I am building a system not for this year, but for the next decade or more, so if more releases on higher rez formats are utlising (at least in some titles) more info in the surround channels, then why not build for it? I already have the drivers and enough amplification, and would rather not have to re-do it later as I'm finding limitations in the system.pjpoes said:
rear surrounds are actually supposed to be to the sides in a 5.1 system. I.e. pointing at the listener, above ear height, but to the sides. If you are talking a 7.1, well then a pair on the sides as before, and a pair on the back. As for what works best, I still think some design which offers a broader dispersion in order to give a more diffused sound is a good thing, especially with the speakers being so close to the listener.
What Dr. Geddes said earlier would still be true, they don't need to be capable of 20hz bass, or even 50hz bass really. Just make sure they have plenty of output down to lets say 100hz, and you should be good.
I can create those graphs, but I know I had them from this discussion once before, so I will need to go through my files on my old computer when I have some time. If not, I will just try to remake them. I want to say that one of the magazines published something like this too, which is what gave me the idea to do it.
I mean, it just makes sense. Look at how DTS and DD work, the amplitude and FR impact the amount of bits used for a particular channel. This is true of both systems, which means loud passages with a broad FR is going to take up a lot more space. Now thing about something like an explosion or a large space ship landing, in which maybe all 5-7 speakers are going to be used, plus the subwoofer of course. If they encoded every single channel with the full frequency response and amplitude, then they wouldn't be able to utilize that bit pool sharing that they take advantage of for efficiency, and the soundtrack, for that part, would take up a very large amount of space. Some guys will do that, as long as its not common, you can get away with it every once in a while, and it makes for a better sound track. However, most of the time they are huge space misers, and are trying to conserve as much space for extra's as they can. While some of these extras go onto seperate discs, alternate endings, extended editions, additional sound tracks, etc. all need to be on the same disc as the movie.
What Dr. Geddes said earlier would still be true, they don't need to be capable of 20hz bass, or even 50hz bass really. Just make sure they have plenty of output down to lets say 100hz, and you should be good.
I can create those graphs, but I know I had them from this discussion once before, so I will need to go through my files on my old computer when I have some time. If not, I will just try to remake them. I want to say that one of the magazines published something like this too, which is what gave me the idea to do it.
I mean, it just makes sense. Look at how DTS and DD work, the amplitude and FR impact the amount of bits used for a particular channel. This is true of both systems, which means loud passages with a broad FR is going to take up a lot more space. Now thing about something like an explosion or a large space ship landing, in which maybe all 5-7 speakers are going to be used, plus the subwoofer of course. If they encoded every single channel with the full frequency response and amplitude, then they wouldn't be able to utilize that bit pool sharing that they take advantage of for efficiency, and the soundtrack, for that part, would take up a very large amount of space. Some guys will do that, as long as its not common, you can get away with it every once in a while, and it makes for a better sound track. However, most of the time they are huge space misers, and are trying to conserve as much space for extra's as they can. While some of these extras go onto seperate discs, alternate endings, extended editions, additional sound tracks, etc. all need to be on the same disc as the movie.
Dipole or mono-pole
My 2 cents here about sides/rear speakers.
I have for a lot of years had monopoles as rears, and has been quite satisfyed. But some months ago I got my hands on a JBL HT1 system (used but in excelent shape) and hooking up the dipole sides and placing these excatly to the sides is just such a huge improvement in creating space and room as intended.
So if you have the room to accomodate this type of side speakers it's definitely the way to go
I will hook my system up in a configuration where I use dipole sides and use two of the fronts from the HT1 system as rears in a 7.3 system ..... still building on ny HT
My 2 cents here about sides/rear speakers.
I have for a lot of years had monopoles as rears, and has been quite satisfyed. But some months ago I got my hands on a JBL HT1 system (used but in excelent shape) and hooking up the dipole sides and placing these excatly to the sides is just such a huge improvement in creating space and room as intended.
