Is 7.1 better than 5.1

I used to pooh-pooh the difference between 5.1 and 7.1. Then four years ago I got a 7.1 processor and my brand's matching surround speakers went on sale. Bought the speakers and brought an extra 2-channel amp out of the garage (later replaced by an Adcom 535 II) and there it was. My surround processor will matrix the rear surround channels from any 5.1 channel source, so it *always* fills in the back of the room. Then when you get a video that has a full sound track the localization is great. One example is in the Harry Potter films when they're on their brooms, zooming all around, or just about any film that involves flying, such as The Aviator.

I was able to put in a pair of Mirage OM-RS's (or whatever) for about $300 plus the spare amp I had, so it was easily worth it.

So to add a bit...

Let's look past availability which is an important determinant in its own right.

This is principally about the physical layout of the specific room - meaning how much space is there around the seating area

The way this stuff is designed, the 5.1 speakers are to the left and right of the audience about 2/3rds - 3/4s of the way back, firing across the audience (L to R, R to L)

The 7.1 pair are behind the audience firing forward towards the screen.

The more discrete sources you have, the smoother the motion of sound from one speaker to another, the more precise the placement and the greater the illusion it creates.

In many rooms, including mine (alack, alas) there is no room to fire across so the 5.1s become the rears. A dipole design helps take the edge off it but still it simply cannot create the same depth of illusion.

I disagree that a rooms size or shape is a reason to stick with 5.1. Have you heard of anybody going back to 5.1? Without room correction this could be an issue but after running room correction my small corner screen placed system simply came to attention with an incredibly balanced output. Room size may dictate the size of the speakers themselves, even that would be subject to personal preference.

7.1 offers better dialog placement for the L C R channels. The surround effects are now pinpoint accurate and do not rely on room reflection or the the front L and R speakers to convey the effect. The first thing I noticed is just how important the side channels are. It's simply more theater like. While the 7.1 media is slow in coming I find the effect on earlier soundtracks more enjoyable IMO.

Room correction software is a must and I'd stay away from dipole enclosures. Matching your current speakers with either used or discontinued speakers can make this one of your easiest audio upgrades.

Better YES. Practical NO. Of course it is better but it depends on how willing you are to invest for the small amount of 7.1 soundtracks available.

07-14-09: Shadorne
Better YES. Practical NO. Of course it is better but it depends on how willing you are to invest for the small amount of 7.1 soundtracks available.

For me, having a 7.1 source on the soundtrack is nearly immaterial. My AVP can matrix 7.1 from any 5.1 source, and does. It fills in the back and provides a more enveloping sound whether coming from a 7.1 or 5.1 channel source.

7-channel sources are growing rapidly, as just about anything coming out on Blu-ray these days is 7.1. The true 7.1 channel sources *do* provide more discrete rear channel specificity, but even in a matrix where the rear surround channels are only playing the signal common to LS and RS, it still fills in a gap that otherwise occupies the rear third of the room.

If you already have a 7-channel AVP or AVR, the additional cost of rear fill-in speakers and a pawnshop amp is minimal (e.g., I got an Adcom 535 II for $75). The only potential hassle is laying the front-to-back speaker cables.