Question:
Just bought some stands from a very reputable shop which sells A-V equipment from the likes of Monitor-Audio, Celestion, Tag-Maclaren, B&W, M&K etc. They've got 3 demo rooms, one of which demonstrate a pair of B&W Nautilus Signature stereo speakers worth £16,000 for the pair.
Anyway, got some inside gossip from one of the salesmen, quoting the boss as saying "home theatre is just a fad & surround sound is a pile of *****!". He believes that no multi-speaker sysytem can compete against high end stereo sound and that nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls which are designed to entertain crowds and thus use the sound systems developed for this purpose. He hates the stuff that's ordered in by his partner saying "move this f***in load of crap out the way"; he also won't allow any DV stuff in the Nautilus room! The salesman insists you need to spend around 100K to get a decent system as our homes are simply unsuitable for home cinema!
Hmmmm..... Blade DTS at home sounds good to me as well as Ronin with great rear effects. What do others make of this?
tell him 16 grand speakers are a fad..
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
Stick his headin one of his subs and turn it up to full, then play the SW:AOTC with the Seismic bombs
******
:D
Originally posted by sgecko
Just bought some stands from a very reputable shop which sells A-V equipment from the likes of Monitor-Audio, Celestion, Tag-Maclaren, B&W, M&K etc. They've got 3 demo rooms, one of which demonstrate a pair of B&W Nautilus Signature stereo speakers worth £16,000 for the pair.
Anyway, got some inside gossip from one of the salesmen, quoting the boss as saying "home theatre is the biggest fad I've ever seen" & home 5.1 etc. is "a pile of *****!". He believes that no multi-speaker sysytem can compete against high end stereo sound and that nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls which are designed to entertain crowds and thus use the sound systems developed for this purpose.
Hmmmm..... Blade DTS at home sounds good to me as well as Ronin with great rear effects. What do others make of this?
Puts on flame proof suit:
I kind of agree with the salesman.
DVD and home cinema is def. a fad. Its taken off more than anyone could have expected. The biggest fad I can think of before this was mobile phones. This is really good for an industry that has suffered with the decline in sales of cd's.
I also think that cheap systems don't sound as good as expensive ones. No-one who has an ear for music can say that the Nautilus speakers you mentioned sound worse than say a set of speakers found in Dixons. Although 16K is well overpriced but thats a different matter.
The problem that occurs in situations like this is that everyone has their own opinions of what sounds good and what sounds bad.
I only know one person that has his own cinema. By this I mean an extremely large room which has been soundproofed correctly and fitted out with Tag, Bryston and M & K stuff. It cost him over 100K and to be honest it does sound better than any cinema I've ever been to.
I will stand by the fact that most (not all) people blindfolded couldn't tell the difference between a decent DD compared to a DTS soundtrack in proper test conditions.
Its great to have 7:1 in films like I have but for a cd I would easily prefer a really decent stereo sound and I personally have a problem with the small speaker and sub set up that people think sounds good, when to me it doesn't.
It's been a long lasting fad.
How long do systems have to be selling to reach established status. There are way too many prospective sales of 5/6/7.1 gear to be had, far too much in the way of development costs by the system developers to be recouped and a whole DVD industry to satisfy for it to be a fad.
Tell him he's just bitter that Quadraphonic never took off.
Originally posted by dtsrules
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
True true
The sound in my living room is much richer, warmer and enveloping than in the cinema where the sounds appears to be lost in the high ceilings
Originally posted by Sima
Stick his headin one of his subs and turn it up to full, then play the SW:AOTC with the Seismic bombs
******
:D :clap: :lol: :clap: :lol:
Originally posted by dtsrules
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
I agree :) I've stopped going to the local UCI because the sound is terrible - way too loud and frequently distorted.
The Guardian ran an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,929078,00.html) recently and they got loads of letters from readers who'd stopped going to the cinema because of the noise levels.
I agree in fact I'm going to to get my Mono 4:3 screen and VHS player set back up........
I think if you have a decent enough TV and surround system you can recreate the cinema experiance to a level that justifies the price you have payed out.....At least at home you dont have to put up with people talking,throwing popcorn or Mobiles going off....plus you can pause when you have to **** :D
That moment when you come back into the cinema after having to go to the toilet and you realise that you don't know where you were sitting. :D
When I go to the cinema (very rarely - just for stuff I really want to see like Star Wars or LOTR) I find the picture rather blurry and the sound to have so much mid-high range boost that I end up with a headache. Whereas at home I can watch films all day at a reasonably loud volume (loud enough to get a good effect but not too loud to upset the neighbours) with no fatigue at all.
You do get the "experience" when you go to the cinema, but you certainly don't get the best fidelity! And, as Mandrill says, you can't pause the film to go to the bog or get a drink/snack.
Originally posted by ljp
I also think that cheap systems don't sound as good as expensive ones. No ****, Sherlock..
:wave:
:lol:
If you think about it, compact casette was just a fad, as was VHS. Doesn't change the fact that they revolutionised the consumers experience during their lifetime. Future developements will enable picture and sound to rival anything he sells if the makers so wish, and I'll bet they will appear on his shelves and he will be singing a very different tune.
:D
Just watched Blade 2 on my 'cheap' Sony amp and Eltax 5.1 speakers and it sounds fantastic. This whole setup cost me £350. A guy in work spent £4,000 on the sound element of his cinema room in his converted attic and it sounds better than mine but there is a world of difference between the money spent. I also have 150 DVD's and he has 10 because he can't afford to buy any :lol:
The salesman is saying that my system is not a match on the high-end stereo systems he is selling. He is probably right but it is not meant to match. Some of us just don't have the luxuary of spending that kind of money on equipment. People spend within their means and no amount of snobbery will change that.
fad n.
A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
No doubt if you walked into this chap's shop 50 years ago you he would have told you that "stereo is the biggest fad I've ever seen". :D
By this definition above, though, at the moment you can't say that he's wrong: DVD is new and has had the fastest uptake of any new format ever. What neither he nor anyone else can tell for sure is whether or not this is going to last. But... given that most of the major Japanese manufacturers have all but given up producing stereo equipment - certainly none are investing any more R&D in it - I would suggest that it's "home theatre" that has the long-term future, not "stereo".
I've little doubt that 5 years from this chap's shop will be filled with high-end multi-channel SACD/DVD-A gear and he'll be telling his customers that "{insert latest popular tech. here** is the biggest fad I've ever seen". ;)
Interesting subject, I agree that stereo is far better but only for music, If I were purely into music I'd have a stereo setup only, but since I'm into movies too I have a 6.1 set-up that can do stereo when I want it to.
If I'd spent the same amount of cash on just a stereo system, its stereo performance would be far better than what I get from my AV system. In that sense the guy is right.
The "fad" thing is open to interpretation in this context though I think. To my mind you can draw a line in the sand here between Moe & Joe Tesco buying an all-in-one sub/sat AV package because "it makes noises behind me" and the movie enthusiast who builds and maintains his own system beacuse he enjoys experiencing his movies as they were meant to be heard. if 5.1 is a fad then so is cinema!
