5.1 vs 7.1(front height) vs 7.1(rear surround)
Discussion
I'm thinking of buying a 7.2 channel ProLogic IIz AV amp this weekend.
http://www.richersounds.com/product/av-receivers/s...
Currently I have speakers configured for 5.1 (the surround speakers are behind(0.5m) rather than to the side of the listner.
At the moment I am considering three options.
1) Stick with 5.1 speakers
2) buy some matching speakers and install them as front height speakers (7.1)
3) buy some matching speakers and install them as side surround speakers (7.1)
Any opinions on if it is worth the effort and what the pros/cons are between three fronts/four rears and five fronts/two rears?
WAF on extra speakers is low so it needs to be a good step up to be justified (allowed)
http://www.richersounds.com/product/av-receivers/s...
Currently I have speakers configured for 5.1 (the surround speakers are behind(0.5m) rather than to the side of the listner.
At the moment I am considering three options.
1) Stick with 5.1 speakers
2) buy some matching speakers and install them as front height speakers (7.1)
3) buy some matching speakers and install them as side surround speakers (7.1)
Any opinions on if it is worth the effort and what the pros/cons are between three fronts/four rears and five fronts/two rears?
WAF on extra speakers is low so it needs to be a good step up to be justified (allowed)
I have a 7.1 setup, but IMHO it only works well because my surround backs are 6-7 feet behind me. If your room allows this then no harm in trying out either option as you could use the same speakers for rears or for heights. If your seat is right at the back of the room I'd take a good gamble that you'll get more out of the height option.
Although there aren't so many true 7.1 soundtracks I find the THX mode on my Arcam does a great job of 'creating' the surround back signal from 5.1 sources, so don't be put off by comments about there not being many 7.1 discs.
Although there aren't so many true 7.1 soundtracks I find the THX mode on my Arcam does a great job of 'creating' the surround back signal from 5.1 sources, so don't be put off by comments about there not being many 7.1 discs.
I did some research into this before deciding to get an extra pair of Gallos - a very good deal on some ex-demo speakers - and what I read suggested that height speakers are utterly pointless.
7.1 got some good reviews but I have to say, IME, it was a disappointing upgrade and not worth the additional cost. I'd stick with 5.1 TBH.
7.1 got some good reviews but I have to say, IME, it was a disappointing upgrade and not worth the additional cost. I'd stick with 5.1 TBH.
Out of interest do you have much distance behind your seat to the rear surrounds? I know the Galios are quite small, but then so are my M&K surrounds, so I wonder if it's a question of space or perhaps processing: I previously had a Denon AVR2808 which worked quite well on this setup, the current Arcam doesn't really change much in surround terms, but does sound much better for music (just as well given the cost!). I also retained tripole side surrounds and only the back surrounds are monopole (as I pinched the extra pair of tripoles for my conservatory setup which is only 5.1 and made better use of the tripoles than using them as back surrounds did).
OldSkoolRS said:
Out of interest do you have much distance behind your seat to the rear surrounds? I know the Galios are quite small, but then so are my M&K surrounds, so I wonder if it's a question of space or perhaps processing: I previously had a Denon AVR2808 which worked quite well on this setup, the current Arcam doesn't really change much in surround terms, but does sound much better for music (just as well given the cost!). I also retained tripole side surrounds and only the back surrounds are monopole (as I pinched the extra pair of tripoles for my conservatory setup which is only 5.1 and made better use of the tripoles than using them as back surrounds did).
I've tried them set up two ways: about 5ft behind, and about a foot away with the sofa against the wall. They do work, but just not 300-400 quid better than 5.1. IMO. Mine are driven by this http://www.whathifi.com/review/yamaha-rx-v1065
That's a decent enough amp, so I guess it just shows that it's not a one size fits all. As many of us AV nuts have a spare set of speakers kicking around, it's probably worth trying them out to see first before investing too much. I tried some old £50 speakers that I'd used in a previous setup for example.