So if you have the room to accomodate this type of side speakers it's definitely the way to go
I will hook my system up in a configuration where I use dipole sides and use two of the fronts from the HT1 system as rears in a 7.3 system ..... still building on ny HT
While I can see the technical merits for not needing the side surrounds to have much bass below 100hz I feel that there is too much inconsistency in the way soundtracks are mixed. And the way AV processors implement the LFE channel also may effect this.
Often, the side surround effects do not have an adequate amount of the low frequency information mixed into the LFE channel. This is often a sound engineer choice because not everyone has a subwoofer. So the mix needs to sound presentable without a subwoofer.
I have even had soundtracks that had a significant amount of low frequency effects energy mixed into the center channel. So it's best if the center speaker can do some decent 40hz bass.
To help compensate for variation in mixes. I feel that it is best for all the speakers in a 7.1 system except the rear surrounds to be as full range as possible. The side surrounds need not go down to 20Hz but if they go down to 40hz that is good. It helps the surround sounds have better tone quality and lower frequency side effects sound more realistic.
Often, the side surround effects do not have an adequate amount of the low frequency information mixed into the LFE channel. This is often a sound engineer choice because not everyone has a subwoofer. So the mix needs to sound presentable without a subwoofer.
I have even had soundtracks that had a significant amount of low frequency effects energy mixed into the center channel. So it's best if the center speaker can do some decent 40hz bass.
To help compensate for variation in mixes. I feel that it is best for all the speakers in a 7.1 system except the rear surrounds to be as full range as possible. The side surrounds need not go down to 20Hz but if they go down to 40hz that is good. It helps the surround sounds have better tone quality and lower frequency side effects sound more realistic.
"To help compensate for variation in mixes. I feel that it is best for all the speakers in a 7.1 system except the rear surrounds to be as full range as possible."
To me that's highly impractical, inefficient, and unnecessary.
Impractical because of the required box size.
Inefficient because the surrounds bass capability is wasted unless there's bass in that channel; it makes much more sense to pool all the volume/power/$ in dedicated subwoofers that are useful whenever there's bass in any channel.
Unnecessary because you can't tell where the low bass is coming from w/proper XO freq.
To me that's highly impractical, inefficient, and unnecessary.
Impractical because of the required box size.
Inefficient because the surrounds bass capability is wasted unless there's bass in that channel; it makes much more sense to pool all the volume/power/$ in dedicated subwoofers that are useful whenever there's bass in any channel.
Unnecessary because you can't tell where the low bass is coming from w/proper XO freq.
Hezz said:
Hezz this should be taken care of by the bass management. Unless you have set all of your speakers to full range in your receiver or pre/pro, it will steer the bass from whatever frequency you chose (80hz for thx) on down to the .5 channel subwoofer. While I know I've been saying that surrounds should have some bass ability, it was an issue of semantics, I only meant down to the point of the crossover point. A lot of the energy in things like explosions comes from the 50-150hz range, and not just the infrasonic range. There is also the issue, a bigger issue really, with small rear surrounds which have limited output below say 2-300hz (This is actually very common) which will make things sound small from those speakers. Take that abrupt change in tonal balance with a pan from rear to front, and it makes things sound unrealistic.
One method I have seen used (This is a very expensive and complicated method), is to run all the channel full range, but feed each channel into an active crossover. Then either use a subwoofer for each of these channels, or...sum the bass channels together and run your series of subwoofers that way. I've never done this myself, at least not to this extend, but I did make a sort of broad band subwoofer with a range from 40hz to 120hz, or so, that I tied into the rear surrounds. In the end I still wasn't happy and made larger rear surrounds. However in my current upgrade plans, I will be doing something similar to this. I plan to use some of Dr. Geddes broad band bandpass subs. Because I couldn't figure out a better way to do it, I decided to run all the channels full range and then run these BB subs as well from around 120hz on down, or so. In the end, I'm hoping to have two of these BB subs, one toward the front and one behind the couch, in the rear. Then I will have an additional 3 subwoofers, with one on the front wall, one on the side wall, and one behind me. I'm hopeful that this will not only give me smoother bass, but also enough energy to reproduce things like explosions somewhat realistically. For surrounds, well, I'm hoping that all this will make for more realistic pans, as even now I don't think they sound like they should. Better than before, better than most movie theaters even, but not realistic.
