Seeking advice on a 7.1 set up

[Jyanix]

My current home theater consists of Klipsch Reference speakers. I'm using a pair of RS-3 speakers for my surrounds.

My Denon receiver is 7.1 and I want to upgrade after finding out which set of Klipsch speakers I should add. Should I simply buy another pair of RS-3s for the rears or should I go with something different?

THanks!

[Seb]

I would personally go with a set of direct-radiating speakers (i.e. RB-3s or other) and place them on the side, using the RS-3s in the rear, but philosophies will vary greatly. I think most people would agree with me, however that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment

http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection

This message has been edited by Seb on 03-27-2002 at 06:44 PM

[T2K]

RS-3's go to the side of listening position.Get matching monopoles for the back.Read your Denon manual for guidance.

Keith

[Seb]

yes.

i am very sorry, it's a typo, I meant RS on the side, RB in the rear...

sorry if that was misleading!

------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment

http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection

[HornEd]

I guess I am one of those people with a different opinion. 6.1 and 7.1 are discrete sound configurations do much better, IMHO, with direct radiating speakers.

Di-pole or bi-pole surround speakers are primarily filling the room with defused sound as a "throw-back" to the bad old ProLogic daze. At least WDST technology directs some sound to the sweet spot.

I guess you could mount a pair of RB-3's on the sides and another pair in the rear effects position... for use when you are not watching ProLogic and want to get all the discrete sound advantage in your Denon.

Excuse me but... trying to set up a 7.1 discrete sound system with two speakers spraying diffused ambient sound to the front and back of the room doesn't sound like a good idea to me... especially when I tried it!

Oh, well, just remember it's your ears that need the pleasing! -HornED

------------------

Photo update soon! -HornEd

[Jyanix]

Thank you everyone for your opinions! I greatly appreciate them.

HornEd, would it be better for me to hookup only one speaker (6.1) instead?

[HornEd]

Yes, Jayanix, I have tried it both ways... and in my particular room of the moment, prefer 6.1 to 7.1.

After making allowances for the "predator" configuration of our audio faculties discussed elsewhere, the issue falls to two salient points:

Room "size/shape" and

Sound "mixing/matrixing"

If your listening area is considerably wider than it is long, then 7.1 makes sense. However, if it is longer than it is wide... the edge goes to 6.1.

Most new movie and re-released movie sound is being mixed as 5.1 ...with a few titles (like Gladiator) getting 6.1 attention. I have yet to see a major release in 7.1. Fortunately, we can buy preamps that matrix rear effects channel(s) to provide a dimension not specifically provided for by the original mix.

The construction of a matrix to provide a center balance between the sound of two full-range, mono-pole side surrounds makes sense... just as having a front center channel to provide over 75% of the sound from a "visual oriented" DVD makes sense. It widens the sweet spot.

In my experience, widening the sound stage with Front Effects speakers is very worthwhile... due to our forward focused "predator" eye/ear configuration... it is our natural sphere of primary interest.

The sounds in the rear are less important except as a warning of danger. Thus, the side-surrounds and rear effects are more effective as direct-radiating ambient sound generators. Direct radiating so that when an audio "warning" comes, the direction of the sound is "localized" to a higher degree than can be achieved by bi-polar or di-polar side surrounds... IMHO.

Remember RS-3 speakers are throwing sounds to the front and back... so in effect you already have a matrix of sound bouncing off the back wall for a pseudo 7.1 effect... that's why people like the WDST way. To add one or two RS-3's to the rear would primarily be throwing the majority of the sound toward the sidewalls... for a marginally direct sound hodgepodge. Or at least that's how it sounded to me when I did my personal evaluation on WDST and 7.1.

In summary The only reason to add more than one Rear Effects speaker is if the room is inordinately wide. Making one matrix of the left and right rear surround channels is an elegantly simple solution... just as one center channel between the mains has proven to be. Adding Front Effects speakers widens the soundstage where our attention is focused. Adding Rear Effects speakers... particularly when using other than direct radiating surrounds... tends to create a confused and less desirable background.

Now, perhaps my point of view doesn't sell as many speakers... but I don't think anyone seriously doubts my sincerity as a Klipsch fan. However, my loyalty to being true to a question asked runs much deeper. It's just my opinion... and of course, you should be aware that I can not "pontificate" having NOT been certified in acoustics matters... let alone faith and morals! -HornEd

PS: If you must use your RS-3's, follow Talk-to-Keith's advice about monopole rears. Although I would just use one because I am more interested in what pleases my ears than my ego... and 7.1's time to shine is not currently justified IMHO.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 03-30-2002 at 12:58 PM

[T2K]

Your right Ed,we all have our preferences,I guess.

Mine is as Ken Pohlmann's as he stated in Feb/Mar issue of Sound & Vision.

"Movies tend to sound better over dipoles; the precise imaging of monopoles diminishes the sense of spatial envelopment you want in a home theater".

Keith

[HornEd]

While we don't agree on everything, Keith, your service, dedication and honesty with always hold my high regard.

Obviously, individual room acoustics psychoacoustics effect on the listener come into play. I will agree that it is easier to place di-poles than mono-poles. But, in a room large enough for the purpose, correctly placed mono-poles outperform any di-pole configuration I have heard.

Now, in the restricted space of my 8'x30' motorhome, WDST helps create a virtual sound space that really isn't there.

Other than that, I think that Mr. Pohlmann is obsessed by orienting his focus toward the speaker rather than focusing on the psychoacoustics that affect a person actually watching an interesting movie.

I think your example of a rainstorm a few posts ago was a good one. I have had guests in my HT that actually got up and looked out the window to see if it was raining... and I have, on occasion, felt the same urge. But I also will submit that my HT probably doesn't qualify as average... and my use of Front Effects speakers tend to more than compensate for the lack of dipoles on the side... since they are high, slightly toed in and aimed to the back of the room.

Perhaps the reference level 7' dual Ultra Sub Tower with all speakers set to "SMALL" also has a hand in evening out the perceived sound to someone in the sweet spot. All I know for sure is that I enjoy far more benefits of describe sound channels in my 6.1 configuration than when I did with di-poles.

I am not against hearing aids or di-pole speakers if they help a person enjoy a movie... I just try to have them make other than a knee-jerk choice. Of course, Keith, there is nothing "knee-jerk" about the way you research things. Thanks for the reference. -HornEd

This message has been edited by HornEd on 03-30-2002 at 03:30 PM

[T2K]

I agree with you Ed. Ordinarily I try not to spray my opinion around as if it were fact,but rather give tips that are concise and to the point as to what I have found in my experience using ordinary Klipsch speakers.

I also like animals and it bothers me to see someone beating a dead horse.

Keith

[HornEd]

I'm all for saving horses and for remembering how di-poles were the saving grace of that fast fading sound pony, ProLogic.

I believe that the future belongs to discrete sound from multiple mono-pole speakers... for that is the only known approach that allows quality sound engineers to mix music or movie in a way that will bring more predictable results for home use... just as it does in theaters.

At best, WDST provides a relatively inexpensive shortcut to filling a room with sound... It achieves the remarkable Roman riding trick of putting sound "feats" atop an Ambient Clydesdale and a Discrete Shetland. They bring happiness and sanity to an audio world in multi-channel transition.

While certainly not as succinct as my fellow posters, I do try to advance what may be a minority opinion of where better sound systems appear to be headed. If that is a dead horse... I am even more misguided than I thought! Thanks for the wake up call... I'll check it out! -HornEd

[MattG]

I too have a Denon reciever and a Reference 3 setup. The speakers are a new addition. I went with the RS-3's for side and rear effects. I have four of them. In the Denon manual it says

"For the greatest sense of surround envelopment, diffuse radiation speakers such as bipolar types, or dipolar types, provide a wider dispersion than is possible to obtain from a direct radiating speaker (monopolar)." (This is accompanied with a picture showing four diffuse speakers.)

Is not the point of suround systems envelopment?

The manual also shows an illustration showing the A/B surround options, "A" with diffuse speakers for both side and rear effects, and "b" with monopolar speakers for music. This implies that a person who wants an optimum system would use diffuse for movies and monopolar for music.

My purchase is only one week old. Did I make a mistake? I have not opened the second set of RS-3's. Should I take them back and get a set of RB-3's, before it's too late.