I then bought two sets of M&K K4 tripoles which IIRC were about £600 a pair, so the 7.1 upgrade was quite an expense. However, I'd always known that if I wasn't impressed at the full M&K 7.1 then I could use the second pair as surrounds in my conservatory setup: During the summer we tend not to use the living room much, so I pinched the back surrounds for the conservatory setup (a simpler 4.1 setup with M&K fronts but no centre as they are so close together).
The K4s are brilliant at doing that 'sound outside the room' effect, so I was glad to use them in 'screen 2'. However, when I did watch a film in the living room, I did notice the gap, so I was lucky and picked up a pair of the monopole version the K5. Dolby's website (at the time anyway) recommended that the surround backs would be monopole anyway and these were only about £150 the pair as they were ex demo. So I couldn't hear the difference with using the tripole K4s all round compared to K4 sides and K5 rears. However, I could hear the improvement having at least K5 monopoles at the back...for the final £150 extra I can't complain and it saves getting the filler out to hide the holes in the wall if I scrapped the extra surrounds.
I then bought two sets of M&K K4 tripoles which IIRC were about £600 a pair, so the 7.1 upgrade was quite an expense. However, I'd always known that if I wasn't impressed at the full M&K 7.1 then I could use the second pair as surrounds in my conservatory setup: During the summer we tend not to use the living room much, so I pinched the back surrounds for the conservatory setup (a simpler 4.1 setup with M&K fronts but no centre as they are so close together).
The K4s are brilliant at doing that 'sound outside the room' effect, so I was glad to use them in 'screen 2'. However, when I did watch a film in the living room, I did notice the gap, so I was lucky and picked up a pair of the monopole version the K5. Dolby's website (at the time anyway) recommended that the surround backs would be monopole anyway and these were only about £150 the pair as they were ex demo. So I couldn't hear the difference with using the tripole K4s all round compared to K4 sides and K5 rears. However, I could hear the improvement having at least K5 monopoles at the back...for the final £150 extra I can't complain and it saves getting the filler out to hide the holes in the wall if I scrapped the extra surrounds.
Edited by OldSkoolRS on Thursday 15th December 23:09
That's a decent enough amp, so I guess it just shows that it's not a one size fits all. As many of us AV nuts have a spare set of speakers kicking around, it's probably worth trying them out to see first before investing too much. I tried some old £50 speakers that I'd used in a previous setup for example.
I then bought two sets of M&K K4 tripoles which IIRC were about £600 a pair, so the 7.1 upgrade was quite an expense. However, I'd always known that if I wasn't impressed at the full M&K 7.1 then I could use the second pair as surrounds in my conservatory setup: During the summer we tend not to use the living room much, so I pinched the back surrounds for the conservatory setup (a simpler 4.1 setup with M&K fronts but no centre as they are so close together).
The K4s are brilliant at doing that 'sound outside the room' effect, so I was glad to use them in 'screen 2'. However, when I did watch a film in the living room, I did notice the gap, so I was lucky and picked up a pair of the monopole version the K5. Dolby's website (at the time anyway) recommended that the surround backs would be monopole anyway and these were only about £150 the pair as they were ex demo. In truth I couldn't hear the difference between using the £600 K4 tripoles as back surrounds verses the much cheaper monopole K5s. However I could hear the improvement having at least K5 monopoles at the back in 7.1 over 5.1...for the final £150 extra I can't complain and it saves getting the filler out to hide the holes in the wall if I scrapped the extra surrounds.
I then bought two sets of M&K K4 tripoles which IIRC were about £600 a pair, so the 7.1 upgrade was quite an expense. However, I'd always known that if I wasn't impressed at the full M&K 7.1 then I could use the second pair as surrounds in my conservatory setup: During the summer we tend not to use the living room much, so I pinched the back surrounds for the conservatory setup (a simpler 4.1 setup with M&K fronts but no centre as they are so close together).
