HT Expectations; How Good Can It Get?

[Karma]

HI All,
I'm very familiar with stereo audio. However, I'm new to HT having just set up my first system, a 7.1 configuration. I'm also new to DVD. Just bought my first less than a year ago.

I have what I hope is not a stupid question. How good can surround sound get? In watching DVD's and HDTV, both with DD 5.1, I am somewhat at a loss. It seems to me that with a properly set up system, sound via the virtual image should be able to seem to originate from any point in the 2 dimentional sound field. but I rarely hear sound from anywhere but the surround speakers.

I know my system can produce the virtual image. Fox NFL HD programs immerse me in the crowd noise in a very realistic way. From other program sources, I sometimes hear rain or the wind in the virtual image. But not much else. Crickets and birds, sounds that have a very directional characteristic always seem to come from a speaker, not virtual space. Is my system at fault or does the program material not often take advantage of the power of the virtual surround image. Is this true?

Can you suggest some DVD's that really show off the surround virtual image? It would be nice if these are also watchable. But pure demo material is OK too. I will be very interested in your answers.

Thanks, Sparky

Edited to Add: The best examples I have seen are several scenes in The House of the Flying Daggers. The bead game is spectacular. And the bamboo fight scene is not only visually spectacular but the sound of the bamboo swaying and bending and rubbing is the best I have heard from surround sound. But these are rare in my limited experience. These scenes do show that my system is capable of a good virtual image.

[Shane Martin]

Some of the better virtual images:

1. Saving Private Ryan DTS(ignore the DD version). The virtual image of D Day is downright impressive. You could turn off the video and you would imagine you are right there. The best sidewall imaging I've ever seen or heard.

2. Band of Brothers in DTS. Granted I'm only 1 disc in but show #2 has a SPR effect in that you are right in the heart of the airborne divisions drop into behind Normandy. The audio is downright scary.

3. Dragonheart in DTS. A very different movie but when the dragon swoops around the room, you can literally know where he is at all times based.

4. 13th Warrior. Dolby 5.1. The jungle sequences present an imaging effect in the rears that puts you right there along side Banderas and company.

[ShadowZA]

Hi Sparky.

Your question is not stupid at all. In fact, far from it. The lack of "true" surround insofar as it should place us in a COMPLETE virtual 2 dimensional sound field is something that I think we all suffer from. The problem, I think, lies in the source material and not your equipment. With regard to DVD-Video, more information is sent to the front and centre speakers whilst less information is sent to the surrounds. DVD-Audio is different and does distribute sound information equally and sonically to all channels, I believe. Even though I own a multi-disc player, I do not own any DVD-Audio discs (or SACD's for that matter) and so I am not able to put forward any comments about these formats. From what I've read, though, this is probably the closest that we will get to sonic nirvana before the next generation of source discs (and players) arrive, being Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD.

I wish I could suggest some discs but I can't. Apologies for this. I enjoy jazz and prefer to play my cd's and dvd's in 2-channel stereo mode. Maybe this will change as (and if) the new format becomes available.

[RobP]

The new War of the Worlds DVD has great surround effects that emerse you in the film. I wont spoil the scenes for you, but you should expect things to be moving under you, over you, behind you.
In a great surround setup the speakers should vanish and the sound should have height and depth just as a great 2 channel system.

[RebelMan]

Hey Sparky, true HT surround is a tough bugger to tame, no doubt. I have found tracks full of fly-bys and drive-bys to be the most engaging types of tracks, next to war types like those previously mentioned. A few films, off the top of my head, that are really involving in addition to those listed above are "Black Hawk Down", "U-571", "Fast and the Furious", "2 Fast 2 Furious", "Top Gun" all in DTS format and the infamous "The Haunting" recognized by many as one of the best, if you like the content. Some of the earlier DVD releases lacked quite a bit in the surround mixing department. Many of those titles are getting re-released and usually support DTS which, IMO, is a MUCH better sounding codec format than Dolby Digital is.

[stantheman2]

Hey, Sparky, have you adjusted the sound levels of all your speakers to within 1 dB using a sound level meter? If the levels are just a little off, it really weakens the effects of a virtual soundfield.

[Karma]

HI stan,
I do own an SPL meter and I do use it for certain things. I don't see how it can help me here nor am I convinced that I have a problem with system balance. I'll explain below.

I also have another tool that I have used. My Denon receiver has an auto set-up feature that uses an external mic. I have the mic and have done the set-up. I used it to confirm the settings I made by ear. I was very close to the ratio values the Denon reported.

I did this only to be sure my ear based settings were in the ball park. I was satisfied. Here's why.

My experience so far tells me that literally every DVD or HDTV program uses different front to back mixing ratios. I have not found a single set of settings that remain valid from program to program or DVD to DVD. Have you? Certainly not within 1 dB. So. whats the point of careful instrument based calibration when the ratios must be changed continually? My ears are trained and work reasonably well. It's easier to rely on them as long as I can judge proper balance.

I think surround sound is still in its childhood. The balances should be standardized and the mixing engineers should follow the standard. I believe THX makes an attempt at standarization. But THX is far from being used universally.

Sparky

[stewfoo]

With all do respect, it is the mixing IMBALANCES that affect depth, distance and delay perception. Of course it is important that all channels are calibrated to equal db at reference levels. If this balance is not achieved, you will miss out on some of the intended effects of the sound engineers.

[Karma]

HI Stew,
I guess I don't understand whaat you mean by "imbalances". Of course, the relative volume levels based upon the program material will determine the details of the image placements in virtual space.

What I'm saying is that the playback system balance must be assumed by the mixing engineer. They do not assume the same balance from one program to the other. This has the effect of making us change our system balance to conform to their expectations to gain the spacial effects they intend. This screws up your careful 1 dB calibration. Do you see what I mean?

Sparky

[Pieter]

To toss a cat among the pigeons:
* What if 5.1/7.1 are flawed formats/concepts regards to creating a reallike soundfield?
* What if something like Ambisonics or Ambiosonics are a closer/truer aproach?
* How close can we get? What is acceptably close?

More to Sparky's matter at hand - I just think that most are not mixed properly to create a decent illusion. Either due to cost implications, lack of standardization (as mentioned) or engineers still finding their feet.

[Karma]

HI All,
I found this site after googling doby digital 5.1 demo.

http://www.remotecentral.com/features/bestdvd.htm

Sparky

[stewfoo]

Sparky... sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just implying that you want your relative volume levels to match with test signals... If you mess with that.. Forget about a choerent soundfield. But, truly the reason that 5.1 or even 7.1 doesn't sound all that great at times is because of room accoustics. I think that it is difficult to get good imaging,staging, and fidelity out of a two channel system. But when you add 3 or 5 additional speakers into the mix, it can become a serious mess. For example, when using the AVIA calibration dvd and they pan from FL to Center channel to FR you should hear a seamless moving of the image from left to right.. as well as around the surrounds... Mine is seamless in terms of imaging But, because of echoes in my CC cavity the cc sounds off... So, i need to do some accoustic treatment within the cavity. Also, moving to the surrounds it is not very coherent because of the difference in voicing between my surrounds and mains. This is why I am moving to 805s to match the mains.

[comeup]

Karma hope you like animation some of them have some of the best surround that I've heard. The one I recommend is AppleSeed it won all kind of awards and it has a good adult storyline.

[blues651]

Karma, if you like action movies try The Cave, it has some scenes in it that has awesom sound effects in dd5.1 .

[PewterTA]

The Cave is great, definitely good surround effects.

Lord of the Rings (all three -- extended edition is better) DTS tracks are, IMHO, about the best surround tracks I've ever heard. :T

[Karma]

HI All,
Thanks for your input. We are trying but we are not quite there yet. Question: when you say "good surround" what exactly do you mean? Let me be a little more clear. With a two channel system when sombody claims good stereo it could mean a lot of different things. It could be L/R separation, or stable center image, or mage height, or great depth in the sound stage, or wonderful detail, or any number of other things.

My original question concerned the virtual image or the lack thereof. I'm not too concerned about sounds that come directly from the speakers. I've got plenty of those. I'm really asking about the virtual space. You know, what about the mythical center of the virtual image. Or half way between the right front and the right surround, or all the intermediate points in the virtual sound space. Do you hear these reproduced on a consistent basis? I need specific comments. rather than generalities. That is the only way I can make a judgment call about the quality of my surround system.

The theoretical capabilities of the encoding scheme is one thing. What we actually get on commercial material is another. How that commercial material is actually reproduced with our systems is yet another. A bullet speeding past my head does not tell me much. I perceive it in my system space but I have no idea if my system got it right. Episodic type sounds tend to be that way. Maybe that's why they are used so much. That's not like a singer reproduced on a stereo system. We know where she should be placed on the stage. If she does not appear to be there, we know something is wrong. Do you see what I mean?

Sparky

[RebelMan]

Sparky, the fundamental concepts of surround sound reproduction are no different than those of stereo. The later is an attempt to re-create a three-dimensional sound stage. The former is an attempt to re-create a three-dimensional space.

When is comes to stereo, our ability to compare what we hear on stage, as reproduced through our speakers, with what we think we should hear or expect to hear is based solely on our life’s experience. The opportunities we had to hear a live performance establishes our frame of reference. This affords us the means to determine the authenticity of pre-recorded material of a live venue.

However, in the studio the rules change because the methods used to record the material have also changed. So how does one establish a new frame of reference? First we extrapolate what we know from a live performance and apply that knowledge to what we hear from studio based recordings. Our mind constructs an image of what we hear and compares that image with what we think we should. The similarities or differences we detect (compute) tell us what is real and what is not. Thus the subjective nature of this hobby.

When it comes to sounds that surround us, as in movie sound tracks, the process is no different. We take what know from our experience the sounds we’ve heard and apply that knowledge to what we hear as it is reproduced, albeit through more speakers. It is up to the recording engineer, which has the dubious task of mixing not two but five or more channels of information, to create the right blend of sounds and the illusion that the listener is no longer facing the stage but that they are apart of it.

