3.1 Setup?

[delux247]

Hey, I had a quick question. I'm setting up my home theater and just settled on the receiver I want, but I was wondering what speaker configuration I should go with. I've heard of people doing 7.1, 6.1, 5.1 and 2.0. I don't have room for a 5.1+ setup right now so I was planning on just doing a 2.0. Would it make any difference if I did a 2.1 or 3.1 setup? I haven't heard of anyone doing those and wasn't sure if it would make sense to do one or not. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I was just trying to figure out my setup and what to budget for. Thanks in advance for any input.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by delux247

Hey, I had a quick question. I'm setting up my home theater and just settled on the receiver I want, but I was wondering what speaker configuration I should go with. I've heard of people doing 7.1, 6.1, 5.1 and 2.0. I don't have room for a 5.1+ setup right now so I was planning on just doing a 2.0. Would it make any difference if I did a 2.1 or 3.1 setup? I haven't heard of anyone doing those and wasn't sure if it would make sense to do one or not. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I was just trying to figure out my setup and what to budget for. Thanks in advance for any input.

2.1 would work fine. You can down-matrix what you're currently watching to 2ch stereo, and have a sub just catch all the low tones from it.

Once you switch your source to anything higher, your missing speakers will drive you crazy. You won't be able to hear the sound mix, even if you have a center channel; just don't do it, until you're ready to go to 5.1. That's the next step, there are no exits in between.

[browndk26]

I have a 3.1 setup and it sounds fine to me. I have the room but cannot run the surround wires without tearing up carpet or running through walls. Check out my gallery to see it.

[Beta Man]

I would select audio in this order (If I were buying the additional speakers as budget allows)

2.0 first

3.0 after

3.1 next

5.1 etc etc etc.

Basically, I'd get a center BEFORE a subwoofer.... it's more important. You can always set your speakers to "large" until you get a sub

[Tru2theBlu]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I would select audio in this order (If I were buying the additional speakers as budget allows)

2.0 first

3.0 after

3.1 next

5.1 etc etc etc.

Basically, I'd get a center BEFORE a subwoofer.... it's more important. You can always set your speakers to "large" until you get a sub

I agree with you. I am currently running a 3.0, and it sounds great! If you invest in a quality receiver and mid range speakers, you won't be disappointed with a 3.0 setup. I actually get a surprising amount of bass from the towers, and I am glad that I purchased a center first, because it carries so much of the dialogue. I am going to buy a sub, when I save some more, and buy surrounds after that. It's all preference. Some of the people in this forum, must have god-like ears to hear some of the things they claim they do.

[gochumonster]

I have a 3.1 in my bedroom and it works fine for me, its real nice since you dont have to worry about ripping up carpet or trying to hide the wires. I dont think you will be dissapointed in a 3.1 at all.

[wdhays]

I agree with some of what the others have said in this forum. I just think some things should be clarified. What speakers are you using? What is their frequency range? How wide is your listening area? Do the wife & kids really care about sound placement? You don't live in apartment or condo, do you?

Both posters saying to go with 3.0 then 3.1 have speakers rated to 45hz & 48hz @ -3db. And they could be right, in that case. The dialogue being tied to the center position & the separation you will gain, will make an improved difference.

But, if your speakers are only rated to 55hz @ -3db or higher, then I would suggest a subwoofer first. Obviously you are looking for the biggest bang for the buck. If you don't have "full range" speakers, then a good sub will give you just that.

You will be amazed at some of the low-frequency material that you've been missing. My speakers are rated down to 31hz & I would never go without a sub. I still cross them & 50hz & let the sub do the rest. I let my receiver's built in processor set the volume on the sub & leave it there. The sound is more extended & distortion free like this.

I am the only "audiophile" in the house, so others don't notice the sound coming more from the left or right than it should be. I just take the center seat. They do notice the pounding in their chest as the submarine implodes on itself though.

Just my opinion. Hope it helps.

[VHS4Ever]

Do a good 2.0.

[wdhays]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

Do a good 2.0.

"Good" is a very relative term. To some it means a $100.00 pair of speakers or to others, it might mean a $2,000.00 pair. Either way, speakers that wouldn't benefit from a subwoofer are few & far between, not to mention probably too expensive for either of us to afford.

You are obviously trying to set up a home theater system, not a stereo. Stereo is great for music & probably for VHS playback too. Beyond that we have multichannel audio.



The other thing I didn't mention is the load you take off the fronts & the level of protection you provide them, by adding the sub. We've all heard blown woofers. How do you think they got blown? Probably by being pushed louder & lower than they were really designed to go.

Today's audio formats have much more dynamic range. -meaning that if you set the volume on the receiver to a normal level for dialogue, then something explodes, that explosion may try to play at 30db or more, louder. That range, at high enough levels, can & will destroy inferior components.

The crossover in the receiver, together with a good subwoofer, is your speaker's best friend in this scenario. Some subwoofers even include protection from this effect, known as a subsonic filter. It cuts off how low a frequency it will attempt to play. Every piece of equipment has its limits. You have to be realistic about what you expect from your gear.

You are on the right track. Try not to be discouraged by conflicting opinions. Just remember that everyone's systems & needs are different.

[callas01]

You can always get a fish tape and pull the wires underneath the carpet.

[Johnny Vinyl]

There have been a lot of solid responses, both in terms of explanation on what one needs to consider and also suggestions on whether or not a less than 5.1/7.1 setup is desireable.

Optimally we'd all like a 5.1/7.1 system, but that's not always possible right away. There are budget concerns, room size and location (apt./condo) to consider, so we make decisions based on those parameters.

I'm in an apartment and if I had a subwoofer I'd drive my neighbours insane. Fortunately, my fronts are rated at 39hz (+/-3bd) so I have sufficient bass response for now. The others are rated at 50hz. Others may disagree that this is not low enough, but it suits my purposes and I'm happy with it.

As to the OP's question more specifically, YES it is worth getting a 2.0/2.1/3.0/3.1 setup to start with. Heck, I ran a 2.0 setup for over a year and was very satisfied with the experience. If you're limited to only this kind of setup I say don't worry, do it anyway. A good quality setup of this kind is much more desireable and pleasing than a crap 5.1 setup.

John

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by John72953

A good quality setup of this kind is much more desireable and pleasing than a crap 5.1 setup.

I'll second this statement. Starting with a good 2.0 or 2.1 setup will allow you to buy higher quality components than if you pursued a whole 5.1 or 7.1 speaker set all at once.