------------------

Denon 3802

RC-3 center

RF-3 mains

RS-3 rear & surrounds(4)

Panasonic DVD-RV26

Denon DCM3700 CD changer

Fisher 27" TV

Klipsch Quintets (6)

[HornEd]

Right, Matt, the surround sound of the ProLogic area was envelopment with a diffuse sound.

Most bi-polar and di-polar surround speakers push sound to the front and the back and no sound toward the sweet spot. The WDST approach that Klipsch uses puts a small woofer aimed at the sweet spot so that there is some advantage taken of discrete sound.

Discrete sound is where the intent of the engineer mixing a movie or multi-channel music is for a person in the sweet spot to receive a proportional amount of sound from each specific location. A di-pole speaker defeats that purpose by shifting the sound to the front and the rear.

Personally, I prefer 6.1 over 5.1 ...and that's what the newer receiver's give you. 6.1 from 5.1 source material. A rear array of three (or four) speakers provide a smooth envelopment of a di-pole but preserve the rich mono-pole punch of localized sound when needed.

A key to satisfaction is correct placement. I prefer my side-surround mono-poles to be aimed about a foot or so BEHIND where my head is in the sweet spot... and facing one another. That positioning helps create a the surround effect... especially when watching ProLogic grade material. Of course, having a 6th speaker in the middle of the back wall just makes the effect so much sweeter.

I will admit that di-pole or bi-pole speakers tend to make poor quality source material sound better... where mono-poles tend to make bad mixing stand out. But, I prefer not to design a system primarily to cover-up poor quality source material. The payoff is that good programming on a DVD (or even cable TV) is, oh, so much better!

A critical point to understand is that 5.1 (or above) discrete sound anticipates that you ideally will have five speakers that are exactly the same. The closer you approach that ideal, the better your sound system will be.

For example, 5.1 (or above) discrete programming puts over 75% of the total sound through the center speaker... and, yet, most people have center speakers that are quite a bit below the performance of their left and right mains. Now you can see why I converted a KLF-30 to be a center speaker by modifying the motor board (as shown in the photo of my above post).

The photo shows that I prefer to tuck my HT mains close to the screen to enhance the link between sound and picture. To provide a wide sound stage, I use Front Effects speakers mounted high and wide. I also set all six KLF-30's to "SMALL" and let the profound dual SVS Ultras handle the lowdown chores. That frees the dozen 12" woofers from the long throws of sub 80Hz and increases their efficiency in the low mid-range.

MattG, I see you have enough Reference speakers for a 7.1 system... and yes, IMHO, di-pole speakers defeat your best opportunity to enjoy the advantages of your receiver. I think you will find that the rhetoric in your Denon manual is compromised by the transition that is occurring. Discrete programming is the wave of the future... di-poles are a blast from the past... manufacturers are walking a tightrope between the two.

As the installed base of 5.1 receivers, DVD's and multi-channel CD's increase, my bet is that bi-poles and di-poles will fade. A big reason is that when you have three or four mono-poles in your background... all the good things (and none of the bad things) of di-poles are now achieved by the current approach to mixing source content for DVD's and multi-channel CD's.

I have received a lot of email from people who have appreciated the tip... after initially buying di-poles. I have yet to have one change and write me back that it was a bad idea. That's the kind of thing that makes me think that I am not the one beating a dead horse! But in the end, your system, your acoustics space, your ears... are what counts... not my humble opinion. -HornED

[T2K]

Hey Matt, you've got some great equipment there! The 3802 receiver is one of the best receiver's on the market,considering price/features.

I'll try to answer your actual question.If you're going to be using your system for HT only,and/or maybe require two pairs of WDST(quasi-bipole)speakers for proper surround coverage account possible room/seating arrangement problems,then the two pairs of RS-3's might possibly be your preference.In the manual read under "speaker setting examples", example(2)"setting for primarily watching movies using diffusion type speakers for the surround speakers".

If you plan to use your system for multi-channel music and HT,then the RB3's or another pair of RF3's would be preferable.In your manual read example(3),"when using different surround speakers for movies and music".

Why not give us more information as to your intended use,ability to mount side surrrounds as recommended to the sides of listening position and 2' to 3' above seated ear heighth,and ability to mount/position surround back speakers in your room.

