Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Hardware › Speakers and Subwoofers › Which surrounds are "more" important, back surrounds or side surrounds?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which surrounds are "more" important, back surrounds or side surrounds?

post #1 of 7
2/23/10 at 7:14am
Thread Starter 
Hi guys!

I am currently running

Mirage FRX-7 floor standing
Mirage FRX Center Channel
Dayton 12" subwoofer
Onkyo TX-SR607 Receiver NEW

and

Dayton 6" in wall speakers back surrounds
Dayton 4" on wall speakers - side surrounds

I know both my rear sets are cheap and weak. Since I got the new Onkyo receiver which, by the way, has to be the best sounding receiver on the market for the money! I really want to increase the presence of my surround. I can probably only afford to replace one set at this time. I'm thinking Mirage nanos or something. Which set is more important, back or side?
Reply
post #2 of 7
2/23/10 at 10:30am
The rear surrounds are used in far fewer films than the side ones.  Many folks don't even bother with 7.1
Reply
post #3 of 7
2/23/10 at 10:58am
 EDIT - Never mind...  I misread your post (on wall vs in-wall).  
Reply
post #4 of 7
2/23/10 at 11:12am
Thread Starter 
 Thanks Chuck, that's exactly what I was thinking. I guess I would be well-served to leave my in wall rears then, only move them a bit closer to the center (presently they are in the corners of the room)  and just get some nice new nanostat prestige for the left and right surrounds! Thanks. 
Reply
post #5 of 7
2/27/10 at 6:22am
I"ve not used any of these 5.1 + 2 setups. I've heard negative things about back surrounds overly pulling the sound to the rear of the listener. It's also been observed that the worst place to put extra speakers, given a choice, is behind the listener. Hence the newer Front Height. Of course, Front Height is no slam dunk either, and the few early reviews are mixed. And then there's the DSX "Wide Surrounds", which has also gotten some positive comments. For all that, I've decided to put my money into a 5.1 system and skip the extra two altogether for a while.

So if you want to improve your sound, have you considered less conventional upgrades:
* acoustic treatments in the room? Having heard a room with bass traps in the corners and acoustic tiles on the ceiling, I'm a believer. (But it fails WAF in my living room, so not an option).
* Add an external amplifier for better "loud" playback?
* Run a more advanced form of the Audyssey software? The 607 has 2EQ. Next up is MultEQ, which also adjusts the subwoofer output. Then MultXT (I think) which is supposed to be ever higher-tech :)

If I had a room wholly under my control, I'd play with the acoustic treatments. Affordable and ti seems that it can make a big difference. After that, I'll buy an external amp before I go from 5.1 to 7.1. But that's me. :)
Reply
post #6 of 7
3/11/10 at 4:40am
I am wary of jumping into 7.1, too; I've used the same 5.1 system since the late 1990s and it's still working fine - however, I'm avoiding upgrading to Blu Ray as my receiver can't decode the newer DD and DTS codecs (Master Audio/TrueHD). 

When my current receiver dies (may last another 10 years, though!), I'll get one with HDMI inputs and the latest codecs, but still not sure whether I'll add the two rear channels.
Reply
post #7 of 7
3/11/10 at 9:24am
Replace the side surrounds first.  The rears are the speakers added to a 5.1 setup to make it 7.1, so they are the least important, since the majority of content is 5.1 only.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers and Subwoofers
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Hardware › Speakers and Subwoofers › Which surrounds are "more" important, back surrounds or side surrounds?