5.1 Surround Sound. Is it really important?

[Bmode]

*puts on audiophile hat* Either way, it's better to be running a good stereo setup than a mediocre or poor 5.1/7.1 setup. Remember, surround sound is not better sound, it's just more sound.

Oh my lord...I'll try my best not to flame, but that's just poor input. PLEASE TAKE OFF YOUR AUDIOPHILE HAT, AND PUT IT BACK WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM!!! Surround sound is not just more sound, it's isolation of sound! Thank god Mark34 understands. More sound would simply be more audio information! A 5.1/7.1 system is discrete audio channeling with cross overs for sub frequencies! Even a cheap home theatre in a box is more EFFECTIVE than a great two channel system for movies, but not necessarily better in frequency reproduction. Keep in mind, everything posted above is completely subjective, and a few are very misleading.

I've installed $50,000 systems and $500 systems. The ultimate goal in a surround sound system is too try and recreate the original mix that was done on a multi-million dollar sound stage and mixing consoles. We engineers spend weeks and sometimes months mixing movies and records to achieve a sound experience for you to enjoy. Not everyone can reproduce this expensive task, but let's just keep the facts straight okay?

Is surround important to you, that's the real question? It's very important to me, because I watch a lot of movies. Even live sporting events are broadcasted in dolby digital which sound incredible! In my audio/video world, it's 55% audio, 45% video. Cheers!

Oh bravo Rhett on the switch! It's good to have you on board!

 

[koobcamuk]

surround sound definitely isn't just more sound.

I love listening to music in stereo, and movies in 5.1 if I can.

 

[garybUK]

I kind of agree with Killyp, though not when it comes to Rotel!!!! DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY ON ROTEL!!!

I have the RSP-1066 + RMB1075 Processor + Power Amp (5 Channel) and i don't like it, i prefer the Arcam FMJ range which i may upgrade to, though to me, As Killyp states a good 2 channel stereo setup can way outweigh a 5.1 setup.... I have the B&W DM602S3 and they are amazing speakers for the price, very very good stereo imaging......

My route now: Either upgrade to the Arcam FMJ range or go Valve with something like the EAR 509 Mono Power Amps + Tannoy Timension TD8's

 

[rhett7660]

Oh bravo Rhett on the switch! It's good to have you on board!

Glad to be on board!!!!!!!

 

[fivepoint]

I feel kind of silly... but these are the two systems I've been looking into purchasing:

ZVOX 425
http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker-systems/zvox-425/4505-7868_7-32754990.html

Sony HT-CT100
http://reviews.cnet.com/home-theater-systems/sony-ht-ct100/4505-6740_7-32923460.html

Both are 'soundbars' which mimic surround sound. I know it's not optimal, but I'm trying very hard to maintain a clean minimalist design free of any additional cabling, etc. I'd love any advice you 'experts' and 'audiofiles' can offer. Maybe I'm making a big mistake with these two...

 

[dynaflash]

No matter how good the stereo (two channel) system is, I still can't hear the airplanes fly *around* me like they are supposed to in the original move as mastered from the audio engineers even when mixing down to dpl2.

But ... thats just me.

 

[rhett7660]

No matter how good the stereo (two channel) system is, I still can't hear the airplanes fly *around* me like they are supposed to in the original move as mastered from the audio engineers even when mixing down to dpl2.

But ... thats just me.

Here here... or the car door slam behind you, or the creatures in the jungle seen that appear to be alllll around you.

 

[Bmode]

Rotel is excellent audio, and audio only. The recent posting in the latest Home Theatre magazine of the new Rotel processor and five channel amp is very poor with video processing, it failed 8 out 10 of their bench tests. I've seen the older RSP unit at a friends, and it's very mediocre.

 

[rhett7660]

Heck.. I would head over here:

avscience.com
hometheaterforum.com

Check out some of the amps/processors/separates people have and rate. Lots and lots of reading.

I am in the market for a new processor, one that has multipal hdmi inputs etc. I have the amps, just need a new processor. Of course getting a blu-ray for christmas wouldn't be bad either!

 

[carlgo]

It sure depends on what is playing. Some sound tracks are just awesome in 5:1 and others actually suffer because somebody just added some sound to the back, if you know what I mean.

Modern action adventure movies, games and such do a nice job of making it meaningful.

If I win the lotto, I will also get a fabulous stereo system, and put it in its own perfect room.

Other things: for most rooms the 5:1 is enough. I resent having to pay extra for unused amps just to get other features found on the more expensive 7:1 devices. Not many of us have perfect huge listening rooms that make 7:1 useful.

Many of the new receivers have microphones to set up the speakers properly and that really can help.

Despite what people say, I have no problem going to smaller and cheaper rear speakers, but it is best that they are just smaller versions of the fronts so they match-up sound-wise. Also, it looks tacky to have different brands of speakers all over the place. The subwoofer is fine, though.

 

[phrehdd]

Oh my lord...I'll try my best not to flame, but that's just poor input. PLEASE TAKE OFF YOUR AUDIOPHILE HAT, AND PUT IT BACK WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM!!! Surround sound is not just more sound, it's isolation of sound! Thank god Mark34 understands. More sound would simply be more audio information! A 5.1/7.1 system is discrete audio channeling with cross overs for sub frequencies! Even a cheap home theatre in a box is more EFFECTIVE than a great two channel system for movies, but not necessarily better in frequency reproduction. Keep in mind, everything posted above is completely subjective, and a few are very misleading.

I've installed $50,000 systems and $500 systems. The ultimate goal in a surround sound system is too try and recreate the original mix that was done on a multi-million dollar sound stage and mixing consoles. We engineers spend weeks and sometimes months mixing movies and records to achieve a sound experience for you to enjoy. Not everyone can reproduce this expensive task, but let's just keep the facts straight okay?

Is surround important to you, that's the real question? It's very important to me, because I watch a lot of movies. Even live sporting events are broadcasted in dolby digital which sound incredible! In my audio/video world, it's 55% audio, 45% video. Cheers!

Oh bravo Rhett on the switch! It's good to have you on board!

Well alas, you kinda sorta yeah ya did flame <G>.

I expected at any point to see "Jane, you ignorant slut" show up in your post.

On a more serious note -

You made some good points about how surround adds a "3D" part to the movie experience with sense of depth and texture to sound. I can appreciate that. As well, I also believe that for music fans, they'll find a good stereo system to be their best bet.

Let's also be clear about what was said about "more sound" with respect to surround. - I agree 100 percent with the poster. "More sound" can be done poorly or very well. Surround sound is artificial and extremely subjective in crafting. - But then again, lots of sounds in movies are artificial but give the audience a sound that makes sense to their ears.

Many can find in their DVD collections some poorly done audio that plays in surround sound. We can also find Blu Ray where the video part is nearly the same level of DVD and thus, disappointing.

As for me, I like some sound separation when I watch movies. Most important to me is left, right and center channel, then sub and last is any sort of rear channels. For the next person, they might be like yourself and really enjoy a true 5.1 or 7.1 system far more.

For music, I'll enjoy stereo and for movies, I'll enjoy a multi-speaker beyond stereo experience. My bickers will remain with how well the audio and video are portrayed on the discs (CD, DVD and Blu Ray).

As for Apple TV user who is happy with stereo, continue enjoying but remember, if you do go to multi-speaker set up beyond your stereo system, you'll find it an entirely different experience as you are far more into a 3D audio experience which does impact overall perception of the media your are watch/listening to on the ATV.

- Phrehdd

 

[Bmode]

No matter how good the stereo (two channel) system is, I still can't hear the airplanes fly *around* me like they are supposed to in the original move as mastered from the audio engineers even when mixing down to dpl2.

But ... thats just me.

True. However, in a situation where you cannot have a surround sound system, a sound bar like the Yamaha YSP-4000 is an excellent solution. I just would recommend a sub to go with that to give you the full frequencies possible. I was non believer in the "sound bar" speaker system, but once we installed one in a entry room surround by tile and plaster, I was sold as the bouncing of sound actually worked. Yamaha did an excellent job to simulate the surround arena in one speaker.

 

[phrehdd]

True. However, in a situation where you cannot have a surround sound system, a sound bar like the Yamaha YSP-4000 is an excellent solution. I just would recommend a sub to go with that to give you the full frequencies possible. I was non believer in the "sound bar" speaker system, but once we installed one in a entry room surround by tile and plaster, I was sold as the bouncing of sound actually worked. Yamaha did an excellent job to simulate the surround arena in one speaker.

Agreed - soundbars do have their place and add some "texture" beyond typical stereo.

You would do well to check out "soundmatters" website. Their soundbars really are state of the art and include the amplifier section within the soundbar along with some nice bells and whistles.

- Phrehdd

 

[Killyp]

I've installed $50,000 systems and $500 systems. The ultimate goal in a surround sound system is too try and recreate the original mix that was done on a multi-million dollar sound stage and mixing consoles.

True, although I would more rather listen to the stereo/PCM mix on a DVD accurately than listen to the 5.1 mix inaccurately.

And also, don't call me an audiophile. I hate the term. It should only be used to describe those who talk the talk, but don't know a thing about sound.

 

[phrehdd]

True, although I would more rather listen to the stereo/PCM mix on a DVD accurately than listen to the 5.1 mix inaccurately.

And also, don't call me an audiophile. I hate the term. It should only be used to describe those who talk the talk, but don't know a thing about sound.

As someone ferociously pointed out - Movie audio is fabricated or engineered to create an audio experience to accompany the video. In a sense there is no concept of "fidelity" related.

On playback however, one can argue the fidelity of the output vs the recorded sounds themselves. Whether you prefer faithful audio playback on fabricated sound over a less faithful playback on a low end surround sound will remain subjective. As it has been said for years - get what sounds good to your ears.

Btw - I am one of those off types that likes to purchase film score CDs which I listen to while working. For me, this is where good stereo makes all the difference.

- Phrehdd

 

[mrrory]

Yes it is really important Once you've heard it, you'll never go back... I was the same about HDTV, now I can barely watch DVDs

 

[Killyp]

Yes it is really important Once you've heard it, you'll never go back... I was the same about HDTV, now I can barely watch DVDs

Again, I'm one of those who has gone back from 5.1 to '2.0', although that may also be because I listen to a lot of music with my system.

Now I'm not here to say stereo will always be better for you, use your own ears, but do listen closely. 5.1 has a tendency of blowing your socks off for the first 10 minutes, after which you realise that it's often more of a gimmick. IMO, for a surround sound system to perform well, it must be able to perform well in stereo too.

 

[phrehdd]

Again, I'm one of those who has gone back from 5.1 to '2.0', although that may also be because I listen to a lot of music with my system.

Now I'm not here to say stereo will always be better for you, use your own ears, but do listen closely. 5.1 has a tendency of blowing your socks off for the first 10 minutes, after which you realise that it's often more of a gimmick. IMO, for a surround sound system to perform well, it must be able to perform well in stereo too.

When I got my last 5.1 setup. I was very careful to make sure the front Left and Right speakers were "good enough" for stereo playback on their own. They were akin to large bookshelf style speakers and fit the room well along with the sub. The center channel was a good match and rear in terms of timber. This worked very well for both surround and "stereo" playback.

Obviously, this was a more thought out solution than buying a "surround kit" and not a pure audiophile solution either. It simply worked very well for me. - As this is all subjective, best I can say is you can have your cake and eat it too if you are willing to shop around for the right type of speakers for a surround sound experience and music only playback.

Surround - FL+FR, RL+RR, Center, Sub LFE

Stereo FL+FR, Sub.....or.....both Left same signal, both Right same signal, Sub and no Center. (rear channels reduced in volume)

- Phrehdd