Also,just for the fun of it you might read on this site under Home Audio, the Home Audio FAQ.

Maybe SteveP will jump in with some wisdom as he has much more experience with the Denon receivers than I and would be the one I would ask for answers.

Hang in there,keep asking questions,it's gonna sound great,and good luck!

Keith

[Jyanix]

I really appreciate all of the replies in this thread. I'm glad to be reading this information before making a purchase.

Just to get some more input, I'm using my Denon 3802 and Klipsch speakers for home theater use only. I don't listen to any music CDs on it (I only listen to them in my car).

Should I go with the RS-3s?

[boa12]

this is another less filling - tastes great thang. that's because it's so dependent on the users tastes & the various sounds in the mixes. music is definitely for direct, but "HT" also has a lot of music, especially if it's a music dvd.

even for movies it can be a sweeping/panning sound from front/to/back where of course u'd be best served to have wdst (imo), or a distinct/directional sound where a direct would be best. obviously material dependent.

if u have a denon why not do what it's designed for. get rs for the A surround (movies) & like rb for the B surround (music w/ 2-7 speaks). otherwise if u really

will only do movies, just get the rs for side surround.

they do have a direct sound too, as long as u don't need pure direct as in music.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 04-01-2002 at 03:14 PM

[MattG]

My room has 3 1/2 walls. The right wall is the half wall. By this I mean that the wall goes from the back of the room only half way toward the front. Mounting side and rear surrounds will not be a problem. I will be able to mount them per manual recommendations. I'm getting the feeling that the general concensous is that the RS-3's will work, but do they provide the optimal sound for movies. Are they really a dieing technology? The system will eventually be in the basement in a rectangular room.

I guess I'm feeling a little presure do to the fact that my time line for returns ends 4/2.

matthew

------------------

Denon 3802

RC-3 center

RF-3 mains

RS-3 rear & surrounds(4)

Panasonic DVD-RV26

Denon DCM3700 CD changer

Fisher 27" TV

Klipsch Quintets (6)

[boa12]

matt no not a dieing tech as long as their is surround sound. i like keith's idea if just for HT use. can u get 4 rs-3 on the sides? if so keep 'em & do A+B surround & just pick up an rc-3 for the rear surround.

should be a nice HT sys. of course this is coming from a guy that has all directs like ed, but sometimes do miss that sweeping surround effect.

if not that then hurry down & pick up a single rb, rf, or rc to use for the rear surround; & get rb or rf to replace the pair of the rs (for surround B music). local dealers should work w/ u on this. that's their mission.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 04-01-2002 at 08:01 PM

[MattG]

The dealer is willing to work with me, but that is if I pay retail. I was able to talk them down a bit on this seven speaker package I purchased. They will let me trade in the RS's if I pay retail for the RB's. Unfortunatly this will give them back the money I was able to talk them out of.

The basement room is not framed yet and will not be for a little while still, so four side surrounds could be possible. (A longer room, this could allow for more seating)

Matthew

------------------

Denon 3802

RC-3 center

RF-3 mains

RS-3 rear & surrounds(4)

Panasonic DVD-RV26

Denon DCM3700 CD changer

Fisher 27" TV

Klipsch Quintets (6)

[MattG]

"Klipsch produces a unique surround speaker that utilizes a technology called Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST). Each WDST enabled speaker contains two Tractrix® Horn drivers and a woofer. Each horn covers a 90-degree arc and the combination of the two covers a full 180 degrees. This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. And because the WDST surround speaker does not rely on wall reflections, it can be mounted in many different places in a room, leading to greater flexibility with placement. It is rare to have perfect side-wall positions available due to the placement of doors, drapes, furniture and such. WDST design delivers enveloping ambience WITH localization for the ideal surround sound result AND gives you the flexibility of placement to solve room design problems."

Thanks for the tip on where to find this info Keith. I think in my position I will benefit the most by keeping my RS-3's. Besides, if I ever reconfigure to use monopolar speakers in the rear I would have to buy a new set of mains and center for the lonely set of RS-3's

)

Matthew

------------------

Denon 3802

RC-3 center

RF-3 mains

RS-3 rear & surrounds(4)

Panasonic DVD-RV26

Denon DCM3700 CD changer

Fisher 27" TV

Klipsch Quintets (6)