I love surround sound, but don't get caught up in the 7.1 hype, for your home 5.1 is enough.
As a home theater tech critic, I spend much of my time evangelizing for surround sound. I do it unashamedly and with all my heart. I love surround sound and I want everyone else to get as much pleasure from it as I do. But I worry that a lot of people still waiting to dip a toe in the sound-field are turned off by a bunch of seemingly conflicting numbers: 5.1 and 6.1 and 7.1.
I’ve seen this over and over with people who are just getting into home theater as a hobby. When told they have a choice of 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 channels, their eyes glaze over and they mumble something along the lines of: “Um, well, I guess I’ll just keep my two speakers and think about it.” When speaking with newbies, I’ve learned to discuss surround as a 5.1-channel medium, which it essentially is, and leave it at that.
Why bug people with a choice that most would rather not make? The expansion of the 5.1-channel standard was born in the movie house, where it’s easier to cover a large space with surround effects if you add a back channel served by speakers in the back of the house.
In film exhibition, 6.1- and 7.1-channel systems make sense. At home, however, 5.1 channels are quite enough. It’s easy to generate a solid sound field in a small space with three speakers in front and two on the rear of the side walls. To me it’s self-evidently nonsensical to have four surround speakers outnumbering the three in front.
Your family’s attention is riveted on the screen and that’s where a home surround system should deliver most of its firepower. Adding more channels gives your surround receiver more work to do. That’s never a good thing. Despite the “100 watts per channel” specs you see in spec sheets, the majority of surround receivers measure at more like 35.
So when an action-movie soundtrack swells up, it drives the receiver into clipping. This might sound like a slight deflating of dynamics. Or the sound may get harsher as it gets louder. In the worst-case scenario, the receiver overheats and shuts down. If you don’t like what you hear when you turn up the volume, clipping is what you’re hearing.
There are two ways to minimize clipping. One is to dump your receiver for separate components – a multi-channel power amp and a surround preamp-processor. This will cost you more money and make your system bulkier and more complex. The alternative is buy speakers with a high sensitivity rating, measured in decibels (dB), say in the low to mid nineties. Unfortunately they’re not always the best-sounding ones. (Klipsch is one of the rare exceptions.)
Clipping is a fact of life in all except the most lavish home theater systems. But the goal should always be to minimize it. And adding needless surround channels makes it worse. When most folks go out to buy a surround receiver, what’s uppermost in their minds is the price point, not the size of the power supply. The slow, sinking feeling comes later – when they turn up the volume and don’t like what they hear.
At this point I should define a few terms. Feel free to skip this paragraph if you’ve just had a heavy meal. Dolby Digital and DTS are the surround formats used on DVDs; Dolby Digital also plays a role in DTV broadcasting. They originated as 5.1-channel formats. Their expanded cousins are Dolby Digital EX, also known as THX Surround EX, since the two companies co-developed it; and DTS-ES. In Dolby Digital EX, the side-surround channels are discretely encoded, while the back-surround channel (singular, though it may be served by two speakers) is derived from the side-surrounds by a technique called matrixing. Or as I prefer to call it, fakery. DTS-ES comes in two forms, Matrix (with the back-channel information faked) and the all-too-rare Discrete (with the back-channel information encoded in its own discrete channel). If you understood what I just said, you’re a fellow drooler; if you didn’t, you’re probably getting annoyed and losing interest, which is precisely the point I’m trying to make. I’ve limited myself to the barest essentials and just look at the length of this graf. Having to reread it makes me queasy.
If you’re worried about missing out on back-channel information in surround soundtracks, I’d advise you not to fret over it. Most DVD soundtracks are either Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1. The high-res music formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, are strictly 5.1-channel affairs with no 6.1 or 7.1 equivalents. If you feed a 7.1-channel receiver with a 5.1-channel signal, it will usually fake something for the back-surrounds using Dolby Pro Logic IIx processing. For my own part, I’d rather listen to five (.1) honest channels and dispense with the sonic smoke and mirrors.
