Home Theater, Who Needs It?

csero · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 02:57 pm »

Surround sound shouldn't be about placing sounds around you, but about the "easyness" of listening. It should liberate you from the listening window drawn by the speakers, from the effects of room acoustics and gives you back the impact, which is lost in 2 channel. And that "unmasking" is definitely there too.

IMHO 5.1 is not surround sound, but multichannel mono.

MikeL · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 11:15 pm »

I just can't imagine watching movies again in 2.0. I have not been to a theather in years and probably due to the fact that I have spent so much in HT stuff for home that its much better at home than at the theater. Plus you can pause to take a potty break. This becomes more important the older you get.. haha. Anyway the real purpose of all the extra speakers if you have them calibrated and set up right is not to be able to distinguish where the sound is coming from. It should envelope the room highs and lows.
Mike

alpha_03 · « **Reply #22 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 12:46 am »

Heh, listen to properly recorded 5.1 (or greater) on a Hi SPL HT system and you'll be very impressed.

I have a Pioneer Elite Wide Screen in my HT room and no, I could never go back to two channel audio for MOVIES, however, music is a different story.

When the speakers are correctly placed and the processor is correctly adjusted, 5.1 is the deal of the day for movies IMHO. Sadly, many "hi-end" speaker companies jumped on board with low spl components and it just sounds awful, movie sound has to be dynamic, and the center channel is all important, use two if you can- top and bottom of your screen- - it anchors the system, and the veiwer, to the screen- where the action is happening- NOT to speakers that should disappear and bring NO attention to themselves.

But, as with anything associated with HollyWood, it is all about the "effect".

A HT system done wrong will sound like garbage, but done correctly, it will simply amaze you, and leave you wondering- what if I.......?

Woodsea · « **Reply #23 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 01:29 am »

Try listening to the Dark Side of the Moon in stereo after hearing it in SACD Mch. Just like the Blue Man Group, it sounds, by far, superior. Movies without ambiant sound is like me turning off my projector and watching on my direct view 20 inch TV.
Now for regular music, I do the H/K's ability to play Dolby 3, which I find better for listening with children. The bigger the sweet spot the better. Plus more is better, right?!
Admittantly I do not find much if any time to play music just by myself.

WEEZ · « **Reply #24 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 03:58 am »

(away from my computer for a few days and just catching up....)

I'm with Frank- I am not impressed with multi-channel for music. Not even for movies, so much, with one possible exception: dialog.

The center channel is what I feel I need for movies to 'center' the dialog better, and 'tie it to the screen'.

I'm an analog, two channel, die hard old fart who likes my music coming from the 'front'- just like when I listen to a live performance...but that's just me

WEEZ

avadoro · « **Reply #25 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 11:23 am »

Quote from: cdorval1

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?

Not a very hard question: just the same reason for which you can't see anything behind you, while you can easily hear noises from behind. We have pairs of eyes and ears, but they are placed differently and work differently.

boead · « **Reply #26 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 02:07 am »

Quote from: WEEZ

(away from my computer for a few days and just catching up....)

I'm with Frank- I am not impressed with multi-channel for music. Not even for movies, so much, with one possible exception: dialog.

The center channel is what I feel I need for movies to 'center' the dialog better, and 'tie it to the screen'.

I'm an analog, two channel, die hard old fart who likes my music coming from the 'front'- just like when I listen to a live performance...but that's just me

WEEZ

Yeah well, I see it quite the opposite. Having 80% or more of the sound coming form a mono speaker in the center leads to many issues. The first being the quality of the center speaker. I’ve tried many different center speakers and found that they all sort of suck, that is ones under $1000. I used two KRK V8 studio monitors on pedestals behind the TV wired in mono and it was by far the best sounding ‘center’ setup I’ve tried. However, I find that two very good speakers that image well create a wonderful center dialog.
What can’t be done by a 2-channel system is the rear ‘special effects’ - they are essential for movies in my opinion.

I can give you endless examples. Thunder, cars screeching, bullets ricocheting, and endless ambient sounds that come from behind and move around the room. I’ve had many different HT systems and the two rear speakers are absolutely critical for true surround.

I’m reading hear from people about problems with setting up read speakers? I don’t get it. Hardly any music or dialog come from the rear, they are literally a 15% usage speaker and are easy to integrate into the room. They can be in the ceiling, behind you, to the sides, it’s almost irreverent. When they come in with an effect, its obvious and short lived but well worth it!

So in my opinion, the center speaker should or can go away. Its difficult enough to get the front sounding right, the investment in a center speaker and amp can be disregarded for better front left and right channels and a couple of decent rears. BTW: I prefer small powered speakers from manufacturers like KRK, JBL or M-Audio for the rear.

This is an old system I had. I don’t even live in this house any, this system sounded VERY good. The main amp is a vintage 1974 Sansui, a modern Pioneer AV Receiver and a Pioneer Progressive DVD.

This is more recent and unfinished System. The KRK’s have been made L/R Front channels, they just sound great for both movies and music although a little too revealing at times. Center (when used) are two M-Audio SP5’s in mono, rears haven’t been placed yet. I also have two M-Audio subs. Hardware consist of a Denon DVD-2900, a Sony Studio VHS deck, a Pioneer A/V receiver, HiDef is from a Scientific Atlantic box from Cable Vision and the TV is a HiDef Sony XBR.
This system is better at audio then the one above, although none compare to my 2-channel system. The Two front speakers can absolutely replace a center and I think that’s the way I’m going but the rears will stay!

Woodsea · « **Reply #27 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 03:57 am »

I have another chair in the front row, and the side speakers are mounted on the walls. The center channel is great, and I miss it when tested.

Watson · « **Reply #28 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 04:21 am »

Woodsea, I can see why you get such an improvement from a center speaker. Your front speakers are quite far apart relative to the distance between your listening position and the TV. That looks like almost a 75 degree angle to the speakers. I've found that only rarely can I get stereo setups to sound good with more than a 60 degree angle.

boead · « **Reply #29 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 01:03 pm »

Yeas, I agree. The placement of the front speakers is not prime for creating a focused soundstage. Personally, I like no toe in at all (or maybe a smidgen) with the monitors about four to six feet apart. This is more for a near-field listening setup but that’s exactly what you have going on in the photo (btw: you need to fix the photo link, its not displaying).
But what you are doing is fine for a typical 5.1 setup since the majority of the sound is coming from the center. Your just relying on a large speaker to image a soundstage.

Aren’t the wrinkles in the screen visible in movies?

avahifi · « **Reply #30 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 03:27 pm »

All that money for multi channel home theater and all that god awful sound from it.

My home theater setup is a Sony Wega direct view CRT type hi-def top of the line tv with its variable audio outputs driving an Ultimate 70 tube amplifier and a pair of Biro L/1 speakers and an old B&W Acustitune passibe subwoofer tucked away in the corner. The Sony built in speakers are turned off of course.

The TV sound is simply stupendious. Background music plays floating in space, you can easily understand all the words, it fills the room, and the crash boom stuff plays like real crashes and booms, not the horrible ill defined mud of all surround sound noise systems I have ever heard.

The system is relatively inexpensive, and simple to use, and works great. I have not fallen for the marketing of surround sound. I like the music too much.

By the way the Van Alstine definition of Marketing is as follows:

Marketing: Using fraud and deception to sell crud to fools.

Frank Van Alstine

skrivis · « **Reply #31 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 05:13 pm »

Quote from: avahifi

All that money for multi channel home theater and all that god awful sound from it.

My home theater setup is a Sony Wega direct view CRT type hi-def top of the line tv with its variable audio outputs driving an Ultimate 70 tube amplifier and a pair of Biro L/1 speakers and an old B&W Acustitune passibe subwoofer tucked away in the corner. The Sony built in speakers are turned off of course.

The TV sound is simply stupendious. Background music plays floating in space, you can easily understand all th ...

It would be interesting to know what this system would be like with an added pair of L/1's and amp for rear channel. It wouldn't likely be any more accurate, but special effects aren't about accuracy anyway.

Hmmm... how about one of those throne shakers?

http://www.sensaphonics.com/products/shaker.html

boead · « **Reply #32 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 10:59 pm »

Quote from: avahifi

The TV sound is simply stupendious. Background music plays floating in space, you can easily understand all the words, it fills the room, and the crash boom stuff plays like real crashes and booms, not the horrible ill defined mud of all surround sound noise systems I have ever heard. ...

Well Frank, I’m not going to argue with you but maybe you haven’t heard good surround. Maybe you have only heard consumer grade crap sold at Best Buy.
Maybe I’m wrong but the point is that quality surround is wonderful.

I’ve setup my Sony XBR in the same way that you described and it was ok, nothing all that great. Actually it had a lower amount of detail and transparency then what is acceptable to me, the sound is thin and somewhat lifeless in comparison. The TV’s output isn’t all that good and my XBR has the ‘better’ quality audio section compared to other Sony models. I can see that maybe your amp is making the TV’s output sound as good as it can and its likely better then most consumer amps. This is what you are saying and I won’t argue that but making a blanket statement about surround being horrible compared to your setup isn’t very fair.

The KRK V8 monitors I use are staple mastering monitors used in professional studios across the country and are highly regarded for their accuracy, like I said they may be a little too accurate for home use, research KRKsys.com and make your own opinion.

The Pioneer AV receiver is a decent piece, not too expensive and not all that great compared to your T7 preamp but leaps and bounds better then your Sony TV!

The little M-Audio monitors are fine for ambient rear sounds and are self powered. I made my own cables with some decent Belden wires and Switchcraft connectors, they work well. The speakers are relatively cheap at about $200.

So what I am saying is that the quality of sound and presentation I am getting is far better then using the TV as a preamp, the very same TV you are using. You can say that my powered KRK speakers suck and or the Pionner amp and old Energy speakers as in the first photo I posted. You maybe right about the Pioneer compared to the Dynaco but the KRKs are wonderful and benefit greatly from the Pioneer preamp, again its many times better then the TV.

You know Frank, not everyone is selling snake oil. Are you? Your speakers, your amp makes an average TV sound like the best and everything else is just horrible?

skrivis · « **Reply #33 on:** 31 Jan 2006, 01:35 am »

Quote from: boead

Well Frank, I’m not going to argue with you but maybe you haven’t heard good surround. Maybe you have only heard consumer grade crap sold at Best Buy.
Maybe I’m wrong but the point is that quality surround is wonderful.

I’ve setup my Sony XBR in the same way that you described and it was ok, nothing all that great. Actually it had a lower amount of detail and transparency then what is acceptable to me, the sound is thin and somewhat lifeless in comparison. The TV’s output isn’t all that good and my XBR ...

The surround I've heard is basically SFX. It didn't seem to add much to the viewing experience 90% of the time. YMMV.

I guess the only problem I have with complex surround systems is that I suspect that a superlative stereo setup will be better than a good surround system. Given the extra money you need to spend for surround over stereo...

I may play with surround more in the future, but I'm pretty happy with what I have now.

woodsyi · « **Reply #34 on:** 31 Jan 2006, 02:02 am »

Quote from: avahifi

All that money for multi channel home theater and all that god awful sound from it.

I took the easy way out. I put together a modest 7.1 system for video using internet direct marketing deals. I put it together 2 years ago and it's staying put. It is good enough for movies and background music. I don't follow too much of what is happening in the HT front. I do my serious music enjoyment in a dedicated 2 channel room which is where all my attention and funds go to. With all the LPs and my preference for vinyl, I am just not going to go DSP multi channel for music.

warnerwh · « **Reply #35 on:** 31 Jan 2006, 05:40 am »

I agree with woodsyi, a home theater is not of much priority compared to my music. That's why we have a separate home theater system. And for movies it's just fine. I'm sure the whole thing cost less than my speakers in my main system. Having the boomy bass and surround speakers does help with movies though.

Theoretically a good pair of stereo speakers will sound better than 5 speakers you paid the same money for. Something I try to convince people of but I really should give up. Then again maybe people should quit asking me for advice.

Woodsea · « **Reply #36 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 01:37 am »

Stereo sounds great with toe-in, due to dynamics of the ribbons. I had the house to myself the other day, and listened to Peter Frampton 'Now' while reading. The placement of the soundstage was better in stereo. I just don't always get to have that happen to often. So the center channel is a must for full sound.
The wrinkles are really not to noticeable, when the film is engaging. I have a co-worker that has 'screen-go' I need to go over and check that out. I do want a bigger screen, and a bit brighter could never hurt.

boead · « **Reply #37 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 01:54 pm »

Quote from: Woodsea

Stereo sounds great with toe-in, due to dynamics of the ribbons. I had the house to myself the other day, and listened to Peter Frampton 'Now' while reading. The placement of the soundstage was better in stereo. I just don't always get to have that happen to often. So the center channel is a must for full sound.
The wrinkles are really not to noticeable, when the film is engaging. I have a co-worker that has 'screen-go' I need to go over and check that out. I do want a bigger screen, and a bit brighter could never hurt.

My current speakers have ribbon tweeters too. Dramatic toe in like you have shown, to me, usually results in a dramatic compression of the soundstage. Yes it might be more focused and defined but it’s usually smaller and your head placement in the room becomes more critical. The sweat spot is smaller. What you are basically doing is corner loading, this usually produces more bass that can be boomy. Obviously it’s a matter of preference. I’ve tried corner loading all different types of speakers and I have never liked it, even after some long duration.
Not saying what you are doing is wrong. There is no wrong, just different.

BTW: We use one of these in the office; http://www.da-lite.com/products/product.php?cID=9&pID=231

Woodsea · « **Reply #38 on:** 2 Feb 2006, 07:47 am »

I am a bit limited in my placement right now. Once I get back from India/Thailand, my new sub amp from John should be here. Then I can get rid of the rack on the right and bring in the right speaker as well as the left. I will leave the sub with its new plate in the corner.

budyog · « **Reply #39 on:** 2 Feb 2006, 09:51 pm »

I to a point also agree with Frank. First of all, I can't even afford all the 2 channel stuff I want let alone 5 or 7! But I have been to a couple of friends with OK 5 and 7 channel (and it seems they can only afford OK, but could put the same amount they spent towards a super 2 channel) anyway, to me it is hard to listen to. I don't like being in the middle of the band and hearing all the sound come around me. Things seems out of place. I like it like a concert, the band in front of me. Granted, the clapping on a live concert DVD is kinda cool coming from behind and around, but not worth it.
I like my wall of sound and it's funny how these friends never tell me, I should move to 5 or 7 channel when they are done watching a DVD concert at my home. They just leave saying, Woo, that was awsome!
Even movies are great. I just turn it up and believe me, I have a room full of surround sound!