who here listens to movies in stereo only?

[chris35745]

For normal TV, I just turn on the front and center amps. The rear and rear surround amps come on when I watch a movie or even a football game. There seems to be quite a bit of talk here about a receivers ability to accurately produce surround sound. Some people think it just doesnt sound right and others say it sounds great. I agree with those who say that if the receiver and speakers are not set up properly, it will sound like crap. I dont know what everyones experience with an HT receiver is, but it appears that some seem to think they should just work right out of the box. It takes quite a bit of time and effort to properly set up an HT receiver. You have presence levels, delay times, channel levels, etc to adjust and re-adjust. I agree that a properly set up system will crush ANY 2 channel system out there. I am still tweaking my setup to get it exactly where I want it. I love my setup and will listen to just about anything in surround. Just to give you an idea, I have both the Wii and XBox hooked into the back of my TV with red/white audio cables and a set of red/whites going out to receiver. I hit PLIIx on my receiver and I get full 7 channel surround sound from those two cables. I use Toslink for all other audio connections. When in PLIIx and listening to a Sirius satellite radio station, forget about 'being in the audience', I am up on stage in the middle of the band. As for movies, the only thing a movie theater has that is better than my setup is more power and bigger, better and more speakers. I dont go to the movies anymore, movies come to my house. Oh yeah, my HT receiver is also THX certified. For all you out there that had a bad experience with surround, it just might be either the equipment you used, how you set it up, or both. Dont give up on it because you really dont know what you are missing. I have been into 'home theater' since the first stereo VCR came out. For the record, I listen to vinyl and reel in 2 channel only.

 

[niklasthedol]

No matter how good your 2 speakers are, they can't produce 5.1 or greater.

What's the point of 5.1 when 2.0 produces a 3-dimensional soundstage and perspective as close to the analog reference as ever and even manages the deepest sounds with far better integrity than any x.1 system?

I go this 2.0 way as well.

"dolph"

 

[guiller]

Another 2.0 advocate here.

 

[wilberforce]

What's the point of 5.1 when 2.0 produces a 3-dimensional soundstage and perspective as close to the analog reference as ever and even manages the deepest sounds with far better integrity than any x.1 system?

I go this 2.0 way as well.

"dolph"

The point is that if the source is 5.1 discrete channels, listening in 2.0 is listening to a matrixed squishing of all of that info into 2 channels. Some AVRs do this well, some, not so well. For the 'purists' out there, would you rather listen to something that was carefully mixed by a qualified engineer, or something mushed together by circuitry?

Please note that I'm talking about multi-channel film soundtracks, not stereo music.

 

[89grand]

What's the point of 5.1 when 2.0 produces a 3-dimensional soundstage and perspective as close to the analog reference as ever and even manages the deepest sounds with far better integrity than any x.1 system?

I go this 2.0 way as well.

"dolph"

I prefer to listen to things as intended. I don't listen to 2 channel audio tracks in 5.1, and I don't listen to 5.1 movie tracks in 2 channel.

5.1 has 6 specific discrete channels because it was mixed that way. No matter how good a 2 channel setup is, it was never designed to play back 5.1 accurately, it's impossible for it to as it's missing 4 speakers. Now, that doesn't mean some may not mind hearing it in just 2 channels, but it doesn't do it nearly as good for obvious reasons.

 

[niklasthedol]

I have yet to see a film without a 2-channel option.
Nothing was supposed to be played in 5.1 in the first place.
It is an artificial created configuration.

If I were to buy gear to provide same quality 5.1 as I have 2.0; I will have to sell house, cars, motorcycles, boat, neighbours house and my wife.

"dolph"

 

[Keessie]

When i watch at the pc it's in stereo.
Just a couple of days ago i still them in stereo a the tv set.
Now i have 2 front sets and a rear set at my tv set

 

[Tom Brennan]

The point is that if the source is 5.1 discrete channels, listening in 2.0 is listening to a matrixed squishing of all of that info into 2 channels.

What do you mean "matrixed squishing"? Elaborate.

Are you aware that most audio nowadays is mixed down from a great many tracks? Even that 6 channel mix may have been "matrix squished" as you put it down from dozens of tracks.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Modern pictures are meant to be heard in a variety of formats including optical track mono. All are correct.

 

[niklasthedol]

Modern pictures are meant to be heard in a variety of formats including optical track mono. All are correct.

I like your hat!


"dolph"

 

[Tom Brennan]

I like your hat!


"dolph"

You're too kind.

By the way that's Anita O'Day from the 1959 picture about the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival called "Jazz on a Summer's Day" and which features performences by a great many Jazz musicians of the day including Anita, Monk, Mulligan, Armstrong, Dinah Washington and others. All sounding terriffic despite the lack of bombastic surround sound or of a scene of Louis Armstrong outrunning a subwoofer rattling explosion or of Chico Hamilton running a car into a ravine followed by another subwoofer rattling explosion.

A great picture; you never saw so many people wearing Ray Ban Wayfarers. It's on Netflix streaming.

 

[89grand]

I have yet to see a film without a 2-channel option.
Nothing was supposed to be played in 5.1 in the first place.
It is an artificial created configuration.


"dolph"

In all honesty, anything recorded is artificial, including 2 channel stereo. It's no more natural than 5.1, in fact probably less so, as surround at least attempts to recreate a more natural 360 degree sound.

 

[niklasthedol]

In all honesty, anything recorded is artificial, including 2 channel stereo. It's no more natural than 5.1, in fact probably less so, as surround at least attempts to recreate a more natural 360 degree sound.

How many ears do you have?
;-)

"dolph"

 

[rBuckner]

Just stereo here, too lazy to put ceiling surrounds in. Actually it's more that I'm too fidgetty to sit through a movie very often!

 

[slow_jazz]

Just stereo here. I purchased a surround system a while back and promptly returned it the next day it sounded so bad.

 

[89grand]

How many ears do you have?
;-)

"dolph"

5..., no seriously though, even live music is heard all around you, mainly from the front, but not just from 2 speakers. I was just saying stereo is artificial as well, and that at least 5.1 or similar, gives sound a more realistic presentation. Two channel can only make sounds louder, softer, and switched from left to right, but 5.1 can go across 3 speakers in the front, to 2 or more stereo surrounds in the back, giving things like a jet flying over better realism than if played through just 2 front speakers.

I will say I feel this way about HT. I prefer 2 channel for music.

 

[89grand]

Just stereo here. I purchased a surround system a while back and promptly returned it the next day it sounded so bad.

Perhaps it was just a really crappy surround sound setup.:scratch2:

I just don't see how it is possible to think DD/DTS or any other of the newer HD surround formats sound bad because of the technology or the amount of speakers used. It's the implementation or quality (or lack of) of the particular product that was most likely the reason.

It'd be like me hating stereo because I heard a shitty system before.

 

[niklasthedol]

Perhaps it was just a really crappy surround sound setup.:scratch2:

I just don't see how it is possible to think DD/DTS or any other of the newer HD surround formats sound bad because of the technology or the amount of speakers used. It's the implementation or quality (or lack of) of the particular product that was most likely the reason.

It'd be like me hating stereo because I heard a shitty system before.

Did you ever consider how much better stereo set-up you could afford if you left out the last 3.1 channels?

And did you ever consider that this stereo set-up you might have gotten for that gold, probably could eat any 5.1 system for breakfast at that price level?

"dolph"

 

[89grand]

Did you ever consider how much better stereo set-up you could afford if you left out the last 3.1 channels?

And did you ever consider that this stereo set-up you might have gotten for that gold, probably could eat any 5.1 system for breakfast at that price level?

"dolph"

I have a separate 2 channel rig from my HT setup.

They both have their purpose. My HT is not high dollar, yet it sounds completely fine for movie watching. My speakers don't even match, I have one brand of mains, another brand of center, another brand of surrounds and another brand of powered sub. A mutt if you will, yet it suits my needs completely. Much better than any HT in a box setup.

My 2 channel rig sounds just fine too, and buying used, it was also pretty cheap.

Good sound doesn't have to cost a fortune.

 

[tybrad]

Used to, until I started losing parts of the dialog. I miss the Sansui AU-719 that sat where the 7.1 receiver is now. I can't really justify the cost of replacing the quality level of the Sansui. I am strongly thinking of separating music from movie in the same room, and run two individual systems... oh well!

:wave:-Yep, that's me.-:wave: 2ch for non-film stuff, 6/7.1 for film... all in the same 13x15 room!

I will end up with a place to put together my mancave with all vintage equipment, and mid-century/60's retro furnishings and accoutrements with a CRT TV (would love a Sony 40" XBR) and 2ch for film sound.