SRM Unregistered guest | Hope that got some attention. To be honest, i'm a little behind the time for financial reasons. I am, however, a huge movie watcher and very much value good quality video and audio. For years i've been watching DVDs and listening to music through my lone stereo (2-speakers with an added subwoofer). I really enjoy the surround sound I get while watching movies and listening to music. I've known for years that stereo surround is very 90's and it's time to upgrade to the standard 5.1 setup. Thing is I've never like the center channel. Maybe I'm just not used to it. I see the point of having voices appear to come from the TV but when I listen it makes me feel it looses some of the stereo quality. I've been waiting for someone to convince me i'm wrong and that 5.1 is better and here to stay. I went to circuit city last week and had a guy show me different setups in the speaker room. He thought I was crazy. My current setup makes my TV feel so much bigger with the bigger sound and the stereo effect is great. I'm not looking for a "it only matters what you like" answer because i'm really trying ot get someone to convince me i'm wrong. Does the center channel really ADD to the stereo effect? They claim a lot of info comes from there and its essential but doesn't that further prove a center channel takes away from stereo sound---since so much info is coming from 1 speaker? Does my arguement make sense? |
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 735 Registered: Feb-04 | Once upon a time, long before stereo, there were many debates about tone-arms, turntables, preamplifiers, amplifiers and ultimately, the one speaker that was best. Then, some crazy money hungry companies dared to market the idea of listening to sound reproduced by (gasp), two speakers. Back then, many people thought it to be a waste money playing more than one speaker. Now we have some debate whether 5 (or six, seven speakers) will be good enough to represent the total listening experience.. |
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 736 Registered: Feb-04 | My point is that maybe, just maybe, stereo is one too many speakers. |
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 6165 Registered: Dec-03 | You argument makes sense but not necessary and almost futile. There are always differing schools of thought. Convincing you with words will not be enough. You have to experience it for yourself. Get a 5.1 set-up...nothing fancy, something that you can return if you don't like. Get a DVD audio. Listen to it in 5.1 for a few days. Forget stereo for now. Get a movie with a DTS soundtrack. Do the same thing. Listen without picking on nuances...just listen. After a few days, listen to the same thing only in stereo. After that...you would have come to your own conclusions. |
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 6166 Registered: Dec-03 | John S...I was referring to SRM when he wrote "Does my argument make sense?" |
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 737 Registered: Feb-04 | SRM, this subject has been hashed and re-hashed before on this board. Please read the thread Teaching old dogs new tricks... You needn't read all 6500+ posts---the first 1000 or so will do. |
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 6185 Registered: Dec-03 | That's some thread. Plenty of good reads. |
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1356 Registered: May-05 | SRM' There fronts if any should be all from the same manufacture and should be the same model, hence "three-screen matching" mismatching will only present problems with sensitivity, frequency response, and program power handling. I have tower towers, and little Mickey mouse centre channel, the voicing, or timbre matching, is going to out by a long way, sure there will be one or few frequencies with its bandwidth that will allow you to hear dialogue, but sound effects and certain musical parts, forget it. The fronts should be all the same, there is no debating about this it is paramount, that's of course you what to hear and feel the soundtrack as close to the director and the re-recording mixers intentions. |
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1357 Registered: May-05 | If you have tower towers, and a little Mickey mouse centre channel, the voicing, or timbre matching, is going to out by a long way, sure there will be one or few frequencies with its bandwidth that will allow you to hear dialogue, but sound effects and certain musical parts, forget it. Ashley |
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1358 Registered: May-05 | Note: the front three-screen JBL control 5's in my home cineam, are all at the same height and are the same, SNAP! |
Drewboy Unregistered guest | Berny knows his stuff. One of my first DVD-Audios was Megadeth's "Peace Sells, But Who's Buying?". I'd heard it in 2 channel for years. Hearing it in 5.1 was an incredible, rich experience and made stereo seem dull and lifeless. Not even the remaster of the stereo album compares to the 5.1 version. If you listen to music put in Dolby Pro-Logic, it can sound dull and the center channel is overly used. Some of my prior recievers have actually lowered the volume significantly when the reciever is put into surround mode. Perhaps this is why you are averse to the center channel. |
Bronze Member Username: DobyblueSt. Catharines, Ontario Canada Post Number: 47 Registered: Oct-05 | I would definitely agree there - listening in Pro Logic does not hold a candle compared to a good DVD-Audio or SACD. NIN - The Downward Spiral, Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms, REM - Out Of Time, they all blow their 2-channel counterparts out of the water. I've been looking at picking up that Megadeth DTS 96/24 disc for quite some time. I think the purchase is rapidly approaching. |
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 6524 Registered: Dec-03 | You should also try Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, Queen-A night at the Opera and Fleetwood Mac. Awesome on SACD and DVD-Audio DTS. |