Based on my experience and your description of the situation tells me that some part of the reproduction chain is exhibiting a weakness. It is either in the recording itself, the room in which it is played or a lack of life experiences to process the information ( I am assuming the latter is not a problem in your case ). If you believe your room is conducive and your equipment calibrated for proper reproduction of surround sound then the recording is faulty. However, it is also my experience that most people have not taken the proper steps to optimize their system for honest surround sound playback. Take what you know about creating a proper stereo environment and triple it. That is how painstaking it is to get it right.

[aud19]

I agree, my guess is that the room and/or the location of the surround speakers in it are causing the weakness you describe.

[Karma]

HI All,
After carefully considering your inputs (thanks), I came home from work last night and fired up the SYSTEM. I let it warm up for about 30 minutes, placed my calibration microphone carefully where my ears would be, and ran Denons calibration feature again.

I have done this before but I never really liked the results and didn't use them. This time I was determined to use the levels, Eq, and distances just as they were measured. I chose the Front Eq curve in the setup. This is supposed to use the data from the front speaker to equalize the entire system. Is this best? I don't know. With stereo systems I hate equalization and never use it. But HT is a different game.

Then I listened and watched. I tried not to quibble with the details of the sound that I heard. Mostly I was trying to see how the virtual space performed under strict calibration conditions.

Well, what I heard was pretty darned good. I used LOR Return of the King, Kill Bill 1, and Saving Private Ryan (DD 5.1) for the demos. I can quibble with the tonal balance the Denon used. I think I can do better. But the surround effects were the best that's come from this system. Virtual space was alive with sound. I find it impossible, at my current level of experience, to determine just how much of that space is actually being used or at least reproduced. But, in general, it was most impressive. I found many fewer sounds localized in the surrounds. In fact the surrounds just tended to disappear. Many times localized sound sources seemed to originate beyond the walls. I don't know if it was accurate but it was fun. This is good. BTW, I had the system set up in 7.1. Thanks to you all I see progress.

Saving Private Ryan was terrifying. Sometimes in the beach landing scene I would involuntarily duck then feel foolish remembering it is only a movie. Pretty realistic. I don't know how any of those men came back with their sanity. We owe them a lot, IMO. Hmm, not bad bass either. My bedroom was jumping.

Now to a question. Which surround calibration CD's are the best for not only calibration but also determining the quality of my sound field? Where can I get them over the web? I want to do a lot more playing.

One last thing. The stereo image from this 805S system is outstanding. No problems there.

Sparky

[SteveCallas]

aud19 touched on it - how do you have your surround set up? I'm assuming with your stereo setup you were dilligent in toeing them in just right, having them just the right distance from the front and side walls, etc. Same applies for surrounds. With the side surrounds, I prefer them about a foot or two behind me, about a foot above my ear level, and have them pointed so that they face each other, or just a tiny bit towards the back of the room.

Explain what your room layout looks like and how you have the surrounds set up, as that will play a large role in creating a believable virtual sound space.

[Karma]

HI Steve,
This is a secondary system installed in my bedroom. The room measures 15X12X8; small. The room is a rectangle with no irregularities other than normal door openings. The sonic front wall is the 15 foot dimension. The speakers fire accross the 12 foot dimension. My B&W 805S (mounted on dedicated B&W lead and sand filled stands, fully spiked) are about 3 feet from the wall. The front plane of the B&W HTM4S Center is exactly aligned with and mounted over the plasma screen. The side walls are symetrically distant. The front speakers are about 5 !/2 feet apart and very carefully toed in for the best stereo soundstage. The 42" HD plasma is symetrically placed between the speakers and set about a foot and a half back from the front plane of the main speakers.

I sit (on the bed) against the back wall about 8 feet from the plasma and 7 feet from the front speakers exactly centered between them and centered on the TV. In other words, the speakers are closer together than the listening distance. This was determined by careful listening. The front speakers (including the center) use excellent cables and are biwired. I have two B&W ASW800 subs (also fully spiked) in a stereo configuration located directly behind their respective main speakers. The stereo performance is simply outstanding with a deep and very precise soundstage. Imaging doesn't get much better than this. Krell electronics drive the three front channels. A Denon 3805 AV receiver drives the surround and back 7.1 channels.

The surround speakers (B&W 600i's) are against the side and back walls against the ceiling in the corners. In other words they are high but there is no choice. Again, it is a symetrical placement with me sitting right in the center. The surrounds are tilted down and toed into the room by about 10 degrees. The idea is to get the tweeters pointed at my ears.

The back 7.1 channels (small B&O (yes, this is not a typo) speakers; nothing special but probably adequate) are equidistantly spaced between the surrounds against the ceiling pointing directly down.

The room is treated with heavy wall hangings, thick carpet, drapes, and ASC tube traps to tame the bass. The hangings are placed to catch the first reflections from the speakers. I would characterize the room as slightly dead. It was necessary in order to reduce the early reflections. Overall, I am happy with the acoustics though I would prefer it to be a little more reverberant (and bigger). You can't have everything.

Truthfully, I don't think there is anything wrong with my room set up. I have a lot of experience with room set ups having done it professionally both freelance and as a consultant to the local high fi shops for a number of years. But my experience is with stereo set ups, not HT.

Many rooms have problems with alcoves and lack of symetry causing strange reflection patterns. That is not a problem here. In fact, I think it is too regular for best sound.

Sparky

[Shane Martin]

Saving Private Ryan was terrifying. Sometimes in the beach landing scene I would involuntarily duck then feel foolish remembering it is only a movie. Pretty realistic. I don't know how any of those men came back with their sanity. We owe them a lot, IMO. Hmm, not bad bass either. My bedroom was jumping.

You should find a DTS copy. The DD is flat compared to it. It's that big of a difference.

[SteveCallas]

I sit (on the bed) against the back wall about 9 feet from the front speakers

The surround speakers are against the side and back walls against the ceiling in the corners

The back 7.1 channels are equidistantly spaced between the surrounds against the ceiling pointing directly down

Well that says it all right there. Your side surrounds are surrounded on 3 planes (rear, side, top), which is going to hurt their performance, and rear surrounds probably shouldn't even be used if your seating position is against the back wall.

What I would do is only use one set of diffuse surrounds against the back wall about a foot or two above ear level and maybe 5' apart. Since you like B&W800 series, a pair of these would be all you need:

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/label/Model%20DS8S

The way you have things now, I can see why you aren't getting a realistic virtual soundspace.

[Karma]

HI Steve,
What you suggest is not an option. I can't physically do it.

BTW, why are you assuming I am not getting a realistic virtual space? I only asked but I did not make that assumption. Why are you so sure it is not realistic?

How is your system set up? Are you practicing what you preach? Your approch is one of absolute authority. What are your qualifications. I really don't like it. I'm not an idiot.

Sparky

[SteveCallas]

Yikes, just trying to help man. Forget I said anything if that pleases you

[Karma]

HI Shane,
After your comments, last night I looked carefully for the DTS logo on the DVD package thinking there may be optional formats like is on War Of The Worlds. But there's not. How does one find the DTS version? Is it commonly marketed? I just bought mine at the local Hasting's in Santa Fe. Would they have had the DTS version too? Most of the time I feel lucky to get a wide screen version. Maybe I should give them a call.

Anyway without a comparison, I thought the DD version was well ........ fantastic. I can't even imagine better. But I'm sure you are right.

Sparky

[Paul H]

Yikes, just trying to help man. Forget I said anything if that pleases you

:T

I think a lot of us might have thought the same as you Steve.

Paul

[aud19]

Yikes, just trying to help man. Forget I said anything if that pleases you

I agree.

Karma, you came here asking for help and opinions, try keeping that in mind with people's comments and your responses to them

Fact is, your setup IS far from optimal and you'll have to work a LOT harder to make it come close to working more optimally in it's current state and/or move that setup around. Surrounding a speaker on 3 of it's sides is not conducive to good results. Now understandably we all have limits placed on us by our rooms/equipment... so you'll either have to somewhat learn to work with that the best you can and live with the results of that placement or move them

[Shane Martin]

Is it commonly marketed? I just bought mine at the local Hasting's in Santa Fe. Would they have had the DTS version too

It's out of print. Check the used shops. It'll say DTS in red right on the top of the front of it. I can post a picture of mine if necessary.

The difference is astronomical. I own the DD laserdisc which stomps the DD DVD and the DTS DVD as well

[Karma]

HI Jason,
I'm at the limits of what I can do physically in my room. I'm looking into new surround speakers but I don't think that is the real solution (if there is a problem).

Somehow, I don't think I am asking my question right probably because I'm at the limits of my understanding. I imagine a rectangle formed by the four outer speakers. It seems to me that by adjusting the relative volumes of the speakers in just the right way, it should be possible to place the virtual image anywhere in the rectangle. I define virtual as a source that is not apparently tied to a speaker.

I do understand that my scheme is not optimal. But if I use the Denon set up program, why would it not compensate? Isn't this just a matter of combining a known model (the system setup assumed by the mixing engineer) with level corrections in the playback system to normalize an abnormal space? Denon measures the speaker distances from the listening position. Therefore, it knows the amount of error my system has from the ideal. When Denon adjusts the channel gains and delays is it not compensating for the error? Is this not just a matter of adding vectors?

How many surround users actually have an ideal space? I would think not too many including most of us. Actually I would not be surprised to find that my situation is closer to normal than those who have an ideal space. There should be a way of correcting a space, within limits, that is in error. That's why I'm not sure I have problem even though my space is not optimal.

Does anybody know what room model is used by the mixing engineer? This seems pretty basic if one is to create an ideal space at home or, for that matter, to say that a space is far from ideal. How far? I'm not questioning your opinion. I just want to know what it is based on.

Sparky

[aud19]

But that's the problem. Speakers aren't designed to be up against multiple surfaces. As you mentioned, your Denon can help compensate for that but will not and can not completely correct for it. This doesn't mean you can't expect relatively good sound, (as you've discovered), just know that it will not likely be able to be optimal in it's current state. No amount of processing can completely correct interaction with the room under such extreme circumstances.

