2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 for HT Movie Audio?


I'm simplifying my life on the audio end. Consolidation of my separate HT room and 2ch room to one room has me doing some out of the speaker-box thinking.

Just to be upfront, I do love 5.1 and this is what I would prefer, and may end up there anyways.

My question only applies to Blu Ray and DVD movie playback.

Curious if Audiogon Members have lived with and enjoyed any of these configurations, i.e.:

- 2.0 (L/R) or

- 3.0 (L/R/C) or

- 4.0 (L/R/SrL/SrR) [no center]

What have your experiences and impressions been? Any lessons learned?

Note: I'm keeping things simple by eliminating the subs; I am satisfied with the lf performance and extension I'm getting from my current speakers on movie sound tracks.

Thanks,

- David.
Ag insider logo xs@2xdavid_ten
I listen to 5.0 for most movies. Rarely do I turn the sub on as it is generally not required or forgit to turn on.
I'm planning on doing a form of 4.0. I have the front left & right set up as full range with a sub on each of these 2 channels to enhance the bottom octave. I'm waiting on the surround speakers to arrive. The rear surrounds will be crossed over at 80 or 100Hz into the mains.

Anyone ever try something similar?
>02-14-11: Dorfma05 writes:
I'm planning on doing a form of 4.0. I have the front left & right set up as full range with a sub on each of these 2 channels to enhance the bottom octave.

The problem there is that Dolby Digital is encoded to allow 105dB SPL from the screen channels and 115dB SPL from the LFE track. To avoid speaker damage from over-excursion and prevent clipping Dolby recommends entirely discarding the LFE channel when down-mixing in installations without sub-woofers.

Some processors make that configurable, some don't.
Thanks to everyone who has posted. Healthy feedback regarding the benefits (and limitations) of each configuration.
-----

- Byron: You said: "I am currently listening in 3.1, and it is a very close approximation of 5.1. In some ways, I prefer it to 5.1." Can you explain further?
-----

I was able to test a 2.0 downmix via PCM out from the bdp to my DAC with a few movies.

The center imaging is very stable and the timing matches the video lip movement. There are usually only two of us watching movies, so we are sitting in a very central position to the speakers.

-----

- Drew: I plan on bypassing processing (when I get the Oppo 95/93) by using the analog outputs of the bdp. Any issues doing it this way given your comments re processing?
To answer your question:

Without the sub I would just to 2.0. The sub is what makes home theater. With a sub I would take 4.0 over 3.0. For what it is worth I have done 2.0,2.1, 3.1, 5.2, 7.2... back to 2.0, over the years.

Now my current setup is a little different. I run to separate systems in the same room. My 5.1 (Polk RTi A3 x5, 550wi subs x2) is mounted to the ceiling. I used their Key hole mounts and made mounts out of 2X4s/plywood (wireless subs in the back of the room behind the theater chairs). The rest of my room is "optimized" for 2.0 (currently thiel CS2.4 etc) music. Each system has its own electronics and they do not intermix.

My own thoughts:

To me the most important thing is keeping all the speakers the same. I don't mean the same brand or line I mean the same speaker. Now if you have a big budget you can put two systems in the same room and make the surround sound almost unnoticeable .

Use 5 Thiel Power point speakers and a JL Audio in-wall sub. It would make a very nice looking and sounding system that could be in the same room as your two channel room.

Just a thought.