With the marketing of 6.1 and 7.1 surround, the industry has decisively outwitted itself. It has convinced many consumers to buy new receivers and more speakers. But it has also undermined the 5.1-channel standard, which is more appropriate for the home, slowing the acceptance of surround sound in general.
All right people, fess up. How many speakers are you using: five, six, or seven? And those of you who “upgraded” from 5.1, do you really feel your system has started sounding significantly better?
Mark Fleischmann is the audio editor of Home Theater and the author of Practical Home Theater (http://www.quietriverpress.com/).
Showing 106 comments
RSSHere is a great site for tracking 7.1 released movies...
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php?Ord...
Wow, this is such a big difference from 5.1. I am glad I made the switch. I know only Start Wars and maybe a few other movies are in THX but they sound Awesome!
I had realized some time back that I was happy with 5.1 even when I play Blue Ray disks with 7.1 and borrowed extra speakers from a mate to test at home.
INSTEAD of 7.1 setup I have gone 5.1 + used the extra channels to Bi-Amp the front speakers. Sounds great be happy guys... :-)
5.0 > 4.1 ! I'd rather have a center channel than a subwoofer any day.
SDDS in cinemas - yeah, good when you get it. But I saw Bond last week in an SDDS cinema, and they played the Dolby trailer beforehand, which can only mean that they played a Dolby version of the movie.
I believe that, if you had a 7.1 setup, but was watching say for example a dvd that had a 5.1 soundtrack, the sound would be output from the speakers to the very rear. Not to the speakers (Pointing at your ears)
Hope this helps. Tell me if im wrong : ]
I really enjoyed reading the article and replies. Thank you! However, I have one question regarding the 7.1->5.1 backwards compatibility. If I setup my speakers according to 7.1 scheme and listen a 5.1 source I assume that the rear surround speakers will not be used and only surround speakers (pointed at my ears) will be used. However, according to 5.1 requirements rear surround speakers should be behind a person, not perpendicular to his head.
Thank you for an answer!
(sorry for my English)
With Blu-Ray winning by a wide margin, and with movie companies favoring the format, this is certainly an exciting time for surround sound.
5.1 has been for many years been the norm for many if not every dvd release. But obviously with the invention of High def movies, and the capability of 7.1 sound, it makes sense that obviously this is the next stage in home entertainment.
It happened with music too. Cassettes, vinyl, and obviously cd coming out on top.
And the same with video, including video cassettes, dvd, and now High Def dvd'.
And obviously with the new HD format, you get better sound too. You get to be even more immersed in the sound that films bring.
So i would recommend moving with the age were in. A digital revolution. We are seeing it in Digital Cinema, and now obviously we get to have that in the consumer market also.
7.1 set up is the way to go, but obviously, unless the price of receivers and speakers as a package or sold separately come down, and if the systems and their capabilities are explained to the people who become confused with the technical stuff, i think it will ultimately always be people with 7.1 Blu-Ray surround set ups, vs. people with 5.1 dvd.
Thats the choice we have. Im gonna go figure for a bit, and wait for prices to come down, and for the market to become much clearer with any luck.
I'll tell that people in my country (Ukraine) usualy buy 5.1 home theater all in one box. The brands are most sven F&D and microlab for pc users and sony panasonic for others who have plasma+dvd. And even they bought 5.1 they know that 7.1 is "cool!" and cooler than 5.1 Ask them why and you will hear an unswer like: Wow 7.1 is bigger so cooler! :)
As for me I have Stereo for music and 5.1 for theater. But I think that it is not enoght to buy only audio system and be happy. You also must make your room "softer" to make this system work and your ears listen.
Sorry for my English. Want to tell more but need more English practice. Thanks to the author.
It's a little weird, but in a much small room I also got away with laying the rear channels flat on their backs to the left and right of the couch and that also worked for recreating the rear channel effect.
Anyway, just encouraging people with challenging spaces to really play around. You can probably find a way to get the sound you want seeing as it all comes down to acoustics provided you have semi-decent gear.
rig:
bottom end sony 5.1 dts (does fine for now but lacks in definition the larger the speaker you use)
Powered Paradigm 8" sub (front firing)
Wharfedale CRS 5 LR mains
Wharfedale CRS 3 LR rears
Bose Center
I want to get the Wharfedale Opus 1 center but this college student cannot afford it yet.
