 Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537 |
Maybe I am the only dissenting vote but I like 7.1. It however didn't cost me for extra speakers as I am using some old mission bookshelves as the back surround speakers. I find they seem to fill in the back area quite nicely. YMMV.
2xM80 VP180 2xQS8 2xM3 HSU STF3 LG 60PS11 Denon 3808 ATI 1506 LCR 2xATI 1502 Oppo BDP-83
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488
axiomite
|
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488 |
I'm interested in this discussion.
Is there any REAL compelling rationale for 7.1 over 6.1?
Discuss.
bibere usque ad hilaritatem
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Maret, if you have enough room behind your listening position for a back surround effect to develop(say at least 4')then a 7.1 speaker setup can be used with advantage. This applies to both 2 channel and 5 channel source material; processing such as DPLII extracts natural ambience present(in varying degrees)in 2 channel material and steers it to the side surrounds and also the part which should be imaged in back is steered in "stereo" to the back surround speakers. with 5 channel DVDs processing such as DPLIIx leaves the front channels unaffected, but processes the side channels to extract information which should be imaged in back and again steers it there in "stereo". Use of two rather than one back surround is suggested both to take advantage of a possible left back/right back difference and to avoid a psychoacoustic "reversal" effect in which a center back sound is instead heard as being center front.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 50
buff
|
|
OP
buff
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 50 |
JohnK: I have some old speakers, it can't hurt to give them a try. I have a couple cheap bookshelf speakers and 2 Bose  satellites. Which do you think would be better to use. Thanks.
maphiker
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Maret, to avoid disgracing myself, I suppose that I have to suggest the cheap bookshelves.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,189
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,189 |
Quote:
Use of two rather than one back surround is suggested both to take advantage of a possible left back/right back difference and to avoid a psychoacoustic "reversal" effect in which a center back sound is instead heard as being center front.
I think this is the biggest reason 7.1 came to be over 6.1. Your ears are designed with better sensitivity toward the front. When we have more content with the rear surround channels it will become more commonplace and certainly of greater value.
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420 |
Ahh, but with the Q series the sound stays in the rear, not thrust out over you eliminating that effect.
Jason
M80 v2
VP160 v3
QS8 v2
PB13 Ultra
Denon 3808
Samsung 85" Q70
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,189
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,189 |
|
|
|
Re: Is 7.1 really worth it?
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16 |
Depending on the source you are playing, rear surrounds can be VERY enveloping. You don't need much distance behind you either. I've only got around four feet.
Seeing how you have a wonderful AVR, I wouldn't hesitate going with 7.1.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,484
Members15,617
| |
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,231
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
