Home Theater, Who Needs It?

avahifi · « **on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:01 pm »

It amazes me that people will continue to buy high definition TV sets and settle for and pay big bucks for low definition surround sound systems.

Right now I am running a Sony Wega KB34 XBR 960 direct view HD tv with the TV sound turned off, and the audio output piped directly from the TV into a Ultimate 70 vacuum tube amplifier and on to a pair of our Biro L/1 loudspeakers with an old B&W Acoustitune passive subwoofer tucked way back in the corner.

The sound is absolutely spectactular. You do not need a remote control to turn down the loud parts, because the loud parts never "hurt". Even the commercials sound good. You can hear and understand all the words. The sound fills the room with a huge stage and lifelike presentation.

In all the stores and into homes I visit, the multi-channel surround sound systems, every last one of them, sends me screaming away as fast as I can hobble with my hands over my ears.

Why oh why pray tell do people buy this multi-channel trash, when a simple hookup of a great amplifier and a pair of great speakers is all you ever need, and all the surround sound processed sound, music made into hamberger, is completely eliminated?

Try it our way, you might like it- - - high definition sound to go along with your high definition video picture. Duhhh. What are you thinking about anyway?

Of course a couple thousand or more into those snake oil wires and cables will make up the difference. NOT

Frank Van Alstine

sts9fan · « **Reply #1 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:23 pm »

It is because 99.9% of the population will never pay $1500 for thier whole audio system let alone an amp.

JoshK · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:35 pm »

I've been doing 2 channel for my "HT" for a few years and can't say I miss the surround sound.

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:45 pm »

Frank:
Once more I've got to say "I don't get it" If you have the TV audio directly into an amp. How do you control the volume? Shouldn't there be a preamp in the circuit?

Cheers
Charlie

ctviggen · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:48 pm »

I've done both 2 channel HT and 5 channel and I have to say that 5 channel is much more impressive for action movies. Movies that involve mainly dialogue don't really achieve a great benefit. Even things like music DVDs/HD shows with crowd sounds in the back seem more realistic. For a good test of this, the Blue Man Group puts out a DVD with one song on it. They start in 2 channel then go into 5 channel. The 5 channel version sounds amazing.

philipp · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:54 pm »

Have to say I agree with sts9fan 100%. Almost everyone I know would pay more for the TV than the entire stereo. Personally, I think 5-channel surround is the quadrophonic of our times, yet another special effect. But if it makes people open up their wallets...

If I want surround, I put on headphones.

csero · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 06:59 pm »

Quote from: avahifi

Why oh why pray tell do people buy this multi-channel trash, when a simple hookup of a great amplifier and a pair of great speakers is all you ever need, and all the surround sound processed sound, music made into hamberger, is completely eliminated?...

Maybe because 2 channel stereo is so fawled by default, soo far off from natural hearing, so not consistent with what we know about auditory mechanisms that you have to learn to enjoy it. Even then it will never be satisfying for all kind of music.
5.1 multichannel is an attempt to fix stereo inherent faults, although basically not a good one.

BTW I'd not pay for an amp $1500 any more.

nathanm · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 07:08 pm »

Surround SOUNDS great, but is totally impractical to implement for all but the most free (as in no WAF issues) and obsessive audiophiles. Nearly every home's living room is hostile towards proper speaker placement. And then you have to deal with the damned cables. It's hard enough to get right in an empty room much less one with a bunch of furniture.

You need a room at least 20 feet or more in both directions, otherwise you're screwed IMO.

On-wall flat panel speakers are about the only thing I can think of to solve this problem, but I have no idea what they sound like.

Like ctviggen said, something like Blue Man Group lends itself to the format. That's also an example of the artist really taking advantage of the format whereas a lot of the releases out there are just bashing a round peg into a square hole. How many of the releases were actually RECORDED with surround in mind I wonder?

avahifi · « **Reply #8 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 07:09 pm »

No preamp in the system? No problem, set the TV preferences to internal speakers off, and audio output to variable, and use the TV remote control to set the sound levels.

Horribly flawed 5 channel is not close to the sound of pure two channel thru a good audio playback setup. Remember all you need is a good amplifier and two good speakers. The HT box is gone gone gone, along with its boadloads of nasty 25 cent op-amps and processors, and god only knows what other ugly sound destroying devices.

Frank Van Alstine

G.Michael · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 07:21 pm »

I went from 5.1 to "2-channel" HT. No regrets. In my experience, the room acoustics are easier to deal with, and more often than not the 2-channel DVD soundtracks have been more listenable. They usually sound more natural.

Zheeeem · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 09:33 pm »

Quote from: avahifi

It amazes me that people will continue to buy high definition TV sets and settle for and pay big bucks for low definition surround sound systems.

I've just finished remodeling our HT room and setting things up. The room is 17x19. We have a wall mounted 42 inch Panasonic (TH-42PWD8UK). It is flanked by our newly rebuilt and recovered tympani 1(U)s. Electronics are an OPPO DVD, and some earlier Van Alstine MosFET/SuperFET electronics in PAT-5/DH-220 shells. The rack is made of stone in a colour that matches the tympani cloth (dumb luck, really. By the way, I am firmly convinced that stone is the way to go for equipment racks.). It is a really big looking, big sounding sysyem, and fed with the right signal, the sound quality is superb.

The weak link is the cable signal. Why I pay those b#stards $80/month for the garbage they send I just don't know.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 10:12 pm »

Frank, it's probably equal parts mimicing traditional movie theatre experience in your own home...and need from the Consumer Electronics Industry to create more stuff for us to buy that created 5.1, then 6.1 and now 7.1 'surround' sound in rapid succession in only the past 7 years.

Surround Sound has most likely benefitted speaker vendors most...then component and wire folks as feeders to it.