Oh and I've never been in any cinema that sounds better than my system, and mines only medium price band. Surround sound will always be a part of the movie experience, and home systems will always emulate that, so I can confidently say that its not a fad :thumbs:
You agree that stereo is better for music?
But have you actually heard full surround DVD-A or SACD?
Why is surround better for movies, but not for music? There is a fascinating article on this very topic in the latest Record Collector magazine.
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
You agree that stereo is better for music?
But have you actually heard full surround DVD-A or SACD?
No I have not heard DVDA or SACD but I have heard mutli-channel music and I dont like the surround effect. I prefer a very good stereo soundstage. Hence, I agree that stereo is better for music. Duh!
'£1000 stereo HiFi' versus '£1000 AV system with DVDA'? I'll take the Pepsi challenge any old day 'o the week :thumbs: Remember that pound for pound, you can get FAR higher quality stereo equipment for your money.
Yeah I'm sure one day surround music will be the norm, but for me....now....I prefer stereo. OK?
Pound for pound, a pure stereo system will always be better than a jack of all trades system, of course.
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
I merely judge on my current player (a 400 pound Pioneer). I am currently sharing a flat with a classical music buff and composer, who knows a great deal about music.
When i played him my DVD-A's and SACD's, he was amazed. He was sceptical about the benefits of surround sound, but he was truely amazed by what he heard, and resolved to buy a system as soon as he got back to America.
I wonder how much a good stereo soundstage is down to conditioning???
Did everyone bemoan the death of mono when stereo came around.
IMO my SACD's and DTS surround discs are far preferable.
Originally posted by CLH
I wonder how much a good stereo soundstage is down to conditioning???
Did everyone bemoan the death of mono when stereo came around.
IMO my SACD's and DTS surround discs are far preferable.
I would probably agree with that, I would expect a well mixed surround disc to be a better experience than a stereo recording, however I think maybe the point that was being made was more about people who get a surround system then play their standard CD's back in Pro-Logic or something!
Interesting topic this. I dont have that great a set up but listening to a movie in dts or good 5.1 is similar to me as being at the movies. Some cinemas especially.
Anyway i wonder if this shop would be saying home cinema is the best thing since television if people were not purchasing from him.
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
Thats not the point, I was saying that to a certain extent I agree with the shop owner guy.
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
Pound for pound, a pure stereo system will always be better than a jack of all trades system, of course.
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
Those two comments kinda contradict each other dont they?
Originally posted by neilalford
I would probably agree with that, I would expect a well mixed surround disc to be a better experience than a stereo recording, however I think maybe the point that was being made was more about people who get a surround system then play their standard CD's back in Pro-Logic or something!
Indeed. In fact I was giving this some more thought. Surely a well mixed surround CD recreates more of what music needs to be or what muscial buffs strive for namely a "live" like experience.
DPL2 probably doesn't add a lot but SACD and DVDA through as many speakers as you can (and assuming its good kit) should recreate that live experience better than anything else!
I remember over 20 years ago a friend selling off his Linn Sondek LP12, Sugden Amp and ???? speakers and buying a huge valve amp, a single humungous concrete encased speaker, and an ancient 78rpm record desk - because he reckoned old mono 78s sounded better than "modern LPs"
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tips4tnt
[B]I agree :) I've stopped going to the local UCI because the sound is terrible - way too loud and frequently distorted.
wey-hey!
in my front room i know where my seat is, i can drink an ice cold can of beer and smoke what i want:norty: and when nature calls i dont have to climb over 30 people i dont know appoligising and miss 10 mins of the film.
i have a nice set up, didnt cost the earth. (4 figures)
fad or not, im not bothered. when you can buy a r1 dvd about the same time as it gets a uk release in the cinema for about the same price that it would cost for you & the misses to go and see it i refer back to my original point. i know where id rather watch a film.
Fad - look at the amount of DVD players being sold - it's about as far from a fad as you can get.
Aside from the fact that he clearly hasn't heard a good home system (and I think we've all heard plenty of rough sounding cinema systems) it sounds to me like the bitter whinings of a salesman not selling enough AV kit. I'd like to know what the likes of B&W and M&K think about his comments, and the same goes for his boss. Perhaps you could ring the owner and ask for his comments.
I've never really understood why "purists" (and I hate that word) believe good sound to be the exclusive domain of stereo.
By the way, when I said I'd heard muti-channel music, I didnt mean PLII, I mean Dolby 5.1 music DVDs. Of course DVDA improves fidelity wise but the principle of 5.1 music remains the same and I just dont like the effect.
Originally posted by Roy Munson
By the way, when I said I'd heard muti-channel music, I didnt mean PLII, I mean Dolby 5.1 music DVDs. Of course DVDA improves fidelity wise but the principle of 5.1 music remains the same and I just dont like the effect.
But do you enjoy concerts in classical venues? As long as the mix is correct why is 5.1 any different.
but Roy, DVD-A is what I was talking about.
A stereo mix on a DVD-A will far out perform a CD regardless of the surroun element.
And by the way, you don't need to keep replying to yourself. There is an edit button that you can use if you think of something to add later! ;)
Originally posted by CLH
But do you enjoy concerts in classical venues? As long as the mix is correct why is 5.1 any different. Do you sit <i>on</i> the stage, right in the middle of the band/orchestra when you go to a concert..?
With a 5.1 mix having intruments emanating from all round you is all very well, but it doesn't convey a realistic sense of <i>being there</i> at all (unless you're a conductor :dork: )..
EDIT - that's a lot of "all's".. :nuts:
Yes
I'm a conductor.
Originally posted by Radiohead
Yes
I'm a conductor. Now that's just untrue.. :nono:
Unless your talking about your shift on bus 53.. :nuts:
BLAST
Got there before me.
Damm you have to be quick around here.......
Originally posted by Bapapapa
Now that's just untrue.. :nono:
Unless your talking about your shift on bus 53.. :nuts:
Ding, ding, tickets pleez....
:lol:
A good ol' pointless opinion for my first thread, when I really should be finding out what systems you recommend. Anyway - the opinion:
I prefer stereo for music, as it's how I'd expect it to be live - performers in front of me - but not all standing within a foot of each other - that'd be mono - so I don't think people thought mono was better when stereo came along.
Whereas with movies, the director's often trying to make you feel like you're in the middle of something, not watching from afar - so surround sound is better.
Surround sound for home cinema is not about to go, so I don't think its a fad. Unless we're calling life on earth a fad.
Originally posted by Bapapapa
Do you sit <i>on</i> the stage, right in the middle of the band/orchestra when you go to a concert..?
With a 5.1 mix having intruments emanating from all round you is all very well, but it doesn't convey a realistic sense of <i>being there</i> at all (unless you're a conductor :dork: )..
EDIT - that's a lot of "all's".. :nuts:
Many venues are designed to envelop regardless of where you sit.
St Davids Hall in Cardiff is actually a central stage for example.
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Like I said as long as the mix is a good one surround will be more realistic.
Wow.... some explosive responses. Well I love surround sound & I think the shop owner's crazy! :lol:
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Any half decent "stereo" system should be able to project a "3D" audio image right across and beyond the front soundstage - if all you're hearing is stereo sound actually coming from both speakers then the system is either lint or not setup properly..
As Triggaaar said, I want the singer in front of me, the drummer behind him, etc.. I certainly don't want the lead guitarist strumming away over my right shoulder.. :|
Reverb just reminds me of those dodgy DSP settings.. :gag:
The Eagles DTS disc is pretty good because the surrounds are only used for the crowd noise. But instruments..? :nono:
Originally posted by sgecko
Wow.... some explosive responses. Well I love surround sound & I think the shop owner's crazy! :lol: I love surround sound too - for movies..
Surround music is a bit "faddy", IMO, but, I'd certainly welcome the higher resoultion SACD/DVD-A brings if there's a stereo mix included, though.. :dork:
Hey, even HDCD sounds fantastic.. :nuts:
Originally posted by Bapapapa
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Any half decent "stereo" system should be able to project a "3D" audio image right across and beyond the front soundstage - if all you're hearing is stereo sound actually coming from both speakers then the system is either lint or not setup properly..
As Triggaaar said, I want the singer in front of me, the drummer behind him, etc.. I certainly don't want the lead guitarist strumming away over my right shoulder.. :|
Reverb just reminds me of those dodgy DSP settings.. :gag:
The Eagles DTS disc is pretty good because the surrounds are only used for the crowd noise. But instruments..? :nono:
I'm not arguing that a stereo system is incapable of the job BUT if you were able to do a decent mix of SACD or DVD-Audio in surround using the same master as the stereo mix then the surround WILL be more realistic.
The Eagles one is a good example. I'm not advocating instrumental surround per se, crowd noise is an excellent addition to a live set.
Also I hate those DSP modes as much as the next man. What I'm advocating is proper hi fidelity surround which accurately recreates the ACTUAL sound of the venue it was recorded in.
Of course this applies less to studio albums rather than "live" albums but there is still scope. As I stated above our desire for stereo is probably more about conditioning and expectation and currently a not convinving bunch of surround sound recordings. As the technology progresses surround will take over from stereo.
EDIT: BTW I have no desire for the guitarist to be anywhere other than where he should be. What I'm saying is that I want the sound generally to recreate the environment.
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
A stereo mix on a DVD-A will far out perform a CD regardless of the surroun element.
Agreed, but its still relative to the rest of the stereo system. A high end stereo system will trounce an AV system running in stereo. The shop keeper seems to have the opinion that a bespoke stereo system is better for music and I happen to agree the that view. Note the use of the word 'system'
SACD in stereo running on a high end HiFi stereo = better than DVDA running stereo on a comaratively priced AV system. The argument over 5.1 music or stereo is moot since I've already said I agree that stereo is better for music. Ergo if I was to listen purely to music (in stereo - my choice) then I'd be better of with a bespoke HiFi stereo rig.
As technology improves i.e Radiohead and their travelling tent shenanigans, more and more bands will start using multi-channel sound. Cool as far as I'm concerned. This will surely challenge the notion that 2 channel music reproduction is superior. Bjork's Opera House completely challenged me with regards to how music should be played back and I generally buy music on vinyl. It all depends on your set-up. I'm sure Linn will do a multi-channel music system based on DVD-A that rocks and then old man in the hi-fi shop will think the Linn company has gone down the tubes.
Geez, you'd think the guy would be pleased he can now shift 6x £8000 B&W's instead of 2x ;)
-- Jon
Part of the issue for me is that a music surround system should ideally have 5 identical speakers, this is almost always not the case with conventional movie surround systems. For example, my movie system uses bipolar surround speakers - a definite no-no when it comes to muti-channel music, and the centre speaker, whilst a match for my main speakers, has a different tonal quality despite having the same tweeter.
For the record, I listen to my CDs in stereo through my AV set-up, largely because I watch movies as often as I listen to CDs, and I cant justify adding a stereo amplifier to the set-up. However, if I were purely into music and not movies, there would be no contest - I'd have a stereo only setup.
I'm not saying surround music is a bad thing, I just dont like what I've heard - frankly I dont want to feel like I'm sitting in the lead singers mouth, I wanna feel like he and his band are playing infront of me, and a fantastic stereo image can create more depth and width than many people probably realise.
Basically, what Babapapa said :thumbs:
fantastic stereo image can create more depth and width than many people probably realise.
That i would absolutely agree with.
However, two examples I could quote here, which I think are fantastic examples of the surround mix. Whether you agree or not, of course, is up to you - but I wonder how many people have heard the two examples I am going to quote:
[list=1]
Dark Side of the Moon
- The whole album in surround is just awesome, but one of the best bits is the ambient second track (I think), where the pulsing sound is literally going round the room in quicker and quicker circles. Believe me, when you are stoned it is awesome. Also, the way that you can hear voices constantly whispering - voices that were lost in the original mix now menacing you from behind.
Automatic for the People
- Believe me, no-one knows this album better than me, but when I hear it first on DVD-A I was hearing things in the mix that I had NEVER heard before. Now granted, some of this may have been due to the higher resolution, but the moment in "Everybody Hurts" where Michael is singing from the front, and harmonising beautifully with himself from the rears. It is just awesome. You hear a clarity in the voice that you have never heard before.
[/list=1]
This has been a fun read tonight
But hey we're all in this to have a fun time
and if your set up doesn't make you smile
what are you doing ??
from a £100 to £1000 we're all having a go
plus cinema sound may be great
but at home its only my sweets and beer cansthat make any noise not somebody else burps and farts !!!
Regarding the darkdisde of the moon SACD. The 5.1 is very good as well as the 2 channel version . But, the vinyl version is better.
It all depends on the equipment, there is no 2 channel is better than 5.1 channel (or vice versa) answer.
And to answer the 'did anyone support mono when stereo arrived' question: Brian Wilson mixed Pet Sounds down to mono from 16 track. (Mind you, apparently he's hard of hearing in one ear).
nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls.....surround sound is a pile of *****
I'm sorry but the guy sounds like a bit of a moron. No way that you can become the boss of a "very reputable shop which sells A-V equipment" and come out with rubbish like this. Sounds like the "salesman" who was quoting him was either trying to sell you some stereo equipment or was just talking balls.
The guy sounds like a complete jerk.
I am also not a great fan of home cinema but thier is no doubting that some home cinema systems give excellent "cinema type" sound effects.
In reality your average £500.00 system now gives pretty impressive sound. This blokes £20K system may sound slightly better but the only people who spend that kind of money on audio systems are those that have more money than sense.
People buy the kind of stuff that he is selling for vanity reasons (look how big and expensive my sub woofers are!) rather than sound quality.
Surround for movie watching is no way a fad. Once you here a movie on a system at home it completely changes the way in which you watch movies. I started out with a Xbox and bought and a surround amp and set of speakers. I was so amazed this really peeked my interest in Home Cinema and I upgraded my DVD player and just bought a nice new 36” TV.
True a multi channel can not do very good stereo, but with the rubbish available today I watch a lot more movies the listen to music so it is a none issue for me. Now the thought of going to the cinema does not appeal to me anymore especially with etailers like dvdsoon and play.
Sorry Double Post
zantarous, i agree my system started because i wanted to put my ps2 thru my tele, 3 months later...av amp, dvd player, surround speakers & big wide/flat tv etc.....
regarding the multi cannel music debate, my amp allows me to have 'multi channel stereo' which i dont really like. i prefer stereo thru my 2 floor standers as the floor standers just sound + recreate bigger noises better than say, the centre speaker and the rears.
if any body has got a copy of the mettalica S&M dvd please tell me what its like as i have the album but dont really want to fork out the 40 quid price tag but i would really like to hear a decent 5.1 music dvd
enjoy, may this thread go on for days.
Originally posted by nwgarratt
It all depends on the equipment, there is no 2 channel is better than 5.1 channel (or vice versa) answer.
Also, and in my humble opinion, what we hear is very much dependent on source material. In fact, I'd go as far to say that source material is the single most important factor to overall sound quality.
There are some very good (and very poor) 2 channel and multi channel mixes. Even if you use reference level hardware. It's very much a case of rubbish in, rubbish out.
Studio recordings in two channel can sound great. If mastered well, they will have an open and defined soundstage that has depth as well as width. Harry Conwick Jr's two channel SACD pressing is probably the best recording of anything I've ever heard.
In contrast, play a live recording in stereo with an audience of thousands and it just doesn't cut it. Yes, there is a stage, but the audience is up there with the band while you are sitting very much on your own.
In contrast, a well produced live multi channel recording can be an awsome experience. The soundstage can be breathtaking, you're sitting "with" the audience, while the ambience is just so real and spacious.
Notice I said "well produced" live multi channel recording.
I do not consider singers and instruments coming out of every crevice a good recording. Yes some are impressingly imposing (Roy Orbisons Black and White Nights DVD in DTS) but are very gimmicky and really not true to the events that took place.
In fact, the ratio of poor recordings to decent ones is very wide indeed.
Fleetwood Mac's Rumors in DVD-A is another poor example. The instruments, particularly Mick Fleetwoods percusion, sound just so dynamic and real they are a relevation. So whats wrong?
In a nutshell, vocal's (and anyone who has this recording please have another listen) sound like they are coming 50 yards behind the musicians. I get the feeling that I would have needed a telescope to see the singers if I were there. Just dreadful
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Harry Connick Jr's two channel SACD pressing is probably the best recording of anything I've ever heard. /adds to the shopping list..
Cheers for the heads up.
HC jr :notworthy
/makes mental note to get an SACD/DVD-A player/
Originally posted by Warren Alexander
Tell him he's just bitter that Quadraphonic never took off.
Ho HO HO.... true
however, he is right too in certain aspects of what he's said. imho.
I'm a hi-fi type nut, I love the fine sound given to me by a stunning recording well reproduced. DVD is home cinema fun. It's in yer face - it's hollywood for gods sake. But not to say it sounds *****. It clearly sounds good on a decent system with real speakers, but it's not designed to be high fidelity now is it?
I've got ruark fronts (part of hi fi ) ruark cnetre, rel sub, gale rears, yammy amp (centre - rears - sub) and exposure pre/power for the fronts (again part of hifi) and it does sound fu**ing great. But when listening to it as a stereo set up - it simply is sublime.
what's the term? dons flame suit...........
:norty:
Originally posted by mikeyace
Ho HO HO.... true
however, he is right too in certain aspects of what he's said. imho.
I'm a hi-fi type nut, I love the fine sound given to me by a stunning recording well reproduced. DVD is home cinema fun. It's in yer face - it's hollywood for gods sake. But not to say it sounds *****. It clearly sounds good on a decent system with real speakers, but it's not designed to be high fidelity now is it?
I've got ruark fronts (part of hi fi ) ruark cnetre, rel sub, gale rears, yammy amp (centre - rears - sub) and exposure pre/power for the fronts (again part of hifi) and it does sound fu**ing great. But when listening to it as a stereo set up - it simply is sublime.
what's the term? dons flame suit...........
:norty:
No flames from me - I've got a similar setup :
B&W 603 fronts (to stereo amp), CC6 Centre, Gale Rears,
NAD c370 Stereo amp, directly wired to source, Yam ht amp for centre, rears, sub - passing line out front channel to the NAD Aux in.
Stereo is, as you say, sublime, with great soundstaging and depth. Movies: it does the job fine and I ask no more of it.
Horses for courses - you can get a superb stereo system together for reasonable money, and a passable HT system, but to get a superb HT system, you are probably going beyond most people's budgets and space restrictions.
He's missing the point somewhat - even if a home setup doesn't sound as good as the cinema (which is debatable), having to play a recording isn't as good as having the performers in your living room. It's all about compromise and convenience...
Interesting thread guys!
IMHO a decent home cinema setup can match a good cinema setup in most cases. I did post about LOTR -TT not so long ago - went to my local UCI where they played it in digital stereo - it was crap.
Blade II at the UCI Trafford was a different beast altogether - I believe it was a the Sony digital surround and it was awesome.
Although, again IMHO, my own setup is more than a match - especially when I've only got a room a fraction of the size. My sub can perhaps do with an upgrade - YST SW320 - but apart from that, my Missions do a pretty good job.
Saying all of that, I agree with Roy and Baps in that a decent stereo setup can provide a momentous soundstage that a multi-channel setup would find hard to duplicate,
But for the fact that my preference is for home cinema than home music, I'd still have my analogue LP deck with Ion Obelisk amp and Royd speakers - perhaps a bit old hat by todays standards, but bloody good IMO.
Roger Waters sounded unbelievable when comparing to todays 5.1 soundstages. One particular track had a VW Beetle (could swear it was one of those) travelling left to right across the stereo soundstage - not only did it do so with consumate ease, it did so as though it were from behind me - (and my bedroom looked out on a road and that's where it sounded the car was travelling from)
I have amazing fond memories from my LP system - one day I'd like to re-instate a similar setup.
Originally posted by Teece
He's missing the point somewhat - even if a home setup doesn't sound as good as the cinema (which is debatable), having to play a recording isn't as good as having the performers in your living room. It's all about compromise and convenience...
top idea - allthough Pink Floyd refuse to play at my home, seems the lighting rig won't fit in the door ;) :D
Anyway, got some inside gossip from one of the salesmen, quoting the boss as saying "home theatre is just a fad & surround sound is a pile of *****!". He believes that no multi-speaker sysytem can compete against high end stereo sound and that nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls which are designed to entertain crowds and thus use the sound systems developed for this purpose. He hates the stuff that's ordered in by his partner saying "move this f***in load of crap out the way"; he also won't allow any DV stuff in the Nautilus room! The salesman insists you need to spend around 100K to get a decent system as our homes are simply unsuitable for home cinema!
Hmmmm..... Blade DTS at home sounds good to me as well as Ronin with great rear effects. What do others make of this?
Answers:
tell him 16 grand speakers are a fad..
Answers:
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
Answers:
Stick his headin one of his subs and turn it up to full, then play the SW:AOTC with the Seismic bombs
******
:D
Answers:
Originally posted by sgecko
Just bought some stands from a very reputable shop which sells A-V equipment from the likes of Monitor-Audio, Celestion, Tag-Maclaren, B&W, M&K etc. They've got 3 demo rooms, one of which demonstrate a pair of B&W Nautilus Signature stereo speakers worth £16,000 for the pair.
Anyway, got some inside gossip from one of the salesmen, quoting the boss as saying "home theatre is the biggest fad I've ever seen" & home 5.1 etc. is "a pile of *****!". He believes that no multi-speaker sysytem can compete against high end stereo sound and that nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls which are designed to entertain crowds and thus use the sound systems developed for this purpose.
Hmmmm..... Blade DTS at home sounds good to me as well as Ronin with great rear effects. What do others make of this?
Puts on flame proof suit:
I kind of agree with the salesman.
DVD and home cinema is def. a fad. Its taken off more than anyone could have expected. The biggest fad I can think of before this was mobile phones. This is really good for an industry that has suffered with the decline in sales of cd's.
I also think that cheap systems don't sound as good as expensive ones. No-one who has an ear for music can say that the Nautilus speakers you mentioned sound worse than say a set of speakers found in Dixons. Although 16K is well overpriced but thats a different matter.
The problem that occurs in situations like this is that everyone has their own opinions of what sounds good and what sounds bad.
I only know one person that has his own cinema. By this I mean an extremely large room which has been soundproofed correctly and fitted out with Tag, Bryston and M & K stuff. It cost him over 100K and to be honest it does sound better than any cinema I've ever been to.
I will stand by the fact that most (not all) people blindfolded couldn't tell the difference between a decent DD compared to a DTS soundtrack in proper test conditions.
Its great to have 7:1 in films like I have but for a cd I would easily prefer a really decent stereo sound and I personally have a problem with the small speaker and sub set up that people think sounds good, when to me it doesn't.
Answers:
It's been a long lasting fad.
How long do systems have to be selling to reach established status. There are way too many prospective sales of 5/6/7.1 gear to be had, far too much in the way of development costs by the system developers to be recouped and a whole DVD industry to satisfy for it to be a fad.
Answers:
Tell him he's just bitter that Quadraphonic never took off.
Answers:
Originally posted by dtsrules
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
True true
The sound in my living room is much richer, warmer and enveloping than in the cinema where the sounds appears to be lost in the high ceilings
Answers:
Originally posted by Sima
Stick his headin one of his subs and turn it up to full, then play the SW:AOTC with the Seismic bombs
******
:D :clap: :lol: :clap: :lol:
Answers:
Originally posted by dtsrules
LOTR sounds miles better on my system than it did when i went to the cinema.
I agree :) I've stopped going to the local UCI because the sound is terrible - way too loud and frequently distorted.
The Guardian ran an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,929078,00.html) recently and they got loads of letters from readers who'd stopped going to the cinema because of the noise levels.
Answers:
I agree in fact I'm going to to get my Mono 4:3 screen and VHS player set back up........
I think if you have a decent enough TV and surround system you can recreate the cinema experiance to a level that justifies the price you have payed out.....At least at home you dont have to put up with people talking,throwing popcorn or Mobiles going off....plus you can pause when you have to **** :D
Answers:
That moment when you come back into the cinema after having to go to the toilet and you realise that you don't know where you were sitting. :D
When I go to the cinema (very rarely - just for stuff I really want to see like Star Wars or LOTR) I find the picture rather blurry and the sound to have so much mid-high range boost that I end up with a headache. Whereas at home I can watch films all day at a reasonably loud volume (loud enough to get a good effect but not too loud to upset the neighbours) with no fatigue at all.
You do get the "experience" when you go to the cinema, but you certainly don't get the best fidelity! And, as Mandrill says, you can't pause the film to go to the bog or get a drink/snack.
Answers:
Originally posted by ljp
I also think that cheap systems don't sound as good as expensive ones. No ****, Sherlock..
:wave:
Answers:
:lol:
Answers:
If you think about it, compact casette was just a fad, as was VHS. Doesn't change the fact that they revolutionised the consumers experience during their lifetime. Future developements will enable picture and sound to rival anything he sells if the makers so wish, and I'll bet they will appear on his shelves and he will be singing a very different tune.
:D
Answers:
Just watched Blade 2 on my 'cheap' Sony amp and Eltax 5.1 speakers and it sounds fantastic. This whole setup cost me £350. A guy in work spent £4,000 on the sound element of his cinema room in his converted attic and it sounds better than mine but there is a world of difference between the money spent. I also have 150 DVD's and he has 10 because he can't afford to buy any :lol:
The salesman is saying that my system is not a match on the high-end stereo systems he is selling. He is probably right but it is not meant to match. Some of us just don't have the luxuary of spending that kind of money on equipment. People spend within their means and no amount of snobbery will change that.
Answers:
fad n.
A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
No doubt if you walked into this chap's shop 50 years ago you he would have told you that "stereo is the biggest fad I've ever seen". :D
By this definition above, though, at the moment you can't say that he's wrong: DVD is new and has had the fastest uptake of any new format ever. What neither he nor anyone else can tell for sure is whether or not this is going to last. But... given that most of the major Japanese manufacturers have all but given up producing stereo equipment - certainly none are investing any more R&D in it - I would suggest that it's "home theatre" that has the long-term future, not "stereo".
I've little doubt that 5 years from this chap's shop will be filled with high-end multi-channel SACD/DVD-A gear and he'll be telling his customers that "{insert latest popular tech. here** is the biggest fad I've ever seen". ;)
Answers:
Interesting subject, I agree that stereo is far better but only for music, If I were purely into music I'd have a stereo setup only, but since I'm into movies too I have a 6.1 set-up that can do stereo when I want it to.
If I'd spent the same amount of cash on just a stereo system, its stereo performance would be far better than what I get from my AV system. In that sense the guy is right.
The "fad" thing is open to interpretation in this context though I think. To my mind you can draw a line in the sand here between Moe & Joe Tesco buying an all-in-one sub/sat AV package because "it makes noises behind me" and the movie enthusiast who builds and maintains his own system beacuse he enjoys experiencing his movies as they were meant to be heard. if 5.1 is a fad then so is cinema!
Oh and I've never been in any cinema that sounds better than my system, and mines only medium price band. Surround sound will always be a part of the movie experience, and home systems will always emulate that, so I can confidently say that its not a fad :thumbs:
Answers:
You agree that stereo is better for music?
But have you actually heard full surround DVD-A or SACD?
Why is surround better for movies, but not for music? There is a fascinating article on this very topic in the latest Record Collector magazine.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
You agree that stereo is better for music?
But have you actually heard full surround DVD-A or SACD?
No I have not heard DVDA or SACD but I have heard mutli-channel music and I dont like the surround effect. I prefer a very good stereo soundstage. Hence, I agree that stereo is better for music. Duh!
'£1000 stereo HiFi' versus '£1000 AV system with DVDA'? I'll take the Pepsi challenge any old day 'o the week :thumbs: Remember that pound for pound, you can get FAR higher quality stereo equipment for your money.
Yeah I'm sure one day surround music will be the norm, but for me....now....I prefer stereo. OK?
Answers:
Pound for pound, a pure stereo system will always be better than a jack of all trades system, of course.
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
I merely judge on my current player (a 400 pound Pioneer). I am currently sharing a flat with a classical music buff and composer, who knows a great deal about music.
When i played him my DVD-A's and SACD's, he was amazed. He was sceptical about the benefits of surround sound, but he was truely amazed by what he heard, and resolved to buy a system as soon as he got back to America.
Answers:
I wonder how much a good stereo soundstage is down to conditioning???
Did everyone bemoan the death of mono when stereo came around.
IMO my SACD's and DTS surround discs are far preferable.
Answers:
Originally posted by CLH
I wonder how much a good stereo soundstage is down to conditioning???
Did everyone bemoan the death of mono when stereo came around.
IMO my SACD's and DTS surround discs are far preferable.
I would probably agree with that, I would expect a well mixed surround disc to be a better experience than a stereo recording, however I think maybe the point that was being made was more about people who get a surround system then play their standard CD's back in Pro-Logic or something!
Answers:
Interesting topic this. I dont have that great a set up but listening to a movie in dts or good 5.1 is similar to me as being at the movies. Some cinemas especially.
Anyway i wonder if this shop would be saying home cinema is the best thing since television if people were not purchasing from him.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
Thats not the point, I was saying that to a certain extent I agree with the shop owner guy.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
Pound for pound, a pure stereo system will always be better than a jack of all trades system, of course.
But most of us haven't got that kind of money to spend on a stereo system.
Those two comments kinda contradict each other dont they?
Answers:
Originally posted by neilalford
I would probably agree with that, I would expect a well mixed surround disc to be a better experience than a stereo recording, however I think maybe the point that was being made was more about people who get a surround system then play their standard CD's back in Pro-Logic or something!
Indeed. In fact I was giving this some more thought. Surely a well mixed surround CD recreates more of what music needs to be or what muscial buffs strive for namely a "live" like experience.
DPL2 probably doesn't add a lot but SACD and DVDA through as many speakers as you can (and assuming its good kit) should recreate that live experience better than anything else!
Answers:
I remember over 20 years ago a friend selling off his Linn Sondek LP12, Sugden Amp and ???? speakers and buying a huge valve amp, a single humungous concrete encased speaker, and an ancient 78rpm record desk - because he reckoned old mono 78s sounded better than "modern LPs"
Answers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tips4tnt
[B]I agree :) I've stopped going to the local UCI because the sound is terrible - way too loud and frequently distorted.
wey-hey!
in my front room i know where my seat is, i can drink an ice cold can of beer and smoke what i want:norty: and when nature calls i dont have to climb over 30 people i dont know appoligising and miss 10 mins of the film.
i have a nice set up, didnt cost the earth. (4 figures)
fad or not, im not bothered. when you can buy a r1 dvd about the same time as it gets a uk release in the cinema for about the same price that it would cost for you & the misses to go and see it i refer back to my original point. i know where id rather watch a film.
Answers:
Fad - look at the amount of DVD players being sold - it's about as far from a fad as you can get.
Aside from the fact that he clearly hasn't heard a good home system (and I think we've all heard plenty of rough sounding cinema systems) it sounds to me like the bitter whinings of a salesman not selling enough AV kit. I'd like to know what the likes of B&W and M&K think about his comments, and the same goes for his boss. Perhaps you could ring the owner and ask for his comments.
I've never really understood why "purists" (and I hate that word) believe good sound to be the exclusive domain of stereo.
Answers:
By the way, when I said I'd heard muti-channel music, I didnt mean PLII, I mean Dolby 5.1 music DVDs. Of course DVDA improves fidelity wise but the principle of 5.1 music remains the same and I just dont like the effect.
Answers:
Originally posted by Roy Munson
By the way, when I said I'd heard muti-channel music, I didnt mean PLII, I mean Dolby 5.1 music DVDs. Of course DVDA improves fidelity wise but the principle of 5.1 music remains the same and I just dont like the effect.
But do you enjoy concerts in classical venues? As long as the mix is correct why is 5.1 any different.
Answers:
but Roy, DVD-A is what I was talking about.
A stereo mix on a DVD-A will far out perform a CD regardless of the surroun element.
And by the way, you don't need to keep replying to yourself. There is an edit button that you can use if you think of something to add later! ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by CLH
But do you enjoy concerts in classical venues? As long as the mix is correct why is 5.1 any different. Do you sit <i>on</i> the stage, right in the middle of the band/orchestra when you go to a concert..?
With a 5.1 mix having intruments emanating from all round you is all very well, but it doesn't convey a realistic sense of <i>being there</i> at all (unless you're a conductor :dork: )..
EDIT - that's a lot of "all's".. :nuts:
Answers:
Yes
I'm a conductor.
Answers:
Originally posted by Radiohead
Yes
I'm a conductor. Now that's just untrue.. :nono:
Unless your talking about your shift on bus 53.. :nuts:
Answers:
BLAST
Got there before me.
Damm you have to be quick around here.......
Answers:
Originally posted by Bapapapa
Now that's just untrue.. :nono:
Unless your talking about your shift on bus 53.. :nuts:
Ding, ding, tickets pleez....
:lol:
Answers:
A good ol' pointless opinion for my first thread, when I really should be finding out what systems you recommend. Anyway - the opinion:
I prefer stereo for music, as it's how I'd expect it to be live - performers in front of me - but not all standing within a foot of each other - that'd be mono - so I don't think people thought mono was better when stereo came along.
Whereas with movies, the director's often trying to make you feel like you're in the middle of something, not watching from afar - so surround sound is better.
Surround sound for home cinema is not about to go, so I don't think its a fad. Unless we're calling life on earth a fad.
Answers:
Originally posted by Bapapapa
Do you sit <i>on</i> the stage, right in the middle of the band/orchestra when you go to a concert..?
With a 5.1 mix having intruments emanating from all round you is all very well, but it doesn't convey a realistic sense of <i>being there</i> at all (unless you're a conductor :dork: )..
EDIT - that's a lot of "all's".. :nuts:
Many venues are designed to envelop regardless of where you sit.
St Davids Hall in Cardiff is actually a central stage for example.
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Like I said as long as the mix is a good one surround will be more realistic.
Answers:
Wow.... some explosive responses. Well I love surround sound & I think the shop owner's crazy! :lol:
Answers:
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Any half decent "stereo" system should be able to project a "3D" audio image right across and beyond the front soundstage - if all you're hearing is stereo sound actually coming from both speakers then the system is either lint or not setup properly..
As Triggaaar said, I want the singer in front of me, the drummer behind him, etc.. I certainly don't want the lead guitarist strumming away over my right shoulder.. :|
Reverb just reminds me of those dodgy DSP settings.. :gag:
The Eagles DTS disc is pretty good because the surrounds are only used for the crowd noise. But instruments..? :nono:
Answers:
Originally posted by sgecko
Wow.... some explosive responses. Well I love surround sound & I think the shop owner's crazy! :lol: I love surround sound too - for movies..
Surround music is a bit "faddy", IMO, but, I'd certainly welcome the higher resoultion SACD/DVD-A brings if there's a stereo mix included, though.. :dork:
Hey, even HDCD sounds fantastic.. :nuts:
Answers:
Originally posted by Bapapapa
And regardless of where it is, as long as there is some acoustic reverberation it can never be stereo.
Any half decent "stereo" system should be able to project a "3D" audio image right across and beyond the front soundstage - if all you're hearing is stereo sound actually coming from both speakers then the system is either lint or not setup properly..
As Triggaaar said, I want the singer in front of me, the drummer behind him, etc.. I certainly don't want the lead guitarist strumming away over my right shoulder.. :|
Reverb just reminds me of those dodgy DSP settings.. :gag:
The Eagles DTS disc is pretty good because the surrounds are only used for the crowd noise. But instruments..? :nono:
I'm not arguing that a stereo system is incapable of the job BUT if you were able to do a decent mix of SACD or DVD-Audio in surround using the same master as the stereo mix then the surround WILL be more realistic.
The Eagles one is a good example. I'm not advocating instrumental surround per se, crowd noise is an excellent addition to a live set.
Also I hate those DSP modes as much as the next man. What I'm advocating is proper hi fidelity surround which accurately recreates the ACTUAL sound of the venue it was recorded in.
Of course this applies less to studio albums rather than "live" albums but there is still scope. As I stated above our desire for stereo is probably more about conditioning and expectation and currently a not convinving bunch of surround sound recordings. As the technology progresses surround will take over from stereo.
EDIT: BTW I have no desire for the guitarist to be anywhere other than where he should be. What I'm saying is that I want the sound generally to recreate the environment.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Sullivan
A stereo mix on a DVD-A will far out perform a CD regardless of the surroun element.
Agreed, but its still relative to the rest of the stereo system. A high end stereo system will trounce an AV system running in stereo. The shop keeper seems to have the opinion that a bespoke stereo system is better for music and I happen to agree the that view. Note the use of the word 'system'
SACD in stereo running on a high end HiFi stereo = better than DVDA running stereo on a comaratively priced AV system. The argument over 5.1 music or stereo is moot since I've already said I agree that stereo is better for music. Ergo if I was to listen purely to music (in stereo - my choice) then I'd be better of with a bespoke HiFi stereo rig.
Answers:
As technology improves i.e Radiohead and their travelling tent shenanigans, more and more bands will start using multi-channel sound. Cool as far as I'm concerned. This will surely challenge the notion that 2 channel music reproduction is superior. Bjork's Opera House completely challenged me with regards to how music should be played back and I generally buy music on vinyl. It all depends on your set-up. I'm sure Linn will do a multi-channel music system based on DVD-A that rocks and then old man in the hi-fi shop will think the Linn company has gone down the tubes.
Answers:
Geez, you'd think the guy would be pleased he can now shift 6x £8000 B&W's instead of 2x ;)
-- Jon
Answers:
Part of the issue for me is that a music surround system should ideally have 5 identical speakers, this is almost always not the case with conventional movie surround systems. For example, my movie system uses bipolar surround speakers - a definite no-no when it comes to muti-channel music, and the centre speaker, whilst a match for my main speakers, has a different tonal quality despite having the same tweeter.
For the record, I listen to my CDs in stereo through my AV set-up, largely because I watch movies as often as I listen to CDs, and I cant justify adding a stereo amplifier to the set-up. However, if I were purely into music and not movies, there would be no contest - I'd have a stereo only setup.
I'm not saying surround music is a bad thing, I just dont like what I've heard - frankly I dont want to feel like I'm sitting in the lead singers mouth, I wanna feel like he and his band are playing infront of me, and a fantastic stereo image can create more depth and width than many people probably realise.
Basically, what Babapapa said :thumbs:
Answers:
fantastic stereo image can create more depth and width than many people probably realise.
That i would absolutely agree with.
However, two examples I could quote here, which I think are fantastic examples of the surround mix. Whether you agree or not, of course, is up to you - but I wonder how many people have heard the two examples I am going to quote:
[list=1]
Dark Side of the Moon
- The whole album in surround is just awesome, but one of the best bits is the ambient second track (I think), where the pulsing sound is literally going round the room in quicker and quicker circles. Believe me, when you are stoned it is awesome. Also, the way that you can hear voices constantly whispering - voices that were lost in the original mix now menacing you from behind.
Automatic for the People
- Believe me, no-one knows this album better than me, but when I hear it first on DVD-A I was hearing things in the mix that I had NEVER heard before. Now granted, some of this may have been due to the higher resolution, but the moment in "Everybody Hurts" where Michael is singing from the front, and harmonising beautifully with himself from the rears. It is just awesome. You hear a clarity in the voice that you have never heard before.
[/list=1]
Answers:
This has been a fun read tonight
But hey we're all in this to have a fun time
and if your set up doesn't make you smile
what are you doing ??
from a £100 to £1000 we're all having a go
plus cinema sound may be great
but at home its only my sweets and beer cansthat make any noise not somebody else burps and farts !!!
Answers:
Regarding the darkdisde of the moon SACD. The 5.1 is very good as well as the 2 channel version . But, the vinyl version is better.
It all depends on the equipment, there is no 2 channel is better than 5.1 channel (or vice versa) answer.
Answers:
And to answer the 'did anyone support mono when stereo arrived' question: Brian Wilson mixed Pet Sounds down to mono from 16 track. (Mind you, apparently he's hard of hearing in one ear).
Answers:
nothing at home can re-create the same ambience of cinema halls.....surround sound is a pile of *****
I'm sorry but the guy sounds like a bit of a moron. No way that you can become the boss of a "very reputable shop which sells A-V equipment" and come out with rubbish like this. Sounds like the "salesman" who was quoting him was either trying to sell you some stereo equipment or was just talking balls.
Answers:
The guy sounds like a complete jerk.
I am also not a great fan of home cinema but thier is no doubting that some home cinema systems give excellent "cinema type" sound effects.
In reality your average £500.00 system now gives pretty impressive sound. This blokes £20K system may sound slightly better but the only people who spend that kind of money on audio systems are those that have more money than sense.
People buy the kind of stuff that he is selling for vanity reasons (look how big and expensive my sub woofers are!) rather than sound quality.
Answers:
Surround for movie watching is no way a fad. Once you here a movie on a system at home it completely changes the way in which you watch movies. I started out with a Xbox and bought and a surround amp and set of speakers. I was so amazed this really peeked my interest in Home Cinema and I upgraded my DVD player and just bought a nice new 36” TV.
True a multi channel can not do very good stereo, but with the rubbish available today I watch a lot more movies the listen to music so it is a none issue for me. Now the thought of going to the cinema does not appeal to me anymore especially with etailers like dvdsoon and play.
Answers:
Sorry Double Post
Answers:
zantarous, i agree my system started because i wanted to put my ps2 thru my tele, 3 months later...av amp, dvd player, surround speakers & big wide/flat tv etc.....
regarding the multi cannel music debate, my amp allows me to have 'multi channel stereo' which i dont really like. i prefer stereo thru my 2 floor standers as the floor standers just sound + recreate bigger noises better than say, the centre speaker and the rears.
if any body has got a copy of the mettalica S&M dvd please tell me what its like as i have the album but dont really want to fork out the 40 quid price tag but i would really like to hear a decent 5.1 music dvd
enjoy, may this thread go on for days.
Answers:
Originally posted by nwgarratt
It all depends on the equipment, there is no 2 channel is better than 5.1 channel (or vice versa) answer.
Also, and in my humble opinion, what we hear is very much dependent on source material. In fact, I'd go as far to say that source material is the single most important factor to overall sound quality.
There are some very good (and very poor) 2 channel and multi channel mixes. Even if you use reference level hardware. It's very much a case of rubbish in, rubbish out.
Studio recordings in two channel can sound great. If mastered well, they will have an open and defined soundstage that has depth as well as width. Harry Conwick Jr's two channel SACD pressing is probably the best recording of anything I've ever heard.
In contrast, play a live recording in stereo with an audience of thousands and it just doesn't cut it. Yes, there is a stage, but the audience is up there with the band while you are sitting very much on your own.
In contrast, a well produced live multi channel recording can be an awsome experience. The soundstage can be breathtaking, you're sitting "with" the audience, while the ambience is just so real and spacious.
Notice I said "well produced" live multi channel recording.
I do not consider singers and instruments coming out of every crevice a good recording. Yes some are impressingly imposing (Roy Orbisons Black and White Nights DVD in DTS) but are very gimmicky and really not true to the events that took place.
In fact, the ratio of poor recordings to decent ones is very wide indeed.
Fleetwood Mac's Rumors in DVD-A is another poor example. The instruments, particularly Mick Fleetwoods percusion, sound just so dynamic and real they are a relevation. So whats wrong?
In a nutshell, vocal's (and anyone who has this recording please have another listen) sound like they are coming 50 yards behind the musicians. I get the feeling that I would have needed a telescope to see the singers if I were there. Just dreadful
Answers:
Originally posted by Uncle Eric
Harry Connick Jr's two channel SACD pressing is probably the best recording of anything I've ever heard. /adds to the shopping list..
Cheers for the heads up.
HC jr :notworthy
Answers:
/makes mental note to get an SACD/DVD-A player/
Answers:
Originally posted by Warren Alexander
Tell him he's just bitter that Quadraphonic never took off.
Ho HO HO.... true
however, he is right too in certain aspects of what he's said. imho.
I'm a hi-fi type nut, I love the fine sound given to me by a stunning recording well reproduced. DVD is home cinema fun. It's in yer face - it's hollywood for gods sake. But not to say it sounds *****. It clearly sounds good on a decent system with real speakers, but it's not designed to be high fidelity now is it?
I've got ruark fronts (part of hi fi ) ruark cnetre, rel sub, gale rears, yammy amp (centre - rears - sub) and exposure pre/power for the fronts (again part of hifi) and it does sound fu**ing great. But when listening to it as a stereo set up - it simply is sublime.
what's the term? dons flame suit...........
:norty:
Answers:
Originally posted by mikeyace
Ho HO HO.... true
however, he is right too in certain aspects of what he's said. imho.
I'm a hi-fi type nut, I love the fine sound given to me by a stunning recording well reproduced. DVD is home cinema fun. It's in yer face - it's hollywood for gods sake. But not to say it sounds *****. It clearly sounds good on a decent system with real speakers, but it's not designed to be high fidelity now is it?
I've got ruark fronts (part of hi fi ) ruark cnetre, rel sub, gale rears, yammy amp (centre - rears - sub) and exposure pre/power for the fronts (again part of hifi) and it does sound fu**ing great. But when listening to it as a stereo set up - it simply is sublime.
what's the term? dons flame suit...........
:norty:
No flames from me - I've got a similar setup :
B&W 603 fronts (to stereo amp), CC6 Centre, Gale Rears,
NAD c370 Stereo amp, directly wired to source, Yam ht amp for centre, rears, sub - passing line out front channel to the NAD Aux in.
Stereo is, as you say, sublime, with great soundstaging and depth. Movies: it does the job fine and I ask no more of it.
Horses for courses - you can get a superb stereo system together for reasonable money, and a passable HT system, but to get a superb HT system, you are probably going beyond most people's budgets and space restrictions.
Answers:
He's missing the point somewhat - even if a home setup doesn't sound as good as the cinema (which is debatable), having to play a recording isn't as good as having the performers in your living room. It's all about compromise and convenience...
Answers:
Interesting thread guys!
IMHO a decent home cinema setup can match a good cinema setup in most cases. I did post about LOTR -TT not so long ago - went to my local UCI where they played it in digital stereo - it was crap.
Blade II at the UCI Trafford was a different beast altogether - I believe it was a the Sony digital surround and it was awesome.
Although, again IMHO, my own setup is more than a match - especially when I've only got a room a fraction of the size. My sub can perhaps do with an upgrade - YST SW320 - but apart from that, my Missions do a pretty good job.
Saying all of that, I agree with Roy and Baps in that a decent stereo setup can provide a momentous soundstage that a multi-channel setup would find hard to duplicate,
But for the fact that my preference is for home cinema than home music, I'd still have my analogue LP deck with Ion Obelisk amp and Royd speakers - perhaps a bit old hat by todays standards, but bloody good IMO.
Roger Waters sounded unbelievable when comparing to todays 5.1 soundstages. One particular track had a VW Beetle (could swear it was one of those) travelling left to right across the stereo soundstage - not only did it do so with consumate ease, it did so as though it were from behind me - (and my bedroom looked out on a road and that's where it sounded the car was travelling from)
I have amazing fond memories from my LP system - one day I'd like to re-instate a similar setup.
Answers:
Originally posted by Teece
He's missing the point somewhat - even if a home setup doesn't sound as good as the cinema (which is debatable), having to play a recording isn't as good as having the performers in your living room. It's all about compromise and convenience...
top idea - allthough Pink Floyd refuse to play at my home, seems the lighting rig won't fit in the door ;) :D
1 2