I watch an unhealthy amount of movies and have not felt the need to upgrade to 5.1. A nicer amp maybe, after student loans are paid off.
regards,
http://www.anarsist.org/
As with most of my purchases, I look to what the future may hold, so when I do buy something (rareity in itself), I get the best out there.
I just retired the 2.0 system and purchased a 7.1 receiver, with loads of inputs, analog and digital, and some component ins/outs. The component video stuff is useless right now, since I am still on a 27" CRT from 10 years ago. But I know I will someday move to a plasma HD (DLP has issues I dont agree with, and LCDs just arent as bright IMHO).
I have extra speakers laying around (from friends who upgraded and gave me their cast-offs, still in excellent quality)and with rolls of speaker cable laying around from customer installations. So I went ahead and strung up all 7 speakers (no sub needed-remember the above named Jensons).
Its interesting to see what the ProLogic does and it does somewhat increase the audible field IMHO. I was snapping my head around when I heard something rapping on the back wall, or when I hear noises behind me (XBOX/PS2 games).
I have a fairly long room with the seating centered it the room, so it does fill in the space at low volumes. It is clean as far as I could take it (sensitive to extreme loud sound). Sounded as clean as a friend's high end system with electrostatics up to where I could stand it.
I may rewires the Jensons to be bi-ampable and use the backs for that purpose (receiver is capable) some day just to see the effect, but right now, I am quite pleased with running on 7.
It may just be still the novelty of having so many right now.
Now if Mark can bring his expertise in a similar way to understanding the HDTV world including the need to upgrade channel or satelite TV in order to get a HD signal. How much is HDTV of this going to cost when said and done?
Thanks for bringing quality audio and visual electronics down to earth!!
Jon
A listening area of less then 300 sq ft is completely different as to the system required. Most important is what you will use for. If it's home theatre and less than 300 sq ft, then 5.1 will do just fine. But if you are like me and have some 600 sq ft with ten foot ceilings then 7.1 makes a lot more sense for creating the immersive threatre experience.
If you want classical music then spend all you money on two speakers and a sub and the amp. Rock music the same except the sub is a little more important. Like it loud then more power. For games the surround part becomes important.
Most people don't appreciate all the fine detail available in an expensive system. The trick is to determine what "you" want and where you are going to have all this fun. Doing movies right requires more room and more money to get those "star wars" effects. The type of music makes the job different and the equipment a lot different. My advise is to start off small and grow into the type of system you really need and want. No one listens - they spend the most they can afford to get the biggest and baddest immediately. And they usually love it.
Another thing all this misses is content. A bad movie or a bad song won't be any good no matter how much you throw at equipment. The best movie experience I ever had was watching for the first time, "Silence of the Lambs", on a thirty inch ten year old Magnavox CRT TV with the two little tv speakers providing my audio. It's all about content to me. The equipment might make it a better experience, but it's still the content that immereces you in that reality. Eric is great on my little bitty computer speakers.
Here is my setup. I have a 5.1 speaker set hooked up to proper jacks. I have a splitter that puts two 2.0 speaker sets on the front right and left channels, two 2.0 speaker sets on the rear left and right channels, a special splitter takes stereo signal and creates different monotone signals from the sub and center channels port. This lets me hook up the center channel to my tv giving more center producing speakers(at a lower volume) when it is actually used and the sub channel to an additional sub when the extra umph is needed in say a combat game when you fire a gun. You are hit by the bass from two different dirrections so it feels like you are right in the middle of it instead of off to the side.
You may say im crazy but thats ok because my setup sounds so encompassing there is no comparision for the price I paid. My 5.1 cost only $60 and each of the 2.0's cost $5 a set and the five splitters cost $2.50 a piece and yes they are gold plated. I always shop around looking for good deals. Using four 2.0 speaker sets allows you to perchase cheap ons as you find them. I have two different types and yet they all look beautiful. Oh and to make me sound a little less extreme here is a link to a site where a guy has 24 true seperate channels in his house running off of his pc:
http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000477034692/
Enjoy
~putergeek
On my PC I have yet to hear better sound than from my Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1--and I've tried Logitech, Boston Acoustics, Creative, and other major brands. Some may be louder (like Logitech) but not as accurate.
What I think you alluded to, but should have stated strongly is that you are far better off spending any money you'd have spent on a 7.1 system on BETTER 5.1 parts. Taking home more, but far less quality speakers and amp, is not going to do anything to give you enjoyment from the money spent. And that is key. The only reason I went to 7.1 on the speaker side is because I upgraded my side surrounds to a better quality level and I didn't have much to do with the previous ones, so I just moved them to the rear. I don't care if they add much, they were a freebie from that angle. I did, and advocate to others spend money well on the primary 5.1 arrangement.
The next gen standards are almost here, but the content will still take time to make anything worthwhile. By this time next year, however you might sing a slightly different tune in regards to 6.1/7.1. Again, we all too often justify that for spending money now which is foolish. These items get better quality and cheaper as time moves on and 1 year can be a big change.
So you are right, 5.1 for now, but bear in mind to keep an eye (or ear in this case) on the new standards that are just about for sale, and weigh that into next year's column.
:)
I question the clipping comment. I have a Harman/ Kardon AVR 630 and I have not heard any clipping pushing all 7 speakers at full volume, but that is usually deafening. Normal viewing I play at -30 to -40 and "movie night" with a full house I play at -20 at most.
5.1 is fine, but the amount of room needed for a decent system, above 5.1, is shameful, if you want an AFFECT...
Still wish to go back to Full positional Quad..In the end, its only 4 speakers and 1 center channel.
You end up with sounds that are highly localised to a whichever speaker is playing the loudest at the time and that is more annoying than not. The same problem exists with 5.1 system as well, but it's easier to mitigate with good choice of rear speakers.
Not to mention that most people I have seen get these 5.1 sound systems then put the whole thing in the corner of the room and put the rear speakers right on top of the main ones... and then tell you how you can really hear the surround sound! These people could not possibly deal with configuring 8 or more speakers.
Of course it helps that my receiver is rated an honest 110w x 7 and actually has the current to feed 7 channels without issue.
Finally, both next-gen high def DVD standards support true 7.1 through TrueHD. So the arguement that there is no 7.1 source material is soon to be false. Not that there are any receivers to take advantage of it yet...
I have the front channel panned center and fed to the left and right. In my 10' x 10' living room, I don't hear the difference, and it means I can use the true 55W RMS per channel JVC amps that have served me so well for so long.
For the most part I agree with what you are saying. It's better to spend the money that would go into an additional one or two channels on a higher quality reciever or speakers, but if you see a decent quality reciever at a good price that supports seven or eight channel sound, I would still advise getting it if you are at all into sound. Speaking from experience, the surround sound effect from a discrete 6.1 channel DTS source is an incredible leap from the same track in 5.1. Also, because of the way most home viewing spaces are set up, it can be difficult to place both surround speakers behind the viewers and equidistant to all of them, something a back surround speaker can help copensate for. Finally, you speak about current DVD standards, which is good for now, but if someone is upgrading their home theater system, now would probably be a good time to "future proof" them for upcoming DVD standards, such as HD-DVD and Bluray, which will have the additional space that authorors require for higher-channel surround tracks. Just my opinion, though.
also, i find that some movies sound much better in 4.2 matrixed from the 2.1 channel dolby track, simply because they had a terrible sound engineer mix for the dvd.
It's quite obvious 5.1 configurations are the still the industry standard, proof of this is bulk of the currently mixed soundtracks offered on DVD format. While this configuration is quite adequate in many listening environments and applications, there are benefits to the use of 6.1 or 7.1 configurations.
As our listening capacity is more capable as well as critical 180 degrees in front of the listening position, the currently used three front channel configuration adequately provides a full sound field. Evidence of this is found in the amount of information provided in these channels on most soundtracks as well as the emphasis of the loudspeaker's capabilities to smoothly pan from left to center to right. It's possible to provide additional channels ( e.g., far left, far right, left center, middle center and right center), but due to the ability of the accuracy to pinpoint sound in the forward 180 degrees, the further addition of channels or speakers would likely provide diminishing returns.
In a larger listening environment (approx. 2,500 cubic feet or larger) where ample space is available behind the general listening area, a 6.1 configuration provides a more enveloping sound field as opposed to a 5.1 speaker configuration simply due to the fact that the additional channel, while it's signal is still matrixed from the surround signals (on 5.1 soundtracks, 6.1 discrete soundtracks are available in limited release), can "fill in" the area that the side surround setup falls a bit short on. One way to possibly fill this void in a 5.1 setup is to use dipole/bipole type speakers which diffuse the surround signal and provide a broader sound field for the listening audience. This still, however, generally does not produce the more encompassing, spatial sound field a 6.1 configuration is capable of providing.
In addition to the more enveloping sound field the 6.1 setup can provide in comparison to a 5.1 configuration, the 7.1 configuration, in which the two rear surround speakers will split the matrixed surround signal, will produce an even broader sound field as sounds produced behind the listening environment can be distinguished much easier when not located directly behind the listener. It doesn't take a scientist to realize our hearing capacity is more prominent in front of us than behind is. Regardless as to whether the soundtrack was recorded in 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 discrete channels, the additional rear channels help fill in any gaps in the listening area.
Although very few soundtracks have been mixed with 6.1 discrete channels and none (to my knowledge and that are generally available) have been mixed for 7.1, these additional channels or configurations can be quite beneficial depending upon your application or listening environment. Most of this is subjective, but then again, so is a large portion of any auditory comparisons. While the necessity of 6.1 or 7.1 is irrelevant, as surround sound in general isn't quite a "necessity", these options provide just that, more options for the consumer. The best thing to do is be an informed consumer, for this topic, or any other for that matter. By the way, since when is having options such a bad thing? :)
One last note, overdrving your receiver and speaker sensitivity (often confused for efficency) has very little to do with the 5.1 or 7.1 dilemma...
You talk about "widening the sweetspot", but the fact is, the sweetspot is very much a factor of how wide the stereo field is (front and rear.) Not of 5, 6,, or 7 channels, but of two pair, no more, no less. Once an audience member is sitting close enough to any major radiator (front left or right) that it takes priority over any other, the sweetspot is long gone. And the fact is, a 4-channel system can and will produce a wider sweetspot than one that has an additional center channel, specifically because the L/R speakers are producing the center information and it will slide with the L/R information as the listener's position moves, which is NOT the case if you have a center channel.
5.1 is perfectly sufficient, as is 4.0 or 4.1 or 4.2. All else is marketing hype.
By the way, I'm an engineer who specializes in acoustics, and I own multiple surround systems, the absolute best performer among the bunch is a Marantz 4270 set up as 4.2 (that is, a passive sub for each of the front and rear pairs.) Everyone who listens to my comparison setup agrees. I'm sure you would too, if you could but visit me in Montana. :)
Of much more use than going out and buying a couple of extra speakers is buying something of high quality that can produce realistic sound. And, buying a receiver or amp that puts out some real, honest wattage to drive them.
I think you are missing the point. Mark is explaining that in a smaller room 7.1 is a waste because a 5.1 setup give you enough "sound fields" to cover the area. Your arguement only stands true in a larger room or movie theater.
It is good to reinforce the quality vs quantity argument, and not overstressing a receiver's power supply. But a properly done 7.1 system is undeniably more immersive and capable of far higher quality than a 5.1 system. The front 3 channels are most important for quality, but to answer your question, the front soundstage covers approximately 60 degrees, where the surround speakers need to cover the remaining 300 degrees. This is why two surrounds of equal quality and power performs worse than four. We aren't very sensitive to rear sound effects, so the effect is subtle and if the burden of installation and equipment is too great, then the pragmatic should stick to 5.1. But if you can swing it, 7.1 can be incredible. Dolby Digital IIx and Logic 7 both do beautiful jobs in taking either 2 or 3-channel surround information and spreading them across 4 surrounds. It widens the sweetspot, improving imaging for all the seats.
But DVDs are not the only thing that I have hooked up to my receiver. I've also got my PS2 and my XBox in there. Although they may only be sending 5.1 signals, their newer conterparts may very soon come with 6.1 and 7.1 encoding capabilities. As it turns out, I am a university researcher in surround sound, focusing on applications in video games and let me say that dynamically generating spatialized surround sound tracks is well within the realm of possibility of the current video game consoles. There are already PC games that will do it (given that you have a pretty nifty sound card). I'm not suggesting that anyone should run out and buy a 6.1 or 7.1 system, but before you write them off, consider that DVDs may not be the only thing getting played back through these systems.
I actually downgraded from 7.1 to 5.1 when I moved to my new home. After having 7.1 for two years I decided it was simply not worthwhile and haven't missed it since.
Despite the faulty assumptions of the speaker industry, I will now go have a look at getting some Surround Sound speakers having read this article.
I think another problem with pushing these new 6.1/7.1 surround standards is the number of homes already set up with wiring and mounts for 5.1. If someone was interested in buying new surround gear, they could easily be discouraged from the whole thing by the incompatibility of the "newest" hardware with their existing infrastructure.
... And I'm not sure what speaker sensitivity has to do with power handlind.
On the other hand, 7.1 seems pointless.
Then again, I'm definitely a drooler. I even have a tactile sound transducer bolted to the couch, which helps make the sound feel more real, without cranking up the volume too much.
Nitpick: sensitivity of speakers is measured in dB/W (or perhaps "dB @ 1W measured from 1m away").
(1) If you're lucky, the power supply has enough watts to drive all seven channels. That means you've got more spare power to really drive your five channels.
(2) If your front speakers support bi-amping, you can do it directly from many of the newer receivers, assuming there's enough power left over to make a difference (see #1).
If anyone is interested in a SDDS8 channel, they are rare, but look for Loews Cinemas built in the last 5 years, and wait for a major Sony or WB release. And try to sit in their bigger auditoriums.
6.1/7.1 systems only become significant in enormous rooms and high-end "theater" rooms that are becoming more prevalent in upper-class homes. I've heard plenty of 6.1/7.1 systems in action in normal-sized rooms and the surround sound experience is almost identical to that produced by a 5.1 system.
So what's the primary difference of 6.1/7.1 vs 5.1 surround systems? 6.1/7.1 systems will require more wiring, extra clutter, drilling, and more hassle overall for little or no gain in the digital surround sound experience. Rather than wasting $ on a 6.1/7.1 system, consider spending the same on a higher-end 5.1 surround system, purchasing the components separately.
I disagree with the receiver power output statements. Good quality receivers like Denon, Yamaha etc usually match or better their stated outputs, proven by HCC who test to destruction (neaarly) in their labs.
I certainly won't be going 7.1 anytime soon even though my receiver supports it :)
In this instance, however, 5.1 is where my systems are, and will remain, until there is an actual advance in the art.
Thanks for a needed article!
6.1 does sound better then 5.1 even when the content is designed for 5.1 but that maybe down to how well your receiver processes the sound.
But there is no reason to move from 5.1 unless you are replacing your receiver anyway.
For example, one common "fact" you don't address in your article is the notion (perhaps also marketing hype?) that our ears are less sensitive to sound directionality behind the head; that an additional rear surround channel or two (matrixed or otherwise) somehow "reinforces" the surround images and allows for more believable, localized surround sound (assuming, of course, that we _want_ surround effects to be localized and don't buy into the dipole dogma). That would seem to thwart the "why more speakers behind you than in front of you?"-type arguments.
Do you feel this is true or false, and if true, at what size room (or for what kind of listening environments/seating configurations/acuity of hearing) does this become objectively relevant?
Thanks, from a fellow drooler.
I love it! You are right on about that.
I am still using a 5.1 receiver and plan too for many many years.