Agreed, but as I said earlier, I'm looking at the longer term for the system and don't want to change it as newer formats have the capacity for better/more surround info. If I hear the surrounds sounding strained, it draws attention to them and spoils the illusion for me, so I'd rather have excess capacity that I only use to it's fullest occasionally. Besides I already own the drivers and am anlikely to sell them even if not used. They'll get used in something later anyway.pjpoes said:
I'm planning on running everything full range (all speakers will be active so I can set an LF HPF where I want easily on any channel).pjpoes said:
Thats perfectly reasonable, and I say, go for it. I would tend to agree with others in that I think the main and surround speakers should not be run full range. If they can be kept from distorting during the peaks of movies, then I would have no problem, but unfortunately I find that the main channels are encoded with a lot of low frequency information that should be handled by separate subwoofers. If I understand you correctly, you intend to do this through outboard bass management, if you will, through the use of external electronic crossovers. Thats not a bad idea, gives you more control over things than the internal bass management of most processors.
But I think that the missing point here is that IMO its not reasonable to bring down the quality of the mains to allow for the same quality in the surrounds. This is sub-optimal. You need three very good speakers in front even if you can't afford the cost or the size of these same speakers in the surrounds. Thats where I come out. I can't afford, either in cost or in size, to have seven Summas in my room. But I can afford three. If I had the room and the money, I might just use seven Summas, but I don't see that happening.
I am not bringing down the quality of the mains, I am raising the quality of the surrounds. I can afford the space for 6 large high quality speakers (I already own the drivers + your WG's) and subs. I will use a phantom centre as I can't fit one in ATM and only need a 2 person listening window. I have a WG to store for when the centre will happen.gedlee said:
I'm guessing your not married then? I'm just joking about that, but I can't imagine a wife or girlfriend being ok with such large speakers mounted on the rear or side walls, even in a dedicated theater room (They some how still get a say even when we get our own dedicated play rooms). How are you going to mount such large speakers on the walls up so high? Not that its impossible by any means, but optimal placement is above the listeners ears, and to place a speaker the size of a Summa on that area would be difficult, to say the least.
Not married and I doubt I ever will be. Sides will use small stands and I'm designing them tall and thin. Rears will be similar on stands in this residence and attached to the exposed ceiling beams on my cathedral style ceilings in my home, when I get back there. I am ultimately designing for that much larger open plan room.pjpoes said:
It will only be as strong as its mounting to the wall or ceiling. Also, I believe these speakers to likely weigh a good bit more than 20kgs if they are he describes them. The weight of the drivers alone may be 20kgs, and I would venture a guess that the cabinets will be at least that much, if not more. I wouldn't be surprised if they totaled 40-50kgs when all is said and done. Hanging 100+ lbs off the wall studs is possible, but not easy, and should be done very carefully.
Pro Speaker Mount
This would be an example of something that could work, as its commonly used in clubs and studios. However, even this is limited to 50kg's, and would require mounting directly into a strong stud with a suitable set of screws/bolts.
I can't seem to find the write name for the hardware, but fly points and flying hardware would be a good solution too. Then install a metal frame grid work on the ceiling and attach the hardware to that. This would be essentially the same as is done in video studios, photo studios, and I suppose even some music studios. It's also the same grid work used in pro-audio venues to hang speakers, lighting, etc from. If you aren't so concerned about looks, or like an industrial look, that would be a cool idea.
Pro Speaker Mount
This would be an example of something that could work, as its commonly used in clubs and studios. However, even this is limited to 50kg's, and would require mounting directly into a strong stud with a suitable set of screws/bolts.
I can't seem to find the write name for the hardware, but fly points and flying hardware would be a good solution too. Then install a metal frame grid work on the ceiling and attach the hardware to that. This would be essentially the same as is done in video studios, photo studios, and I suppose even some music studios. It's also the same grid work used in pro-audio venues to hang speakers, lighting, etc from. If you aren't so concerned about looks, or like an industrial look, that would be a cool idea.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.