[RebelMan]

Karma, I am not surprised to hear that your room configuration is far from ideal for good sourround sound reproduction. As I stated earlier it has been my experience that most people don’t. Please don’t take this the wrong way, it's just an observation I see repeated time and time again.

In any event, there are a few tricks that may make your life with surround sound a little better. Keep in mind that any suggestions to improve your system will be a compromise at best. This is because of the configuration of your room and where you sit in relation to the surround speakers alters the equation significantly.

Calibration systems built into HT processors are meant to assist in the configuration process, they are not meant as a surrogate replacement for surround reproduction. Without the right kind of speakers placed in the correct locations you will achieve mediocre results at best. There are a couple of options I see, given your room constrains and sitting location.

First, consider using only a 5.1 setup. A 6.1 or a 7.1 setup might be overkill, again for your room and sitting location. Second, consider using a pair of dipolar speakers along the back wall about four feet to either side of your listening position. You could place them on the side walls but they will be too far forward, in relation to your ears, and will fail to perform properly. If you decide to go 7.1, place monopole speakers on the sides and as close to the midpoint of each wall as possible, and direct the drivers toward the middle of the room. NEVER direct the tweeters towards your ears when using monopole speakers in a surround sound environment! Finally, maintain at least a 2 to 3 foot surround speaker height above your ears. Then proceed with calibration.

Unless you consider changing your listening position, you will not achieve the virtual envelopment you are looking for.

[Karma]

HI Reb,
Glad you got into this. From what I understand from your suggestions, the virtual image is seriously being pulled to the rear due to these factors:
1. The surround speakers are in the same front to back plane as my ears.
2. The 7.1 speakers are reinforcing this problem.
3. With the tweeters pointed at my ears I am further exagerating the same problem.
4. Me sitting leaning against the wall at the very limit of the virtual field.

In other words, the virtual field is being squished towards the rear wall and, thus towards the listener. Is this a good summary of your ideas?

Aud19,
I don't really understand what the problem is with corner placement per se. Many speakers have used corner placement and REL, for example, recommends such placement. There is no theoretical objection as far as I know. I do agree that it can change the apparent voicing of the speaker because bass is coupled more effectively (thus REL's preference). Therefore, the sound can become bass heavy. A lot of speakers can use this help. The remainder of the performance should remain largely unaffected. I don't see how this will distort the virtual field. Bass is not really a factor as I see it. Please explain your view. Moving these speakers is not something I will do casually.

Why can't the Denon make the correction? The channel levels and delays are well within the possible values. They are not topped out. I'm not being glib. I am missing something. I think this type of virtual field correction is a facinating way of looking at the calibration issue. Are there theoretical reasons why such a correction can't be accomplished? I understand there must be limits somewhere. My question is whether I have exceeded those limits.

You did not address my question about how the mixing engineer establishes the target room model and what that model is. This is important because I don't think I can make rational judgments about the degree of my rooms error unless that is known. You must have a picture in your mind at least.

Reb,
Your suggestions about using a dipolar surround speaker runs counter to my dealers views. He does know HT but he IS a dealer. I asked him specifically about dipolars and he strongly argued against them. He seemed to feel that the surrounds should have pin point imaging qualities. So, we have a difference of opinions here. I see your point though. You want to deemphsize the actual location of the surrounds by substituting a diffuse sound field. That makes some sense to me. Maybe I could disconnect the tweeters and make you both happy. :P

If I install side wall speakers (this is do-able) would it not have to use a matrixed source? I'm not sure how to create a source for it that makes any sense with respect to the overall virtual image.

If your point is to move the image away from the rear wall, why can't I just reduce the surround levels? Will that cause the image to move away from the surround and more into the room in a lateral diagonal direction and down? If so, that may be reasonable tradeoff given their distance from my listening position.

You have, no doubt, heard of the "hole in the middle" problem with stereo systems. This is caused largely by speakers that are placed too far apart for a given listening distance. There are two solutions. Move the speakers closer together or do what Klipsch did with their corner horns. Use a center fill speaker (Paul Klipsch called it the Heresy because it was not a horn :W ). That was what I was trying to do with the rear 7.1 speakers. I felt the surrounds were too far apart which would create a hole in the middle. I wanted to use the matrixed 7.1 speakers to fill the space.They do too. Being matrixed channels they seemed perfect for that job. Perhaps I can reduce their levels to help push the image forward but still keep some of the fill. During soundtracks I don't specifically hear them. I know they are contributing though. It is easy to disconnect them. I will try it.

Thanks For Your Ideas, Sparky

[SteveCallas]

Please don't bite my head off ops: , but the thing you are failing to realize is that your rear wall is preventing your side surrounds from being able to create any width or space in the sound field. It is also preventing your rear surrounds from being able to create a good dispersion as well because they are firing down at you - because of these constraints, it's nearly impossible to get a 3d space behind you that will have pinpoint imaging. You may get some on your immediate left or right, but you won't get depth behind you.

