|
You can trim the copper bits down some to make it fit, just make sure you don't have any stray strands that might short out.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
blk posted:I have a pair of Axiom M3Tis connected to a NAD 3020 v2 in a small listening environment (400 sq ft studio apartment). I don't know if the output on that is stereo or mono, but regardless, you can get a 3.5mm to RCA adapter and it will work with any sub that has an RCA input. If it's mono only, just use the left channel (white).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
taqueso posted:You can trim the copper bits down some to make it fit, just make sure you don't have any stray strands that might short out. I'll try that while I wait for smaller cables to arrive, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
I replaced my entire bose system at the recommendation of this thread. I bought a Sony TV, a Sony STR-DN1080 and a Klipsch 5.1 set off amazon. We’re watching sources off apps on the tv itself such as Hulu and Netflix. It seems to work fine most of the time. But twice in the last 24 hours the sound has just cut off. I can’t even turn the tv to play sound out of the tv speakers. Video freezes and nothing. I got it working but I don’t even know how. I just hosed around with poo poo. Just now sound wasn’t working with Hulu, but tried Netflix and I got sound. I looked through the Sony help stuff and followed it. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2020 06:02
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I replaced my entire bose system at the recommendation of this thread. My old (bought Jan, 2012 right before new models came out iirc) Sony TV would do the same thing with HDMI ARC. If you switched between using an in-tv app or another hdmi source it would eventually just say gently caress it to audio. Long power cycle fixed it until the next time you did it. (As in, turn off, wait until you hear the "click" of the TV really turning off not just the display, then turn it back on.) I returned the soundbar. That same TV is setup with my new receiver to receive input from the receiver only, the TV isn't even on the network anymore so no built in apps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Hello! I recently upgraded to a LG OLED55C9PUA and I really enjoy it as a TV. I've had this old LG soundbar for quite some time now (9 years) and I think it's time to upgrade. I'm in NYC but have a decent sized living room for this TV that my wife and I use a bunch for movies and TV (only a little bit of music). I'm no audiophile and can't be SUPER LOUD due to neighbors. That said, I think I'd like to look into getting a some sort of surround sound setup for my room, probably a 5.1 system. I read the OP and it looks like it was last updated back in 2015 but a fair amount of things hold true? Either way, I'm looking at some options: - My budget should be < $1500. This is probably the highest I could see going and would be happy to spend less. - I want to connect my XBOX One X, Switch, Chromecast and TV + Apps to the sound system - I would like surround sound support. I'm not super well versed on Dolby Atmos jibba jabba but some of my sources support that My friends all have Sonos set ups which probably goes against the recommendations here? I'm fine with plug and play things, but I know there are some issues with delays in surround sound support coming out of LG tvs into Sonos which sounds doody: https://support.sonos.com/s/article/3336?language=en_US . That said, it looks like I could get a 5.1 setup for ~$1,300. Or I go with a receiver like Sony STRDH590: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-STRDH590-multi-channel-Receiver-Bluetooth/dp/B078WG7HZY/ref=psdc_3213035011_t1_B07C49F2LD (or this for DTS/Atmos support?) and a 5.1 setup like these Klipsch? https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-Refe...cs%2C135&sr=1-1 Could I go with a wireless setup like this: https://www.amazon.com/JBL-5-1-Chan...cs%2C133&sr=1-2 and not use a receiver? I'm sorry if this is annoying or confusing, I'm just getting started in all of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Do you need surround? I'm a big fan of 2.0/2.1 for apartment use and you can get much better stuff if you buy fewer pieces. Say $350 receiver, $400 subwoofer, $400 for a pair of speakers, $150 for cables, speaker stands, etc. and you'd have a really good system that you could build on. Or you could start with 3.0 and spend that subwoofer money on a center. Atmos should be fully ignored for systems that aren't dedicated theaters, IMO. That LG ARC bug is nasty and limits your options, hopefully they'll fix it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:My old (bought Jan, 2012 right before new models came out iirc) Sony TV would do the same thing with HDMI ARC. If you switched between using an in-tv app or another hdmi source it would eventually just say gently caress it to audio. Long power cycle fixed it until the next time you did it. (As in, turn off, wait until you hear the "click" of the TV really turning off not just the display, then turn it back on.) That works thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
qirex posted:Do you need surround? I'm a big fan of 2.0/2.1 for apartment use and you can get much better stuff if you buy fewer pieces. Say $350 receiver, $400 subwoofer, $400 for a pair of speakers, $150 for cables, speaker stands, etc. and you'd have a really good system that you could build on. Or you could start with 3.0 and spend that subwoofer money on a center. Oh boy, I've had some real heated discussions with home theater snobs about this, and it's part of the reason why there's a couple of audio-related forums I don't go to anymore. They can't fathom that anyone could possibly immerse themselves and enjoy a movie unless they have a proper multichannel setup with the correct number of speakers envisioned by the original sound tech. They're just lovely audiophiles in another guise, yet another segment of >50yo self-appointed experts with too much disposable income, who stare themselves blind in measurements and spec sheets. I'm a big fan of sticking to 2.0 (with full-size speakers) or 2.1, with a moderate amount of bass management/room correction. Surround sound really isn't worth it in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
I've never been a snob but I'm easily someone who fixates on the numbers. My house flood after doing frequency sweeps put an end to that and I downsized a LOT. it's now just a simple 5 channel 4 store bought sub setup and no more projector. just an 82" samsung 8000 series. It's easy to get trapped with tinkering and you spend more time messing with poo poo than you do jamming out to music or watching movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
I don't love Zeos but this video is useful [if waaaay too loving long like all his videos] when you're thinking about what you want. The tl;dr is If you want surround and your system is mostly for TV/movies spend around half of your total speaker budget on the center and most of the rest on L/R. Surrounds should be an afterthought.KozmoNaut posted:They can't fathom that anyone could possibly immerse themselves and enjoy a movie unless they have a proper multichannel setup with the correct number of speakers envisioned by the original sound tech. They're just lovely audiophiles in another guise, yet another segment of >50yo self-appointed experts with too much disposable income, who stare themselves blind in measurements and spec sheets.  " that's a 10 grand system I just described KozmoNaut posted:I'm a big fan of sticking to 2.0 (with full-size speakers) or 2.1, with a moderate amount of bass management/room correction. Surround sound really isn't worth it in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
A solid 2.1 system is the tits and you can always add to it if you get bored and want to try something different. Speaking of, I'm now running 4.1 instead of 2.1 because being housebound means I have time to fart around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
I love my 7.2.4 setup, and I'd miss it if I didn't have it anymore, but I can certainly still enjoy movies fine without it and I certainly wouldn't ever argue that you HAVE to have it. Especially if you have neighbors, I live out in the country so I don't have to worry about that, and the wife doesn't care. I also don't ever tweak it, I did the audyssey setup, and then once again after I moved a couple other pieces of furniture, and it sounds fine. A solid 2.1 is perfectly good for pretty much everyone. Surround is cool, but not a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
I only bother with the surrounds because they're helpful with games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Oh boy, I've had some real heated discussions with home theater snobs about this, and it's part of the reason why there's a couple of audio-related forums I don't go to anymore. How big is the room you’re using because people recommending 2.0 for HT is insane to me. Proper 5.1 (or better yet 7.1) is completely worth it. Not having ambient sound or proper directional sound completely ruins a well mastered movie for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
qirex posted:Do you need surround? I'm a big fan of 2.0/2.1 for apartment use and you can get much better stuff if you buy fewer pieces. Say $350 receiver, $400 subwoofer, $400 for a pair of speakers, $150 for cables, speaker stands, etc. and you'd have a really good system that you could build on. Or you could start with 3.0 and spend that subwoofer money on a center. Recommending 3.0 for an apartment makes no sense to me. A center channel doesn’t do much for a small room and it does literally nothing unless you’re sitting off axis, whereas surround speakers actually do do something and relatively small/cheap surrounds are fine whereas a small/cheap center can actually be detrimental.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
I think sometimes if a movie has music that's louder than dialogue, it's because its expecting you to have a center channel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:I think sometimes if a movie has music that's louder than dialogue, it's because its expecting you to have a center channel? Is the receiver/soundbar just throwing the center channel data away instead of mixing it into L/R? I totally believe the $99 black friday specials would do that kind of thing and claim to fully support surround formats, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
Nearly every time i see people complaining about dialogue volume it’s not because they don’t have a center it’s because they do have a center it’s just junk. Or they just have things set up incorrectly. Taking center channel data and splitting it out to the L/R channels shouldn’t result in dialogue volume issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Appreciate folks' input on this so far. Surround is definitely not a necessity but a nice to have for me - which is kind of the point. I do play games that benefit from it (CoD) and most of my shows and movies are at least 5.1. Our living room is about 15' x 18' x 10', so nothing huge but would have a natural place for the satellite speakers (behind our couch on each side). But yeah, we won't be blasting this super loud because I don't want complaints with neighbors. That said, definitely seems worth starting out with a receiver and a good 2.1 setup. That way I can see how it is and add in the other two later on. - How do we feel about wireless systems? I can run wires and hide them but I'd also be happy to not have to do it. Not worth the additional cost with reduced quality? - Stay away from Sonos? - I can read a bunch of review sites on various brands to use, but any sure fire recommendations that everyone does? I don't care to be unique or special in any of this so happy to go with something super well known. Thanks again 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Sonos is good at what it does, but it can be expensive if you want things like subwoofers. It isn't designed to be a receiver and the bits that are able to connect to a receiver are expensive. For room-to-room reasonably decent sound, you can get the ikea bookshelf speakers or lamp speakers for $100. Stereo would need two per room. It is still about the only game in town besides the discontinued chromecast audio or rolling your own with raspberry pis and pulseaudio. I don't know too much about specific wireless speakers that are designed to be used with a receiver (ie wireless surrounds), but I assume it can be done well. You still need to power the amplifier in each speaker so its not really wireless. taqueso fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Apr 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
I don't run a center channel and I've never had issues with dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I replaced my entire bose system at the recommendation of this thread. I can't believe nobody responded to tell you not to buy a prepackaged 5.1 system. Come on guys, get it together.  Edit: At least the set came with a decent receiver, even if the speakers are garbage. KillHour fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Apr 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Nearly every time i see people complaining about dialogue volume it’s not because they don’t have a center it’s because they do have a center it’s just junk. Or they just have things set up incorrectly. It’s more of a reference volume problem. Practically nobody listens at reference in a home environment because it’s just WAY too loud. So if you turn the volume down to where it’s comfortable, you sometimes end up with dialogue that’s so soft it becomes unintelligible. Being able to bump the center channel up 1-2 dB can help with that. But, depending on how the mix was mastered, doing that can introduce a whole new set of issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
The AC4 encoding standard has a separate dialog level control so if we're not reduced to roving gangs of feral marauders in 10 years you should be able to adjust dialog to actual listenable volume.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:- How do we feel about wireless systems? I can run wires and hide them but I'd also be happy to not have to do it. Not worth the additional cost with reduced quality? - I like Sonos a lot but it's tough to recommend unconditionally. Their stuff is easy to use, works with pretty much every streaming service and generally sounds good but it's expensive and if it doesn't work exactly the way you want now it probably never will. The Amp is a good (if pricey) component but their sub is a big ripoff. The Amp and soundbars depend on ARC. I have a few of their little speakers and it's a great bedroom/kitchen system but I don't use it in my living room. They're is going to have a major platform upgrade over the summer that will open it up more for surround use. - For receivers there's only a few vendors: Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer, Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, a bunch of expensive boutique stuff you don't want [and kind of Sony]. For subs: Rythmik, Hsu, SVS, Power Sound Audio, and more. For speakers there's too many to name. If you keep an eye on the AVS forum thread for a particular model you might get a decent idea but people there can be insanely picky about specific things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:How big is the room you’re using because people recommending 2.0 for HT is insane to me. Proper 5.1 (or better yet 7.1) is completely worth it. Not having ambient sound or proper directional sound completely ruins a well mastered movie for me. I don't need or care much for random ambient sound, the picture is in front of me, and it's fine that the sound also comes from in front of me. Think of it as a stage for a play or a concert. The sound originates from the same place as the visuals. The amount of room reflections in an ordinary room is more than enough spatial sound. Being fine with stereo is not "insane", it's simply a matter of not caring for what is usually put in the surround channels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Except it isn't a play or a concert, there are things happening around/behind/beside you that are making noise and those noises shouldn't seem like they're coming from the screen because the things making them are not in front of you. I mean more power to you if you think it isn't worth it it'll certainly save you a lot of money and set up hassles but there are movies out there that I just can't imagine watching without surround. I watched Se7en the other night which is a particularly good one IMO and without being surrounded by the ambient sounds it loses a lot of the spooky, uh, ambience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Yep surround takes plenty of effort and money and architectural/decoration compromises, but it is really good. The question is if it is worthwhile to you. The surround music modes are nice, too, but I wouldnt bother just for music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:Appreciate folks' input on this so far. Surround is definitely not a necessity but a nice to have for me - which is kind of the point. I do play games that benefit from it (CoD) and most of my shows and movies are at least 5.1. Room size/shape which dictates placement are really the key. Most people I've talked to not overly impressed with surround frequently just don't have it set up well. Many living rooms simply aren't capable of having the speakers placed properly. Rooms where the TV is placed in the corner it's practically impossible. I've seen set ups where the surrounds are sitting on the floor behind the couch, set ups where one or both of the surrounds is actually in front of the listener, etc. And even if they have a room that supports it can require more effort than some people are willing to put in (wall mounting, running those little conduits to hide the wires so it looks less lovely, etc). A decent 2.1 or 3.1 system is absolutely better than a shittily set up 5.1 system or a very low quality 5.1 system. 15'x18' should be good though but it's pretty easy for things like hallways and windows and kitchen pass throughs to screw up speaker placement options. Ideally you want surround speakers to be ~2' above ear height. I'm not really up to date on receivers since I generally only get new ones every 8 years or so, but Sony is a fine brand and as long as it supports the number of speakers you want and has enough HDMI inputs then you should be fine. I personally would shell out the extra 50 bucks for the 7 channel, not because of Atmos (being able to do height speakers) but because of its ability to do surround back speakers. But if you know you're never going to want to do 7.1 then you don't need it. I personally was pretty happy when I went from 5.1 to 7.1 though. I personally wouldn't buy that Klipsch 5.1 system because I don't care for Klipsch's sound and even though 5.1 is objectively better for HT than 2.1, there's kind of a lower limit in terms of speaker quality for that to really be true and I'm not sure that Klipsch would meet that lower limit. I.e. I'd probably rather have a $450 3.0 system from Ascend Acoustics (e.g. 3 x HTM200SE) than that Klipsch set up. I'd also consider NHT speakers. I haven't personally heard them but they seem well reviewed and come in a more than usually wide range of sizes and prices. Bookshelves starting at $125 each and centers starting at $199. You could do that 12" monoprice sub for $100, that Sony receiver for $230, a pair of NHT SuperOnes for $350, pair of SuperZeros for surrounds for $250, the center for $199, and you're barely over $1100 before taxes/wires/etc. I'd check on NHTs return policy and maybe just start with a pair of bookshelves first though to make sure you like the sound.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
My personal issue with surround is YOU ALWAYS NOTICE EFFECTS CHANNELS. You're sat watching an image on a screen and you yourself know you're watching a screen so when something whizzes round your head you always notice it, it's hard to be sucked into the movie when you're sat going "that was cool!" so for that reason I prefer a 2.1 setup, it's less of a distraction. On the opposite side of the argument, surround for a game is different because you're involved in the game, it's physically you interacting and moving a character round a variety of environments so it logically makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
My first experience with surround sound was in a theater newly fitted with what was a cutting edge system at the time in 1995. The sound of Scorpion’s sting whizzing past my ears in Mortal Kombat is something I will never forget. I have been chasing that high ever since, unsuccessfully.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:but there are movies out there that I just can't imagine watching without surround. If you need a gimmick to enjoy a movie, what does that say? All of the important action happens on screen, because humans are primarily visual creatures. Having a sound suddenly appear behind you is distracting your attention from the screen and the movie. The director directs your attention primarily with visuals, because that's how movies work. I've never seen the point of surround sound. Not in the cinema, not in fancy home theatres. It's a gimmick on par with 3D. It doesn't appeal to me in any way whatsoever. For games and VR it's a different story, there you need the spatial sounds to orient yourself and navigate in a 3D space. And headphones are vastly superior to speakers for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:If you need a gimmick to enjoy a movie, what does that say? You're trying to imply it's a bad movie, but...if it's enjoyable because of the surround it's enjoyable. Full stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:My personal issue with surround is YOU ALWAYS NOTICE EFFECTS CHANNELS. You're sat watching an image on a screen and you yourself know you're watching a screen so when something whizzes round your head you always notice it, it's hard to be sucked into the movie when you're sat going "that was cool!" so for that reason I prefer a 2.1 setup, it's less of a distraction. lovely surround that uses the channels like a lovely 3D movie that uses 3D to throw random poo poo at the screen are too common. I have Avengers: End Game on bluray and it's use with the rear channels is amazing. That opening shot of Hawkeye and his family, there's all these birds tweeting around me, and a rumble of thunder on the LFE channel... As for games, most don't use surrounds well. Funny enough minecraft of all games has great surround usage!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:My personal issue with surround is YOU ALWAYS NOTICE EFFECTS CHANNELS. You're sat watching an image on a screen and you yourself know you're watching a screen so when something whizzes round your head you always notice it, it's hard to be sucked into the movie when you're sat going "that was cool!" so for that reason I prefer a 2.1 setup, it's less of a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Or having the speakers aligned wrong so things don't sound like they are coming from the right direction and jump from one side to the other as they pan. If it is setup right, you should be occasionally getting tricked into stuff like thinking there is someone knocking at the front door down the hall because it happened in the show you weren't really paying attention to.
taqueso fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Apr 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Amusingly the vast majority of surround movies I watch are at supposedly well set up cinemas. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:If you need a gimmick to enjoy a movie, what does that say? Yeah that’s not at all what I’m saying and your point isn’t really relevant anyway. Even if it was a poo poo movie I enjoyed because of the audio I still enjoyed it, but, as I said, that’s not the case. quote:All of the important action happens on screen, because humans are primarily visual creatures. Having a sound suddenly appear behind you is distracting your attention from the screen and the movie. The director directs your attention primarily with visuals, because that's how movies work. I assume since multi channel audio is just a gimmick you run everything in mono? Why would you need stereo? Well you’ve certainly convinced yourself, anyway. I think most people don’t agree with you though and find multi channel sound immersing rather than distracting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Amusingly the vast majority of surround movies I watch are at supposedly well set up cinemas. Cinemas that seat 200 people sitting potentially 100+ feet from each other?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 00:33
|
|