 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.22.5.245
"theater" room and have been content with the sound from dvds.
We want to get a Blu-ray player: is multi-channel playback really as satisfying (or moreso) and how many speakers then would be the minimum amount needed for multi-channel satisfaction?
Follow Ups:
Very satisfying when playing the kinds of movies that are geared to surround effects. If you don't watch that kind of movie as a rule, a good two-channel system can be plenty satisfying, I have found. For older movies, the multi-channel mix is sometimes more annoying than it is revealing, since there is very little one can do with dialogue and an occasional song to make it surround you.
If you watch a lot of newer, action-oriented movies, then an MC system can't be beat. But if I already had a system in place, I wouldn't buy all the additional equipment just to hear great surround on a few movies, unless I spent a lot of time showing off my system to visitors.
I've had both 5.1 and 2.1 and I'm currently saving pennies in prep for a move so down to just stereo. Hope to go back to surround after the move. Even stereo is a huge improvement over TV speakers. 3.1 is very nice for small spaces, but surround sound is where it's at if the room and wallet are big enough. As a 2 channel stero person, I was also surprised how much I enjoyed concerts and opera in surround. (Kal is right.)
If you have a room large enough, 5.1 is wondeful for immersive soundscapes on many movie soundtracks. You need to take the time for proper settings and balance, but careful positioning and level setting will pay huge dividends. This won't make any difference for a lot of the classic, indie and foreign films you like, but on films where the soundscpae is important it is significantly better.
You don't have to spend HUGE bucks. Like anything in audio, sky's the limit, but it's more important to get the same or matching speakers IMO for multi-channel than spend the max bucks. It's also possible to start with a 3.1 set-up and add to it, as long as you buy same/compatible speakers. I wouldn't mix brands myself. Kal has written lots on this, look-up his columns and articles on teh internet.
I bought all my gear used or demo and couldn't have been happier. My original set up consisted of 5 Nola Minis and a Nola Thuderbolt sub ($700 used and awesome for music as well as movies) with an Arcam AVR300 which was great on both music and movies. I've tried the Denons and other brand name AVRs and quite honestly couldn't stand the sonics on any of them for music listening, especially as I did use the HT rig for opera/concert DVDs as well as some music listening. For me, I'd stick with the audiophile brands like Arcam, Cary, Rotel, Anthem et all for electronics. I think the Oppos are huge bang for the buck as BD players. There aer lots of decent speakers and used/demo is a great way to go.
I was reading about a poster here using a ht pre amp & an amp.so I went to ebay to see one.never saw one before.a store has a marantz store demo.retails for $5000 maybe it will sell for half.It might be sold already.marantz did not have a decent pictue of the back of the pre amp.it was different with a choice of balanced or single ended ends that went to each amp on the amp.
dvd audio & multichannel sacds rule
Our new digs will have a largish room so I'll probably go, in the future, with surround/sub. Again, thanks for taking the time to school a tech slug.
it depends on the bd disc.some are 2 channel 5.1 6.1 & 7.1if you want to do it on the cheap go with hd d.d & dts mastering.if you want to use the old amp & have the inputs cd, aux,ect will work with the speakers you will have to find an amp with pre outs.I dont think the new ones have pre outs & the older one dont do the hd mastering.just options to think about.even if they have one the amp will be expensive because the price is based on the features on the back.im using the older ht 6.1 amp with preouts to a stereo.cant comment on the newer amps if they sound better cause I dont have one.regerdess of what you do it will sound & look better than dvd.I use the older onkyo ht that were made for dvd audio.they will convert the digital audio to the analog pre outs
dvd audio & multichannel sacds rule
and finally switching to a 5.1 set up about 10 years ago with our first dvd player, I can say with no doubt whatsoever that MCh is the way to go. Beta Hi Fi was a great platform for recording and playing back music instereo but with movies there's no comparison, stereo vis a vis Mch..
Just make sure you get a decent center channel speaker (the one area I want to, make that, need to, upgrade.) A couple or three grand will get ya going real nice like.
I went from 5.1 back to stereo. My room was just too small. You need the speakers to be roughly equidistant. I couldn't get the rear speakers more than 3 feet back.Basically I agree with what David said. Well done, a surround sound can you give an audio experience few have ever head in a theater. But as is always the case, it ain't cheap. And you have to deal with room acoustics.
Most people that do this, including myself have a system for a while before they realise what the story is. Subs, real subs, are real expensive,
can get involved in difficult (and occasionally expensive to treat) accoustical problems. But when working right, wow. paradigm makes a nice sub, but it's over 2K now. Hsu makes a nice one under 2K.The second thing to care about is the center channel speaker. Better to stick with stereo than buy more speakers wit the same dough and have them
be mediocre. So after you find a center channel youlike (read expensive) guess how much his brothers cost. Yup.Third, you have to watch the room size. You don't want the speakers to call attention to themselves, and if things are crowded, they will. I'd get the smaller number if there was a question.
Fourth, there are over a hundred details to get right. I had a pro install it, and I was very glad I did. Have them get you a decent cheap remote (not sure but they were 300-500 last time I looked) and have them
do the basic setup.
Edits: 12/26/09
I watch a lot of action/sci-fi movies though. For most dramas/comedies/etc. all the sound is in the front plane anyway, regardless of the recorded format. Heck, one dts-HD MA 7.1 BD I have has ALL the sound in the front center speaker LOL (admittedly an older title and originally in mono).
I would not go to much trouble to go past 5.1 though, unless you have a large room, and also if the sitting position is well ahead of where the back speakers would be mounted (7.1) i.e. back speakers not much use if viewing couch is essentially against the back wall.
So I would say the sub and the two surround speakers will likely get you the most bang. The center speaker has to be quite good to really make it worthwhile IMO/E, otherwise good quality front L/R can handle the center stuff (a helluva lot of the content) better probably. A crappy center just ruins it, use the good stereo speakers until you're ready to make the leap.
First I don't have an HT room, the TV is in the lounge, but my games with the TV over the last few years may shed some light on one person's view on your question.
Several years ago I added a stereo system to the TV and thought the sound got considerably better than the TV's own speakers. Some time after that I upgraded the 2 channel receiver I was using to a Denon 7.1 channel receiver in order to get the Audyssey room EQ feature, something that certainly made a difference in the rather reflective living room the TV is located in. I moved my sub from the audio system to the TV system and started running 2.1 sound. Having the surround sound capability led me to experiment with adding a spare pair of speakers in as side surrounds over Christmas a couple of years ago. This was only intended as a fun thing to do for a few days over the Christmas break since the right surround speaker went right in the middle of the "traffic path" for walking to the hallway to the rest of the house.
I was surprised at how much more enjoyment I got from the surrounds so they actually ended up becoming permanent and were followed at various stages by a centre and a single rear surround to make it a 6.1 system which I found quite impressive since all of the speakers were basically capable of full range sound down to 40 Hz or below.
Starting around the middle of this year I've started removing speakers. The first to go was the rear surround, dropping back to 5.1. That made a very small difference. The next to go were the side surrounds, dropping things back to 3.1. That made a bigger difference but not as big a difference as I expected it to make. 3.1 still gives you a very good movie experience with a lot of movies. I find the absence of the surrounds more noticeable on action movies which tend to use the surrounds in order to immerse you in the middle of the sound effects which can be quite involving. I actually spent quite a bit of time deciding whether or not to remove the side surrounds but in the end I did so simply to avoid the problem I had with the right surround in the middle of the "traffic path" because I'd gotten tired of having to walk around it every time I moved from the front of the house to the back of the house. If I'd had the system in a separate HT room, the surrounds would still be there.
I really enjoy surround sound and that surprised me when I first added the 2 surround speakers for a fun experiment. I hadn't expected to get such a kick from them or to end up wanting to keep them but I did. Given the real kick I got from adding them, I've been a little surprised that I've been not too put out by their loss.
If I had the TV setup in a separate room, I would certainly go 5.1 again in a flash, no doubt about it. The big problem with surround from my perspective is simply that it takes a lot of space to set up well and that's a problem if you're trying to do it in an open plan living room as I was, but if you have a HT room with the space, then I'd say go for it, especially if you enjoy action movies. They may certainly not be high art but they can be incredible fun with a good surround setup.
On the other hand, if you don't have the space, a good quality stereo system can be extremely enjoyable. In my view there are advantages to using a surround receiver with a stereo system because you can then use a sub and make the most of the LFE channel in the soundtrack and I think that adding a centre speaker is also an advantage because it helps with the clarity of dialog plus ties the voices to their apparent on-screen source a bit better than stereo does so I think 3.1 is better than 2.1 or straight 2.0 stereo.
So bottom line for me is that I think surround is great if you have the space and I'd go back there in a hurry if I did, given my taste in movies which tends towards the action and sci-fi side of things. If my taste were mainly vintage classics from the 60's and earlier with stereo or mono soundtracks only, I'd probably prefer stereo. If you don't have the space or you simply have a desire for simplicity, then going the best quality stereo you can do can be very satisfying.
David Aiken
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