I'm normally against diffuse surrounds, but as Rebel and I mentioned, in your case, they seem like a great solution, as they will spread the sound all around your rear wall and also reflect off your side walls some, creating a better surround field.

As far as the probability of most users having an ideal surround space, most position their seating location several feet in front of the rear wall in order to give the surrounds the room they need to create that 3d sound field. The less space people have behind them, the more it is recommended they go with a 5.1 setup as opposed to a 7.1. And typically, the less ideal the room is for proper placement of surrounds, the more diffuse surrounds are suggested as well, as they can help compensate for some of the drawbacks. Here is a picture of Dolby's recommended placement of surrounds relative to the seating position:


Please don't take this information as me being rude or arrogant, I'm just trying to help you out :T

[Karma]

HI Steve,
Thanks for coming back. I was a bit harsh. Please forgive. I do appreciate you comments, especially this current one. At the moment I can't give it the attention it deserves because I have to go somewhere. I'll take a look tomorow. We will solve this. Interesting stuff.

Sparky

[Azeke]

First Sparky, thanks for the apology, it is very much appreciated by all here I'm sure.

I currently run a 7.1 channel setup, I am using bipolar speakers
(Def Tech BPXs) for my Side surrounds and a pair of Direct firing speakers for my CBs, this is to compensate for my room acoustics. Dolby ProIIx, creates an very enveloping sound providing stereo imaging for the cbs, which the Denon 3805 provides. A few fundamental things I would check:

1) How long is your speaker run for the rears (run length vs wire gauge)? Long runs require larger guage wire, but I'm sure you know that already.

2) As previously mentioned have you considered bi polar speakers? This worked well for me, providing some compensation for my room acoustics.

3) Where is your center speaker positioned? Try repositioning the center, even small increments, matter.

4) Even with auto calibration you should adjust accordingly after calibration, it just provides a reference point (as previously mentioned, there was actually another thread about this). After using an SPL meter, I actually increased my center +1db, and sides +1db, above reference, you may wish to adjust yours accordingly.

5) I don't recall whether you have a sub, but sometimes that can cause a calibration nightmare. It is one of the hardest to calibrate and to blend, some individuals run their subs hot, but that can possibly affect mid-range and highs. Positioning, phase controls, and volume are critical in the subs calibration.

5) Beware, not all reference material provide the same result, but I am sure you are aware of that as well. I calibrate using Saving Private Ryan, DTS (which is a Limited Edition, still available at CC).

Dolby also has an Dolby Pro Logic IIx listed here:

Dolby Pro IIx 7.1 setup

In summary, a very good 5.1 setup beats a ordinary 7.1 setup anyday.

Just my $0.02 worth of input.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

[RebelMan]

HI Reb,
Glad you got into this. From what I understand from your suggestions, the virtual image is seriously being pulled to the rear due to these factors:
1. The surround speakers are in the same front to back plane as my ears.
2. The 7.1 speakers are reinforcing this problem.
3. With the tweeters pointed at my ears I am further exagerating the same problem.
4. Me sitting leaning against the wall at the very limit of the virtual field.

In other words, the virtual field is being squished towards the rear wall and, thus towards the listener. Is this a good summary of your ideas?

Precisely. :T

Your suggestions about using a dipolar surround speaker runs counter to my dealers views. He does know HT but he IS a dealer. I asked him specifically about dipolars and he strongly argued against them. He seemed to feel that the surrounds should have pin point imaging qualities. So, we have a difference of opinions here. I see your point though. You want to deemphsize the actual location of the surrounds by substituting a diffuse sound field. That makes some sense to me. Maybe I could disconnect the tweeters and make you both happy. :P

Actually, your dealer and I are very much in agreement. While there is much debate on the subject of monopole versus bipolar/dipolar surrounds, I prefer and recommend point source speakers if and whenever possible. However, some situations, such as yours, do warrant and may benefit more from the use of dipolar speakers. Room size and listener proximity to the surrounds will typically dictate these choices.

If I install side wall speakers (this is do-able) would it not have to use a matrixed source? I'm not sure how to create a source for it that makes any sense with respect to the overall virtual image.

If your point is to move the image away from the rear wall, why can't I just reduce the surround levels? Will that cause the image to move away from the surround and more into the room in a lateral diagonal direction and down? If so, that may be reasonable tradeoff given their distance from my listening position.

Matrixing is neither necessary nor desired for the side wall surrounds. The discrete information fed to these (monopole) speakers will still create the field. In fact you might be pleasantly surprised by just how well. Keep in mind that side wall speaker placement was suggested in the event that you stay with a 7.1 setup using dipolars for the rears. Only the rear channels would have mixed information. This arrangement should create a “ring” of surround despite your close proximitiy to the rear. The objective is to create a virtual field where you feel like you are placed in the middle of the action not on the sidelines.