I'm not much a videophile, and find my modest 2.1 system to be fine indeed for my needs. It's easier and cheaper to optimize 2.1 then 7.1

philipp · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 10:59 pm »

Having read the posts here and in other places on the topic of surround sound, I have a thought. The appeal of a multi-speaker setup is to create a more holographic listening experience, akin to how you'd hear a real event. Correct?

I think those of us skeptical of 5.1 are fortunate enough to have a "properly" set up listening situation with our 2-channel systems -- one where the speakers are well positioned in the room, well spaced and in proportion to our listening position. I was able to rearrange my living room last summer to create that environment. Believe me, it makes a world of difference.

I think most people have their speakers too close to the back wall, too close together, and sit too far away from them to enjoy the "surround" sound that 2-channel playback can already provide. I also think that 5.1 is not just an attempt by the industry to make more money, but also to give people that "surround" experience with small speakers up against the walls and a sub or two tucked neatly into the corner.

Given the realities in most homes, I can see why a 5.1 surround system would be appealing. But for those of you who do need one, please don't think that those of us favoring 2-channel playback are ignorant of the joys of enveloping sound and spatial queues. We may already have what you want.

ricmon · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 11:13 pm »

Quote from: avahifi

It amazes me that people will continue to buy high definition TV sets and settle for and pay big bucks for low definition surround sound systems.

I can only speak for my self but i think its about money. i spend all of my real entertainment dollar on my 2 channel system. i just am not intrested in doing that to hear movies. i simply dont care how accurate my movie sound is.

Joules · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Jan 2006, 11:47 pm »

I would much rather have a well resolved two channel for my 50" plasma monitor tv than 5.1 or whatever multi channel. I take audio out from our cable box directly to a pair of 100w mono blocks and then to a very nice pair of MTM Focal/raven speaker.
Very clean and very nice to watch TV with. I recycle equipment that I upgrade from my main two channel music only system to TV use.

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 12:20 am »

FWIW, if I am going to do Mch, which I may with an add on theater room for my house (1.5+yrs out), I am going to do it csero's way, with the focus on music, not movies. My wife and I watch a lot of indie and foreign films and frankly don't miss the whizzing bullets. But, audio in MCh can be a great benefit over 2Ch, but only if done wisely, which I feel that current formats don't do.

daveshel · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 01:08 am »

Marketing. Pure and simple.

The same thing that gets people to go for the 'theater experience' in the first place. It has never worked very well on me. They get you to go pay 8 bucks to sit in a big room with a bunch of obnoxious strangers. The sound is never very good, always painfully loud and I never did care much for the way it came at you from all around. I used to play with 4-channel Dynaquad, which was a more realistic effect than theater dolby surround. I even bought a sonic holigram generator 25 years ago and it was fun, but in the long run not worth having to fuss with placement and seating. My HT uses stacked Advents (on a 170EX), so I get the 'wall of sound' effect like theaters before surround sound. I love it.

ABEX · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 05:06 am »

I can live with less of a lot of things!

If I can have the best of all worlds then that wold be great also.

I want the best 2ch. I can get along with SS for Movies,but I can do without SACD and a few other things.

The thing which disturbs me the most in audio for TV is not getting the dialog.If that does not come through then what's the use?

I agree with another poster that action movies are more involving with SS.After AC-3 I really do not need the extra's,but I do not want to sacrifice 2ch. playback which I grew up with and which matters the most to me.

I have 2000+ LP's some of which are rare and 700+ CD's which are more convenient.

I am almost at the end of my electronic journey again and I will try to mix HT without losing the transparency for 2ch.. I tried before and got close,but was disatisfied with the HT portion. I have the speakers,but the electronics are the hard part.Especially the Pre-Amp section. I might try to have a By-Pass to keep it seperated like I tried before,but this time I'll use a active Pre.

That is the most difficult part I think and the most frustrating!

I hope I am satisfied wthout paying 1000's for the Processing and I'll make my own wires thank you. If one cannot make wires to satisfy their listening then it does cost.The only cable I don't make are the Digitals which sould not make to much of a difference I do not think after trying 3 to see which gives the best synergy.

I tried that a few yrs. ago and a few drove me crazy at low listneing levels for dialog. If I need to strain to hear dialog at low listening levels then I know I don't need them.

ANyway I just thought I'd rant as I don't post much any longer and the HT equation is one I am stuck with at the moment.

GL & happy listening!

cdorval1 · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 05:43 am »

I had a NAD 5.1 HT receiver and surround sound for a few years. It was OK but didn't sound particularly great. Now I have a very simple and very good-sounding and intelligible 2-ch setup with our HD plasma set, and it's delightful. It just sounds much better.

My question is this. Why have we beecome so enamored of imaginary 3-D sound to go with our 2-D movies? Why is it so cool to hear doors closing behind us when all the visual is on a 2-D screen in front of us? I find the random. extraneous noise and sound effects from the rear speakers (and my system was carefully balanced and set up) to be distracting at best, and stupid at worst. The same noise and sound effects from 2 front speakers sounds better and makes more sense.

I much prefer an excellent, simple 2-channel system for home-theatre audio. I'll likely feel differently when I'm part of a 3-D holographic projection in my TV room.

ctviggen · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 02:43 pm »

I don't know, I could never go back to 2 channel for movies. I just couldn't. Compare The Matrix in 2 channel with 5 channel. There's really no comparison -- 5 channel is so much better.

And, I'm beginning to think that Frank (csero) is right about 2 channel music -- it's a large compromise. I do think, though, that 5 or 6 channel music where they place sounds around you that shouldn't be around you is strange. Now, where they add sounds to the rear channels, like crowds or reverb or the like makes me feel more like I'm actually there.