| Bill Fitzpatrick |
Frankly, I think home theater is the hype of the decade.
Here's why.
Presumably the criteria for audio reproduction with a stereo system is to recreate the sound of a live performance as accurately as possible.
It follows then that the criteria for home theater is to reproduce the experience enjoyed in the seat of a reasonably well equipped theater.
My home theater setup is as follows:
TV
VHS
Pre-amp
2 Satellites/2 Woofers bi-amped
Center channel is speaker in TV (L+R sum) and helpful because the included listening angle is about 80 degrees!
With the exception that I am missing some of the surround sound effects, which are of questionable value in the first place, I can't tell the difference between the presentation of the audio portion of my system and that of the theater's. In fact, in some respects my system is better.
With VHS, all you get is a stereo signal.
So, what exactly is gained with 5.1 channels of information from a DVD, processed by a complicated set of algorithms and shuttled through a multi-channel amplifier and five speakers?
I maintain that from conception, the advantage of home theater is solely for the profit of audio equipment manufactuers who needed to boost sagging sales - once the CD became firmly entrenched there was no encore in sight.
Home theater with it's equipment and attendant brohaha was a solution to a reproduction problem that didn't even exist.
I bought a DVD player a couple of years ago but never hooked it up so I'm going out on a limb here but I'll bet a dollar to a donut that a DVD will not sound as good as VHS on a regular stereo system - intentionally. I must try this someday.
To add insult to injury for the general population, the home theater systems that most people can work into their budget sound considerably worse than my system.
I'm not saying that the commercial offerings of home theater systems can be avoided. After all, we are being locked in. VHS is slowly disappearing from the shelves of stores and rental places so ultimately it's DVD or nothing.
I would be interested in your comments on this. |
|
|
| roddyama |
I use stereo for music and movies. There are some arguments for HT 5.1 (or 5.2, whatever it takes:) ) if you have the entire package, including a large enough room to get the full effect of the Enterprise coming from behind and passing over your head.
To integrate a stereo system for music into a HT 5.1 system without compromising the stereo system sound would a bit difficult and very expensive.
I’ll stick with stereo. |
|
|
| chris ma |
| quote: | Originally posted by roddyama
I use stereo for music and movies. There are some arguments for HT 5.1 (or 5.2, whatever it takes:) ) if you have the entire package, including a large enough room to get the full effect of the Enterprise coming from behind and passing over your head.
To integrate a stereo system for music into a HT 5.1 system without compromising the stereo system sound would a bit difficult and very expensive.
I’ll stick with stereo. |
That's why I have my 2 channel stereo separate with the HT 5.1 channls. Unless you have all mono block power amps, excellent pre-processor that can decode AC3 and DTS yet performs as good as your 2 channel preamp.
How many of us actually sit on stage with the performers when they are playing anyway? It can be rather disturbing with people who used to soundstage and three D type of stereo imaging.
Having said that, Bill I think you should hook up the DVD and get some DTS DVDs and compare it with the VHS. The way AC3 and DTS having their discrete channel recording is pretty impressive. But lets try not get into the DD and DTS and or digital and analog contest here.
Chris |
|
|
| millwood |
better yet, drop the Hell freezes over DVD and you will be convinced, :)
I think multi-channels do a much better job of helping you locate sound source and that usually translates into better imaging, especially for moving subjects. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by millwood
I think multi-channels do a much better job of helping you locate sound source and that usually translates into better imaging |
I have had a problem with real centre channels... switch it in an the image collapses front-to-back. Much better with a virtual centre. Surrounds are nice for movies, they can be somewhat distracting for music, but a lot of the software is still at the "ping-pong" stage of development.
My front mains are wired so that they are independent of the HT except that for movie watching they accept input from the HT processor.
dave |
|
|
| purplepeople |
If you already know about 5.1 standards, then skip to the section labelled "For the experienced..."
For movies, AC3 and DTS are now the standard for DVD because there is better separation of the surround channels vs. Prologic 5.1. And because the THX standards are so improved over past implementation, multi-channel SACD is now using roughly the same post DAC implementations and specifying 5 full range speakers instead of 2 full range and 3 satellite sizes. If we remember that SACD stereo is supposed to transduce 20-100Khz and at least 20-50Khz, that is a pretty stringent standard. (Yes, I believe the the standard is only 20-20KHz for 5.1 SACD, but cannot recall with certainty.)
Tomlinson Holman has been the guru of surround since Hafler in the 70's and Dolby in the 80's. His work AES related work has (so far) been the basis of most of the recent standards. You'll have to do some Googling, but it's all there.
http://www.tmhlabs.com/research/research.html
It should also be noted that 5.1 is completely unnecessary for listening to material recorded in stereo and can even destroy the presentation originally intended by the mixing engineer. With the right decoding, it is useful, but not needed for material that is stereo music with some surround encoding. There is a boatload of material on what matrix system is compatible with another so, sorry, yet more googling.
Finally, I think it is important to say that cheap 5.1 doesn't come close to even mid-fi stereo for soundstage, object placement and realism. It is fairly common for the quality of the analog stages to be the limiting factor in most consumer setups. And, they will continue to be until consumers get some discerning ears.
For the experienced,
nothing beats a high quality 5.1 decoder or processor. Most HT receivers at the US$750 level have decent processors, but don't have matching analog output until about the US$1500 price bracket. (IMO, as you can tell, it is not the processing, but the analog stages that need to be improved. Not A vs D but quality of both should match.)
Most pro-sumers make the mistake of getting a DVD player that has all sorts of features (DTS, 24/96, etc.) and then hooking it up to their HT receiver digitally. At that point, all those great specs are lost because the receiver is only 16/48 (or whatever) and has really noisy and distorted (pre)amps. They just bought this really expensive transport and they didn't know it. And, it probably doesn't have better jitter specs than the cheap DVD's. (Of course, the video is better, but that is not at issue here.)
This is why I bought the Sony NC-650V. It is an SACD/DVD/CD 5-disc changer. Since the analog output stages are shared, they have to be high enough quality for the SACD. They are not ES-series quality but way better than practically everything in the same price range up to about double the price. I not only get the wonderful analog outs, but 6-channels of analog output. With decent amplification and speakers, which is cheaper than any comparative HT set-up, I get HT at a mid-fi price. If I play a CD only the L/R mains give me sound. Too bad it is no longer in production. I think they still make the NC-700 series with 5.1 analog outputs.
Source: Sony NC-650V
L/R mains: Yorkville YSM1-p active studio monitors
L/R rear: Tannoy Proto-J studio monitors/Marantz 1530
Vol ctrl: Teac 2A 4-buss mixer
Finally, I think speaker placement is critical. In each SACD 5.1 case, there is usually a little diagram that shows the usual equilateral triangle with the addition of a circle. The ideal location of the rear surrounds is supposed to be at about 120deg relative to the centre channel with all speakers right on the circle for equal distance to your head. This ideal 5.1 set-up may not coincide with your ideal stereo set-up due to room reflections, bass boost, phase cancellations, etc. I believe this is the greatest problem when comparing an audiophile HT in both modes.
Dave: If you are having problems with your centre channel, it might be because you don't have the required delay for the surround channels. On any 2.0 matrix decoded to 5.1, there must be a delay of about 15ms total for rear channels. Without it, the brain is not fooled into thinking that the surround channels are behind. If the stage collapses relative to the LR mains, then you may require a digital delay (1 ms / foot) as a result of the distance from listener to speaker. I find that DVD requires a centre to locate dialogue properly at the screen. Even with my virtual centre there is a lag of about .25ms between the mouth movement and sound and I cannot compensate with my 1ms delay resolution.
Bill: In a nutshell, the advantage of 5.1 discrete over 2.0 matrix is the channel separation. And this is assuming that the quality of the recordings are the same, yielding the same low noise, and frequency range.
:)ensen.
