Has anyone upgraded from 5.1 to Stereo?...yes, I said upgraded.
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 763 Registered: Oct-04 | I am strongly considering abandoning my Monitor Audio Radius 5.1 surround set-up in favor of an upgraded Stereo or 2.1 set-up. I just don't use my surround enough, and selling it off would afford me the opportunity to upgrade my stereo listening, not that the R90/R360 set-up would be bad, but I can do better. I'm considering all the usual suspects in the sub $500 category with wife approval a major consideration. Has anyone else abandoned surround? Do you regret it? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9463 Registered: May-04 | . This still active thread has attained the status of longest continuing thread in the forum's history after 2 1/2 years of discussion. It began with this sentence, "As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel." The thread has wandered over the last 30 months but surprisingly the topic was revisited just yesterday. https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/56709.html . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SerniterPiscataway, New Jersey USA Post Number: 99 Registered: Mar-06 | Well, I junked a Sony HTIB in favor of a NAD/Wharfedale combination... does that count? I'm thrilled though.  |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 764 Registered: Oct-04 | Jan, Just curious, what's your (favorite) set-up these days? Are you still an active auditioner, or are you content with your current system? |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomSilver Spring, MD United States Post Number: 252 Registered: Apr-06 | When I moved cross country, I gave up my 5.1 setup and obtained a 2.0 instead. I don't regret going 2 channel at all, even for movies. With good enough speakers, you still get enveloped by the sound fairly well. Obviously if I had another $1,500 laying around, I would obtain a complete setup, but in the price bracket where you and I are, I think 2 channel is the way to go. As far as speaker suggestions, NHT if you have the juice to feed them (efficient they ain't), Paradigm Mini-Monitor, and if they go on b-stock again, Emma (which was obviously my choice; again, they like their juice). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9466 Registered: May-04 | . I seldom go out to listen to hifi gear. To begin with there isn't much of a selection in Dallas and what is here predominantly plays to the same theme with minor variations. Also, my funds are not in the position lately to spend money on audio unless it's relatively minor. Some family health issues have become more important than new speakers or cables. And I would rather spend what cash I have on getting to a concert instead of changing my system just for the sake of change. After spending twenty some years selling audio I developed what I considered a good idea of what was important to me and I set about buying components that managed most of what I need to be happy with my sound system(s). My main stereo system has remained very stable over the past two decades with the only real change coming when another CD player craps out. I listen through tube electronics (forty plus year old McIntosh tube power amps and a tube pre amp) and a turntable which all feed some thirty plus year old monitor speakers. My main system is quite satisfying for my needs and desires. Every half dozen years or so I buy some new tubes and have a big ol' time. My HT system lets me hear what is being said. I'm not much interested in thermonuclear explosions and car wrecks though I did build a new subwoofer this year using a driver I bought from Tim Forman. I had to have some caps replaced in my Mac integrated amp last winter and while I was waiting for the tech I was quiet impressed by a system comprised of Mac CD player, the (then new) Mac tube based integrated amp and some Paradigm speakers. It was about a $12K system but I could see getting several decades use out of the speakers and amp, if not the CD player. . |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 765 Registered: Oct-04 | I've been keeping an eye on Tim's b-stock for some Emmas. On my short list are: Wharfedale Diamond 9.2 Monitor Audio Silver S2 Infinity Beta 20 AV123 Onix X-LS ...and I'd like to listen to Cambridge Soundworks Newton M80. Stephen, do you yous a subwoofer with Emmas? or would is that over-kill. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 766 Registered: Oct-04 | Jan, Sorry to here about the family health issues, I hope it's nothing too serious. What monitors are you using? I have a chance to purchase an old (1970s?) McIntosh MC275 & Pre Amp (I can't recall the model), in rough shape, but salvageable. Is that what your using? Any idea what an overhaul of that thing would cost? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9469 Registered: May-04 | . Rogers LS3/5a's from 1976. I use a pair of the MC240's which was the 6L6 based version of the Mac amplifiers from the same generation as the 275. The MC275 uses 6550 output tubes. It is impossible to guess what the cost of a refurbishment would cost without knowing what needs to be done and what quality you want to pay to get. If the tubes need to be replaced, which they probably do, you will spend about $200-500 on good quality tubes. As with most repairs, the labor cost will add up quickly as it is labor intensive to refurbish an old amplifier and you can't take this on as a first ever repair job. One crossed wire or missed solder joint and you can see all of your work go up in smoke. Due to the extremely high voltage present in tube amplifiers, they really shouldn't be used as a learning curve project. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9470 Registered: May-04 | . The most desirable tube pre amplifier in the McIntosh line is the C-22. It was the last tube pre amp Mac built for decades and during those years Mac's pre amps were on a solid state learning curve. Unless you are looking at a C-20, C-22, C-28 or C-32 (or more recent product), you aren't buying the best pre amp Mac produced. If you have the chance to buy a MX-110 tuner/pre amp, you will find the performance very high after the unit has been refurbished. Once again, I would dissuade anyone from venturing into vintage tube gear without knowing what you are getting into. The cost of high quality replacement parts can be quite staggering. . |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 767 Registered: Oct-04 | As I would expect, all top-shelf. I would never consider touching the thing myself. I'm a little scared of it to be honest. I suspect the electronics are in very good shape (Can they go bad without use? The units have been in storage for years), cosmetically, there is some pitting on the chrome surfaces. I need to double check the model number, I think I might be wrong about the MC275. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 768 Registered: Oct-04 | I was wrong, it is the MC240 & MX-110. |
|
Silver Member Username: RiskybPost Number: 451 Registered: Feb-06 | "To begin with there isn't much of a selection in Dallas and what is here predominantly plays to the same theme with minor variations." I live in the same area and I think there is plenty selection. Marvin electronics. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomSilver Spring, MD United States Post Number: 254 Registered: Apr-06 | No sub in the system currently, and since I've moved to an apartment, it is unlikely that one will be added in the near term (although thanks to the layout, the only shared wall I have is with the upstairs neighbors, and I feel it is only fair to pay them back for walking around up there). I wouldn't say that a sub would be overkill for Emma, but she certainly doesn't require one for most usage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9472 Registered: May-04 | . The 240 and 110 combination was very popular and can still produce amazingly good sound after refurbishing to bring the components into today's world. A complete job on both pieces would mean stripping virtually everything from the units and starting over. Caps will obviously need replacing even if they work right now. Power supply caps for tube gear can be expensive and difficult to find in the correct configuration and voltage Tubes should be replaced. Resistors don't go bad but will drift from spec so you normally replace the old carbon and wire wound resistors with contemporary pieces. Sockets and connectors will benefit from a change out. So, you are left with a chassis and transformers from the original amp/pre amp/tuner. If you want to make use of the Mac tuner, which is quite good, you will need to find someone to align the tuner which is a nearly lost knowledge when it comes to tube based tuners. Check with Audio Classics. They are the used Mac specialists and can give you an idea of value once the units are up and running. . |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 769 Registered: Oct-04 | Called up Audio Classics, and they said a complete overhaul might run from $400-$800 each. I think adopting a child might be an easier decision. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1549 Registered: May-05 | Think about it this way - can you get something brand new that sounds as good, is built as well, and will be around for decades for the same amount of money? It really says something if these pieces are still around after all of this time and people are still overhauling them. Audio Classics has been recommended to me by just about every dealer. Maybe buying a system from them that they already overhauled would be more budget friendly? Last I heard, McIntosh also overhauls their old gear. I'd be willing to bet it costs more than Audio Classics. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4871 Registered: Dec-04 | I'll trade. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 771 Registered: Oct-04 | I saved this link a while back and forgot about it. Dewick seams has done some pretty amazing restorations. http://www.mcintoshaudio.com/dewick_repairs.htm I've been told I can have (as in for free!) these units if I want them, and I DO want them, but I don't know if I want to take on this project at this time. I don't think they're going anywhere soon, so I have some time. Back to speakers... Been listening to the Radius's all day (watched SUPERMAN RETURNS too), and I'm going to miss them IF I sell them. What to do, What to do? Floorstanders? perhaps. I can get either the Wharfedale Diamond 9.6's or the Infinity Beta 50's for under $600, can get either the Wharfedale Diamond 9.5's or the Infinity Beta 40's for under $500, or the Wharfedale Diamond 9.4s for under $400. The Bookshelf options are as listed above: Wharfedale Diamond 9.2 (under $300!NIB) Monitor Audio Silver S2 ($500) Infinity Beta 20 ($250) AV123 Onix X-LS ($250) I am leaning towards floorstanders since any bookshelf speakers will require new stands, and that cost $$$. Imagining & looks (sorry) are key. Opinions? |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 772 Registered: Oct-04 | Seems, not seams. I CAN'T EDIT MY POST since IE7!!! WHAT GIVES! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4600 Registered: Dec-03 | Christopher, Yes, I've upgraded to stereo. Like Stephen, my upgrade followed a move. I have not sold the old system; it's still there in the old house. I couple of years ago I was an enthusiast for DVD-A, a by-product of my family's liking for movies. Following the long-running thread that Jan mentioned, I've taken a route of getting better quality stereo equipment. It fits better in our new home, and sounds better, for music. The unexpected result is that the family prefers better stereo to the previous 5.1 system, even for movies. Dialogue is clearer, the music and effects more convincing. I am fairly sure that the center channel has benefits only when the stereo is not set up correctly. If you have good stereo focus and imaging, a speaker in the middle gets in the way. There are certain sorts of music that were/are intended to surround the listener. Good stereo can do that quite convincingly but surround sound can take that much further. In many cases, though, I think surround sound creates more problems than it solves. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3728 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said John! I've never heard dialogue in movies better than I do now with my 2 channel system. "There are certain sorts of music that were/are intended to surround the listener. Good stereo can do that quite convincingly but surround sound can take that much further. In many cases, though, I think surround sound creates more problems than it solves." Yep...however I do occasionally miss rear channels for special effects in movies...only occasionally. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4878 Registered: Dec-04 | My upgrade was cicuitious but is now complete. 2 speakers, 2 channels.(and a high level input sub). Daughter confirms that the 2 well placed channels are far better than (average)5.1. As for music, well my friends... |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1100 Registered: Mar-05 | I cannot seem to listen to music on the Surround setup anymore. Bought into Totem and tubes and never looked back. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3729 Registered: Feb-05 | Nice to see you back Joseph. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 979 Registered: Nov-05 | Well Art and John, you know where I stand on the hi-res surround vs stereo debate. I love the best of what both offer. As far dialogue is concerned in a surround set up for movies, I just cannot understand your comments. The only times when dialogue does not sound so great, it's the same on both surround and two channel - in other words: lousy sound transfer or original production. That's my two cents again. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4881 Registered: Dec-04 | JC, did you drop by for your annual? |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 775 Registered: Oct-04 | Before I "upgraded" to 5.1, I used a very simple Optimus Stereo Receiver (STA-3750?) & a pair of dearly missed Optimus LX8 speakers that honestly did a MUCH better job with dialogue than just about any other speaker I heard, it might have been those sweet Linaeum tweeters. Even my small but powerful R90s do a better job with dialogue in my Marantz's SOURCE DIRECT mode than when in 5.1 mode. I've tinkering with the damn thing for years now to get a satisfactory set-up and I'm about to give up. ...so I was asking about those speakers? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4602 Registered: Dec-03 | M.R., Yes, I know, friend - we've exchanged all sorts of views on this question. And I know I've changed my view. In truth my current stereo speakers are a whole lot better than the ones I was using for surround sound, so its not a level playing field. And I'll get my old system back eventually. I hope. I keep wondering how well the NAD receiver will cope. And inside a 5.1 system is stereo, of course, if one wants it. So nothing is lost except the outlay for the receiver and the extra speakers. Quality universal players and receivers are expensive. Whether surround is worth the extra cost is an individual decision, and depends on what one wants from the system, and can afford. I saw Casino Royale recently in a DTS cinema/movie theater. The sound was excellent, including the music. I wouldn't mind having that sort of system at home, but I think it would not transplant into a domestic setting. It would also cost a fortune. |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1102 Registered: Mar-05 | Art: thanks , good to see you also. Nuck: why yes, I saw someone revived my pics on home theater and coudn't resist John A. : you said...."I saw Casino Royale recently in a DTS cinema/movie theater. The sound was excellent, including the music. I wouldn't mind having that sort of system at home, but I think it would not transplant into a domestic setting. It would also cost a fortune." I found that when I moved the 7.1 system I have down to the newly finished basement (old now) into a dedicated room with sound insulation, speakers placed at all the right heights/widths/angles/levels, room built to specific size (rectangle with screen on short wall) every speaker voiced matched, basically going completely obsessive with every little detail, I realized something. Not only am I great at run on sentences, but the theater actually sounded better than the local high end Dolby certified theater near us. The same setup in my living room didn't even come close. All those little details make all the difference in the world. Yes I love the two channel and could not live without it, but nothing would let me give up the immersion of sound I get from the movie setup. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4885 Registered: Dec-04 | CM, the Onix has some followers in the bang for the buck catagory. The diamond 9.5's were quite ok when I heard them in a poor listening space, offa Marantz receiver. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3731 Registered: Feb-05 | JC - this is where I run into problems with my systems. I have a 1040 total sq ft 1 living room 3 bedroom, 2 of them 10x10 and the master 12x13 and 1 bath home. I too love the sound of an all out assault HT but don't have anywhere to put one or the money to support the kind of HT that I would like. everytime I approach the HT thing I compromise my 2 channel setup. I've just determined that a good music setup is more important than the HT setup, for me. If I win the lottery I will indeed have a dedicated HT room. As a bonus my current 2 channel setup really dpes sound good for movies. I may add a pair of small wall mount rears for effects (or may not?). |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4893 Registered: Dec-04 | Yeah, but Art, you won't put in Orbs because they are round |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 776 Registered: Oct-04 | I live in an apartment building, perhaps that is the underlying issue here, slip my Marantz passed -20 and the walls start to shake. Trying to make a living room double as an actual home theater is kind of like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. What would you say is explanation regarding dialogue? Is it the receiver? Is it the R180 center ch. speaker? Or is it something else I might be missing? In my heart I really want to revert to stereo, however, there is the wife issue. Right now the cute little R90s are discreetly placed throughout the room, any of the speakers I'd like to replace them with would be SUBSTANTIALLY larger. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4897 Registered: Dec-04 | CM, have you been able to assesss the room? There may be a dead spot, a hole, or the room may need looking into. Simple furniture placement is easy, maybe check the room before doing anythin drastic? |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1107 Registered: Mar-05 | Simply placing speakers with just a little distance from the walls can drastically reduce resonance through walls. There again, you reduce how good they sound the further they get away from walls. I do consider myself quite fortunate that I have the dedicated room, but it was not that long ago I was constatly looking to change something in my setup because of small sweet spots or loss of bass in certain seats. Experimentation can produce wonderful results, especially when placement and distance come into play. See https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/302693.html for more info on this area. Amazing what a couple of inches will do. lol that what she said!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9482 Registered: May-04 | . " ... you reduce how good they sound the further they get away from walls." Yowsers! Allison and Klipschorns are the only recent production speakers I know that would fall into that category. Maybe this new Wilson piece that is designed to sound good against walls also fails when positioned away from a surface. But I never knew I was making my speakers sound worse by moving them away from the walls. . |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 981 Registered: Nov-05 | Though we don't have a dedicated HT room, our living room which serves this purpose and for music seems to be very good acoustically. Our speakers are set up for hi-res surround in as close to the perfect configuration as the room allows. Using a power amp to drive the main fronts allows for great stereo/hi-res surround and HT. HT speaker settings are configured in the reciever's settings, hi-res surround in the universal player's settings and back to good old stereo is as simple as the flick of a switch on the power amp. While everything may not be 100% ideal it's as good as it gets outside a dedicated room I feel. As for movies - we never go to the theatres any more. No big-haired women sitting in front reeking of Avon, no screaming kids, no rude, swearing adolescents, no wheezing, coughing, slur-ping(*) etc, etc, and our HT sound far surpasses that of the theatres imho. So we're happy campers. * - this word is not allowed?????? |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1981 Registered: Feb-04 | To answer the original question, I also prefer my music in 2 channel stereo (but haven't yet tried any 3-channel stereo SACDs). But movies in 2.0 is not an upgrade over 5.1/7.1. This is specially true in Dolby Digital. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9489 Registered: May-04 | . Call the man a liar, PG. Maybe CM thinks 2.0 is better than 5.1. Some of us do. Surround sound doesn't help me hear what's being said, whether DD or DTS. And a good two channel system can do out of phase signals that appear to come from behind the listener. Read John A.'s post again. It's not the number of speakers that counts, it's the quality of the system and the source. . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4913 Registered: Dec-04 | Peter, I think we are seing things otherwaytround. A surround can do ok stereo.(maybe)Or better, if armed. A really good stereo can do both. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 777 Registered: Oct-04 | As usual Jan speaks the truth. The fact is my living room is not, and will never be, (as long as wife has any say in the matter) a dedicated home theater, and I'd rather have upgraded Stereo listening than compromised Surround, I think. Off subject, I saw what must be the most massive array of McIntosh equipment on Earth at The Stereo Exchange in Manhattan today. I think I'll go back & take a picture to post. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3733 Registered: Feb-05 | I'd like to see that Christopher. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 991 Registered: Nov-05 | Unless anyone of us has heard movies with the very best set-ups in both stereo and surround than how can we pass judgement? With our system (s), listening to movies with very well produced soundtracks do sound best to us in surround. They can sound excellent in stereo but, where directional sounds benefit the listening experience, stereo has obvious limitations. This is like the cable debate - it's about preferences and I believe PG was only stating his and was not calling anyone a liar. Maybe someone else needs to lighten up a bit this Christmas. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 778 Registered: Oct-04 | I'll try and get back there this week. There was a pair of McIntosh towers, had to be 7' each, & a dozen amps of all shapes & sizes. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 992 Registered: Nov-05 | CM, Your description seems exactly like a photo someone posted on one of the threads here about a month or two back. Two big towers a rack os several components. It was very impressive to say the least. |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1111 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, as usual you seem to enjoy belittling people who say things you do not agree with. How about a reply like: JC - I have not noticed that moving speakers away from walls caused the sound quality to drop, it has always been my experience that..... Much nicer and more civilized way of communicating in a forum. For me I really do notice that after a certain point, moving speakers futher and further away from the back and side walls decreases soundstage and resonances. That is of course my humble opinion. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 779 Registered: Oct-04 | M.R. Sounds like it might be. I did not hear it FULL Throttle though. It was busy & crowded. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4915 Registered: Dec-04 | CM, what happened to the 'NYC has no stereo ' thing from a while back?! Send it along, man! Merry Christmas! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9491 Registered: May-04 | . Sorry anyone feels belittled. As the man said, lighten up a bit. Yeah, this is all about preferences and we've hashed all this out in other threads. So everybody just take a damn pill. Read the thread title. It asks if anybody has upgraded to stereo. If you haven't and don't expect to, just say so, don't say the proposition isn't valid. Now, who wants to tear that apart? . |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 993 Registered: Nov-05 | Me! I think folk can state their opinion that the proposition isn't valid if that is what their opinion is. Problem is - not everyone states that it is their opinion in their writing. Surely though, we can assume that. Can't we? Now, that's my opinion! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4917 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan is buying 'damn pills'. Is that like what Jim Morroson took whenever anyone handed him one? Here, Jim, take the damn pill. And he...and he walked on down the hall... Doors 40th box set for this old dog in a week. Whoop! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4918 Registered: Dec-04 | In STEREO! Break on through... |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 995 Registered: Nov-05 | You're entitled to your opinion, Nuck! L.A. Woman - now that's a song! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4921 Registered: Dec-04 | Cops in cars;topless bars never saw a woman ...so alone... |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 996 Registered: Nov-05 | And I like Idol's version as well! |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 997 Registered: Nov-05 | Sorry Christopher - we're digressing here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1117 Registered: Mar-05 | Father.....yes son....I want to kill you..... |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1985 Registered: Feb-04 | Call the man a liar, PG. Maybe CM thinks 2.0 is better than 5.1. Some of us do. Surround sound doesn't help me hear what's being said, whether DD or DTS. And a good two channel system can do out of phase signals that appear to come from behind the listener. Read John A.'s post again. It's not the number of speakers that counts, it's the quality of the system and the source. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Unless you have a very rare and sophisticated receiver, downmixing from 5.1 to anything less (4.1 or 3.1 or 2.0) on Dolby Digital 5.1 content enables midnight mode and reduces the dynamic range of movie soundtracks by up to 15 dB. We are talking about movies here, right? Wouldn't you agree that midnight mode dynamic compression is a reduction in quality? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9492 Registered: May-04 | . WOW! I own a very rare and sophisticated receiver! Got that, Nuck? So-fis-tee-kated!!! PG, I've done all the numbers you mentioned and then some and I'm not hearing minus 15dB dynamic range on movies, TV or SACD. I've done the conversion in the player and in the processor and I'm not hearing up to 15dB dynamic range compression. Maybe I've got a very, very rare and ultra sophistacted unit and I'm only hearing something like a 7:35PM compression of up to 3dB compression. I could live with that. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9494 Registered: May-04 | . Oh, yeah, PG, I don't use a receiver in the two channel main system. No need for all those buttons and features on a receiver for only two channels. What is supposed to happen there? Are you making this up, PG? . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4926 Registered: Dec-04 | After 15db, there wouldn't be much left, I think. But maybe that's the point. I don't have receivers anymore, the DVD's are 2.0 encoded, and the el cheapo player does the rest. The DAC has a digital input and a 'surround' selection, I havn't tried that. It is neither rare, nor very sophisticated, however. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 780 Registered: Oct-04 | Nuck, I said Brooklyn, a brorough of 2.5-million people, lost the Cold War, and is entirely devoid of any serious HiFi. Ironically, Brooklyn is still the home of Grado Labs & Ohm Speakers, God bless their souls. There is no shortage of HiFi in Manhattan, but good luck trying to find ANY in the outer Boroughs where most people live in NYC. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 781 Registered: Oct-04 | ...Did I also mention Brooklyn once brewed more beer than Milwaukee and is where the very excellent Brooklyn brand of beer is still brewed. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 782 Registered: Oct-04 | Too bad the Marantz SR5400 doesn't have a A/B speaker selection, because I'd like to (more easily) compare them to the very capable Mission M32i in stereo vs. the over-achieving Monitor Audio Radius's in 5.1 while watching an action flick. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4927 Registered: Dec-04 | No you didn't mention that, thank you for doing so now. I love New Yorkers. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1987 Registered: Feb-04 | WOW! I own a very rare and sophisticated receiver! Got that, Nuck? So-fis-tee-kated!!! PG, I've done all the numbers you mentioned and then some and I'm not hearing minus 15dB dynamic range on movies, TV or SACD. I've done the conversion in the player and in the processor and I'm not hearing up to 15dB dynamic range compression. Maybe I've got a very, very rare and ultra sophistacted unit and I'm only hearing something like a 7:35PM compression of up to 3dB compression. I could live with that. I could too (but wouldn't call it an upgrade). Except midnight mode is rarely only a 3 dB compression. It's up to 15 dB. It's likely more typically 10 dB or so. Oh, yeah, PG, I don't use a receiver in the two channel main system. No need for all those buttons and features on a receiver for only two channels. What is supposed to happen there? What happens there is very compressed sound if you use it to watch movies. What's your point? Are you seriously arguing that action movies in 2.0 without a sub and stripped of LFE content, and compressed with midnight mode, sound better than in full 5.1? Really? Are you making this up, PG? I provide some real information on a thread and this is the knee-jerk reaction I get from JV. Why would I make this up? It's in the Dolby Digital spec. I'm sorry that your highness didn't know about it. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomSilver Spring, MD United States Post Number: 255 Registered: Apr-06 | Where does the compression happen, the receiver or the player? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4928 Registered: Dec-04 | Do THX specs allow for 2.0? Or 2.1? My Eagles DVD specifies that. The player is THX. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4929 Registered: Dec-04 | Stay with the tour, people. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1988 Registered: Feb-04 | Where does the compression happen, the receiver or the player? It can be either. If you send a Dolby Digital bit stream (via coax or tos) to a receiver, the receiver will engage dynamic range compression (midnight mode) if you do any sort of down-mixing by having channels defeated (5.1 to 4.1 phantom center mode, for example). This does not apply to DTS, and may explain the huge difference some people report hearing between Dolby Digital and DTS. I have very skeptical of this when I first heard about it, so I did a simple test with an "action" DVD (Scooby-Doo II). As I recall, I measured a 10 dB dynamic range reduction when turning off my center speaker. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1000 Registered: Nov-05 | What exactly is your receiver Peter? Turning off the centre speaker merely sends the signal to the mains, certainly no notable dynamic range reduction involved in my experience. I have never heard or read of this strange occurrence. As far as DTS vs DD, in most cases DTS is superior in my listening experiences, though not always. It uses much less compression than DD. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1989 Registered: Feb-04 | What exactly is your receiver Peter? h/k avr-325 Turning off the centre speaker merely sends the signal to the mains That's what it could and should do (combined with a decrease in level to avoid clipping the converters), but unfortunately that's not the DD spec. certainly no notable dynamic range reduction involved in my experience Try it. You may not have noticed it before if you don't go listenning for it. See this for a discussion: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-subwoofers/1736-bass-effects-d ownmixing-dd-stereo-spectrum-labs-information.html It really starts at post #5: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-subwoofers/1736-bass-effects-d ownmixing-dd-stereo-spectrum-labs-information.html#post11882 |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9495 Registered: May-04 | . Awww, PG, now I have this image of you wiping the hot cocoa and marshmallows from your lips and trundling off to bed in your red PJ's with the feet in them with a copy of the Dolby Digital Specifications Manual under your arm. Yawn! " ... people have the notion that stereo equipment is better." It's not a notion and such a statement is ignorant of reality. Most stereo equipment is better by defualt since most AV equipment is receiver based. Now, I hope no one is going to argue that the average AV receiver is the sonic equivalent of separates. PG - Your link indicates the dynamic range is compressed when downmixing DD but only under certain circumstances. If these conditions do not fit the scheme of your system nor how you use your system, then the small amount of compression performed by DD downmixing is inconsequential. And you seem to be saying you would prefer to still be stuck with an inferior DD 5.1 source rather than improving the overall signal quality. If I read the linked material correctly, the most important consideration is how you connect your DVD player to your processor. If you happen to have a universal player, you will undoubtedly have the unit outputting its signal through the multichannel analog outputs. In which case, the compression is not a consideration at all in the signal sent to the processor. For many of us, that is the connection we use. So, we still get to hear the benefits of two channel reproduction with no loss in dynamics and the benefits of a greater sense of accuracy and realism achieved by sending the signal through superior electronics. The numbers given in the posts refer only to maximum dynamic peaks and seem to discuss almost entirely the compression effects occurring when the LFE channel(s) have been folded into the front mains. The maximum dynamic peak reported in one instance decreased from a peak of 105 dB to a "compressed" 102dB. As we both agreed we can live with a 3dB loss in dynamic range, so, no big deal. The most important aspect of the measurements however is that we are discussing the maximum dynamic range and not the average loss from compression. I didn't see a mention of the "midnight" mode in the postings, possibly I didn't look close enough. But the late night compression effects are quite different than a 3 dB loss in maximum peak dynamic range. The late night compression mode moves both ends of the dynamic scale rather than just limiting the highest level dynamic bursts. In other words, in the midnight mode, the lowest levels are raised and the higest levels are compressed. That doesn't appear to be what is happening in the compression of maximum dynamics employed in downmixing DD. From what I read in the posting, only the highest peak levels are compressed (slightly) in DD mixdown and that effect would apparently only apply to situations where large scale dynamics of the sort found in explosions, thunder, car wrecks, etc. would have any impact on the perceived (and it had to be measured to be believed) peak dynamic scale. And the difference is, if I read correctly, primarily due to dynamic compression occurring in what would have been the LFE channel. Personally, I am willing to give up the slight -3dB compression in the very loudest signals in order to gain the overall benefits of the better reproduction stereo allows. Further, my personal opinion is anyone who is so concerned whether the explosion reaches a 105dB peak rather than 102dB is loosing sleep over something that is fairly insignificant in the scheme of getting things right. Finally, none of this matters a twit if DTS is selected as I'm sure all of us do whenever given the option. Therefore, if you, PG, feel your system is degraded by the compression at the highest dynamic peaks of the LFE channel(s), I will be quite content to continue to not expect an invitation over to your house for a movie. Knee-jerk enough for you, PG? You're chasing rainbows again, PG. This is not an argument for not downmixing to two channel reproduction. It is an inconsequential technical discussion amongst people who want to continue believing their AV receive}r is as good as any separate component system. "It's not the number of speakers that counts, it's the quality of the system and the source." . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9497 Registered: May-04 | . I've read a little further into your linked postings, PG. Lordy, Lordy, those people sure do like numbers; don't they? They'll assign a numeric value to any subjective or objective test. They're scary. . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1002 Registered: Nov-05 | I tried turning off the center and rears a long time back Peter, and I cannot recall anything like you describe. I can certainly understand turning off the LFE making a big difference in impact movies especially with non full range mains. "It's not the number of speakers that counts, it's the quality of the system and the source." Back in the 70's it might have been: It's not the number of speakers that counts, it's the source of the number. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9498 Registered: May-04 | . MR - Apparently you're going to have to break out the SPL meter and dig out the biggest explosion you have on a soundtrack to find out whether this horrendous degradation of signal quality is actually there. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9499 Registered: May-04 | . "This does not apply to DTS, and may explain the huge difference some people report hearing between Dolby Digital and DTS." I doubt this is the reason for most listeners preferring DTS over DD. The overall compression scheme of both formats is different enough to warrant this opinion. Besides the preference for DTS doesn't seem to be coming only from people who are running phantom centers or folded in LFE channel(s). Nor does the preference appear to be based on peak dynamic capabilities which are difficult to evaluate since they are typically short term in nature. The overall preference for DTS from virtually every listener I've met or seen in print indicates a sense of clarity and openess in the DTS format that is lacking in the DD format. That would not, or at least should not, be a side effect of peak limiting in the very restricted LFE region. Try again, PG. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9500 Registered: May-04 | . John - Do you have your DVD player connected to the PrimaLuna integrated amp via the optical cable or the coax digital? |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1125 Registered: Mar-05 | Doesn't matter which one Jan, you should know better than that. The DAC's in a PrimaLuna are flawless. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9502 Registered: May-04 | . Yeah, but JA has an early unit without the USB port for software upgrades. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4932 Registered: Dec-04 | JC, your Prima Luna DAC's are about as pristine as my fat, white, hairy, pimpled bottom! Between that mental image and PG in PJ's, all bet's are off! Nighty night. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1990 Registered: Feb-04 | JV, you are completely uncapable of an adult discussion. Your thousands of posts don't make up for your awful personality. DRC is midnight-mode. Get yourself informed, or stay in that closet of yours. I couldn't care less at this point. I have tried to bring some information to this thread and all I have seen from you in return are juvenile comments. To anyone else who is interested: Try a Dolby Digital 5.1 content (decoded within your DVD player and sent via analog outputs, or sent via digital and decoded within the receiver; the result is the same under most DVD players) and listen to it: - In 5.1 with all speakers working. - In 5.1 with midnight-mode enabled. - In any downmix (e.g. phantom center) without midnight mode. You will find the same dynamic range in the two latter cases. It's typically much more than 3 dB. Down-mixing enables midnight mode. As I said early on (so I don't know why JV thought it made a great rebuttal), this applies only to Dolby Digital and not to DTS. It also obviously matter only for watching movies; it is not (as JV seems to think) a discussion about an HT setup being better than separates for reproducing music. How he got that impression is beyond me, except that he likes to grab onto fringe arguments to save face and win arguments at all costs. That's all I have to say about this. There is no adult discussion to be had here so I will drop out of it. Those that want to be informed can google for it now that they know the situation exists. |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1133 Registered: Mar-05 | Fat white hairy pimpled bottom huh, those are some phat DAC's |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4937 Registered: Dec-04 | hehe, spirit of the season and all. JC how are you running the line level/bias on your kit? |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1134 Registered: Mar-05 | Are you being serious? If so them my Bias is set to 48mA on my Sovtek 6550's when they are running and 51mA when my Electro Harmonics KT88's are running. As far as my line levels they run in pure direct mode through audioquest diamondbacks into wbt connectors on the back of the amp. If you are not then my lines' out of level and I am Bias about my Bias so it doesn't matter. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 783 Registered: Oct-04 | Sounds impressive. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4940 Registered: Dec-04 | Are the bias set with a pot or hard wired? How long have you run the EH KT88's? Have you seen any of the amps coming out of China? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9503 Registered: May-04 | . According to my copy of "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition" the word "uncapable" does not exist in the English language. There is uncapacious, uncaped, uncapitalised and uncapitalized, uncapitulated, uncapricious, uncapsuled, uncaptioned, uncaptivated, uncapturable, and uncarmalized among a few others and including the derivatives of several of the above. But, I am unable to find "uncapable". 'Tis a bit unconscionable of you to accuse me of something I am incapable of being, PG. Yet, I shall travel on, unconcerned, and unconceited by the un-called-for, uncongrous and uncomputable libel put upon me. While you, PG go off to bed, DD manual in hand, as anything but uncholeric. Using "uncapable" is uncomprehensible in adult conversation, therefore, I find you, PG, an uncontestable bore and an unconvincing, uncontributory and all together unctuous and contumacious understrapper. Goodnight, PG. trundle, trundle, trundle . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1003 Registered: Nov-05 | I'll try PG's suggestion at some time to satisfy my curiosity (and memory) at some stage, but it's not so important in the scheme of things as I like my HT (for suitable movies) in surround. As for the rest, frankly my dears I don't give a damn - long as I can hear the dialogue. "Fat white hairy pimpled bottom huh" Please, no photos Nuck!  . |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1135 Registered: Mar-05 | 1. Trim pot 2. 200hrs+ 3. Not yet My next venture, (when the cash flow starts pouring) will be the following: Acoustic Zen Adagios with Jolida tube cd player and Mac amp. Oh a man can dream can't he. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1994 Registered: Feb-04 | Thanks for your post JV. You keep on proving to the world what a jerk you are. Great stuff. An entire insulting post for an typo of a single letter. You really are in a class by yourself. BTW, english is my second language. I probably do better with it than you do in french. But keep combing through my post for typos if that makes you feel so superior. But it only shows to the world that you can't argue on substance (and what a pathetic and petty person you are). Christmas spirit indeed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9504 Registered: May-04 | . PG - I can argue on substance. Try putting some out sometime. As usual, PG, you make a statement and then when challenged in the slightest, you don't have the balls to back up what you've said. We've gone from "up to 15dB' of compression to a link to a site that gives 3dB peak limiting. Maybe in your mind I'm supposed to wade through seven plus pages of postings to find your alleged severe compression, but, if you make the assertion, back it up. No one heere seems to think you've proven your point and even if there is a point to be made, it doesn't seem to be of significant consequence to most people here. So now you run away tossing insults at me out your backside. Always, insults at me, PG. In another post just the other day, you accused me of trying to start something with you when you were even addressed. You are pathological. It's an English word, PG, that I think translates to "you're nuts". . |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1995 Registered: Feb-04 | Learn to read. There was one person who came up with 3 dB once. I have said it before, but you are too dense to understand, downmixing engages DRC which is synonymous with midnight-mode. There is typically much more than 3 dB of compression with midnight-mode. You are too dense to pick up on that simple fact. I don't call your onslaught of juvenile conduct being challenged in the slightest. If you think that behaviour makes people want to carry on a discussion with you, then you are wrong. If you actually think that I am the one coming here to insult you and not the other way around, then you are bi-polar. Seek treatment. I couldn't care less if you think that always experiencing movies in midnight-mode is of no consequence. Keep thinking you've got the best setup in the world! |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1004 Registered: Nov-05 | Come on guys! Whos's gonna be the first one to turn their fat white hairy pimpled cheek? Do you guys realise how juvenile this ongoing vendetta looks? Yes I've been there done that, but would like to think we've all been here long enough now to understand we are all a bit different yet have a common interest that we should be able to discuss without throwing insults and trying our hardest to hurt each others feelings. Jeeeeez, how can we expect world peace if we few can't even get along on an audio forum. Come on everybody kiss and make up - and beg to differ like the adults you are. There is so much more to life than this shite! . |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 784 Registered: Oct-04 | ...is there? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9506 Registered: May-04 | . PG - Have an eggnog and a nice holiday. OK? |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1318 Registered: Apr-05 | I think I found a good balance. 5.1 in the living room for the movies and kids, 2.1 (passive hub) in the bedroom for listening to music. That's why God created multiple rooms in the house. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 786 Registered: Oct-04 | Stof, have you seen my profile? ...the questions remains whether or not to abandon 5.1 in favor of higher-quality Stereo. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1323 Registered: Apr-05 | Holy moley that's a lot of stuff Here are my two reasons for not switching, but then again it's based on TV and movie watching and not for music 1)Some concert audio is actually better recorded than the original music. I think the Eagles Farewell tour from Melbourne is better musically than the CD version of their songs from the 70's. 2)In watching things like concerts and say sports on TV, I like the fact that the well recorded (and/or broadcast) material take somethings such as audience clapping and cheering and put them in the back channels out of the way so you get the ambience, but not the distraction to what you really want to hear. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4948 Registered: Dec-04 | Sure, CM, go for a nice stereo. And put it...over........there. That's a LOT of stuff. |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 791 Registered: Oct-04 | I'm really trying to scale back, hence the 5.1 to Stereo revelation. |
|
Gold Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 1058 Registered: May-05 | What's the difference between a 2 channel system, a 5.1 channel system, a 6.1 channel system and a 7.1 channel system anyway? Are any of them uncapable of playing DVDs? Do they play them in stereo? Got ya, didn't I? Merry Christmas all and to all a goodnight or good evening. JV and PG play nice or Santa won't bring ya anything. Jan, sorry to hear about the family medical issues, been there and definitely not fun. On the dakulis front, still own 2 homes, 2 mortgages, bridge loan and not much money for audio and very little time for anything besides work. Miss you guys and carry on. Dave |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1007 Registered: Nov-05 | Merry Christmas to you and yours Dave. M.R. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9508 Registered: May-04 | . CM - You are presently set up for 5.1 so it should be simple for you to experiment with PG's claims and determine whether you hear the compression when running the system in 2.0. Try your connection from the player to the receiver with both the optical/digital cable and through the typical analog cables. If you hear compression in the range of 10db, you can decide whether you want to make the switch to stereo with some foreknowledge. As you've read, there are several of us on this thread who have been listening to movies and satellite HDTV in less than 5.1 and have found no problems with compression. The connection we use is almost always the analog outputs to the receiver or processor or pre amp. I think you first have to make the determination as to how this DD spec will affect your listening. Then you can decide what to do about speakers. If it is as severe as PG portrays it and you can't find a work around, then you don't have to think about new speakers at all. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9509 Registered: May-04 | . Hello, Dak. Happy holidays. Santa? As long as the UPS guy can make it to the door, Santa can stop here. . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1009 Registered: Nov-05 | Well I have just finished the midnight compression test as described by Peter Galbraith. Peter, my apologies to you, you are 100% correct. Seems my recall is not up to scratch or I had done something entirely different at the time. This is the test I just finished using my Pioneer universal DVD player, Marantz SR-7300 AVR, and NAD C272 power amp (from the main pre-outs of the SR-7300). This was using a coaxial digital connection. I played the section of Mission Impossible 3 where they begin to get fired upon by missiles from the drone jet on the long bridge over the lake. I set the Marantz reciever to -19. With the fronts, center, rears and sub, the average high reading was around 85db according to my SPL meter. I turned off the center in the receiver's menu. The same scene gave the average high reading at around 70db. I turned the center back on and switched off the rears - same reading. I turned all speakers back on and switched to stereo - same readings, I then put full surround back on and switched to midnight mode - same again. Summary All speakers on - average high 85db No center - average high around 70 db No rears - average high around 70 db Stereo only mode - average high around 70 db Midhight mode - average high around 70 db The average drop was 15db or every time I turned either the center or rears off, or switched to stereo, the readings were precisely the same as switching on the midnight mode. Peter again, you were right and I thank you for learning how Dolby Digital is rather a crappy format especially under these circumstances. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9513 Registered: May-04 | . Why are you using the coax connection for your universal player? And you've confused me further. What happened to the Denon universal? |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1010 Registered: Nov-05 | Jan, I use a coax for the cheap Pioneer universal (which I use for saving wear and tear on the Denon). Doing the same experiment with the Denon which I have connected with both coax and analogue cables will be the same result when turning off speakers within the Marantz receiver. I am yet to try turning off the speakers within the Denon universal player's set up to see what happens. I will report this. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1011 Registered: Nov-05 | Midnight mode experiment No 2. This time I turned off speakers within my Denon 3910 universal's set-up. Connected to the receiver with analogue cables with the receiver switched to external 7.1 inputs and volume control at -19, these are the results with the same movie and same scene: Full surround - average high 87db no center - average high around 73db no surrounds - average high around 73db no sub - same as full surround Midnight compression mode - I forgot though I think we know the result. These readings may not be exact as the high points were very rapid but would be within 1 or 2 dbs. This applies to the first experiment also. Close enough to the said 15db reduction asaic. There you have it. Peter's comments were on the money whether using digital or analogue connections. I'll be a monkey's uncle! |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1012 Registered: Nov-05 | asaic - should be afaic. In case of confusion. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9515 Registered: May-04 | . Now that you know there is a measurable difference, can you easily hear this decrease in dynamics? It would seem 15db is going to be noticeable. According to the FAQ's on the DD site, the amount of compression is determined by the producer of the DVD and can vary by significant margins. Have you tried any other discs? I tried Terminator 3 and heard no difference with any downmix combination on my Sony DVD/SACD player. But I only have the deck connected through the 5.1 analog outputs. . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1013 Registered: Nov-05 | Yes, the dynamics was the most noticable area in the decrease - conversation wasn't affected much. No I did not try any other movies, I picked that one at random. Does Terminator 3 have alternate audio options other than DD5.1. If so, maybe the player went into 2 channel mode without any dynamic loss. I have T3 and many others. I will try again at some stage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9517 Registered: May-04 | . There is no indication T3 has anything other than a 5.1 DD soundtrack. Even so, my player was set to default to the multichannel tracks and I still have surrounds connected to the amplifier so I ran those to normal levels. The center speakers aren't even connected to the system any longer so all I could do was throw the switch to tell the player there was a center. Yet, if all that dynamic range your measurements say is missing is meant to emanate from the center channel, that would be quite a strain on many systems. I would suggest that when you make measurements be certain to always take the measurement the same distance away from the active speaker(s). If there is a significant difference in distance from your listening position to the mains than to the center, you will get a somewhat skewed number due to the rate of fall off over distance. I don't know if this applies to your system but it could make a difference in what numbers you get. PG was right, I was unaware of this situation, no one from any company or Dolby ever made mention of this at any time while I was selling AV gear. And the question was always present since not all clients could use a center speaker effectively or in some cases at all. And my HT set up might not be the one to judge by. It has been a long time since that system was set up as a conventional 5.1 system. The passive sub takes its feed from the pre amp out which runs to an outboard active crossover and then to a separate power amplifier. More importantly, Sony has never been shy about believing their engineers have a better idea about how anything works and I can see Dolby making minor concessions to Sony to get market penetration. In many cases Sony doesn't suggest using the actual DD processing in their equipment and sets defaults in their equipment to defer to a Sony based program. My Sony DVD player may not operate in the same manner as other DVD units. And it is a bit too much hassle to connect the Denon 2900 into my HT just to confirm it operates just as your Denon player does. Further, after reading a bit more on the Dolby web site(s), there seems to be a fair amount of latitude allowed the mastering engineer by Dolby as the only instructions I could find stated the amount of DRC included in the soundtrack should be "suitable" to the program material. This could explain why I, and probably John, don't find missing dynamics since I don't typically watch big action movies at home. That's what 50 foot wide screens, gum on the floor and $8 a bag popcorn are for. . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4960 Registered: Dec-04 | So, yeah, PG, thanks for that. I Only try 2.0, or 2.1. Stereo's beware. Jan, when is the last time you had gum on your shoes? |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1996 Registered: Feb-04 | Thanks for the redemption guys. I was very surprised myself at how little this is known. I don't know if the new Dolby Digital for high def also has this limitation or not. To me, it's the best argument against phantom center since I don't believe that the effects of comb filtering are all that bad (another often-used argument against phantom center). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9518 Registered: May-04 | . Whether anyone feels any particular "argument" is reason enough for what they consider correct is most often a matter of choice, preference and circumstance. Just as we've agreed many times over. I still find a center to be a distraction for several reasons. Most importantly unless the center is mounted in a position similar to the main fronts, which it hardly ever is unless the installation is a front projector, there is always a discontinuity of timbre (due in part to comb filtering) no matter what speakers are used. My centers have to go in the large cabinet with the rear projection TV and must sit either higher or drastically lower than the mains. No matter how I have tried to balance the set up, there was always an obvious discordant center and a narrow, shallow front soundstage when the center was engaged. Eliminating the center resolved this problem for me. Since HT is still a minor consideration for me, this suits my purposes. PG, you were right and I was wrong about the operation of the DRC. It is not just peak limiting and I understand how the effects can be more than a mere 3dB. (Don't get too excited at this admission, PG, those little jammie feet can get slippery when you start jumping up and down.) But so far, I'm not hearing the compression from the Sony player and as long as I can hear the dialog on the HDTV channels, I'm not going to worry about DRC on that source. (Besides, it's almost impossible to make meaningful comparisons about DRC on a TV show.) As I said above, I think the engineer's latitude to make the soundtrack "suitable to the material" is going a long way toward what I'm hearing. There isn't much time right now to experiment but I'll keep an open mind and make a decision based upon what I hear. As of now, stereo or surround without a center is still better to my ears than 5.1. Everyone else will have to listen and decide for themself. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9519 Registered: May-04 | . Nuck - I don't want to cry hangdog here, but it is almost impossible for me to get to a theater. I want to see the new Bond film on a large screen but I don't know if I'll make it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9520 Registered: May-04 | . Not the appropriate place for this but since we're on the subject of HT; http://us.f810.mail.yahoo.com/ym/us/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&login=1&uid=16804 |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1014 Registered: Nov-05 | Yet, if all that dynamic range your measurements say is missing is meant to emanate from the center channel, that would be quite a strain on many systems. The dynamic range does not emanate from one speaker - such as the center - it does so across the board and thus the decrease in compression when turning either the center or rear speakers off affects all speakers left to the 'on' position in the set-up menu. At least that's what my ears tell me. My listening position (and similar with the spl meter placement) are equidistant from the mains and center. I don't understand the logic behind this. Turning off a speaker (s) should merely send it's channel's information to the other appropriate channel (s) without any loss of dynamic range which happens on other audio formats. I suppose this was some sort of markeing ploy enforcing consumers to purchase full HT kits - it's wierd to say the least! |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1139 Registered: Mar-05 | I don't think I have evr seen his majesty admit to being wrong. It is a sign of a promising future. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4961 Registered: Dec-04 | Or the coming apocolypse. |
|
Gold Member Username: Joe_cAtlanta, GA Post Number: 1142 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan , the ls's you have, are they the new Stirling broadcast version or a previous model by Harbeth? do you run a sub with them? tube or SS? and do you miss much with most classical music (miss bottom end) ? If they are not the newest version have you heard the v2's? I am interested in these and don't know of anyone who has heard them. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1997 Registered: Feb-04 | Most importantly unless the center is mounted in a position similar to the main fronts, which it hardly ever is unless the installation is a front projector, there is always a discontinuity of timbre (due in part to comb filtering) no matter what speakers are used. Since I first bought up comb filtering, I'll clarify that comb filtering should be drastically reduced when using a hard center speaker as opposed to two (left and right) speakers reproducing mono content (which creates comb filtering). I can post graphs that I made up if desired. So I don't think this is the reason for your timbre mismatch. Having said that, I can't hear the dreaded effects of comb filtering on a mono source played back on left and right speakers on my setup so I don't worry about it. I agree that timbre is easily affected by speaker placement and is often an issue with hard centers. That is likely the source of your problem, as you also stated (no argument here). My only (original) point is that the DRC issue is something to consider for action movie buffs who would like to use a phantom center. It shouldn't be an issue; we don't expect it to be, but it is. I didn't mean to muddy the waters by mentionning comb filtering. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9524 Registered: May-04 | . My cabinet doesn't allow any center speaker worth owning to exist due to the length of most designs. So, I have used two conventional speakers stacked together since height is less of a problem in this cabinet. I've tried one and two of different speakers as centers and two always works best with the drivers in close proximity to each other. The comb filtering is largely the result of the placement issue. The centers placed at a different height in the cabinet do not sound like the mains sitting in esssentially free space. The slight differences in real frequency response and phase of the reflections from the three separate speakers results in some amount of comb filtering. For the most part, however, my problem with centers is more related to the timbral differences the in-cabinet placement forces upon the speakers. I always ran my centers, when they were used, at several dB lower level than average. It was a struggle between intelligibilty and spotlighting. No amount of set up I have available to me could resolve the feeling I had a center speaker and I had two front speakers. Without the center the response is smooth, the soundstage has width and depth (and reasonable height) and I have a solid center image from the speakers along with intelligibility. And above all, as I just don't care that much about fiddling with the HT system, I can stop being frustrated by the center speaker. I too don't understand the logic of such drastic dynamic range reduction in some cases. For the most part Dolby doesn't give a rip about what or how much equipment gets sold due to their products, they've made their money on the licencing fees. Apparently Dolby feels intelligibilty suffers when the center is removed and the levels should be compressed to some extent to maintain intelligibility and to avoid overdriving the inputs/amplifiers of the remaining channels. But Dolby has always been about perception rather than what necessarily appears logical. (Look up Dolby "S".) No doubt there is a good, to them at least, perceptual reason for what they do and I wouldn't doubt that it has to do with some backwards compatibility to ProLogic systems. 'Tis odd that their competitor doesn't use the same sort of compression however, but DTS never had an earlier matrixed version they had to match to. I haven't been able to wade through the Dolby site to find out whether this compression issue has been resolved in other, newer versions of Dolby surround. My 3/5a's are a pair of Rogers from 1976-77 vintage. No one I know of in the US has the Sterling versions to demonstrate. The Yahoo LS3/5a forum is not a forgiving crowd and the new version has received what, for that bunch, must be considered an excellent and enthusiastic reception. The question is the price difference between new and old. You can find various versions of the 3/5a on sale in the US for $500-1000 or so depending on the desirability of the particular model and the condition of the cabinet. The Sterling version is going for about $1700 give or take depending on the Dollar to Pound Sterling exchange rate. With that taken into consideration, an American buyer might find the old version more than sufficient. The 3/5a is notorious for being difficult to mate with most subs due to the infamous BBC curve in the mid bass. The Rogers AB1 bandpass system, using the same B110 driver as the 3/5a is generally considered the best match for the speaker though some owners detest what it does to the sound while others can't live without it. I have a driver, an amplifier and a crossover for a DIY sub that might work and all I need is time to build the transmission line enclosure. Rick Barnes and I use a very different placement with our monitors and the 3/5a always impresses me with its response in the lower octaves. Read the write up of Tim Forman's Ling on this forum for more on my feelings about the 3/5a's bass response. Like any speaker, bass and the 3/5a is an acquired taste. I have on a few occasions admitted I was wrong or didn't know something. It just doesn't happen very often on this forum, that's all. Don't go expecting Horsemen riding out of the North. . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4604 Registered: Dec-03 | Casino Royale is great, Jan. The best Bond film IMHO. There are stunts and special effects, but the plot is more than a pretext for explosions and car chases. The characters are not just the 2-D goodies and baddies of more recent Bonds. Which is which is not obvious. The movie also scores the jackpot for brand placement. No HiFi gear that I could detect, though. Unless you count Sony laptops. I saw it just before the Litvinenko story broke. I don't think Bond's cocktail contained Polonoium-210. That's not a spoiler, just something to look out for.... Sorry for the digression, folks. I think the DTS place I saw it had 9.1 surround. Maybe 8.1. There was no visible center speaker. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1015 Registered: Nov-05 | It was there though John. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics