Question: Is it worth getting the extra surround back channel!
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by scott_tinari, Nov 7, 2001.
Like what the topic says. Is it worth getting the 6.1 setup and extra speaker in the back, does it make that much of a difference in sound. Please need feedback, I dont wanna waste my money.
It's one of those things that is subtle in some cases and truly adds to the movie experience in others.
When it's there you may take it for granted but once it's gone you will definitely notice it's absence.
I believe it truly helps create an enveloping soundfield. Without I feel like there is a gap in soundfield behind me.
I'll never go back to 5.1.
Wow. I could write exactly the same thing. I agree 100%!
I think it's worth it.... There's are few dvd's where I find 2 (EX) back speakers to be extremely noticeable. Gladiator and Phantom Menace to name a few.
I also agree. I added two back center speakers with a Denon 3802. I'd say that it was in the top 2 or 3 upgrades I've made. They seem to have been the missing piece & have really picked up the performance of my dipole surrounds. They have closed a gap in my surround sound.
I just thought I would throw in another point of view(not necessarily mine) but I have read threads and magazine articles where people claim that if your left and right surrounds are of good quality and are "OPTIMALLY" positioned that the imaging can actually create a "phantom" rear center on 6.1 soundtracks, and some have said they actually prefer it this way.
I personally don't know if there is enough information in the 2 surrounds(assuming it's a discrete 6.1) for this to be as effective as having a rear center.
Would someone please explain the reason for the 'split' rear channel?
Is it because the ear may not get enough 'direction information' if the sound is DIRECTLY behind? That putting the same sound a bit to each side allows one's 2 ears to get better information that the sound IS behind?
Bill I ended up trying and staying with 2 centre rear speakers. One made the rear soundfield too localized. Using 2 and setting them equidistant from the rear surrounds worked better for me.
I have heard that some research shows that when a sound is DIRECTLY behind you, there is sometimes a phantom shift of the sound to the front (something to do with how our ears were "designed" ). So have two speakers eliminates the potential for that effect.
And as someone else said, one speaker is more easily localized. Blind listening tests have shown that two are always preferred to one (There is a lengthy discussion of this on the net that also discusses the differences of direct rear-centers vs dipole rear-centers).
Scott - you're right. I did suffer from the phantom centre channel problem as well using only 1 speaker.
I believe that an effective "phantom" speaker phenomenon relies on the listener being seated in the so-called sweet spot. If the intent of your home theater is to share the theater experience with others, then having real speakers will greatly improve listening enjoyment for everyone. Increasing the number of real speakers increases the size of the effective listening area.
From my personal experience I never noticed any phantom rear speakers with a 5.1 arrangement. Now with multiple speakers in the rear the effect is very noticable.
On a side note, I noticed the greatest rear effects (with real speakers)on the movie Saving Private Ryan, which had very aggressive surround channels, but was not a Dolby Surround EX movie.