I don’t believe level adjustments made to your corner speakers will compensate for the lack of realism. They will become less noticeable and draw less attention to themselves which may help but it won’t solve your problem. The principle idea is to recreate a virtual three-demensional environment. It’s not the amount of sound but the quality of it that makes some setups work and others not. I know you are familiure with this concept because of your experience with proper subwoofer integration. It’s the same issue when dealing with surrounds. Ideally the speakers would surround you, in your case they don’t. But we can fool your brain into thinking they do. Making the sounds reach your ears… naturally… is the key. It’s not very realistic to hear someone walking over you when they should be coming from behind and around you. Make sense?

You have, no doubt, heard of the "hole in the middle" problem with stereo systems. This is caused largely by speakers that are placed too far apart for a given listening distance. There are two solutions. Move the speakers closer together or do what Klipsch did with their corner horns. Use a center fill speaker (Paul Klipsch called it the Heresy because it was not a horn :W ). That was what I was trying to do with the rear 7.1 speakers. I felt the surrounds were too far apart which would create a hole in the middle. I wanted to use the matrixed 7.1 speakers to fill the space.They do too. Being matrixed channels they seemed perfect for that job. Perhaps I can reduce their levels to help push the image forward but still keep some of the fill. During soundtracks I don't specifically hear them. I know they are contributing though. It is easy to disconnect them. I will try it.

There maybe other solutions that can address your problem. Likewise corresponding compromises too. It all boils down to the tradeoffs you are willing to make and those that you aren't or simply can’t. It doesn’t hurt to try, so give it a shot.

[RebelMan]

In summary, a very good 5.1 setup beats a ordinary 7.1 setup anyday.

Indeed it does. :T

[Karma]

HI All (and Reb, Steve, Azeke),
I have read your great replies carefully this morning. I even printed them. Thanks. While there are some differences in your solutions, the common element that jumps out is the seating position relative to the surrounds. The 7.1 speakers are reinforcing the problem but are not inherently the problem.

So, I have tried to address the listening position issue. You see, the bed is the major problem. It's too wide. There are two positions that are possible: either against the wall (bad) or sitting on the edge of the mattress with my feet dangling over the edge. It's not very comfortable and therefore not acceptable in the long run. Also it moves me so far forward that I'm too close the front speakers. It might be able to work but I don't think it will ever be good. I'll come back to that in a moment (I don't want to bore you but you may have some observations).

Steve, thanks for the diagram. It's exactly what I was looking for. It is interesting that distances are not specified, only angles. That means that if I do things right, the size of my room is not the kiss of death.

Of course the answer that presents itself requires major (I'm exaggerating) changes to the room. If I trade in my bed and mattress and replace it with a single wide, I can come very close to the angles in the diagram. Is that neat or what?

Reb, I have not ordered new surrounds because I wanted to ask you if you think I have made enough changes to the listening situation to make dipoles moot. I really would like to stay with monopoles if I can. What do you think? The new speakers I am considering are B&W's SCMS's surround or side wall speakers designed to match the spectral characteristics of the 805S. They are direct radiators. I think they are very good speakers but I have not heard them. I probably won't either. I just can't imagine a realistic listening test that would be possible to set up.

I would retain a 7.1 configuration. If it seems promising, I would replace my current, not too good, 7.1 speakers with my current surrounds. They are much better. The 7.1 positions indicated on the diagram will be almost exactly matched. This time I would face them forward rather than down.

I would not sit on the edge of the bed (Ugg!) but rather use a listening chair in the space gained by the narrower bed. That will move my listening position well out into the room but not too close to the front speakers. I went onto the web and found several very comfy (must be comfy, right?) looking chairs that could work and fold out of the way when I'm not doing serious HT stuff. The stereo listening position is a bit up in the air. It is so good now that I hesitate to change the speaker toe-in's to optimize HT.

My tests today indicate that HT is not all that picky about a precise center image. The center channel seems to really help properly orient the space between the front speakers. I was not quite able to exactly match the new set up this morning. However, I did use Denon's calibration feature with the mic in the new proposed listening position. The virtual field was MUCH improved with axes and things (Gladiator) flying behind and around my head. It looks promising. Bass was still good in the new position. Final answers are in the future.

Azeke, if I use Steve's diagram as my guide, I will have to move the surrounds out of the corner and down the side wall towards the front of the stage by about 2 feet. You should like that. That will result in the surrounds being slightly behind my ears and well within the angles indicated on Steve's diagram but still up against the ceiling. There's not too much I can do about that.

On the other side wall, moving the surround to match the other side means I have to trim about 1/4 inch off the door that presently interferes with my soon to arrive (not yet ordered) new surround speakers.

Why do I listen to you guys? New bed, new mattress, new surround speakers, buggered door. Well, I asked for it. Can't blame you all. How exciting!! IF I ever get married again, I see a bunk bed in the future. Of course, she would have to avoid the 7.1 speakers and we will remain childless.

That's about it. If you made it this far, what do you think?

Sparky

[SteveCallas]

I think it basically comes down to what is a higher priority for you - great 2 channel stereo music listening or better surround sound from movies? Personally, I would rank stereo music listening as more important than surround sound, but that's just me. If moving your seating position up some takes away a bit from stereo music listening, you have to ask if the better surround sound is worth the tradeoff.

