Ideally yes, as Joe said, but in reality....most people get something a little smaller for the backs. The backs basically act as a filler, so they arent as critical as the surrounds. I went as far as buying what I consider lousy speakers in the back for no other reason that they fit my space requirement/application needs and they serve their role just fine.
I would agree with Paul (wow I can't believe I said that . My research and my experience since have led me to believe the front speaker matching is very important, but for the back you can go lower.
I agree that surround matching is not important UNLESS you plan on listening to multichannel audio (DVD-A, SACD). If you plan on listening to those hi-res audio sources, you want to have full range, matching speakers at all locations.
..if you don't plan on using multichannel audio, go get some crap speakers for filler
At least with todays movie soundtracks, one would be overspending to spend proportionately the same on back speakers. Small wallmount sats will work perfectly in this respect. If you buy much more speaker than that, and you'll have unused potential and have wasted your money.
While I agree that the 7.1 setup makes a nice improvement in the movie watching experience, the nature of the output levels require much less output than that for the fronts or surrounds. I have large 3 way surrounds, but would never consider doing the same for the back.
But hey...... a fool and his money will soon part, and if the title fits, then so be it.
if you can afford it, do it. As time goes on, the surrounds will play larger and larger roles in a home theater. Look at where they started in dolby pro logic! If these speakers are a long-term investment, then you want them to be good not only today but also with the new audio formats that are always around the corner.
The majority of sound will always come from the front. Now that we have true 5.1 soundtracks available for DVD audio, movie makers have the capability to move as much sound to the surrounds as they want. I guess the point being is that surrounds will always play a supporting role. The entire nature of surround sound itself is that the it suppliments the front, and not designed to take the leading role.
Paul, on most action movies there are scences where the loudest sounds come from the surrounds (and perhaps sweep to the front or side later on). During those moment, timbre matching matters and makes a huge difference in realism.
My surrounds/fronts blend well together. Who says they have to be clones of each other to timbre match?? I do agree that there are some loud instants which is why I have 8" three ways for surrounds, but there still isnt enough output to warrant anything much larger. My back speakers didnt match very well, but I've equalized them from 65hz and up to blend together more smoothly with the rest of the speakers. I should comment that all 7 speakers are equalized 'individually' from 65hz and up.......Lets see a NAD or one of those vanilla ARCAM toasters do that. Because of that, my system blends better than most. I feel bad for people who choose to power their system with featureless vanilla receivers unable to equalize channels individually. That's such a pity because they'll never know how bad they've got it.
IMO back speakers are only useful if the space behind your seating position is large enough that you can't get the surround speakers to reverberate off the rear wall behind you.
If you have diffuse firing surround speakers that image well off the area behind you and can create the effect that the sound effect is coming from behind the rear speakers may muddy the sound more than add to it, especially when matrixed off the surround channels.
As well, di-pole speakers work best for surrounds IMO, (Paul you should try it and throw those Bose paperweights at the nearest democrat you see) and bi-pole or direct firing bookshelfs/towers are better for the surround back speakers.
Okay Paul, so you advise dozens of people to buy whatever super cheap speakers for use as surrounds without telling them they need to compensate that $150 savings by getting a $1500 receiver. Please don't forget that detail next time.
Also, there is more and more dynamic range called for in the surrounds. You should have already experienced a similar moment to your CVs bottoming out without a sub in "The Incredibles", but this time with your surrounds not being able to reproduce the full dynamic range of the sound track. How loud do those dainty surrounds of yours get anyway? I thought you said that could only be possible in a broom closet! Kind of defeats your argument against bookshelf speaker, doesn't it?
So, what's it going to be Paul? Bookshelf speakers are okay? Or are you going to put "big" speakers all around?
I own large 3ways for surrounds, and disagree with what you're saying.
And yes, my back speakers are cheap bose.(not surrounds) Fortunately I dont own one of those featureless toasters, and I have the ability equalize all 7 channels independently. As I've said many times before, I bought them out of laziness because of not finding speakers that met the physical requirements of the space above a pair of sliding glass doors. I've used my receiver abilities to tweak them to the max so they blend with the other speakers. As I've said before....they're 'only' back speakers. When 7.1 DVDs begin flooding the market, I'll no doubt reinstitute my search and look for an upgrade. For now, it doesnt matter unless you're a music snob debating for the sake of argument.
As for my surrounds??? Heck, my dainty 8" 3way surround speakers will probably pack more punch than most of the dainty fronts used by those posting in this forum. I happen to think anything larger for surrounds would be unnecessary. Obviously many in this forum agree because they've taken it apon themselves and gone one step further by purchasing girlyman halpints for use as front speakers too.
Paul you have Bose for your back surrounds and you are advising Acious against spending too much on back speakers? How much were your Bose?
I was able to use the Klipsch I had from my previous stereo system for the back channels. Acious you may want to try something like that if you have one or experiment with lower costing speakers before spending a lot on the surrounds.
I can't even recommend a 7 speaker setup. Honestly nothing is recorded in 7.1 now and whenever it does you can add two more speakers.
Stof, The bose were inexpensive. I do disagree when you say that it's not worth running a 7.1 configuration because it does make a difference. Just because movies are currently recorded in 5.1 shouldnt stop you because todays receivers are designed to matrix the sound into 7.1.
In a similar way that running dolby pro logic surround was a big improvement over the standard 2 speaker setups of the '80s, running a 7.1 setup is a similar improvement over 5.1 today.
Paul,that is if you have enough power,and i dont care what anyone says there is no way a receiver can have sufficient power with 7 channels weighing in at 25 pounds and they are not even digital.Now those are the true lightweights,do you actually think any of those power ratings are correct?Absollutely not its a fraud.
I agree with your 'lightweight' comment, and would never allow one of those 25lb lightweights power my HT. I am fortunate enough to own one of the best receivers on the market below the YammiZ9 and Denon5803 class of receivers.
I can't agree with you there Paul. It is true that the new amps are able to distribute the sound into the Matrix. In that basically the amp makes a decision to distribute the sound to all present speakers without discriminatin the content, but to have a sound that was not recorded and intended to come through the left surround come through there is strange at best.
Now Peter has a point that a truly recorded 5.1 surrounds put loud explosions, moving objects sweeping to the front and other sounds through the back because that's what the author intended for them. However my arguement and I think yours Paul has been that it is not worth spending too much money on that just for this kind of effect. The resolution for this kind of effect is not very high. Your point is also valid that any decent HT amp worth its salt should let you adjust th loudness to get the effect without having to worry about expensive speakers.
Paul, my 7 year old Onkyo weighs 31 pounds and $1500 receivers have 7 channels and weighing 22 pounds maybe thats one of the reasons I have lost interest in H/T, because of all these bogus power ratings,its sad that so many people get ripped off like that.If I ever get back into home theater it will be with a stand alone prcessor and all mono blocks with a extremely high dampning factor.
Stof, Are you implying that by activating 7.1, that you believe a receiver will also matrix 5.1 content going through the front 5 speakers??
In reality, all that is happening is that the reciever is splitting off a portion from the 4th-5th channels, and sending it to the back. The rest of the channels remain uneffected.
Tawaun, It sounds like you need to stop shopping entry level components and step up in class if the many 'lightweights' are getting on your nerves. Most receivers in the intermediate price range weigh-in anywhere between 36-41lbs.
Is your Onkyo one of those classic Dolby Pro Logic receivers, or is it 5.1??
Yeah its the TX DS575sx a real beast that was quite good at music to one of the big reasons I bought it.Its 5.1,entry level Na thats the last reciever I bought and it will be the last,since then its been nothing but high end 2 channel intergrated amps.My next is Odyssey Audio Khartigo power amp and Odyssey passive pre amp with capcitor upgrades dirrectly from Odyssey before it even leaves the building.Yeah the Onkyo is a old classic.Ill never get rid of it.
Hey guys im new to this site, but id like to add my two cents in. When buying any AV component be it speakers amps recievers etc. Its a good idea to buy the best that you can afford for any given component of your system, and upgrade as budget allows to stay as current as possible with new technology.Always buy quality never buy cheap, even if its only a back surround speaker, save your money untill you can afford a quality one. I can hear the difference in quality versus cheap back surrounds, the quality one are much more ambient, which is really what they are for.Final note, i have a HK AVR335 reciever which is a high current design,it rocks music and movies equally well, with clean sound, and a proprietary Logic7 mode, for 7.1 surround for movies or music and it sounds awsome.
Stoff, the Amps dont make any decisions,the processer is the brains of the operation,the amp just does the heavy lifting thats any system.The Amp never makes decisions its always the preamp or the processor.Geez you didnt know that?
Paul you wrote: Are you implying that by activating 7.1, that you believe a receiver will also matrix 5.1 content going through the front 5 speakers?? In reality, all that is happening is that the reciever is splitting off a portion from the 4th-5th channels, and sending it to the back. The rest of the channels remain uneffected.
No actually your point is precisely what I was talking about. Until we get true 7.1 recording that sweeps across the side surrounds from front to back or or vise versa, we are just getting a split sound at the sides that were meant for the back speakers (if any at all). I don't think this necessarily adds to the experience. So why spend the money.
Why spend the money??? Because even in it's matrixed form, having two extra speakers in the back improves the movie watching experience. Heck, if you have a 7.1 receiver, and dont put all channels to good use, you're selling your system short.
Now for those who have stripped down vanilla 5.1 receivers, well then I guess they're out of luck. Those individuals will lobby intil they're blue in the face that 7.1 is not worth it, but that's only because their system is incapable.
7.1 when setup correctly is a major upgrade over 5.1 for all movies!
Ofcourse to do it true justice you need a pretty big room/quality amplication and good quality speakers at all postions. Yes the surrounds and back speakers are less as important as the fronts and center but also the info that goes to all 4 of the rears nowadays is much more full range then it use to be so I would still use pretty good speakers back there.
I am currently running a B&K processor with all external amplification and 7 very good speakers and it is a major improvement over the reciever and 5.1 setups I use to run. By the way stof there are actually true mulichannel movies that run dts-es-descrete 6.1 and dolby digital ex 6.1 soundtracks that when played back on a properly setup 7.1 system are jaw dropping!
So the extra channel media is out there and is now starting to become more the norm plus what is around the horizon with even more channels.
. My research and my experience since have led me to believe the front speaker matching is very important, but for the back you can go lower.