Anyone else not into surround sound?
- Thread starter Neo-Luddite
- Start date
Robinhawaii
Super Member
I'm just not a big fan of having to constantly reach for the remote to turn it up for intimate dialogue only to have to turn it way down when everything starts exploding only to have to turn it back up when people stop blowing things up and decide to talk again... It's that distraction that takes away from my viewing pleasure.
Take care,
Rob
Take care,
Rob
Hello calibration.
Robinhawaii
Super Member
Oh, great idea! Just what I want to do, go to other people's homes and calibrate their system...
I remember hearing in the 1970's that if someone pissed you off, the worst thing you could do to get back at them was to twist the three little knobs on their TV.
So you are rating multichannel based on the fact that you visited someone's home and they did not have their system properly calibrated?
Trust me there are tons of crappy two channel systems playing low bitrate files out there. Let's hope people don't write off music because of this type of experience.
Dolby actually addresses this issue with features like "Dolby Volume" that can decrease dynamic range if it bugs you. It is mainly for taming loud commercials, but would work for this situation if it was not just poor calibration with the center channel turned down too much.
Robinhawaii
Super Member
Yes, yes I did. Not one off chance, but many. My point of view is not being forced on you. I answered a question asked. Pardon me for being honest.
There are no more loud commercials, that has been done away with. And the question is not about two channel systems, so please don't try to make me sound stupid, I can handle that just fine by myself.
Take care,
Rob
I know, I once enjoyed it myself.
No thanks, it pleases me to post in this thread. I am on topic you see.
I have two such systems.
thilaseen
Super Member
Same as with any form of sound reproduction it's great for the greedy bastard who hogs the sweet spot....usually me. But I dispensed with the 5.1 when the kids moved out, not entirely because I didn't like it, but more that I wanted less clutter. I have no problem admitting I really enjoyed it and probably would again if I could be bothered. To each their own.
I've got enough going on with my two channel system to have any interest or energy left to set up a whole second system in the spare bedroom where the TV is. I just go with the built-in speaker in whatever free CRT set I happen to be running any given year. It's only TV/video after all.
It is odd that someone would be irked at you for answering the question posed in the thread title. Strange indeed.
Not irked at all - that's something you've assumed, see?
I'm mostly amused - a bit befuddled by the posters, but always a friendly smile.
Can always learn stuff, even with different opinions - I've even bought some films based on Tom's recommendation, tho I will admit How the West Was Won was a bit slow and corny for me. Of course, Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge is a bit corny too - Lebowski too - I guess that's part of the charm, sometimes.
cwall99
Addicted Member
I use the same system for stereo and surround that's based on an extremely capable AVR, a Pioneer Elite VSX82TXS. I believe it does both awesomely. In fact, I like going to listen to more expensive systems, and then coming home and discovering my system punches way above its weight for both analog and digital sources.
As far as surround sound goes, I love it, and I'm always looking for new surround mixes. I find it's a much more immersive experience. Here's what Jerry Harrison, keyboard player and guitarist for the Talking Heads had to say about re-mixing the Heads' surround re-mix Brick a few years ago:
'So when Rhino Records asked Harrison to go over the Talking Heads catalog for reissue, they asked him to start there. “Because they’re so dense with material, they seemed ideal for multichannel audio,” he says. “We did those two and they came out so well that we decided to put all the albums out at once.”'
Then he adds that while they always put the band in front, that:
'“The sonically dense songs sound fantastic. We were able to take overlapping parts and put them on separate channels, which made the songs sound clear and alive. Even with the more sparse material, a few parts on the rear channels have a big impact.”'
And that's what I find I like about surround mixes: there just seems to be a ton more detail (my turntable, while old, is a Philips AF-829 with a Shure M97xE cart, and my 600 LP collection has about 50 audiophile disks like the Hugh Masekela live Hope album, so it's not necessarily me listening to a crappy analog setup - I suspect both my analog and digital rigs are nice, mid-fi priced systems that just happen to have some synergy).
Anyhow, I don't find sounds behind me distracting at all. After all, you're always hearing sound from back there. Right now, I have Los Lobos' Kiko Live blu ray on, and even at a lw enough volume that allows everyone else in the house to sleep, it's an incredible experience, far superior than listening to it in stereo (which is an option the disk makes available).
I agree, though, that if the system isn't calibrated properly, you're going to have problems with your listening experience. I use my rig's MCACC to get me in the ballpark and then an SPL meter to fine tune. Very easy!
I'm never reaching for the remote to tweak volumes during different passages of movies. In fact, most well-recorded movies take advantage of a surround system's capabilities to create radically different soundscapes for scenes based on their location. While it's not a very good movie, try popping the pod race scene from Star Wars Episode 1 into your BDP and listen to how the sound varies based on where the pod racers are on the track. I just find that it really helps you suspend your disbelief more readily (and those Star Wars prequels need every last bit of help they can get).
Music or movies, I'll take surround sound every chance I get.
As far as surround sound goes, I love it, and I'm always looking for new surround mixes. I find it's a much more immersive experience. Here's what Jerry Harrison, keyboard player and guitarist for the Talking Heads had to say about re-mixing the Heads' surround re-mix Brick a few years ago:
'So when Rhino Records asked Harrison to go over the Talking Heads catalog for reissue, they asked him to start there. “Because they’re so dense with material, they seemed ideal for multichannel audio,” he says. “We did those two and they came out so well that we decided to put all the albums out at once.”'
Then he adds that while they always put the band in front, that:
'“The sonically dense songs sound fantastic. We were able to take overlapping parts and put them on separate channels, which made the songs sound clear and alive. Even with the more sparse material, a few parts on the rear channels have a big impact.”'
And that's what I find I like about surround mixes: there just seems to be a ton more detail (my turntable, while old, is a Philips AF-829 with a Shure M97xE cart, and my 600 LP collection has about 50 audiophile disks like the Hugh Masekela live Hope album, so it's not necessarily me listening to a crappy analog setup - I suspect both my analog and digital rigs are nice, mid-fi priced systems that just happen to have some synergy).
Anyhow, I don't find sounds behind me distracting at all. After all, you're always hearing sound from back there. Right now, I have Los Lobos' Kiko Live blu ray on, and even at a lw enough volume that allows everyone else in the house to sleep, it's an incredible experience, far superior than listening to it in stereo (which is an option the disk makes available).
I agree, though, that if the system isn't calibrated properly, you're going to have problems with your listening experience. I use my rig's MCACC to get me in the ballpark and then an SPL meter to fine tune. Very easy!
I'm never reaching for the remote to tweak volumes during different passages of movies. In fact, most well-recorded movies take advantage of a surround system's capabilities to create radically different soundscapes for scenes based on their location. While it's not a very good movie, try popping the pod race scene from Star Wars Episode 1 into your BDP and listen to how the sound varies based on where the pod racers are on the track. I just find that it really helps you suspend your disbelief more readily (and those Star Wars prequels need every last bit of help they can get).
Music or movies, I'll take surround sound every chance I get.
To anyone who thinks Home theater "isn't all that great" ... come to my house and watch the first 20 mins of transformers 2 and I'll bet you, you'd be begging to buy the system off me ...
Of course I have spent years getting this to sound just right, and have learnt a lot in the process. There is heil amt1b's in the mid position, studio lab's on top of the kitchen cabinets (nothing bigger will fit there and the thing has to be above the cabinets cos stuff that's flying needs to make a sound above you etc etc ...
The beauty of this is that it sounds right in a large oval portion in the living/dining/kitchen. This room is like 40X16 or so and except the 4 corners it sounds about perfect.
I have never got calibration to work right - had a denon with audessey, and a big bertha pioneer which all sounded OK but not like I got with my dsp 3090. Even the current Rx-V1 isn't yet up to its shining best.
Cool.
Srinath.
Of course I have spent years getting this to sound just right, and have learnt a lot in the process. There is heil amt1b's in the mid position, studio lab's on top of the kitchen cabinets (nothing bigger will fit there and the thing has to be above the cabinets cos stuff that's flying needs to make a sound above you etc etc ...
The beauty of this is that it sounds right in a large oval portion in the living/dining/kitchen. This room is like 40X16 or so and except the 4 corners it sounds about perfect.
I have never got calibration to work right - had a denon with audessey, and a big bertha pioneer which all sounded OK but not like I got with my dsp 3090. Even the current Rx-V1 isn't yet up to its shining best.
Cool.
Srinath.
IMHO surround sound is a matter of taste. Some prefer a more stable, non shifting imaging.
To some of us, it can sound interesting for a while, on certain material, but can get tiring and introduce listener fatigue after awhile.
Added air and space is one thing, but too much happening in back can get very distracting, especially with dedicated 2 channel material.
Heils give me enough space and air to the mix, and can still image very well.
Plenty for this cat, and one of the advantages of the Heil.
Never really needed the added rear channels (or subs for that matter) or the added signal processing circuitry.
To some of us, it can sound interesting for a while, on certain material, but can get tiring and introduce listener fatigue after awhile.
Added air and space is one thing, but too much happening in back can get very distracting, especially with dedicated 2 channel material.
Heils give me enough space and air to the mix, and can still image very well.
Plenty for this cat, and one of the advantages of the Heil.
Never really needed the added rear channels (or subs for that matter) or the added signal processing circuitry.
As far as movies go-in the local theaters I frequent, they have cut back a lot of the special audio effects, and have a more stable sound, which I appreciate.
Personally I would rather get out of the house and make a date of it, then hang around in a home theater.
There are very few movies I see more then once.
Usually they are old school, or ones that don't need the special sound effects to make them interesting.
Perhaps I am old school.
I like to watch a movie as a observer, and don't have the need to be that involved, or become part of the movie.
Part of this probably was/is from reading a lot of books over the years (albiet now a Kindle for the most part-which saves space, and the hassle of getting/giving away books).
You can more easily pick your level of involvement.
Personally I would rather get out of the house and make a date of it, then hang around in a home theater.
There are very few movies I see more then once.
Usually they are old school, or ones that don't need the special sound effects to make them interesting.
Perhaps I am old school.
I like to watch a movie as a observer, and don't have the need to be that involved, or become part of the movie.
Part of this probably was/is from reading a lot of books over the years (albiet now a Kindle for the most part-which saves space, and the hassle of getting/giving away books).
You can more easily pick your level of involvement.
Last edited:
mikegeorge53
New Member
I have a McIntosh MVP-881, Pass Labs INT-30A, and Martin-Logan CLX's with a 65" plasma.
cwall99
Addicted Member
As someone who is in a Michael Bay movie (I was an extra in The Island and spent a week on the set being filmed and watching how he directs, and I have this to say about your comment: ....
Amen, brother! Lemme buy you a beer some time!
cwall99
Addicted Member
I use MCACC to get me into the ballpark and the tweak things with an SPL meter. I forget how many different MCACC settings my AVR stores, it's either 5 or 8, but that's kinda neat because it lets me tweak things and mess around with ... Just cuz I can.
cwall99
Addicted Member
Perhaps it's not a matter of being old school that keeps you from watching them more than once. Perhaps, rather than being old school, it may be that you're not watching the right movies.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to insult your taste in movies ... Too much ... (That last poke was just a joke). But if the movies don't stand up to multiple viewings, it strikes me that whatever it is your watching doesn't make you wanna watch 'em again then it's clear to me you aren't watching movies you like.
Not everything about surround sound needs to be big and bombastic, like explosions and flying shrapnel or pod racers in a canyon for that matter. Here's a great example from a movie I love: in Brother Where Art Thou?, there's a scene where the three protagonists come walking out of the woods to join in a random procession of people on their way to a revival/baptism down in a river. The way the bird songs in the trees all around slowly fade out and are replaced by a gospel choir (made up of the revival-goers our protagonists find themselves in the middle of) is subtle, atmospheric, sumptuous, and spectacular film-making art.
Or try the opening scene of Master and Commander when you follow in the footsteps of the captain's (and I'm only using this term because, despite reading all 20 books in the Master and Commander series - they're pretty good - I can't recall a) his name, and b) his function's name) man-servant as he winds through the ship, getting a fresh egg from one of the hens onboard, slipping through the very cramped quarters where half the crew is asleep in hammocks ... It's easy to understand why the movie won an Oscar for its sound.
We listen to two-channel music because that's the way most of it was recorded. Would you prefer to listen to Floyd's DSOTM in mono because you find all the stereo sound games they play distracting? Or would you listen to a symphonic piece because you want a solid, uniform wall of music instead of having the brass on the right and the strings on the left (which was how every orchestra I ever played in was set up - but that's eons ago).
I feel the same way about reading books. Well, not all books. Just self-help books. Well, the one self-help book I ever read.
To me, the whole point of art, any form of it, is to be transported, transformed, and to erect an artificial barrier between me and the art is like, well, listening to Beethoven, Bach, Ellington, the Beatles, Los Lobos, the White Stripes, whoever... On 128 Kbps MP3s.
To me, the whole point of art is to get involved, to get sucked in. Otherwise, Van Gogh's Starry Night is just a painting you stick on the wall behind your sofa to fill in that big, blank spot.
True. Clearly we desire different levels of involvement.
Similar threads