The K4s are brilliant at doing that 'sound outside the room' effect, so I was glad to use them in 'screen 2'. However, when I did watch a film in the living room, I did notice the gap, so I was lucky and picked up a pair of the monopole version the K5. Dolby's website (at the time anyway) recommended that the surround backs would be monopole anyway and these were only about £150 the pair as they were ex demo. In truth I couldn't hear the difference between using the £600 K4 tripoles as back surrounds verses the much cheaper monopole K5s. However I could hear the improvement having at least K5 monopoles at the back in 7.1 over 5.1...for the final £150 extra I can't complain and it saves getting the filler out to hide the holes in the wall if I scrapped the extra surrounds.
Edited by OldSkoolRS on Thursday 15th December 23:09
Edited by OldSkoolRS on Thursday 15th December 23:12
I have gone for a 9.2 setup with an Onkyo per amp and have tried the combinations you are on about to see just what the effect is of the extra 2 wide channels at the rear/ the extra front high ans and then all 4 extra speakers.
The extra 4 speakers are all direct speakers and not dipoles. The only dipoles are the main rear speakers.
Personally in my set up the extra front high speakers widen the sound stage and it is noticable. The extra rears do not add much unless playing video games when they are an added bonus. You can hear the stealth bomber in MW3 moving diagonally across the room.
If it's mainly movie watching then front high/wide for me
The extra 4 speakers are all direct speakers and not dipoles. The only dipoles are the main rear speakers.
Personally in my set up the extra front high speakers widen the sound stage and it is noticable. The extra rears do not add much unless playing video games when they are an added bonus. You can hear the stealth bomber in MW3 moving diagonally across the room.
If it's mainly movie watching then front high/wide for me
Wow - Thanks for the informative replies.
The current rear surrounds are only 0.5m behind and separated by about 1.75m with the front L/R 3.5m ahead and separated by 2.1m. Not ideal placement but it's about the best I can achieve in the room.
It sounds like nobody has experienced earth shattering improvement moving to 7.1 so I think I'll stick with 5.1 for now.
I've got a spare sub woofer and might try out 5.2 - just playing around, I dont expect much, if any, improvement though.
The comments about front height not giving significant improvement sound plausable to me as considering my anotomical configuration I don't think I can dicern height well. Now if I had a center ear on the top of my head that would be a different matter altogether - what an upgrade!
The current rear surrounds are only 0.5m behind and separated by about 1.75m with the front L/R 3.5m ahead and separated by 2.1m. Not ideal placement but it's about the best I can achieve in the room.
It sounds like nobody has experienced earth shattering improvement moving to 7.1 so I think I'll stick with 5.1 for now.
I've got a spare sub woofer and might try out 5.2 - just playing around, I dont expect much, if any, improvement though.
The comments about front height not giving significant improvement sound plausable to me as considering my anotomical configuration I don't think I can dicern height well. Now if I had a center ear on the top of my head that would be a different matter altogether - what an upgrade!
Ah now X.2 setup is something I'm interested in: My BK Monolith goes down pretty low, but in the main seat dead centre for my screen and the other speakers, there is a 40Hz null. I'm toying with the idea of getting another sub which would be in a different place to help fill in the 40Hz null for my seat. I use a great little gadget (Anti mode 8033) for EQing my sub and apparently if I connect it upstream of the two subs then it will EQ for both at the various test positions (kind of like Audessey but only for a subwoofer).
Trouble is if you see the size of a Monolith, imagine that I might struggle to get another one in the living room.
http://www.bkelec.com/HiFi/Sub_Woofers/monolith-df...
That's 420 x 604 x 540mm and 48Kg if the pictures don't give the full impression of size.
I use a great little gadget (Anti mode 8033) for EQing my sub and apparently if I connect it upstream of the two subs then it will EQ for both at the various test positions (kind of like Audessey but only for a subwoofer).Trouble is if you see the size of a Monolith, imagine that I might struggle to get another one in the living room.
http://www.bkelec.com/HiFi/Sub_Woofers/monolith-df...
That's 420 x 604 x 540mm and 48Kg if the pictures don't give the full impression of size.
At start of year I ran a 7.1 system comprising an Onkyo amp, Mordaunt Short sub, centre, sides and rears...the fronts were Paradigm floorstanders.
I sold that setup and purchased a Yamaha RX-V1067 & B&W MT30 5.1 kit.
Granted, I've spent more money (the new sub was a grand) but the other kit wasnt shy, however I have realised that theres no real need for 7.1 if you buy a quality matched 5.1 setup. I'm constantly wowed by this. On music its very good, can be a bit bright but Supertramps Logical Song is a good demo. Bung a BluRay in and Transformers, Expendables etc really do dwarf my previous 7.1 gig.
I have a large front room and this fills it perfectly, Ive also gained space.
I sold that setup and purchased a Yamaha RX-V1067 & B&W MT30 5.1 kit.
Granted, I've spent more money (the new sub was a grand) but the other kit wasnt shy, however I have realised that theres no real need for 7.1 if you buy a quality matched 5.1 setup. I'm constantly wowed by this. On music its very good, can be a bit bright but Supertramps Logical Song is a good demo. Bung a BluRay in and Transformers, Expendables etc really do dwarf my previous 7.1 gig.
I have a large front room and this fills it perfectly, Ive also gained space.
LA21T said:
Granted, I've spent more money (the new sub was a grand)
Was that a PV1 sub? Could have bought two Monoliths for that price, but they wouldn't be as compact of course, but they would go a hell of a lot deeper...only any good if you have no neighbours though judging by the way my living room door rattled during 'Thor' last week. I will admit to falling for sales pitch and looks with regards to the B&W kit, however when I auditioned the sub, I was like thats the one. I listened to a Monitor Audio and REL as well, cant think of model numbers.
My flat is of concrete construction and the PV1 manages to make the floor flex
I dont regret it one bit.
My flat is of concrete construction and the PV1 manages to make the floor flex
I dont regret it one bit.
You wouldn't want a Monolith in a flat for sure. The PV1 is a compact size, so if it gives you the bass you want then it's a good option, it's just that you pay dearly for the small size in absolute bass terms and cost if you could accomodate a more conventional sub: I'd love an SVS sub myself, but that's going a bit too extreme even for my tastes.
Back to your main point that a better quality 5.1 is preferable to a mediocre 7.1 I really agree with this: It's not unlike some of the cheap new amps that have 'full HD decoding' but actually sound pretty rubbish compared to older quality amps that 'only' do DTS/DD and in my case 7.1 analogue input (cheating rea,lly as I'm using my Oppo to do the HD decoding now): Mine still sounds better on 'ordinary' DD/DTS than a cheap new amp does with DTSMA for example. I've only recently got the analogue cables sorted out so I'm able to hear 7.1 DTSMA soundtracks through my Arcam setup and it sounds sublime...I'd have to spend seriously silly money to improve it now, money much better spent on my future TVR.
The PV1 is a compact size, so if it gives you the bass you want then it's a good option, it's just that you pay dearly for the small size in absolute bass terms and cost if you could accomodate a more conventional sub: I'd love an SVS sub myself, but that's going a bit too extreme even for my tastes.Back to your main point that a better quality 5.1 is preferable to a mediocre 7.1 I really agree with this: It's not unlike some of the cheap new amps that have 'full HD decoding' but actually sound pretty rubbish compared to older quality amps that 'only' do DTS/DD and in my case 7.1 analogue input (cheating rea,lly as I'm using my Oppo to do the HD decoding now): Mine still sounds better on 'ordinary' DD/DTS than a cheap new amp does with DTSMA for example. I've only recently got the analogue cables sorted out so I'm able to hear 7.1 DTSMA soundtracks through my Arcam setup and it sounds sublime...I'd have to spend seriously silly money to improve it now, money much better spent on my future TVR.
I've a PV-1 along side 4 CM-4's and a pair of CM-1's for rear rears (IYSWIM). It doesn't make quite the racket that something like the monlith does, but it's a far nicer noise and isn't such a ridiculously massive piece of kit.
It's wierd, it's the sort of noise you don't notice until you turn it off and then wonder what on earth went wrong with the system. It does need careful setting up, but it's just a very refined sound.
I love it, but everyone likes something different.
It's wierd, it's the sort of noise you don't notice until you turn it off and then wonder what on earth went wrong with the system. It does need careful setting up, but it's just a very refined sound.
I love it, but everyone likes something different.
Not sure why losing the bottom octave is 'a nicer noise' but I appreciate that a PV1 is small. Having said that my Monolith acts as a side table with a lamp and (blutac'd ) orniments on it, the light oak finish fits in so well with the rest of the furniture that I've been asked before where the bass is comiing from...helps that the room is a decent size though, wouldn't do in the average one bedroomed flat for example.
) orniments on it, the light oak finish fits in so well with the rest of the furniture that I've been asked before where the bass is comiing from...helps that the room is a decent size though, wouldn't do in the average one bedroomed flat for example.I'm used to PMC OB1i's matched with the TLE-1, which gives an almighty thump. Now having the PV-1, it has never really felt lacking, just different. Though the TLE-1 gives the best of both worlds, the control of the PV-1 with the wallop of something like the monolith, though for the price, so it damn well should!
The Monolith is simply massive. For the price, it's awesome, but I just can't get past it's size.
The PV-1 fills the sound fantastically and whilst it doesn't blow the windows out in the same way as some subs, it really isn't lacking. Which is not what you'd expect after having read all of the negative comments on-line about it. All I'll say is that most of those come from people who haven't spent much time with it. Yes there is better value for money subs out there, but since I didn't pay anything like retail for mine, I'm very happy with it. Initially I did think it was a bit weak, but once set up right. It's not. Not at all.
The Monolith is simply massive. For the price, it's awesome, but I just can't get past it's size.
The PV-1 fills the sound fantastically and whilst it doesn't blow the windows out in the same way as some subs, it really isn't lacking. Which is not what you'd expect after having read all of the negative comments on-line about it. All I'll say is that most of those come from people who haven't spent much time with it. Yes there is better value for money subs out there, but since I didn't pay anything like retail for mine, I'm very happy with it. Initially I did think it was a bit weak, but once set up right. It's not. Not at all.
With OB1s you probably don't need such a big sub, though even 'Vipers' over on AVforums (PMC nut that has owned most of the PMC range it seems) didn't rate the PMC sub that highly...quick for music but lacking in the very deepest range for LFE channel effects. I fancied one myself, to go with my PMCs, but the reviews (and comparison threads) on AVforums seem to give the impression I'd be disappointed with the absolute bass depth compared to the Monolith... I could be tempted to buy one as a second sub though to help smooth the in room response.
I'm only running TB2+ across the front three (biamped with Arcam amps though), the Monolith does a great job of filling the gap below the TB2s. I used to use the smaller XLS200 which is probably a fair comparison to the PV1 and agree it still did a good job in the same room and setup so I'm not surprised that a well set up PV1 works well with the B&W satellites.
I'm only running TB2+ across the front three (biamped with Arcam amps though), the Monolith does a great job of filling the gap below the TB2s. I used to use the smaller XLS200 which is probably a fair comparison to the PV1 and agree it still did a good job in the same room and setup so I'm not surprised that a well set up PV1 works well with the B&W satellites.
OldSkoolRS said:
With OB1s you probably don't need such a big sub, though even 'Vipers' over on AVforums (PMC nut that has owned most of the PMC range it seems) didn't rate the PMC sub that highly...quick for music but lacking in the very deepest range for LFE channel effects. I fancied one myself, to go with my PMCs, but the reviews (and comparison threads) on AVforums seem to give the impression I'd be disappointed with the absolute bass depth compared to the Monolith... I could be tempted to buy one as a second sub though to help smooth the in room response.
I'm only running TB2+ across the front three (biamped with Arcam amps though), the Monolith does a great job of filling the gap below the TB2s. I used to use the smaller XLS200 which is probably a fair comparison to the PV1 and agree it still did a good job in the same room and setup so I'm not surprised that a well set up PV1 works well with the B&W satellites.
