I am mourning the death
- Thread starter Inkara1
- Start date
Then you must have severe hearing impairment so that you actually hear no negligible improvement in surround (whatever flavour you choose) over stereo.
Differences between 5.1/6.1/7.1 are in fact minimal and between 6.1 and 7.1 it is negligible with current audio streams.
Differences between 5.1/6.1/7.1 are in fact minimal and between 6.1 and 7.1 it is negligible with current audio streams.
Altron
Well-Known Member
The sound comes from behind you, whoopity fuckin' doo. If I cared, I would drop some bookshelves behind me and put them as speaker B for some quadraphonic luvin'. But I don't.
Subwoofer - Good speakers move enough air that a subwoofer is not required. I feel a similar way about the center channel. If the same sound is played on both speakers, it sounds like it's coming from the middle. Don't see why I need a third to do what can already be done.
The thing is, only a handful of movies even benefit from surround sound. Dialogue does not.
I'd take a $400 stereo over a $400 surround any day of the week, and I'm sure SnP will back me up on this one.
Subwoofer - Good speakers move enough air that a subwoofer is not required. I feel a similar way about the center channel. If the same sound is played on both speakers, it sounds like it's coming from the middle. Don't see why I need a third to do what can already be done.
The thing is, only a handful of movies even benefit from surround sound. Dialogue does not.
I'd take a $400 stereo over a $400 surround any day of the week, and I'm sure SnP will back me up on this one.
For MOVIES it is better to have surround. For regular stereo music I don't mind either. But if we're talking about DVD-Audio, then you better have a good surround setup or you'll be missing the in-band sensation. And that is one hell of a difference.
Altron
Well-Known Member
But it's not like all movies will get a benefit. A lot of movies are mostly dialogue. Watch ANY comedy movie and tell me that it would be funnier with surround. It won't. It's for movies like Star Wars with great sound effects.
My understanding of SACD and DVD-A was that they are just encoded better, 192/24 vs. 44.1/16. This of course based on the assumption that they went into the studio and got the original analog tapes, which are stereo, and converted them into 192/24 digital audio. Not sure if any more recent music is actually recorded through five channels.
My understanding of SACD and DVD-A was that they are just encoded better, 192/24 vs. 44.1/16. This of course based on the assumption that they went into the studio and got the original analog tapes, which are stereo, and converted them into 192/24 digital audio. Not sure if any more recent music is actually recorded through five channels.
Altron said:
Surround does make a great difference when used, is not like every movie is encoded in 5.1 or 6.1, there are even ones that claim to have a dolby digital ex stream and never use the rear channels. I don't even bother moving speakers to their "right" position when watching that kind of movie.
However, movies that do use surround sound are experienced better with a surround equipment than with stereo. Your ears will know the difference, and in the end, watching a movie is all about sensation.
DVD-A is at most 192/24 in stereo mode, the common option being 96/24 in 5.1. There are recordings made with the intention of being in 5.1.
SACD on the other hand, uses a different encoding approach (DSD). I'd take DVD-A over SACD merely because SACD can't be read in a computer.
Also, old recordings made at studios are generally of far greater quality than the one you should expect from a CD. So remixing them to get a surround mix should not be extremely difficult.
But the debate over wether the extra quality of DVD-A or SACD over properly mastered CD still remains. Personally, I tend to agree that in terms of perceived quality both formats offer negligible advantage, but they have a big plus: surround sound.
Altron
Well-Known Member
Gonz said:
Those amps have too much fancy circuitry and DSP. The damn things convert analog to digital, then fuck with it, then put it back into analog and send it through a cheap amp stage. The only thing that a fancy 5.1 amp can do that my trusty ol' Optonica reciever can't is get controlled remotely. On the plus side, it means I get a big nice anodized black aluminum volume knob with a smooth and classy feel to it. There's no cheap plastic on the front of this bad boy. Metal and wood. No digital stage. The way it should be.
A 5.1 channel amp is useless without 5.1 speakers, and I don't have the room or the money to get three more speakers and a sub. Just a pair of speakers costs what I make in an average month, so I would need to save for six weeks just to get the 5, then another two weeks for the .1. No thanks. I'll miss out on the surround.
Really I think all of you are putting WAY to much thought into this. It's a damn movie or TV show or song. It's entertainment, it's not life or death, it's not the difference between a job that lets you live comfortably or a job that has you struggling just to survive...it's an EXTRA, a PERK, a NON-NECESSITY, and you guys are arguing over it on an online board...the way you choose to set up your sound system affects noone but yourself...in the grand scheme of things it's insignificant...I don't see the point in arguing over it...discuss it out of interest for the topic...accept that you have different views and build a friggin' bridge already.
BeardofPants
New Member
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nixy again.
Nixy said:
You could say that of every thread in this board. Just because the subject is not interesting for you doesn't mean it is insignificant.
Wether it is an opinion, a personal conviction or facts in the end is all sharing of ideas and while it might not be worthy for you some might find the info useful.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Nixy said:
HERESY! BLASPHEMER!
If it don't sound right, I don't want to hear it.
I went shopping for a new stereo system this weekend. After an hour of auditioning speakers, I moved on to the tuner. They're all preset these days...no EQ.
I put it all back. I'll go find one at a pawn shop. If I am going to listen to Van Halen (and I am), then I have to be able to fix what their idiot producer Ted Templeman did wrong, thereby making it bearable to the human ear. Same with Ratt...I want ten minutes in a locked room with their sound "engineer". A couple tweaks on the EQ and they sound decent. As is...so much distortion, such muddy sound. I cannot tolerate it.
Maybe country music all sounds the same. Rock don't. If one can enhance it, one should.
Luis G said:
In the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS it IS insignificant, I didn't say it was insignificant to the individual person. I also said that it's PERSONAL OPINION and the way one does it doesn't affect the other. Seriously, it's a pointless argument, it's a situation where it doesn't matter if you disagree. You share your opinions, the reasons for your opinions...but each person has their opinion because of EXPERIENCE and arguing with each other trying to change the other person's mind is pointless! It's like someone telling me their favourite colour is green and me saying mine is blue and then us arguing trying to make the other change their mind..it's just what we prefer personally. We can DISCUSS why we each prefer what we prefer but arguing over it is stupid. Making the other person agree with you has no benefit and by arguing you're losing the constructive conversation you could be having about it.
SouthernN'Proud said:
Well, if someone feels their listening experience is best with a certain set up and someone else feels it's best with another why is that a reason to argue? They both have what they feel is best...it's personal opinion and what one person thinks is best may not be what another thinks...yet they persist to argue over it.