Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Video Asylum

Re: Impressions of Surround Sound...

203.21.246.219

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Video Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

John C. - Aussie

In Reply to: Impressions of Surround Sound... posted by Estes on December 29, 2001 at 17:37:10:

It is good to read you have the SH500 set up satisfactorily. I tried a used one a couple of years ago. It was faulty so went back for repair (bought from a dealer) but I never could coax good sound from it :-(
To answer your question re surround sound - yes it can be great. However IMO DD 5.1 is over rated and Dolby Pro logic can be just about as effective. I have not decoded DTS so cannot comment on that.
I fully agree re the importance of the sub but disagree re the centre channel. For some time I regarded it as redundant but now concede that properly set up it is very important as a huge amount of energy goes through it. My observations -
* the centre channel speaker(s) must match the characteristics of the stereo pair or the sound will be disjointed and odd
* if anything, the centre channel must have a little more power reserve than the stereo amps as so much speech, action etc comes through them
Surround sound not only increases enjoyment of movies but can be used judiciously to enhance a few 2 ch recordings although not all processors can do this satisfactorily. Surround sound also increases the musical illusion on DVDs & LDs with music content - ballets, concerts, operas etc. One of these days I'll dabble in surround hi rez audio but am still fence sitting at the moment.
John

Peace at AA

Follow Ups:

Re: Impressions of Surround Sound... - Estes 12:35:26 12/31/01 (5)
My impression is properly set up stereo speakers do just a good if not better job than the centre speaker. When I switch to stereo mode, the soundstage is greater and the voices are clearer than with the centre only. Plus you are still left with the impression the voices are coming from the TV.
I am coming to HT from stereo. My stereo setup is well balanced and adding HT was done as inexpensively as possible. There may be more if I had better centre and surround speakers, but the cost is more than I am willing to spend. Music still sounds better in 2 channel. At the same time I don't have the quality of setup that you do John. You have obviously spent a lot of time and money getting everything just right. I find that movies at home are still an inferior experience to what you get in a top rate movie theatre.
- Even with the SH500, I best the movie theaters - bstan 12:47:45 12/31/01 (4)
  Estes,
  Center channel speaker quality is an issue, but see my other response to your setup and calibration issues.
  I'm able to get outstanding sound from my HT (with the SH500) that bests any local movie theater I go to, even an IMAX theater I was in recently.
  So don't sell your system short just yet, try some actual calibration efforts and then let us know how it went.
  bstan
  - Re: Even with the SH500, I best the movie theaters - Estes 18:27:21 12/31/01 (3)
    You didn't like the IMAX?!?! Aside from the picture quality that kills ANY home theatre setup, I have found the sound to be better than the typical movie house. Heck the best Rolling Stones concert I have been too was in an Imax theatre ;-)
    That said, I have been to movie theatres in numerous cities and I have found great variability. At their very best the movie palaces of old with 70mm screens are truly wonderful. Unfortunately few of those remain and their numbers are decreasing.
    - Sound vs. Video - bstan 08:07:10 01/01/02 (2)
      Agreed, picture quality was outstanding at all three IMAX theaters I've been to.
      The San Jose IMAX does not have good sound, the Luxor in Las Vegas does have great sound (picture and ambience are the best I've ever experienced), and all the theaters I've been to in Silicon Valley have terrible sound.
      An interesting aside, the Luxor's IMAX has automated metal seat bars that lock you in your seat, because they don't want the realism to knock you out of your seat.
      No matter the format, DD5.1 or DTS, I find most theaters just don't get the calibration right and/or play the volume at really extreme levels (depends on how crowded the theater is).
      bstan
      - I do listen close to reference volume - bstan 08:33:12 01/01/02 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Sound vs. Video posted by bstan on January 01, 2002 at 08:07:10:
        
        When viewing many DVDs, I have my volume set somewhere between -6dB and 0dB for the level of sound I'm projecting into my listening environment, a medium-large room (19' x13' x8-12').
        I didn't want you to think I don't appreciate what the director has produced. Some movies also supply higher quality sound (less soundstage voiceovers) and actually sound more fluid.
        bstan
        
        Re: I do listen close to reference volume - Estes 15:35:32 01/01/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I do listen close to reference volume posted by bstan on January 01, 2002 at 08:33:12:
        
        Hi bstan: Hope you are having a happy New Year! Yes sound quality does vary alot as does the picture quality. I have had similar experiences as yours in Imax theatres. I find that I complain a lot more than I used to of out of focus movies, etc. The same applies to the mastering process for DVDs, some are so poor you can hardly hear what is being said or are very fuzzy. Levels are all over the map. Yet there is some great stuff that I can watch dozens of times (Rio Bravo and Run Silent, Run Deep come to mind). Both were done before fancy electronics took over. Simplier is sometimes better.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.