I think I'm solidly with the majority when I say that I just turn off my hearing when people start talking about adding even more speakers. I've heard 7.1 (and 10.1) demos and the sound was better, but...

How much better do fly-overs have to be?

Deep down in my gut I feel like the madness has got to stop. I'm all "upgraded" out, and I suspect the public is too. Whatever we come up with this time, we better stick with it because if I'm getting tired of the constant format turmoil, imagine what Joe Six-pack feels like!

Doug Blackburn:

I've tried 7.2 and expect to continue using that number of loudspeakers for some time. For me, it adds enough additional "all around sound" that it's worth the additional cost. I might consider mid-wall loudspeakers at some point in the future to fill in the gap between the rear and front sides. Of course this would require appropriate soundtracks and decoding hardware. A ceiling loudspeaker would be interesting, but wires running to it would be perhaps a bit much even for me. It would probably have to be planned before the room is built, perhaps using an in-wall unit or two for this less critical source.

The average consumer is probably clueless about more speakers than 5.1 and may even be confused about what 5.1 means. I don't think the industry does much to get out the word on home theater and the various configurations people can use to achieve additional performance. Of the consumers who are more aware -- those who read Home Theater & Sound and other publications and follow new developments -- many don't have the physical space needed to go beyond 5.1. If your rear-surround speakers are 9’ from the listener, the center-surround speakers should be, ideally, 9’ behind the listener. If the front speakers are 9’ in front of the listener and you have a few feet of space behind the front speakers and a foot or two of space behind the center-surround speakers, you're looking at a room that is at least 22’ deep. You could do a smaller room, but it would take smaller loudspeakers that are more closely spaced to the listener. Even then, you'd be at least 6’ from the front and rear speakers, making the room at least 16’ deep. You need at least that kind of space for 7.1 done properly. If you do have the space, the spouse may nix the appearance of more hardware in a shared living space, which is what most people have to deal with. Those with a space that does not necessarily have to be shared with the rest of the family probably have the best chance of getting more loudspeakers into the room.

Vince Hanada:

I would be willing to add one or two more speakers for a 6.1-channel system with a center-surround channel. I feel that one or two center-surround speakers would provide a useful benefit to surround envelopment that you cannot get from just the two left and right surround speakers. I am not in a hurry to make an upgrade, but I probably will want the 6.1 capability when I do. I would not be willing to add more than two extra speakers though. I do not have room for five extra speakers, the additional five-channel amp needed to drive the extra speakers, or more subwoofers.

For the average consumer, a 5.1 system makes sense, but beyond that, the additional cost, space requirements, and complexity becomes a deterrent to adding more speakers. Most people have budget and space limitations, so I think the average consumer would be better off with good quality 5.1, rather than a mediocre 10.2 system.

Doug Schneider:

I value quality over quantity. Having listened to good two-channel for many years, I believe that the imaging capabilities of two properly placed speakers can be useful in the theater. I have been experimenting with a phantom center channel in my system versus a hard center, and I think that for a centrally located viewer/listener with symmetrically placed main speakers, the phantom mode is simply more expansive in both depth and width. This can lead to a more realistic presentation of vocals while still remaining locked-in to the monitor. You do lose the capability to increase/decrease vocal level though, which is a tradeoff. Of course, rooms and systems vary, but this is one alternative. There are times when adding quantity over quality makes little sense. Adding additional subwoofers, for example, all incapable of truly sub-bass performance, will yield little overall improvement. Investing in a subwoofer that can play at appreciable levels in the low bass with low distortion would be a wiser move for most people.

For the average consumer, would an additional speaker in the center-surround position make sense? Maybe, if the surrounds are sidewall mounted. This is something Doug Blackburn has mentioned many times, and I agree. However, if the same consumer has mediocre main speakers and rear-wall mounted surrounds, then no. A better move might be an upgrade up front. I really can’t see past 6.1 right now. There are numerous reasons not to stigmatize the marketplace with "vapor processing modes" simply to sell more gear.

I will be sitting tight with 5.1 and at the most 6.1. So much more can be gained from features like room equalization (B&K AVR 307 and Reference 30), which makes a huge difference in real-world home theaters. This capability will be more common in the coming year as processors become more powerful. If it makes real sense to increase the number of speakers in my room, I can probably convince myself to buy more gear. But for that to happen, it must be the best upgrade I can make, and I’m nowhere near that point right now. I would think the average consumer would agree.