DMF Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 I can certainly understand the utility of a wide dispersal technology in a 5.1 environment, where the surrounds have to provide 270' of ambient coverage (each speaker 270/2=135'). But it seems that in a 7.1 environment (with two side and two rear surrounds) the sound from each speaker can be (should be?) more localized (each speaker 270/4=68'). Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonrpayne Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Personally, I prefer more directed sound even in a 5.1 environment. That said, THX recommends dipole speakers for side surround duty, and more directed speakers for the rear channel in 6.1/7.1. I plan to use my RF-5s for side surround when I move up to 7.1. For most people, it is a matter of wanting a big full range speaker for surround rather than WDST vs. directed. Maybe m00n will chime in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMF Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 Given the option, I'd have 7 Khorns! But unfortunately I have to stick to wall-mounts for the surrounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 ---------------- On 11/14/2003 11:39:33 AM DMF wrote: But it seems that in a 7.1 environment (with two side and two rear surrounds) the sound from each speaker can be (should be?) more localized (each speaker 270/4=68'). ---------------- I personally have just a single RC-7 in the rear in a 6.1 configuration. I found I liked that better for my particular setup, especially given the size of my room (a kinda smallish 14 x 14 feet). I felt the single RC-7 "anchored" the sound better in the rear. On the sides, I have two sets of surrounds. I have one set of surrounds, RS-7s, to give me the diffusion that I often like when watching most movies and regular TV off the satellite. I have a second pair of surrounds, a pair of RF-5s, to give me the full-range, locallized surround that I like when listening to music. The Denon AVR3802 receiver, that I am now using mainly as a Pre/Pro (although it does supply the amplification for the RS-7s) allows me to hook up two sets of surrounds and to switch between them, or run them both together. That is just for me, and I really do like this arrangment (also one of the main reasons why I am keeping the Denon AVR3802 as a pre/pro, because I really do like that feature). It provides me some real flexibility in my listening environment, and I found it sounds incredible for just about anything I throw at it. The bottom line, it is pretty much personal preference as to what kind of speaker you want back there. Some people like the WDST type surrounds with the diffuse sound patterns, while others prefer the more direct, localized pattern that comes out of typical monopole type speakers. However, the trend does seem to be to go with identical full-range speakers all the way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snails_Pace Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 ---------------- On 11/14/2003 11:39:33 AM DMF wrote: I can certainly understand the utility of a wide dispersal technology in a 5.1 environment, where the surrounds have to provide 270' of ambient coverage (each speaker 270/2=135'). But it seems that in a 7.1 environment (with two side and two rear surrounds) the sound from each speaker can be (should be?) more localized (each speaker 270/4=68'). Thoughts? ---------------- Having HAD a set of WDST speakers for my Legend-based HT, I personally find the four direct-radiating route to be more satisfying as the rear surround-field is (IMHO) more seamless and robust than when I was using the WDST KSP-S6s. Part of that preference may be due to the fact that we don't move around a whole lot in our HT so we don't really need the "surround sound from everywhere" aspect of the WDST design--if you have a large HT area and want to make sure that everyone can hear the directionality of the surround soundfield regardless of where they're sitting, then maybe the WDST route is for you; otherwise, I personally prefer direct-radiating speakers for surrounds. Regards - J.T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMF Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 Had to at least try a decent Klipsch option. (Such is brand loyalty - like Joss Whedon.) Went for a pair of RS-3s for the surrounds. I anticipate a report here eventually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.