I just don't care about surround sound anymore...

I like 5.1 surround sound... just haven't used it in 5 years. Or 8. :dunno:

Now SACD - just don't like it at all. Sounds fake to me.

Not all that crazy about sub woofers also. I could certainly live without them. Let the big box speakers with 12 inch woofers and all AlNiCo magnets do the work.

I like regular 2 channel. Sounds 'right as rain'.
 
Last edited:
RichPA said:
The stereo system produces a good enough stereo image that the center speakers I tried hurt rather than helped.
Click to expand...
I get the objective of "localizing" the dialog to the screen, but find it's possible to over do it. For many years, I used a Polk LSiC which offers pinpoint imaging. To a fault. And as a 2 1/2 way, I was always aware the the dialog emanated from a very precise point just off center to the right.

I now use a Magnepan MMGC which is a full range driver whose diaphragm is nearly three feet wide. While it doesn't have offer much output at either extreme, it does very well in the midrange and spreads the output convincingly enough so that I really don't localize it.
 
onwardjames said:
This guy has his priorities in order, lol.

For me, been on that train since '97.

I've grown weary of it all, but mostly due to the ever-increasing complexity of making the damned stuff work across Netflix, Amazon, etc.

Got an Onkyo TX-NR818 and it's a beast, but I'll be damned if I can get it tuned in like I want. It is all over the place. Using the enclosed mic made things a mess. Surrounds were FAR too loud, just horrible.

I'm still trying. Currently limited to 5.1 due to my goofy room, but have ability for 7.1 (I think even higher if I do a few things).



Also, Hollywood in my opinion is bloated with doo-doo offerings. Only my opinion.
Click to expand...

You both have your priorities straight!
 
I have found that speakers that were not designed for center channel work dont sound very good in that duty. There is a big difference for sure.
 
I actually do like surround sound for movies. However, I have found that, given budget "B", number of channels "C" and an approval level "A" then "2" solves the equation for "C", for me. For she. For thee?
 
Gibsonian said:
Only one game in town for audio at my casa, and that's stereo sound.

I got nothing against HQ multichannel stuff, it does sound very good in the theatre.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I look at it these days.
It's not that I necessarily think stereo sounds BETTER than multichannel- it's that I don't care enough anymore to exert the effort or pony up the cash for all the hi res stuff. I'll stop short of saying it's gimmicky cause I don't believe that. It's just not that important enough to me anymore.

All I need:

20190919_223336.jpg
 
Bodyblue said:
They dont have better ears. They are just stubborn. A center channel makes a world of difference in dialog In movies and even in TV shows.
Click to expand...

Stubborn? What has that got to do with anything? I can hear diaogue through the TV speakers just fine.
That said however, if I ever magically came across some kind of one-off ADS center channel speaker that was made to match the L-1090s I'm using now, I'd probably jump on it. Beyond that, I just don't care.
 
KarlK said:
Words of the wise :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss good surround sound. Whilst it may not add much if anything to stereo content whether music or movies, it makes a huge difference in content made for multichannel surround. Hearing 5.1 or better content on a good 5.1 or better surround system is impressive, immersive and enormously enjoyable, and arguably a bigger improvement going from stereo to multichannel (again, with content made for it) than from mono to stereo.
 
I did a delve into 70's quad for a spell. Eventually I decided that it pretty much sucked and that todays surround sound systems are far superior. So I have 2 audio systems. 5.1 and done and 2 channel for listening. I see no reason to either dump or improve my surround system.
 
Never liked music in surround sound but I still like movies in 5.1, it gives them a little kick
 
I found that my Old Magneplanars (MGI Imp) provide great sound for movies and TV and crystal clear center dialog in a 2.1 setup. And surprisingly, the stereo effect and voice localization works as well when sitting way off to the side. Don't understand really why that works so well for it does. And of course, it works great for regular music. IMG_7211.JPG
 
I will never be without a surround sound system for movies. I enjoy it too much. DVD-As, Blu Ray concerts, and the like. This has nothing to do with my two-channel system for music.

MIC
 
Most of the movies we watch these days are on the Hallmark Channel. There are not a lot of explosions or helicopters in those movies, so two channels of audio while watching people who should know they are in love, but don't, is plenty.:rflmao:
 
Man in Cave said:
I will never be without a surround sound system for movies. I enjoy it too much. DVD-As, Blu Ray concerts, and the like. This has nothing to do with my two-channel system for music.

MIC
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't like 2 ch stereo music on my multi-channel Surround system, and I certainly don't like surround material on my 2 ch stereo system!
They are definitely NOT interchangeable!
 
DaveVoorhis said:
I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss good surround sound. Whilst it may not add much if anything to stereo content whether music or movies, it makes a huge difference in content made for multichannel surround. Hearing 5.1 or better content on a good 5.1 or better surround system is impressive, immersive and enormously enjoyable, and arguably a bigger improvement going from stereo to multichannel (again, with content made for it) than from mono to stereo.
Click to expand...

For me, it is spend your money on music, on 2 channel. Get a SoundBar for the TV. Music first for me, surround last.
 
Man in Cave said:
I will never be without a surround sound system for movies. I enjoy it too much. DVD-As, Blu Ray concerts, and the like. This has nothing to do with my two-channel system for music.

MIC
Click to expand...

I told myself the exact same thing back in the 90s/ 2000s. Now, I just don't care because it just doesn't matter.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss good surround sound. Whilst it may not add much if anything to stereo content whether music or movies, it makes a huge difference in content made for multichannel surround. Hearing 5.1 or better content on a good 5.1 or better surround system is impressive, immersive and enormously enjoyable, and arguably a bigger improvement going from stereo to multichannel (again, with content made for it) than from mono to stereo.
Click to expand...

Oh but argue with you I will not milord. Multi-channel can deliver excellent sound... as long as it's not music by itself. It's just that for most living creatures including humans the brain is wired in binaural mode, meaning we create the illusion of multi-layered sound (imaging) from input provided by two sources. We cannot process additional auditory input into better sounding music because, quite simply, we only have two ears. Applied to music multi-channel rendering is a mechanical means to emulate certain natural faculties. While this procures nothing other than redundancy (which will result in distortion) in terms of additional music quality, it does help in other auditory applications, such as sound field expansion in movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom