|
If a person's main interaction with surround is at a cinema and is compromised whizzy surround, can you see why people rarely bother? I don't mind surround, I recently put mine back in because I was bored and spent a few hours balancing it. I'm yet to actually watch anything in anger with it though.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I assume since multi channel audio is just a gimmick you run everything in mono? Why would you need stereo? If the content is good and enjoyable, mono is fine. That's how most people enjoy music on their Bluetooth speakers. That said, don't be daft. The screen/stage is a space in front of you that stretches predominantly to the left and right. Stereo sound matches that, hence why stereo is by far the most common setup. I care about good plots and interesting characters, not whiz-bang effects and gimmicks. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:If a person's main interaction with surround is at a cinema and is compromised whizzy surround, can you see why people rarely bother Sure but I wouldn’t expect those people to be proselytizing for monaural audio reproduction in a thread about home audio. I wouldn’t expect anyone to ever be doing that actually, but that’s a different discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:If the content is good and enjoyable, mono is fine. That's how most people enjoy music on their Bluetooth speakers. The screen also stretches up and down but I’m guessing you don’t have Atmos height speakers. Other gimmicks not needed for good plots and interesting characters: wide screen, high definition, bass extension, decent contrast and brightness, color accuracy, HDR, etc, etc, etc. Anything more than a 19” black and white tube is really a gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Sure but I wouldn’t expect those people to be proselytizing for monaural audio reproduction in a thread about home audio. Nobody is doing that, stop being facetious. Home audio is audio in the home, which like it or not is primarily stereo reproduction. I would rather watch a genuinely good movie as a 700MB 480p DVD rip with mono MP3 sound, than a special effects overload snoozefest in 4K with 7.2.4 Atmos etc. The money people spend on surround could be spent much better on a quality stereo setup (optionally with subs) and making the room better, instead of trying to patch it over with moar chanels. bird with big dick posted:The screen also stretches up and down but I’m guessing you don’t have Atmos height speakers. Are your ears on the sides of your head, or on the top and bottom? You're getting awfully defensive about your fancy setup. You don't have to justify it to me, I'll always consider it a waste. And honestly, if your movie doesn't hold up if experienced on less-than-opulent equipment, are you really making a movie or a special effects showreel? KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
Stereo is fine, do what you want. Bird, maybe take it down a notch?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
well i only have two ears
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I care about good plots and interesting characters, not whiz-bang effects and gimmicks. KozmoNaut posted:Are your ears on the sides of your head, or on the top and bottom? No one is saying you absolutely need a Dolby Certified 9.2.4 system to enjoy films guys. But there's sure a lot of weird opinions dismissing sound design. Iirc, Bird Man used the surrounds for stuff and that just enhanced the film. Honestly though the gold standard for Cinema Surround Use was Pokémon: The First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back, which used the surround effect to communicate Mewtwo's awesome telepathic abilities. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I care about good plots and interesting characters, not whiz-bang effects and gimmicks. Porque no los dos? Seriously, though, this is a bad argument. One does not preclude the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Nobody is doing that, stop being facetious. Lol, okay, proselytizing for stereo. quote:I would rather watch a genuinely good movie as a 700MB 480p DVD rip with mono MP3 sound, than a special effects overload snoozefest in 4K with 7.2.4 Atmos etc. Except that's not actually the argument you're making though. You're saying you'd rather watch a genuinely good movie in 2.1 than the same movie 4.1 or 5.1 or 7.2.4. quote:The money people spend on surround could be spent much better on a quality stereo setup (optionally with subs) and making the room better, instead of trying to patch it over with moar chanels. Some people have the ability to spend money on all of those things. quote:Are your ears on the sides of your head, or on the top and bottom? This would be a better argument if the construction of those ears were such that we couldn't localize sound in any other manner than right vs left, but of course that is completely untrue. quote:You're getting awfully defensive about your fancy setup. You don't have to justify it to me, I'll always consider it a waste. Pointing out that appreciation of surround sounds enhancement of movies is the norm and not the exception isn't really being defensive IMO. Neither is pointing out (as multiple other people have now also done) that your arguments here are objectively pretty bad. Considering you said you've abandoned multiple audio forums over this topic and were complaining about olds (and just to save you some time, no I'm not >50) with too much disposable income (I will cop to that one) I'd say it's not so much that I'm defensive, it's that you've got a real bee in your bonnet about the subject possibly caused by a sour grapes sorta issue. But whatever, agree to disagree. bird with big dick fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Just like anything else, home theater is a hobby that has diminishing returns. If you can drop 5 figures on your home theater setup, go wild and have fun. Most people can't, so it becomes "what is a better bang for my buck" and the answer to that is usually spending your money on fewer, better speakers instead of more, cheaper speakers. This also has diminishing returns, but that point is like $8k+ on a 3.2 setup before surrounds start making more sense as a place to sink money than fronts and subs. If you already have dual 14" SVS subs and 3 matching 3-way cabinets, then sure, add some surrounds and some height speakers while you're at it and put in acoustic panels and massaging reclining theater chairs and hire a guy to wear a red felt uniform and make you popcorn. Go nuts. Hell, if you already have a half-way competent 3.1 stystem and you want to blow $300 on surrounds on a lark, be my guest - I'd rather have a second sub, but it's defensible. But if you're deciding between spending $1000 on 5.1 vs $1000 on 2.1, there's a clear answer there.
KillHour fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Except that's not actually the argument you're making though. You're saying you'd rather watch a genuinely good movie in 2.1 than the same movie 4.1 or 5.1 or 7.2.4. What I'm saying is that whatever surround setup doesn't enhance the quality of the movie. All it does is add some superfluous effects. quote:You've got a real bee in your bonnet about the subject possibly caused by a sour grapes sorta issue. Oh goody, the ancient "you're just jealous" argument  Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that "it's just because you can't afford it" and flexing your disposable income, maybe tone down your inner consumerist a bit. Every time this subject comes up, the home theater dweebs go completely nuts if someone doesn't agree with them that surround is the greatest thing since the discovery of sound. It's just another flavor of audiophilia. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Surround doesn't fit into audiophile territory because you can actually objectively hear the difference. I don't think 17 separate channels is going to be noticable over 13 or whatever, but surrounds are, even if they don't add much to most movies and people like to spend money on things they don't need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
To a certain level, you can hear the difference in audiophilia, it also covers stuff like speakers and whatnot, and there is an audible difference between turntable cartridges, that sort of thing. The diminishing returns just set in hard and fast. That obviously doesn't apply to poo poo like cables, that's not the sort of audiophilia I meant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
That's fine, but if you already have a receiver that supports the channels and you want to buy some cheap Polk bookshelf to have something next to your head, why not. Hobbies are inherently irrational, guy who has extremely expensive studio monitors that go to 50khz or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
I'm making GBS threads in the people who cannot fathom to watch a movie in mere stereo, not the people who just hook it up because why not. Also  at a set of Adam A5Xs being "extremely expensive".(I sold them, because gently caress paying thousands just to get a receiver with room correction that also has pre-outs, so I bought a set of Monitor Audio Bronze 2s instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
I thought you had the 7s? In any case, people want to watch Michael Bay movies and shut their brains off for 90 minutes. It's whatever, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I'm making GBS threads in the people who cannot fathom to watch a movie in mere stereo, not the people who just hook it up because why not. Some other nutter said "If you need a gimmick to enjoy a movie, what does that say?" Which is a lot more inflammatory This isn't Spine-o-tingle or SmellO'Rama we're talking about. Multichannel audio's been a part of film for decades now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
I only watch Nosferatu (1922) and have my manservant accompany it on the piano, what are these “channels” you speak of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that surround/immersive sound is great if you have the dedicated space and budget for a proper theater room. For an average person who wants good sound in their living room I suggest 2 channels for two reasons: 1. Adapting to a room is finicky as poo poo and it's not reasonable for most people to get the speakers, furniture and screen placement optimized for surround to actually sound good. The room is the main challenge to getting good sound. Even a $2000 center channel, placed poorly, can make everything you watch sound bad. Also if you do the tweaking to get stereo speakers positioned properly in your room the soundfield can be more immersive than you'd think, even in games. 2. At the budgets most people start at you can either get a receiver and 2 speakers with properly sized woofers and heavy cabinets or a pile of plastic crap with the same drivers as a beats pill, proprietary connectors and a "subwoofer" that weighs 9 pounds and has a 5" driver [and puts out less actual bass than a normal bookshelf]. It's a pretty simple equation, you're going to get better stuff at a given budget if you buy 3 boxes instead of seven. If you buy decent stuff you can build more of a system later if you want instead of having to start from scratch when you upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Just to add to the surround chat, I'm watching Justice's IRIS space opera on youtube and had to check whether my surrounds were on because the music in places was seemingly coming from behind. The rears aren't on. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
Audio is one of the fields where idiots go "If it isn't perfect, I don't want it". Spoiler alert: Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you don't need a specially treated room or even an ideal room layout to benefit from a surround setup over a 2.0/2.1 setup. So stop being dicks about it already 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Breaking news: People have preferences, film at 11
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
I'm looking for a 3.1 in a soundbar setup to plug straight into an LG OLED. I don't want any external hardware other than the bar and the sub (no receiver), and the sub needs to be wireless. I don't want to dick around with input switching (ie, I'd like a system that just outputs whatever the TV is playing) if possible. I have a Switch and an AppleTV hooked up to the TV. Price around $2k or so. What would I be looking at in that range? I like the compactness of the Bose/Sonos offerings though I know it's popular in ~audiophile~ circles to hate everything they do, but their sound/size ratio is attractive. I'll pay more for something small, I'll pay more for something that doesn't look like an ugly piece of poo poo. What are my options? PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
3.1 isn't too bad. Take your pick https://www.bestbuy.com/site/search...s=960&keys=keys Premium brands? There's the Sony soundbars but their wireless subs tend to desync when the bar loses power. Sonos burned a lot of their base when they revealed that legacy hardware would just brick. No one trusts them anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:I'll pay more for something small, I'll pay more for something that doesn't look like an ugly piece of poo poo. What are my options? e: Looking at the specs it's not small 42" x 5.5", about the same width as a 55" TV. Maybe look at the Sonos Beam if this is too big for you. Just remember that there's no magic that can make male voices sound right on tiny drivers. qirex fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Take the plunge! Okay! posted:I only watch Nosferatu (1922) and have my manservant accompany it on the piano, what are these “channels” you speak of? Some people have two manservants or even more if you can believe it
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Sonos burned a lot of their base when they revealed that legacy hardware would just brick. No one trusts them anymore. At least they reversed course, I wonder if they learned anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
taqueso posted:At least they reversed course, I wonder if they learned anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
I'm looking to replace a Klipsch 2.1 bluetooth setup that I use mostly for music playback and recording. Let's say around $800 budget-wise? Any more than that and I'm probably springing for one of the smaller devialets just cause I'm curious to hear it for myself. Initially I was looking at getting a couple of powered studio monitors but the main reason I'm replacing this thing is because the sub is fried and I just want/need that bass back. Spent some time last week looking around and there are some soundbar setups that might work but I'm still wary. I really just don't have the experience or knowledge to know what the best solution is. I tried to find a 2.1 receiver which I could just use my current speakers with and spend the rest of the money on upgrading my sub, but everything I've been able to track down is discontinued and unavailable. Any option with RCA and 1/4" jack would let me route a signal from my mixer and amp and would be great but not a deal breaker, a 1/4" jack for headphone out would be ideal though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Are those pioneer Andrew Jones speakers still a good enough starter system? I'm thinking Costco receiver on sale, those and some sort of decent center to start... Dunno about bass. Also I have a really decent computer, going down that wormhole with headphone audio (virtual 7.1 improvements) as well, as soon as covid goes away some and life gets more predictable. Really I have a budget of $1-1.5 grand but looking for that good enough... I'll spend more on surround and room treatments later. I'm currently using a 55' TCL tv and a $38 refurbished Sanyo soundbar from meh.com , that's been good enough for 3-4 years. The muddy bass had been muffled by some foam stuffed in the bass port. I am stuck on CD only in my car and stock 2006 Buick speakers as well.. pray for me. Quaint Quail Quilt fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
If I was going to put together a 3.1 system for $1500, I'd consider something like this: https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/denavrs650h/denon-avr-s650h-5.2-ch-x-75-watts-a/v-receiver-w/heos/1.html https://www.amazon.com/SVS-SB-1000-Subwoofer-Black-Ash/dp/B00AF88C0M https://www.aperionaudio.com/collections/intimus-speakers/products/open-box-intimus-5t-tower-speaker-pure-white x2 https://www.aperionaudio.com/collections/intimus-speakers/products/open-box-intimus-5c-center-channel-speaker-pure-white
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
You can do much better than those Pioneers nowadays, especially if you're not super restricted on price. Andrew Jones is also the Chief designer for ELAC and they have a ton of well reviewed speakers from affordable to extremely expensive. If his designs have one downside they're typically pretty power hungry. There's an embarrassment of other good speakers out there too. Check out Aperion like Killhour mentioned, Ascend Acoustics, Chane, KEF, Canton, Polk, Focal, Monitor Audio, Q Acoustics, NHT, Jamo, Wharfdale or Klipsch [RP series] and probably a bunch more I can't think of off the top of my head. I can say I don't like Definitive Technology [previous brand, never really "clicked"], B&W, Emotiva or SVS but lots of other folks do. It depends on your taste and your room. The cheap SVS subs are probably the best you can do at that price, a lot of people also like the $400 RSL Speedwoofer 10S but they're closed for the duration of stay at home in California. Get a cheap receiver to start unless you end up buying some crazy inefficient speakers or have a huge room. This is basically my system in a midsized living room 12' x 20' x 9' and I really like it: https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/cantchrono5022blka/canton-chrono-502.2-6-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-black-pair/1.html https://www.crutchfield.com/p_580TX8270/Onkyo-TX-8270.html [I have a refurb Integra that's the same model] http://www.rythmikaudio.com/L12.html I shopped refurb/on sale except for the sub and ended up around $1200 including speaker stands, cables, etc. For a beginner I'd recommend a surround receiver and probably more efficient speakers. Maybe a ported sub if you want more "slam" out of the bass. qirex fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:I'm looking for a 3.1 in a soundbar setup to plug straight into an LG OLED. I don't want any external hardware other than the bar and the sub (no receiver), and the sub needs to be wireless. I don't want to dick around with input switching (ie, I'd like a system that just outputs whatever the TV is playing) if possible. I have a Switch and an AppleTV hooked up to the TV. I have one of the high end Sony sound bars and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone just because I have volume problems (too quiet even on 100%) with some sources and the CEC operation is shittier than I expect these days for that kind of price. If I were to get one right now I'd check out Nakamichi, they seem well reviewed and you've got the option to have 2 8" wireless subs which might be fun. Looks are subjective obviously but B&W's offerings tend to put a little more effort into the aesthetics than "featureless rectangular thing." You get the 3.0 bar and then add the sub, total would be $1760 right now though. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/bowers-wilkins-formation-bar-3-0-channel-soundbar-black/6338674.p?skuId=6338674 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/bowers-wilkins-formation-bass-dual-6-1-2-250w-powered-wireless-subwoofer-black/6338672.p?skuId=6338672 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Doh004 posted: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. This is... Not what you asked for but I got a second hand pair of Bang & Olufsen Beolab 8000s for $800ish last year for a similar setup. Mostly movies, decent sized room in an apartment. They sound and look really good. The speakers are connected to the TV by the optical link through a B&O Connection Hub. Also have a Chromecast Audio connected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:I got a second hand pair of Bang & Olufsen Beolab 8000s for $800ish last year How the hell did you manage that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
KillHour posted:How the hell did you manage that? I converted the amount I paid in Swiss Francs to USD... But looking at prices on eBay USA they are weirdly double the price. About the first thing that's cheaper here!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
I'm trying to upgrade my home stereo system. Currently what I use is my old Akai AM-U33 amp with my turntable on the phone input and my TV running into an analog converter and then into one of the aux inputs. Sound comes from a pair of old Sonic speaker cabinets that I re-speakered with celestions years ago, and these speakers also serve as small tables for some vintage lamps that are part of our 1960s living room setup. This system, while it has served adequately, is not where I want to be. So, please direct me to a better amp and speakers that can a) handle both turntable and television inputs, b) sound super clear, and c) possibly still serves as small tables for my lamps. I'd also like to keep things to under $1000 all together if possible. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
That style of speaker [I’ve heard them called “monkey coffins”] is rare and typically expensive nowadays, e.g. Klipsch Heresy for $3k or JBL L100 Classic for $4k. If you must maintain your combo single unit you’re best off looking at vintage speakers. On the other hand there’s the taller skinnier modern designs like Polk S55, Jamo S805/807, Elac 5.2, etc. There’s a bunch of decent stereo receivers, from stuff with HDMI like the Onkyo 8270, Denton 800H or Marantz NR1200 to more traditional hifi models like the Cambridge AXA35, Denon PMA-600NE or Yamaha S501. Just make sure you get something with a DAC and phono input.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
qirex posted:That style of speaker [I’ve heard them called “monkey coffins”] is rare and typically expensive nowadays, e.g. Klipsch Heresy for $3k or JBL L100 Classic for $4k. If you must maintain your combo single unit you’re best off looking at vintage speakers. On the other hand there’s the taller skinnier modern designs like Polk S55, Jamo S805/807, Elac 5.2, etc. Thanks, qirex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:37
|
|