The OB1's have a remarkable amount of bass. I know Vipers and have listened to his system. It's where the TLE-1 came from in the first place! With what he has, then I really don't think he actually needed the sub at all frankly! Spectacular was the only way to describe it.I'm only running TB2+ across the front three (biamped with Arcam amps though), the Monolith does a great job of filling the gap below the TB2s. I used to use the smaller XLS200 which is probably a fair comparison to the PV1 and agree it still did a good job in the same room and setup so I'm not surprised that a well set up PV1 works well with the B&W satellites.
I've certainly not noticed any lack of deep bass from it, but my exposure to other subs is fairly limited. Though I think it would be safe to say that with his fronts, the TLE-1 was somewhat overmatched!
The PMC's are run with Arcam kit (AVR400) and the B&W's on a Pioneer amp that's probably best described as "alright". (Could do with an upgrade, but an impending house move is putting that on hold for the moment.)
Together it sounds great. The two systems are in different houses (I work at one end of the country and live at the other) and so it's hard to make a true distinction, but the PMC's are far better than the B&W's, but they were enormously more expensive. (All the B&W kit was ex-demo or secondhand from friends who I know look after their stuff.)
My aim is to have a balanced system where all of the bits work together, rather than have one bit over-powering another. I've noticed that on a couple of high-end systems (where the power cables have cost more than my entire system.) One I heard had amazing fronts, centre and amps, but the rears were not of the same quality and so what came from the back sounded harsh and uncontrolled and really wrecked the whole experience for me.
Size obviously matters with a sub and that's where the monolith really wins out, the PV-1 is always going to be a compromise given it's small size and lack of enclosure.
I haven't listened to the TB2+, but I imagine with bookshelfs, then the added size of the monolith will really be welcome.
For me though, a sub isn't really about breaking the foundations, it's about producing a more rounded sound (something that's impossible to really explain) Though obviously if the mood takes you, it's nice to be able to scare the cat half to death!
I've heard so many good things about the monolith, I might have to try and audition one in the new house (I will have the space for one there.) I've only heard it in one other person's house and their system was totally different to mine and I didn't like the setup, they were just going for massive bass and didn't seem to care about anything else. So it might be that my opinion is somewhat clouded. It just seemed a bit too much at the time.
Difficult to demo a Monolith as they are sold direct from the manufacturers (who are the OEM supplier for some other makes that you can buy in the shops at much higher prices ). I agree though that it's easy to end up with overblown bass with one as when you get it you want to hear it all the time. After a while I found myself triming it back and then added the 8033C as well so it's at that point where you sometimes wonder if it's on for normal music and sound effects...then a big rumble kicks in and you know it is.
I know what you mean about balanced: I bought the TB2+ centre first when I still had DB1+ left and rights, and it unbalanced the front soundstage. Eventually the TB2+ turned up secondhand so I upgraded and sold the DB1+ which ended up only £50 to upgrade (they were about £600 more when I bought the DB1+ new). I'd love some PMC Wafer 1s as surrounds, but the M&K tripoles do a good job and surprisingly don't seem such a bad match with a bit of gentle EQ from the Arcam AV9.
Actaul I'd really like some bigger PMCs (like the new twenty range perhaps) at the front, but I'm limited by my projector screen (perils of having a non dedicated 'cinema room'. Maybe one day if I have a separate music setup I'll get some OB1is...
). I agree though that it's easy to end up with overblown bass with one as when you get it you want to hear it all the time. After a while I found myself triming it back and then added the 8033C as well so it's at that point where you sometimes wonder if it's on for normal music and sound effects...then a big rumble kicks in and you know it is.I know what you mean about balanced: I bought the TB2+ centre first when I still had DB1+ left and rights, and it unbalanced the front soundstage. Eventually the TB2+ turned up secondhand so I upgraded and sold the DB1+ which ended up only £50 to upgrade (they were about £600 more when I bought the DB1+ new). I'd love some PMC Wafer 1s as surrounds, but the M&K tripoles do a good job and surprisingly don't seem such a bad match with a bit of gentle EQ from the Arcam AV9.
Actaul I'd really like some bigger PMCs (like the new twenty range perhaps) at the front, but I'm limited by my projector screen (perils of having a non dedicated 'cinema room'. Maybe one day if I have a separate music setup I'll get some OB1is...
Forums | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff