a dedicated home theater room down there? I promise, I'll pay it back.:D

scottvamp

that'll be 35% interest.:D lol

madmax

Originally posted by Early B.
I'd love to set up 7.1 properly if I could. Scott, can you loan me $12,000 so I can renovate my basement and put a dedicated home theater room down there? I promise, I'll pay it back.:D

$12,000? That is only 2 or 3 upgrades in the audiophile 2 channel arena.

You could convince yourself to do it by considering what it would cost you to go to the movies. Lets see, at $12 per visit you would only have to watch 1000 movies by yourself or 500 with someone else to make it cost effective. That would be maybe 3 or 4 years worth of entertainment. Time to talk to that loan manager.
madmax

PolkWannabie

Originally posted by madmax
$12,000? That is only 2 or 3 upgrades in the audiophile 2 channel arena.

LOL ... Yep ...

Early B.

$12,000? That is only 2 or 3 upgrades in the audiophile 2 channel arena.

Really? Gee, glad I'm not an audiophile. My main 2-channel system cost approx. $1,500. Some of you guys are either big spenders or just wealthy SOBs.

Actually, I've already received the thumbs up from the WAF to renovate the basement for a huge HT room. I'm a bit reluctant to spend that kind of cash right now on a "hobby." On average, we watch movies about 1x/week. Been thinking about building a new sun room, instead. Either way, it'll increase the value of our home to the same degree.

madmax

No wealth here. Besides, you are the one with the thumbs up!
madmax

Early B.

No wealth here.

You're being modest, Mad. We all know the suffix of your name stands for "Magnanimous Audiophilic Xpenditures."

monkeyphant

Early:

I've gone from 7.1 to 5.1. I was using a DIY partition to separate my Home Theater from the rest of my L-shaped basement. I decided I had enough of the "homemade" look so I got an estimate for a permanent wall. The estimate came to $2500. So I took down the partition, the two pairs of Axiom QS8s I was using for the side and rear center surrounds and bought a pair of Athena Technologies AS-F2 Tower Speakers for $380. Now my HT consists of two AS-F2s and an AS-C1 center for the front soundstage and two AS-F2s for the rear. To be honest, I don't miss the rear center speakers and the room looks better without a rear partition or wall.

BTW, in the the February issue of Home Theater Magazine, there was an article with Jim Fosgate (of Fosgate Audionics and father of DPLII) and his partner Charles Wood:

'The system (Jim Fosgate's) has five full range channels and that's how Jim likes it. Jim Fosgate: "The center back (speaker) is all wired in. All I have to do is cut the hole, but I don't need it. I'm happy with this".'

'Charles Wood later elaborates: "Some say you need seven channels to keep stable side-wall imaging. That's a fallacy. Most people have problems with reflectivity-things bouncing around and smearing the localization-and they use side channels as a crutch to bring it into focus. That's probably legitimate in a multipurpose room, but I agree with Jim: If you've got a well-treated room and matched speakers, five does the job".'

I agree with Charles Wood...I've notice a definite improvement in sound quality, bass, imaging...and then, of course, there is the difference between $2500 and $380...:D

Early B.

Nice post, MP. I am currently working with a friend to help him put together his HT system. His room size is about 23' x 12'. At first, he had it set up as a 7.1, but then I asked him to disconnect the rear surrounds, and his system sounded just as good without the extra speakers. He plans to stick with 5.1. Of course a lot of it has to do with one's room configuration, personal taste, and as you mentioned, aesthetics. Actually, aesthetics is the main reason I reverted to 5.1. Didn't want my den to look like a HT room. Once I get Scott's check, I'll start working on the dedicated HT room. He says it's in the mail.:cool:

monkeyphant

. Once I get Scott's check, I'll start working on the dedicated HT room.

One dedicated HT room is definitely not going to be enough!!! I talked to a salesman the other day who told me that Denon is coming out with a receiver that will support TWO 5.1 dedicated Home Theaters, and, if I'm not mistaken, a third set of stereo preamp outputs for a third room... :cool: :cool: :cool: