Anyone else not into surround sound?

In my 50+ yrs of playing in "REAL" Bands my own and sitting in with many others "It was like you were sitting in the middle of the band" doesn't excite me that much!...lolOL:thmbsp:

It's true. On stage is often the worst place to be for good, balanced sound. esp if you're playing with a rock n'roll band.
 
You guys against surround music..or to be more accurate, multi-channel music, are really missing out. Although I'm not surprised to read the negative comments when i see what's being used in a lot of these systems and the haphazard placement of speakers behind giant TV screens.
You should all know that you can't just take a pair of huge box speakers from the 70s(or tiny cubes), set them next to a 60" projection TV that looks like a semi truck, throw a center speaker on top of the whole mess and expect to be blown away. Last weekend I sat in my TV room with an Elton John SACD played through my fairly modest (but carefully calibrated) surround sound system and it was a fantastic experience.

Just like in 2-channel; careless or subpar set-ups will yield lousy sound. Don't dismiss the entire format because of a lack of effort.
 
Wow! You said what I was thinking. Multi channel audio takes a whole different mindset to get the sound right. Also, keep in mind that while surround sound has been here for years, there are very few engineers know how to mix it so it sounds natural and realistic especially for live music.

A great example is Steely Dan - Two Against Nature concert footage. Criticism is that there is no sound stage. In reality, the show was filmed in a studio so that you feel like you are not in the audience and are sitting in the middle of the studio while recording a live performance. Net result is an amazing audio and video experience on a system that can handle it effectively. Not many systems can reproduce this recording effectively because it is so dynamic.

As far as gear goes, mixing old no matter how you feel it sounds is not going to play well with multi channel sound. I loved my JBL 112's but they were a disaster no mater how much i fiddled with them to get a good 5.1 sound.
 
Before you dismiss, listen to a well setup system.

I have. I've dismissed.

I used surround sound going back to Dolby Surround days and enjoyed it but I found it's something I can do without. I'm not against it, I just don't need it. Any movie that would be appreciably improved by surround sound use vs. mono or 2 channel stereo would have to be a pretty crummy movie, you know, some nonsense like Die Hard IV or something.
 
It was cool on that one race car movie, but I'm solidly in the stereo and mono camp. Channels are like doors on a car, you don't ever want more than two.:no:
 
I have. I've dismissed.

I used surround sound going back to Dolby Surround days and enjoyed it but I found it's something I can do without. I'm not against it, I just don't need it. Any movie that would be appreciably improved by surround sound use vs. mono or 2 channel stereo would have to be a pretty crummy movie, you know, some nonsense like Die Hard IV or something.

Wow, pretty narrow view, huh.
Then listen to a good RECENT movie with multichannel sound, not Diehard 4.
Grab Moulin Rouge, or 3:10 to Yuma, or Master and Commander - or something YOU consider to be a good recent movie.
You don't need 7.1 surround for every film, I still buy movies that were made in mono or stereo because I want to see the film, first and foremost,
but when its integral to the film, when its well done and subtle, its a great feature.

Or don't - save all that money and just enjoy on headphones, hey?
 
Last edited:
Just like in 2-channel; careless or subpar set-ups will yield lousy sound. Don't dismiss the entire format because of a lack of effort.

You are right about the "lack of effort". I have a YAMAHA surround amplifier that I never used in surround setup, just as stereo amplifier with the matching YAMAHA dvd player. On the other hand all my other setup are STEREO only. Even such a popular format as mp3 is stereo not surround.
 
There is definitely a steep hill to climb to change people's minds about multichannel when it comes to music, but it is a bit surprising to see the attitudes here related to movies.

I think some people have spent a long time getting their two channel systems exactly the way they like them and are unwilling to complicate things by bringing in more speakers and sub (or two). The fact is most music is two channel, so multichannel is more of a niche even now.

However, I remember an article on this issue in Absolute Sound back in 2004. They were interviewing Peter McGrath (sound engineer) and he made the following comments:

"the way I see it any really good, highly evolved, highly refined, two-channel system can be taken to the fullest extent of its capabilities if you can somehow find a way to put two more quality speakers in the back. And I don’t really believe that the back speakers have to be equal to the ones in front, just something that can give you some kind of tonal matching to the front. I think the addition of such rear channels will give you perhaps the biggest single increase in musical pleasure that you can derive from that system, if, of course, you have the quality recording to do it with. And I also agree with Andy that there are many, many wonderful recordings coming out that really do bring the quality of halls, the quality of orchestras, and the quality of soloists into a playback situation in a much more revealing fashion than any two- channel system could in the past.

For instance, if I start by playing my recordings with just the two channels in front, listeners will say, “My gosh, that’s extraordinary, that’s beautiful!” People even comment, “That sounds better than what I heard when I was in the hall.” Then I turn the back speakers on, and they say, “Wow, that’s terrific! It’s so much better still!” Then I turn the backs off again, and they say, “What happened? It died.”


Personally, I think live music translates better in multichannel. However, even for studio recordings, it gives the artist more options for expression and I fail to see where that is downfall.
 
Wow, pretty narrow view, huh.


Or don't - save all that money and just enjoy on headphones, hey?

A carefully considered view informed by many years of experience going back to the multi channel roadshow pictures of the 1950s.

What do headphones have to do with it? Is that an attempt to argue that one might as well use 2 channel stereo with headphones as with speakers?

As for Moulin Rouge and 3:10 to Yuma in both cases I prefer the monophonic 1950s pictures of those names, the one by John Huston and the other by Delmer Daves. ;)
 
I love surround, but cant stand the soundbar BS. The biggest baddest HT amp, and the 8 speakers and subwoofer (Yamaha RX-V1 is 8.1) will be set and adjusted and this and that till you get the perfect sound in movies. Of course I also want 2 channel, marantz or any other good sounding amp. I am not brand loyal, I am loyal to sound. Has to be precise and smooth.
Cool.
Srinath.
 
What do headphones have to do with it? Is that an attempt to argue that one might as well use 2 channel stereo with headphones as with speakers?

As for Moulin Rouge and 3:10 to Yuma in both cases I prefer the monophonic 1950s pictures of those names, the one by John Huston and the other by Delmer Daves. ;)

Yep, a lot of folks don't prefer the old films - Seen them, they were interesting, but many folks DO enjoy the multichannel stuff.

Hey - I have an idea - you could start a MONO Home Theater thread and you and your fans can enthusiastically post THERE.
 
I love surround sound. I can't imagine anybody not thinking it to be superior if they heard it at home, done right, from a purely sonic reasoning. Yet, I use 2-channel in my theater-room because of my hatred of clutter and the expense of having 5 or 7 ESL-63s in my theater room would break me.

My stereo rig does image better than many crappy 5 and 7 channel systems I've heard, but a well done, calibrated and matched surround system is nearly impossible to argue against when you're in the room with it, going back and forth between 2 channels and full surround, especially using BluRay. There's simply no comparison. But you don't have to go the best route, as sometimes its just not as easy to live with in long term, given the space and expense constraints.
 
Last edited:
I love surround sound. I can't imagine anybody not thinking it to be superior if they heard it at home, done right, from a purely sonic reasoning. Yet, I use 2-channel in my theater-room because of my hatred of clutter and the expense of having 5 or 7 ESL-63s in my theater room would break me.

My stereo rig does image better than many crappy 5 and 7 channel systems I've heard, but a well done, calibrated and matched surround system is nearly impossible to argue against when you're in the room with it, going back and forth between 2 channels and full surround, especially using BluRay. There's simply no comparison. But you don't have to go the best route, as sometimes its just not as easy to live with it long term, given the space and expense constraints.

Amen to that.
 
Never really got into 5.1 or even the 7.1 theater systems. Since I have a small living room, It is just a modest 2 channel setup and that is all that I need. No need for a subwoofer since the speakers have plenty of bottom end even with the tone controls set to flat. I don't need to hear every little nuances of the movie in order to enjoy it.
 
So, how many of ya have a really fine bluray player with a great big HDTV (bigger than 36 inch) and Mono or Stereo speakers ...
 
Back
Top Bottom