[Karma]

HI Steve,
My main Priority is also music. I'm proposing not changing anything for stereo listening. The listening position adjustment would only be for HT. I would continue to use my current listening position for music. That's why I mentioned not changing the front speaker toe-in since it is now carefully adjusted for the best stereo soundstage which is really quite excellent.

The only speakers I'm changing are used for HT. All this is assuming I don't get into muli-channel audio. If I do I will reexamine at that time.

You did not offer an opinion on the changes. What do you think? Head biting is not on the menu today. 8) , I promise.

Sparky

[SteveCallas]

So are you saying you would get a narrower bed and still sit on against the back wall for music listening, but sit on a chair that is positioned enough away from the back wall that you can come pretty close to the Dolby diagram? And the chair could be folded away when not in use? That sounds like a good solution to me.

[RebelMan]

Your room is not the kiss of death, it is workable, still not ideal, but good enough to get good results. The diagram Steve provided is a great place to start. While it lacks dimensions one shouldn't assume that angle conformity alone is all that is necessary. Allow yourself some distance, a minimum of three to four feet is highly recommended.

Early surround sounds systems required bipolar/dipolar speakers because the majority of home theaters were just too small to use anything else and the soundtracks were recorded with this in mind. Today's high fidelity DVD's and discrete multichannel codecs are primarily mixed with monopoles in mind and is the strongest argument one can make for using them. If your seated position can achieve some forward distance then monopoles should be fine provided that you face (toe) them toward the center field, NOT DIRECTED AT YOU.

The SCMS's make fantastic surrounds. I happen to own a pair and may soon own another. They will tonally match your 805S's and they are every bit as good as the 805S's and in some ways better. The design seems to do a slightly better job of minimizing unwanted lobing effects.

Your plans for keeping a 7.1 surround should work out fine provided that you take extra care in their placement. Take your time and measure well. The SCSM's are somewhat adjustable allowing you some fudge factor room. Remember to keep them within 2 to 3 feet above your head for best results.

I think you are off to a good start in room reconstruction. LOL :lol:

[Karma]

HI Reb and Steve,
Well, that's very good to hear. I'm shopping for chairs on the web today (sandwitched around the NFL playoffs, another one of my passions).

Reb, You mentioned 3 or 4 feet in the first paragraph of you reply. I assume you mean that should be the minimum distance from the rear wall to the listening position. Can you confirm that? My preliminary measurements indicate my ears will be about 40 inches form the rear wall. That seems to be in the ballpark.

Reb, a question. I called my dealer yesterday about the SCMS surrounds. He liked the idea but made an alternative suggestion. He suggested another pair of 805S's. He claimed he has tested the 805S's and the SCMS's side by side and the 805's blew away the SCMS.

I know the SCMS is voiced to be placed directly on a wall and, judging from its tweeter placement, against the ceilling. The 805 is not. I don't know if each of the speakers were optimally placed for his tests. I doubt it because B&W markets the SCMS as an alternative main speaker. I suspect he was comparing their performance as mains rather than as surrounds. I also know he has a pair of 805S's, in my preferred Black Ash, ordered but never picked up, that he would like to get rid of. Is this influencing his suggestion? Who knows? I do tend to trust him. He is a good and knowledgable guy. But, he IS a dealer, right?

I am leaning towards the SCMS because of the wall mounting and they will fit into my space with less hastle. But the 805S's are a possibility. They will fit but the wall mount will have to be custom made and the tweeter will be close to the ceiling. Not good, I judge.

When I say "fit", that must be qualified. The SCMS requires that I trim the interfering door by about 1/4 inch. Do-able. The 805S requires that I remove the door. Also do-able but I'd rather not. In truth, I may have remove the door for either speaker. I doubt that the SCMS mounting system will let me actually contact the ceiling with the top of the speaker. I won't know until I try the fit. Lots of unknowns.

What do you think?

Sparky

[RebelMan]

The relative minimum distance is measured from speaker to ear. The 40 inch measurement (position to wall) in your case should work because the distance from your ear to the speaker will be greater than that.

I guess one person's "blown away" is another person's puff of smoke. :lol: I didn't have the luxury of a "direct" comparison, i.e., side by side, same room, same equipment between the 805S's and the SCMS's. However, I did compare the SCMS's in free-space (not against the wall as intended) with my 803S's and while they didn't rise to the occasion they held their own admirably. I am curious how your dealer conducted his shootout. I assume the SCMS's were hung and the 805S's were standing free, same room, same equipment, same... etcetera?

805S's for home theater surrounds are fine; putting them into position is another one of those compromises I spoke about earlier. They weren't made to be hung on the wall, the SCMS's are! However, if you think you will add multi-channel audio to your arrangement then the 805S's should be considered, just keep them on stands. Multi-channel audio works best when all speakers are identical and positioned at the same height.

For what it's worth, I am 50/50 AV, multi-channel audio need not apply. The SCMS's were and still are the best choice I could make for my room and application.

You have a few choices available and that is always a good thing.