PS: I try to be helpful and for me it is unhelpful to be incomplete. Thus, I tend to be pretty verbose so my apologies for any annoyances. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
Dave: If you are having problems with your centre channel, it might be because you don't have the required delay for the surround channels. On any 2.0 matrix decoded to 5.1, there must be a delay of about 15ms total for rear channels. Without it, the brain is not fooled into thinking that the surround channels are behind. If the stage collapses relative to the LR mains, then you may require a digital delay (1 ms / foot) as a result of the distance from listener to speaker. I find that DVD requires a centre to locate dialogue properly at the screen. Even with my virtual centre there is a lag of about .25ms between the mouth movement and sound and I cannot compensate with my 1ms delay resolution. |
I have no probelm with the surrounds... even using just the front 3 speakers the front-to-back depth collapses with CC in. I don't have any problems with the virtual centre channel... it works really well.
dave |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Dave,
Does the CC have a LPF at about 7Khz? If not, higher freq which are highly directional all get heard down the middle, so it might really flatten the image.
I think that is also my problem. Since my DVD is full freq analog output, I think I need to put in the LPF in order to put in the CC.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
purplepeople:
You seem to know what you are talking about but I think you are missing my point.
If I, and everyone else, can get 98% of what the THX certified theater presents to the audience with a relatively modest VHS/stereo home system then what's the point? Note that the comparison I make with my home system is to the REAL DEAL, not a $5000+ home theater system.
The missing 2% are really just localization effects artificially created and implanted to wow the ever gullible consumer into parting with their hard earned cash. They appear in relatively few films and fail to have the importance of other more significant factors in the reproduction chain.
I stand my position, "they" are just trying to sock it to us.
Unfortunately they are going to succeed. They just got $1200 bucks from some friends of mine. What did my friends get? Well, the BEST part was a single 8" woofer! Imagine that, a whole 8". |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
they" are just trying to sock it to us. |
There is no question there is a lot of that involved, but given that they will continue to make inroads into the marketplace people will try to squeeze what they can out of it.
dave |
|
|
| purplepeople |
THX is quite a stringent standard so I doubt that anybody gets to 98% at home, even with extra $5000, if they buy the usual set-ups. To do it right, you need to buy the equipment, modify the walls, ceiling. Get the delays set to fractions of millisec and level match all the speakers. The reason you may not notice better in the theatre is that the rest of the audience is also there, eating popcorn, whispering, screaming, etc. (Or, the theatre has messed with levels and should be reported to Lucasfilm.)
I won't be messing with the room, other than laying down a rug, but at least the gear will be good without the audiophile price.
Anyway, trying showing up to a film when there are very few people, like when the next blockbuster opens. See Matrix on the T3 weekend. I do this all the time, it prevents having to line up and I can usual get near perfect seats, which in theory is in line with about 1/3 screen height from top of screen. The digital delays are kind of set just right here and there is no unfortunate craning of neck.
All that said, I agree that the HT manufacturers are making a killing. But, really, they have to, in order to make back their R&D costs.
Warning: R&D rant (I'm in R&D)
Just look at the overall effort just for Peter Daniel to make his Amp-1 GC into a ready-to-market product. Let's say that it took only 1000 hours to design and prototype. Doesn't seem like much, even at $20/hour to pay Peter. But that's on the surface. Parts are negligle so we won't bother with them. The aluminum and plastic case prototyping. Let's estimate 50 hours of time on a CNC and add up.
$20,000 Design labour
$ 4,000 Prototype machine time
But that's not all. If you order now, you also get to pay for rent. But not residential, let's go with commercial real estate and cheap for $5 / sq. ft per year. So based on a shop of 200 sq.ft. and the minimum 1-year lease, that's another $1000. But now, budget in the 500 hours of consulting that everyone did at a cheap $50/hour, we get another $25,000.
Now imagine that you have outsource manufacture of the PCBs to a contract fab. You can't order just one... no, the minimum is 1000 boards at $10 each.
So now we are at $60K and we still don't have a sub-contract for the cases. Etc., etc., etc.....
End rant.
Where I take issue with the manufacturers is that they are not only selling stuff for lots of money and profit, but they are selling **** and marketing it as the great stuff. And it is all the fault of the consumer for buying into it for the past 20 years.
For another $15 in quality analog components, even basic HT could have decent SNR. Amps don't need to have all this distortion. Just look at all the guys who have swapped opamps for $10 and discovered a whole new sound of silence.
I'll happily pay the price of admission if the actual stuff we get even resembles the prototypes that come from R&D. With Peter Daniel, the R&D makes it to the dealership. No shortcuts. But the various electronics firms look for ways to cut the production cost. Miss a resistor, save a penny. Use a 741 instead of a 5532 and (almost) nobody will notice. Save another 20 cents.
That's what really burns me up, and I'm guessing that is the root of most of the frustration on this forum.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Maybe I am just another one of those suckers, but I went into HT
knowing the costs and did so willingly. And the end result to me
and the numerous others that have been in the room was well
worth the price of admission. To say a VCR and 2Channel Rig can
compare? That's an insult to those with properly set up and
calibrated 5.1 + setups. You may be able to reproduce the front
sound field and even with a phantom center you may produce
a fairly decent front stage but those missing 2% rear effects mean
a great deal in the grand experiance.
I don't listen to 2Ch in 5.1 and I don't watch movies in 2.1. I listen
or watch everything in it's original format and my HT and 2Ch are
seperated for that reason.
Honestly talking money wise I didn't spend a fortune on my HT.
I have a $1050.00 Reciever and the matching seperate 2 channel
Power Amp that was another $400.00 (meant to add on for 7.1
but I instead use the Receiver as a Pre/Pro). I got deals on all of
the speakers not paying anywhere near retail and I also bought
the big TV when Monkey Wards went under and drove home with
a 3K monitor for less than $2K. So all in all it's not "that" expensive
but the joy it provides is priceless and it's better than every local
theater I have ever been in! |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett D.
. . . and it's better than every local
theater I have ever been in! |
Now we're getting somewhere.
So it seems to stack up like this . . . .
I've never really heard a good home theater system because:
a) nobody I know has one.
b) there isn't a decent HT dealer in my city (which explains a).
and
the presentation in my local theaters is way off target.
I can accept that and it would explain why I think that my VHS thru a stereo system sounds so good. |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Hi Brett,
For me, the situation is horrible. You see, I live in a small city with about 10 THX certified theatres (in the metro area). It puts the non-rated theatres to shame, even within the same complex.
I won't even bother with the mom and pop neighbourhood theatre as the reflections can be heard when I clap my hands.
In fact, it's come to a point where I only watch the really big special effects blockbusters with cool sound effects and folies at the theatre because my own home is better than the non-THX rooms. And that's with a 20-inch FST.
In film, they teach you that sound is the trick that actually suspends disbelief (or else animation wouldn't be so huge). But, the directors get all press so the public doesn't stop to think that the sounds are what has made the subliminal impact. This was made very clear to me when I saw a film at a festival where they used non-corresponding sounds with specific images. Clapping when people were walking. Gulps when filling a gas tank. It was great to be able to decorrelate eyes from ears. The experience was so exclusively sensory that it became obvious that the plot was banal and formulaic.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| tiroth |
Personally I think a well-done discrete 5.1 (or more) movie soundtrack is a dramatic step up from 2-channel audio or matrix surround. There are some movies (e.g. Tron) which are terribly mastered and would be better in stereo, but most benefit from multiple channels. I tend to run my surround speakers about -3dB relative to the front channels...this helps a lot in terms of irritating localization to the rear. (They are also raised slightly above the listening position)
I would never listen to music in 5.1 but I'm definitely a fan of discrete digital for HT. |
|
|
| chris ma |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiroth
Personally I think a well-done discrete 5.1 (or more) movie soundtrack is a------------------------.................
I would never listen to music in 5.1 but I'm definitely a fan of discrete digital for HT. |
IMO, it depends, the Live in Paris is an excellent DTS dvd I listen to a lot, I also enjoy that CD too, they are different way of enjoyment. But the FleetwoodMac DVD that I have sound really bad, sound worst than my kid's Barnie VHS dolby tape..
Chris
:) |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
For me, the situation is horrible. You see, I live in a small city with about 10 THX certified theatres (in the metro area). It puts the non-rated theatres to shame, even within the same complex. |
Vancouver small? To us on the Island it is the big city.
dave |
|
|
| purplepeople |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Vancouver small? To us on the Island it is the big city.
dave |
Hey, Victoria has at least 2 THX theatres, so I figure it has more THX per capita than Vancouver. Makes you wonder how many in Toronto or Los Angeles or New York or London or Paris?
:)ensen. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
Hey, Victoria has at least 2 THX theatres, so I figure it has more THX per capita than Vancouver. Makes you wonder how many in Toronto or Los Angeles or New York or London or Paris? |
At least 2... i rarely go to the cinema anymore... a DVD costs less & the popcorn is better at home.
I do hope someday we get to build an HD3D theatre.
You can be sure the sound will be good.
dave |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Bill,
I can understand your dilemma honestly. There really isn't much
around where I live short of going into Pittsburgh which is a 50
minute drive. Also the local theaters are of such low quality with
none of them being THX Certified.
I honestly can say the last time I was in a theater was umm let's
see..... Mission To Mars yep that's the last movie I watched in a
theater.
I have a fairly decent sized room that I have treated carefuly with
placement of wall hangings and such that reflections are very
well controlled. All channels are level matched with an SPL Meter
all speakers are carefuly aimed with a laser etc.
I get so much enjoyment out of the HT that even if we had a THX
Certified theater it's doubtful I would be "that" impressed.
Considering that I can acheive more than 116Db @ 12' in my
livingroom without any clipping or distorsion it's plenty loud ....
(I never listen that loud.. I do appreciate my hearing but head
room is a good thing) :)
As for VHS... I gave away all my bought VHS Tapes and my VCR is
just sitting in my rack unplugged. After watching DVD's on my 61"
which isn't even an HDTV I can't bear to watch a VHS... DVHS or
SVHS may be another story but I am not about to spend on the
order of $700.00 dollars for those players and then buying tapes
because the technology is practicaly dead since DVD has taken
over with consumers. |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
Problem solved but it makes me look like a schmuck.
This just goes to show you how little attention I have been paying to the audio in theaters.
I remember when "Independence Day" came to one of our theaters, that the THX logo was presented before the film and there was this dumb little animated guy flying around on the screen and disappearing to fix the rear speakers.
Naturally I believed that this was a THX certified theater and would remain so. NOT TRUE! And, come to think of it, I don't believe I have seen the THX logo since.
I did some checking today and it seems that there are 0 theaters in Eugene with THX!
So, I withdraw just about everything I said and now ask for suggestions for an equipment purchase. I can easily take care of the speaker and amp needs but will need a DVD player and processor.
I just I will have to boogie up to Portland to see if it's all worth it. |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
So, I withdraw just about everything I said and now ask for suggestions for an equipment purchase. I can easily take care of the speaker and amp needs but will need a DVD player and processor. |
My vote is Arcam all the way!
If you can pick up a S/H Alpha 10 with the DAVE module you will get a real bargain. The decoding, although basic from the feature level, is spot on for quality, with excellent channel separation, and huge dynamics. And the inbuilt 100w amps, despite being MOSFETS, (oops, flame war potential ;) ) sound very good, and would work well for driving rear speakers.
The DIVA dvd players are also excellent, with great picture quality, and pretty good audio only CD playing as well, in fact, if you had a separate DAC for audio use, you could lose your CD player:devily: |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett D.
As for VHS... |
Was useful for catching Buffy & FarScape... now that they are both ended i don't know :(
dave |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
and processor. |
The Arcam PM mentions has a good rep... i have a Technics SH-AC500D which is stand-alone, tweakable and pretty good. Price used -- if you are patient enuff for one to show up -- are quite reasonable.
dave |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
Frankly, I think home theater is the hype of the decade. |
So do I. After installing a few and even having one of my own for a short while, I think they're vastly overrated, except at the very upper end of the price scale, ie dedicated room custom install jobs.
Most of the information on the rear channels can easily be done without unless you're into gee-whizz sound effects stuff, and in most domestic situations, centre channel speakers whith different FR, dispersion and distortion, simply call attention to themselves, in almost every situation I've heard (ie lots).
Getting the front end right (stereo mains), a good DVDP and amps is enough most of the time, certainly to induce suspension of beleif. Most movies don't have a need for rear channels. Especially if they have a plot, characterisations and are well made.
Note: I watch a lot of movies on DVD, and gasp!! VHS, because out here in the boonies, TV reception is utter *****, and so is 90% of the content.
Now my 2c on not going to the theatre because the sound isn't good enough. The theatre and outing itself is part of the experience. You can't create that at home.
For Bill. Borrow some gear and play with it before you shell out the bucks. If you beleive all the hype, you may be in for a big disappointment. Then again you may love it.
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Was useful for catching Buffy & FarScape... now that they are both ended i don't know |
I like Buffy's end. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett
I like Buffy's end. |
Pun intended?
They sure left a pretty big crater behind... i'm wondering how they are going to resurrect Spike so he can be on Angel next year?
dave |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
See? Like I always say, "Hang back long enough and someone will show up who agrees with you."
I'll test drive a theater in Portland first.
As to the theater experience, I already have that. . .
Someone stands outside my front door and sells me a ticket. I then complain about the price but no one is listening - I could have had some prime rib. Just inside the hallway I have a device that issues the truly disgusting aroma of fake butter. I avoid the concession stand and surpress the urge to ride the plastic motorcycle. Further inside someone takes my ticket and later walks around the living room with a flash light and checks the back door. With the flashlight bearer acting as a latecomer trying to get past my seat, a cardboard cutout of a head placed in front of me and a previously prepared unflushed toilet, I'm in seventh heaven. After 45 minutes has elapsed and I can no longer tolerate the lousy movie, I walk out. Days later, I'm informed that I left just before the picture got good so I have to re-rent the movie and go through it all over again. This cycle continues to repeat itself until I stay for the end of the movie. Only then am I free again. |
|
|
| Brett |
Maybe I'm just lucky Bill. Small family owned theatre, brand new projector (sound's still mediocre but it's in negotiation) but it's the only place for 100km and it's a big social event where I get to see lots of people I know, eat good popcorn and have fun. It's clean, well maintained and you're greeted with a smile (that's actually meant).
I could also drink at home on my own, but that doesn't always equate to more enjoyable than the 'local'.
It must really suck living in a city. |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Hi everyone,
I'm quite liking this thread. I'm really glad you brought it up, Bill.
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
See? Like I always say, "Hang back long enough and someone will show up who agrees with you."
I'll test drive a theater in Portland first.
As to the theater experience, I already have that. . . |
I hope I didn't seem disagreeable. I was only trying to change your starting point of reference.
May I suggest you look at the SACD/DVD players from Sony. I normally would never have looked at these, but I find they are underpriced gems. Not so beautiful, but...
Bring all the usual CDs for testing the sound quality. For DVDs, I suggest Attack of the Clones for the richness of sound in the big light saber battle, Blackhawk Down for well done moving objects and Spiderman for the psychotic arguments between Goblin and Osborne. With DVDs you are really only checking to see that the store has implemented 5.1 with some basic skill. The CDs will tell you a lot more about the system components.
The Sony models have 5.1 analog outputs and onboard decoding so you can pick and choose your amplification. With 3 pre-amps of the same make, one remote can control volumes and match levels from your seat.
Or like me, you can grow over time. I started with my old Marantz driving a pair of Tannoys and used the TV for centre after running a Y-split from the DVD. I recently got a pair of active Yorkvilles for the mains and "relegated" the Tannoys for surround. Volume is from a 4-buss mixer and I stopped using the TV for centre.
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett
It must really suck living in a city. |
The last movie I saw was T3 with my friends... in another city! Good film - worth full price but not after having to line up.
Went to one of the new "SilverCity" rooms with the ultra-sloped floor so my 5'4" eyes could see over the hockey players in the next row. Big popcorn at $6.00 CDN and real (no kidding!) butter for extra $0.50. Could no longer afford to buy water so drank from the tap in the washroom. Surprisingly clean washroom - the automatic flush takes care of that, but still the small moat surrounding the ceramics. No smiles from the staff. No flashlights, but a pair of late-comers. Didn't actually block the view, but the motion was distracting. They were polite enough to have worn black.
Sound presented in THX, levels set just right (ignore the ads, they are always 3-6db higher) for nearly perfect subliminals and no overdone flying effects. Nobody chattering near me. One cell phone but it was during a big shootout (I hope that doesn't give away the plot - heh!). And one idiot crunching a popcorn bag during the tense moments. To my shame, it was me... All in all, not bad, but still questionable at $13.50 CDN for the ticket.
My friends are not 'philes nor even close, so it was hard to discuss the beauty of the mix. Only two friends in Vancouver have the ears for this. One is blind so I cannot see films with him. We do spend a lot of time in the pre-owned section of Commercial Electronics. The other is a recording engineer so he has very little spare time. It sucks in this city.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Brett,
You say that the theater and the outing is "part of the experiance"
and while that may be the case for some people I would much
rather spend a night at home on the comfy recliner or couch and
watch a movie in peace rather than listen to obnoxious people
talk, chew popcorn, sip thier empty pop containers not to mention
spending all that wasted money on said refreshments and the
over priced tickets ta boot. Instead of wasting all that money to
see the movie once I can buy the DVD and own it for life.
As far as HT Setups are concerned, with good speakers you don't
run into such issues as non even soundfields. My mains and
center all run exact same drivers in same airspace enclosures
both with the same arangement. Well placed and level matched
a center will not call any more attention to it's self than the main
L/R does in my experiance. Plus you can always use identical
L/C/R/S speakers from numerous companies without spending a
fortune or you can always DIY them and you can DIY a 5.1 setup
on the cheap too! Like 5 Micro's running Tang Band 3 inchers and
a good 12" sub. Add a Processor/Amp or a Receiver a Monitor and
DVDP and you're good to go and it doesn't have to cost a ton.
All I can say is we hear what our minds want us to hear.. We can
measure things all day long and debate this vs. that and never
come up with a clear answer. But when I put a THX Demo Disk in
and play it.. And my Dog looks all around the room trying to find
that Bee (THX Demo: Jungle Sounds) you know it's right... :nod: |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett D.
You say that the theater and the outing is "part of the experiance"
and while that may be the case for some people I would much
rather spend a night at home on the comfy recliner or couch and
watch a movie in peace rather than listen to obnoxious people
talk, chew popcorn, sip thier empty pop containers not to mention
spending all that wasted money on said refreshments and the
over priced tickets ta boot. |
Every session at my local theatre is $A5.50/$US3.70. I can't hire a new release DVD for that, and it's 1/5 to 1/6 of the purchase price of the average DVD.
I find all the domestic distractions, and the poxy small screen to be a far larger impediment to 'suspension of disbelief' that a few wrappers crumpling.
| quote: | As far as HT Setups are concerned, with good speakers you don't
run into such issues as non even soundfields. My mains and
center all run exact same drivers in same airspace enclosures
both with the same arangement. Well placed and level matched
a center will not call any more attention to it's self than the main
L/R does in my experiance. |
I have no problem picking the centre out in every situation, except where it's an identical speaker, implemented the same way, at the same height. That usually only happens in custom rooms with a screen and the centre behind it.
| quote: | Plus you can always use identical
L/C/R/S speakers from numerous companies without spending a
fortune or you can always DIY them and you can DIY a 5.1 setup
on the cheap too! Like 5 Micro's running Tang Band 3 inchers and
a good 12" sub. Add a Processor/Amp or a Receiver a Monitor and
DVDP and you're good to go and it doesn't have to cost a ton. |
Well that depends on what you have for mains doesn't it? Not everyone has the space or wallet for a seperate HT. So, to add a centre and rears that are of equivalent quality to my mains is going to be expensive, or they will draw attention to themselves. As for 5 TB's and a 12"sub, blech!, I'd rather just use the TV speaker. There is no way that a 5 pack of modest speakers and a cheap sub are ever doing to keep up with my mains in terms of dynamic range, distortion, SPL and the ability to effortlessly move air. Without that, the rest is deckchairs on the Titanic.
| quote: | All I can say is we hear what our minds want us to hear.. We can
measure things all day long and debate this vs. that and never
come up with a clear answer. But when I put a THX Demo Disk in
and play it.. And my Dog looks all around the room trying to find
that Bee (THX Demo: Jungle Sounds) you know it's right... :nod: |
I have a pair of speakers only. Yet my dog manages to jump around and look for people/sounds too emanating from the movie too. So on that basis, I've acheived what you've got.
You obviously like what you have. Fine. I just don't think it's neccessary for the experience to have 5 speakers. Spending the money that a processor and 3 extra speaks and a sub costs, would be far, far better spent for most people on a really good set of mains rather than compromising the lot. |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Sorry in advance for the huge post. I hope you all find it worthwhile.
:)ensen.
Okay, this is how I understand everyone's point of reference.
Bill: You have a VCR hooked up to a stereo and have crappy choices for movie theatres in the Eugene area. You've been convinced that some test driving is now in order.
Roddyama: You don't have 5.1 because you think it will compromise your 2-ch if not implemented properly.
Chris: You have both a 2-ch and 5.1 system in the same room and watch movies in whichever format sounds better.
Millwood: You like way surround locates the sounds. You haven't said what kind of system is in place.
Dave: From the tone of your posts, it appears you have the equipment for 5.1, but nothing conclusive in this thread, except for the Technics. You would like to see HD3D in person.
Tiroth: You have taken the time to change the levels on your 5.1 system for best effect. You won't listen to music in surround or watch movies in stereo.
Brett D: You have a treated room for your surround system. It performs better than all the local theatres. You have not had a THX-certified theatre experience in quite a while.
Pinkmouse: You like Arcam and I will (probably in error) assume that you have a surround system with (some) Arcam components.
Brett: You used to have a surround system but now only have stereo that is well-implemented because you believe that it is more than enough for most movies.
If I've made an error here, please chime in. I hope I haven't because...
Bill: Don't just let the salespeople play whatever DVD is available. Something that was mastered at Skywalker Sound will have the extra 2% and if a system can't show it to you, then...
Roddyama and Brett: You are right to believe that bad 5.1 compromises 2-ch. Please read on and see why Chris, Millwood, Tiroth and Brett D. say what they say and why I believe you can do good 5.1 without too much effort and cost.
Chris: The reason Barney may sound better than Mick Fleetwood is probably because the software is mixed well for surround while Mick had already downmixed before dumping to DVD.
Dave: Have you checked out the IMAX theatre? It is even better than THX, but unfortunately has very little software. 50-foot Yoda - nuf said.
Pink: Arcam is nice. I wish I could afford one of them. What else in yours?
Finally, I think it is important to state that both the hardware _and_ the software make a difference in how the various systems present music and/or movies.
Now, 2 decades after Return of the Jedi, most of the good theatres have the proper hardware in place. Not all good theatres are THX-certified, but many will pass if tested. THX theatres should not sound inferior, if so, call Lucasfilm and get them de-rated.
For our homes, all we have to do is "copy" these implementations and all the good software should come as alive as the sound designers intend.
Warning tech tip: Skip if not needed.
THX is just a standard for hardware quality, speaker placement and overall system calibration.
4.0
The original Hafler matrix algorithm and specifies that 4-channel surround be encoded into 2-channels for backward compatibility with stereo delivery methods. Recall that at the time, all theatres had projectors that decoded the stereo sound track right off the film. This is the reason for the 4:2 algorithm. During playback, centre was merely the sum of left and right with a 7KHz low-pass to remove the directional information and down 3db to negate the summed RMS. This helps to locate signals that are already mono right in the middle of the screen. Surround was a single rear channel that was encoded as a L minus R signal and played back at +3db to negate the minused RMS and delayed by about 15ms (effective) to encourage the brain into believing the sounds do not come from in front. Both the centre and surround tracks were mixed into the L/R tracks 90deg out of phase so that stereo playback would appear normal. Without the phase difference, it would sound horrible without decoding. That is the Jedi mind trick that is not very commonly known.
5.1
Dolby Surround specified two more speakers. One was a subwoofer to take care of low frequencies by taking the centre (or LR) information and low-passing it again. The second was a yet another surround speaker so that a pair could be placed at the sides instead of the Hafler single surround placed directly behind. This ensured that surround sounds were more clear since they were not in the listener's dead zone.
Dolby ProLogic is an extension of DS that adds more localization of directional sounds by using amplifiers controlled by logic. If a sound was only placed on one of the 4 channels, it would be amplified because it was assumed that it was directional information.
It should be noted that the software up to this point was still arriving in 2-channel to be decoded (hence the term decoder) into the 5.1 channels. The major drawback here is that while channel separation was very high between the mains and the centre/surround tracks, it was only about 3db between left and right and only 3db between front and back. Not even close to audiophile quality.
Step in the discrete algorithms.
AC3 (Dolby Digital) and DTS are both software encoding algorithms of discrete 6-ch sound. They specify no filters as the tracks can contain all the directional information needed and provide high channel separation since there is no multi-tracking or phase changes. There is a preference in some circles for DTS because it doesn't put as much digital compression on the data as does AC3.
There are new systems for 6.1 and 7.1 and recently, 10.2 channels. The 6.1 and 7.1 are known as EX systems and the software is no longer true discrete. Rather, one or two centre surrounds are encoded much like the front centre of the old Hafler matrix. The channel separation remains high since no other tracks are encoded. Tomlinson Holman recently demo'ed 10.2 at the AES in Banff but he is the only known source for software and he ain't distributing.
End tech tip.
Continued in next post... |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Continued from previous post...
So, how to copy a THX-certified room without having to pay the THX-certified price.
1) Get good speakers. This is not necessarily expensive. My Tannoy Proto-J studio monitors are about C$125 each. They are shielded and better than practically everything up to 4 times their price. Start with the mains. Good mains won't need subs for 99% of software. A well matched pair will make the phantom centre really good. You do not need surrounds with the same bass as the mains. Remember that most surround tracks contain directional information, so the lower frequencies don't matter as much. The one exception is SACD-multi which (in theory) requires high-quality full-range speakers at each of the 5 positions.
2) Position the speakers properly. There are a number of good articles on the web about this. I'll let you do the research. For the asking, I'll discuss specifics, including dipoles, etc. in later posts.
3) Get clean amplification. Loud is not necessary since you are filling a relatively small room with a lot of SPL. It is more important to have a quiet amp for all the silent passages in a film than one that has enough power for the neighbourhood. True RMS rules the day here, don't be fooled by the consumer specs, check the power consumption. 6 x 100W RMS should need a large power supply. In reality transformers give off about 50% in heat so for any amp output, at least the same energy is lost unit should draw about 1200 Watts.
4) Digital processing power is not absolutely necessary (at least not in the audio realm). Many set-ups have a great DVD and crappy "digital-ready" receiver. These sound horrible, especially the consumer Yamaha RXV series. If you implement 4.0 really well, then you will do better than a crappy 5.1 ProLogic.
The best way to start is get a DVD with really good 2-channel output, then run 5.1 decoding in analog. Circle Surround makes (made?) a great analog decoder. Or implement Rod Elliott's awesome little DIY Hafler box. If you want, upgrade the op-amps in his circuit and if you use good amps as in #2 it will sound great.
5) Defeat the surround circuitry if you are listening to music that is 2-channel stereo. Some music has been surround encoded, but this is extremely rare. If you want, punch in the sub, but leave the centre and the surround amps out of it. Better yet, get a (or keep your old) CD player and don't use the DVD player for music. The analog stages are usually better.
6) If you started with 2-ch DVD, upgrade by getting a 5.1 digital decoder and using the coax digital connection. If you implemented the amps properly for 4.0 and 5.1 matrix, then you won't have to change anything.
7) Match your levels properly. At least use the THX audio test tones on your disc or the on-board hardware test tones. An SPL is even better, but anything is better than un-matched.
8) Get good software and set the sound properly. If the menus have a selection for Dolby 2.0 then use it if you are running a matrix decoding scheme. The discrete users don't have to do anything.
9) If you don't have speakers and amps yet, consider getting a number of active studio monitors. This way you get amps that are match to the speakers and get very high performance for any given amount spent. There are many manufacturers, they come in a range of sizes and prices and some even come with volume control. Also, most are for "professional" use so the published specs are more truthful than for consumer brands. For the beginners I recommend M-Audio as they are about C$600 pair and are bi-amped. That's 2 enclosures, 4 drivers and 4 amps for the price of a decent pair of speakers. You will need a sub for anything lower than about 100Hz, but in most cases, you knew that already.
10) My personal preference is for 2 centre speakers positioned on the horizontal mid-axis of the screen. That way, they create a new virtual centre that lies in the middle of the image. I've tried this (had to re-wire the surrounds temporarily) and it works really well. I hate it when the image seems to come from above the image - oh wait, is that a lone centre speaker sitting on top of the TV. Hmmm....
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Ensen,
Very good (and very informative ) post.
I just wanted to clear something up. Not all THX Theaters are up
to the same level of one another I think. I guess it all depends on
how "good" the THX installer did his or her job and the equipment
the theater chooses to run because let's face it there is no set in
stone brand of speakers or amplification that any theater runs.
My home system performs very well that is all I was saying, not
that it will outperform "all" THX Theaters just that to me, it sounds
better than any of the local theaters I have ever been in.
As far as 2Ch vs. Multichannel from my experiance if you want the
best of both worlds then you simply need two seperate systems.
I am sure you could acheive a fairly good 2ch system if your Pre
Pro is something on the order of a Krell Showcase or AVM-20 etc.
but for my personal taste, seperate was better.
For my HT I run an Onkyo TX-DS787 which is a THX Select Cert
7.1 Receiver that puts out 100w RMS x 6Ch @8Ohm and 110W x
6Ch @6Ohm (this was made well before the recent bunch of stuff
from Onk that does not measure with all channels driven at thier
rated output. The 787 was only second to the Flagship 989 when
I picked it up) even with the amount of power that it puts out I
still run an Onkyo M282B 2 Ch Power Amp to feed my mains when
running HT (Use the Reciever to power the Bookshelf Surrounds
and the large Center).
For Music I run a Parasound Halo P3 into a pair of 20W Push/Pull
ASL Wave20 Monoblock Tubes. Completely seperate systems for
completely seperate tasks. I am not into "multichannel" music.
I have listened to some regular multichannel stuff but I have not
heard a proper SACD setup yet and most likely won't. Buying a
music collection all over again is pointless to me and I guess I
sort of see Bill's argument here.
It does seem like they want to generate sales, create a new
format and everyone will want it and they will buy our wares all
over again (for the third or more time..) well, I will not.
I love the way my 2Ch sounds and when my 7.5' tall Line Array's
are done it will only get much better.. I am not delving into SACD
or DVD-A as interesting as the concepts are and the masterering
may be of a higher quality but I can not bring myself to do it all
over again.
So Bill I do see you and Brett's point...
Brett,
As far as a night at the movies is concerned. Where I live the
price of admission per person is $6.50 US each person plus
anything else. For two people this outing (plus dinner) can and
will cost well into the $50.00 US or more dollar range. And if you
enjoy that, then certainly more power to you. But I do not enjoy
the utter distraction and obnoxiousness found at most theaters.
For me the only reason I ever went was for the "big screen" well
I have one at home and better sound than the local theaters plus
when I want to smoke I can just pause the DVD go outside and
have my nicotene fit and come back in and never miss a beat. Not
to mention the couch is very conducive to sleeping :)
In the end it all comes down to what we each enjoy. I have spent
much time and some money to turn my living room into a mini
theater that sounds great, looks great and causes friends jaws
to drop! And when I am done watching a movie I can flip right
over to 2Ch and dim the lights and relax :) |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Hi all,
I just checked and the Tannoy Proto-J's are not available outside of North America. Sorry for any inconvenience.
I have no equivalents for the same price. When I bought mine, I was testing passive monitors up to 5 times the price and these were a bargain gem. The closest in price/performance was bottom line Paradigm and B&W. Paradigm costs about the same (slightly more) but not as good. B&W just as good, but 3 x $$$.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Ensen,
Remember one caveat that is "to your ears" because lord knows
some people even like the way the Bose Acoustimass sounds...
*shakes head* :rolleyes:
I bet your setup does sound fantastic though. I think if I was to
redo my setup now I would go with 7 Mackie active Monitors
and an AVM-20 or SoundStage to do all the switching.. I really
like the idea of using the same Monitors the Pro's use plus they
have a nice ruler flat FR (anechoic of course) but that already puts
them ahead of most speakers though.. In a good treated room
they will work great.
But my HT is more than adequate to reproduce the levels and
quality of sound I need... 2Ch is where I am at now and I can't
get my head out of it :) |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Hi Brett D.
Actually, it is Jensen. I think your browser is displaying the emoticon instead of the ASCII characters colon - right parathensis - ensen. Took me awhile to think it up, but it's very me and very web.
Ah yes, the Mackies. 824, 624 and 626. Wonderful sounding. Smooth and unbelievable bass. For me, the price is stratospheric. Almost C$6000 for 5 x 624s. At least you also get amps. Your systems are already out of my league, which is probably why you don't find any local theatres with better sound. And I see that you are running 5.0. Have you thought about using your arrays as the mains?
It is true that THX has variations. In a commercial set-up it is in a different league that residential grade THX, and even then, there are different brands, models and even a bit of tolerance in the specs. Suffice to say that many THX-certified theatres do not use THX components. Like Bryston, which I think are better than Krell and for less money. Interesting that Skywalker chose Brystons even though they are not rated. They use Blue Sky monitors in most of their small control rooms.
I started late with the 5.1 and I didn't even get into 2-ch until about 3 years ago when I added the Tannoys to the Marantz I inherited from my grandfather. It's still hard to believe I've "demoted" the Tannoys to the surrounds. They are pretty good, a little bright, but not much. Excellent highs make excellent surrounds.
For the mains, I've "settled" for the Yorkvilles, if you can all it settling. Also active. Not as smooth or as much bass as Mackie, but pretty clean and transparent enough that I don't notice them playing. Even in my horrible room with hardwood floors and non-ideal wall reflections, they sound great. I think brains can learn to compensate for highly reflective rooms.
You are right about using what the pros use, hence my choice towards studio monitors. I will put my Yorkvilles up against any of the so-called reference speakers any day. I can't guarantee they will make the music sound good, but I know they will tell me the truth. And if we got into a bang for buck argument, I'd definitely be smiling since the YSMs are already cheaper than the passive reference units.
BTW, I checked the service manual and they run an LM3886 for each driver. More complex filters and feedback loops than GC but same the heartbeat so I guess I can't be doing too badly in the amp dept, eh?
The weak link is the Teac 2A mixer. I think it has op-amps so I will probably hot-rod it one day when I can look inside. I'm still looking for a 6-buss for the day when I add a sub and centre.
IME, SACD is just a little more smooth overall than 16/44. Bass is fuller and there seems to be more "environment" but I have to say that I only hear it when no other sounds are around. No traffic, no fans, no rain, etc. I don't think I'll ever have a system (including my own physiology) that could properly resolve it. So, of course, SACD-multi didn't show up at all. I'd love to get into an SACD mastering studio just to hear what they hear in the DSD signal.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| Brett |
Ensen, thatnks for taking the time to post the history and an overview of the technicalities, your kindness is appreciated, but I already knew them, and they are really moot to the points I was trying to make.
The point of having good audio in the first place is to encourage a suspension of disbeleif in the situation you are viewing on screen, so that you are more easily able to become enveloped in the unfolding drama. Using cheap small speakers, will not do that even in 10 channels, simply because they are not capable of satisfactory dynamic range or lack of colouration and distortion, so constantly draw attention to themselves. The polar patterns need to match on all 5 units need to match for example, and they will need to be positioned with care or you end up with a soup of sound that I find annoying. You also do need quite a deep bass response to get accurate localisation.
And playing them through the utterly **** amplifiers present in receivers won't help the situation.
Correct set up is a given and there are so many variables here, I'll not comment further at the moment. But let's say I'm experienced enough at doing it.
Given a fixed, presumably modest budget, and a desire to get the best out of watching movies as well as listening to stereo in one system, spending on a set of poor amplifiers, decoding and 3 extra speakers, will severely compromise what can be acheived in 2ch for the same expenditure. Yet, I have never found in my experience that really good 2ch was an impediment to the suspension of disbeleif when playing movies, unless you simply want the gee-whizz stuff, or watch noting but Die Hard type flix.
If HT is the priority, go for it, set it up multichannel, but you will lose out a lot in 2ch. Cost no object and custom theatre room installations are excluded from my comments.
Brett D: we obviously have contrasting views on the cinema experience, so let's simply agree to disagree. |
|
|
| Brett D. |
Jensen,
Sorry about that, yes it shows the Emitocon and then Ensen :)
There are certainly bargains in audio and it takes some searching
to find them. And even then some people will never give those
brands the time of day because they believe that $$ = Good
Sound. I of course do not agree with that in the least. I think you
can throw money into audio hand over fist and still have a poor
sounding system simply because of the room and the setup and
implimentation of the system. I am constantly moving things and
trying different ways to cancel reflections here and there and
messing with positioning to find the best that works in my room.
I do run 5.1 and have the ability to do up to 7.1 with my current
processor and amplifiers. I just don't have the room for another
pair of surrounds on the walls. My mains are full range units that
the LF tuning is 32Hz they have been tested by Tom Nousainne(Sp)
And acheived 100Db @32Hz they run HiVi Research Magnesium
Mids and a Titanium Tweeter in a D'Appolito arangement. The
Center runs the same identical drivers, though in a horizontal
array. I always hear "audiophiles" talking about how compressed
and un natural horizontal M-T-M's sound.. And how they can pick
out this or that.. Well gee I guess I am not an audiophile then
because the center does what it is suposed to do.. If your center
channel is transparent then you have a problem. A centers job is
to anchor dialogue to the screen, not above the screen or below
the screen or to the sides of the screen. My center does it's job
without any problems.
As far as setup, I see too many people run Horizontal M-T-M's on
top of thier TV's pushed way back... Those are simply people who
don't care about proper setup. I run my center slightly overhung
on the top of the TV the baffel hangs over the edge and the
center's mids and tweeter are aimed at the listening position with
a laser (same for the mains) because of this I get a seamless
front pan from Left to Right and dialogue is on screen where it
belongs.
For movies the system sounds absolutely fantastic and better
than some other people I know with HT's.. Of course I have also heard far better than my setup but at more than 3X the cost of
my setup.
Brett,
We obviously have largely contrasting views on both HT and 2Ch
because I simply don't agree with anything you have stated. But
it's a huge world out there and there is room for both of us to
have our own opinions and yet have a civilized discussion as we
are right??? I mean this is a discussion forum, after all.
Small speakers can work well given the room dimensions are
small. If a small speaker is well designed and can integrate with a
good sub woofer then the setup will work and will be decent to
listen to. Will it be the best? No, small speakers never will be...
But sometimes it's a comprimise and for the general consumer
who has WAF to deal with I guess every decision made is nothing
but a comprimise :) Fortunatly I have no W therfore no WAF and
that won't change any time in the near future.
I plan on replacing all my "OEM" speakers with custom built line
arrays. Right now I am waiting for the crossover design to be
finalized on the 88" tall LA's that will be my mains. There will also
be matching surrounds and a center in the near future. Dynamics
won't be a problem running 24 7" Midranges just on the front
two channels and stereobass from dual sealed 12's. Hey one of
those crappy receivers would probably even power them! But
that's not going to happen :)
I think my next amp purchase will either be Aragon Paladium 1K's
or something from Pass Labs. I know the Pass stuff is dynamite
but it is a fair amount more pricey than the Aragon's so I may just
go with the Paladiums.. That's next years upgrade :) Of course I
will keep the tubes for when I really want colored sound! :nod:
As far as the suspension of disbelief.. It takes more than sound
it's also the screen and your own frame of mind.. People can get
absorbed into a movie on TV not even in surround sound.. The
mind is a fickle thing.. It doesn't even take high fidelity to get
completely absorbed into something. But it certainly adds to the
experiance to have great sound and sights.. I get so into
watching movies that I jump when something happens on screen
so I suppose it's working for me.. Sorry you don't get the same
milage out of surround setups. To each his or her own ;)
This is a really great thread.. I am enjoying reading about both
sides of the fence. Keep them comming! |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
Dave: From the tone of your posts, it appears you have the equipment for 5.1, but nothing conclusive in this thread, except for the Technics. You would like to see HD3D in person.
Dave: Have you checked out the IMAX theatre? It is even better than THX, but unfortunately has very little software. 50-foot Yoda - nuf said. |
I am set up for 5.1. I run LR mains, sub directed to the mains, virtual centre & surrounds. The LR outs from the processor go into the AUX of my stereo pre, allowing the 2 channel to be at arms length from the HT.
Boy would i ever like to see and hear an actual HD3D theatre. 1st re-funding needs to happen & we have to build it -- it has been a long hard slog with many a hiatus. Sound in an HD3D theatre is intended to go far beyond THX (and probably will not meet the letter of the spec, because it is too limiting).
I have been to quite a few IMAX including the showcase Sony theatre in NY, NY. The tech is inherently flawed and many a theatre scrimps on sound. They shouldn't be anyone's reference -- better can be achieved.
THX is just a minimum standard and has gone a long ways to standardizing theatre sound and dragging a lot of them up, but it is more like the FTCs RMS power ratings in terms of standards -- sets a baseline.
dave
PS. Brett, your local theatre sounds idyllic... when i get to Oz, it will be my treat -- you just keep working on them to get that hifi sound system installed :) |
|
|
| purplepeople |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett
Ensen, thatnks for taking the time to post the history and an overview of the technicalities, your kindness is appreciated, but I already knew them, and they are really moot to the points I was trying to make.
... I have never found in my experience that really good 2ch was an impediment to the suspension of disbeleif when playing movies, unless you simply want the gee-whizz stuff, or watch noting but Die Hard type flix.
If HT is the priority, go for it, set it up multichannel, but you will lose out a lot in 2ch. Cost no object and custom theatre room installations are excluded from my comments. |
The tips were as much for lurkers, the novices and the search engine as those who post on this thread.
(Bill: I do hope you now have too much food for thought, as I always believe more information is better for decision-making.)
I agree that good 2-channel goes most of the way to suspension of disbelief provided that the software is good. Good script, good acting, beautiful photography, etc. Some films will sound horrible no matter what and some films can withstand crappy audio reproduction. But that extra 2% matters to most of us or we wouldn't be chatting about it and trying to figure out ways to DIY. And I would venture that most of us can tell the diff.
If you've setup stereo properly, going to 5.1 is a question of adding more quality not just adding speakers. Get the 5.1 correct and you'll get the stereo right. If not, then the studios have no idea what they are doing and since we listen to their work all the time, I'd say that was hard to believe. I think you underestimate the capability of a good 5.1 set-up to play stereo on the two mains.
Engineers will often listen to stereo mixes on the same LR mains as the listen to 5.1. And yes, they usually try every pair of LR monitors just to check all reproduction possibilities. But they do use the 2.0/5.1 a lot. If they didn't trust the set-up they would make changes or work somewhere else. The specs do say to add channels to the exisiting stereo rather than re-craft the specs for 2-channel entirely.
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett D.
There are certainly bargains in audio and it takes some searching to find them. And even then some people will never give those brands the time of day because they believe that $$ = Good Sound. I of course do not agree with that in the least.
... I run my center slightly overhung on the top of the TV the baffel hangs over the edge and the center's mids and tweeter are aimed at the listening position with a laser (same for the mains) because of this I get a seamless front pan from Left to Right and dialogue is on screen where it belongs. |
Agreed. Once I've found my price point, I believe in test driving as many as possible and as hard as possible before purchase. That's how I came to studio monitors. At first, I found it hard to believe that you could get 2 good speakers and bi-amping for less than C$1500, never mind at C$750. Now maybe a pair of Aerius will whup my pants off, but I don't think so. Maybe pull them down to the crack. And for the same cash I'll just get some active Genelecs. Not the same visual wow factor, I'll grant.
Interesting method with the centre channel. Are you setup for wide audience or sweet spot? I'll guess sweet spot due to the laser. Setting up for sofa audience is a slightly different aiming method and forces a slight compromise that I think is Brett's complaint about 5.1 vs 2.0. I just don't mind getting up and toeing in the mains the morning after home movie night. If you are interested, there are some AES articles re: engineers preferring dipole surround speakers for playback of 5.1 but needing the accuracy of monopoles for mixing.
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Boy would i ever like to see and hear an actual HD3D theatre.
They shouldn't be anyone's reference -- better can be achieved.
|
HD3D doesn't seem to have an audio spec, just visual. Could you elaborate about HD3D vs. THX.
Better can be achieved. But considering the size of the theatre, the size of the screen and the number of speakers, it's hard to believe they can even balance the system for most of the seats. Whatever you do, don't sit under the balcony that houses the projector. A lot of the surround information is missing under there.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
HD3D doesn't seem to have an audio spec, just visual. Could you elaborate about HD3D vs. THX. |
The spec is mostly in my head & notes. We haven't done all the R&D yet so things are pretty liquid. Since it is a video source these theatres will have a larger screen to 1st row spearation and viewers will be in a much less sonically compromised spacing from the screen (ideally 3 to 4 screen heights to row 1). At least 3 channels of surround -- one being up. Line arrays up front (only 3dB per doubling SPL loss and much broader image capability) on either side of the screen. Each line arrary with prodigious bass capability. Active with digital XO (source will be digital, leaning toward DSD at this point)
At 1st at least we will also have control of the entire audio track from capture until presentation...
dave |
|
|
| Brett D. |
| LA's in a commercial theater? Sounds like my kind of theater! :) |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
I agree that good 2-channel goes most of the way to suspension of disbelief provided that the software is good. Good script, good acting, beautiful photography, etc. Some films will sound horrible no matter what and some films can withstand crappy audio reproduction. But that extra 2% matters to most of us or we wouldn't be chatting about it and trying to figure out ways to DIY. And I would venture that most of us can tell the diff.
If you've setup stereo properly, going to 5.1 is a question of adding more quality not just adding speakers. Get the 5.1 correct and you'll get the stereo right. If not, then the studios have no idea what they are doing and since we listen to their work all the time, I'd say that was hard to believe. I think you underestimate the capability of a good 5.1 set-up to play stereo on the two mains. |
I hear what you're saying, but you're still missing my point. The centre (usually uneccessary in most domestic rooms), the rears only add a couple of percent total, as you said, and most films have so little rear info encoded into them that they're often hard to tell when they're turned off*. And to get that, given a fixed budget, you require 3 extra speakers and amplifiers and a processor. For the same money, I could get a much better set of main speakers and amps, for an overall improvement of way beyond the couple of percent extra you get from surround, and get better 2ch for music.
* I did this experiment a lot when I had the HT, often with the help of a friend with the remote so it was blind. My rears were a set of Tannoy HPD385 and the mains were Gold 15's, driven by either the onboard amps, or 4 channels of good tube. So high quality mains, and rears, with tight controlled and the same dispersion patterns between the front and the rear, something I've almost never seen anywhere else. The room was good acoustically, moderately large, no spousal unit-relayed placement issues and set up, both by ear and with reference to my spec-an and RTA.
I've also set-up a number of HT's, or more often, repaired faulty professional installs, so I do have some experience in the matter.
For 99% of people with a decent 2ch system, a 5.1 or more will bring little or no real benefit, even when they build it with the same quality gear in the rear.
Note; in earlier posts I've said cost no object and total custom room installs were a different issue.
I also went after that last 2%, but found that it wasn't worth the expenditure, or potential placement hassles (to really reap that last 2%) in real world rooms. |
|
|
| purplepeople |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett
I hear what you're saying, but you're still missing my point. The centre (usually uneccessary in most domestic rooms), the rears only add a couple of percent total, as you said, and most films have so little rear info encoded into them that they're often hard to tell when they're turned off*. And to get that, given a fixed budget, you require 3 extra speakers and amplifiers and a processor. For the same money, I could get a much better set of main speakers and amps, for an overall improvement of way beyond the couple of percent extra you get from surround, and get better 2ch for music.
...
I also went after that last 2%, but found that it wasn't worth the expenditure, or potential placement hassles (to really reap that last 2%) in real world rooms. |
I get you now. You go for the 2-ch because cash and room forces you to choose between better music or better movies... and music takes priority.
In my case, I can tell when I've forgotten to enable the surrounds since my DVD collection tends to have the effects (mostly sci-fi and war... go figure!). On most other systems I can tell when they're off because there is no hiss coming from the rear quarter. My DVD software requires 5.1 for best results.
Just as you imply for yourself, my problem is that my CD software also requires excellent 2-ch for best results. But, the next audible level up of 2-ch costs so much more that I can implement 5.1 very well for less than the difference. If I had to buy everything, no, but since I can DIY, then I'll go for it.
:)ensen |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
I get you now. You go for the 2-ch because cash and room forces you to choose between better music or better movies... and music takes priority. |
Cool, I knew we were missing each other somewhere in the middle. For many people HT is a great pleasure, and the added channels etc worthwhile, esp if like you the flix have a lot of special effects etc (I'm also a big SF fan). I also watch a lot of European movies and dramas where there is little rear info, and I think the majority of movie watching people would also view movies with little rear/centre most of the time. So it's not automatic for me that most people will benefit from the extra channels, most of the time, and in many implementations (combined with 2ch) it's better to go with maximum 2ch. I was simply trying to point out to Bill, that all the extra hassle and expense may not bring the rewards a lot of HT fans say, because of different movie choices etc, and simply wanted to get some balance into the discussion.
| quote: | | Just as you imply for yourself, my problem is that my CD software also requires excellent 2-ch for best results. But, the next audible level up of 2-ch costs so much more that I can implement 5.1 very well for less than the difference. If I had to buy everything, no, but since I can DIY, then I'll go for it. |
I also DIY, and the major thing that would stop me from implementing a centre and rears, now, is space. I have all the parts to hand and a large room (no WAF!), but horns are BIG and my mains already completely dominate the living room. The majority of my system use is analogue music (vinyl) but 30-40% would be movies as I can't get TV well here, and the old lady next door complains if I put music on at night though even big explosion filled movies don't seem to bother her as much. I think it's the lack of melody line in the movies, because my evening music selections are quite soft.
Cheers |
|
|
| purplepeople |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
The spec is mostly in my head & notes. We haven't done all the R&D yet so things are pretty liquid. Since it is a video source these theatres will have a larger screen to 1st row spearation and viewers will be in a much less sonically compromised spacing from the screen (ideally 3 to 4 screen heights to row 1). At least 3 channels of surround -- one being up. Line arrays up front (only 3dB per doubling SPL loss and much broader image capability) on either side of the screen. Each line arrary with prodigious bass capability. Active with digital XO (source will be digital, leaning toward DSD at this point)
At 1st at least we will also have control of the entire audio track from capture until presentation... |
Based on the images, it seems that the room will have to be pretty large just to accomodate some of the "huge" 3D visuals. Anything small and the objects would appear to extend into the walls - note that even black walls would have some visibility would interact with the image as a kind of dimmer.
So, a large room would require that sound reaching the audience at the back not be delayed by the speed of sound. At greater than 35m long, the delay will be more than 0.1 sec. Assuming that the audience won't notice that delay of the mains, your surrounds at the back would have to be delayed by at least that amount compared to surrounds at the sides of the room near the front. I don't actually know how they do this in large installations - could you elaborate?
Also would you bring your audience away from the back wall so as to prevent the first reflections from that wall smearing the sound? I find this effect in even some of the THX rooms so I tend to choose seats that are about 50-70% of the room length away from the screen.
And your high surrounds - will they be directed down and will there be a grid?
As this is a venture, can you even talk about this?
| quote: | Originally posted by Brett
I also DIY, and the major thing that would stop me from implementing a centre and rears, now, is space. I have all the parts to hand and a large room (no WAF!), but horns are BIG and my mains already completely dominate the living room. The majority of my system use is analogue music (vinyl) but 30-40% would be movies as I can't get TV well here, and the old lady next door complains if I put music on at night though even big explosion filled movies don't seem to bother her as much. I think it's the lack of melody line in the movies, because my evening music selections are quite soft. |
How does that old adage go? "The better the audio, the less likely you'll notice how loud it is until you try to talk with the person standing next to you."
Maybe the explosions don't vibrate through the walls as much as we think. I'm not saying that the horns aren't pumping them out, but maybe because they are not actually connected to the room, unlike most subs that sit on the floor, the units don't create as much structural vibration.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| JOE DIRT® |
quote>Also would you bring your audience away from the back wall so as to prevent the first reflections from that wall smearing the sound? I find this effect in even some of the THX rooms so I tend to choose seats that are about 50-70% of the room length away from the screen.
I have found 60% away from the screen to be a good starting point although it is not always viable in most rooms....thats when I play the gains on my rear channels to tone them down.
DIRT® |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Hey everyone!
I just watched "The Right Stuff" - you know, the first of the really good astronaut movies. It was in the under C$20 pile so I had to have it. Heh!
It won 4 Oscars - Editing, Score, Sound and Sound FX Editing - but I remember it sounding better than it does in my copy.
Now, this DVD is supposed to be remastered in AC3, yet it seems that all the engineer did was decode the stereo matrix and re-record the tracks directly into 5.1 discrete channels. The flying sequences are fine, but all the dialogue seems to be down in levels almost as if they dropped the summed centre signal by more than the required 3dB. And the surround signals are louder than normal, as if they boosted it by more than 3dB. Bunch of amateurs! Oh... sorry everyone, we're mostly a bunch of amateurs and I know we're significantly better.
So there it is, even if you've got all your levels set just right and speaker placement is close to optimal and you've done all the other things just right.... if you've got bad software, you've got nothing.
Thanks goodness the film is so good that I could suspend my disbelief (in the sound) after temporarily re-setting the levels just for the viewing.
:)ensen.
PS: I hope they don't just put Chuck Yeager into orbit after he dies. He deserves more than Roddenberry. He should be soft-landed on the near side of the moon on a mountain renamed after him. And not just his ashes, but his entire body in a nitrogen-filled spacesuit to be preserved for all time. Without his work on the speed of sound, none of that other **** could have happened. |
|
|
|
